RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 19, 2006 1:56:44 GMT
I couldn't wait for it to end. It was awful.
Godard said Spielberg shot Schindler's List in black and white because he thought it looked more 'grown up'. I don't know about that, but throughout Munich I couldn't shake the feeling that the gore and nudity was a conscious statement, "This is for grown ups. It's blistering! Incendiary! See?" You even get a French stereotype quoting Hegel, which I thought was hilarious.
Gilliam said Spielberg doesn't know how to direct movies anymore, that he can only direct scenes. That's right. Both War of the Worlds and Munich are highly episodic, but every episode in the latter is exactly the same, all equally uninteresting. The list of targets nearly became a Greenaway-esque counting game - 'When I get to zero the film ends!'. Of course, they keep adding people to the list... I was nearly crying.
I say Spielberg has a fine cinematographer and he'd benefit from lengthening the leash (or shortening his editor's), because I counted two moments of extremely impressive visuals and a half dozen further notables. One of the principal two is when we watch Avner approach, seemingly straight on, then we zoom out, slowly revealing that he's a reflection in the brass nameplate above a door, the building is identified and we see him enter - perfect economy of exposition and visually exciting. I can't pinpoint when the second of the two occurs, but we see Avner through the car window, with a half reflection of the street in the glass, then another car moves alongside, and with a slight pull focus, we see through the other window, plus the other half reflection, in the glass of Avner's car, so the image is layered four-fold and the frame is fully utilised, exploding with information. Beautiful cinematography. There were probably lots of other moments, but the lame-brained story had to be edited in, which must have meant edited them out.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Sullivan on Feb 19, 2006 4:39:19 GMT
I couldn't wait for it to end. It was awful. Godard said Spielberg shot Schindler's List in black and white because he thought it looked more 'grown up'. I don't know about that, but throughout Munich I couldn't shake the feeling that the gore and nudity was a conscious statement, "This is for grown ups. It's blistering! Incendiary! See?" You even get a French stereotype quoting Hegel, which I thought was hilarious. You are much to harsh on Speilberg. Speilberg's track history has him using excesive violence. Look at, "Saving Private Ryan". He doesn't do it because he wants everyone to be awed by it and say, "Look! He shot a naked broads throat. He must be daring". He does it much in the sense of why Peckinpah did it. Because that is how it was, and there is nothing to change that fact. I must agree with you on your assesment of Januz Kaminski's wonderful cinematography.
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Feb 19, 2006 4:48:39 GMT
The more I think about it, I think Godard is the Johnny Rotten of cinema, when it comes to his opinions on other films, at least from what I've seen him say. I'm getting some mixed expectations about Munich. I'm hoping it'll fascinate me like Schindler's List and make the near three hour time seem shorter, but who knows.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 19, 2006 12:49:24 GMT
You know something's up when all you can remember from a film weeks later is a shot of a knife being thrusted into someone's ski-masked skull. Sight & Sound were raving about it last month, saying that its release notioned a change in agenda for filmmaking this year, with Spielberg bringing us a challenging political stance, and Syriana due out soon. As a historical document, I would imagine One Day in September is more accurate; as a comment on revenge, I found Dead Man's Shoes far more powerful, not to mention Oldboy.
Spielberg's finest two films are Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List, and I can't see him topping them now.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 19, 2006 15:43:38 GMT
Maybe I am being a bit too hard on him. You're quite right about his use of violence, though I'd venture that it's never been this forward.
And he's never used full-frontal nudity before, has he? That was really what struck me, almost as a vie for European credibility, considering how much less acceptable sexuality is in American cinema than violence. It seemed quite calculated.
But that's not the main problem I have with it. It's just a completely uninteresting film, plodding from one assassination that I don't care about to another.
Oh well. I rank Jaws as Spielberg's finest.
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Feb 19, 2006 16:17:36 GMT
Actually Wet Dog, there was a lot of full frontal nudity in Schindler's List. Remember the shower scene with all the women and the earlier scene of men and women forced to run around completely naked while doctors examined them?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 19, 2006 16:24:52 GMT
Oh, yeah, that's true. Very different context, though.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Sullivan on Feb 19, 2006 21:42:04 GMT
The nudity didn't phase me, to be truthful. I understand where you are coming fromwet dog. Even I sometimes had your feelings and yet I realized little by little that after a while it all became so sickening, the violence and the nudity. Kind of gets worse as our protagonist falls into the depths.
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Feb 21, 2006 6:20:06 GMT
There's a good change my viewing of Munich might be ruined by schedule tomorrow, forcing me to see a shorter film, which will probably be Match Point or Capote.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Feb 21, 2006 14:02:29 GMT
There's a good change my viewing of Munich might be ruined by schedule tomorrow, forcing me to see a shorter film, which will probably be Match Point or Capote.In my opinion, both of those are much better than "Munich".
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Mar 19, 2006 22:47:59 GMT
Updated. Much to my surprise, I left the cinema today very indifferent to Munich. While War of the Worlds excited me with its fast-paced action and wonderful effects, Munich, much like Schindler's List (same year as Jurassic Park) seems to have been made to show his versatility these days. One of the reasons why I hated Memoirs of a Geisha was the use of Chinese actresses playing Japanese characters speaking English to cater for the audience; why, then, shouldn't I criticise an international cast playing Israelis speaking English, likewise, for the benefit of us? Just curious Capo, what about Aquirre, Wrath of God? A German film with German actors speaking German while playing Spanish conquistadors? If I remember correctly, even the Indian slaves speak German.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Mar 19, 2006 23:13:41 GMT
I've often thought of that myself, Vercetti, and have wrestled for a kind of reasoning behind my bias for one over the other. Herzog at least is always conscious of the language barriers which often need to be overcome in film. His short documentary, How Much Wood Would a Woodchuck Chuck, has a subtitle along the lines of "A new language." It's a German filmmaker documenting an English-speaking cattle-auction event, and there's his German voice-over translating the English, and then we're reading the English subtitles of his translated German. Layers on layers.
Why, then, do I feel Spielberg's decisions stem merely from laziness? Perhaps Munich, a film which seems to want to be authentic, would have hit home more had I not been watching an Australian starring as an English-speaking Israeli. Some might defend this as a way of the director bringing the themes of revenge and projecting it onto a kind of multi-national, multi-lingual stage. But when all of your cast is English-speaking, it doesn't really matter what accent they're trying to imitate; it's just corny, and limits my ability to suspend my disbelief for nearly three painstaking hours.
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Aug 17, 2006 17:50:59 GMT
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 17, 2006 18:21:24 GMT
After four of his films, three of which you rate two stars, why?
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Aug 17, 2006 18:24:35 GMT
For all his other crappy movies that he makes millions of dollars off of. For his lack of anything really interesting to say. For all that he symbolizes and represents.
I hate that he makes Munich and suddenly gets all type of critical acclaim. I've yet to see Schindler's List, but I've been avoiding it.
His films are decent, I just can't help but hate him.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 17, 2006 18:38:33 GMT
For all his other crappy movies... But again, the weak link in that argument is that you've only seen four of them. The reason I'm not too fond of De Palma is I believe myself to be very ignorant of his work, having only seen four.
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Aug 17, 2006 18:42:46 GMT
That's true.
I still feel like I've gotten enough information on most of his films through bits and pieces I've seen here and there and just popular culture in general that I have no interest in seeing them. He appeals to simple-minded audiences, whether they be children or less intelligent members of our society. [/pompous asshole]
I have trouble respecting a filmmaker who doesn't respect himself.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 17, 2006 19:17:46 GMT
He appeals to simple-minded audiences, whether they be children or less intelligent members of our society. "Cinema is not the art of scholars, but of illiterates." - Werner HerzogIf a filmmaker intends to appeal to children more than adults, should he be criticised for not appealing to adults? It's easy for an 'ignorant' adult to discard kids' films, but would you listen to an 'ignorant' kid who discarded Schindler's List? By 'ignorant' I mean not a scholar (illiterate?) of Film. But I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by him appealing to less-intelligent members of society. Could you give me an example with one of his films?
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Aug 17, 2006 22:39:51 GMT
Jurassic Park or Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Now granted, I've never seen either of these. But in my view they appeal simply to people wanting cheap thrills, explosions, good guys vs. bad guys, and realistic looking dinosaurs.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 18, 2006 19:22:16 GMT
Exactly. And because of that, if those same people are satisfied by those films, they have been successful.
I think there's a very unfair belief upheld in popular criticism which points to the serious and the tragic as 'worthy', and neglects the light and comedic as 'unworthy'. This prejudice is slowly eroding, and we've made great progress in the last century or so, perhaps due to Cinema (the Literature canon is still somewhat intolerant and highbrow), but there's still an unjust disdain held for films whose setpieces are often superficial nd in place of 'story' or whatever, or films packed with jokes and nothing much else.
I don't think there's any reason why any pleasure should be a guilty pleasure in Film appreciation, or anything as subjective as the Arts. While I think it is necessary to always be aware (or seek to be aware) of why you find something good or bad, the term 'guilty pleasure' implies that you as a critic (and "criticism is as inevitable as breathing", Eliot wrote) are in turn being criticised, constantly watched, and regarded by a collective panel as to whether or not you're as 'worthy' as the films you should be praising. There aren't any set rules by which you should regard or approach film-watching.
|
|