Serious Movie Discussion XLI

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Splurge post"!? This is obviously a copyright violation of my well-beloved and highly popular Mega-Posts.

Your mega posts?

2gxl9c7.gif


All About Eve was very well done [...] The dialogue was entertaining though still had nothing on Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf
Careful young grasshopper, the All About Eve cult is prosperous and powerful. You'll find many-a-cultists who will proclaim that it's the greatest script ever written.

I'm one of those cultists to which europe is referring. All About Eve is nothing less than a masterclass in screenwriting, and one that dwarfs Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf.

The problem with people who make criticisms like you are is that a) it being boring is subjective. Go watch Marvel movies where you're force fed simple humor and get your action fix through generic as fuck plot outlines.

I know you and Flemmy are cool, and I don't mean to open up old wounds, but I'm always curious why, if art is inherently subjective, the arthouse crowd always asserts as an objective fact that "Marvel movies" are "simple" and "generic as fuck." In these types of "mainstream vs arthouse" debates, the arthouse crowd always hides behind the subjectivity of interpretation while at the same time using as ammunition the objectivity of the (simple/generic/stupid/awful) mainstream.

Additionally:

Fool, this is art, and it's art at its most subjective.
An amazing video that shares all my viewpoints

These two posts are contradictory. Art "at its most subjective" means that there's no way two people could share any let alone all of their viewpoints.

Besides - and this is open to all of you - how much do you really buy the "art is subjective" thing? Honestly, in my own research, I've been toying with the idea of going full steam ahead and arguing that art is not subjective, neither in terms of interpretation (determining what a film means) nor evaluation (determining whether or not a film is good).

Existentialism is one of my philosophical jams (*ahem* Beauvoir > Rand *ahem*)

<3>

Seriously, though, if you want the best combination of dialogue-heavy and existentialism, you've got to check out the films of Ingmar Bergman. I think you'd especially dig stuff like To Joy, Wild Strawberries, Shame, The Passion of Anna, and most of all the miniseries Scenes from a Marriage (don't watch the chopped up "movie" version, the miniseries is where it's at).

this may sound a little weird but I'm hyped. I'm finally getting to watch Last of the Mohicans.

I also came to that one late. And I was similarly underwhelmed. The ending was 10/10 balls to the wall craziness, but everything prior was like a 4 or 5 out of 10 at best. That ending, though, and with the Morricone music, to boot? Fuck.

What the hell was Hail, Caesar?

You tell me. The trailers made it seem like my kind of Coen brothers movie. Was it similar to Fargo and offbeat or was it more Burn After Reading absurd? Or something else entirely?

Was forced to watch this movie called The Boy Next Door a while ago.
I remember seeing the tv spots and it just looked like melodramatic drivel.

You guys can hate all you want, but this is exactly why Lifetime movies exist. Lifetime has this type of movie locked the fuck down. They do this shit better than anybody. You want to see this movie done right? Watch shit like Video Voyeur with Angie Harmon, or A Teacher's Crime with Ashley Jones, or Kept Woman with Courtney Ford, or Her Infidelity with Rachel Hunter, or Stalked by my Doctor with Eric Roberts playing a psycho as only Eric Roberts can, or especially the Dina Meyer (schwing) movies like Web of Desire or Lethal Seduction.

Lifetime does melodrama like nobody else's motherfucking business.

There are good HK KF movies from before the 80's, but none of them (imo) can hold a candle to Police Story or the Project A movies that came out in the 80's. Jackie took kung-fu films to a whole new level with his big stunts, extremely creative fight choreography, and his use of everyday objects in his fights... and the car chases.

Just want to point out here that you're talking specifically about the action sequences. While stuff like the mall finale in Police Story or the Jackie vs Benny fights in Wheels on Meals and Dragons Forever outshine early Shaw Brothers stuff, there's not a single Jackie Chan or Sammo Hung film in existence that can even compete on an aesthetic or dramatic level with some of the stuff Chang Cheh or Chor Yuen were putting out like The One-Armed Swordsman, The Assassin, Golden Swallow, Duel for Gold, The Lizard, Killer Clans, etc.

I knocked three other Hitchcock films off the list. Topaz, Spellbound and Shadow of a Doubt.

I liked Spellbound a lot more than you did and Shadow of a Doubt a bit less. Spellbound is interesting because Hitchcock really sort of gave up trying to fend off Selznick, and you can see it in the fact that it's a movie of two parts because it's a movie from two authors. However, Hitchcock's genius can be seen in the way his movie completely undercuts Selznick's. I wrote this in a Hitchcock essay I published a few years ago and I still think it's accurate (ignore the psychoanalytic jargon, it was written by an undergrad eager to impress :D):

https://www.academia.edu/7145254/The_Sublime_Stupidity_of_Alfred_Hitchcock

With its unambiguous appropriation of psychoanalysis as its narrative axis, the treatment of its subject matter causes Spellbound to function as a paradigm case of classical Hollywood distortion. The prologue that introduces the film reads as follows:

Our story deals with psychoanalysis, the method by which modern science treats the emotional problems of the sane. The analyst seeks only to induce the patient to talk about his hidden problems, to open the locked doors of his mind. Once the complexes that have been disturbing the patient are uncovered and interpreted, the illness and confusion disappear…and the devils of unreason are driven from the human soul.

This sanitized view of the psychoanalytic process combined with the rosy conception of an ultimately untroubled subjectivity speak less to Hitchcock’s moral ambivalence and more to the classical Hollywood project of constructing a “cinema of integration.” As conceived by Todd McGowan, the cinema of integration is constituted by an “intermixing of desire and fantasy” wherein the cinema “works hand in hand with the functioning of [the dominant] ideology" so as to support its structure by obscuring the cracks in the universal, the irreducible antagonisms of subjectivity. The clash between Hitchcock and his producers, however, inadvertently created (in films ostensibly “integrated” and with the requisite “distortion”) films that “lay bare the ideological function” of the relationship between the cinema and the dominant ideology. The infamous battle over the ending of Suspicion virtually exposes the workings of fantasy, makes transparent the attempt to shield the film from the Real. The alterations made for the film version of Rebecca, wherein the protagonist did not really kill his first wife, thus allowing (an albeit ambiguous) reconciliation between him and his current wife, work similarly.

Having already made and fought battles over Rebecca and Suspicion, Spellbound comes at a point in Hitchcock’s career where his vision has matured to a point where it is literally impossible, even with Selznick insisting on the paradigmatic distortion of the field of subjectivity, for the cracks in the ontological stability of classical Hollywood narration to remain hidden. Spellbound progresses towards the inevitable “happy ending” marriage between the previously disturbed protagonist and his unwaveringly loving and devoted psychoanalyst, but due to Hitchcock’s presence, the phantasmatic cathexis of this denouement is negated in favor of an ambivalence that borders on pessimism. Early in the film, Dr. Constance Petersen (Ingrid Bergman) is discussing the duplicity of love with (the man she believes to be) Dr. Anthony Edwardes (Gregory Peck). Juxtaposed with the opening prologue, Dr. Petersen’s views on love are nothing short of radical perversity, identifying love’s winsome splendor as the collective cancer plaguing society. She feels the problem with love is that people conceptualize it as one thing but experience it as another, the very definition of an antinomy in the Kantian sense. “Love” as such is “Gedankending,” an “object-of-thought,” something that is conceptually possible but experientially impossible. Dr. Petersen contends in this early segment that it is all too easy to imagine love and far too difficult to locate it empirically; the fact that the romantic coupling at the film’s end is in marked contrast to its previously asserted contention that such a harmonious union is sensu stricto impossible is far from a hypocritical compromise of Hitchcock’s position, however. Hitchcock achieves the limit of his success by introducing the crack in the universal, by exposing the workings of fantasy while Selznick, meanwhile, was impotently attempting to use it as a means of seduction.

The exponentially greater subversiveness of [his later films] is due to Hitchcock’s ability, as producer and director, to foreground his project of exposing the workings of fantasy as the main narrative concern rather than being forced to surreptitiously insert it as narratological subterfuge.

Shadow of a Doubt, meanwhile, just never popped for me. Maybe it's still too British. I don't know. It's almost like it's too restrained, like Hitchcock meant to have a simmering thriller with some black humor sprinkled in, but he turned the flame down too low and the fire was gone. I do love Joseph Cotten's performance, though. Such an underrated actor.

Taking an illegal turn into boring-land, maaaan did Kramer vs Kramer suck until the final act.

You prefer the Streep garbage to the Hoffman stuff? I remember, when I was watching Hoffman shit all the time, I'd always stop Kramer vs Kramer on rewatches at the last act. I didn't need to see Streep anymore than absolutely necessary.

Grapes of Wrath hit me right in the feels though.

I love Henry Fonda and I love John Carradine, but yuck. You know, speaking of Ford, I'd be interested to get your reactions on the two films that I have always found to be his best (other than The Searchers, which, with my apologies to Flemmy, I do consider to be a great film): Mary of Scotland, with Katharine Hepburn and Frederic March turning in splendid performances, and The Last Hurrah, with Spencer Tracy leading an extraordinary ensemble. Mary of Scotland has maybe the greatest close-up in the history of cinema (you'll know it when you see it) and The Last Hurrah has one of the greatest final shots in the history of cinema.

Oi! Bullitt68! Is The Last Man on Earth Vincet Price's best or worst performance? I can't decide.:confused: The entire movie left me feeling rather flabbergasted. I can't make head nor tail of it. It does any a certain something, that primal take on what would eventually evolve into zombies. And the ending where Price finally starts engaging with the evolved-vampires is rather intresting. But overall my impression was a cockeyed ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I wouldn't say it's his best or his worst. It's just a movie that falls a bit flat even though it could've/should've been a horror classic.

Mangold's The Wolverine (2013) was a pleasant surprise.

QFT. Although the ending sucked.

I saw Sigh's post recommending The Wolverine, so I looked up how it fit within the chronology and decided it'd be a good idea to check it out. It was a fantastic movie all the way up until the ending. I didn't expect to, but I fucking loved just following Wolverine without the rest of the X-Men. He was always the most compelling character with his healing abilities coming with the price of eternal mental and physical pain and suffering, and all of that was amplified here as he grappled with his bizarre past and, over the course of the film, came to terms with Jean's death (which would've still been a good conflict had the third movie never been made). It was annoying to see him weakened for so much of the movie, but it was still awesome seeing him fuck up the Yakuza the whole time. By the end, though, with that ridiculous Iron Man monster thing somehow keeping old man Yashida alive, it just got too stupid.

There's a certain kind of director that no longer works today, that is true genius in the wrong era - the Wachowskis are the best example. The utter tonal insanity just doesn't cut it now despite basic function being met and then some. The criticisms are always about the over-the-top cheese but that they make classic Campbellian myths is never noted. Tarantino and the Coens are the only ones still able to keep butts in seats, but even they struggle (OH NOES TUPAC SONG), and are running on reputation. It's the Fincher and Nolan era, really. And it's a pity because in my not-so-humble opinion, they don't come close to those guys because of this.

Two questions. First: Are you saying you support Tupac in Django? Second - and your answer will determine whether or not we will still be friends moving forward - do you support this scene?



I'm also going to have to object, as a fellow Campbellian, to your contention that merely having a Campbellian story structure is equivalent to having a Get Out of Jail Free Card when it comes to criticisms of other stupid ass choices made within a Campbellian framework.

Lastly: How dare you imply that Christopher Nolan doesn't come close to the Wachowskis (unless what you are implying is that he doesn't come close to sucking as much ass).
 
@Bullitt68 (as far as exhaustion from film) I feel like a little bit of both, but definitely newer movies more. I can still appreciate a certain few films whenever. Also though, I'm not in an environment where I can set up what I want and watch it. My friend has a nice watching set-up, but it's all his stuff and some of it is dope but we rarely ever watch movies. I think I'm separating from the idea of films being rooted in some sort of psychological reality, even though I still do feel that way for many. If a movie is just going to entertain me, then I might watch it once - I want movies and shows to teach me things about myself.But I also feel like: I've figured so much out, I don't need to be taught, so I'm not seeing things on screen the way I used to. I want movies to be something more and they used to be, but they're less so now. It's all very complicated and ridiculous but that's a big part of movie watching for me :)
 
Ok, this is going to be a mega post for the record books. I don't know that I've ever gone this long without posting in here, and of course, the one time it happens, you all go apeshit, with europe and his new BFF Beardo going on about B-movies, Flemmy and Joseph Budden throwing down over art movies, and Caveat watching some classics. But damn it, I'm going to go through it all.

giphy.gif


To start, I should mention, going back to where I was the last time I posted about my ill-fated excursion into the filmography of Clint Eastwood, that, despite how terrible I find his movies and how lame I find him as a bad ass, Tightrope and The Rookie were both awesome.

Tightrope is the kind of movie I love. No name writer/director, Clint gives him a shot, and he fucking goes for it. The ending sort of got away from him, but everything leading up to it, while by no means flawless, was so ambitious and in large measure successful that I was totally along for the ride. The opening is one of my new favorites, just wickedly executed. I also loved Clint's character. He actually plays a dorky dad type, a homicide cop newly divorced and with custody of his two little daughters (and the eldest daughter was played by his real-life daughter, which was really cool). However, beyond the dorky dad exterior, on the inside, he's sprinting down a path of self-destruction, engaging in high-risk sex with the low-lifes he comes across on his beat. Tons of inspired little moments, and one extended sequence of suspense involving his real-life daughter that I was absolutely stunned by (whichever one of his wives was the mother, she was either remarkably understanding or remarkably well-compensated). This is the kind of hidden gem I was looking for in Eastwood's filmography.

The Rookie wasn't quite as good, but I still thoroughly enjoyed it. It was a bit of a curveball for me having so much of the running time following Charlie while Clint was kidnapped. I was hoping for more of a buddy cop dynamic than what I got. Still, what was there worked really well, and I loved Clint dialing up the cynicism and misanthropy to 11. I also loved the ending. At first, I had a bit of TDKR syndrome; I was initially bummed they didn't go for it, but when I considered what they did do, it worked tremendously and I was ultimately satisfied with the decision.

That's all the movie watching I did this past month. On the TV front, I finally started watching South Park. I watched it when it premiered (when I was the kids' age) and liked it. As I got older, I drifted away from it; as I got older still, it seemed too stupid and not as quick-witted as Family Guy, so I stayed away. At this point, I'm glad I've finally come back around to it. The movie is still fucking hilarious, and while I still think Family Guy is by far the funnier show, I have a much greater appreciation for the way Trey Parker and Matt Stone use the medium of animation for their outlandish, absurdist satires (I just watched the one that deals with the transgender [and transracial and transspecies] controversy :D).

I also reupped with Fight Pass. They've finally put up a good chunk of the Pancrase library I was promised ages ago. It's not all there yet, and what's there is mostly the stuff I've already owned for years, but it's still sweet. I also spent some time (re)watching fights with Hughes, Franklin, Couture, and Liddell. They were the top dogs when I started watching MMA and it was cool not only reliving those old pre-and-post-TUF memories, but Fight Pass has also added a bunch of their older, pre-UFC fights. It was awesome seeing Hughes reffing one of Franklin's matches and Hughes himself participating in some goofy ass Battle Royal style match between the Miletich crew.

Anyway, that's what I've been up to. Now on to what you all have been up to...



I got too busy to do it. Enter the Fat Dragon thus remains on my to-see list.



I meant among the consensus GOATs.



When I said it got my hopes up, that meant I was really liking it until the ending. For most of its running time, it was one of the stronger entries. Then they revealed the psycho and the whole thing came tumbling down.



What about M strikes you as "experimental and eccentric"? I've always found M to anticipate remarkably the style of the classical Hollywood thriller that he and Hitchcock would come to master.



M is too patchy, and the parts that don't work really don't work. Fury is solid all the way through, and with Tracy's performance as well, Fury is way out in front IMO.



Over the years, I've moved farther and farther away from making lists and focusing on rankings, and even while I was putting a lot of emphasis on it, my rankings would shift quite a bit, but what has still yet to change is my standard one-two punch of the greatest movies ever made: Citizen Kane and Raging Bull. And neither one is exactly full of sunshine and rainbows :oops:

I'll freely admit that I enjoy upbeat movies more than downbeat movies - and anyone who says otherwise has some psychological problems they should look into fixing - but just because a movie isn't a Randian triumph of the rational and the moral doesn't mean I'm incapable of appreciating/liking it.

Bonnie and Clyde, The Exorcist, The French Connection, Chinatown...those movies just suck.

giphy.gif



While my track record of getting people to watch classic movies has been pretty good, my track record of getting people to read film scholarship is fucking abysmal. You can break that streak, though, and if you do actually read it, I'm sure you'd get a lot out of it. It's a really shrewd look at one of the most awesomest of all movie genres.



Damn it, now that I'm thinking about it, The Big Sleep would kind of shoot a hole through my assertion. After all, what pisses Bogart off at the end of The Big Sleep is that such a young and innocent kid was heartlessly gunned down. His anger wasn't at the fact that the world is full of shitty people, which he is absolutely cynical enough to not bat an eye at, but rather at the fact that the small little pockets of the world that haven't been corrupted with people that aren't (yet?) morally bankrupt, are starting to get caught in the crossfire. So you could say that Bogart's Marlowe is actually very similar to Eastwood's Harry.

Back to the drawing board on that one.

giphy.gif




Hmm. As I preface all of these remarks, I still haven't seen Civil War so I can't comment specifically with regard to that film. However, the general nature of your problem here strikes me as similar to saying stuff like, "If Semmy Schilt weren't so big, he wouldn't have done so well in K-1," or, "If De Niro wasn't in Raging Bull, then it would've have been such a good movie."

That kind of logic has always seemed weird to me inasmuch as it is reducible to "if things weren't the way they were, then they would've been different." You seem to be saying that, if the Marvel movies weren't there, then Civil War wouldn't work. Couldn't the same thing be said about Die Hard with a Vengeance, or Scream 3, or The Dark Knight Rises, or indeed any sequel/installment in a franchise (I just picked my favorites for examples; I'm sure you don't like any of them :D)?



I'm with you here on the failure of The Avengers 2. That was bad writing, pure and simple. However, I don't think he needed to die for the point that creating Ultron was a bad idea to be made. In fact, that change you're talking about not only doesn't require Tony's death, it doesn't even require a whole movie. At least it shouldn't. That change should've happened right there in The Avengers 2. That change should've been Tony's arc. To have gone that route would've meant no Vision, though, and going back to your thing on character introductions and asses in seats, that just wasn't an option.



Now here I think you're being a little hard on The Winter Soldier. I actually think the Nazi tie-in works on a thematic level. Yes, it's conspicuously comicy, but the idea of America (embodied in Captain America) being pitted against the idea of Nazism (embodied in Hydra) and having that battle raging on in a 21st Century context is actually a clever little twist on the enduring (emphasis on the temporal) battle of good versus evil.





I haven't watched any of them in years, but when I was a kid, Blade was one of my favorite movies. I watched that movie so many times. Wesley Snipes at his most bad ass and my man Stephen Dorff as the villain. And hell yeah, ufcfan, that opening scene is one of the GOAT.

When Blade 2 came out, I was super stoked, but I initially thought it sucked. It was actually similar to what happened with the Mission: Impossible movies. I grew up fucking loving the first one, thought the second one sucked ass, and then just forgot about the whole series. I eventually wound up rewatching the second one and still thought it sucked, but I was surprised at how much I liked the third one.

It'd be interesting to see how I'd rate them all now. I can't imagine I'd do such a dramatic 180 on Blade 2, but at this point I don't even remember it.



I've reached a point in my PhD where what I'm going to write will either be all Bruce Lee (except that'll leave a lot of unexplored movie territory) or it'll be broader with just a chunk about Bruce (except that'll leave a lot of unexplored Bruce territory). Right now, I'm leaning towards the latter, and if that's what I end up doing, I'm for sure bringing in Inception. That movie has been on my mind a lot lately as like the ultimate cinematic response to skepticism. People have often bashed it as being pseudo-intellectual, but I think anyone who trots that out just proves that they're a pseudo-intellectual, because Inception is as seriously and profoundly intellectual as movies get.

Plus it's one of the coolest fucking movies ever.



Guys, did someone that's not me just bring up True Blood?

giphy.gif


I only saw Eternal Sunshine once and I was pretty young, so that probably explains why it didn't land, but that True Blood storyline really landed. The scene where Hoyt asks Jessica to glamour him in Season 5 was powerful enough on its own, but then the way they brought that shit back in Season 7 was one of the few bright spots in that miserable series-capping season.



The reason I love that scene so much is because of the formal brilliance of it. Even if I concede that it's "easier" than some of the other scenes, the aesthetic "difficulty" makes up for it by offering a different kind of complexity. If you watch that scene and consider the cinematography and the editing, the visuals are actually responding to the tenor of the conversation. The camera gets closer and closer as the conversation becomes more intimate, and any time psycho boy breaks the intimacy, the camera pulls back as if it, like the priest, has to start over and work back towards some kind of connection.

I did a comprehensive aesthetic breakdown of that scene for the students in a film class I taught on this past term, an exercise that really opened that scene up for me, and while I truly loved that film, that was really the only scene that was so aesthetically rich and rewarding, the only scene where there was that level of visual and thematic synchronicity. That's not a knock, though, because I've found that, in most movies these days, the conventions have been nailed down so thoroughly that there is very rarely that kind of formal ambitiousness and experimentation, so to see such an aesthetically brave and skillful sequence was a hell of a treat.



Are you having trouble with new movies or are you having trouble with movies you used to never have trouble with?



David Lynch is often more annoying than he is profound, but I've always dug that one.



No joke, dude, there's a store near me and the entire fucking outside wall is covered with like 8 full-size posters for that movie. You aren't on a world advertising tour for that movie, are you ;)



How's that movie club going? Are the discussions any good?



Never been one of my favorites, but it's definitely a good one. I'm more intrigued about your comment regarding "dialogue-heavy romances." If you haven't seen any of these, you might like them:

It Happened One Night - A classic in the romantic comedy genre and it still holds up.

Alice Adams - Might feel a bit stiff and dated in places, but behind De Niro in Raging Bull, Katharine Hepburn turns in the single greatest screen performance ever. It's such an endearing story and she's such a heartbreakingly sweet character.

Libeled Lady - A bit under-the-radar, but one of my favorite of the early screwball-style romantic comedies. Fast-paced and a great ensemble cast.

Bringing Up Baby - One of the all-time greats, still fucking hilarious and anchored by two incredible performances from Hepburn and Cary Grant.

Holiday - More dramatic and with more heart than Bringing Up Baby, but another home run for Hepburn and Grant. From what I've gathered of your movie sensibilities, I'd pick this one to be pretty high up there for you.

The Philadelphia Story - Just one of the greatest scripts and greatest acting showcases in the history of film, and the last and IMO greatest outing for Hepburn and Grant.

His Girl Friday - @Sigh GunRanger will back me up on this one. Blistering dialogue.

Now, Voyager
- A classic romance with Bette Davis at the top of her game.

Woman of the Year - Spencer Tracy takes over for Grant. Tracy and Hepburn are screen gold and the writing is superb.

State of the Union - The most underrated of the Tracy/Hepburn pairings. Wickedly smart and funny script.

Adam's Rib - The GOAT battle-of-the-sexes romantic comedy and arguably the best of the Tracy/Hepburn pairings.

It Should Happen to You - Judy Holliday is the most underrated comedienne of all-time and she's fantastic here paired with Jack Lemmon.

Phffft! - Even more underrated Holliday/Lemmon pairing, and even better IMO.
How much do I have to pay you to tear down those poster And mail them to me?

And while maybe I over exaggerated saying its art at its most subjective, I think you'll always find people who share your views, no matter what the film.

I think if you tried to argue there is no subjectivity in a film being good, it would be VERY easy to argue against.

Lastly, Marvel movies are more formula than creative expression. There is no simplistic artism, when all films literally follow the same outline and formulas. It becomes kind of sickening watching year after year go by of movie goers eat that shit up every single time.
 
How's that movie club going? Are the discussions any good?

In the very first film discussion thread, one of those bastards said that Nicolas Winding Refn was the next Kubrick. I don't care how good the discussions are after that. I will always hate anyone that associates with that godforsaken piece-of-idiocracy after that statement was made and the user who said it wasn't banned immediately afterwards. It can go and burn for all I care.

And I say that as the guy that posts more discussion-material than anyone else in the Movie Club!:D

And yes, this message is so important that it deserves a post seperated from the rest of my reply!
 
Last edited:
@Bullitt68 - great posts as usual! You don't have to sell me on those Lifetime movies being effective. I haven't seen many but when you recommended that Anne Heche one Girlfight to me, that shit made my skin crawl. That's how pissed off I was watching it. Really impacting.
 
I want movies and shows to teach me things about myself.

I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again: Please watch Burn Notice. It's not stylistically similar to Black Swan, but the whole show is about demons and how the main character channels his damaged psyche to doing good for others. It's remarkably entertaining but also remarkably rewarding and affirming.

But I also feel like: I've figured so much out, I don't need to be taught, so I'm not seeing things on screen the way I used to.

This happened to me with Bergman. Bergman's movies are all about questioning, and that's for the simple reason that Bergman had so many questions. I used to find his questions exhilerating and revelatory. I'm not saying I now have all the answers, but I do feel like I have enough answers to enough questions to where I'm comfortable and confident moving through life. This renders Bergman's movies, in a sense, useless.

Nevertheless, I still consider his films to be the extraordinary achievements of a man willing and able to express himself honestly, intelligently, and fully. That's now what I value most. Even if I'm not "changed" by a moviegoing experience, so long as I'm encountering fellow human beings honestly expressing themselves, I find I'm fulfilled.

How much do I have to pay you to tear down those poster And mail them to me?

giphy.gif


I think you'll always find people who share your views, no matter what the film.

I think so, too. And I think that because I believe there's an objectivity to interpretation and evaluation. Kubrick is one of the worst offenders when it comes to promulgating the subjectivity of art, but how many people can watch Room 237 and not consider that shit bonkers? There's only so much you can do with an artwork before it becomes ludicrous, but then that's only true if there's an objective standard of interpretive validity. Evaluation is where it's really tricky. I haven't solved that yet, but I can at the very least confess the desire to be able to say that Inception is objectively about refuting skepticism and is objectively good.

I think if you tried to argue there is no subjectivity in a film being good, it would be VERY easy to argue against.

First, we'd have to define our terms. I think very often these discussions start off on the wrong foot by falling into the intrinsic/subjective dichotomy. By objective, I don't mean that individuals don't have to actually do any interpretive or evaluative work. I just mean that there is something outside of the individual to which they are responding and which sets the terms for possible responses. Or is even that going too far?

Lastly, Marvel movies are more formula than creative expression.

Would you deny that art movies are also formulaic?

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...MsCWRSeuVey_pejfw&sig2=AYtlDl3x8Z0rwPQU_NRS8A

In the very first film discussion thread, one of those bastards said that Nicolas Winding Refn was the next Kubrick. I don't care how good the discussions are after that. I will always hate anyone that associates with that godforsaken piece-of-idiocracy after that statement was made and the user who said it wasn't banned immediately afterwards. It can go and burn for all I care.

And I say that as the guy that posts more discussion-material than anyone else in the Movie Club!:D

And yes, this message is so important that it deserves a post seperated from the rest of my reply!




@Bullitt68 - great posts as usual! You don't have to sell me on those Lifetime movies being effective. I haven't seen many but when you recommended that Anne Heche one Girlfight to me, that shit made my skin crawl. That's how pissed off I was watching it. Really impacting.

Girlfight is one of the top-tier Lifetime movies. Another top-tier Lifetime movie, also with Anne Heche (teaming up with Eric Roberts), is Fatal Desire. Not quite the same trajectory as The Boy Next Door, but an awesome exercise in the dangers of desire (my posts are even starting to sound like Lifetime promos :D).
 
I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again: Please watch Burn Notice. It's not stylistically similar to Black Swan, but the whole show is about demons and how the main character channels his damaged psyche to doing good for others. It's remarkably entertaining but also remarkably rewarding and affirming.



This happened to me with Bergman. Bergman's movies are all about questioning, and that's for the simple reason that Bergman had so many questions. I used to find his questions exhilerating and revelatory. I'm not saying I now have all the answers, but I do feel like I have enough answers to enough questions to where I'm comfortable and confident moving through life. This renders Bergman's movies, in a sense, useless.

Nevertheless, I still consider his films to be the extraordinary achievements of a man willing and able to express himself honestly, intelligently, and fully. That's now what I value most. Even if I'm not "changed" by a moviegoing experience, so long as I'm encountering fellow human beings honestly expressing themselves, I find I'm fulfilled.



giphy.gif




I think so, too. And I think that because I believe there's an objectivity to interpretation and evaluation. Kubrick is one of the worst offenders when it comes to promulgating the subjectivity of art, but how many people can watch Room 237 and not consider that shit bonkers? There's only so much you can do with an artwork before it becomes ludicrous, but then that's only true if there's an objective standard of interpretive validity. Evaluation is where it's really tricky. I haven't solved that yet, but I can at the very least confess the desire to be able to say that Inception is objectively about refuting skepticism and is objectively good.



First, we'd have to define our terms. I think very often these discussions start off on the wrong foot by falling into the intrinsic/subjective dichotomy. By objective, I don't mean that individuals don't have to actually do any interpretive or evaluative work. I just mean that there is something outside of the individual to which they are responding and which sets the terms for possible responses. Or is even that going too far?



Would you deny that art movies are also formulaic?

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwicpqGvoI3OAhVqI8AKHQrYANQQFggrMAI&url=http://academic.uprm.edu/mleonard/theorydocs/readings/Bordwell.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFsRj7BNFzp2MsCWRSeuVey_pejfw&sig2=AYtlDl3x8Z0rwPQU_NRS8A








Girlfight is one of the top-tier Lifetime movies. Another top-tier Lifetime movie, also with Anne Heche (teaming up with Eric Roberts), is Fatal Desire. Not quite the same trajectory as The Boy Next Door, but an awesome exercise in the dangers of desire (my posts are even starting to sound like Lifetime promos :D).

Absolutely would deny art films are formulaic. It's a broad spectrum, and the defining thing that usually labels a film "an art film" is experimenting with different methods of film making and story telling.

And if I'm reading right id personally say you are going too far. Sounds like your argument for no subjectivity in determining if a film is good or not is how well it inflicts the response it's looking for.....but that's very subjective, no? Lol
 
europe and his new BFF Beardo going on about B-movies



. However, beyond the dorky dad exterior, on the inside, he's sprinting down a path of self-destruction, engaging in high-risk sex with the low-lifes he comes across on his beat

This is probably pure conjecture on my part. But I'd like to think that Eastwood considered that an elaboration on some of his Dirty Harry persona. Harry always had this perverted undercurrent to his character. Like in the first movie where he voyeuristically watches that prostitute through the window. It's him exploring that "good-guy with perverse intrests" angle again.

I meant among the consensus GOATs.

Oh God I just realized that you consider Steven Seagal to be cooler than Eastwood.

93998-Gene-Wilder-drinking-gif-Blazi-bq01.gif


What about M strikes you as "experimental and eccentric"? I've always found M to anticipate remarkably the style of the classical Hollywood thriller that he and Hitchcock would come to master.

Well the lack of a main character for one. Sure Lorre is techniqually a main character but he's in the movie so little and only begins fufilling the role in the second half. Not to mention that's he's a serial child-murderer/rapist. Or the radical argument that the movie makes about criminals psychological dispossition. Or some of it's visual language (such as the importance of the ballon in communicating the tragedy, the way the film cuts to showing it beinh trapped in the wires).

Citizen Kane

Do you get extra credits in academia if you proclaim Citizen Kane the best film of all time?:D


While my track record of getting people to watch classic movies has been pretty good, my track record of getting people to read film scholarship is fucking abysmal. You can break that streak, though, and if you do actually read it, I'm sure you'd get a lot out of it. It's a really shrewd look at one of the most awesomest of all movie genres.


I flopped pretty bad on that one. When I looked up the book -- I didn't note the library. The library that housed it is closed for the summer.

and anyone who says otherwise has some psychological problems they should look into fixing

If said psychological problems enable me to enjoy movies more... are they then really "problems"?:D

Your mega posts?

No history exists before I enter a room.

Honestly, in my own research, I've been toying with the idea of going full steam ahead and arguing that art is not subjective,

Considering the depth of your amatory love for Rand I'm surprised you haven't done so already.:D


there's not a single Jackie Chan or Sammo Hung film in existence that can even compete on an aesthetic or dramatic level with some of the stuff Chang Cheh or Chor Yuen were putting out like The One-Armed Swordsman, The Assassin, Golden Swallow, Duel for Gold, The Lizard, Killer Clans, etc.

QFT!!! QFT!!! QFT!!!

(ignore the psychoanalytic jargon, it was written by an undergrad eager to impress :D):

Haha. Yeah I'm still in the "the more complicated words=the better the argument" stadium myself.:D

other than The Searchers, which, with my apologies to Flemmy, I do consider to be a great film)

Probably the most uneven great film of all time for me. It's a fucking trampoline of quality.

Mary of Scotland, with Katharine Hepburn and Frederic March turning in splendid performances, and The Last Hurrah, with Spencer Tracy leading an extraordinary ensemble

Sure! You've mentioned Mary of Scotland to me previously. And since I haven't been able to get my filthy paws on The Assassin yet or seen yankee doodle dandy I guess I can move them to the top of the list.

It's almost like it's too restrained, like Hitchcock meant to have a simmering thriller with some black humor sprinkled in, but he turned the flame down too low and the fire was gone.

Not sure what to say -- it simmered very deliciously for me.:) One of those movies that kept my mind constantly engaged as to what was going on underneath the characters at all times (like Cotton's questioningly incestious dispossition towards his female family members, for example).


was eventually colonized by Second wave feminism. in the 1970s and 1989)s' portrayed as a misogynist whose films were viewed as ideologically-predetermined symptoms of an antediluvian male chauvinist and whose filmmakingstyle allegedly ecemplified the intrinsic problems of classical Hollywood storytelling

Huh, you know, while watching Shadow of a Doubt, I did think that some of the things said came off as remarkably feminist. Such as the mother's monologue about how mothers lose their daughter as they grow up. The introspection and sensativity of that speech was something that came through for me.

Early in the film, Dr. Constance Petersen (Ingrid Bergman) is discussing the duplicity of love with (the man she believes to be) Dr. Anthony Edwardes (Gregory Peck). Juxtaposed with the opening prologue, Dr. Petersen’s views on love are nothing short of radical perversity, identifying love’s winsome splendor as the collective cancer plaguing society. She feels the problem with love is that people conceptualize it as one thing but experience it as another, the very definition of an antinomy in the Kantian sense. “Love” as such is “Gedankending,” an “object-of-thought,” something that is conceptually possible but experientially impossible. Dr. Petersen contends in this early segment that it is all too easy to imagine love and far too difficult to locate it empirically;

the fact that the romantic coupling at the film’s end is in marked contrast to its previously asserted contention that such a harmonious union is sensu stricto impossible is far from a hypocritical compromise of Hitchcock’s position, however

Okay, I freely admit that I don't fully grasp how this isn't a case of -- as you put it -- hypocrasy.:D To me it seems like it is. Guess I'll allow the info to melt a bit and give it another go when I'm able to comprehend your argument better.:cool:




Bravo. Your best use of Seinfeld yet.
 
Last edited:
That's all the movie watching I did this past month. On the TV front, I finally started watching South Park. I watched it when it premiered (when I was the kids' age) and liked it. As I got older, I drifted away from it; as I got older still, it seemed too stupid and not as quick-witted as Family Guy, so I stayed away. At this point, I'm glad I've finally come back around to it. The movie is still fucking hilarious, and while I still think Family Guy is by far the funnier show, I have a much greater appreciation for the way Trey Parker and Matt Stone use the medium of animation for their outlandish, absurdist satires (I just watched the one that deals with the transgender [and transracial and transspecies] controversy :D).

I also reupped with Fight Pass. They've finally put up a good chunk of the Pancrase library I was promised ages ago. It's not all there yet, and what's there is mostly the stuff I've already owned for years, but it's still sweet. I also spent some time (re)watching fights with Hughes, Franklin, Couture, and Liddell. They were the top dogs when I started watching MMA and it was cool not only reliving those old pre-and-post-TUF memories, but Fight Pass has also added a bunch of their older, pre-UFC fights. It was awesome seeing Hughes reffing one of Franklin's matches and Hughes himself participating in some goofy ass Battle Royal style match between the Miletich crew.

You may change your opinion on South Park as you catch up, It's way better than Family Guy.

So they finally uploaded that Battle Royale match from Extreme Fighting... awesome. Hughes reffed Franklin's fights at UCC Hawaii also... Fight Pass should try and get their hands on all the TKO/UCC footage.

I'll freely admit that I enjoy upbeat movies more than downbeat movies - and anyone who says otherwise has some psychological problems they should look into fixing - but just because a movie isn't a Randian triumph of the rational and the moral doesn't mean I'm incapable of appreciating/liking it.

Bonnie and Clyde, The Exorcist, The French Connection, Chinatown...those movies just suck.



In the very first film discussion thread, one of those bastards said that Nicolas Winding Refn was the next Kubrick. I don't care how good the discussions are after that. I will always hate anyone that associates with that godforsaken piece-of-idiocracy after that statement was made and the user who said it wasn't banned immediately afterwards. It can go and burn for all I care.

And I say that as the guy that posts more discussion-material than anyone else in the Movie Club!:D

And yes, this message is so important that it deserves a post seperated from the rest of my reply!

You're just salty that we all didn't say Shane was a 10/10.

Just want to point out here that you're talking specifically about the action sequences. While stuff like the mall finale in Police Story or the Jackie vs Benny fights in Wheels on Meals and Dragons Forever outshine early Shaw Brothers stuff, there's not a single Jackie Chan or Sammo Hung film in existence that can even compete on an aesthetic or dramatic level with some of the stuff Chang Cheh or Chor Yuen were putting out like The One-Armed Swordsman, The Assassin, Golden Swallow, Duel for Gold, The Lizard, Killer Clans, etc.

Haven't seen any of those. I'll have to take a look. I watched the trailer for The One-Armed Swordsman it didn't look nearly as good as The Legend of the Drunken Master 2... but obviously trailers can be deceiving.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely would deny art films are formulaic.

Well then read that essay I linked you to. Art movies are as formulaic as any other kind of movie. It's just a different formula.

It's a broad spectrum

So is the action movie, so is the horror movie, so is the romantic comedy. It's all about dat formula.

Sounds like your argument for no subjectivity in determining if a film is good or not is how well it inflicts the response it's looking for.....but that's very subjective, no? Lol

I don't know. Even if it is, though, I feel like it's not as subjective as people seem to think. I also think, as far as this conversation between you and me is concerned, that another thing to consider is the possibility of different conceptualizations of art among different artists. If a filmmaker is like Lynch and their whole purpose is to avoid conscious intention and thus objective meaning, then, strange and counter-intuitive though it may be, we as viewers are obligated to interpret such work on that premise. Otherwise, if we approach a film contrary to its intended purpose, then what's the point?

Conversely, if a filmmaker is like Stanley Kramer, heavily didactic and always with a clear message to convey, it's just a matter of fact that this is what one of his films means. Interpretation is still involved, because messages are not transmitted/understood automatically (going back to my mention of the intrinsic/subjective dichotomy, this would be intrinsicism), but since it's not intended as an interpretive free-for-all, then, once again, approaching it contrary to its intended purpose seems stupid.

Interpretation, therefore, is pretty straightforward to me. Whether an artist's point is to "defeat" meaning or to directly convey meaning, our responsibility as consumers of art is to respond to artworks according to the terms set by the artist. To respond any other way is an insult to the artist and their art.

Evaluation, though, is where I always get stuck. How can I - if I can at all - move from interpretive objectivity to evaluative objectivity? At this point, I'm confident denying that evaluation is irrational; there can plainly be more to an evaluative debate than "I like it because I like it." In fact, if that's all you can contribute, then you're simply not providing an evaluation. In order to evaluate something, we always adduce criteria. It's good because such-and-such. There's always something we refer to when we make a good/bad claim. But how objective - if it's objective at all - is that stuff we refer to?

This is the kind of shit I spend my days thinking about :D

This is probably pure conjecture on my part. But I'd like to think that Eastwood considered that an elaboration on some of his Dirty Harry persona. Harry always had this perverted undercurrent to his character. Like in the first movie where he voyeuristically watches that prostitute through the window. It's him exploring that "good-guy with perverse intrests" angle again.

I definitely think The Rookie is a dark take on that role. Tightrope I personally like to consider as its own unique role. Obviously, it's hard to see Eastwood as anyone but Dirty Harry, especially when he's playing character with a badge, but I have an easier time separating Tightrope.

Oh God I just realized that you consider Steven Seagal to be cooler than Eastwood.

fkbrs3.jpg


Do you get extra credits in academia if you proclaim Citizen Kane the best film of all time?:D

You don't get any credit if you do consider it the GOAT, but if you don't, you're usually taken away and never seen again...

If said psychological problems enable me to enjoy movies more... are they then really "problems"?:D

<mma4>

No history exists before I enter a room.

You dirty solipsist.

Considering the depth of your amatory love for Rand I'm surprised you haven't done so already.:D

I've still got some kinks to work out.

Haha. Yeah I'm still in the "the more complicated words=the better the argument" stadium myself.:D

I've always been big on language and cultivating a sophisticated vocabulary, but jargon is usually where I draw the line. That Hitchcock essay, though, was written for my last undergrad class and I intentionally wrote it as jargony as possible as an exercise and to ensure it'd get published. And, big surprise, it got published, because sadly there's nothing academics love more than jargon :rolleyes:

Sure! You've mentioned Mary of Scotland to me previously. And since I haven't been able to get my filthy paws on The Assassin yet or seen yankee doodle dandy I guess I can move them to the top of the list.

giphy.gif


Okay, I freely admit that I don't fully grasp how this isn't a case of -- as you put it -- hypocrasy.:D To me it seems like it is. Guess I'll allow the info to melt a bit and give it another go when I'm able to comprehend your argument better.:cool:

Try this: The film is a contradiction, but Hitchcock wasn't contradicting himself. The point for Hitchcock was to contradict Selznick, thereby clearly delineating his perspective (and thus his claim to authorship) over (or, more accurately, under) Selznick's. Furthermore, when you look at Hitchcock's career after Spellbound, it's easy to go back to Spellbound and recognize the Hitchcockian and separate it from the non-Hitchcockian.

giphy.gif


Bravo. Your best use of Seinfeld yet.

giphy.gif


i'd also recommend Holiday, but the romance is the weakest part of that movie.

tumblr_nwhr5cSsNO1qmynhyo1_400.gif


Holiday is one of the most genuine romances out there. That scene in the play room as the New Year dawns is incredible, then Hepburn talking with Lew Ayres. It's gold, Jerry. Gold!

You may change your opinion on South Park as you catch up, It's way better than Family Guy.

I'm already nine seasons in on South Park and I can count on one hand the number of times I've actually laughed out loud. It's more about how clever the satire is. For some reason, they didn't hit the same level of hilarity in South Park that they hit in their movies. As for Family Guy, that's the one that's gut-bustingly hilarious. South Park barely even registers on the laugh scale for me whereas I couldn't possibly hope to count the number of times I've been absolutely destroyed by something in Family Guy.

Fight Pass should try and get their hands on all the TKO/UCC footage.

I want them to finish getting the Pancrase backlog up and then I want to see Rings. Everything else is just gravy. Those two are the ones I'm dying to see in full.



idjut.gif
 
Last edited:
I am planning on seeing Batman: The Killing Joke tonight. Anyone else going to check it out?
 
I'll freely admit that I enjoy upbeat movies more than downbeat movies - and anyone who says otherwise has some psychological problems they should look into fixing -

To give a more serious reply to this -- it almost seems like this statement takes the standpoint that movies are first-and-foremost watched as escapism and/or wish-fullfilment. To use words like "enjoy" when disucssing your mesurment of how good and engaging you think a film is leads the thoughts towards base emotions of stimuli and glee. Film can ensnare you and make you like them through higher qualities than those.

EDIT: So I realize this argument kind of implies that I said that upbeat=base. That wasn't my intention. But you get the point.:p

Like the ending of Chinatown for example. It's so fantastic because of how magnificently it encapsulates the movie. The concept "Chinatown" finally given a meaning. And it's done brilliantly through one, rather unspecific, sentance. Sure the ending is tragic and unjust. But it is simultaniously profoundly moving on a very deep level.


I've always been big on language and cultivating a sophisticaed vocabulary, but jargon is usually where I draw the line. That Hitchcock essay, though, was written for my last undergrad class and I intentionally wrote it as jargony as possible as an exercise and to ensure it'd get published. And, big surprise, it got published, because sadly there's nothing academics love more than jargon :rolleyes:

Once, during a peer review that I participated in the professor criticizes my texts for being to jargon-filed. I replied that it was revenge for all the jargon-filled textbooks he had us read during the elementary courses. The attack was super-effective. He laughed and fled the field.





ykaRpgL.gif


You're just salty that we all didn't say Shane was a 10/10.

See, you still don't get it. Shane's perfection isn't some subjective standpoint. It's not an opinion whose worth we can haggled over like merchants. It's empirical fact. As true as 2+2=4, or that sunset follows sunrise, or that we've always been at war with Eastasia! It's objective.

I am salty that you lied! Truth can be veiled through deceit and falsehood. But truth cannot be denied. Deep inside, all of you, every single poster, know that Shane is a 10/10 movie. It is merely a question if you admit that or not.

:p
 
Last edited:
Ok, this is going to be a mega post for the record books.

You done broke the interwebz this time.

You seem to be saying that, if the Marvel movies weren't there, then Civil War wouldn't work. Couldn't the same thing be said about Die Hard with a Vengeance, or Scream 3, or The Dark Knight Rises, or indeed any sequel/installment in a franchise (I just picked my favorites for examples; I'm sure you don't like any of them :D)?

Regarding what's in bold: I'm saying Marvel movies don't work because they think they can depend functionally on previous installments.

(Please note my criticisms don't pertain to outliers like Iron Man 3 and Guardians of the Galaxy, which don't fit the Marvel mould, really. And I'd argue they make genuine choices.)

Good sequels effect change.

Collateral is part and parcel of an espionage film. Think of the inciting incidents of the Bourne movies - loss of memory, loss of a loved one (Marie). It drives the noir hero. But Cap's friend, Fury, survives Winter Soldier.

Psychologically damaged heroes either respond to their problems (hang the cape up/confront demons) or die. Tony simply recreates his bad idea.

Nobody truly lays anything on the line, or loses anything with lasting effect. Not since The Avengers anyway, where sacrifice early on (Coulson's death) drove sacrifice consequently (Tony holding on to the nuke). I don't mean to suggest characters need perish. Events simply must drive the choices of our heroes, and good writing makes you feel the gravity of the choice. If you have to explain it, you didn't feel it. You need to feel it in your bones. That's great drama.

How did it feel when Mal jumped? And how did that make you feel for Cobb? Did it make it easier to understand his actions in the film?

I don't mind any of the movies you mentioned. I remember little of Vengeance or Scream 3, but I do remember TDKR. It's got its problems, but committing certainly isn't one of them. Nolan lives and dies by function (this is also his weakness, but that's another conversation). TDKR spends a ton of run-time having Bruce suffer. He's near crippled when we first see him. It makes Selina betray him. Alfred and Bruce have a genuine rift. Lucius is no longer in Bruce's corner. Gotham is in shambles.

It unsettles you. It's willing to risk things not feeling the same in service of an arc. It recognises that redemption evolves from downfall, reunion from separation. And it makes you feel those latter things in your gut before allowing the hero the former.

In a lot of great sequels, shit happens to characters we establish deep ties with. There's hardly a badass in Aliens that lives on just because they're a badass. Luke loses his hand in Episode 5. At the end of The Dark Knight, Batman is the hunted.

T2 is probably the best example. Right off the bat we find Sarah institutionalized against her will. John is a brat rather than the hero it was foretold he'd rise to become. This is why we feel so many things: John's arc towards genuine friendship, Sarah's concern and paranoia for her kid's well-being from being wrongfully imprisoned, Arnie's burgeoning humanity. It assumes nothing. Fucking classic.

Now here I think you're being a little hard on The Winter Soldier. I actually think the Nazi tie-in works on a thematic level. Yes, it's conspicuously comicy, but the idea of America (embodied in Captain America) being pitted against the idea of Nazism (embodied in Hydra) and having that battle raging on in a 21st Century context is actually a clever little twist on the enduring (emphasis on the temporal) battle of good versus evil.

This makes me chuckle, because it's kind of what I mean? I think if something is working poorly in terms of function, theme is... well, whatever you can think of, really. When it doesn't work on a story level, you find yourself explaining it thematically to join the dots.

What's it your man says?

2mx058n.gif


The film is a tentpole, yeah? The way these used to operate was you had a fucking great time at the movies and then thought, wait a minute, this is a cool little noir film, with 21st century implications blah blah blah....

This was me when that Hydra video came on, "What was Hydra again? Oh I need to listen to this, ah I see they're Nazis, oh they're not exactly Nazis, just an offshoot. Oh cool so Cap has to worry about this now. So does that mean that the guys chasing him are Hydra? Weren't they government shills? So that means Redford also needs to worry about this? So Cap has to worry about two things now?"

It's just not economical, and certainly not elegant. Good writing: A results in B but B results in C hence C causes D etc, etc.

In Winter Soldier, however: A results in B but B results in 21.

Same thing with Bucky, really. When it was revealed that's who he was, I thought, "Who is Bucky again?"

How can I be immersed in a fight between Cap and Bucky if I can't feel in my heart that Cap loves this guy? And if I can't feel Cap's love for this guy then how can I feel sorry for the plight of brainwashed soldiers (that Bucky's character is an obvious allusion to).

But you liked it. And I can understand that. It's not a terrible movie. I don't hate Marvel. I just no longer expect anything weighty. I argue with you about it because like me you deem it worthy of debate. I think this shit is important because superhero movies can be as transcendent as Tarantino or Mann or the Coen brothers. It disappoints me that Marvel, by being the way they are, are arming the artsy types, who can't see the value of genre.

QFT. Although the ending sucked.

It's the perfect example of what I was talking about in that very post. I think the ending works on every level that counts. It's just tonally clunky.

Two questions. First: Are you saying you support Tupac in Django?

This cracked me up too. I don't know that I "support" it. I know I didn't dislike it because it was out of place tonally. On repeat watches, in fact, I like the choice, because Django is really a superhero for black kids.

Second - and your answer will determine whether or not we will still be friends moving forward - do you support this scene?

Wait, which part of that scene? The whole thing from where you started it?

I'm also going to have to object, as a fellow Campbellian, to your contention that merely having a Campbellian story structure is equivalent to having a Get Out of Jail Free Card when it comes to criticisms of other stupid ass choices made within a Campbellian framework.

You're delivering the lulz today yo. Not sure how I framed what I said. I'll try again.

The Wachowskis are great. All their stories function. The problem for modern viewers is the literally absent sense of cynicism in them. Every emotion is overt. A happy family is so happy it has a pet chimp they treat as a son. Love won't just save the day, it will resurrect! But it all works if you give in to their heart on sleeve approach.

The Cambellian bit was me just summarising their template. Their big thing is heroes. And a lot of the adversity a hero faces along his/her journey in their films has to do with discovering the hero's true self. They're obsessed with this, especially given their gender-identity issues.

So they toy with the monomyth. The Matrix is the monomyth itself, who you really are. The sequels are a complete shattering of the myth: The One is a construct like anything else. Speed Racer is about knowing who you already are, and that what matters is who you're on the journey with.

Lastly: How dare you imply that Christopher Nolan doesn't come close to the Wachowskis (unless what you are implying is that he doesn't come close to sucking as much ass).

I was comparing him to the Coens and Tarantino there, actually.
 
Last edited:
I hate feeling so disinterested in every new movie I watch but Star Trek: Beyond was the worst of the series for me so far. I've never been a Trekkie or anything but I did enjoy the other two.
 
I hate feeling so disinterested in every new movie I watch but Star Trek: Beyond was the worst of the series for me so far. I've never been a Trekkie or anything but I did enjoy the other two.

I've avoided that. I can't take anything in that franchise seriously. Bad storytelling.

This has been a pretty poor summer, to be fair. I watch almost anything interesting that comes out and can't remember the last thing that I saw twice (which last year was normal). Ghostbusters was disappointing too.

I did like The BFG. Can't see you watching that though. :)

Just waiting until Bourne comes around.
 
Well then read that essay I linked you to. Art movies are as formulaic as any other kind of movie. It's just a different formula.



So is the action movie, so is the horror movie, so is the romantic comedy. It's all about dat formula.



I don't know. Even if it is, though, I feel like it's not as subjective as people seem to think. I also think, as far as this conversation between you and me is concerned, that another thing to consider is the possibility of different conceptualizations of art among different artists. If a filmmaker is like Lynch and their whole purpose is to avoid conscious intention and thus objective meaning, then, strange and counter-intuitive though it may be, we as viewers are obligated to interpret such work on that premise. Otherwise, if we approach a film contrary to its intended purpose, then what's the point?

Conversely, if a filmmaker is like Stanley Kramer, heavily didactic and always with a clear message to convey, it's just a matter of fact that this is what one of his films means. Interpretation is still involved, because messages are not transmitted/understood automatically (going back to my mention of the intrinsic/subjective dichotomy, this would be intrinsicism), but since it's not intended as an interpretive free-for-all, then, once again, approaching it contrary to its intended purpose seems stupid.

Interpretation, therefore, is pretty straightforward to me. Whether an artist's point is to "defeat" meaning or to directly convey meaning, our responsibility as consumers of art is to respond to artworks according to the terms set by the artist. To respond any other way is an insult to the artist and their art.

Evaluation, though, is where I always get stuck. How can I - if I can at all - move from interpretive objectivity to evaluative objectivity? At this point, I'm confident denying that evaluation is irrational; there can plainly be more to an evaluative debate than "I like it because I like it." In fact, if that's all you can contribute, then you're simply not providing an evaluation. In order to evaluate something, we always adduce criteria. It's good because such-and-such. There's always something we refer to when we make a good/bad claim. But how objective - if it's objective at all - is that stuff we refer to?

This is the kind of shit I spend my days thinking about :D



I definitely think The Rookie is a dark take on that role. Tightrope I personally like to consider as its own unique role. Obviously, it's hard to see Eastwood as anyone but Dirty Harry, especially when he's playing character with a badge, but I have an easier time separating Tightrope.



fkbrs3.jpg




You don't get any credit if you do consider it the GOAT, but if you don't, you're usually taken away and never seen again...



<mma4>



You dirty solipsist.



I've still got some kinks to work out.



I've always been big on language and cultivating a sophisticated vocabulary, but jargon is usually where I draw the line. That Hitchcock essay, though, was written for my last undergrad class and I intentionally wrote it as jargony as possible as an exercise and to ensure it'd get published. And, big surprise, it got published, because sadly there's nothing academics love more than jargon :rolleyes:



giphy.gif




Try this: The film is a contradiction, but Hitchcock wasn't contradicting himself. The point for Hitchcock was to contradict Selznick, thereby clearly delineating his perspective (and thus his claim to authorship) over (or, more accurately, under) Selznick's. Furthermore, when you look at Hitchcock's career after Spellbound, it's easy to go back to Spellbound and recognize the Hitchcockian and separate it from the non-Hitchcockian.

giphy.gif




giphy.gif




tumblr_nwhr5cSsNO1qmynhyo1_400.gif


Holiday is one of the most genuine romances out there. That scene in the play room as the New Year dawns is incredible, then Hepburn talking with Lew Ayres. It's gold, Jerry. Gold!



I'm already nine seasons in on South Park and I can count on one hand the number of times I've actually laughed out loud. It's more about how clever the satire is. For some reason, they didn't hit the same level of hilarity in South Park that they hit in their movies. As for Family Guy, that's the one that's gut-bustingly hilarious. South Park barely even registers on the laugh scale for me whereas I couldn't possibly hope to count the number of times I've been absolutely destroyed by something in Family Guy.



I want them to finish getting the Pancrase backlog up and then I want to see Rings. Everything else is just gravy. Those two are the ones I'm dying to see in full.



idjut.gif
If you care to summarize and simplify, that would be great. Because I went about halfway through that essay and everything presented was ridiculous. I didn't need a history of film that it started off with, it brings nothing to the debate of art films being formulaic, and then when it tried to find conventions shared with nothing but examples of films made 50 years ago or more, I had enough. If you aren't going to discuss Lynch, Noe, Refn, or any film makers more modern than Kurosawa and Fellini, than the sample size is too small and specific to be taken seriously.

Not really. Action films at the end of the day need to involve action. Romantic comedies need to involve romance and comedy. So those spectrums are much narrower than the loose titling of 'art film'. Big difference between Eraserhead and Stalker. The gap inbetween those two "art' films in relevancy to one other is far greater than any two action movies.

I also vehemently disagree with your point that reacting outside of the artist's terms is an insult to them, and that interpretation is pretty straight forward. Refn would strongly disagree with that as well, as a defined example of an artist who has stated making a viewer feel any way is important to him, no matter what that feeling may be.
 
. I can't take anything in that franchise seriously. Bad storytelling.

Rant Triggered.

You know, one of the things I hate about modern remakes is how they use nostalgic events as a means of achieving drama, purely on the nostalgia and not what the film itself has set up. Nostalgia as dramatic shorthand, basically.

Take Star Trek: Into Darkness as example. When Cumberbatch reveals that he is Khan, it is played as this uber-dramatic moment. But it's only dramatic if you have a child-like nostalgia for the original film. Into Blackness on its own did not do anything to hype-up the identity of Khan as something we should hold any reverence to. Khan-the-character only holds weight in his existence on the overall cultural plane, not in the movie. So his unmasking only "works" in relation to the previous film.

Modern remakes do not only tap the nostalgia factor in that they are remakes on an overall, abstract structure or identity. They use nostalgic callbacks as a shorthand for creating dramatic events. "Remember this?" moments that are supposed to fuel emotions. It's lazy and unengaging. It is the equivalent of what shaky-cam is for cinematography, a cheap, ineffectual way of creating something.

Sure, callbacks can be fun if played right. But more and more we seem to see callbacks used as shorthands for drama. In contrast, I can see people thinking that the buss-scene callback in the remake of Cat People may be rather reduntant and gratuitous. But at least it's not used as a shorthand for drama. It's a quick in-and-out callback that is not meant to shoulder an dramatic cornerstone of the film on its own. Unlike the Khan scene.

Sure, I guess you could apply Bullitt the Eastwood-Heretic's sayings about reducibility here. Most of those movies only exist to tap nostalgia anyways. But I don't give a shit. It's still fucking abysmal.
 
Last edited:
Rant Triggered.

You know, one of the things I hate about modern remakes is how they use nostalgic events as a means of achieving drama, purely on the nostalgia and not what the film itself has set up.

Take Star Trek: Into Darkness as example. When Cumberbatch reveals that he is Khan, it is played as this uber-dramatic moment. But it's only dramatic if you have a child-like nostalgia for the original film. Into Blackness on its own did not do anything to hype-up the identity of Khan as something we should hold any reverence to. Khan-the-character only holds weight in his existence on the overall cultural plane, not in the movie. So his unmasking only "works" in relation to the previous film.

Modern remakes do not only tap the nostalgia factor in that they are remakes on an overall, abstract structure or identity. They use nostalgic callbacks as a shorthand for creating dramatic events. "Remember this?" moments that are supposed to fuel emotions. It's lazy and unengaging. It is the equivalent of what shaky-cam is for cinematography, a cheap, ineffectual way of creating something.

Sure, callbacks can be fun if played right. But more and more we seem to see callbacks used as shorthands for drama. In contrast, I can see people thinking that the buss-scene callback in the remake of Cat People may be rather reduntant and gratuitous. But at least it's not used as a shorthand for drama. It's a quick in-and-out callback that is not meant to shoulder an dramatic cornerstone of the film on its own. Unlike the Khan scene.

Sure, I guess you could apply Bullitt the Eastwood-Heretic's sayings about reducibility here. Most of those movies only exist to tap nostalgia anyways. But I don't give a shit. It's still fucking abysmal.

Ok.

I REALLY like this post. Totally with you on nostalgia as shorthand.

Shit has gone on too long man. It just makes me sad because there was a chance for these things to be beautiful. New stories with new stakes. Conflict in a modern setting. There was so much to look forward to.

But they fucked it all up.

I try to be optimistic. But the second time I watched the ending of Civil War I knew something in me had broken.

They couldn't even let Cap and Tony have a genuine rift! After fighting almost to the death, Tony gets a phone and a loving message, "You will always have me to call on." Just blech. Put down the toys and be adults for fuck's sake. We, the audience can handle two beloved characters having issues.

I understand Bullitt the Fury Road Hater's point. Yes, these are just nostalgic trips. I suppose my issue is: shouldn't we expect more?
 
If you care to summarize and simplify, that would be great. Because I went about halfway through that essay and everything presented was ridiculous. I didn't need a history of film that it started off with, it brings nothing to the debate of art films being formulaic, and then when it tried to find conventions shared with nothing but examples of films made 50 years ago or more, I had enough. If you aren't going to discuss Lynch, Noe, Refn, or any film makers more modern than Kurosawa and Fellini, than the sample size is too small and specific to be taken seriously.

Not really. Action films at the end of the day need to involve action. Romantic comedies need to involve romance and comedy. So those spectrums are much narrower than the loose titling of 'art film'. Big difference between Eraserhead and Stalker. The gap inbetween those two "art' films in relevancy to one other is far greater than any two action movies.

I also vehemently disagree with your point that reacting outside of the artist's terms is an insult to them, and that interpretation is pretty straight forward. Refn would strongly disagree with that as well, as a defined example of an artist who has stated making a viewer feel any way is important to him, no matter what that feeling may be.
That Bordwell essay is far from ridiculous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top