Serious Movie Discussion XLI

[Flemmy Stardust]

"I just like it" works for me right now because I don't have a vocabulary to explain why I like what I like in a satisfactory manner.

But surely there are such reasons, or at least surely some of those reasons are communicable. Expertise should be about finding the words for those, as much as peeling apart the formal elements.

I agree that articulation of why you like it is possible...but there are things that i like in one case and dislike in the next. Given how complex each case actually is - the marriage of so many moving parts - i think it's crazy to think there are objective truths to apply across the board in any sort of meaningful way.

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

I agree that articulation of why you like it is possible...but there are things that i like in one case and dislike in the next. Given how complex each case actually is - the marriage of so many moving parts - i think it's crazy to think there are objective truths to apply across the board in any sort of meaningful way.

surely there are principles behind the things you like and you're arguing about their execution at that point.

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

surely there are principles behind the things you like and you're arguing about their execution at that point.

Well then we can talk about the part where I like it, yet others do not.

 

[chickenluver]

King Hu

A Touch of Zen just got a Criterion release. It was certainly needed, the DVD I watched a while back had bad visual quality. During the nighttime ambush scene I couldn't see what was happening.

They actually showed it and a restoration of Dragon Inn in my city but I missed my chance to catch either.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I agree that articulation of why you like it is possible...but there are things that i like in one case and dislike in the next. Given how complex each case actually is - the marriage of so many moving parts - i think it's crazy to think there are objective truths to apply across the board in any sort of meaningful way.

I agree at the very base level, and also with regard to interaction of parts adding complexity. What if I broke it down into three potential categories:

1. The ineffable, subjective response: "This just spoke to me."
2. The principled subjective response: "I prefer films with functional story-lines."

These are straightforward, they communicate the experience of the viewer in ways he can't explain (1) and ways he (thinks he) can (2). I agree with you that the line between these can become blurry, especially in cases where we find we enjoy an arrangement of parts when we wouldn't usually care for the parts themselves.

Then there's also:

3. The principled objective response: "The cinematography was masterful."

(3) is more difficult because it requires contextual knowledge. It may evaluate the craftsman's technical skill among other, similar craftsmen, or it may remark upon his ability to fulfill his stated intentions upon creation. I think (3) is important because in most cases the creator is trying to do something or invoke something in the viewer, and to tell him then that everyone just had an inexplicably pleasurable experience as a result of his creation would not do it justice. He would have to ask "did they get what I was trying to do?" and as soon as we start to discuss better and worse ways of doing whatever that was, we move into the realm of objective referents. In other words we naturally have to be able to speak about the art in the terms under which it was built. The trick is mixing those terms with the individual experience and meaning we derive from it, which takes emotional precedence.

I'm now trying to decide if the ineffable, objective response can be a thing, but I think that's a contradiction in terms lol.

 

[europe1]

I watched The Witch last night and surprisingly I actually loved it, because I really don't like horror movies and normally don't go near them. But after hearing all the good reviews, and that this was a bit more of an art house sort of film that was barely horror I thought I'd give it a go. And I thought it was great, one reason I hate horror is the cheap 'jumps' that they use to scare people and I just don't enjoy that sort of thing...whereas The Witch was just filled with this feeling of dread the whole way through. This had a lot to do with the soundtrack which was extremely unsettling at times...it also didn't help that I watched it at around 12pm. It wasn't necessarily 'scary', but definitely eery and unsettling. One thing I loved about the film was the historical setting and accuracy, which was another reason I had wanted to watch it. It felt very real, and I loved that they even used speech patterns that were accurate to the time, then you have the costumes, their style of living and everything else. Well I'm a history student so I enjoyed the accuracy for it's own sake, but it also made the film more frightening in a sense, the puritans world is created so accurately which makes their fears seem more real too. That fear is a big reason that I liked it so much, unlike the sort of horror films I don't like (I think the last horror film I watched was Paranormal Activity and before that one of the Saw films) that rely on shock factor and gore, the fear in this film was more to do with religious terror and how that tears the family apart.

I am very happy right now. You don't know what this means to me. I am so happy in fact -- that I absolve you for what you said about Mad Max. Saints themselves could not bestow higher blessings. You are officially on the "let into heaven list". I shall have the icecream bar opened at all times for your lesiure.

The Witch was a great. I agree with everything you said. Another thing is how the movie would make you sympathetic towards the fate of that puritan family. This is an feat in-and-of-itself considering how the horror genre has so often been burdened with bland, cardboard-cutout characterization. Not only did The Witch make you care about the protagonists, it made you care about freaking puritans. Not a group that modern society tends to try to make you empathise with.

Some of this is shouldered on just how historically immerse this film is (as well as the acting -- let's not forget those folks, oh and the script too). To make us fear what they feared -- you have to be lured into their way of living, their way of seeing the world. The poverty they live under, the daily strains and insecurities this puts on them as a family, especially the oldest daughter and son. The way it presents religious terror as a means of tearing the family apart works so well because it feels natural in the context of their lives and beliefs, which we have been so elegantly immersed into.

"I just like it" works for me right now because I don't have a vocabulary to explain why I like what I like in a satisfactory manner.

Is this some sort of shadowy statement on that Stalker write-up that you promised?

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.

Have you seen the episode where South Park spoofs Family Guy yet?

It's rather... enlightening.

And I have no reason why ANYONE would ever care about either South Park or Family Guy when the prime-years of The Simpsons is the pinnacle of human achievement.

We're on the same wavelength, but I'd go beyond escapism/wish-fulfillment, which connote triviality/naivety, to affirmation. The relevant passage of Rand's that brought this into focus for me is the following, in which she talks about "thrillers" and why they're so awesome:

'What people seek in thrillers is the spectacle of man’s efficacy: of his ability to fight for his values and to achieve them. What they see is a condensed, simplified pattern, reduced to its essentials: a man fighting for a vital goal - overcoming one obstacle after another - facing terrible dangers and risks - persisting through an excruciating struggle - and winning. Far from suggesting an easy or “unrealistic” view of life, a thriller suggests the necessity of a difficult struggle; if the hero is “larger-than-life,” so are the villains and the dangers. An abstraction has to be “larger-than-life” - to encompass any concretes that individual men may be concerned with, each according to the scale of his own values, goals and ambition. The scale varies; the psychological relationships involved remain the same. The obstacles confronting an average man are, to him, as formidable as Bond’s adversaries; but what the image of Bond tells him is: “It can be done.”

What men find in the spectacle of the ultimate triumph of the good is the inspiration to fight for one’s own values in the moral conflicts of one’s own life. If the proclaimers of human impotence, the seekers of automatic security, protest that “life is not like that, happy endings are not guaranteed to man” - the answer is: a thriller is more realistic than such views of existence, it shows men the only road that can make any sort of happy ending possible.

Here, we come to an interesting paradox. It is only the superficiality of the Naturalists that classifies Romanticism as “an escape”; this is true only in the very superficial sense of contemplating a glamorous vision as a relief from the gray burden of “real-life” problems. But in the deeper, metaphysical-moral-psychological sense, it is Naturalism that represents an escape - an escape from choice, from values, from moral responsibility - and it is Romanticism that trains and equips man for the battles he has to face in reality.'

All of this sounds good to me. It sounds right. I can't reconcile it, though, with what you go on to talk about:

Wait... wait... wait... wait...

There is something fundementally very odd going on here. Well... odd to me at least. I'm sure it makes sense to you.

You seem to conflate the fate of the protagonist with the ability of the movie to be inspiring or not. If the protagonist wins, it inspires you to strive towards your goals and values. If the protagonist fails, it is a discouragement towards doing that.


No amount of writing can summarize how feverenly I disagree with this.

Chinatown did not make me feel that everything is hopeless. It taught me to loath injustice. Citizen Khodos did not turn me into a cynical asshole. It thaught me the sanctity of democracy and the free press, how important those things are. Barry Lyndon did not teach me that it is hopeless for a rootless, opportunist man to become content, happy and good. It taught me the value of having a deep sympathy towards the fates, lives and dreams of other human beings.

Obviously not every film where the protagonist fails does this. Something like Sergio Leone's Duck, You Sucker (whose Italian title basically means "keep your head down", ie: don't engage in politics, don't stick your neck out, etc), is more about enlightening you what it really means/entails to try to achieve said values, that it most likely won't be you that will reap the benefits of said achievements even though you've shouldered all the burdensomeness, and that the cost of doing so is not worth it. Or to talk about a film you actually care about. Raging Bull told me that Jake LaMotta could only really be who he was in the ring becuse of what he was outside the ring. Basically, to be a boxing-beast like he was entails being a self-destructive bombshell as a human being. Which is rather discouraging if you wish to emulate him in any way.

In contrast, something like Bond is just airy reinsurance. I do not feel roused to improve myself or take a more valued stance towards an issue after seeing Bond. It's more like the perservation of the status-quo. Don't worry, supermen exist and keep the world afloot. That sort of things. There is no human connection between myself with Bond. Him winning does little for me except for stimulating my base emotions for fun and excitement.

Shane, the book, he read it years ago... he barely remembered the movie though... thought you might find that interesting.

Or infuriating.

Haha. Yeah I think that's rather odd. Shane the book is teenage escapism just done better and more cleverly than it usually is. Shane the movie is like the Garden of Eden.

although I do think a great movie could be made using the first half of that story and then turning it into a "12 Angry Men" style debate about rights and privilege.

Oh come on and admit it! You think that about every movie!

 

[Ricky13]

I don't know man. I like the Berry and the Dog, but when the SMD is on, sheesh, it's the bestest. Got BeardoftheInsano and FinalCountdown talking some crazy kung-fu shit for pages, then Bullitt slams dat megapost that let's off a tidal wave of posts on superheros, function, and art film, now Caveat, Hunter and Flem doing that philosophical dance.

TELL me it ain't the shit. I dare you. I DOUBLE DARE YOU MOTHERRFUCKER.

 

[Bullitt68]

When the SMD is on, it's tough to explain but...

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

3. The principled objective response: "The cinematography was masterful."

(3) is more difficult because it requires contextual knowledge. It may evaluate the craftsman's technical skill among other, similar craftsmen, or it may remark upon his ability to fulfill his stated intentions upon creation. I think (3) is important because in most cases the creator is trying to do something or invoke something in the viewer, and to tell him then that everyone just had an inexplicably pleasurable experience as a result of his creation would not do it justice. He would have to ask "did they get what I was trying to do?" and as soon as we start to discuss better and worse ways of doing whatever that was, we move into the realm of objective referents. In other words we naturally have to be able to speak about the art in the terms under which it was built. The trick is mixing those terms with the individual experience and meaning we derive from it, which takes emotional precedence.

I'm not seeing the objectivity, meaning - yes we can say it was what it was objectively - but "wrong/right" or "good/bad" is still a unique, individual response to it. There is too much evidence against it in every example for me to consider art objective.

Further, i oppose the very idea of trying to strip away the personal response to it. It is the only thing that makes any page in this thread interesting. And it all feels a lot like an endeavor to justify one's own interests as "better".


Here's something objective:

"Do re mi" is objectively pleasing to the ear. It is the C scale, and we are biologically accepting of it. Who wants to listen to it?

 

[ufcfan4]

Have you seen the episode where South Park spoofs Family Guy yet?

It's rather... enlightening.

And I have no reason why ANYONE would ever care about either South Park or Family Guy when the prime-years of The Simpsons is the pinnacle of human achievement.

When people ask what is the better show, South Park or The Simpsons, my usual reply is that the highs of the Simpson were higher than South park, than Family Guy, than American Dad, than Archer, than any animated comedy show.

But if you're looking overall series- South Park becomes a lot more competitive purely because South Park maintained a high quality standard (and even improved from its earlier more surreal, zany years) for a longer period of its run (still going strong in my opinion) while the Simpsons fell off massively after about the 12th/13th season.

If you watch anything from 2010 on, it's almost like you're watching a completely different show from the classic years. Sure there are still some funny episodes, still some good natured ones. still some moderately amusing ones. But I feel as though the best episodes you see in the past seven-ten years would only be considered mediocre if you placed them in season 12 or 13 and would seem outright subpar if you mixed them in with seasons 2 to 10.

Family Guy has some hysterical moments, don't get me wrong. But what I always felt about Family Guy was that it was an ideal show for the onset of youtube and for my college years. It wasn't so much about watching overall episodes. It's particular scenes, moments, references that you can go back and watch and that are funny. But looking at it as a collective show, I feel it lacks what South Park and The Simpsons have which is narrative cohesion. I could list the number of Family Guy episodes where I actually remember the plot and it would be a short list. But I could list a bunch of funny scenes. I think the quality of the writing on South Park and The Simpsons (particularly in its heyday) was just stronger.

MacFarlane banks a lot on the good will of nostalgic pop culture references- some very obvious and others far more obscure. I remember there is an episode where Peter, Lois, the kids, and Brian are visiting a college (don't know if it was Lois' alma mater) and Brian mentions that he had a really bad experience when he went away to college..and it does a cutaway where Brian is about to enter his dorm and sees the words GO HOME, DOG painted on the exterior. He then proceeds to yell COWWWARDS! exactly like Brendan Fraser in School Ties.

How many shows are just going to drop relatively obscure references like that? They make you laugh, nod your head in recognition, appreciate them, but the total product of the episodes is very hot and cold in my opinion.

I'd be interested to hear if you and Bullitt have watched American Dad. Definitely has its moments.

 

[Shot]

I haven't posted in here in awhile. Video games + BJJ + working overtime will do that.

BUT! I've watched some movies lately

1) Kingdom of Heaven (Extended Edition) - I always wanted to watch this, as I'm a huge fan of epic films, but I've never really gotten the chance. I really enjoyed it. The cast was fucking excellent, even Orlando Bloom, who got some criticism for the role based upon the reviews I read. I thought he did a fine job in the lead role. Liam Neeson was perfect. As was Norton, Eva Green, Jeremy Irons, and pretty much the rest of the cast. For the runtime, I never felt that the movie bogged down, and I can't imagine what they cut out to reduce it by 45 minutes.

2) Apocalypto - I miss Mel Gibson. That dude could direct a movie. I loved how authentic this movie felt, the locations, the actors, everything. It really helped the immersion factor. I don't really know what else to say, but the movie messed with my head a little bit. Normally violence in cinema doesn't phase me, but the authenticity in which its presented here made it extremely difficult to watch. It wasn't the perfect movie, the ending kinda annoyed me (If you're gonna go full dues ex machine, at least try to set it up a little bit), but I so much of the movie and what it was trying to convey that I gave it a pass.

3) The Hateful Eight - I loved this movie in theaters. A lot of the tension was lost during the second viewing, but its still great. The dialogue is probably in the bottom half of Tarantino's catalog, but pure directing ability its up there with everything else he's made. Love how a lot of the shots were set up.

 

[europe1]

But if you're looking overall series- South Park becomes a lot more competitive purely because South Park maintained a high quality standard

This may be true. You may be correct. However, even if it is true then you will never hear me say it. Remember, ufcfan4, that certain things are so holy that they should not be challenged, not examined, not subjected to any treatment that can be considered profane. You'd do well to remember that the next time you open your mouth and speak about The Simpsons.

I'd be interested to hear if you and Bullitt have watched American Dad. Definitely has its moments.

I've caught a dozen or so episodes on TV but It has never really caught me. Semi-funny stuff.

1) Kingdom of Heaven (Extended Edition)

Oh boy...

In my life -- I've NEVER encountered a movie that improves so much from the Extended Edition as Kingdom of Heaven does. There is not a single example that even comes close to it. The theatrical film is mediocre, the extended version is legitimately a great film. The diffrence between the two are downright startling.

and I can't imagine what they cut out to reduce it by 45 minutes.

Pretty much everything dealing with religion in any deep manner.
Bundles of character motivations
The Queen's son (in the theatrical version -- she's just sad that they lost the battle).
Plenty of things meant for pacing and rythm.
And a bunch of other stuff that I cannot recall

The editing in the theatrical version -- particuarly the second half, is absolutely butchered. Conversations end abruptly. Plenty of jarring leaps. Characters and motivations that feel weak.

 

[europe1]

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.

So do you want the good news first or the bad news first?

Good News

Spoiler

Mary of Scotland was one of Ford's better films.

There is some bad news in the good news though, I suspect that I didn't like it for the same reason you did.

As a rule-of-thumb. I found Mary the politician more intresting than Mary the romantic partner. The various issues she had to deal with in relation to her identity and politics was fascinating. That is to say, Mary as a Catholic in Protestant lands, Mary as an "foreigner" in Scottish lands, Mary the throne pretender in the Stuart dynasty, and so on. Hepburn got across that Mary was really just a sensitive person who wished to live in peace with her political opponents and tried finding sensible solutions to these issues. Her inviting in John Knox to smoke the peace pipe and him reputing her so callously was a great scene.

That said, while the romantic stuff wasn't bad by any means it didn't match the standards of the rest of the film. This whole thing about pitting Mary inbetween an impotent, effeminate loveless man and the big, boisterous, manly-man that she really loves just came across as a bit base to me in relation to the aforementioned themes.

For example, in the scene where Mary is put on trial by the English clergymen, I was right with her when she was defending her innocence, really loving how she unveiled the fact that this was a mock-trail where accusations was framed as questions. Then when that servants is brought in and informs her of manly-man's death I was like "oh, that's a bummer".

Also, why are you hailing Frederic March in this piece? His thespian limelight was in Inherit the Wind. Hepburn and Florance Eldridge was the deadly two-punch combination here. Eldridge schooled Bette Davis when it comes to Elizabeth portrayals (thinking about The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex) That scene where March pisses on the fire gave me a hearty laugh though -- quite bawdly for the 30's! But yes, Hepburn was the heart-and-center of this film. Great screen presence. Ricky13: The Story of Ricky-Oh13, likes to bring up the (valid) criticism that Hepburn always feels like Hepburn when she's on screen. Here I felt that there was a nice balance between the Hepburn-ness and the "acting". So if you wish to envelop his left flank the next time you war over her then you may bring that up.

The play between light and shadows was also really atmospheric in this one. Ford did a good job on the visuals front. It's really one of those examples where the director wants to aggrandize the actors through his visuals (well... especially Hepburn)

I have to admit though... not sure what close-up you mean? When Katherina is at the trial? When she's about to be excecuted? When March confronts her?

Bad News.

Spoiler

Really? The Last Hurrah? Best Ford movie? Was it an automatic win for you becuse it starred Spencer Tracy? Was it an automatic win becuse it reminded you of The Fountainhead? It was, wasn't it? You are going to post that Rand quote about romantic heroes again as a reply, arn't you? Do you realize that this entire paragraph is just a bunch of question marks?

Okay. It wasn't bad. It was... somewhat above avarage. By Ford standards it has to rank pretty low for me. I'd guess I'd say that it beats out stuff like Cheyenne Autumn, The Wings of Eagles, Forth Apache, and is just behind a movie like Mogambo in terms of quality.

It's just the "saintly, upright man fighting against the wicked cartoon villians" again. The are evil and petty and wish nothing more than to see him destroyed and humiliated but he's just such a principled übermensch that it will never work! As far as such stories go it's... okay. Spencer uplifts it somewhat I suppose but nothing that makes the picture great. Sure, the scene where the reporter grts explained the true reason why Spencer is at the funeral has some investment, but in the end its just about saying what a saint Spencer is, again.

Some of the themes that I found intresting they didn't really delve into. The secterian aspects of the political landscape for example. Spencer's votingbase is heavily catholic irish while the old-guard that the bankers represent are yankee protestant. Had it delved into this more, their conflict would have become more intresting. That way the politics would have been linked to their identities, the dark underbelly about politics in how it plays on group-affiliations, not just being another skirmish between "Good vs Evulz".

And how the hell did Tracy lose that election anyways? His opponents marketing-campaing was bumbling and awkward yet still they decimated Spencer in the vooting polls. Are we supposed to assume that some underhanded buisness was afoot? The film never explains this.

Hell, Tracy is even named Skeffington in this movie! Why didn't you recommend the movie Mr. Skeffington instead?.... nah, Mr. Skeffington isn't much better now that I think about it.

As I said, it is all very similar to The Fountainhead in terms of theme. But at least The Fountainhead was fun and snared you along with it! It's ostentatiousness and dat Vidor craftsmanship gave it an air of grandeur that couldn't help but be endearing. Better acting too! As well as that romance which was just a riot.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Watched Häxan this morning, was in the mood for something to do with witchcraft and remembered I had downloaded it a while ago. I did enjoy it and thought it was an interesting mix of documentary and fiction. Some of the shots and visual effects were brilliant too, especially considering it's age, but it was a bit in your face with it's anti-clericalism and the suggestion that belief in witchcraft was little more than a misunderstanding of mental illnesses doesn't seem particularly credible to me.

 

[Ricky13]

See, i love Inception, and agree with everything you're saying.

I don't know where we go wrong with Mad Max, because it's the very same kind of intellectual, cool as fuck kind of movie to me.

Wasn't his problem motivation? I'm assuming you recall his finding everyone unworthy of empathy.

Inception spends its first half building the world, the relative position of the players. It opens with a literal vignette of the second half of the film, with Saito's unintelligible dialogue cluing us into the dream-within-the-dream, and that the film's reveals were to come by way of such dialogue:

"I've arwars hurrrted thiscarpuuut. Isstained andflayed in sach distinctive wase... but its polystrrrr not wool so not my carpuuuut."

The opening is a well-dramatised, albeit wordy, dress rehearsal. Part of the draw is this dramatisation of the learning process. Anything worth going, "Shit that's cool," is mouthed. We don't learn what limbo is from being dropped into it. We don't see the sedative being consumed and then work out that it's powerful along the way. We're not told visually that catharsis is more effective than shame as an inceptive tool. That's all verbalised. REPEATEDLY. Nolan's skill is in making us go, "Wow", just from hearing people saying these things. I think that's where teh Bullitt is sold. It's banking on the experiential (drama) keeping pace with the cerebral (dialogue).

OMGZZZZZZ JUST LIKE A DREAM!!!!!

Hell, you only just find out what limbo is before the plan changes wholesale.

Fury Road works the other way. It's hard to even understand where the War Rig is going at the start because when the War Boys yell it out, it's incomprehensible almost, "We're going to Gas Town for guzzoline." All you see is the road. The map evolves in your mind. You experience it and then assign the landmarks significance. For instance, until they decide to return to the Citadel you don't realise it's home. Who they are, what they're like, why it's home, you learn from the road.

What they share is depth. They're getting there in very different ways, I think.

 

[Joseph Budden]

Speaking of Nolan

Why do people like Interstellar? What a shit film

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

Wasn't his problem motivation? I'm assuming you recall his finding everyone unworthy of empathy.

Inception spends its first half building the world, the relative position of the players. It opens with a literal vignette of the second half of the film, with Saito's unintelligible dialogue cluing us into the dream-within-the-dream, and that the film's reveals were to come by way of such dialogue:

"I've arwars hurrrted thiscarpuuut. Isstained andflayed in sach distinctive wase... but its polystrrrr not wool so not my carpuuuut."

The opening is a well-dramatised, albeit wordy, dress rehearsal. Part of the draw is this dramatisation of the learning process. Anything worth going, "Shit that's cool," is mouthed. We don't learn what limbo is from being dropped into it. We don't see the sedative being consumed and then work out that it's powerful along the way. We're not told visually that catharsis is more effective than shame as an inceptive tool. That's all verbalised. REPEATEDLY. Nolan's skill is in making us go, "Wow", just from hearing people saying these things. I think that's where teh Bullitt is sold. It's banking on the experiential (drama) keeping pace with the cerebral (dialogue).

OMGZZZZZZ JUST LIKE A DREAM!!!!!

Hell, you only just find out what limbo is before the plan changes wholesale.

Fury Road works the other way. It's hard to even understand where the War Rig is going at the start because when the War Boys yell it out, it's incomprehensible almost, "We're going to Gas Town for guzzoline." All you see is the road. The map evolves in your mind. You experience it and then assign the landmarks significance. For instance, until they decide to return to the Citadel you don't realise it's home. Who they are, what they're like, why it's home, you learn from the road.

What they share is depth. They're getting there in very different ways, I think.

But check this out, playa...

The exposition itself is a super intellectual, thematic reinforcement in Inception.

One of the most important themes of the movie is the idea of running out of time. Cobb's clock is running out of time to get back to his kids and to be a father.

He didn't have enough time to help Mal. He's running out of time to even be able to perform Inception. His catharsis with Mal was finally realizing that he did, in essence, have his time with her.

The exposition mirrors just that. There's not enough time to explain everything in the world-building/preparation portion, so we get all these on-the-fly explanations dropped on us when we get thrown into the thick of it...usually it's through Ariadne who is as new to and inquisitive of this world as we are.

So yeah...the opposite of Mad Max, but equally as thoughtful and intellectual IMO.


And then, for both, if i wanted to say "fuck it" with all the poetry...both deliver with the instant gratification of just being so fucking cool.

 

[Shot]

Speaking of Nolan

Why do people like Interstellar? What a shit film

I thought Interstellar, thematically speaking, was pretty weak. I wish it had something a bit more unique to say than "love conquers all" essentially, but I was invested in it all the way through. The character progressions after the first time jump always felt a bit wonky, especially Cooper's son, but I still think enjoyed it and it certainly invested me. Coop watching the messages after he came back from ocean planet was a hugely powerful moment.

Oh boy...

In my life -- I've NEVER encountered a movie that improves so much from the Extended Edition as Kingdom of Heaven does. There is not a single example that even comes close to it. The theatrical film is mediocre, the extended version is legitimately a great film. The diffrence between the two are downright startling.




Pretty much everything dealing with religion in any deep manner.
Bundles of character motivations
The Queen's son (in the theatrical version -- she's just sad that they lost the battle).
Plenty of things meant for pacing and rythm.
And a bunch of other stuff that I cannot recall

The editing in the theatrical version -- particuarly the second half, is absolutely butchered. Conversations end abruptly. Plenty of jarring leaps. Characters and motivations that feel weak.

I kinda want to check it out just for curiosities sake. I can't imagine them removing Eva Green's son. That was a huge element into her whole role in the last act of the film.

I felt the movie succeeded balancing all the different sub plots. I can see that being royally fucked up with the editing.

 

[europe1]

I did enjoy it and thought it was an interesting mix of documentary and fiction.

Yeah it's rather fascinating how thoroughly experimental it is. Especially considering the timeframe. Was documentaries even invented in 1922? Nanok of the North came out the same years, didn't it? Yet despite that -- I can't think of a single film that reminds me of Häxan. It is really unique. So many ideas and techniques are just crammed in there.

belief in witchcraft was little more than a misunderstanding of mental illnesses doesn't seem particularly credible to me.

Well that feels like something very much of its time. Superstitions as mental illness, and all that.

Some of the shots and visual effects were brilliant too

That feast-scene on the mountain was an absolute riot. Orgys. Child-sacrifice. Crucifix tap-dancing. Casual nudity. Interdemonic annilingus. Blood-drinking. Hell my grandparents knew how to party!


Also... why was Satan churning butter?

Spoiler

Wasn't his problem motivation? I'm assuming you recall his finding everyone unworthy of empathy.

Inception spends its first half building the world, the relative position of the players. It opens with a literal vignette of the second half of the film, with Saito's unintelligible dialogue cluing us into the dream-within-the-dream, and that the film's reveals were to come by way of such dialogue:

"I've arwars hurrrted thiscarpuuut. Isstained andflayed in sach distinctive wase... but its polystrrrr not wool so not my carpuuuut."

The opening is a well-dramatised, albeit wordy, dress rehearsal. Part of the draw is this dramatisation of the learning process. Anything worth going, "Shit that's cool," is mouthed. We don't learn what limbo is from being dropped into it. We don't see the sedative being consumed and then work out that it's powerful along the way. We're not told visually that catharsis is more effective than shame as an inceptive tool. That's all verbalised. REPEATEDLY. Nolan's skill is in making us go, "Wow", just from hearing people saying these things. I think that's where teh Bullitt is sold. It's banking on the experiential (drama) keeping pace with the cerebral (dialogue).

OMGZZZZZZ JUST LIKE A DREAM!!!!!

Hell, you only just find out what limbo is before the plan changes wholesale.

Fury Road works the other way. It's hard to even understand where the War Rig is going at the start because when the War Boys yell it out, it's incomprehensible almost, "We're going to Gas Town for guzzoline." All you see is the road. The map evolves in your mind. You experience it and then assign the landmarks significance. For instance, until they decide to return to the Citadel you don't realise it's home. Who they are, what they're like, why it's home, you learn from the road.

What they share is depth. They're getting there in very different ways, I think.

Man everytime you write something Ricky13 I'm cheering on you from the stands like this.

 

[Ricky13]

But check this out, playa...

The exposition itself is a super intellectual, thematic reinforcement in Inception.

One of the most important themes of the movie is the idea of running out of time. Cobb's clock is running out of time to get back to his kids and to be a father.

He didn't have enough time to help Mal. He's running out of time to even be able to perform Inception. His catharsis with Mal was finally realizing that he did, in essence, have his time with her.

The exposition mirrors just that. There's not enough time to explain everything in the world-building/preparation portion, so we get all these on-the-fly explanations dropped on us when we get thrown into the thick of it...usually it's through Ariadne who is as new to and inquisitive of this world as we are.

So yeah...the opposite of Mad Max, but equally as thoughtful and intellectual IMO.

Definitely liking this.

I especially like the framing of the battering ram pacing as a thematic device as opposed to one of convenience. Going to pop the film on over the weekend.

And then, for both, if i wanted to say "fuck it" with all the poetry...both deliver with the instant gratification of just being so fucking cool.

This kind of gets lost in the shuffle with the Nolan haters. Not a big fan of the way he cuts, but there seems to be little appreciation for how he is so goddamn cinematic despite just packing theme in till the film is bursting from it. That's my issue with his more recent work - the diminishment of economy. There's a very clear thematic line through his early works (up to Inception, anyway) that leave them with a classic veneer I really dig.

Man everytime you write something Ricky13 I'm cheering on you from the stands like this.

You're too kind, you European crazy person.