There's no evidence in the OP's post to suggest that he/she falls into that category of "modern" viewer you seem so anxious to condescendingly excoriate. And BTW you yourself have not offered any specific examples from All About Eve to illustrate your own opinion either.
Okay, you needn't agree with me. But for you to claim there was no such "evidence" in that first post means you didn't consider the following:
1. The pacing is terrible. Way too many unnecessary establishing shots. The scene toward the end at the restaurant draaaaags on forever.
2. The movie is too long. 2 hours 20 minutes is too much for this story. 2 hours or less would have sufficed.
Do you notice how the OP's first
two criticisms of this film are about length? Specific complaints about "unnecessary establishing shots" and the excellent and necessary restaurant sequence (important for its demonstrating that the bonds within and between those two couples ultimately survived Eve's machinations), as well as the running time, all reflect the inability of so many viewers raised on faster-paced modern pictures to relate to those from earlier eras.
EVE is 20 minutes too long? Then what should come out? Since there aren't 20 minutes' worth of establishing shots, then the OP would be pleased by hacking out that much from characterization, relationships, and conflict. So forget about narrative construction: A shorter film that ends sooner is more important. (And that's consistent with how I see today's younger viewers.)
3. Karen is grating. The character of Karen (Celeste Holm) is annoying as hell. Her motivations are never very clear either.
A viewer who wouldn't find Karen's motivations "very clear" -- despite access to her sharply written voiceover observations and confessions -- must not have been paying much attention to the character's narration, spoken dialogue, or Celeste Holm's performance. To all that, I say "attention-span issue," lower sensitivity to subtleties, or both.
Karen's importance to the plot (discussed more briefly than she deserves) is as the sole character who participates in the story while still being an outsider to the theatrical world -- especially to its potentially obsessive and destructive backstage ambitions and competitions. Someone who finds Karen "annoying" must have neither appreciation for, nor empathy with, her mounting remorse over realizing that she is responsible for potentially having destroyed her own world by introducing Eve to her husband and her best friends. And significantly as a non-insider, Karen is the film's only character who performs acts without self-interest or suspicion; yet she suffers for it.
"Excoriate" is too inaccurately extreme a term for either the tone or the intent of my earlier post, Naibac. As someone who has possessed a higher-than-average interest in filmmaking (a simple fact, not a boast) for most of my life, I get quite disappointed over today's movies and how short they fall within my personal creative standards. Joseph L. Mankiewicz is one of my most favorite directors, although not even my absolute favorite. ALL ABOUT EVE is one of his best pictures, although it's not even my top favorite of his. But I say this to explain my protectiveness toward him.
When I come across statements such as the OP's, I'm saddened by another reminder that some of the art and talents which I appreciate most are not likely to impress OR inspire as many people who come after me. I hadn't prepared myself to see that creative values would fall so much within my own lifetime. I accept it; but it doesn't mean I won't try to share my own view occasionally.
I'm not trying to excoriate you either, Naibac, but I am completely
not with you on SUNSET BOULEVARD: especially in any attempt to compare it creatively to ALL ABOUT EVE. In fact, I've seen maybe a dozen Billy Wilder films, but the few I've ever watched more than once tended to reconfirm my cold reaction to my first viewing -- whether his dramas or comedies. I just don't respond to Wilder's storytelling, to the characters with whom he populates those stories, or to his characteristic cynicism that's just unappealing to me. You may keep him, as well as your preference for SUNSET over EVE.
Doesn't bother me.
Most great films deserve a more appreciative audience than they get.
reply
share
8 years ago
[deleted]
ScopeWatcher
8 years ago
Naibac, perhaps you get distressed too easily. Since I did read your most recent post before your Saturday revision, I'm aware of some of the ways and places where you have "worked yourself up" from your first version; but you're not more correct.
One post earlier, you accused me of having "excoriated" the Original Poster in this thread, I objected that:
"Excoriate" is too inaccurately extreme a term for either the tone or the intent of my earlier post, Naibac.
Your original reply was something like "Excoriation is in the eye of the beholder, I guess," with either a wink or a smile. But you retracted that, to replace it with:
I wouldn't say it's that far off.
You didn't say it the first time.
You may state that all opinions offered seriously and politely on this discussion board should be welcome. But when I point out that you had misinterpreted my meaning, you accepted me at my word (first version), only later to reject my diplomacy and then double down on your misinterpretation (your revised version). Therefore, I've lost most of my interest in debating with you beyond this post.
However, you strike me as being possibly the type of person who needs to jump in and defend the oppressed.
...maybe the viewer was paying attention and simply felt that neither the writing nor Ms. Holm's performance adequately conveyed the character's motivations. It's a valid opinion, and in fact it's one that's been expressed elsewhere on this board. It's just not your opinion, and of course that's the real problem.
Notice that your first and most significant word there is "maybe" -- since you are speculating about the OP. (The very offense for which you initially criticized me.) Although you stand up for that conjecture as "a valid opinion," it smacks of a
minority opinion to me. Not merely because I don't share it (which I certainly don't), but because I don't believe I have ever come across that criticism of ALL ABOUT EVE, either in personal conversations or in print. (Nor do I read very many IMDb message boards, so don't be surprised that I never read that accusation before you phrased it here.) But an uninformed opinion gains no more value for not being isolated. It will still be uninformed.
And regarding minority opinions, here's another:
It actually amuses me how much you talk about subtlety with regard to AAE. The screenplay is fabulously witty, but subtle? Yeah, as a sledgehammer, a lot of the time.
Amusement is where we respectively find it. But that comment makes me think that you used the word "screenplay" when what you were really thinking about was just the dialogue. That might explain why you were too busy snickering to consider ALL ABOUT EVE's subtleties of narrative structure, character function or motivation, or visual compositions.
Have you ever?
Most great films deserve a more appreciative audience than they get.
reply
share
8 years ago
[deleted]
ScopeWatcher
8 years ago
I have, and I shall. Thank you.
By the way, I'm completely aware that my attitude toward Billy Wilder is a minority position and never pretended otherwise. It's just one among many minority opinions of mine, as more than a few of my favorite pictures are deeply obscure, while dozens of the most popular movies and directors in history make me sneer. (I don't sneer at Wilder; I simply don't care for his work, despite his legion of admirers, for reasons already stated.) But if any of us appreciated all creations and creators equally, we'd find none of them special. Then my life, for one, would not be as "nice" as it has been, without greatness where I recognize it: Even those that have not even 1,000 votes on IMDb but are treasures to me.
In any event, whether I used the precisely right word for your sensibility or not, the meaning of your post(s) is and was clear - no misinterpretation took place.
I told you your characterization of my post (through the harshness of the word "excoriate") was wrong, yet you've dug in. You cling to your misreading the meaning -- the specific intention -- of my post; therefore your misinterpretation did take place.
And here you go again making assumptions in a condescending tone. No, I simply despise pretentious snobbery.
Nope -- there
you go again. However, you thought I was attacking you, when actually I see now that I didn't convey effectively that I meant to
compliment you above for sticking up for the absent OP. Speaking of whom (for the last time), I don't call a film "great" if it feels 20 minutes too long, drags waaaaaay too much in places, and has an ending that's "hokey." But people somewhere will see you as a pretentious snob for feeling that "greatness" should be reserved for the truly great ... rather than for what you merely found entertaining.
Most great films deserve a more appreciative audience than they get.
reply
share