RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 17, 2006 2:44:03 GMT
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 17, 2006 15:35:25 GMT
1. Lost in Translation 2003 2. Marie Antoinette 2005 3. The Virgin Suicides 1998
|
|
Marty
Runner
To a new world of gods and monsters
Posts: 84
|
Post by Marty on Jan 17, 2006 16:30:25 GMT
Lost In Translation (for the cinematography) I really can't make my mind up about this picture, it is beautifully photographed and lit and competently acted, a delight to look at but I couldn't actually "watch it" I have only rented it once on DVD and I feel I may have made the mistake of seeing it late one Saturday evening after a couple of pieces of fluff so may not really have been in the mood for it, maybe i'll try it again, after all it's the only one of the three I rented that night I can remember anything about.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Jan 19, 2006 2:40:24 GMT
Lost in Translation
|
|
|
Post by mikola on Apr 27, 2006 19:10:23 GMT
|
|
jake
Writer's block
Posts: 215
|
Post by jake on May 13, 2006 14:05:57 GMT
1. The Virgin Suicides (1999) 2. Lost In Translation (2003) 3. Marie Antoinette (2006) 3. Lick the Star (1998)
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Aug 18, 2006 9:54:18 GMT
Lost in Translation (2003)
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Nov 27, 2006 0:08:39 GMT
I must see The Virgin Suicides,and quick. But I must say, I think it is most rewarding to enter Coppola's films with as blank a slate as possible, with as few expectations as possible. If that seems obvious, it is especially the case with her. As he is the only regular who rates her films consistently, I'm looking forward to hearing Jake's response to Coppola's newest effort. As I suggested in my Proview of Lost In Translation, her style is not only interesting in itself, but sparks all kinds of debates when placed at the centre of stuff like box-office draw, film and gender, and art/popular discussions. Such things are reductive, but I think she's a fantastic director who is, I suspect, going to be very misunderstood if she continues with this trend of individualistic vision. ...And I very much hope she does. I hope her ambition and confidence isn't knocked by the mixed, cautious reactions Marie Antoinette has received, and I hope she continues to attract funding for her films. It would be a shame if she didn't. For now, though, let us rejoice in this risky, very wonderful number she is dancing, a fine line between box-office success and artistic preoccupations. Can she entertain both, and if so, for how long? Marie Antoinette was so good, so decorated, so rococo, so "empty", if you like, that I simply didn't wish to discuss it with the group of cineastes with whom I saw it... so futile I suspect, would my praises have been. I like the way she handles her narratives, too. In both Lost In Translation and Marie Antoinette I see a tendency to unfold narrative as a series of situational repetitions - and in the case of the latter, visual repetitions, in the form of the daily feasts between Marie and Louis. There's certainly room, perhaps justification, for boredom here, for some, but her rhythm and pacing are too controlled for me to be switched off by it. In fact I find it enthralling. Marie Antoinette might work either way on a revisit, so I'm not going to see it again until it comes to DVD - just as going in with few to no expectations on a first time is a must, I think it even applies (and even to Lost In Translation, too) when you revisit her films. Does that make sense?
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Nov 27, 2006 1:37:32 GMT
It makes perfect sense. I'm glad you liked it.
As for future funding, I think the Coppola name still carries some weight in Hollywood. Maybe...
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Jun 6, 2008 23:26:41 GMT
The Virgin Suicides Lost in Translation Marie Antoinette
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Jun 7, 2008 0:41:49 GMT
Virgin suicides Lost in translation
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Jun 9, 2008 13:59:46 GMT
KINO EXPLAIN YOURSELF
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Jun 23, 2008 2:47:07 GMT
Two and a half stars is a favorable rating. Three stars in my rating system is a must-see. I think LIT isn't that personally. It has fluctuated from 2.5 to 2.9, but have always felt it was short of that designation. (I need to go back an revise my previous ratings as I have been inconsistent with it.) As far as a film about lonely people in an unfamiliar land, LIT didn't affect me as much as the masterworks Happy Together or News From Home. For a film about two lonely people finding a connection despite being "attached" to others, my personal benchmark is In the Mood For Love. (BTW, Omar, I know you mentioned your plans of going through Allen and Altman's filmography this summer, but I truly urge you to fit in Wong's In the Mood For Love, Happy Together, and Chungking Express. Maybe get to Tsai's What Time Is It There? and Goodbye, Dragon Inn in the fall!) I find it troubling that I don't like LIT as much as I feel I should because its subject/content/atmosphere is very much my cup of tea on paper. What I did like: The ending is particularly touching. One of my favorites of all-time. Coppola has a nice eye for holding some shots (some nice instances of held two-shots). I did like some of the instances of companionship in the film. The scene of Bob on the treadmill has me in stitches each time I saw it. What I didn't like: Some of the jokes/gags I found to be problematic like the shot of Bob surrounded by short Asian men in the elevator. If it was from Bob's subjective point-of-view like the way Scorsese framed Travis Bickle's racism in Taxi Driver then I wouldn't have found it troubling. Now, just because a movie's characters are racist, sexist, or something doesn't mean that is the director's value system. However, in the instance of the elevator, it didn't feel like it was expressing Bob's point of view, but Coppola's albeit unintentionally via ignorance or oversight. The thing is it can't be Bob's point of view because he can't subjectively see the other men's height. Most of, if not all, the Asian men in the elevator were short. It's a joke put in by the director, and it didn't feel like a riff on stereotypes. Contrast that with Bob's jokes about "L's" and "R's" throughout the movie. It's obviously the character's viewpoint. That I didn't find problematic. The whole translation bit when Bob was shooting the commercial was funny and I didn't find problematic because it's getting at the workings of translation. Note: If I don't reply to replies, it's not because I'm ignoring anyone. When I have the time, I'll get back to them.
|
|
|
Post by seyfried on Jun 23, 2008 16:14:18 GMT
www.tinear.net/images/120.jpg" The thing is it can't be Bob's point of view because he can't subjectively see the other men's height. "Huh? Mind you, I haven an entirely different view on Coppola's direction in this and other scenes (she plays a moral situationist, of sorts, but that's neither here nor there), but he certainly can "see" the other men's heights? Edit: Unless, you mean to imply that it's an objective view of the men's heights - which is fine, but doesn't that simply correspond with the myriad "Oriental absurdities" in the rest of the film?
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Jun 23, 2008 16:22:41 GMT
(BTW, Omar, I know you mentioned your plans of going through Allen and Altman's filmography this summer, but I truly urge you to fit in Wong's In the Mood For Love, Happy Together, and Chungking Express. Maybe get to Tsai's What Time Is It There? and Goodbye, Dragon Inn in the fall!) Just added Wong's filmography in Netflix after I got done with Coppola's. It might not be this summer when I get to them, but it won't take as a long as "The Wages of Fear", I can assure you.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jun 23, 2008 16:44:16 GMT
Prioritise Tsai over Wong!
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jun 23, 2008 19:30:51 GMT
What I didn't like: Some of the jokes/gags I found to be problematic like the shot of Bob surrounded by short Asian men in the elevator. If it was from Bob's subjective point-of-view like the way Scorsese framed Travis Bickle's racism in Taxi Driver then I wouldn't have found it troubling. Now, just because a movie's characters are racist, sexist, or something doesn't mean that is the director's value system. However, in the instance of the elevator, it didn't feel like it was expressing Bob's point of view, but Coppola's albeit unintentionally via ignorance or oversight. The thing is it can't be Bob's point of view because he can't subjectively see the other men's height. Most of, if not all, the Asian men in the elevator were short. It's a joke put in by the director, and it didn't feel like a riff on stereotypes. So you think it's "poking fun" at Japanese men's heights? I'd disagree (if you're saying that). We're laughing at Bob in that shot, not at anyone else in the elevator. He's the outcast. ("You're too tall," Charlotte says to him later in the film; to which he replies, "Anybody ever tell you you're too short?") What do you feel about the showerhead being woefully low when he steps in, and it only going so far up the stand, so he has to duck to wash his face?
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Jun 23, 2008 20:20:27 GMT
Edit: Unless, you mean to imply that it's an objective view of the men's heights Yes, that's what I meant. In my post, I specified what I found to be the difference between what I found problematic and what I didn't; why I found the elevator scene problematic and Bob's making fun of "L's" and "R's."
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Jun 23, 2008 21:01:19 GMT
What I didn't like: Some of the jokes/gags I found to be problematic like the shot of Bob surrounded by short Asian men in the elevator. If it was from Bob's subjective point-of-view like the way Scorsese framed Travis Bickle's racism in Taxi Driver then I wouldn't have found it troubling. Now, just because a movie's characters are racist, sexist, or something doesn't mean that is the director's value system. However, in the instance of the elevator, it didn't feel like it was expressing Bob's point of view, but Coppola's albeit unintentionally via ignorance or oversight. The thing is it can't be Bob's point of view because he can't subjectively see the other men's height. Most of, if not all, the Asian men in the elevator were short. It's a joke put in by the director, and it didn't feel like a riff on stereotypes. So you think it's "poking fun" at Japanese men's heights? Yes, I do because it's playing off of a widely used stereotype of a derisive tone. It's not enough that Bob is (the only?) non-Asian in the elevator, but it has to play to the notion that all Asians are short. That's true for you and lots of others. It's also true that many people found it offensive, or laughed at the short Asians. There are Asians who weren't offended by it, and there are those that were. Likewise for non-Asians. Here I don't have a problem because it's about the character's viewpoint. Height-wise, Bob feels like he's the norm; Charlotte feels like she's the norm. Can't say. Well, if it's accurate for a great deal of hotel showerheads in Japanese hotels then, no, I don't have a problem.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Jun 23, 2008 21:21:48 GMT
Prioritise Tsai over Wong! He can't go wrong either way. He should write the titles of the films on little pieces of paper put 'em in a hat or jar or whatever, shake it up, and pick a paper. WTIIT?, GDI, ITMFL, HT, and CE - one film a night, done in less than a week, and subjected to great cinema.
|
|