I have watched THE TREE OF LIFE again. Words do it no justice. Easily among the finest films of the last 30 years and the current benchmark for the still nascent decade. There is THE TREE OF LIFE and then there is everything else. Of this I am convinced.
Brandon - I really enjoyed reading your quiz. I have such a cursory knowledge of horror that I couldn’t do the same quiz with any justice or insight. But, I like the HOUR OF THE WOLF shout-out. If you do decide to do a horror list at some point, then I’d be really interested to read it. I’d also be really interested to read a horror list by Jason. I’m afraid I can’t offer anything other than a generic list one could find anywhere else. But I will say that I enjoy the horror genre very much so. I love watching the classics from the golden age and even the sort of new wave horror in the 60s and 70s. I’m afraid that I am not really interested in modern horror films (28 DAYS LATER and ANTICHRIST are some few exceptions), but I’m always on the look-out. And I’ll use you and Jason as guides for this. You horror fans need to bear the cross for the rest of us!
EYES WITHOUT A FACE is a real gem. It has legitimate Gothic creepiness, but also this deep poetic tenderness. I would wholeheartedly agree with everything you wrote. The Val Lewton films have this same understanding of the importance of atmosphere and humanity. I mean, you say it all here:
“So yeah, this is one of the great ones, a horror picture that knows the importance of atmosphere. It also knows and heeds to the importance of humanity, drawing us in only to tear us down. It’s not cruel; it just knows that the only way to end well is to end. It’s not above the genre and it doesn’t seek to somehow improve it but Franju had no interest in tracing lines. We’ve talked about revolutionary cinema, well here it is.”
I might need to borrow it, so I can talk about it more specifically (only saw it once). But from what I remember, I loved it and agree completely.
You’re right also, what a lovable bunch of rag-tags in THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD. They have an inherent sense of adventure, which makes their encounter with the alien more of a game than a outright attack. They are facing a behemoth and are cornered, but they know how to play defense and offense as a unit–the alien really stands no chance. But, boy, that first appearance by the alien is really something, isn’t it?
Chris, Bunuel is my hero, but you already know this. And one simply cannot get enough David Lean. A class act all around and a born storyteller. Let's make every night a Lean night!
Ben, I haven’t read any Paul Auster, but I am curious about this book now. I’ve really loved BORED TO DEATH so far this season. The three leads just interplay so well together. They are hysterical, but also really tender. Talk about camaraderie.
I'm still jealous of your having seen MELANCHOLIA. But the rest of us are gonna band together and do something about this soon.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
I should start self-censoring...
I just reposted my 1933 list with some new notes. I'll do the same for 1932 soon. Still no closer to finishing 1930 and 1934. School has slowed me down substantially.
Great film night by the way. Wish the rest of y'all were with us. You missed a guy blocking space zombie mucus with a doormat, zombie flight attendants, and a green vegetable man being fried and presumably eaten. Who knows? Anything could have happened in those final three minutes.
Great film night by the way. Wish the rest of y'all were with us. You missed a guy blocking space zombie mucus with a doormat, zombie flight attendants, and a green vegetable man being fried and presumably eaten. Who knows? Anything could have happened in those final three minutes.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
masterpieces
I'd like to post something longer to what you said, John, and respond to Brandon's Drive stuff too (great review dude), but alas, it would take me too long and I'm in no mood after a being in school all day. Hopefully soon. For now, I will say that I see now that I was definitely misreading or at the least blowing up what you were saying into something more substantive, John. I caught a whiff of an arguable point and just went off on it. I also think I was speaking a little beyond you with some if it. Oh well. What can you do when you are arguing with something who is older and more intelligent than you? Just make lots of shit up.
Anyway, I would just like to say a few other things briefly.
One, I know I called DRIVE a masterpiece and I'm afraid I'm going to have to renege on that. It's just too strong a word and I rarely use the word to describe anything. I still love the film, BUT I can't call it a masterpiece and here's the reason why: my family got Chris THE TREE OF LIFE on blu-ray for his birthday, and I just popped it in and re-watched a few scenes. I like seeing films in theaters, but I really fall in love with them when I'm alone and it's just me and the film on a television. I loved TOL when we saw it, but just seeing images from it again only solidified in me that it is a serious, fucking MASTERPIECE. The one and only masterpiece of the year. There is room for no other even remotely close to it. I was getting chills watching it again.
There's a few snippets of scenes in the film before the first child is born where it appears that a woman in white is gathering children together to leave the gates of Heaven. Then the soul of a child floats up through an underwater house (a beautiful symbol for childbirth). I don't know how I didn't notice this the first time (Maybe I did, I just couldn't connect the images clearly enough or wasn't paying enough attention). Anyway, a great example of the film's unabashed religious evocation. There is something Divine at work throughout The Tree of Life even if it's silent.
Two, hope we can meet Jason somewhere and see a film together. I still need to meet you and Ben! It'd be great to make that happen while seeing something potentially awesome like TAKE SHELTER. But, anything would still be exciting and fun too.
Three, I've been watching some of the Val Lewton RKO horror films from the 40s. They are as incredible as I've always heard they were. Don't know why it took me so long to see most of them. I'd like to do a post on some of these soon as well. All I'll say now is that THE CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE has to be one of the oddest sequels ever made; it also has to be one of the best. What a supremely chillingly film it is; you have no idea whether there is something sinister at work or whether there is something genuinely beautiful and touching unfolding. It's really fascinating.
Four, Lisa, I liked your lukewarm response to MIDNIGHT IN PARIS. It's just kind of refreshing after all the fisticuffs on it over the summer. If only all his films could be MANHATTAN! Oh well. I'll probably be seeing CRAZY STUPID LOVE just to satisfy my Gosling man-crush. Glad he doesn't disappoint.
Five, Jason, What did the younger folks in your family think of BACK TO THE FUTURE PART III? I remember thinking it was neat as a kid, but haven't seen it since (though I hear it's the weakest). I have some friends who are 13 and 11 and they both hate the 2nd Back to the Future but don't mind the 3rd really, which is interesting. I still like the first one a lot and think the second one is fun, I was just wondering how other younger kids see the sequels.
Anyway, I would just like to say a few other things briefly.
One, I know I called DRIVE a masterpiece and I'm afraid I'm going to have to renege on that. It's just too strong a word and I rarely use the word to describe anything. I still love the film, BUT I can't call it a masterpiece and here's the reason why: my family got Chris THE TREE OF LIFE on blu-ray for his birthday, and I just popped it in and re-watched a few scenes. I like seeing films in theaters, but I really fall in love with them when I'm alone and it's just me and the film on a television. I loved TOL when we saw it, but just seeing images from it again only solidified in me that it is a serious, fucking MASTERPIECE. The one and only masterpiece of the year. There is room for no other even remotely close to it. I was getting chills watching it again.
There's a few snippets of scenes in the film before the first child is born where it appears that a woman in white is gathering children together to leave the gates of Heaven. Then the soul of a child floats up through an underwater house (a beautiful symbol for childbirth). I don't know how I didn't notice this the first time (Maybe I did, I just couldn't connect the images clearly enough or wasn't paying enough attention). Anyway, a great example of the film's unabashed religious evocation. There is something Divine at work throughout The Tree of Life even if it's silent.
Two, hope we can meet Jason somewhere and see a film together. I still need to meet you and Ben! It'd be great to make that happen while seeing something potentially awesome like TAKE SHELTER. But, anything would still be exciting and fun too.
Three, I've been watching some of the Val Lewton RKO horror films from the 40s. They are as incredible as I've always heard they were. Don't know why it took me so long to see most of them. I'd like to do a post on some of these soon as well. All I'll say now is that THE CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE has to be one of the oddest sequels ever made; it also has to be one of the best. What a supremely chillingly film it is; you have no idea whether there is something sinister at work or whether there is something genuinely beautiful and touching unfolding. It's really fascinating.
Four, Lisa, I liked your lukewarm response to MIDNIGHT IN PARIS. It's just kind of refreshing after all the fisticuffs on it over the summer. If only all his films could be MANHATTAN! Oh well. I'll probably be seeing CRAZY STUPID LOVE just to satisfy my Gosling man-crush. Glad he doesn't disappoint.
Five, Jason, What did the younger folks in your family think of BACK TO THE FUTURE PART III? I remember thinking it was neat as a kid, but haven't seen it since (though I hear it's the weakest). I have some friends who are 13 and 11 and they both hate the 2nd Back to the Future but don't mind the 3rd really, which is interesting. I still like the first one a lot and think the second one is fun, I was just wondering how other younger kids see the sequels.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
RE: Drive vs. Cold Weather
John, your post alone made me watch Cold Weather, so kudos. I just had to get in on this debate. Too interesting to skip.
First off, I want to stress that I liked Cold Weather. It is a humane film. It is interested in personal relationships, and for this I respect it. I agree with all you have said John and with Ben too.
But since you asked us Drive lovers to defend our love, I am here to (clumsily) heed this call.
There is one point you made that really interests me. It is the idea that Katz is constructive whereas Refn is merely reconstructive. Great debate fodder.
As you mentioned, both films are reproducing cinema. I would say that Cold Weather is as highly constructed as a “film” as Drive is. It is cinematic even if it is working within a model of purported realism between people. I have no idea whether Katz was trying to make his film realistic or not, but it seems as if he were trying to achieve this effect.
I have trouble with this bogus term “realism” too. I truly believe that there is no such thing as realism in cinema or in art, period. All cinema, all art is the recreation of art, not reality. This isn’t a bad thing. In fact, it is what makes art so appealing to us. We like to imagine spaces; art fulfills this desire.
Cold Weather is rooted in a modern indie film tradition (a desire for realism, personal relationships, etc.) just as it is playing off crime tropes. It works within those archetypes. This isn’t a bad thing either. If you are working within those archetypes and are able to create meaningful characters and interrelations, then you are succeeding. It’s like working within the rules of classical theater. One can adhere to the unities of Aristotle while still creating a meaningful and original play through variations in character, dialogue, action, etc. Katz is interested in working within a tradition of “the personal.” He makes an admirable film, but not the subversive piece of cinema you create it to be. This is no more revolutionary to me than Drive is. If Katz is preparing a feast, he is using the same Sundance menu as most other indie filmmakers at the moment. Katz clearly has more talent (and more to say) than lots of other indie filmmakers I’ve encountered, but he is still working from the same template. Again, I like the film and think Katz works well off this template, but he is not revolutionary (and he doesn't have to be). Just because one is filming personal relationships doesn’t mean one is somehow outside cinema. All filmmakers are working within a frame. The only way to refuse to play the cinematic game nowadays is to not make a film.
I haven’t seen any Rohmer films (until I borrow those VHS! Yeah!), but I’ve seen plenty Truffaut. The distinction between he and Godard is well taken. But I would never link Katz with Truffaut...maybe only as a very pale shadow. That isn’t a dig a Katz; that’s praise for Truffaut. Still, I understand the point you are trying to make though. You believe that Katz is working in the spirit of Truffaut, which I totally get.
Anyway, so both films work off cinematic archetypes/genres/styles. I’ve explained why I think Cold Weather isn’t as innovative as you present it to be (I wouldn’t have used this as a point of criticism if you hadn’t brought it up though, and I don't mean it as a dig at all). Now here’s my defense of Drive.
Drive isn’t necessarily innovative, for sure (though I don’t think I’ve ever seen an action film that wanted to be PRETTY IN PINK before, so it has that). But, Drive is so exhilarating and satisfying because of how much artistry went into transforming it from the Hugh Jackman Fast and Furious rip-off it was predestined for. Refn’s artistic choices to transform this action film into something more consciously and joyously cinematic is what makes the film so visceral and pleasing. Refn is cinematic and he knows it. There are many great modern filmmakers that are cinematic as well. Tarantino, Scorsese, Spielberg, PTA–they all love cinema. I love cinema, a lot, which is why I love all of them. I don’t think recreating cinema is entirely stagnant just as I don’t think any of these filmmakers are. One always recreates, but one can recreate in new ways.
You make a great point in stressing that there is no good reason for us to be contrasting these two films. They aren't trying to do the same thing (but my point is they are both being cinematic–one more consciously than the other). Drive is an action film, first and foremost. It’s reworking a currently very shallow genre by incorporating retro/fetishistic touches and flairs. Tarantino is great at this too, as you mentioned. But to say that Tarantino just regurgitates is too reductive. Tarantino’s real strength as a filmmaker lies not in his reproduction of style but in his ability to create powerful, compelling scenes with interesting characters and sharp dialogue. He is recreating the cinematic “scene” but he does it in a way that is uniquely his own. Paul Thomas Anderson does something similar (and better!). If we are all just recreating cinema, then it comes down to who recreates the cinema you want to see. I tend to like my films to be more consciously interested in cinema than realism because I like cinema. But I do like films like Cold Weather too. So, it is great that we can have both. I can enjoy both and I do.
I only make this whole argument because I am reacting against your notion that Cold Weather is moving cinema into new places while Drive is too busy playing within its own cinematic cesspool. The only film I’ve seen since Synecdoche, New York that I think is moving cinema into new places is The Tree of Life. Rarely do I see a modern film that is moving cinema forward–we are just too influenced by the films before us and the films around us. We are a generation playing in the cinematic cesspool because we’ve had a wider access to film than any other generation before us.
But despite the cinematic cesspool metaphor, this isn't really a bad place to be in. Maybe because there really aren't such things as forwards or backwards in cinema. There are only good films and bad films. Drive and Cold Weather are two good films. John, I see why you prefer Cold Weather to Drive and you have made your case very well. I don't make my case to say you are wrong but merely to show why I don't think of these two films in terms of forwards and backwards. I just think of them in terms of what I like more.
And I've decide that I like head stompings more than I like personal relationships! Long live violence in film! This is really what my argument comes down to.
First off, I want to stress that I liked Cold Weather. It is a humane film. It is interested in personal relationships, and for this I respect it. I agree with all you have said John and with Ben too.
But since you asked us Drive lovers to defend our love, I am here to (clumsily) heed this call.
There is one point you made that really interests me. It is the idea that Katz is constructive whereas Refn is merely reconstructive. Great debate fodder.
As you mentioned, both films are reproducing cinema. I would say that Cold Weather is as highly constructed as a “film” as Drive is. It is cinematic even if it is working within a model of purported realism between people. I have no idea whether Katz was trying to make his film realistic or not, but it seems as if he were trying to achieve this effect.
I have trouble with this bogus term “realism” too. I truly believe that there is no such thing as realism in cinema or in art, period. All cinema, all art is the recreation of art, not reality. This isn’t a bad thing. In fact, it is what makes art so appealing to us. We like to imagine spaces; art fulfills this desire.
Cold Weather is rooted in a modern indie film tradition (a desire for realism, personal relationships, etc.) just as it is playing off crime tropes. It works within those archetypes. This isn’t a bad thing either. If you are working within those archetypes and are able to create meaningful characters and interrelations, then you are succeeding. It’s like working within the rules of classical theater. One can adhere to the unities of Aristotle while still creating a meaningful and original play through variations in character, dialogue, action, etc. Katz is interested in working within a tradition of “the personal.” He makes an admirable film, but not the subversive piece of cinema you create it to be. This is no more revolutionary to me than Drive is. If Katz is preparing a feast, he is using the same Sundance menu as most other indie filmmakers at the moment. Katz clearly has more talent (and more to say) than lots of other indie filmmakers I’ve encountered, but he is still working from the same template. Again, I like the film and think Katz works well off this template, but he is not revolutionary (and he doesn't have to be). Just because one is filming personal relationships doesn’t mean one is somehow outside cinema. All filmmakers are working within a frame. The only way to refuse to play the cinematic game nowadays is to not make a film.
I haven’t seen any Rohmer films (until I borrow those VHS! Yeah!), but I’ve seen plenty Truffaut. The distinction between he and Godard is well taken. But I would never link Katz with Truffaut...maybe only as a very pale shadow. That isn’t a dig a Katz; that’s praise for Truffaut. Still, I understand the point you are trying to make though. You believe that Katz is working in the spirit of Truffaut, which I totally get.
Anyway, so both films work off cinematic archetypes/genres/styles. I’ve explained why I think Cold Weather isn’t as innovative as you present it to be (I wouldn’t have used this as a point of criticism if you hadn’t brought it up though, and I don't mean it as a dig at all). Now here’s my defense of Drive.
Drive isn’t necessarily innovative, for sure (though I don’t think I’ve ever seen an action film that wanted to be PRETTY IN PINK before, so it has that). But, Drive is so exhilarating and satisfying because of how much artistry went into transforming it from the Hugh Jackman Fast and Furious rip-off it was predestined for. Refn’s artistic choices to transform this action film into something more consciously and joyously cinematic is what makes the film so visceral and pleasing. Refn is cinematic and he knows it. There are many great modern filmmakers that are cinematic as well. Tarantino, Scorsese, Spielberg, PTA–they all love cinema. I love cinema, a lot, which is why I love all of them. I don’t think recreating cinema is entirely stagnant just as I don’t think any of these filmmakers are. One always recreates, but one can recreate in new ways.
You make a great point in stressing that there is no good reason for us to be contrasting these two films. They aren't trying to do the same thing (but my point is they are both being cinematic–one more consciously than the other). Drive is an action film, first and foremost. It’s reworking a currently very shallow genre by incorporating retro/fetishistic touches and flairs. Tarantino is great at this too, as you mentioned. But to say that Tarantino just regurgitates is too reductive. Tarantino’s real strength as a filmmaker lies not in his reproduction of style but in his ability to create powerful, compelling scenes with interesting characters and sharp dialogue. He is recreating the cinematic “scene” but he does it in a way that is uniquely his own. Paul Thomas Anderson does something similar (and better!). If we are all just recreating cinema, then it comes down to who recreates the cinema you want to see. I tend to like my films to be more consciously interested in cinema than realism because I like cinema. But I do like films like Cold Weather too. So, it is great that we can have both. I can enjoy both and I do.
I only make this whole argument because I am reacting against your notion that Cold Weather is moving cinema into new places while Drive is too busy playing within its own cinematic cesspool. The only film I’ve seen since Synecdoche, New York that I think is moving cinema into new places is The Tree of Life. Rarely do I see a modern film that is moving cinema forward–we are just too influenced by the films before us and the films around us. We are a generation playing in the cinematic cesspool because we’ve had a wider access to film than any other generation before us.
But despite the cinematic cesspool metaphor, this isn't really a bad place to be in. Maybe because there really aren't such things as forwards or backwards in cinema. There are only good films and bad films. Drive and Cold Weather are two good films. John, I see why you prefer Cold Weather to Drive and you have made your case very well. I don't make my case to say you are wrong but merely to show why I don't think of these two films in terms of forwards and backwards. I just think of them in terms of what I like more.
And I've decide that I like head stompings more than I like personal relationships! Long live violence in film! This is really what my argument comes down to.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Random
Great to have Summer People back in the area. As always at Jarvis, a sublime performance.
Brandon will be back on the blogs in less than a week. So stoked to have him back.
Eager to hear Ben's thoughts on MELANCHOLIA, but even more eager to see it for myself. Brandon, John, Chris–let's do it! Jason and Lisa–let's see it in spirit together!
I'm awfully excited to see TAKE SHELTER. I just heard great things on it from a friend. I'll join in Ithaca, John.
DRIVE was the last recent or even modern film I've seen. Still just watching old movies because they make me endlessly happy. Fuck watching classics for the "film buff" credibility. Wach 'em because they are just such a joy to behold.
THE PALM BEACH STORY is hilarious. It kindly reminded me of Sturges' comedic and linguistic talent. Most of his films are on NWI. Still need to see, and am looking forward to seeing, HAIL THE CONQUERING HERO and UNFAITHFULLY YOURS.
Brandon has THE BIG SKY listed as his favorite film of 1952. I watched it recently as part of TCM's tribute to Kirk Douglas. Terrific film. Douglas had such charisma and Hawks was such a seemingly effortless entertainer. The more films of his that I see, the more I understand why he is so beloved.
I'm close to finishing preliminary 1945 and 1941 lists. I'm still waiting to finish my '30 and '34 lists. I might have to revise some of the other lists to account for a few others I've watched.
I got a James Cagney TCM collection for my birthday. I watched G MEN and loved it. I also, finally, got a copy of THE BIG SLEEP. I re-watched it recently. God, I love that film.
TV talk:
I'm loving BOARDWALK EMPIRE so far. Great showcases for Michael K. Williams and Michael Shannon in the first two eps.
Haven't watched the first episode of DEXTER season 6 yet. Here's hoping it's better than last season.
Excited to watch BORED TO DEATH. Last season was a giant step in a show's development.
BREAKING BAD SPOILERS! So stop reading if you want to see it.
I'm sure the lion's share of reactions to last night's episode is about the explosion and Gus's face.
I anticipated that an explosion would occur in the room as soon as Gus decided to kill Hector himself. Wasn't anticipating Gus to stumble out of the wreckage looking more gruesome and badass than Two-face in THE DARK KNIGHT. What a great and iconic shot. The tie straighten was a nice touch.
I loved the buildup to Gus's showdown with Hector. The score and the shots all reminiscent of a beautiful Leone western. Epic.
Walt has transformed from unlikable to villainous. Will he be the central antagonist of the last season or is there some retribution via some Gus associates coming his way? Probably and hopefully both.
I've just read that when Walt is spinning his gun in the backyard a few episodes back, the final spin lands on the those lovely flowers he used to poison Brock.
ONE MINOR ISSUE: Last episode, Gus was so preternaturally discerning to suspect that someone had tampered with his car. It was absolutely in line with his character though. He has always seemed omniscient. However, this episode, he has a completely uncharacteristic lapse in judgment.
Okay, Gus, Hector has just visited the DEA and you suspect has disclosed some information on you. Your first action in response to this is to visit him...in person...in public? Sending your lone bodyguard to scan for wires seems hastily done and not at all thorough. For someone who thrives on thoroughness and perspicacity, honestly, what were you thinking? Anyway, RIP dude.
Perhaps, Gus was too blinded by the idea of finally fulfilling his vengeance. Or perhaps he suspected he was soon-to-be done for and wanted to get his revenge before it was too late.
Or perhaps he is just human and made a mistake. Whatever the case, the best chess player in town just got defeated through his own tactics. His failure is that he wasn't ruthless enough while his opponent, made in his image, was. The great irony of the finale is that Gus's outward mutilation can't even match what's decaying inside our hero Walt.
Next season is a long ways away.
Brandon will be back on the blogs in less than a week. So stoked to have him back.
Eager to hear Ben's thoughts on MELANCHOLIA, but even more eager to see it for myself. Brandon, John, Chris–let's do it! Jason and Lisa–let's see it in spirit together!
I'm awfully excited to see TAKE SHELTER. I just heard great things on it from a friend. I'll join in Ithaca, John.
DRIVE was the last recent or even modern film I've seen. Still just watching old movies because they make me endlessly happy. Fuck watching classics for the "film buff" credibility. Wach 'em because they are just such a joy to behold.
THE PALM BEACH STORY is hilarious. It kindly reminded me of Sturges' comedic and linguistic talent. Most of his films are on NWI. Still need to see, and am looking forward to seeing, HAIL THE CONQUERING HERO and UNFAITHFULLY YOURS.
Brandon has THE BIG SKY listed as his favorite film of 1952. I watched it recently as part of TCM's tribute to Kirk Douglas. Terrific film. Douglas had such charisma and Hawks was such a seemingly effortless entertainer. The more films of his that I see, the more I understand why he is so beloved.
I'm close to finishing preliminary 1945 and 1941 lists. I'm still waiting to finish my '30 and '34 lists. I might have to revise some of the other lists to account for a few others I've watched.
I got a James Cagney TCM collection for my birthday. I watched G MEN and loved it. I also, finally, got a copy of THE BIG SLEEP. I re-watched it recently. God, I love that film.
TV talk:
I'm loving BOARDWALK EMPIRE so far. Great showcases for Michael K. Williams and Michael Shannon in the first two eps.
Haven't watched the first episode of DEXTER season 6 yet. Here's hoping it's better than last season.
Excited to watch BORED TO DEATH. Last season was a giant step in a show's development.
BREAKING BAD SPOILERS! So stop reading if you want to see it.
I'm sure the lion's share of reactions to last night's episode is about the explosion and Gus's face.
I anticipated that an explosion would occur in the room as soon as Gus decided to kill Hector himself. Wasn't anticipating Gus to stumble out of the wreckage looking more gruesome and badass than Two-face in THE DARK KNIGHT. What a great and iconic shot. The tie straighten was a nice touch.
I loved the buildup to Gus's showdown with Hector. The score and the shots all reminiscent of a beautiful Leone western. Epic.
Walt has transformed from unlikable to villainous. Will he be the central antagonist of the last season or is there some retribution via some Gus associates coming his way? Probably and hopefully both.
I've just read that when Walt is spinning his gun in the backyard a few episodes back, the final spin lands on the those lovely flowers he used to poison Brock.
ONE MINOR ISSUE: Last episode, Gus was so preternaturally discerning to suspect that someone had tampered with his car. It was absolutely in line with his character though. He has always seemed omniscient. However, this episode, he has a completely uncharacteristic lapse in judgment.
Okay, Gus, Hector has just visited the DEA and you suspect has disclosed some information on you. Your first action in response to this is to visit him...in person...in public? Sending your lone bodyguard to scan for wires seems hastily done and not at all thorough. For someone who thrives on thoroughness and perspicacity, honestly, what were you thinking? Anyway, RIP dude.
Perhaps, Gus was too blinded by the idea of finally fulfilling his vengeance. Or perhaps he suspected he was soon-to-be done for and wanted to get his revenge before it was too late.
Or perhaps he is just human and made a mistake. Whatever the case, the best chess player in town just got defeated through his own tactics. His failure is that he wasn't ruthless enough while his opponent, made in his image, was. The great irony of the finale is that Gus's outward mutilation can't even match what's decaying inside our hero Walt.
Next season is a long ways away.
Friday, September 30, 2011
1932
A very good year for film. I don't feel like writing very much right now, but if anyone wants to interact on any of this, I certainly will.
1. I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (Leroy)
2. Horse Feathers (McLeod)
3. Vampyr (Dreyer)
4. Boudu Saved from Drowning (Renoir)
5. Scarface (Hawks, Rossen)
6. Trouble in Paradise (Lubitsch)
7. Freaks (Browning)
8. Love Me Tonight (Mamoulian)
9. Grand Hotel (Goulding)
10. Shanghai Express (von Sternberg)
1. I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (Leroy)
2. Horse Feathers (McLeod)
3. Vampyr (Dreyer)
4. Boudu Saved from Drowning (Renoir)
5. Scarface (Hawks, Rossen)
6. Trouble in Paradise (Lubitsch)
7. Freaks (Browning)
8. Love Me Tonight (Mamoulian)
9. Grand Hotel (Goulding)
10. Shanghai Express (von Sternberg)
1933
1933 brings one of my favorite movies of all time in DUCK SOUP and one of the great comedies of all time. It's nuts, perfect, and as Woody affirms in HANNAH AND HER SISTERS, worth living for! I'm really curious to see Brandon's list of this year, so I can found out what I've missed. I've started but haven't finished THE TESTAMENT OF DR. MABUSE. I'm sure it will get a place at some point. Here are some movies I like from the year:
1. Duck Soup (McCarey)
2. King Kong (Cooper, Schoedsack)
3. Footlight Parade (Bacon)
4. The Invisible Man (Whale)
5. Zero de conduite (Vigo)
6. 42nd Street (Bacon)
7. Hallelujah, I’m a Bum (Milestone)
8. Sons of the Desert (Seiter)
9. Dinner at Eight (Cukor)
10. The Private Life of Henry VIII (Korda)
HM: She Done Him Wrong (Sherman)
The original KING KONG is awesome and still the best version. One of the most impressive films of of the decade. Wish I had seen it on the big screen with you John. FOOTLIGHT PARADE is one of the finest examples of the back-stage musical. The last twenty minutes are pure spectacle. I won't deny that Berkeley was quite the showman. But most of the film is the entertaining set-up to the performance, and this is what really dazzles. Cagney owns every frame he's in, as always, and Joan Blondell is right up there with him. Wickedly clever script. I really loved the film, which took me by surprise. THE INVISIBLE MAN has some wonderful technological ingenuity–and a great vocal performance by Claude Rains. One of my favorite horror films of the decade. ZERO DE CONDUITE has some pretty neat tricks up its sleeve. It's actually a pretty great little absurdist comedy–the lighthearted version of IF... 42nd STREET is basically the same movie as FOOTLIGHT PARADE and about as enjoyable. But it doesn't have Cagney so it loses out in the rankings. HALLELUJAH, I'M A BUM is a great Summer People song, and the film isn't too shabby either. It's actually pretty touching. SONS OF THE DESERT is actually my first Laurel and Hardy film. I thought it was a lot of fun. DINNER AT EIGHT I've already mentioned before. THE PRIVATE LIFE OF HENRY VIII is one of the more lavish productions at the time. Mostly noteworthy for an incredible performance by Charles Laughton. The man is the film.
1. Duck Soup (McCarey)
2. King Kong (Cooper, Schoedsack)
3. Footlight Parade (Bacon)
4. The Invisible Man (Whale)
5. Zero de conduite (Vigo)
6. 42nd Street (Bacon)
7. Hallelujah, I’m a Bum (Milestone)
8. Sons of the Desert (Seiter)
9. Dinner at Eight (Cukor)
10. The Private Life of Henry VIII (Korda)
HM: She Done Him Wrong (Sherman)
The original KING KONG is awesome and still the best version. One of the most impressive films of of the decade. Wish I had seen it on the big screen with you John. FOOTLIGHT PARADE is one of the finest examples of the back-stage musical. The last twenty minutes are pure spectacle. I won't deny that Berkeley was quite the showman. But most of the film is the entertaining set-up to the performance, and this is what really dazzles. Cagney owns every frame he's in, as always, and Joan Blondell is right up there with him. Wickedly clever script. I really loved the film, which took me by surprise. THE INVISIBLE MAN has some wonderful technological ingenuity–and a great vocal performance by Claude Rains. One of my favorite horror films of the decade. ZERO DE CONDUITE has some pretty neat tricks up its sleeve. It's actually a pretty great little absurdist comedy–the lighthearted version of IF... 42nd STREET is basically the same movie as FOOTLIGHT PARADE and about as enjoyable. But it doesn't have Cagney so it loses out in the rankings. HALLELUJAH, I'M A BUM is a great Summer People song, and the film isn't too shabby either. It's actually pretty touching. SONS OF THE DESERT is actually my first Laurel and Hardy film. I thought it was a lot of fun. DINNER AT EIGHT I've already mentioned before. THE PRIVATE LIFE OF HENRY VIII is one of the more lavish productions at the time. Mostly noteworthy for an incredible performance by Charles Laughton. The man is the film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)