tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19154534244437226282024-03-13T11:31:56.721-07:00Speaking Without Either Saying or Being SilentA Dilettante's Film OdysseyJeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.comBlogger347125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-22588162593649167432015-11-02T10:25:00.001-08:002015-11-02T10:25:31.848-08:00Le Silence de la BlogI know, I know. I haven't been on here (or any other social media platform, for that matter) in forever. I apologize for that. It's been difficult to write. When I was doing school and work in tandem full-time, it was impossible to find the time. Now that I'm done with school (which, I'm happy to report went well), it's just hard to find the motivation. I seem to always suffer some type of post-semester writing malaise whenever I'm on a break from school. When you spend so much time obsessing over words and the craft of carefully eliciting and arranging them, it's easy (at least for me) to eventually get cynical over the contrived nature of writing, especially critical writing. It takes a lot to see beyond the artifice and find the honesty of criticism, which is why during my time away from school I'm so loath to indulge in critical reading and writing and more wont to dig into some great literature and film without the ulterior motive for dissection. It's a nice feeling to pick up a book by Stendhal or watch a film by Kurosawa and just revel in the artistry, mood, and entertainment of them without having to think about how you can condense their sublimity into a neat, pithy, and grammatically sound paragraph, ya know? <br />
<br />
But, I do miss my friends! And I miss film club. And I miss discussing movies. So, even if no one reads anything I write, I'm going to do my best to get over my reservations on writing and post some thoughts about movies on here more often, if only as a means of connecting back with my lifelong passion–film. But, enough of my excuses, Let's get started.<br />
<br />
I've seen waaay too many movies since my last post (almost two years this winter...yikes!), so I surely won't touch upon them all. But here's a few thoughts on some of the things that stand out the most in that gargantuan gap. I apologize in advance for the randomness and disjointed nature of my thoughts.<br />
<br />
<u><b>Older Stuff</b></u><br />
<br />
THE BIG COUNTRY (1958)<br />
<br />
I caught this last winter during a severe movie drought, and I just got swept away by it. It was freezing cold; I was fully immersed in school and was seeing maybe two movies a month, if I was lucky. Perhaps it was the timing or just my need for anything cinematic, but I was floored by the scope, Wyler's assured hand, and its insistence on the need for a private self to combat the larger, cultural pressure for vainglorious public display. The west may be a "big country" (exquisitely framed by Wyler) but its the intimate moments of interior struggle that make this story so compelling.<br />
<br />
FLOATING CLOUDS (1955)<br />
<br />
I've (unintentionally) avoided Naruse for too long. I've secretly known for a while that I would love him given how oft his style is compared to the serenity of Ozu's. And I was not disappointed. The film is beautiful duet of longing, regret, and alienation (an icier version of IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE, if you will). Sultry memories from the past mix with the frigid distances of the present in one expertly controlled vision of sorrowful love. I'll be exploring more Naruse imminently.<br />
<br />
LE SILENCE DE LA MER<i> </i>(1949)<br />
<br />
This is probably the best film I've seen in years. One can see how easily Bresson was inspired by it in his making of DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST. It's such a humane film. And so well directed too. What is truly impressive about it is that, despite the claustrophobic nature of the setting, Melville is able to use the limited space to his advantage. The formal relationship between the characters is established with a repetition of similar, quotidian shots. But, just as the the formality between the characters is silently broken over the course of the film, so too is Melville's visual schema with a sprinkling of subtle variation. Not a frame is wasted here, and it's beautiful to behold.<br />
<br />
SAMURAI REBELLION<i> </i>(1967)<br />
<br />
One of the best directed movies of the 1960s and maybe ever made. I stand fully behind that. It's a masterclass in visual storytelling. Every shot advances the story, every position and blocked move of the actors is calculated to perfection. It's turned me on to Kobeyashi in a big way. What a gem. If I were teaching a class on what exactly a great director does, I'd start with this.<br />
<br />
NOTORIOUS (1946)<br />
<br />
I think this is my fourth time seeing what many critics consider to be Hitchcock's first truly masterful American film (For my money, he was hitting it right out of the park in his first year over here with REBECCA and the underrated FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT). It seems to be something I return to every few years or so, mainly out of curiosity to see how my opinion on it has changed. The first time I saw it around 16, I didn't really care for it. There was just something cold and anti-climactic about it that kept me at an emotional distance from it. Every time I've seen it since, I've become more impressed by how assured the hand is that's directing it all. Before seeing it this time, I read an amazing article on how to read the visual language of NOTORIOUS by the late, great Roger Ebert. In the article, Ebert talks a lot about the strong/weak dynamics of staging and framing in cinematography and how adeptly Hitchcock can show a character's interior struggle (like Grant's Devlin) simply through the way they move throughout a scene. One thing that Ebert doesn't mention but that he inspired me to notice is how little Bergman's Elisha moves in the location of the frame throughout the film. I believe I counted only once or twice in the entire film where Bergman isn't framed on the dominant right of a shot (right in that golden ratio location where our eyes instinctively move). Just as she is the cynosure of the male character's attention, so is she ours within the frame. And, although she appears to be a weak pawn within their patriarchal jockeying, she holds the dominant position <i>because </i>she ultimately owns her sexuality. Her sexual freedom is what keeps her fixed and dominant and what makes the other male characters squirm around her in the frame. <br />
<br />
With that all being said, I still feel an emotional detachment from the film (largely due to the unsympathetic nature of each of the characters), but I'm just so impressed by its visual brilliance and ultimately its perversity. It's interesting to watch the film now and see how it has next to nothing to do with espionage and everything to do with the pettiness of jealousy and the precarious authority of male desire. <br />
<br />
IF I WERE KING (1938)<br />
<br />
Ronald Colman is severely under appreciated. He had more grace, more insouciant charm, more natural kindliness to him than just about any actor who ever lived. He radiates such an ineffable warmth on screen that I truly believe is unparalleled in film history. Not just here in IF I WERE KING (which is great fun) but also most notably in A TALE OF TWO CITIES (where he gives one of the most moving portrayals on film) and LOST HORIZON. He was a great, great actor and he makes you not only believe but deeply feel every word he utters. His performances are worth treasuring.<br />
<br />
And, slightly unrelated, but so are Charles Laughton's. Every time I see him on screen I get more and more convinced that he's the greatest screen actor who ever lived. Very few come close to his versatility or command on screen. <br />
<br />
<u><b>Stray Horror Film Thoughts</b></u><br />
<br />
Truthfully, I should do a whole post on this since I've seen a lot of horror movies within the past year or so, but for now I'll limit myself to a few comments. Most of these are fresh on my mind from Halloween, so I just wanted to share my impressions briefly.<br />
<br />
HALLOWEEN II (1981) is underrated. I think it's great fun. It does its best to mimic Carpenter's style (a good thing) and it has more gruesome, inventive kills than the first. I love that it picks up precisely where the previous film left off. There's literally no gap in time between the two, and ultimately I think it's to the franchise's benefit. We don't have to waste time introducing new characters or settings to then copy and paste the slasher formula on (something later sequels would struggle with) but can continue with the same Halloween 1978 killing spree in media res. Isn't that all we really want from a sequel like this anyway? <br />
<br />
FRIDAY THE 13TH PART II deserves similar praise for keeping continuity with the first. It's not nearly as well made a film as HALLOWEEN II, but I do like how it is able to initially introduce Jason as the killer without turning him straight into the gimmicky boogeyman icon he would become in for the rest of the series. This is, no doubt, a trashy and deeply formulaic film but it does well to make us understand Jason better than any other entry in the franchise. Here, he's not the hockey mask wearing, machete wielding kill machine, but a deranged Norman Bates-esque orphan with a bag over his head, trying to avenge his mother.<br />
<br />
I didn't like HELLRAISER all that much. 80s body horror admittedly just isn't my thing. It does have merit simply for how strange and perverse it is (and, of course, for the disgusting prosthetic work), but I found the American voice dubbing to be too distracting and the acting to be uniformly terrible. I didn't get a sense of Barker's visual style offering anything like Carpenter's or Cronenberg's either. This is a TV movie at best.<br />
<br />
The french horror film THEM (2006) is definitely worth seeing for fans of the home invasion sub-genre (which I am). It's got some wonderfully orchestrated scenes that build tension seamlessly and a genuinely creepy ending to boot. INSIDE (2007) is also one to see. It's insanely, often gratuitously violent, but it's extremely effective. It doesn't boast the same level of intelligence as something like MARTYRS (which, I believe, justifies its violence with a genuine sense of introspection) but its relentless intensity works for it in an unusual way.<br />
<br />
<u><b>Newer Stuff </b></u><br />
<br />
I'm going to try to write another post soon about the few films from 2015 I've seen. I'm extremely behind on a lot of them (I've only seen a handful, at best), and I've been largely unimpressed by everything I've watched, but I'd still like to get some of my thoughts out there. And, by the way, Brandon's recaps of 2015 have been uniformly amazing. I will forever be comfortably within his shadow.<br />
<br />
<u><b>2014</b></u><br />
<br />
I haven't seen enough from 2014. It was difficult to find the time for a majority of the films released last year (or the year before that, truth be told). But, if you asked me to make a cursory top 10 list, it'd look something like this:<br />
<br />
1. Two Days, One Night (Dardenne Brothers)<br />
2. The Grand Budapest Hotel (Wes Anderson)<br />
3. Winter Sleep (Ceylan)<br />
4. Inherent Vice (P.T. Anderson)<br />
5. Under the Skin (Glazer)<br />
6. A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night (Amirpour)<br />
7. Mr. Turner (Leigh)<br />
8. Only Lovers Left Alive (Jarmusch)<br />
9. Ida (Pawlikowski)<br />
10. The Guest (Wingard)<br />
<br />
For me, the standout here is TWO DAYS, ONE NIGHT. It's head and shoulders above the rest of the pack from last year and the only 2014 film I would consider a masterpiece. I'd take the Dardenne's over just about anyone in modern cinema.<br />
<br />
Okay, that's it for now. More to follow, hopefully soon.<br />
<br />Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-65119046217891482982013-12-31T08:05:00.000-08:002013-12-31T08:05:16.709-08:00I'm Aware I'm a Wolf Soon As the Moon Hit<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DSPUurMHnDg/UsBdVat5kPI/AAAAAAAAA28/k_vf5DpY-VU/s1600/The-Wolf-of-Wall-Street-Leonardo-DiCaprio-and-Jonah-Hill-600x400.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DSPUurMHnDg/UsBdVat5kPI/AAAAAAAAA28/k_vf5DpY-VU/s320/The-Wolf-of-Wall-Street-Leonardo-DiCaprio-and-Jonah-Hill-600x400.jpg" width="320" /> </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
I'm working on another post right now that gives some thoughts on a couple other 2013 releases I haven't written about yet, but for now, I just want to get some of my WOLF OF WALL STREET impressions down.<br />
<br />
It probably goes without saying (especially if you've seen my letterboxd) that I completely loved WOLF. It's my number one film of the year by a landslide, and barring an enormous upset from either the Coens or Spike Jonze (killer cameo in this, by the way), it'll sit imperious and unflappable atop the 2013 heap like THE MASTER a year ago. As Brandon said, it really is that good.<br />
<br />
Scorsese's WOLF is one of the most scathing and darkly hilarious depictions of free-market Capitalism, commodity fetishism, and rampant addiction ever put on screen. It isn't about the American Dream deferred, but the American nightmare realized (to borrow a phrase from Brandon). The quintessential American narrative of prosperity and freedom through the acquisition of wealth is taken to the extreme edge and then thrown right off of it. It's a headfirst dive right into the iniquitous wet dream of Reganomics, wholesale deregulation, and white collar invincibility. If it pisses you off or disgusts you, it really should. This is cutting satire, but also a pretty frank depiction of the American financial system we've created, one that depressingly is only getting worse. <br />
<br />
Though the film is almost unrelentingly sharp and pulsating, I can completely understand someone not liking it for the simple admission that it was just too much for them. As entertaining and downright incendiary as it can be, it really isn't easy to watch or digest with any level of comfort or gratification. It's uncompromising and intentionally abrasive, almost daring you to laugh at some of the most atrocious and depraved behavior imaginable. But anyone who thinks this cretinous lifestyle displayed by these thug stockbrokers is glorified is either dead inside or frankly not paying a modicum of attention. As I saw Keith Uhlich mention on Letterboxd, this is<i> satire</i>, which of course means that if it's done well enough, it will separate the lazy from the astute. Black comedy is rarely understood initially by the masses, just look at the reception to THE KING OF COMEDY. WOLF won't win any awards and the majority of audiences will hate it, but history will be kind to this gem. At least I hope so.<br />
<br />
I'm pretty befuddled as to how anyone with any intelligence could think WOLF glorifies its characters' behavior. Perhaps I just missed all the glory in being so monumentally fucked up on quaaludes that you are forced to crawl around in a more helpless state then your infant daughter? Or maybe I missed all the shimmering splendor in being so vindictive and paranoid that you beat your wife and try to kidnap your own child while you're completely high on blow? The film's dark humor and stylistic flourishes should not be confused for hedonistic approval (just listen to the dialogue for chrissake–it always undermines the revelry with real biting commentary). Scorsese isn't celebrating these guys; he's making them look as absurd and degenerate as possible. Not for one second are they made remotely likable or heroic–they are the biggest sleazebags you could imagine. It's insane how many people see this movie's only purpose and function as entertainment and have a hard time processing how it could possibly be both entertainment <i>and</i> a work of art, challenging and intellectually probing us. You know what's also an incredibly scathing indictment of capitalism and greed while being entertaining as hell? Mamet's play GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS. That thing won the Pulitzer Prize in 1984. It's got a lot of similarities to WOLF. Both are essentially about the long con, the shifty peddling of bogus investments, and the false signifiers of promise and prosperity (the name Straton Oakmont is basically synonymous with Glengarry Highlands or Glen Ross Farms–all three are empty titles masking a lie, feigning respectability). Both also absolutely refuse to pander to their audiences. GLENGARRY never walks you through its complex maze of greed and betrayal; it struts its deadpan machismo without moralization or overt instruction. Only the careful observer notes the dark irony and satire undercutting everything the characters say and do. And yet GLENGARRY is largely understood in the theatrical world as not being a glorification of the real estate industry but as an acerbic commentary on its capitalistic weaponization. Something tells me that if WOLF were written as a play, it would have no trouble being understood as satire...<br />
<br />
Another criticism I've seen is that the film is only excess with nothing ultimately to say about it. Again, I call bullshit. To see the film as pure excess without any ultimate point is to precisely look beyond the point (and, of course, to utterly miss the satire). This lifestyle IS pure excess taken to the point of absurdity. This type of greed is a hollow indulgence with no aim other than the objectification and consumption of everything in its path–it should be depicted no other way. This is where Scorese's satirical humor here is so much more critically on point than Stone's WALL STREET because the guys in WOLF aren't even pretending they offer anything to the world other than cruel manipulation and mass consumption. Belfort may give rallying cries to his minions (so many office shots recall Vidor's The CROWD or Wilder's THE APARTMENT – glad Pinkerton addressed this in his piece) or shoot phony infomercials about how he's helping to lift people from their destitution and economic anxiety, but he's nothing but transparent about his desire to cheat, steal, and fuck over as many people as possible in order to serve himself and his band of thieves. McConaughey (who's fantastic, like every other actor here) essentially lays out the entire philosophy of investment banking and the art of being a stockbroker in that exquisite early scene. These Wall Street guys aren't captains of industry; they don't produce anything; they just scam people out of money. Their entire enterprise is a fugazi, a false signifier for respectability, built on nothing but fairy dust. <br />
Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-35743726394361843842013-12-21T08:13:00.001-08:002013-12-21T08:13:10.009-08:00holiday quiz<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>1) Favorite unsung holiday film</b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"> METROPOLITAN or HOLIDAY AFFAIR ('49)</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>2) Name a movie you were surprised to have liked/loved</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">I think I'm surprised by how much I love MARTYRS now.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b style="font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',serif;">3) Ned Sparks or Edward Everett Horton?</b><br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',serif;">Ned Sparks is fun, but E.E. Horton's gotta take the cake here. Such a good sport in so many flicks. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>4) Sam Peckinpah's <i>Convoy-- </i>yes or no?</b></span><br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Haven't seen it sadly... </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>5) What contemporary actor would best fit into a popular, established genre of </b></span><b style="font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',serif;">the past</b><br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b style="font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',serif;"> </b><span style="font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',serif;">Hmm not entirely sure. Michael Shannon would probably make a great noir lead/villain (or make a great <i>anything </i>for that matter) </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>6) Favorite non-disaster movie in which bad weather is a memorable element of the film’s atmosphere</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">THE TURIN HORSE is a great answer. GROUNDHOG DAY, as well. I'll go with KEY LARGO though.<b> </b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>7) Second favorite Luchino Visconti movie</b></span><br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">LA TERRA TREMA (first is ROCCO AND HIS BROTHERS).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>8) What was the last movie you saw theatrically? On DVD/Blu-ray?</b></span><br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Theatrically: BLUE IS THE WARMEST COLOR and loved it.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Blu-ray: re-watched THE WORLD'S END and loved it even more a second time around.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">DVD: re-watched GRAND ILLUSION and still think it's the greatest movie ever made.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>9)
Explain your reaction when someone eloquently or not-so-eloquently
attacks one of your favorite movies (Question courtesy of Patrick
Robbins)</b></span><br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"> Brandon's response was perfect, so I'll just go with that.<b><br /></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>10) Joan Blondell or Glenda Farrell?</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Joannie's my girl. God, I love her. <b><br /></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>11) Movie star of any era you’d most like to take camping</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">I'll also go pervy here and say, emphatically, Claudia Cardinale circa 1960s.<b> </b>Mmhmm.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>12) Second favorite George Cukor movie</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">THE MARRYING KIND or DAVID COPPERFIELD (first has to be HOLIDAY).<b> </b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>13) Your top 10 of 2013 (feel free to elaborate!)</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Not yet.<b> </b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>14)
Name a movie you loved (or hated) upon first viewing, to which you
eventually returned and had more or less the opposite reaction</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">INCEPTION seems to get worse each time I see it. I never hated AU HASARD BALTHAZAR, but I was indifferent to it the first time I saw it as a teen. I just didn't get Bresson's technique. Now I think it's a masterpiece and worship everything Bresson.<b> </b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>15) Movie most in need of a deluxe Blu-ray makeover</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Many, many, many. THE DECALOGUE on blu through Criterion would be amazing (and extremely expensive, I'm sure). PHANTOM LADY, the Boetticher/Scott westerns, DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST!<b> </b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>16) Alain Delon or Marcello Mastroianni?</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Alain Delon. I wish I could be him.<b> </b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>17) Your favorite opening sequence, credits or no credits (provide link to clip if possible)</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Ah, too difficult. I'm not sure. The virtually silent opening sequence of THERE WILL BE BLOOD is incredible too. I'll have to think harder on this one.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>18) Director with the strongest run of great movies</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Hitchcock, Ozu, Bresson, Ford, Kubrick, Lubitsch, Ophuls, PTA, Scorsese, Kieslowski, etc. You know, the greats.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>19) Is elitism a good/bad/necessary/inevitable aspect of being a cineaste?</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Again, can't say it better than Brandon already has. I agree. <b><br /></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>20) Second favorite Tony Scott film</b></span><br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Can't say that I'm a fan of any of the dude's movies or have seen enough of them. TRUE ROMANCE would have to be my first and second favorite.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>21) Favorite movie made before you were born that you only discovered this </b></span><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>year. </b></span><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>Where and how did you discover it?</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">This could be any number of great older films I've seen this year. I guess Pierre Etaix's YOYO wasn't on my radar at all, until I randomly watched it for my 1965 top ten list. It's a masterpiece. Discovered this summer on Hulu's Criterion channel (God bless that thing).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>22) Actor/actress you would most want to see in a Santa suit, traditional or skimpy</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Veronica Lake in the skimpy and Orson Welles in the traditional. <b><br /></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>23) Video store or streaming?</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Streaming because of the convenience, but I do miss spending hours in a video store and taking home a bunch of gems. A lot of my movie education was fostered that way.<b><br /></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>24) Best/favorite final film by a noted director or screenwriter</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">L'ARGENT, THAT OBSCURE OBJECT OF DESIRE, AN AUTUMN AFTERNOON, L'ATALANTE, LOLA MONTES, EYES WIDE SHUT<b><br /></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>25) Monica Vitti or Anna Karina?</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">As an actress, Karina. As eye candy, I have a bigger crush on Vitti.<b> </b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>26) Name a worthy movie indulgence you’ve had to most strenuously talk friends into experiencing with you. What was the result?</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">I think I was trying to get college friends to watch IRREVERSIBLE with me, and they rightly declined.<b><br /></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>27) The
movie made by your favorite filmmaker (writer, director, et al) that
you either have yet to see or are least familiar with among all the rest</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>Haven't seen Hitchcock's THE PARADINE CASE yet. I've seen all of Bresson's now and a good chunk of Ozu's. I'm dying to see Bunuel's NAZARIN. </b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>28) Favorite horror movie that is either Christmas-oriented or has some element relating to the winter holiday season in it</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">No idea. <b><br /></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>29) Name a prop or other piece of movie memorabilia you’d most like to find with your name on it under the Christmas tree</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Rosebud? <b><br /></b></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>30) Best holiday gift the movies could give to you to carry into 2014</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Being able to see INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS, THE WOLF OF WALL STREET, and HER before 2014 is all I can really ask for.<b> </b></span>Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-15863695327863420112013-09-30T10:44:00.003-07:002013-09-30T10:44:18.379-07:00It's All Over Now, Baby Blue<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MCWulb7O1ro/Ukm3850J6HI/AAAAAAAAA2k/M3J5bupxSGI/s1600/breaking-bad.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="211" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MCWulb7O1ro/Ukm3850J6HI/AAAAAAAAA2k/M3J5bupxSGI/s320/breaking-bad.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
I must confess that I haven't had the time to listen to all of John and Chris' Breaking Boos. I started them and then just got intimidated by the sheer number of them and gave up. I will still have to listen to them all and maybe chime in (boo in?) on their discussion in the future. For now, I just wanted to wrestle with my thoughts over the finale and get some much needed blog writing down. It may not be about a film technically, but BREAKING BAD is surely the most cinematic creation in television history, so it feels a worthy topic to break my silence. Before I get into it, I just want to say that this final season of BREAKING BAD has been a marvel, and that Gilligan and crew have more than lived up to the brilliant foundation they established six years ago. They hit it way out of the park. BREAKING BAD, as a totality, represents the tightest and greatest narrative in television history. Looking back upon the show as a whole, my eyes are completely open to this now. Bravo Gilligan and crew. Bravo.<br />
<br />
I don't really have the time or patience to get into a full, detailed analysis of the entire episode, so I’m just going to cut right into the last few moments of the series because I think they are executed perfectly:<br />
<br />
(<b>SPOILERS, SPOILERS, SPOILERS</b>. Seriously don't read if you haven't seen the finale and ever intend to).<br />
<br />
Here at the end of all things, we have Walt as teacher/father to his two students/sons in Todd and Jesse. He watches one die and lets the other go free. Or in even more symbolic terms, he watches the worst side of himself die and lets the humanity he has neglected go free. It’s a meaningful moment for Walt, but unquestionably an even more meaningful one for Jesse. The poor guy as been through so much, and all at the hands of the ruthless, implacable force that is Heisenberg. When Walt tosses Jesse the gun and gives him one last command, it may be the most expected though wholly essential moment of the entire episode. Jesse, in his ultimate moment of spiritual unboundedness, refuses Walt’s final directive, and rides away a free man. Perhaps some were wishing he would shoot Walt when given the chance, but there was no need to - literally or figuratively, as Walt’s wound will claim what’s left of his life momentarily regardless. Besides, Jesse has already killed Heisenberg. When he strangles Todd and breaks free of his chains, he has freed himself from the physical embodiment of Heisenberg’s cold, clinical ambition. I’m sure others have noted Todd’s position in this latter half of season 5 as being essentially a surrogate for the retired Heisenberg. He’s the meth kingpin, feigning public normalcy as he courts Lydia, keeping Jesse a prisoner for the sake of his product, callously destroying his rivals – replace Jesse’s physical chains with Walt’s psychological ones and you have the classic Heisenberg set-up down to a tee.<br />
<br />
But back to Walt (probably the way an outrageous egomaniac such as himself would want me to proceed). In killing the skinhead brotherhood, Lydia, and allowing Jesse to kill Todd and then flee, there is, of course, a sense of <i>The Fall of the House of Usher</i> here - a madman burning down the hell he hath wrought and letting whatever specks of heaven he ever had fly away to search for a new space to call home. Is this redemption? Probably not. Walt’s still an inimical bastard merely finishing off what he started, leaving no loose ends, drawing everything full circle. It’s less about notions of revenge or redemption per se and more about destroying the hideous simulacrum of his own rotten model. He is asserting dominance over his own grotesque progeny, and doing it in his typically monstrous fashion.<br />
<br />
And yet I can’t help but have a shred of pity for this wretch of monster, even as I know that he deserved much worse than he got. Perhaps it is because in this final episode the monster has been slightly made human again, if only for a few fleeting moments. As we sift through the wreckage that Walt has left in his destructive wake, it can be easy to forget the abject man from the first episode, struck down by the cruelty of aleatory time and handed a ticking time-bomb for a death sentence. Earlier in the episode, when he tells Skylar he built the empire and piled up the bodies all for himself and that doing it made him feel “alive,” we utterly believe him. Here is a man who more than he ever wanted to provide for his family or build an empire, at his most fragile moment of desire, wanted to viciously master life in defiance of the way it had so suddenly and viciously mastered him. In a lot of ways, as others have mentioned, Walt embodies the nightmarish vision of the deferred American dream. But maybe even more so, he tragically embodies the image of the rebellious ant, determined to fight against the indifferent, overwhelming forces of nature that seem hellbent on destroying his hill. In the final moments of Walt’s death, when we see him standing at the heart of his creation (notice how in that last panning shot the pipes above him form the outline of an RV), it’s easy to see Ozymandias crumpling beneath his own path of cruelty, but also that little ant – shuffling pieces of sand as the rain comes down.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-18547628946190688802013-08-20T08:08:00.001-07:002013-08-20T08:08:46.642-07:002002Lovely, eloquent write-ups for your 2002 lists, Brandon. And to think you often disparage your writing ability...how wrong you are my friend. Exemplary job.<br />
<br />
I'll do my best to respond, but I'm sorry if I don't have a lot to say. We are in almost total agreement here: <br />
<br />
CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, I haven't seen in a dog's age, but I appreciate your towering estimation of it. I remember it being entertaining, but I'd have to see it again to dig deeper than that.<br />
<br />
25th HOUR is a great, furious piece of work. I also haven't seen it in a while, but I can still vividly recall its sense of cosmic frustration and overwhelming regret. It's a movie about undesired consequences, the immobility of anger, and the impotence to erase this ubiquitous "fuck you" attitude of the world. I'd love to see this again, but I already know that it's a major film in Spike Lee's oeuvre.<br />
<br />
I want to see FAR FROM HEAVEN.<br />
<br />
Speaking of major films, PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE may be the greatest romantic comedy since ANNIE HALL. It's certainly a momentous film amongst similarly momentous films in Paul Thomas Anderson's brilliant, diverse career. I love how much of a transitional piece it is for him. It finds him treading into newer, more bizarre, more avant-garde territory but also retaining his wonderful sense of humor, energy, and classical filmmaking. I also love how strongly this film recreates that sense of invigoration and apprehension when we think we might be in love. The more I think about it the more I can't imagine a movie being more singularly perfect at what it is. Give me PTA over anyone else making movies in the last 15 years and now.<br />
<br />
SPIRITED AWAY is such a marvelous feast for the eyes and heart that it's difficult to translate what makes it so special into words. It just transfigures beyond expression.<br />
<br />
I remain an enormous fan of MINORITY REPORT and think it's one of Spielberg's best, most entertaining yarns. It's a terrifying concept realized in one of the most inventive, visually precise, and terribly antiseptic visions of the future that I can recall on film.<br />
<br />
GANGS OF NEW YORK is still a bit of a mess, but to borrow a turn of phrase from John, it's a glorious mess at that. Daniel Day-Lewis is at his most imperious here.<br />
<br />
Despite owning it, I haven't seen TALK TO HER since it came out. It was my initiation into Almodovar, as well, and I fell completely in love with it and him when I saw it. I should give it a re-look...<br />
<br />
I haven't seen TROUBLE EVERY DAY, but I've heard it contains a particularly gnarly scene that takes George Costanza's "having it all" dream of combining sex and eating to a whole new level. Is that the scene you skipped, Brandon? I'm morbidly curious to see this one, though maybe count me out for that scene.<br />
<br />
I haven't seen Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN since it came out. I lent my copy of it to Craver and haven't seen it since. I have no idea if it still holds up.<br />
<br />
I love, love, love ADAPTATION. It's as clever and funny as modern filmmaking gets, in my opinion. I can understand people finding it annoying or self-indulgent to a fault, but I have to completely disagree. I think it's just such an honest expression of desire, anxiety, and failure - almost painfully so. It's self-involved (consciously), but it's never self-serious. It's a purposeful laying the ego bare for the sake of consummate amusement. Kaufman, along with Woody Allen, remains the ultimate chronicler of modern neuroses.<br />
<br />
I like that Chris Nolan's INSOMNIA is just a well-made, no-nonsense thriller. It's easily his least convoluted film, and it's reminder of the type of tight filmmaking he's capable of when not being bogged down by bigness and budgetary excess. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't excited, or at the very least curious, to see what he does with INTERSTELLAR, but part of me would like to see him return to smaller, more modest filmmaking like INSOMNIA.<br />
<br />
I like PANIC ROOM quite a bit, and think it's still underrated. Fincher paints textured gloss and decay like no other.<br />
<br />
In terms of generating anxiety and wonder, most of SIGNS is actually remarkable. I can remember some scares in it being impeccably delivered and its brooding sense of terror and mystery being almost unbearably potent. It is a shame that the ending is such an incorrigible letdown and so obliviously idiotic that it undoes so much of what came before it. But it is still a worthy honorable mention.<br />
<br />
I think that's all I gots for now. Stellar list, dude. <br />
----------------<br />
<br />
In other news - ONLY GOD FORGIVES is unconscionably awful. It makes me not want to see another Nicolas Winding Refn movie for as long as I live. It's the epitome of meretricious, soulless, hopelessly inane filmmaking. Not even the most merciful of movie gods would forgive this horrendous piece of shit. Refn has unfortunately descended into self-parody.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-80096924710931114052013-08-14T09:38:00.001-07:002013-08-14T09:38:27.148-07:00It is August Already? Shit...I owe Brandon some response to his 2005 list, as well as some extra horror talk. I would have written '05 thoughts sooner, but looking over your list, Brandon, I realized that I either hadn't seen a lot of those movies or just hadn't seen them since they came out. If y'all have learned anything about my movie habits since you've known me, it should be that I have a terrible memory for things I've seen. I can hardly remember how most movies I've seen six months ago ended let alone 8 years ago. I'm awful.<br />
<br />
Anyway, let me start by finishing off some of our horror talk:<br />
<br />
Again, I think we're in a similar spot on THE CONJURING. We both recognize its myriad problems and particularly clumsy denouement. Obviously, where we differ is that I'm mostly willing to forgive its mistakes in favor of applauding just how effectively frightening it is as a whole. It's a bit similar to how I felt about THIS IS THE END, another flawed genre film with highs so sublime that they glossed over the considerable lows therein (strange that I'm the one defending flicks like these when usually it's the other way around). I agree with you that the scene in the bedroom where we see the witch for the first time is exemplary. It's one of the scariest and most well constructed horror scenes I can remember. There are a several other scenes like this (e.g. Vera Farmiga alone in the basement - contrived but damn effective) that paid off beautifully for me. I don't want to let Wan completely off the hook for his missteps here, but if the restraint and accumulating tension he builds throughout most of the movie start to catch on again in mainstream horror, I'd be pleased. If he lets his unfortunate taste for pointless escalation consume him eventually here, it's too bad - before this he shows an uncommonly deft and patient hand. Any hope the THE CONJURING 2 will correct these mistakes? I doubt it, but well see haha. <br />
<br />
I like how much the addiction metaphor in EVIL DEAD worked for you. I think you make a strong case for it too. It certainly gives the film more weight, or at least a fascinating undercurrent to chew on. I definitely don't want to give Alvarez too much credit for being brutal either; the EVIL DEAD remake doesn't work purely because its vicious but because it remains appropriately amused despite its copious amount of bloodshed and brutality. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that it never feels miserable even as truly gross and horrendous things are happening. I appreciate that its unrelentingly intense (like THE DESCENT) while also keeping you somewhat removed by being off-kilter.<br />
<br />
I think giving the ending of KILL LIST that interpretation is one of the only ways of saving it from being practically a gimmick. If you consider it as more of a condemnation of Jay's choices throughout the movie than a gag for shock value, it becomes downright profound. I'm starting to like that interpretation of it a lot, as well.<br />
<br />
I apologize in advance for not having really anything to say about 2005, Brandon. As stated above, I either haven't seen or haven't re-seen a vast majority of the films from your list since '05. And interestingly enough, apart from THE NEW WORLD, our respective lists from that year have zero parallels. I think that makes it harder to respond to anything since I'm not as familiar with most of the flicks from your list. Maybe if you were a fan of L'ENFANT things would have been easier ;) <br />
<br />
I haven't seen KINGS AND QUEEN, BEST OF YOUTH, MEMORIES OF A MURDER, NOBODY KNOWS, JUNEBUG, 2046, WOLF CREEK, or THE ICE HARVEST, but would like to see most of them. <br />
<br />
Other than that, I have a minute recollection of MYSTERIOUS SKIN, MUNICH, GRIZZLY MAN, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, and GOODNIGHT AND GOOD LUCK. By that I mean that I remember liking them and that's about it. I don't have enough of a foundation to make arguments for or against them. Sorry man. I should have re-watched some of these to better interact with you. 2005 just happens to be a particularly nebulous year for me. I promise to have 2002 thoughts up today or tomorrow though. I have a better memory for some of those on there.<br />
<br />
Stray thoughts/updates:<br />
<br />
- I've updated my top 10 lists to include 1960-65. That's as far as I'm going for now. Someday I hope to add in the rest of the 60s and see a bunch of the films for '60-'65 that I still need to see. What I've got is a decent start for now though. General impressions? I like the early 60s and think there some true gems there that are invaluable to cinema. I still vastly prefer the mid '30s through 50's, however.<br />
<br />
- I leave for Philly in little over a week. Let's def do ONLY GOD FORGIVES sometime. I've heard it's awful, but I'd be stoked to get together and see it with y'all.<br />
<br />
- Great thoughts on BREAKING BAD, John. (SPOILERS AHEAD) I also was slow to recognize the now abandoned and graffitied White household. Some terrific moments in this episode too - with the tense, painfully raw showdown between Walt and Hank being obviously prominent. In a very solid review of the episode for the AV Club, Donna Bowman wrote about how this confrontation tragically plays right into Walt's hands: "Making meth was never what Heisenberg was all about. Having an enemy to
crush, whether it be in business or in the struggle to survive—that’s
the essence of Walt’s alter ego. And he seems to grow a foot taller when
he’s able to set that side of himself free." Well said. I think this essential character flaw of unbridled ambition and the desire for dominance is one of the things that makes Walt's decline so gutwrenching. The awful things he does become mere gratuitous exercises for his wounded ego. Cannot wait for more episodes.<br />
<br />Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-16809146497884041612013-07-30T11:53:00.001-07:002013-07-30T11:53:21.854-07:00Horror Roundup<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8htiac0EkNw/Uff3DIYR3_I/AAAAAAAAA2U/zPss8BCLqBg/s1600/the-conjuring05.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8htiac0EkNw/Uff3DIYR3_I/AAAAAAAAA2U/zPss8BCLqBg/s320/the-conjuring05.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-D_8tdZkDkYY/Ue1lU_MgDeI/AAAAAAAAA2E/RFkylXhj1jA/s1600/mama+warm+hands.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
As I mentioned in one of my recent posts, I've been watching some horror films lately. A friend who I worked with at school is a big horror fan, and we've been getting together every now and then to watch new and classic horror films for the hell of it. Despite watching several films of debatable quality, it's actually been great getting to see so much newer horror stuff that I likely would have never gone out of my way to watch. I'll start with MAMA:<br />
<br />
To be as fair as possible, MAMA isn't a bad film; it's just not a particularly good one. It unfortunately suffocates itself through some egregious adherence to the same old tired formula that has so much of mainstream horror profoundly stagnating. There are a few decent scares in MAMA, some moments of terror that are well-staged and executed, and some incredibly eerie sound effects (I agree with Brandon about how frightening the noises Mama makes are. Yeesh). I also agree with Brandon that the very ending is quite beautiful in its implications. The trouble here is that in the buildup to this finale, MAMA again cannot resist some ridiculously contrived scenes of violence involving Mama in a poor effort to fit whatever overused mold studios seem to insist upon for every horror property they shell out (can anyone explain to me why characters in MAMA only visit the creepy deserted cabin in the middle of the night?). It's just a shame that MAMA is shot, lit, and dialed-in in such a similar way to a film like THE POSSESSION (a horrible film that I'll get to in a second), and I don't think it's a coincidence. This is the essence of formula without making it seem new again.<br />
<br />
THE POSSESSION, I guess, I don't have a lot to say about now that I think of it. It's complete amateur horror filmmaking. Just terribly orchestrated in every conceivable way. It's not even remotely scary (no tension is ever built before cutting to quick, disorienting violence), it's dull and stupid, and even has the temerity to tack on a pointless, undercooked divorce storyline in an effort to make the film "about" something. There's probably no point in wasting more time on this one. Just skip it entirely.<br />
<br />
I re-watched THE CABIN IN THE WOODS and THE STRANGERS – two terrific modern horror films, in my opinion. Seeing THE CABIN IN THE WOODS again reminded how fresh and exuberant it truly is amongst a very tired crop of carbon-copy horror films. It's humor, intelligence, and sense of mischief stand out quite distinctly this time through. I undervalued just how fun it was when I first wrote about it. THE STRANGERS I'm not sure if I've mentioned on here before, but I remain a big fan. It's a terrifying premise that is executed to maximum effect. It also boasts one hell of an ending with a coldblooded creepiness that is only matched by the sorrow of its inevitability.<br />
<br />
I think Brandon and I agree on more in THE CONJURING than we disagree. But I think our one major point of disagreement is enough to polarize our responses to it. I truly believe that despite some bumbling missteps in the final third of the film, it still remains one of the scariest films I've seen as an adult, and it is for this fact that I would give it a glowing response. As a lesson in old-fashioned tension and dread, it really is that effectively wrought. In a theater full of people, I felt sufficiently creeped out enough during certain moments to want to cover my eyes, and that almost never happens to me anymore. The audience I watched it with was completely terrified too, which made the experience that much stronger. Wan certainly makes the film unnecessarily loud and visceral towards the end (I could have done without the possession of the mother and the hair dragging, but I understand why they are there – things need to get amplified for our attention deprived viewers). However, there are some truly exemplary scenes of terror in this thing that smooth out much of these rough patches (for me, at least). Wan shows an intuitive sense of what's scary and what is not for much of the running time, and it all becomes increasingly taut and effective as the camera careens and cuts around every crevice of its environment. I don't really have much else to say about it other than that it basically soars on the intensity of its scares alone. <br />
<br />
Fede Alvarez's EVIL DEAD remake (surprisingly) stands prominently alongside THE INNKEEPERS and THE CONJURING as one of the best American horror films release in the last couple of years. It sort of pummels you into submission through the sheer forcefulness of its unabashed depravity. Its excessively, hilariously violent and it seems to get off on intensifying its grossness. It flits with trite formula and makes lame attempts at characterizations in the beginning, but eventually it just abandons all sense of conventionality in favor of unrelenting shocks. It's essentially the complete opposite of something like THE CONJURING, but I think they are both effective in their way. EVIL DEAD, instead of being a shot-for-shot remake or sycophantic homage, actually goes for broke in terms of upping the gore ante and damn if that isn't an admirable thing by the time the bloody credits start pouring on the screen. I agree with Brandon that Alvarez might just have a solid career ahead of him. He knows how to shoot moments of dread and visceral horror – and he seems to know how to have fun doing it too. EVIL DEAD is a bloodbath of gargantuan proportions, but it's a rollicking one too.<br />
<br />
KILL LIST is the most recent of these that I watched, and I'm still trying to process how I feel about it. John called it a "mess" but a potentially "glorious mess." I would certainly side with it being sloppy, but would also readily admit that it has got some intriguing grandeur too it, so maybe it is a glorious mess after all. To its great credit, KILL LIST is never boring even as it builds in piecemeal increments towards its bizarre, grotesque finale. It's violent and cold, but also an absorbing mystery. It lays a pretty solid character foundation before it starts to rock the boat, and eventually it just gets so weird and creepy that you are glued to the screen. I still have to wonder what the purpose of the ending is other than the pure shock value of the reveal, and whether the reveal makes any sense other than the immediate effect of its disquietude. It may all be a prolonged metaphor for slowly destroying the ones you love through the dangerous, immoral choices you make, but I'm not exactly sure. For what is worth, this is a pretty damn riveting thriller even if it might not be certain of its motives.<br />
<br />
I guess that's all I've got for now. I was hoping I'd make this longer and more in depth, but I'm having trouble composing original thoughts right now. Perhaps more later?Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-86609336718213998472013-07-20T10:48:00.000-07:002013-07-20T10:48:13.471-07:00Caché Rules Everything Around MeI wish I had more to debate with you about CACHÉ, Brandon. But your post is just so eminently reasonable that I'm struggling to pick it apart. I think you still resort too readily to <i>ad hominem</i> attacks against Haneke whenever discussing his work, but I understand where this is coming from. I know you hate his smug guts, and I can't necessarily say that I blame you. As a man, he really is one of the most sanctimonious, self-important pricks in world cinema. He holds everyone and everything to an impossible standard that he somehow displaces from himself. He's also guilty of one of my least favorite traits in an artist (apart from the lack of empathy for animals) by explicitly stating what his films are supposed to be about instead of letting the artwork speak for itself. So, believe me, I more than understand where your inveterate hatred for this guy comes from.<br />
<br />
But I do believe that, as a technical and intellectual filmmaker, he honestly is one of the best we have today. I agree with you that he almost invariably seems to be a few heavy-handed moralizing scenes away from a truly rich masterpiece. I too would love for him to make a straight thriller without sermonizing someday (I think he gets the closest to achieving true ambiguity in THE WHITE RIBBON), but I'm not sure that would ever accord with with his deliberate, uber-confrontational style. He wants to shake his privileged viewers out of their complacency quite possibly to his own detriment. You're very right - he lambasts so much of what is vile between humans yet is incontrovertibly guilty of subjecting his audience to his own vile whims. He doesn't understand the height of his own privilege.<br />
<br />
With that all being said, Brandon, in your last paragraph you touch upon exactly why I still love CACHÉ despite the overwhelming evidence that Michael Haneke is sadistic creep. You ask: "should I commend the filmmaking first even if it’s smothered in a
message that feels as though it comes from a self loathing contrite
place?" I would never tell you to answer yes to this question because you are obviously free to choose your response to what Haneke has laid before you. All I can say is that I personally answer yes to this question. I commend, hell laud, CACHÉ as a technically bravura anti-thriller about what it means to watch and be seen. I think its one of the most sophisticated looks at voyeurism and its relationship to cinema since REAR WINDOW or BLOW-UP (though obviously not nearly as close to the singular perfection of either of those films). The static shots that bookend the film are some of the most complex that I can recall.<br />
<br />
I love how mobile the idea of watching is in these shots. In the opening shot there is a trajectory of viewership and ownership that goes from you watching the image on your screen (giving it meaning, controlling it almost since it is your eye that gives it life), to the realization that the image is being watched and controlled by someone else (Georges and Anne watching it on their TV), to the further realization that that image is watched and controlled even more so by someone else (whoever is sending the tapes), and the even further realization that the image is ultimately watched and controlled by the filmmaker himself (Haneke). It is the same image but every single viewer and owner of that image gives it a different meaning that is hidden from each other (welcome to cinema itself).<br />
<br />
The final shot is similarly complex in how nonchalantly it displaces the eye and its own meaning. We sit, watch, and wonder what we are looking at. We ask: whose point of view is it? Are we watching a recording or an actual image? Where is our eye even supposed to focus? What does it all mean? The fact that Haneke can raise so many questions from what is essential a very aloof, seemingly banal image is a testament to how successfully he lures us in to his mystery and treatise on the act of looking or not. If he is eliciting these questions from us, then he has done his job with precision. And by eliciting these questions he has not only involved us in his mystery but also in the art of dissecting cinema. He makes us question the very meaning and reality of an image, which is the purpose of cinema as an art form and the idea you try to instill in anyone who wants to understand film as an important, singular medium. It's an image that's downright brilliant the more you unpack it, and I feel that way about much of the film from a visual and intellectual standpoint. That's why I love it. I overlook so much of the film's hangups and Haneke's own interloping hand, so that all I can see is the beguiling visual mystery he's delineated for us.<br />
<br />
When I watched CACHÉ again I just took everything for what it was or for how it came across to me on the screen. When the political subtext became apparent to me, I thought it added a provocative layer to what I already found was a great enigma of a film. I can understand, Brandon, how it can come across as obvious and self-righteous in the context of Haneke as a person. But for me, when I watch CACHÉ, I try to ask what the film is communicating to me, not what Haneke is. His overbearing personality is not greater than his art despite how hard he may try. Even if he is personally sanctimonious and confrontational, the way he shoots the film belies these traits. The political subtext about France's hidden racism can easily be drawn from Georges hidden relationship to Majid. But everything that generates this connection is shot at a cool distance. There's nothing confrontational about the involvement of the camera at all. For that, despite the knowledge one may have of Haneke's personality, he diffuses his own aggressiveness through a resolutely detached lens. Again, his images are greater and more complex than he is if only for the fact that a cinematic image is not a fixed position but a multiplicity.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-44507523064040404952013-07-16T11:56:00.001-07:002013-07-16T11:56:14.935-07:00Pop Quizin It<br />
<b>1. Is there a TV show that you'd love to see a movie version of? If
yes, what? If no, think a little harder. If still no, sorry for wasting
your time.</b><br />
<br />
I think in terms of being a seamless transition from television to cinema, BREAKING BAD would probably make the best film. It's already so well-made and intensely cinematic as it is that I think Gilligan could probably direct one hell of a movie out of it.<br />
<br />
I previously would have also suggested ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT but after seeing the latest season of it, I'm not sure the format of the show would call for 90 extended minutes or so. It's sharpest when being short, sweet, and efficiently manic.<br />
<br />
Actually to answer your question seriously: VERONICA MARS. I want to see it so bad I pawned everything I owned and contributed $5,000 towards it on kickstarter. Can't wait see my name in barely visible credits at the end of the movie!<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>2. What's your favorite place/setting to watch a movie (out of the choices listed below)? Why? ALSO, least favorite and why?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>d) In a house, alone</b><br />
<br />
If I had my own private theater I'd want to watch every movie on that. Since I don't, I vastly prefer watching movies on whatever screen I can find all by myself. I like the intimacy I can garner with a film by viewing it alone. It's easier to transport myself into its celluloid world without feeling self-conscious in any way. Plus, I'm used to watching most movies by myself, so it's become a habit.<br />
<br />
My least favorite would have to be a drive-in theater or a small theater. You can't hear or see shit at the drive-in and you can't really hear or see shit at a small theater (plus there's people too close to ya). Not the best movie environments if you care what you're watching.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>3. If you could be an extra in any film, what would it be AND what scene would you like to be in?</b><br />
<br />
How much do extras make, ya think? From a utilitarian perspective, I'd want to be in whatever got me the most cash, so like SPIDER-MAN or some shit would be ideal.<br />
<b> </b><br />
However, engaging with the spirit of the question, I think it would have been awesome to be an extra in BARRY LYNDON. For one, I would have gotten to meet Kubrick. For another, it would have been incredible to get dressed up and then have him prop you in a very specific location so as to contribute in some way to the precise beauty of any one of those glorious compositions. Might've been cool to eat lunch with Ryan O'Neal too.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>4. Name a movie you loved as a kid that still feels special even when you watch it now.</b><br />
<br />
There are a lot of them. The first animated movie that springs to mind is THE SWORD IN THE STONE. We never owned that one on VHS, but I can remember always loving it and being excited whenever I did get to watch it. It still makes me so happy to watch it now.<br />
<b> </b><br />
For live action - RETURN OF THE JEDI. EMPIRE is my favorite now, but JEDI was my favorite as a kid and I still feel like one when I watch it.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>5. Best film decade (out of the choices listed below)? And tell us why, if you're so inclined:</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>c) 00s (aughts)</b><br />
<br />
The 80s are essentially the dark age for cinema.<b> </b>This was post-Golden Age, post-New Wave with no direction to go but down. The 90s has some great stuff, but I am also more familiar with the kids and mainstream stuff from this time period due to being a kid during its entirety. So I'd have to go with the aughts. It helps that I started getting fascinated by cinema in the early 00s, so I know the some of the good stuff from this decade better than the other two. Here's hoping the 10s end up being the best of the bunch.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Bonus: Hypothetically, your friends have rented out a theater for
your birthday. You get to choose the movie that's screened; what are you
going with?</b><br />
<br />
Hmmm lots of great stuff to choose from. I'd want to show an old movie considering a majority of my friends don't watch them. So, I'd probably go with REAR WINDOW or SHADOW OF A DOUBT. It just seems like everyone could get down with those the easiest even if they don't like classic film since Hitchcock is the best. Maybe DUCK SOUP too for some lighter fare. That's easy to love.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-1817835192064247422013-07-16T10:56:00.001-07:002013-07-16T10:56:24.327-07:00Notes From a Dashing BachelorHey Brandon. Thanks for the kind words, my friend. It's always hard to admit to people when you're feeling depressed, but I figured it was worth mentioning so as to offer an explanation for why I've found it so hard to write lately. I've been feeling slightly dejected for the past month or so, but in the last couple of weeks I've basically descended into some full-blown depression. It's nothing new for me and certainly nothing to worry about (I'll get over it), but it is enough of a problem that I've had trouble being motivated to do things or to find pleasure in the things I usually do. So writing has taken a back seat for a while. We all have our ways of coping with depression though. I think for me its all about re-establishing a rhythm and routine to follow and be comfortable with. Writing has always been a healthy thing for me, so I think getting in a pattern of writing more frequently will ultimately be beneficial. Seeing you and the family this weekend will also be great. Let's make that happen.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I'm glad you were able to write so much back to me (so much rich stuff that's conducive to discussion too). I know I didn't really give you much material to work off of, but I appreciate how much you sent back my way. I'll do my best to help ya out on my end too.<br />
<br />
Toally fair enough on THIS IS THE END. I don't think we'll ever reach common ground, and I'm completely fine with that. I don't begrudge you for not finding it funny either. I'm happy to stick up for it though. At least we'll always have SUPERBAD and PINEAPPLE EXPRESS.<br />
<br />
I realize I'm way too late to the game on BEFORE MIDNIGHT. That's what happens when you wait so long. I'm glad I finally got something written on it, but I'm more than happy to let it rest for now too. You guys already said it all anyway in much more eloquent terms than I could.<br />
<br />
After watching THE SON, I knew I'd be a Dardenne fan for life. I was initially disoriented by it, as well, but by the half hour mark I was thoroughly riveted. And by the end of it I was practically floating in thin air I was so touched and elated. THE KID WITH A BIKE had a similar impact on me (in terms of being so emotionally floored), but it was obviously much less arduous to sift through from the beginning due to the fluidity of its construction. I would highly recommend seeing ROSETTA to you, also. It has the same quality of grace and compassion to it, and while maybe not as instantly moving as these other two movies, it's just as impossible to shake or forget.<br />
<br />
Man, there's nothing to do but shake your head at those who find the message in THE SON to be simple and expendable. What rock are they living under? In a world where vindictiveness so often serves as the primary solution to a problem, one small act of forgiveness can reverberate like a thunderclap and glow like a miracle. I pine for the day when our compassion has become so luxurious that the Dardenne's message is no longer necessary but redundant. As things stand now, however, we unfortunately need that message more than ever. I welcome their "simple" lesson on compassion, forgiveness, and mercy with open arms. More people should too.<br />
<br />
I love Eastwood as an actor and as a director of westerns (hell, I even got a picture of the guy on my wall). So I've got nothing personal against him, despite some highly suspect political affiliations that I disagree with. In fact, quite the opposite. I like him a lot. I've just yet to be impressed or even mildly interested in any of his recent output. Again I haven't seen A PERFECT WORLD or MILLION DOLLAR BABY so my post-UNFORGIVEN worthless comment might not hold that much water. I would be interested in seeing these two films though. I'm not rooting against the guy. I'm just waiting for him to win me over. MYSTIC RIVER isn't totally worthless; I just don't really care about it. The same for the rest of the movies I've seen of his from the 2000s. They're all well-made, but uninspired, run-of-the-mill type shit to me. I don't know what any of the fuss is about. I also wonder if I'm just missing something?<br />
<br />
To be fair though, I'm compounding my lack of interest in his recent work to full blown scoffing merely for the sake of argument. I don't mind playing the "Eastwood hater" if only because it gives us something to disagree about. I really don't feel <i>that</i> negatively towards him currently. I'm just mostly indifferent. But, I should say, you have Dave Kehr (and many other great critics) thoroughly ensconced in the Eastwood camp with you, so I think you've probably already won the Eastwood debate.<br />
<br />
I would be interested in seeing MASTER AND COMMANDER if only because I trust you implicitly. I'll add that to my ever-growing list. I should see some of Peter Weir's 70s films too.<br />
<br />
I'm glad you didn't exactly take it easy on my marriage comment. Even with the wink, I did say it to be deliberately provocative and hopefully spark a reaction. It was also said in jest. I don't need to be married or even be in a relationship currently to know how painful it is to be betrayed by someone you love or even to have them stop loving you. I've never been cheated on (at least not to my knowledge), but I have watched girls I loved lose all their feelings for me, and its basically the most painful non-physical hurt I've ever experienced. So, I don't want to create the impression that I'm callous to adultery and betrayal when it comes to their representations on film because that just isn't the case. I just meant that the relationship in LOST IN TRANSLATION didn't bother from a lens of adultery (same as with BEFORE SUNSET). I think both of those films make it pretty explicit that their main characters are: a) not happy and b) not in love with their partners anymore. This definitely has to be sad for their unseen or underdeveloped partners (I can sympathize with them, believe me), but they'll eventually have to realize that you can't change the way another person feels about you. Those main characters just aren't in love them anymore. And can they really help those feelings? If Bob and Charlotte don't love their respective spouses, but find enjoyment and maybe even love in each other, is that totally their fault? Sleeping together would be a decision and 100% their fault because they made that decision, but feeling something for each other wasn't necessarily a decision they made. It just happened, the same way it just happened that they no longer love their spouses. I'm not sure what is precisely meant by the term "emotional adultery" but it does seem less nefarious to me than a physical act of sexual adultery if only because one implies a deliberate choice while the other can be merely happenstance. You can feel emotion or desire for another person other than your partner and still not act upon it.<br />
<br />
With all that I'm getting at here, I just want to stress that I believe that if you don't love someone anymore, you don't have to be tethered to them forever. It wouldn't be healthy for either party to stick together if there was no longer love between them. To my understanding, this is what is happening in LOST IN TRANSLATION. I feel for the neglected spouses, but I can also understand where Bob and Charlotte are coming from. Being the spurned party fucking sucks, but it happens and there's nothing you can do about it. People can be fickle, and if you want and care about them, you are unfortunately subjected to the uncontrollable reality of their freedom and individuality. It's a terribly brave and terrifying thing to love someone.<br />
<br />
I liked SWEENEY TODD, as well. Though BIG FISH is far and away Burton's last great film. I'm still hoping he's got a couple more in him before he's done.<br />
<br />
Not a huge Van Sant fan either, but he works wonders on ELEPHANT.<br />
<br />
I'm also hoping that Eli Roth has a good career ahead of him. I think it's important to remind myself that he has only made three films (one of which was essentially a carbon copy of another), so he still has lots of time to set things right. CABIN FEVER is visceral, funny, and inspired enough that I'm still rooting for the guy, even if I hated his last two films. I did decide to add CABIN FEVER to the ten spot on my list. I actually remember a good deal of it, which is way more than I can say for many films from 2003. It had a positive enough impact that it's stayed with me all these years. (P.S. I don't know if you noticed, but I also previously added THE DESCENT and MARTYRS to my top ten lists for their respective years. Those are two other horror films that I've been unable to shake the impact of).<br />
<br />
I'm not going to be that much of snide ogre and bad mouth FINDING NEMO too hard. It is, after all, just an endearing kids search-and-rescue movie. However, it strikes me as dull or uninspired (like CARS) when standing alongside the wonderful, brilliant Pixar output that would come later in the form of RATATOUILLE, WALL-E, and UP.<br />
<br />
I also haven't seen THE BROWN BUNNY since it came out, so perhaps seeing it again would soften the pessimistic stance I have towards it. I can just remember being exceedingly bored by its pretenses. The blow-job at the end at least gave the film some character. Before that, it's just a whole lot of nothingness (haha this movie hasn't even been relevant in years, so I'm glad we're bringing up the old arguments for and against it. THE BROWN BUNNY lives! Gallo wins.)<br />
<br />
Really, really great points/criticisms about DOGVILLE. I actually agree with you completely, though I do find Von Trier's myopic finger-wagging to be important in its way and not entirely self-serious. He does hammer a very specific, cynical point home about these characters and the nastiness they represent. The nature of the film is conducive to this though because it's basically a fairy tale. The characters aren't fleshed out; they are just one-dimensionally vicious and wanton because they are fitting an archetype. Von Trier has created a fairy tale or parable about the overarching harmfulness of closed, xenophobic communities. The chalked staging à la OUR TOWN should be enough to suggest that he's not actually trying to achieve realism with it but to suggest a very deliberate, generalized idea about human behavior.<br />
<br />
It is funny that an unabashed Chaplin and Dardenne lover such as myself would find Von Trier's cynicism so personally indispensable. I guess I'm just glad that both THE SON and DOGVILLE exist, even if they are basically polar opposites. I think it's just that I want very badly to be the Dardennes, but deep down I'm afraid I may be Von Trier. The fact that I carry both of their opposing views on humanity inside of me makes me appreciate both visions. Long live both, I say.<br />
<br />
Good talk, Brandon. Thanks for encouraging me to write. And thanks for the encouraging personal words too. Looking forward to your 2005 list whenever ya finish it.<br />
<br />
--------------<br />
<br />
P.S. My friend Dan and I have been watching horror films fairly regularly these past few months. I watched a few newer ones recently, so I'll try to get up a post on them soon. I'll probably do a letterboxd roundup on here too sometime.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-75276606146372773572013-07-15T09:25:00.002-07:002013-07-15T09:25:55.906-07:002003 & other thingsI don't know if there's any point in arguing whether THIS IS THE END is funny or not. It'd be like arguing whether each of us finds a certain food to be delicious or not. As you mentioned Brandon, comedy, like our individual tastes for foods, is purely subjective. I personally found at least 90% of THIS IS THE END to be flat-out hilarious therefore I readily forgive all of its faults and decidedly weak ending. It made me laugh (a lot) at a time when I was experiencing some awful, debilitating anxiety, and for that I welcome it with open arms. If you didn't like it or didn't find it funny, then that's cool. To each his own.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure what I can add to what's already been written about BEFORE MIDNIGHT. I essentially agree with most of what's been laid out here. It's definitely the best movie I've seen this year, even as it remains the most difficult to come to terms with. The painful fissures on display here are undoubtedly the logical movements for these characters regardless of how emotionally taxing it is to see them reach this nadir. If the first two films are more like miraculous, inebriated dreams then this is truly the sobering wake-up-call to the consequences and realities outside those dreams. I'm inclined to agree with Brandon and Chris when they say that the ending does nothing to cover or nullify the cracks that have formed in Jesse and Celine's relationship. The ending is surely a call-back to the youthful insouciance of the first film, but like their one-night courtship in Vienna, this romantic hotel getaway is likely only to last for a night as well. Just as they woke up in Vienna to a sunrise of transience and separation, they will wake up in Greece to one of calculated sadness and division. Too many wounds were opened, too many problems laid bare for these two to simply pretend that all is forgotten and forgiven. I don't think anyone would be shocked to find them divorced in another nine years. Sad to see, but probably necessary in terms of their arc.<br />
<br />
I was glad to hear John mention Rohmer and Brandon to mention Kiarostami because Linklater is definitely working within the realms of both masters here. I can't think of too many other contemporary American filmmakers (apart from PTA) who would put so much faith in their actors and let their filmmaking be almost exclusively mapped by the intricate webs of personal relations. I also can't tell you how joyous and refreshing it is to see a couple of people talking breathlessly in long takes in front of a static camera. That, in itself, is a miracle.<br />
<br />
------------------------------<br />
<br />
It's great to see your 2003 list, Brandon. And I commend you for posting as much as you have lately (you too, Chris) when things have been eerily quiet on the blogs. If I weren't going through a mild depression and actually had the motivation to write, I'd be happy to join you more frequently on here. As it stands, I just need to get out of whatever funk I'm in and start getting some shit typed up. I'll start with your list.<br />
<br />
I'm terribly pleased to see you take to THE SON so affectionately. I knew that if you just gave it a chance and looked beyond the shaky-cam that you would love it unconditionally like me. It's just too masterfully executed and powerfully resonant to resist, in my opinion. The intense claustrophobia and rapid dizziness of the camera movements can be stifling at first, but once you realize that it serves a very exact purpose for the content of the film, it is easy to look past and eventually easy to admire. I think the scene in the car when the boy is sleeping in his seat is one of the most harrowing I've ever witnessed. And the ending is easily one of the most moving knock-outs I've ever beheld. It's an unbelievable lesson in the power of forgiveness and the mysteriousness of mercy. It's easy to see why Bressson gets evoked a lot when talking about the Dardennes. "What does it matter? All is grace."<br />
<br />
MYSTIC RIVER: I've made my lack of interest in post-UNFORGIVEN Eastwood pretty transparent on here. I still haven't seen MILLION DOLLAR BABY, but from what I have seen, I don't really think that a lot of what he's made over the last twenty years is really worth a damn. I can't even remember enough of MYSTIC RIVER to expound upon why I don't like it though. My memory for movies is terrible. I'd say that I'd see it again, but I don't really care if I ever do or not. Is that wrong? haha.<br />
<br />
I haven't seen MASTER AND COMMANDER (never really got into Peter Weir much). Or BALSEROS, DEMONLOVER, THE FOG OF WAR, IN AMERICA, WINGED MIGRATION, RAISING VICTOR VARGAS, THE COMPANY, THE GOOD THIEF, LOONEY TUNES, or OPEN RANGE. I have a lot of blind spots here, as you can tell. Just wanted to get those out of the way.<br />
<br />
LOST IN TRANSLATION: It's been years since I've seen this, but I'll admit to still being a fan for the most part. It still manages to charm despite some subtle xenophobic digs and an unmistakable orientalist framework (It would be easy to criticize the film for using Japan as merely a colorful backdrop against which an existential crisis and tryst brews between two affluent Westerners). I'm much less concerned with the "adultery" argument against it, if only because I don't find the emotional relationship between these two to be all the problematic. Do I need to get married first for shit like this to bother me? ;)<br />
<br />
I still love BIG FISH. It's a warm-hearted and generous little fairy tale of a movie. The ending still gets to me too.<br />
<br />
SCHOOL OF ROCK is charming and funny, but it also didn't stand out enough to win me over. I like it, just not in love with it. I also love ELF though, so what the hell do I know?<br />
<br />
ELEPHANT: I re-watched this a couple months ago. It submerges you in this haunting, gut-sinking sensibility. I love how every tiny gesture seems eternal and meaningful in the wake of the doom that lingers just beneath everything.<br />
<br />
CABIN FEVER: I'm actually toying with adding it to my own list. I'd like to see it again to be sure, but as it stands I have nothing but fond memories of this one. The ending has stuck with me so vividly that I still get a wry smile thinking about it even now.<br />
<br />
28 DAYS LATER: Pinpoint accuracy on what makes this so effective. The film loves its characters and consequently so do we. Killer ending.<br />
<br />
DIRTY PRETTY THINGS is actually a surprisingly adept thriller. I had to re-watch it for a class a few years ago and thought it held up well. A smart lesson in drawing you in through strong characterization.<br />
<br />
FINDING NEMO: Still don't like it. I don't doubt that it's heartfelt; I just wish it were more creative.<br />
<br />
THE BROWN BUNNY: Still hate it. Dullness and stupidity under the guise of sincerity. A blow-job is the least of this thing's problems.<br />
<br />
Since I'm adhering my lists to John's rules, THE SON is now on my 2002 list. Writing about it above convinced me to put it atop that list, as well. DOGVILLE is now my top film of 2003 because I'm a cynical little jerk. But we don't need to open the DOGVILLE argument again...<br />
<br />
Great, comprehensive list though, Brandon! Are you planning any other years of the 2000s or is this just a one-off thing?<br />
<br />
ONLY GOD FORGIVES this weekend, y'all?Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-17848850357278428892013-06-24T08:08:00.003-07:002013-06-24T08:08:57.567-07:00Quizard of Oz<b>1. Name your five favorite actors and actresses of all time.</b><br />
<br />
Actors:<br />
<br />
James Cagney<br />
Jimmy Stewart<br />
(copying Brandon) Humphrey Bogart/Jean Gabin<br />
Robert Mitchum<br />
William Powell or Cary Grant<br />
<br />
I could have easily found room for Max von Sydow, Joseph Cotten, Joel McCrea, Toshiro Mifune, Randolph Scott, John Wayne, Charles Laughton, Robert De Niro, Paul Newman, or Dustin Hoffman. Obviously, that list goes on and on.<br />
<br />
Actresses:<br />
<br />
Carole Lombard<br />
Veronica Lake<br />
Ginger Rogers<br />
Greta Garbo<br />
Myrna Loy or Arletty<br />
<br />
Could have also made room for Gene Tierney, Joan Bennett, Maureen O'Hara, and Joan Fontaine.<br />
My more modern affections are split between Laura Linney and Cate Blanchett.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>2. Can you remember the first foreign-language film you saw that made an impact on you? If so, what was it?</b><br />
<br />
I can remember seeing RUN, LOLA, RUN as an early teen and it having a fairly substantial impact on me. It fit right into the sort of "cool cinema" that appealed to me at the time – films that emphasized aesthetics and editing tricks like REQUIEM FOR A DREAM and TRAINSPOTTING. I think it also helped open the floodgates in terms of seeking out new foreign films to see.<br />
<br />
As far as foreign art-house classics go, I think 8 1/2 and SEVEN SAMURAI were among the first I saw, and I thought they were both mindblowing. They were like reading Faulkner for the first time – just completely changed my perspective on art and what "cinema" meant to me.<br />
<br />
3. Favorite moment in a horror film? Least favorite?<br />
<br />
First, I should say that probably my favorite horror <i>sequence </i>takes place near the end of THE SHINING when Wendy is running through the hotel and sees a series of increasingly bizarre imagery from a bear suit sex tryst to a cocktail party of corpses. My mom happened to catch the ending once, and when the blood started pouring from the elevator she turned to me and said "whoever made this is completely sick." And I thought, "well done Stanley."<br />
<br />
My favorite scene, however (off the top of my head), is divided between the night stalk scene in CAT PEOPLE and the seance scene in THE CHANGELING. The night stalk scene has one of the best jump scares of all time and also builds tension better than just about any film ever made. The seance scene just creeped the living daylights out of me. I have a hard time even thinking about it without getting a chill.<br />
<br />
Now that I think of it, I'm also quite partial to the crucifix masturbation scene in THE EXORCIST – if only for how truly outrageous and shocking it still is to this day. <br />
<br />
There are probably many horror film moments that have rubbed me the wrong way. The first that comes to mind is actually two moments in HOSTEL when we find the Japanese girl getting her eyeball drilled out and then her consequently jumping in front of a train. It was just the bitter icing on one truly unpleasant cake, and even the prospect of revenge against these torturers couldn't redeem my sadness.<br />
<br />
<b>4. Pick a film for each member of film club that you’d really like for her/him to see.</b><br />
<br />
Adrienne - YOU CAN COUNT ON ME (maybe she's seen this already...)<br />
<br />
Ben - AU HASARD BALTHAZAR (I feel like pushing Bresson on Ben for some reason)<br />
<br />
Brandon - BLUE/WHITE/RED (or THE DOUBLE LIFE OF VERONIQUE or THE DECALOGUE. Just want him to see some Kieslowski).<br />
<br />
Chris - LEAVE HER TO HEAVEN (Been tellin' him to see it for a while now...)<br />
<br />
Gentile - THE PHANTOM OF LIBERTY (my favorite Bunuel)<br />
<br />
Graham - PLAYTIME (feel like he might appreciate this being a Monty Python fan)<br />
<br />
Jason - THE LEOPARD MAN (classic horror that still holds up)<br />
<br />
John - THE SON (Brandon's on board with it, now I just need Bing to join him)<br />
<br />
Lisa - STARDUST MEMORIES (Not sure if she has seen this one or not, but it's great)<br />
<br />
<b>5. Is there a film(s) that you once loved (and maybe even purchased) that now makes you question what you ever saw in it?</b><br />
<br />
Oh god...too many. But I'm really not too ashamed of having bought shit like the THE BOONDOCK SAINTS when I was 13 because I didn't know any better then. I was just a stupid little kid. I think one of the slightly more recent films I always thought I loved until I watched it again a year or so ago is DARK CITY. I bought that back in the mid-2000s and used to really dig it, but now I think it's pretty damn dull and that Kiefer Sutherland's overacting annoys the shit out of me. I apologize to the memory of Roger Ebert, but I think DARK CITY is wack.<br />
<br />
<b>6. IFC has started releasing films on demand the same day they hit
theaters. Would you like more studios to do this or are you afraid it
may strike the death knell for movie theaters?</b><br />
<br />
I would love for more independent studios to do this. I think it's a phenomenal idea. As Brandon was saying, it brings availability for smaller market areas such as ours to see foreign films or other art house stuff that would never come near us. I think it would certainly help these films and studios in the long run too because it provides a wide release at an essentially minimal cost. I'm definitely not worried about an On Demand system like this taking over movie theaters. Again to echo Brandon, the major studio systems and their overpriced, overblown blockbusters need a serious shake up. I never want to see movie theaters become obsolete, but I have no problem trimming the budgets, exorbitant actor salaries, and unnecessary spectacle of the hundreds and hundreds of movies the studios shit out each year. Most "big" movies are getting too expensive and too long and there needs to be some breaking point for this trend. Also, if the wave of the future for movie theaters is digital, 3D, 48 fps projectors then count me the fuck out.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>7. Favorite movie(s) set during the summertime?</b><br />
<br />
I actually had three movies in mind when formulating this question: SUMMERTIME, REAR WINDOW, and of course, DO THE RIGHT THING. SUMMERTIME, as the name implies, fantastically represents the idyllic beauty of how we'd all dream a summertime retreat in Venice to be (and also the potential loneliness behind the facade). REAR WINDOW and DO THE RIGHT THING are two of the best movies at making the feel of summer truly come to life on screen. And honestly (apart from STRAY DOG), I don't think there's ever been a hotter movie to watch then DO THE RIGHT THING. You can feel the sweat pour off ya just imagining it. It's one of the finest examples of using a season as a setting to enhance and comment on the conflicts inherent in the storyline being portrayed. Probably the quintessential summertime movie.<br />
<br />
<b>8. Which director working today do you think would make a great western
if given the chance (assuming he/she hasn’t already made one)? Or if
you don’t like westerns, which director working today do you think would
make a great sci-fi flick (also assuming he/she hasn’t made one yet)?</b><br />
<br />
Given the right script, I do think David Fincher could make a great western. I think he's a talented enough director that he could probably master any genre, even one so complicated as the modern western. Nicholas Winding Refn could probably make a pretty spectacular, stylish, and violent western. I also think Jeff Nichols could make the greatest western of the bunch. Hell, he could even pull a Raoul Walsh and remake SHOTGUN STORIES but just set it in the old west and he'd have one awesome western right there. <br />
<br />
<b>9. Describe a perfect moment in a movie (courtesy of Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule).</b><br />
<br />
I think the restaurant scene in BEFORE SUNRISE where Jessie and Celine give fake phone calls to their friends (revealing their feelings for one another) is one of the great romantic moments in film history. It perfectly encapsulates the transparency, emotional candor, and impossible dreaminess of their serendipitous relationship. It's also one of the best moments at capturing the exhilarating and ineffable feeling of a burgeoning love. It makes you feel the excitement of the lived moment and also the quiet melancholy of its transience. Perfect movie moment.<br />
<br />
<b>10. Here’s a decent list of movies that came out in 1990: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_in_film">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_in_film</a></b><br />
<b>Can you name your top five favorites from the year?</b><br />
<br />
Hate to be the hipster contrarian here (who am I kidding? I love it), but:<br />
<br />
1. Close-up<br />
2. Goodfellas<br />
3. Metropolitan<br />
4. Edward Scissorhands<br />
5. Miller’s Crossing<br />
<br />
I actually chose 1990 so as to encourage y'all to see CLOSE-UP and METROPOLITAN. Great, great movies.<br />
<br />
Younger version of me probably would have had these on the list: DUCKTALES THE MOVIE, ERNEST GOES TO JAIL, TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES (agree that it's still great), THE RESCUERS DOWN UNDER, and TREMORS. Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-30643991618729504312013-06-20T08:03:00.001-07:002013-06-20T08:03:44.669-07:00New Quiz1. Name your five favorite actors and actresses of all time.<br />
<br />
2. Can you remember the first foreign-language film you saw that made an impact on you? If so, what was it?<br />
<br />
3. Favorite moment in a horror film? Least favorite?<br />
<br />
4. Pick a film for each member of film club that you’d really like for her/him to see.<br />
<br />
5. Is there a film(s) that you once loved (and maybe even purchased) that now makes you question what you ever saw in it?<br />
<br />
6. IFC has started releasing films on demand the same day they hit theaters. Would you like more studios to do this or are you afraid it may strike the death knell for movie theaters?<br />
<br />
7. Favorite movie(s) set during the summertime?<br />
<br />
8. Which director working today do you think would make a great western if given the chance (assuming he/she hasn’t already made one)? Or if you don’t like westerns, which director working today do you think would make a great sci-fi flick (also assuming he/she hasn’t made one yet)?<br />
<br />
9. Describe a perfect moment in a movie (courtesy of Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule).<br />
<br />
10. Here’s a decent list of movies that came out in 1990: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_in_film">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_in_film</a><br />
Can you name your top five favorites from the year?Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-83714147578231735412013-06-14T09:44:00.000-07:002013-06-14T09:44:09.150-07:00Pigs and Apocalypses<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-g5tI2AyzDzk/Ubs5Or5sLjI/AAAAAAAAA1M/AjF7Ifl49nA/s1600/3_e_Shane-Carruth-_Upstream-Color.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-g5tI2AyzDzk/Ubs5Or5sLjI/AAAAAAAAA1M/AjF7Ifl49nA/s320/3_e_Shane-Carruth-_Upstream-Color.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
UPSTREAM COLOR left a strange, glacial feeling inside me. It just kind of sat there like a hulking slab of lead. Its chilly impact may have been enhanced by some unrelated and untoward anxiety I was experiencing while watching it (this is probably the case). But leaving my own personal problems aside for the moment, purely as a film to be consumed, it left me feeling a bit cold and lifeless inside. It's a mostly impressive film, from a technical standpoint, and it successfully elicits the kind of melancholia it portrays while also piquing our curiosity through its abstractions and diffuse narrative structure. It also does feel like it sways somewhere between the transient beauty of THE TREE OF LIFE and the fear and loathing of ERASERHEAD (both pluses). But it gets bogged down by its overly abstracted aloofness and some serious, eye-rolling indie cliches. As smart and impressive as a lot of the filmmaking is here, I can't help but feel that Carruth overburdens himself in a gargantuan effort to <i>appear</i> deeply poetic and solemn. He adheres too much to so many self-consciously indie images and tropes (isn't every fucking indie movie about joyless people trying to rebuild their ruined lives or does it just feel that way? And doesn't every self-serious indie movie create an image like two people cuddling in a bathtub that essentially occurs no where outside of indie movies?). I'm not consciously trying to be too hard on Carruth. I just think that for as talented as he is, he has a few cliched hangups to get over, and for as smart as he is, he still makes some glaringly contrived missteps. I'm still not entirely sold on him as a filmmaker, even as I applaud him for essentially doing everything to get this movie made and released.<br />
<br />
To Carruth's credit, he has created a film that is much better than his last effort and infinitely more successful than the similarly-themed sci-fi indie flick ANOTHER EARTH (which I really disliked). He has an ephemeral editing style that remains intact throughout and doesn't make us pine for scenes to drag out longer than they should. We know the rhythms of the film right from the opening, and that's a positive. He also generates some thought-provoking and genuinely cool ideas, like the suggestion that these mealworms can create a connective fabric between two of their carriers (sharing memories or feelings) and sort of lifeline between two species (loved the last shots with the pigs). And decidedly, there's a lot to unpack in the narrative because it is so enigmatic and equivocal. I thought Brandon did an admirable job breaking down a lot of what was happening in the film, and I don't really have much more to add. I think it's entirely possible to figure out much of this film after one viewing, as long as you are connecting the dots and following along diligently. So, in that way, it's not so abstract that its indecipherable. Anyone who thinks this is simple obscurantism is wrong.<br />
<br />
I'd say overall I was impressed by UPSTREAM COLOR, though I'm hardly in awe of it. It's perhaps too elusive and somehow stunted for me to fully connect to. I greatly prefer the complexities of LIKE SOMEONE IN LOVE to it (and, yes, for the record, John, it is indeed as complex as I described - probably more so :) ). Still, I can see why it has its many stalwart advocates.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EBoE1Z_y_co/Ubs5w78t2vI/AAAAAAAAA1U/bVsNL6Vxiuw/s1600/This-Is-The-End-Rogen-Franco-Hilcbl.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="171" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EBoE1Z_y_co/Ubs5w78t2vI/AAAAAAAAA1U/bVsNL6Vxiuw/s320/This-Is-The-End-Rogen-Franco-Hilcbl.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
I have a pretty strong affinity for THIS IS THE END already. It's easily my favorite film of the year so far (beating out the only other two I've seen in UPSTREAM COLOR and STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS). It's frequently laugh-out-loud hilarious and, at the very least, pervasively amusing throughout. It's definitely up there with best genre/comedy mash-ups of recent times. It's also the spiritual twin of PINEAPPLE EXPRESS, and it delivers the same amount of hysterical banter, self-deprecating meta-awareness, and endearing male bonding that made PINEAPPLE so much fun. Honestly, if you enjoyed PINEAPPLE EXPRESS and SUPERBAD, then you'll love this. If you didn't like either of those or can't stand the guys involved, then just skip it entirely. It doesn't tread radically new ground for Rogen and Co. but continues in a lot of the same patterns they've been developing for years. Yet, for lovers of this pattern, it's terrifically executed. It's definitively hilarious and probably one of the best times you could have at the theaters this summer. I've got nothing else to really say about it, other than to encourage those interested to see it with some friends and cut loose.<br />
<br />
----------- <br />
<br />
In other film news, I'm worried about MAN OF STEEL. I'm still going to see it soon, but all the negative reviews (especially those suggesting it falls into generic blockbuster and run-of-the-mill superhero territory all too easily) have really cooled my excitement. We shall see.<br />
<br />
I'm infinitely more excited for BEFORE MIDNIGHT. Next weekend, y'all?<br />
<br />
Brandon asked me to do another film quiz. I've been slacking on coming up with questions, but I'll have one up soon hopefully.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-7913241178351845222013-06-05T10:02:00.002-07:002013-06-05T10:03:25.955-07:00Beyond the Hills Into DarknessBrandon, great post on BEYOND THE HILLS. I'm glad you found it as rich, complex, and engrossing as I did. I deserve that little dig for giving a caveat over the film's length and deliberate pacing haha. It doesn't move any more leisurely than your average art film, and truly there isn't a lot of dead space where nothing's happening to warrant such a warning. It remains intense and searingly complex through just about every scene. I was just worried its length and pacing might turn some people off of it. I'm glad that wasn't the case for you.<br />
<br />
Your analysis of the film's content is basically spot-on, at least in terms of how I similarly read what was happening. We seemed to attack it from a homogenous angle. Obviously, our biggest initial disagreement was over the nature of Mungiu's "condemnation" of the institutions he portrays (or lack thereof). When I first finished watching it, I didn't get the sense that he was really condemning anyone or anything. I just felt his frustration and maybe his despair over the muck he finds pervading our modern societal disposition. But then as I've thought more about this, by the very fact that he suggests that we are all in "muck," there would have to be some condemnation. The final shot (which is certainly deliberate, and brilliant, in my opinion) is a sort of definitive visual condemnation; it's also intensely, painfully aware. I think he's saying that we are in a hell of a quagmire concerning the incompatibility of our institutions, and there's no apparent way of escaping it. The problem is not just this orthodox religion that seems antiquated and backwards within modernity, but the modern society that can hardly accept it. Medical institutions don't come across any better than the religion here. Neither shows any real capacity to handle the problem of Alina. You are completely right and succinct when you say here: "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Both parties struggle to THINK up rational resolutions in the suffocating blur of emotion clouding each character’s judgment until tragedy finally strikes." Well said. I was gearing myself up for a solid discussion with you about how the film is not condemnatory, but I see now that you were right all along. There's no invective here; Mungiu is by no means preaching or trying to proselytize; he's just upset and frustrated, and he expresses it through a general outcry against the various guilty parties involved.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"></span>I think it's truly fascinating that at the heart of BEYOND THE HILLS we have a thwarted love story between two women. The religion, the hospital, the cops, the entire world surrounding the orthodox compound – they are all caught by Alina and Voichita's central, incommunicable predicament.<br />
The religion and the nuns involved in it aren't evil; they just doesn't understand Alina's problem nor do they understand how to deal with her. The hospital isn't any different. You're right in saying that much of their irrationality towards her stems from their fear of her. They are much too powerless to have a reasonable or helpful solution for her. And Alina's reaction towards them is just as much irrational. She is also guilty of not understanding or for not willing to be. <br />
<br />
So, yeah, there's definitely condemnation here. There is also a distance from the material in the way much the film is shot and framed, as if a "laying things bare and leaving you to ponder their consequences" type thing were happening. Mungiu's clearly frustrated by what has taken place in the film, and I read that last shot as him basically throwing up his hands in bewilderment, asking us all, "what the hell do we do?" I think he's an immensely talented and intelligent filmmaker, and that BEYOND THE HILLS is even better than 4 MONTHS, 3 WEEKS, 2 DAYS. I too am glad that he shows so much bravado in choosing provocative and controversial subject matter for his films. He's definitely not shy, and he's incredibly confidant based of the sheer artistry and audacity involved in his first two films. I already can't wait for his next one.<br />
-----------<br />
<br />
In other recent film news, I thought STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS was a solid continuation of the first film. It's silly and contains many outlandish set pieces and narrative contrivances, but it's mostly thrilling throughout and, very importantly, it recreates much of the first film's sense of insouciance and playfulness between characters. I wasn't looking for much else from it other than to avoid boredom, and it didn't disappoint in this regard. Good, weightless fun.<br />
<br />
THIS IS FORTY was largely disappointing, but to be honest, I wasn't expecting all that much from it. I'm still a huge fan of KNOCKED UP, but I'm about ready to give up on Apatow as a director after FUNNY PEOPLE and now this mess of a film. THIS IS FORTY is just as bloated and cloying as the worst parts of FUNNY PEOPLE, but it was somehow less funny and more aimless. It has no real sense of narrative cohesion or direction, and hardly anything compelling to say that isn't already obvious from observing most families. Also, as Brandon mentioned, it suffers irreparably from being nearly impossible to connect to unless you are incredibly wealthy. Apatow has written so much of his privileged status into his films lately that he's lost sight of what makes a story compelling.<br />
There is, however, a single profound shot in the movie with one of the daughters playing with her keyboard while her parents are arguing in the next room, and apart from a few decent Paul Rudd jokes, it is easily the strongest moment of this otherwise dull, futile film. Apatow needs to step out of the coziness of his mansion and mingle with the people again real soon.<br />
<br />
I don't really have a lot to write about LIFE OF PI. I enjoyed most of it, and there are even a few moments that I found in it to be quite beautiful and moving. It looks sharp, and it's a decent adventure story. That's really all I've got to say about it haha.<br />
<br />
School is all done in a week or so. I don't leave for Philadelphia until late August, and I won't be working for the time in between. That should give me plenty of time to get more blogging in. Hopefully you'll see more from me on here.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-76259125719194884062013-06-01T08:33:00.000-07:002013-06-01T08:33:39.449-07:00Quiz answerz[Sorry these quiz answers are going to suck. As I mentioned on Facebook, I had lengthy answers for most of these questions, and then I lost them all when my computer died. I'm extremely fucking upset about it and don't feel like writing the same shit again. Again, sorry to Brando for the brevity here].<br />
<br />
<b>1. What film hit you at the right place and right time, pertaining to and illuminating things that were happening in your life the moment you saw it?</b><br />
<br />
A SINGLE MAN. I had a lot written on why it hit me so hard at that particularly time, but don't feel like going into it all over again. <br />
<br />
<b> 2. What would be your top 5 ranked Pixar films? </b><br />
<br />
1. WALL-E<br />
2. RATATOUILLE<br />
3. UP<br />
4. TOY STORY/ TOY STORY 2<br />
5. THE INCREDIBLES<br />
<br />
<b>3. To reiterate Cheddar’s question…. What movie/movies had the biggest negative effect on you? </b><br />
<br />
I may have mentioned this before but FALLEN. That demon-possession film with Denzel Washington where the evil spirit is passed to a person merely by touching them. I watched it when I was a kid and still believed in God and the Devil at that point. It had an even more negative impact on me than JAWS because instead of not wanting to swim, I was terrified of touching anyone for the longest time.<br />
<br />
REQUIEM FOR A DREAM definitely bummed me out, but I think it ultimately had a positive impact on me because I saw it when I was 13 or so and still a movie novice. It was instrumental in helping me see film as an artistic medium at the time.<br />
<br />
<b>4. What seasons seem to inspire you to see and write about films the most and least?</b><br />
<br />
December and January are usually when I see the most Oscar hopefuls and try to catch up on the foreign films from earlier in the year so that I can make my year-end top 10 list. Probably when I feel most inspired to watch and write, though I think I watch the most films during the summer due to having so much more free time to do so.<br />
<br />
<b> 5. What are five movies that you love that you feel comfortable never seeing again? </b><br />
<br />
I'm surprised no one else caught this, but you had this question on the
last quiz too. I said AUDITION, MARTYRS, ANTICHRIST, and IRREVERSIBLE
last time, so I'll stick with them again.<br />
<br />
<b>6. What anticipated 2012 film/films are you feeling the most uneasy about expectation wise? </b><br />
<br />
ONLY GOD FORGIVES and TO THE WONDER are great examples here. MAN OF STEEL for me too. <br />
<br />
<b> 7. Likewise, what former favorite actors are trudging down dangerous territory for you, also what actors have already strayed down the path to the point in which their name now means nothing? I’m realizing now that this is a mean sounding question.</b><br />
<br />
I understand the Gosling trepidation. I'm hoping he gets back into immersive acting roles like HALF NELSON and BLUE VALENTINE soon and stops repeating the laconic tough guy role for every other film. He's too great an actor to limit himself in such a way.<br />
<b> </b><br />
Johnny Depp is just a straight-up mercenary at this point, no? He'd probably admit it to you bluntly too, if you asked him.<br />
<br />
I remember loving Edward Norton as a teen, but can't think of anything of note (apart from MOONRISE KINGDOM) that he's done in over ten years.<br />
<br />
To reiterate something John mentioned via twitter – why is Ethan Hawke in every other shitty horror film these days? $$$, I'm sure (though, hey, as long as he continues to pump out BEFORE films every 9 years, I honestly don't care what else he does).<br />
<br />
<b>8. What is your take on a screenwriter’s impact on a film’s success, in other words how much of an auteurist are you?</b><br />
<br />
Ugh. I had a lot written here. I'll try to briefly summarize through my frustration: a great director is responsible for providing the visual language that is filled with meaning and amplifies what a screenplay is only a blueprint for. This is the most important part of the filmmaking process for me because film is primarily a visual medium. I take nothing away from the Charlie Kaufman's, Ben Hecht's, and Waldo Salt's of the world though, and I love and appreciate many unbelievably well-written screenplays from screenwriters who are not director. They are still an integral part in the process. <br />
<br />
<b> 9. What types of “provocative” cinematic trends/ideas still feel fresh, which seem to be losing their oomph in the modern age of self awareness? </b><br />
<br />
The sort of docu-realism miserablist films post-KIDS have lost whatever steam they had. Fuck that entire lazy way of making films.<br />
<br />
Von Trier still seems fresh and provocative to me, however. It's probably because he's got a great sense of humor and is borderline insane.<br />
<br />
I think the most provocative modern films are the ones that are so unabashedly a product of their director's vision with little to no concern over mass marketability (e.g. THE MASTER, LIKE SOMEONE IN LOVE, THE TREE OF LIFE, THE TURIN HORSE, INLAND EMPIRE, etc.)<br />
<br />
<b>10. What’s your favorite horror film of the 1990s (that isn’t SCREAM Cheddar!)?</b><br />
<br />
I'll proudly add to the SLEEPY HOLLOW pile. Easily my favorite of the 90s.<br />
<br />
I used to really love JACOB'S LADDER at one point in time. Haven't seen it in forever though.<br />
<br />
I still love the gaudy decadence of BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA.<br />
<br />
SEVEN isn't really a horror film per se, but it's the best near-horror film of the 90s.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-22934803545609856202013-05-20T08:16:00.003-07:002013-05-20T16:10:38.252-07:00What I'm Looking Forward To...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--QKWrSspUok/UZo8z5bYq-I/AAAAAAAAA08/KXPIrExCa5E/s1600/general+zod+man+of+steel-1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="161" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--QKWrSspUok/UZo8z5bYq-I/AAAAAAAAA08/KXPIrExCa5E/s320/general+zod+man+of+steel-1.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
I didn't want to leave you completely hanging on this topic, Ben. There are a few films I'm really looking forward to in the coming months, as well. Here are my most anticipated for the summer:<br />
<br />
BEFORE MIDNIGHT - As it stands now, easily my most anticipated film of the year. I even recently bought the first two films just so I could bask in them again as I wait for this to (hopefully) come to Ithaca in the next month or so. I've still yet to see the trailer (thank you very much for almost spoiling that, Cinemapolis), which may be the first time in my life that I've intentionally avoided images from a film that I'm genuinely thrilled to see. But, without actually reading any reviews, the brief comments I've read here and there on it seem to suggest that it is as miraculous as the first two. Can't wait. Definitely an opening weekend film for me, as well.<br />
<br />
MAN OF STEEL - My comic book and superhero love is exclusivel<span style="text-align: center;">y divided between Batman and Superman. They're the only characters I give a damn about, to be honest. New films centered on them are probably the only childlike excitement I experience over Hollywood blockbusters nowadays. I remain cautiously optimistic about this one. There are many things to feel positive about from Nolan's involvement to Michael Shannon as General </span>Zod<span style="text-align: center;">. The one major concern, of course, is that Zach</span><span style="text-align: center;"> </span>Synder<span style="text-align: center;"> </span><span style="text-align: center;">is at the helm (sigh). If a better, more trustworthy director were in charge of this, my excitement would be overflowing. For now, it's guarded, but I'll still be seeing this opening weekend regardless.</span><br />
<br />
ONLY GOD FORGIVES - if it comes to theaters anywhere near here, I will definitely be seeing it. As Brandon said, I do love Gosling as much as the next hipster dude and every girl on the planet.<br />
<br />
BLUE JASMINE - Woody's latest. I want to see a trailer and hear the word on it first before deciding whether it's worth seeing in theaters or not (if it even comes near here). It's got the insanely talented and still completely beautiful to these eyes Cate Blanchett in it, so I'm hoping it's decent.<br />
<br />
THE CONJURING - I still haven't seen INSIDIOUS and don't know how to feel about James Wan, but I'm completely drawn to this one due to the stellar teaser they released featuring a pretty wicked game of hide-and-go-seek. I'm an unabashed haunted house movie lover, so I'll probably see this in theaters barring some extremely negative reviews.<br />
<br />
AIN'T THEM BODIES SAINTS - Apparently this one's getting a limited release in August. If and when that means it will ever play near here is still up for question. If it does, I'd definitely see it considering the positive vintage Malick-esque buzz I've been hearing on it.<br />
<br />
Also interested in:<br />
<br />
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - I liked the first one. I'll probably see this with my dad since he'll buy my ticket for me. Not overly excited for it, but interested enough to sit through it at least. It's got Benedict Cumberbatch in it though, which is a serious plus.<br />
<br />
UPSTREAM COLOR - If I don't ever see it, I won't be too disappointed. I'm not that big a fan of PRIMER or the trailer to this one, so I don't know what to expect or how to feel about seeing it. Word's been pretty positive on it though (and Ben seemed to love it while Brandon liked it too), so maybe it'll be worth seeing.<br />
<br />
THIS IS THE END/THE WORLD'S END - two likely stupid apocalyptic comedies that I'm fairly interested in seeing and hope are funny.<br />
<br />
FRANCES HA - The major word floating around is that this is easily Baumbach's best film. It's in black-and-white so I'll be curious to see it when it comes to streaming or DVD.<br />
<br />
I may be missing others I'm excited for? This is all that springs to mind at the moment.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-48668291925836968082013-05-20T07:27:00.001-07:002013-05-20T07:27:18.252-07:00Getting Caught Up<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jv-0hO4bSeQ/UZoxR6Y38cI/AAAAAAAAA0s/grIvEzdMiVs/s1600/Mud-Review.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jv-0hO4bSeQ/UZoxR6Y38cI/AAAAAAAAA0s/grIvEzdMiVs/s1600/Mud-Review.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Those were exemplary posts on PINES, John and Brandon. I'm sorry I don't have much to add. I think John summarized my opinions on it much more eloquently than I could, but I also think that Brandon brought up some pretty insightful points that illuminated much of what I missed in my own review. PINES does try hard, and I'm sure it's in earnest; it just gets so turgid from excess that it feels clumsy, overbearing even. There are individual moments that I respect (even beyond the first third) but too many narrative missteps and dead ends. Brandon did a nice job of unpacking what worked and what didn't throughout it's inordinate plotting and seemingly interminable running time. It's a respectable film in a lot of ways, but it's ultimately an immensely sloppy failure.<br />
<br />
I don't have much to add to what John and Ben remarked about MUD either. I had a great time spending the afternoon and evening with those two gentleman (the best parts obviously being when I had to run out of the theater to avoid the BEFORE MIDNIGHT trailer and the old couple who randomly decided to sit right next to me). Like John, I too am taken aback by MUD's 98% tomatometer score considering the lasting impression it leaves is one of quiet appreciation and nothing near exuberance or awe. It's a simple, solidly made story. It doesn't do anything particularly great, but it hardly contains egregious flaws either. I agree with Ben that coming off of the exceptional TAKE SHELTER, MUD seems like a timid lateral step (if not a step backwards) for Nichols. He's still a wonderful and promising filmmaker in these eyes, I just found less to be impressed by with MUD. Still, there are a lot of things to like about it, particularly the relationship between Mud and the boys and the many father/son emotional dynamics at play. Nichols, as with SHOTGUN STORIES, does an astute job of articulating male, familial bonds while keeping a precarious eye on burgeoning and faltering male relationships with females. In a lot of ways, it's a very male-centric film (perhaps to the point that it fails to understand its female characters). Regardless, am I alone in thinking it could have used a little more Michael Shannon?<br />
<br />
Funny enough that Ben and I talked briefly about my not having seen LET ME IN on the way back from Ithaca because I was able to watch it a few days later with a friend of mine. I still vastly prefer LET THE RIGHT ONE IN and its grimier, more cryptic feel, but Reeve's film is no slouch. It's well-made in its own way, and even distinguishes itself enough visually to not be a complete carbon-copy. Still, it lies sheepishly in the shadow of the original.<br />
<br />
Re-watching THE CABIN IN THE WOODS for the first time unequivocally confirms how much I like that movie. It really is a blast from start to finish. Its ridiculousness is entirely vindicated by its jovial sense of humor.<br />
<br />
Also, re-watching THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS for the first time in years reminded me just how wonderful and hilarious it is. Easily one of Wes Anderson's best achievements.<br />
<br />
Minnelli's FATHER OF THE BRIDE (1950) is decent. It's a fairly innocuous wedding story (which, I kind of hate, to be honest) but it's mostly propped up by the humorous and generally stalwart presence of Spencer Tracy. He keeps the ship afloat even when you don't care if it sinks or not. Also, I love Joan Bennett, so that helps additionally.<br />
<br />
THE SHOPWORN ANGEL (1938) is largely delightful even as it feels grounded by a kind of sobering moribundity. Margaret Sullavan and Jimmy Stewart again make an invariably charming pair (lovers of THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER will know what I'm talking about). But the film is probably most noteworthy for having such a gutsy ending. Its unflinchingly realistic depiction of loss (and its final close-up shot) recalls STELLA DALLAS, which came out the same year. I don't think this kind of brutal honesty was prevalent throughout the 40s, but in the late 30s its on full display and remains stark and ultimately powerful.<br />
<br />
GOODBYE, MR. CHIPS (1939) was a bit of a revelation for me. I knew of its elevated status among A-picture Hollywood dramas, but figured it would be dull and dry like many of the "important," humorless melodramas of the era. I was quite wrong. It's hardly the auteurist masterwork, but it's an incredibly generous film. It radiates kindness for humanity and a goodness of character. It's as gentle-spirited as one could possibly imagine, which is really remarkable. And Donat gives a wonderful performance as Chips. Another genuinely outstanding film to add to 1939's robust yield.<br />
<br />
In some non-film related news, ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT Season 4 arrives this weekend, and I couldn't possibly be happier about it. Long time coming.<br />
Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-45975002211087921842013-04-30T12:59:00.002-07:002013-04-30T13:01:24.672-07:00To the Pines and Beyond<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UpixTJg69f8/UYAf2yKef_I/AAAAAAAAA0I/5kpwBzvFN9g/s1600/place-beyond-pines-040413-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="194" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UpixTJg69f8/UYAf2yKef_I/AAAAAAAAA0I/5kpwBzvFN9g/s320/place-beyond-pines-040413-1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
*CONTAINS SPOILERS*<br />
<br />
Towards the end of THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES, I wasn't sure whether it was boldly sincere familial drama or just a complete disaster. It certainly seemed like it was trying to make a comprehensive albeit slightly muddled statement on the nature of legacy and inheritance, the seeds of corruption we sow and the bitter fruit our progeny reap. By the time the credits began to roll and Bon Iver chimed over the soundtrack, however, I knew that for all the films specious earnestness, it couldn't help but deflate itself entirely through willful narrative excess. As I was walking out of the theater, it honestly felt like a disaster, like Cianfrance had taken a promising and wholly compelling first third of an exciting crime film and turned into one of the most overwrought pieces of filmmaking since Apatow's FUNNY PEOPLE. I kept mulling over in my head - how could Cianfrance, a talented and seemingly shrewd filmmaker, start the film so terrifically and then overplot it to the point of pure exhaustion and frustration? What was he thinking? How did no one, at any point during the production of this film, take a look at the script and realize that it suffered from a hazardous case of narrative overkill? As a story, it runs around so much to the point that it loses direction, and it even refuses to acknowledge its own advice: it so desperately wants to ride like lightning but boy does it crash like thunder.<br />
<br />
If I sound like I'm being harsh on this film, it's only because I respected Cianfrance's muted, naturalistic work on BLUE VALENTINE and found the first hour or so of PINES to be exquisite. The first act of the film, following Gosling's troubled motorcycle bandit-come-newfound dad, is captivating in the way that made BLUE VALENTINE also seem raw and vital. It's emotionally and forcefully told, while also seeming generous and sincere. I sympathized so strongly with Luke Glanton's plight to the point that when he was torn off screen, I almost didn't care where they would take the film from thereon. It's certainly an audacious move to kill off your film's star and central protagonist less than halfway through your run time. I give Cianfrance mild credit for choosing to be so bold, but I can't give him much more credit than that because I don't think it's a choice that ultimately pays off. Perhaps because I enjoy Gosling's charisma as an actor and find Bradley Cooper duller than a box factory (a little SIMPSONS, anyone?) I am slightly biased in thinking that the film looses a giant heft of steam once Cooper takes over the leading man role. It certainly doesn't help. But, I truly believe that the compelling arc of this narrative does not belong in Cooper's characters hands nor especially in the hands of their children's characters. Once the children appear on screen together, the overwhelming sense of gimmicky, utterly contrived plotting sets in, and it only gets worse from there. I've heard Paul Haggis' CRASH thrown around in describing the last third of PINES, and I can't say that it is a far-off-the-mark insult. By the end of it all, PINES frustratingly feels like a contrived piece of generational melodrama, forcing its own sense of importance on us and itself through a brazenly, exasperatingly predetermined outcome.<br />
<br />
PINES is overwritten, overlong, and overstuffed to the point that it feels bloated and saggy like sallow flesh. The fact that it is nearly the same length as both THE TURIN HORSE and BEYOND THE HILLS and fits more plot into 15 minutes than either of those films throughout their entire run times, yet feels as if it is ten times longer than either one, is a pretty vicious sign of overreach. As you all know, I have no problem with excessive run times or long, ponderous films as long as I know there is a purpose to it (BEYOND THE HILLS is long and deliberate but it builds tension, character, and tone beautifully through its careful use of time and space). What I do have a problem with is films that are long because they've been stuffed with too many climaxes, arcs, and plot shifts without enough sense of character motivation to justify our emotional investment in their constant fluctuations. For instance, in PINES we are given no real sense of who Luke Glanton's son is or what he wants the way we knew what drove Luke so vehemently. Towards the end of the film, there is a gorgeous overhead shot of the son riding his bike like his father through the tall trees and it feels like an ideal time to fade to black, leaving us with the idea that the son is searching for a connection to his past but still riding free because of the family he has around to support him. Instead, we get a half hour more of obvious or insanely contrived character parallels that seem undercooked and forced without any insightful ideas or thematic purpose. Someone should have warned Cianfrance early on in the process of making this film that sometimes less can certainly be more.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-4187467920692539332013-04-26T10:37:00.002-07:002013-04-26T10:38:54.623-07:00Quiz Kid Donnie Smith<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Brandon, we all know you are the Dan Kois of Film Club, so just stop with the "I like long art movies" bit already ;)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />Being serious though, I do know you can get down with plenty of lengthy films, so you don't really need to defend yourself in this regard (hell, you've sat through a plethora of long, deliberately paced 60s films that I don't have the remotest of attention spans for - so credit where credit is due). I just like to pick on you for our TURIN HORSE discussion. The fair warning I gave about BEYOND THE HILLS wasn't really intended for you, just anyone in this club or outside it who stumbles on the review and thinks they might like to watch it based on how much I loved it. I'd hate to give them a glowing recommendation and then have them mad at me because they just sat through a two and half hour movie where everything seems to move as piecemeal as grass growing.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />With that being said, I have pretty solid faith that you'll love BEYOND THE HILLS. It's long and deliberate without question, but also driven with its narrative and loaded with tension. I'm also aware that you might still tell me that it's 40 minutes too long, even if you do love it :)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />Thanks for making the quiz, my dude! Now onto some answers:</span><br />
<br />
<div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-3a846e48-472c-45e3-5335-ce8ecd5d2f16"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">1. What are your top five Spielberg films (ranked)?</span></b></div>
<b id="docs-internal-guid-3a846e48-472c-45e3-5335-ce8ecd5d2f16"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span id="docs-internal-guid-3a846e48-472c-45e3-5335-ce8ecd5d2f16"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">1. JAWS</span></span></div>
<span id="docs-internal-guid-3a846e48-472c-45e3-5335-ce8ecd5d2f16"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">
</span></span>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span id="docs-internal-guid-3a846e48-472c-45e3-5335-ce8ecd5d2f16"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">2. JURASSIC PARK</span></span></div>
<b id="docs-internal-guid-3a846e48-472c-45e3-5335-ce8ecd5d2f16">
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">3. MINORITY REPORT</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">4. RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">5. E.T.</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A.I. just misses the cut, but deserves to be mentioned because I love that film. I agree with John, Spielberg’s a great director and a formidable executive producer (for the most part).</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">2. Have you ever been convinced by a member of Film Club to change your mind about a movie (tell us about it)?</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I think it’s happened a few times. Like John mentioned, whenever one of you registers a particularly passionate defense of a film, I feel compelled, even if its only slight, to rethink what I may not have liked or was disappointed by with it. THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO and Brandon’s responses to it come to mind. They didn’t exactly change my opinion, but I liked what he wrote. He advocated well for it. I also think Ben, Brandon, and John did a great job defending MELANCHOLIA. Those posts made me rethink my initial disappointment and helped me see a lot of the maturity and beauty in the work itself. Well done gang!</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">3. What is your favorite sub-genre and why?</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Two subgenres spring first to mind: haunted house movies and noir westerns. I’m not sure why I like haunted house movies so much. I’m not even sure why I like the idea of a haunted house so much. I guess I just feel drawn to or fascinated by the supernatural and extraordinary that still seem within the realm of possibility. I also tend to love the feeling of creeping dread that haunted house movies are inclined to produce. That’s my kind of horror. And noir westerns just combine two of my favorite genres into one complex and thrilling beast (e.g. PURSUED).</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">4. Do you enjoy violence in film and if so do you feel bad and if so why?</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I do enjoy it, for the most part, and no, I don’t feel bad about it. I fortunate enough to be able to have a clear distinction between the virtual and the actual when it comes to violence on film. I ahbor actual violence, but enjoy and sometimes even laugh at virtual violence on screen - perhaps because I know someone put a lot of time into making the violent effect seem real and because it usually looks excessive and packs a visceral punch. I tend to draw the line of my enjoyment at extreme gore or torture porn, but there are plenty of bloody, violent scenes that I’ve laughed at because of how outrageous they looked.</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">5. Tell us about a few of your strangest theater going experiences.</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Seeing I AM LEGEND in IMAX in New York City was strange. The first half of that movie is great, and the effect of making NYC look so desolate and deserted is downright staggering (the rest of the movie, not so much). Walking out of the Union Square AMC to see many of those same empty sites from the film teem with life was a bit disorienting. Very cool though too.</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Seeing SPRING BREAKERS with a bunch of vapid cretins was strange - and not in a good way at all.</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The strangest has to be seeing THE DARK KNIGHT RISES the day after the Colorado shooting, though. I just felt paranoid and depressed.</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">6. Name 5 films that you have been eager to re-watch, perhaps even despite your tepid response some of them.</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">L’AVVENTURA (didn’t get it the first time, would like to see it again)</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">DJANGO UNCHAINED (like it even less the more I think about it, but should give it another chance)</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">THE DECALOGUE (just would love to watch it again - amazing collection of films)</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">NASHVILLE (never gave it a fair watch)</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">ANDREI RUBLEV (loved it when I saw it, but can hardly remember it now)</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">7. Name 5 films that you absolutely love or respect that you have no desire to see ever again (going against John’s Letterbox’d rating system).</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I can give you four:</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">IRREVERSIBLE</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">MARTYRS</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">ANTICHRIST</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">AUDITION</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Do you sense a common theme with them? haha.</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">8. What are five films that you really want to see for the first time?</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">NAZARIN (Bunuel)</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">THROUGH THE OLIVE TREES (Kiarostami)</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">THE LONG DAY CLOSES (Davies)</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">BEYOND THE FOREST (Vidor)</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">DESIRE (Borzage)</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">9. Name 5 surprising “classic” popular films that you have not seen.</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">ROCKY</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">THE SOUND OF MUSIC</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">THE RIGHT STUFF</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">TERMINATOR</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">DIE HARD</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The list goes on and on sadly.</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">10. Who are your top five directors of all time (hahahaha)?</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I’ll give you a top six of all time and currently:</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">top six (all time)</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Hitchcock</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Bresson</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Kubrick</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Ozu</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Bergman</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Ford</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">top six (currently working)</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: black; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">P.T. Anderson</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Malick</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Kiarostami</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Coen Bros.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Dardenne Bros.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Scorsese</span></div>
</b></div>
Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-77634301100884868672013-04-21T15:54:00.000-07:002013-04-21T17:28:24.024-07:00A Pale View of Hills<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BaFQwqq66YI/UXRzqay3OII/AAAAAAAAAzw/sKgSmQ5TQDQ/s1600/BTHNew2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="208" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BaFQwqq66YI/UXRzqay3OII/AAAAAAAAAzw/sKgSmQ5TQDQ/s320/BTHNew2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Sorry I haven't been blogging much my friends. It's been a slower film watching month than usual for me. It's also been a pretty languid month, with work generally sapping the little energy I have for anything outside of it. I'm sure the rest of you can relate.<br />
<br />
I'm also sorry to Brandon for not responding to his revenge list post. I think after writing that last revenge post I felt drained of anything more substantive to say on the subject. I did really enjoy your list and write-ups though, Brando. If I had to make a top five list of the revenge films that challenged me the most, it would probably include these: FURY, UNFAITHFULLY YOURS, THE BIG HEAT, IN THE BEDROOM, and OLD BOY. Honorable mentions would be: THE OX-BOW INCIDENT, STRAW DOGS, IRREVERSIBLE, and DOGVILLE. I wouldn't include ONCE UPON THE TIME IN THE WEST either for the same reasons as you, despite how much I love that movie and its revenge subplot. There's too many disparate narratives going on there to limit it to a simple revenge arc. UNFAITHFULLY YOURS probably seems like the oddball of the bunch here, but it really is a great film about wanting revenge so mercilessly that it blinds and disorients you. It's also incredibly hilarious. I still need to see DESPERADO and THE MASK OF ZORRO. I'm due for a solid Antonio Banderas revenge flick night one of these days it would seem.<br />
<br />
----------------<br />
<br />Cristian Mungiu's BEYOND THE HILLS is instantly one of my very favorite films of 2012. It recalls the best of Dreyer and Bresson - a stark and wholly riveting look at the complex and potentially devastating split between the spiritual and the corporeal, the desire for transcendence and the pull of the immanent life. It's a serpentine tragedy of existence in the grandest of terms. The world of this film is buried in muck and nothing will wipe it clear. All that was previously hidden is revealed; all that was once distant seems infinitely near.<br />
<br />
Shot in the easily the most beautiful and austere long takes since THE TURIN HORSE, BEYOND THE HILLS follows two orphaned girls, Voichita and Alina (lifelong friends and possibly former lovers), as they each head down unfathomably divergent paths. Voichita has joined an orthodox monastery that stresses atavistic living and a complete disavowal of the carnal and material world. Alina has been living in Germany, but has come to stay with Voichita at the monastery, hoping to eventually persuade her to join her for a new job prospect aboard a cruise ship. Alina arrives at the monastery hoping that her relationship with Voichita will be unchanged, that the two can still share a bed together and feel as much need for one another as they did during their time in the orphanage. But Voichita is a different person now; she has given herself entirely to God and stresses to Alina that no earthly person or thing can hold a higher place in her heart than the Lord. Alina is wounded to the core by this; she needs Voichita and cannot understand how her friend could now be so aloof to her when she was once so tender and palpable for her. For anyone who's ever experienced a change of heart from a loved one or an inflamed passion grown cold, this is truly devastating stuff. Your heart aches for both of these young women.<br />
<br />
(The opening shot of the film is a paragon of using visual imagery to delineate themes that will lay the groundwork for the story that will unfold. Voichita walks in the opposite direction of a large crowd, following her own obdurate path, until she reaches Alina, who pulls her into an effusive hug that embarrasses Voichita. Right from the first shot, we have Voichita at odds with the modern society around her and Alina's desires - themes that will unfold, bound, and constrict around everything throughout the film.)<br />
<br />
Mungiu explores the heartbreaking relationship between these two women as it is being torn asunder, but also the uneasy relation this orthodox community has with the modern world that surrounds it. These two antithetical spheres inevitably and irrevocably clash making an incredibly profound and moving portrait of miscommunication and dissociation that extends beyond the emotionally raw story of the two women. The amazing feat is that Mungiu manages to charge both the modern society and orthodox community without utterly condemning either. He just presents two structures that cannot coexist and lets us reflect on the tragedy of their philosophical and spiritual partitions. They might as well exist in separate universes they are so disjointed.<br />
<br />
Fair warning: this is a long, very rigid and deliberately paced film. I can already hear Brandon bemoaning its excessive length and needless repetitions ;) (though hopefully he'll still love it). It may require some patience, but I promise you that if you focus intently on the simmering conflict unfolding and the individual tensions of each scene, you will be enthralled. This is austere but purposeful filmmaking with a profound sense of dread and an overarching sadness. It's certainly not to be missed. It's also a masterpiece.<br />
<br />
With that all being said, here is my updated 2012 list (and my 2011 list). I shuffled some things around to make them adhere to the John Owen-IMDB release date system:<br />
<br />
2012<br />
<br />
1. The Master (Anderson)<br />
2. Like Someone in Love (Kiarostami)<br />
3. Beyond the Hills (Mungiu) <br />
4. Cosmopolis (Cronenberg)<br />
5. Tabu (Gomes) <br />
6. Zero Dark Thirty (Bigelow)<br />
7. Holy Motors (Carax)<br />
8. Lincoln (Spielberg)<br />
9. Moonrise Kingdom (Anderson) <br />
10. Amour (Haneke)<br />
<br />
2011 <br />
<br />
1. The Turin Horse (Tarr)<br />
2. The Tree of Life (Malick)<br />
3. The Kid with a Bike (Dardenne Brothers) <br />
4. A Separation (Farhadi)<br />
5. Drive (Refn)<br />
6. This is Not a Film (Panahi, Mirtahmasb) <br />
7. Le Havre (Kaurismäki)<br />
8. Take Shelter (Nichols)<br />
9. Oslo, August 31st (Trier)<br />
10. The Skin I Live In (Almodóvar)<br />
<br />Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-2059749156011220532013-04-01T12:18:00.000-07:002013-04-01T12:18:02.071-07:00On Revenge and the Breakers of Spring<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lo9gDyTcF9s/UVRF0A5Rj_I/AAAAAAAAAzc/2-QNZa9RYMY/s1600/james_franco_spring_breakers_640x360.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lo9gDyTcF9s/UVRF0A5Rj_I/AAAAAAAAAzc/2-QNZa9RYMY/s320/james_franco_spring_breakers_640x360.jpg" style="cursor: move;" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your revenge posts, Brandon and Jason. I've hardly had a an entirely uncluttered moment this past week up until now. Thankfully, it is now spring breaaak for all the schools around here, so I have a least a whole week off to catch up on posting and all things Film Club. Let me kick things off with some more revenge thoughts and then some thoughts on Korine's SPRING BREAKERS.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Jason, I really admire your stance on pacificism and your committment to its practice. We don't really share common ground on the religious imperative for non-violence, but ethically I'm right there with you. You make many strong points on why non-violence is a courageous choice. I'm sure there are many STRAW DOGS-esque points one could make about the unfortunate necessity of resorting to violence, and I don't know if I'd necessarily be able to refute them (I definitely do not consider self-defense to be all that inappropriate and certainly not immoral). However, for now, since I am fortunate enough to not be threatened with violence, I choose to remain peaceful and promote it as much as I can through kindness (the soccer field excluded haha- even if I am getting a lot more gentle in regards to sports as I get older).</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Brandon, I'm sure being fairly weak and small in stature has influenced my desire never to get into a fight or really to use violence ever. There's certainly very few people I could do any damage to using pure brute strength alone. But being weak and small can easily be overcome through the use of weapons. I think that's pretty evident through what you find from school shootings. The weak, ineffectual kids using massively overpowered guns to take down their tormentors and any random bystanders. In addition to not wanting to fight anyone, I have no desire to use a gun or join the army or partake in any other activity that results in the use of excessive force on someone. There are horrible ways to overcome being undersized, but I am generally repulsed by all of them.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
I wasn't trying to make point that all acts of violence are the same. Just pointing out that I think it's fascinating how easily we all qualify violence. Two identical acts of violence can be given entirely different social and emotional meanings based solely on how one rationalizes each. There's nothing inherently wrong in rationally breaking down acts of violence, unless you are doing so hypocritically. You should give an ethical evaluation to each action you make, violent or non-violent. I only brought up these points because I'm interested in the way language manipulates reality. This is one of many cases where two identical corporeal acts can be given divergent meaning through linguistic construction.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
I agree with your points on high school comedies. I basically have grown tired of any revenge narrative where the dice are completely stacked, forcing you to feel exactly what the film wants you to without room for ambivalence or uncertainty. I recently watched Tony Scott's MAN ON FIRE with a friend. To me, that's a great example of a revenge film that deploys archetypes to drive a point home instead of creating real people with nuance. Dakota Fanning is the perfect, innocent little cherub and when we think she's dead, we are supposed to feel that Denzel Washington's brutal revenge streak is entirely justified. The people who kidnapped her are all monsters deserving slaughter, and Denzel is just a hardened old soldier whose humanity has only awakened by the love of this perfect child. Everything fits into a tidy box. It's a rote revenge narrative. It's also a film that wants to have its cake and eat it too. At the end, it argues for self-sacrifice instead of righteous revenge (to borrow your turn of phrase) but only after having indulged in 45 minutes of righteous revenge. It wants it all to the point that it doesn't know what it wants. A lot of revenge cinema suffers a similar fate.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
----------</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Shifting gears a bit, I quite liked SPRING BREAKERS. Though to be entirely fair, I would never refute any of the well-reasoned objections John and Jason have towards it. It's a trashy movie with very little to say that isn't readily scraped off the surface. It's purely disposable pop-art. However, I found much of it fascinating, even as it made me feel uncomfortable and slightly dirty. Brandon's point about it depicting the rampant nihilism of this modern youth culture is well taken. These kids do not stand for anything other than bikinis, beer, big booties, dubstep, and being just another scrap in the trash heap. Korine is undeniably guilty of enjoying his time digging through the trash (a staple of his it would seem). He revels in it, meanders through it like he can't get enough of it. But he's also smart enough to balance this indulgence with some much needed melancholia. As Chris wisely put it to me, there's always an air of "hangover" in this rapturous party of a film. Even the film's final inverted shot seems to suggest that not everything is idyllic in this fantasy world, but perhaps nightmarish. This is excess driven to the point of a hollow extreme; the car has gone off the cliff but somehow its still floating in midair. It's held in abeyance over its own nothingness.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
I also appreciated that the film seemed to comment on a specific cultural reality while also seeming completely hyperreal. There's rapture and rupture here, but also a spirit of (to burrow this word from John) mirth in its depictions of over-the-top characters and milieux. The colors are excessively bright and glossy, the parties are excessively raucous, the final girls are excessively amoral and sexualized (and apparently invincible), and Alien is excessively adhering to gangster stereotypes (grillz, cornrows, an aspiring rap career, a house full of guns and money with SCARFACE playing 24/7, etc). There's moments of realism here, but this is very much a fantastical netherworld where Korine has found himself encamped. I can't blame those who would have rather stayed home. I found it all withering with decay yet oddly alluring.</div>
Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-80412917935634649812013-03-22T13:40:00.000-07:002013-03-22T13:40:08.833-07:00Vengeance is Mine<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-e5bCBy9_TNE/UUxiaRvmu0I/AAAAAAAAAzM/V9ZPBSyx-Ng/s1600/bedroom.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="203" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-e5bCBy9_TNE/UUxiaRvmu0I/AAAAAAAAAzM/V9ZPBSyx-Ng/s400/bedroom.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
I feel slightly ambivalent about revenge. I mostly see it as a hollow pursuit–an often physical act of destruction falsely signified as a positive act of fulfillment. At its core, vengeance doesn't really correspond to a corporeal reality in-and-of-itself. It's more an idea than a reality. It's a belief that a spiteful action you are taking is laden with more meaning than it actually possesses. It's an illusion, really, producing no substance in-itself. This is why I find OLDBOY so ultimately effective. It's a film about dueling notions of vengeance with no clear winners and only the hollowness of Pyrrhic victories. It isn't a revenge fantasy, but a revenge nightmare.<br />
<br />
But I also understand that revenge can manifest itself as raw emotional truth for someone. To the parents from IN THE BEDROOM, I'm not sure the rational voice telling them that killing the man who murdered their son in cold blood and yet walks free is ultimately a shallow act would be much consolation to them. In fact, it isn't. They've mulled over the idea of living concurrently with this man and they find it unimaginable. When the father gets revenge, I can't necessarily say that I blame him or that his action is meaningless. Their son is still dead and will never come back, but the smiling, careless face of his murderer will also never come back to remind them of what they've lost. I'm not saying their vengeance is ideal, but that I understand it, and I think the film does too, without glorifying it. This is also not a revenge fantasy, but depiction of revenge as a unfortunate surrogate for emotional justice. It is revenge taken painfully but efficiently–there is nothing gleeful about it.<br />
<br />
I've mentioned this before, but in purely theoretical terms, I find violence and retribution repugnant. But if backed into a corner and/or flung face-to-face with the reality of someone I love being hurt, I can't necessarily say I'd be the pacifist I want to be in my heart. I don't know. Thankfully, I haven't been put in that situation. I'm at least enough of a pragmatist to realize that there is nuance to every reality and that vengeance, like everything else, is never purely one thing. To me, it would be too simple to say it is merely 'wrong.' Running with this idea, I suppose I like my revenge films to treat vengeance complexly–to engage in a reflexive conversation with their actions instead of driving one point or another home. This isn't to say this is the only type of revenge cinema I like, but the kind that challenges and speaks to me the most.<br />
<br />
There are at least a few distinct types of revenge cinema. There's the post-DEATH WISH revenge fantasy film where vengeance is taken as a sort of macho, exuberant romp. There's the purely moral revenge film that tries to remind us that two wrongs don't make a right. And then there is the ambiguous revenge film–the one that seems to honestly portray the emotional desire for revenge while not shying away from its consequences. I've found merit and enjoyment in all three types. Tarantino and Leone have created some of the best seemingly guiltless revenge fantasies. The old Hollywood system was full of great moral tales on the pitfalls of vengeance. And it was even full of complex ones where vengeance wasn't just denounced but held up to the light and inspected earnestly (THE BIG HEAT and PURSUED are two great examples that come to mind). I've enjoyed all types of films dealing with vengeance. And I don't actually believe that a filmmaker has to take a moral stance against vengeance, or that he/she should feel always compelled to portray it in all its complexity. I personally think the revenge films that have meant the most to me (or had the greatest impact) are the ones that have made me question my perhaps baser desires instead of granting me an easy release or instant emotional fix. But this isn't to say I haven't dug plenty of films that are less introspective in their use of violence to solve vendettas (e.g. DOGVILLE).<br />
<br />
I can't be sure if our fascination with vengeance on screen directly impacts our promotion of violence in this country (The United States' loving relationship with violence at this point is just a giant clusterfuck). I will say that it is interesting how easily we qualify violence based on the notion of revenge in this country. Random violence is seen as always wrong because unmotivated violence makes us feel like we are vulnerable as potential victims to said violence. But violence that is attached to revenge is seen as appropriate because it puts us in the place of the aggressor and we feel powerful or in control. We hate the idea of being attacked, but we love the idea of getting payback. Therefore, violence is acceptable in one instance, deplorable in another. This sort of relative stance on violence works its way into our film watching. We hate to see the violence of villains in horror films or torture porn (because we imagine ourselves as the victims), but we cheer for the violence that is done back to them at the end of the movie (because we imagine ourselves as the righteous inflicters of the violence). It's interesting how differently we treat violence, depending on the motivation we ascribe to it.<br />
<br />
One quick final thought: the film IRREVERSIBLE, whatever you think its merits or lack thereof, is actually quite moral in its stance on vengeance. I can't exactly say I endorse this film or what it represents, but it's hardly the exploitative, immoral piece of thoughtless art you might all imagine. By opening the film with an act of vengeance, and an obscenely brutal act at that, any potential glory and emotional triumph derived from it is striped bare. Towards the end of the film, when we see the horrific rape that set off the violence in the beginning of the film, we feel helpless. There is no emotional payoff for us to look forward too. All we are left with is the idea that violence destroys and that its carnage is, indeed, irreversible.<br />
<br />
Anyway, that's all I got for now. What are some of the rest of y'alls thoughts? Thanks for getting the ball rollin', Brando.<br />
Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-72900937021940403072013-03-21T08:26:00.000-07:002013-03-21T08:28:02.097-07:00My Quiz<b>1. Best use of Technicolor on film? (Best use of color, period, will work).</b><br />
<br />
I wish I had a list of the best I’ve ever seen to choose from right now. There’s been so many times when I've been watching an old Technicolor film that I've thought, “Wow. That’s the most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen.” Unfortunately, I haven’t been writing them down. Based off of pure memory and what jumps out the most in my mind, some of the best are: CANYON PASSAGE, DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK, LEAVE HER TO HEAVEN, and (though shot in EastmanColor) LOLA MONTES.<br />
<br />
But the best has to be BLACK NARCISSUS. Otherwordly color images. <br />
<br />
<b>2. What’s your favorite film score? Favorite composer?</b><br />
<br />
Good question, Jeff. Also, a very difficult one. I’d be lying if I said the STAR WARS score hasn’t meant a lot to me in my life. I also think Bernard Herrmann’s score to VERTIGO is a thing of great beauty and ethereal melancholy. My favorite film score at the moment, however, is Ennio Morricone’s from ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA. It’s the one of the few purely aesthetic things in this world that might instantly bring me to tears.<br />
<br />
Morricone is probably my favorite film composer. Herrmann and Tiomkin are great too.<br />
<b><br />3. What’s your favorite film from the year you were born?</b><br />
<br />
Claude Chabrol’s STORY OF WOMEN (1988)<br />
<br />
<b>4. Robert Mitchum or Dana Andrews?</b><br />
<br />
Mitchum is one of my favorite actors of all time. It has to be him. However, I do really love Dana Andrews, so it isn’t a painless choice to make.<br />
<br />
<b>5. (In terms of acting) Frank Sinatra or Bing Crosby? David Bowie or Tom Waits?</b><br />
<br />
I do love Bing in the Road films with Bob Hope, but I have to go with Sinatra here. He had the more varied acting career. His work in something like SOME CAME RUNNING puts him over the edge, in these eyes. And as much as I love both (as musicians and, oddly enough, in films) I also have to go with Tom Waits. He’s just one of the coolest dudes to ever live. DOWN BY LAW!<br />
<br />
<b>6. What’s your favorite film with a woman’s name in the title?</b><br />
<br />
NINOTCHKA. <br />
<br />
<b>7. Who is your favorite foreign-language film director working today? Who is your favorite foreign-language film director of all time?</b><br />
Today: Abbas Kiarostami – with the Dardennes coming in second. My favorite of all time could be one of these three depending on the day you ask me: Robert Bresson, Ingmar Bergman, or Yasujiro Ozu.<br />
<br />
<b>8. If you could have written any screenplay, what would it be and why?</b><br />
<br />
I would be immeasurably proud of myself If I had written THE BIG SLEEP. It’s just got some of the wittiest one-liners ever written.<br />
<br />
<b>9. Name the character from a film that scared you the most as a child. Name the film character, if any, that scares you the most now.</b><br />
<br />
As a kid: I was terrified of Edward Scissorhands (which, I know, made me as myopic and superficial as every suburbanite in the film). I don’t remember watching the whole movie, but only the part towards the end where he retreats into the darkness of the mansion. The image of him emerging from the shadows and attacking Anthony Michael Hall gave me plenty of nightmares.<br />
<br />
Now: there isn’t anything now, thankfully, that keeps me up at night like when I was a kid. I guess if I had to choose, I’d say that I find those characters from THE STRANGERS scary. Just the idea of masked home invaders who want to kill you for no reason is enough to give me the creeps.<br />
<br />
<b>10. What’s the first R Rated film you remember seeing?</b><br />
<br />
Hmmm I can’t really be sure. I remember seeing TERMINATOR 2 pretty young. I also remember staying up late to watch Jean-Claude Van Damme in SUDDEN DEATH with my brothers and dad when I was a wee lad. Let’s go with that one.<br />
<br />
<b>11. Name your favorite moment of vengeance in a film. And which film has portrayed the complexity of vengeance most accurately to you? (interpret that any way you’d like).</b><br />
<br />
Charles Bronson gunning down Henry Fonda in ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST is probably my favorite moment of vengeance on screen. Almost the entire narrative of that film builds towards this showdown, and when it happens it’s not drawn out histrionically, but remains as sanguine and efficient as Bronson’s character throughout the film. It’s revenge exclusively on his terms.<br />
<br />
There are a lot of films that I think have dealt with revenge in a complex and ambivalent manner. Fritz Lang’s FURY is one of the best classic films about revenge. It gives a highly effective moral argument against the flagrant self-interest of pursuing vengeance. SHOTGUN STORIES is a great modern example of a film that also argues effectively against vengeance by utilizing the strength of familial bonds and showing the pointlessness of mutually assured destruction.<br />
<br />
IN THE BEDROOM is fascinating because it convincingly seems to argue <i>for</i> vengeance. It seems to suggest, even as it remains ambiguous, that to heal a wound, we must first remove the thorn.<br />
<br />
These are all wonderful examples of complex treatments of vengeance, but I think the film that deals with it the most effectively (or at least stands out most prominently in my mind) is actually OLDBOY. When the central antagonist (so we think) gets his vengeance at the end and then blows his brains out immediately afterward, the hollowness and futility of vengeance is revealed like some great, dawning chasm. This man has made it his life’s work to get revenge, and when he finally has it, he realizes it has not filled the hole inside of him nor has it brought back to him the loved one he lost. He is as empty as he ever was.<br />
<br />
<b>12. It is okay to depict a positive story out of something as horrific and destructive as the Holocaust (e.g. SCHINDLER’S LIST). Agree or disagree with this statement.</b><br />
<br />
I included this question because I keep seeing it pop up in film discussions. It’s a debate in cinephile circles that’s had basically anytime anyone even mentions SCHINDLER’S LIST. I honestly don’t feel strongly either way on this issue because I don’t think it’s my place to say what is “right” to show on film. I think it’s best to answer this question on a case-by-case study. Look at the film and determine if it has done justice to the event it depicts. Personally, I have no major problems with SCHINDLER’S LIST and think it’s one of Spielberg’s most effective and harrowing works. Does that answer the question? Probably not. Oh well.<br />
<br />
<b>13. Which war film, if any, had the greatest emotional impact on you?</b><br />
<br />
THE THIN RED LINE - for juxtaposing the mystical beauty of nature alongside purely nihilistic acts of destruction (which is what war only ever is).<br />
<br />
<b>14. Name the five <i>best looking</i> films you’ve ever seen.</b><br />
<br />
DAYS OF HEAVEN<br />
BARRY LYNDON<br />
BLACK NARCISSUS<br />
THE SEARCHERS<br />
THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS<br />
<br />
<b>15. Which film title would you use to describe yourself? Which film title would you use to describe each member of film club?</b><br />
Myself: THE PALEFACE<br />
John: JOHNNY GOT HIS GUN<br />
Brandon: DRUNKEN ANGEL<br />
Gentile: A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS<br />
Adrienne: VIVACIOUS LADY<br />
Graham: WAY OUT WEST<br />
Ben: GENTLEMAN JIM<br />
Jason: LITTLE BIG MAN<br />
Lisa: GONE, BABY, GONE<br />
Chris: THE WOLF MAN<br />
<br />
<b>16. David Lynch or David Cronenberg?</b><br />
<br />
Lynch. Cronenberg is a great director, but I find myself gravitating more towards Lynch’s nightmares than Cronenberg’s.<br />
<b><br />17. Is there a book you would like to see made into a film? If so, by which director?</b><br />
<br />
Right now I’m reading D.H. Lawrence’s THE RAINBOW. I keep thinking how amazing it’d be to see Terrence Malick’s version of this on film.<br />
<br />
<b>18. What’s the most overrated film of the 90s?</b><br />
<br />
THE USUAL SUSPECTS.<br />
<br />
<b>19. You are a guest programmer on Turner Classic Movies. You get to choose any four movies<br />to play. What are they?</b><br />
<br />
WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS<br />
LE PLAISIR<br />
FOOTLIGHT PARADE<br />
PHANTOM LADY<br />
<br />
I don’t know why these four exactly. Why not?<br />
<br />
<b>20. It’s ark time. You are only allowed to save films from one country (excluding the United States). Which country and why?</b><br />
<br />
It has to come down to France or Japan. Russia and Italy are both uniquely important to film history, but have no where near the wealth of world-renowned directors like France and Japan. This is a difficult choice to make, but I’ve got to go with France. Here’s why: Vigo, Renoir, Carné, Bresson, Clouzot, Becker, Tati, Melville, Varda, Chabrol, Truffaut, Godard, Rohmer, Akerman, etc.<br />
<br />
One could certainly offer a formidable rebuttal to this, however, with: Ozu, Mizoguchi, Kurosawa, Naruse, Ichikawa, Imamura, Kobayashi, Teshigahara, Miyazaki, etc.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1915453424443722628.post-30587016898665964462013-03-17T08:17:00.002-07:002013-03-17T08:17:58.773-07:00quizmasterSo, Brando's quiz was fun. I've been asked by him to create the next
set of questions. I'll do my best to make it extra difficult/exclusive
with questions like "name your fifth favorite Ray Enright film."
Should be a blast :)<br />
<br />
For now, I'll also do my best to
respond to some of the quiz answers that caught my eye. I don't think I
could respond to everyone's answer for each. I'll probably just limit
myself to a defense against Brandon's outlandish attacks on me ;). Just
you wait until I make and grade the quiz, buddy boy. <br />
<br />
OVERRATED<br />
<br />
haha
Ben. You're right. I thought SHAME was polling at like 92–94% on
Rotten Tomatoes. I just checked it and it's only got a 79%. Hardly
overrated by any stretch of the imagination. I really thought critics
were loving it more than that. Mea culpa.<br />
<br />
I guess I
should have picked something like THE ARTIST instead. Thought that'd be
too easy though. I don't really have a pick that will shame me like
Brandon picking A SEPARATION. I'd have to start lying in order to do
so. I guess I'd agree with Adrienne that AMOUR is overrated. It's
definitely not Haneke's best, yet it has gotten the most
acclaim/attention of any of his films.<br />
<br />
MIDNIGHT IN
PARIS is pretty overrated. Woody's been making decent, charming films
just like it for years and they've been completely ignored. MELANCHOLIA
- also overrated, though I've come to really appreciate it within von
Trier's oeuvre. I can't think of any others right now. <br />
<br />
In
response to Brandon's A SEPARATION choice - first of all, a bold and
brave pick and I commend you for it. Second of all, I disagree
immensely. In some ways, it is just as complex as LIKE SOMEONE IN LOVE
in terms of its ability to suggest the various ways we are disconnected
from one another. It's a lot less ambiguous and intellectually
exhausting as Kiarostami's film, but it still has tremendous power as a
riveting social drama. I'm not really a fan of this comment here: "It’s
a good movie but part of me wondered what people would think of it if
it was just another American indie film." Again, I commend you for
being honest and putting yourself on the chopping block here. I
understand where you are coming from. You think the film is being
overrated because it is foreign and therefore deemed more important than
an American film. I get the frustration. But at the same time, that's
such an arbitrary criticism to make and you know it. You could
literally apply it to every film ever made. Films are not made in a
vacuum. They can be very specific to a culture or historical moment. A
SEPARATION is a film that has universal themes but is tied very tightly
to the culture of modern Iran. Part of its appeal is in how well it
depicts the ways people can be separated there. It wouldn't be nearly
the same film if it were set in America and directed by the Duplass
bros. haha.<br />
<br />
EMBARRASSED - FILM AND TV<br />
<br />
Here's
two better picks I'm ashamed to still really like - SUPERMAN RETURNS
and BATMAN BEGINS. I love both DC characters - even irrationally.<br />
<br />
Brandon,
you shouldn't be embarrassed to love AVATAR. Get off the Internet, go
out into the Oakdale mall, throw 50 rocks and hit 50 people who think
it's the greatest thing ever made. <br />
<br />
DIRECTOR PROBLEMS<br />
<br />
I
guess I'm much more of an auteurist than you Brandon (thumbs nose at
you). If a filmmaker has a voice that I relate to and they are
consistently expressing it, then I'm completely on board. This is not
me establishing objective rules of greatness, but merely finding authors
I like and putting my trust in them. I really like INLAND EMPIRE. You
know why? Because it's pure David Lynch and I personally love David
Lynch. Anyone who hates him or is just mildly interested in him
probably won't give a shit about it. That's fine.<br />
<br />
Tim
Burton is a great choice for this category. I completely forgot about
him when I was thinking of directors with tons of problems (that's how
bad he's fallen recently). I would agree that he is a great director,
but I've been sweating over some of his awful choices for years. In a
similar vein, I'm worried about Johnny Depp too. A once tremendous
performer who now seems more content to play dress-up than actually do
any acting. As I write this, he and Burton have probably just signed on
to remake EXCALIBUR.<br />
<br />
Terry Gilliam is also a great choice. I wonder what the hell he's up to nowadays?<br />
<br />
FILM ERA<br />
<br />
I like the one we are in too. There are some amazing films still being made. I would never deny it.<br />
<br />
The
50s are the ideal intellectual choice. By that I mean, they clearly
represent a point when world cinema and Hollywood reached a creative
peak together. I still choose the 30s or 40s, if only because I'm a
sucker for the Hollywood dream factory. I just want to crawl inside
those films and live there forever. Watching ROBERTA the other day
confirmed that:<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OMOBdQykKQY" width="420"></iframe> <br />
<br />
CRITICS - FAVORITES<br />
<br />
I
really like reading Fernando Croce, too. He's got this highly poetic,
somewhat bizarre, but fearless way of writing and describing things -
like William S. Burroughs. I notice a lot of younger writers trying to
copy his style on twitter and letterboxd. The results are fairly
hazardous.<br />
<br />
DIRECTORS WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT<br />
<br />
I
thought about putting down Tarantino. If he hadn't made INGLOURIOUS
BASTERDS, I'd be real worried. But as it stands, I have enough faith in
him that his next will be fantastic. I'm hoping he moves away from the
the whole historical-revisionist wet dream thing though.<br />
<br />
I'm
a little worried about Malick too. I don't know how I feel about this
new workaholic version of him. Part of me wouldn't mind waiting another
5 to 8 years for his next. They feel more like events that way.<br />
<br />
Brandon,
I'm assuming you haven't seen Green's THE SITTER? No man could watch
it and not be worried about its director's well-being/sanity. <br />
<br />
One
director I'm not at all worried about is Kiarostami. Goddamn. He's
like the anti-Woody Allen with this world tour he's on right now. He's
actually making great films within a culture instead of just creating
brochures (I kid. I love Woody and have liked most of his world cinema
films, but Kiarostami makes him look like Brett Ratner at this point). I
have complete faith in Kiarostami at this point.<br />
<br />
ACTOR AND ACTRESS THAT MAKE US WATCH UNINTERESTING FILMS<br />
<br />
I
know you are fucking with me Brandon, but I'll defend myself anyway.
There honestly isn't a single actor or actress today that I'd see
anything with them in it. I really like Leo Dicaprio, but I had no
interest in seeing BODY OF LIES. That takes him off the list. I really
like Daniel Day-Lewis, but I couldn't even get through the first 20
minutes of NINE. Also takes him off the list. I really like Laura
Linney and Bill Murray. You couldn't pay me to sit through HYDE PARK ON
THE HUDSON. That takes them off. And so on. <br />
<br />
Ginger
Rogers on the other hand? Would watch anything with her in it. Have
watched several bad movies she was in and would gladly watch several
more just to catch a glimpse of her.<br />
<br />
(Ok. Actually I'll
bite. I'd sit through a shitty movie with the sound off just so that I
could drool over Melanie Laurent as well).<br />
<br />
DIRECTOR THAT MAKES US WATCH AN UNINTERESTING PLOT<br />
<br />
haha
John's right. Malick's BREAKING DAWN: PART I and II would be the film
events of the decade. They would just be shots of nature and shit while
Pattinson and Stewart played with each other's hair. <br />
<br />
INTIMIDATING FILM QUESTION:<br />
<br />
I'm currently not a fan of L'AVVENTURA. There I said it. Haven't seen it since I was 17, but whatevs.<br />
<br />
You all HAVE to love UNCLE BOONME. Anything less is unacceptable. Duh.<br />
<br />
THE MASTER is intimidating. It's also still a masterpiece. We should revisit that one. <br />
<br />
UNHERALDED DIRECTORS<br />
<br />
F to Brandon for
not being specific with this question. Did you mean unheralded by the
Slant crowd or unheralded by the Devin Faraci's of the world? Either
way, I still don't have an answer, so I'm keeping my F.<br />
<br />
UPCOMING LISTS <br />
<br />
Top 20 Westerns? Let's do it!Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03381965893366360544noreply@blogger.com0