|
Post by Michael on Jul 4, 2006 15:26:51 GMT
It was absolutely pointless, stupid, and unfunny. The characters were developed horribly, and the entire thing was just completely insignificant to me. Why do I care about a bunch of porn stars and how their lives turned out?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 4, 2006 15:33:45 GMT
Why do I care about a bunch of porn stars and how their lives turned out? Well, it seems like you don't. I was planning on watching this tonight, actually.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 4, 2006 17:25:22 GMT
Black Narcissus Michael Powell / Emeric Pressburger 1947 UK[/color] 1st time; TVNuns at a convent set up in India struggle to entertain duty, madness and sexual craving.An unusual film in that it's not entirely clear what it's about, but one which works because it is astonishing to look at, and thoroughly establishes itself in its mise-en-scene, however studio-set it is.[/size] American Graffiti George Lucas 1973 US 1st time; TV An eventful night among teenagers in 1962 California. Personal comedy which conjures its time and place with what is an ultimately heartrending sense of nostalgia; the performances all have an immediate air to them, and the safety of being a teenager, however uncertain of the future, was never more attractive.Husk Jerry Handler 1999 South Africa / UK / US 1st time; TV A girl settles a deal with the man to whom her father owes money. The synopsis might become more clear on a rewatch, but the parallel editing in this short is rather abstract. Impressively shot.The Sopranos Season 6 no rating Various 2006 US 1st time; download Spoilers ahead. There is a moment in the penultimate episode of this twelve-part series, wherein Silvio tells Tony, upon hearing of a Capo's death, "This isn't about Vito, this is about you". It is a subtle nod to the form of the season as a whole; the plots dealing with other characters throughout are dealt with only in relation to Tony, and how he reacts to them. Vito's homosexuality may frustrate some, but it certainly allows Chase and co. to expose the mentality behind the Mob. If it is more fragmented (episodic?) than previous seasons, and falls further into inconclusive, inconsistent narrative threads, then it also probes deeper into psychological boundaries and proves insightful of characters, most of whom are revised here to have sides to them the previous five seasons fail to show. The seasons have become more and more mature and slower-paced as the show has progressed, and here the tone is heavily reflective, with characters all in some kind of identity crisis: Paulie finds out he isn't the man he thought he was, Christopher spirals back onto drugs, Carmela philosophises in Paris, and Tony dreams of being Kevin Finnerty whilst in a coma, to mention just a few. The show has developed into a darker, more existential series than some may have liked; its self-reflexivity and increasing intertextuality mark it as a highly clever turn, less about the Mafia than questions of identity, and masculinity in particular. Tellingly, early on in the season, Tony awakens from his coma and mutters, "Who am I? Where am I going?" It could just as easily have been Chase questioning who these creations are, and what is expected of them.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jul 4, 2006 18:39:16 GMT
It was absolutely pointless, stupid, and unfunny. The characters were developed horribly, and the entire thing was just completely insignificant to me. Why do I care about a bunch of porn stars and how their lives turned out? Though I haven't watched it in years, I remember there being some incredibly complicated and beautiful cinematic flourishes in there.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 4, 2006 19:33:27 GMT
It felt like the film had no idea where it was going, or what it was trying to say throughout the entire thing. Characters that weren't paid much attention to early in the film suddenly pop up towards the end and become a big deal. Stuff like that is okay if a genius like David Lynch were behind the camera handling it, but I felt Anderson did a very poor job.
To summarize this film in a single word: confused.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jul 4, 2006 19:42:26 GMT
Wetdog, could I hear your thoughts on "The Bonfire of the Vanities", "The Fury", "Sisters", "The Killing", and "Paths of Glory"? I thought the voiceover in The Killing was silly, but I read afterwards that Kubrick was forced to add it and disliked the idea, so he made the narrator state the obvious and get his facts wrong. I'll need to watch it again to appreciate that. The most interesting thing about it is the non-linear narrative structure, which is ambitious and probably quite influential (and also the reason the studio demanded the explanatory narration). I watched the first 75 minutes of it on a TV recording which cut out at the end, so I had to download it and watch the last six or seven minutes a few days later. Paths of Glory is a little too moralistic for my tastes - Kubrick's too, I think - especially in the latter half, back at the barracks and in the courtroom, but it remains fairly compelling. I loved the nighttime sequences in the trenches with peripheral characters trading philosophies, like the camera has nothing important to do and is just eavesdropping. Sisters is a film I already want to see again, along with half the De Palma work I've been exploring over the past few months, The Fury included. He's a fantastic visualist. He makes films that are unabashedly, openly films, only usually dramas or stories by proxy, because they're about other films. The Fury has a story that just careens totally unpredictably all over the place and ends with a scene that'd look like an upstaging of Scanners if it wasn't made three years previously. Sisters is the first film he made about Hitchcock's work, focusing on Rear Window and Psycho, and I think it's also the first time split-screen featured prominently. He shows so much love for the medium it's exhilerating. As for The Bonfire of the Vanities, it isn't as bad as its reputation, but it's not particularly good either. Unfunny, first of all, but more importantly, with the exception of a few impressive tracking shots and moving crane shots, it's cinematically quite bland.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jul 4, 2006 19:45:09 GMT
It felt like the film had no idea where it was going, or what it was trying to say throughout the entire thing. Characters that weren't paid much attention to early in the film suddenly pop up towards the end and become a big deal. Stuff like that is okay if a genius like David Lynch were behind the camera handling it, but I felt Anderson did a very poor job. To summarize this film in a single word: confused. I'd have to watch it again to comment on that, but aren't there some wonderful expository long-takes and highly accomplished tracking shots?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jul 4, 2006 19:47:15 GMT
Wow! Omar, you apparently HATED Sisters! Why was that?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 4, 2006 19:59:28 GMT
So far, I'm not a fan of De Palma. I have Carrie ready to go...
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Jul 4, 2006 21:16:58 GMT
It felt like the film had no idea where it was going, or what it was trying to say throughout the entire thing. Characters that weren't paid much attention to early in the film suddenly pop up towards the end and become a big deal. Stuff like that is okay if a genius like David Lynch were behind the camera handling it, but I felt Anderson did a very poor job. To summarize this film in a single word: confused. So if David Lynch does that, it's genius. Anderson does it, it's horrible and is the "most pointless film ever" as you put it? Or did you just it wrong? It's not like saying "Michael Mann's direction for To Live and Die in L.A. would've been better then Friedkin's."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 4, 2006 21:37:55 GMT
So if David Lynch does that, it's genius. Anderson does it, it's horrible and is the "most pointless film ever" as you put it? No, why would I think that? It's not like I'm biased, this was my first PTA film. What I meant was, Lynch is one of few directors who I think is capable of making a masterpiece using that sort of method. The difference is, Lynch's narratives are not obvious, and Boogie Nights' was. Therefore, going in-depth with characters who were spent little time with earlier on didn't really make much sense to me, and I found it rather annoying.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 4, 2006 21:38:42 GMT
It felt like the film had no idea where it was going, or what it was trying to say throughout the entire thing. Characters that weren't paid much attention to early in the film suddenly pop up towards the end and become a big deal. Stuff like that is okay if a genius like David Lynch were behind the camera handling it, but I felt Anderson did a very poor job. To summarize this film in a single word: confused. I'd have to watch it again to comment on that, but aren't there some wonderful expository long-takes and highly accomplished tracking shots? Yeah, but that type of stuff doesn;t strike an emotional chord with me unless there's some deeper method/meaning to it. Seems pretty shallow to me.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jul 4, 2006 22:21:24 GMT
I'd have to watch it again to comment on that, but aren't there some wonderful expository long-takes and highly accomplished tracking shots? Yeah, but that type of stuff doesn;t strike an emotional chord with me unless there's some deeper method/meaning to it. Seems pretty shallow to me. Wellll... you're certainly in the majority, then. But I totally disagree. I find the term "deep meaning" to be, more often than not, oxymoronic. I hesitate to say this, as it tends to piss people off, but I've also graduated from the nagging feeling to the unfortunate conclusion (largely from reading dozens of dumbfounding reviews of De Palma films recently, mainly Mission to Mars) that almost nobody in the world likes movies; critics and film buffs included. They like stories, they like characters, they like drama, yes - and movies are the most efficient and least demanding way for them to get those things. But there seems to be a near total disinterest in, and often even a barely concealed contempt for, cinema itself. It's bizarre, and I don't know what it's about, but I see it everywhere. I'm even beginning to take issue with the word 'medium'... Anyway, what would you consider 'deep'?
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Jul 4, 2006 22:32:59 GMT
I personally don't think everything has to have a deeper meaning. Things like camera work and suc hcan be innovative without a deeper meaning. Did the tracking zoom shots in Vertigo have any deeper meaning? No, but I still praise it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 4, 2006 23:27:09 GMT
Yeah, but that type of stuff doesn;t strike an emotional chord with me unless there's some deeper method/meaning to it. Seems pretty shallow to me. Wellll... you're certainly in the majority, then. But I totally disagree. I find the term "deep meaning" to be, more often than not, oxymoronic. I hesitate to say this, as it tends to piss people off, but I've also graduated from the nagging feeling to the unfortunate conclusion (largely from reading dozens of dumbfounding reviews of De Palma films recently, mainly Mission to Mars) that almost nobody in the world likes movies; critics and film buffs included. They like stories, they like characters, they like drama, yes - and movies are the most efficient and least demanding way for them to get those things. But there seems to be a near total disinterest in, and often even a barely concealed contempt for, cinema itself. It's bizarre, and I don't know what it's about, but I see it everywhere. I'm even beginning to take issue with the word 'medium'... Anyway, what would you consider 'deep'? The film needs to have substance for me to appreciate the style. It's as simple as that.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Jul 5, 2006 0:17:45 GMT
Wow! Omar, you apparently HATED Sisters! Why was that? Yeah, it has been a good two years (probably longer than that) since I saw it. When I first viewed it, I was obsessed with Hitchcock, so I just felt "Sisters" was a complete ripoff. I think it was also my first De Palma film. Though now bits and pieces of it still linger in my memory. The opening of the film, and how it is actually a television episode, and some parts at a hospital where I think the film goes to Black & White I found very creepy. I plan on revisiting it, along with viewing more De Palma films. Now about Boogie Nights: "but aren't there some wonderful expository long-takes and highly accomplished tracking shots" SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS The single tracking shot that travels through the party sequence as well as the tracking shot at the opening of the film in the club were extraordinary. "Characters that weren't paid much attention to early in the film suddenly pop up toward the end and become a big deal"Well, I certainly didn't get that from the film at all, which is why I liked the opening tracking shot so much, is because all the characters are introduced. I liked how Anderson makes what would normally be a taboo subject into a very unconventional "family picture". Sure, they were all pornographers, but they were also a family, and the film was about their ups and downs as a family. That's why I also have a hard time considering Mark Whalberg the lead actor. I felt the film was a perfect ensemble, in the sense that they all had their fair share of development. Even if you felt a character like William H. Macy's didn't have anything to do with the film, you notice his portrait in the house at the end of the film. You didn't need any extra scenes of grieving, but that little image sums up the grief that was felt after his suicide. Subtle, perhaps, but you didn't need it drawn out. Just like you didn't need a deep background into Dirk's family life. Anderson leaves it up to the viewer. SPOILERS OVER SPOILERS OVER SPOILERS OVER At least thats what I got from it.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jul 5, 2006 2:05:56 GMT
Wellll... you're certainly in the majority, then. But I totally disagree. I find the term "deep meaning" to be, more often than not, oxymoronic. I hesitate to say this, as it tends to piss people off, but I've also graduated from the nagging feeling to the unfortunate conclusion (largely from reading dozens of dumbfounding reviews of De Palma films recently, mainly Mission to Mars) that almost nobody in the world likes movies; critics and film buffs included. They like stories, they like characters, they like drama, yes - and movies are the most efficient and least demanding way for them to get those things. But there seems to be a near total disinterest in, and often even a barely concealed contempt for, cinema itself. It's bizarre, and I don't know what it's about, but I see it everywhere. I'm even beginning to take issue with the word 'medium'... Anyway, what would you consider 'deep'? The film needs to have substance for me to appreciate the style. It's as simple as that. And that's not at all simple. I can think of no self-evidently faulty notion that has more widespread acceptance than the 'style/substance' binary. It's nonsense from the ground up. The notion is that the story, with its characters and situations, and the themes and issues it raises, constitutes the 'substance' of the film, and that all of the cinematic elements that are utilised to make our viewing of this story possible constitute the 'style'. The downright wrong assumption that is made here is that the only thing that can be 'substantial' is storytelling. This is the implicit statement this 'style/substance' binary makes: Visual art cannot possibly be substantial. Now, I hope you'll agree that that's bullshit. The way in which a camera moves is actually very like music. It's narrative, it's abstract, its emotional effect is unconscious, not generally tied to concepts. Can music possibly have substance? Can an abstract painting? Style is the way in which the film is put together, all the choices that are made, a process of inclusion and exclusion, both conscious and unconscious. This is an actual thing that exists. The qualities of the film which we find most valuable we call the 'substance'. It's a metaphor, not an actual thing that exists. It can't be compared to style, because what is substantial must be subjectively determined. So what do think constitutes 'substance'? Or, what do you tend to find substantial?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 5, 2006 3:29:43 GMT
So what do think constitutes 'substance'? Or, what do you tend to find substantial? Films that are provocative and deal with themes that I actually care about. I don't find anything intriguing about the size of Dirk Diggler's penis or a wannabe cowboy who sells stereos. Sorry.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jul 5, 2006 13:07:28 GMT
But themes are the only thing that you find substantial?
|
|
|