Don't you think Kubrik has been inspired by this Antonioni's movie?
shareHe loved this film. I think it was in his Top 10.
- Who is God ?
- When you close your eyes and make a wish, God is the one who doesn't care about.
[deleted]
Kubrick adapted verbatim the novella Traumnovelle, published in the 1920's, by Arthur Schnitzler.
Except for a few minor details that he modernized, everything in Eyes Wide Shut - including the colour and lighting schemes, all the flash and dazzle and radiance and sexual psychology and the grand orgy and masks and even dialogue, etc - were detailed by Schnitzler in Traumnovelle.
I once posted an extensive message containing extensive excerpts of Traumnovelle to prove that Kubrick himself never created in his own mind any element of Eyes Wide Shut, everything was in the novella.
All I could think of while watching this was, "Eyes Wide Shut! Eyes Wide Shut!", but even if Kubrick viewed La Notte multiple times, every element of Eyes Wide Shut was derived from the novella.
Perhaps he was inspired by La Notte to make a film about the deteriorating [sexual] relationship between a husband and wife who are conservative, refined intellectuals, and perhaps that inspiration led him to discover Traumnovelle.
La Notte - Husband confesses to wife, wife wanders off. Eyes Wide Shut - wife confesses to husband, husband wanders off.
Wife tells husband he wears mask to hide true self. Eyes Wide Shut - Doctor Bill believes wife wears mask to hide her true self.
Alice and Bill have tennis rackets. Monica Vitti has cosmetic compact.
Balls with orgies and parties with implied off-camera orgies.
Intelligentsia in both films.
Friend dies, Mandy/beauty queen dies.
Sexual boredom despite debauchery.
Alice has sex dream, Lidia strips down to her slip and drives off with another main.
In the end, neither woman loves her husband. Lidia does not want to have sex with her husband, but we do not know if they do. Alice decides to continue her lie of a marriage, telling Bill that they really need to *beep*
And there are many more parallels. The themes of both are the same.
[deleted]
Gracious! A very detailed comparison of the two films. Yet in the end there are many distinctions, and that is what makes them both not only amongst the great films of recent decades, but also amongst the very watchable great films of recent times.
Certainly both filmakers retain their fascination with psychological reality; but Antonioni devised a cinema of metaphor, while Kubrick remained closer to realism and never really abandoned the world of Hollywood style, with its gloss and its need for smooth narrative flow, while Antonioni created a new cinematic language of irony and symbol, only dabbling in Hollywood, and then only ironically (although quite successfully, I believe. I will say I think Kubrick had exactly this kind of ironic snickering at Glamorwood in mind when he cast the married pair of Cruise-Kidman in EWS.) Nevertheless, as the above user points out, Kubrick's camera work ultimately has its root in a literary source, Antonioni's in a visual source (his own screenplay.) Clearly Kuibrick knew his own limitations.
La Notte is very similar to EWS. The only thing missing is the powerful cult organization.
http://most-underrated-movies.blogspot.com/
I agree with everything that's been said. La Notte was one of Kubrick's favorite films and there are a lot of details in Eyes Wide Shut reminiscent of the Antonioni film, despite the fact that Kubrick was inspired by Schintzler's Traumnovelle. As far as I love many scenes from Eyes Wide Shut I do not think the film equals the power of La Notte, one of Antonioni's true masterpieces ( with L'Avventura, Blow Up and The Passenger ). Jeanne Moreau and Marcello Mastroianni will always be far superior actors than Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. And I love Cruise and Kidman.
share[deleted]
EWS retains its enigmatism and does not, by the end of it, deteriorate into a series of self consciously soul searching Bergmanian high cultured conversations, firing off ceaseless wallops of bourgeoisie bitching and moaning the way La Notte does. Unlike Antonioni´s previous year´s L´Avventura, there´s simply too much talk to allow the drama to breathe and develop its rhythms & momentum through camerawork. After the highly atmospheric and engaging first hour the film just stalls and later stages feel like some Stiffy Allen picture at its most snobbish and ponderous; a bunch of rich folk ejaculating at their image in the mirror. A disappointment overall, 7/10.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
EWS retains its enigmatism and does not, by the end of it, deteriorate into a series of self consciously soul searching Bergmanian high cultured conversations, firing off ceaseless wallops of bourgeoisie bitching and moaning the way La Notte does.And that's bad... why exactly?
a bunch of rich folk ejaculating at their image in the mirrorBut the ejaculat- I mean... sentimentality was earned, imo. There was a vacant, cold sort of atmosphere prevalent throughout the film so when all of the pent-up feelings of the characters finally erupted into a sentimental scene between the married couple (brimming with a poetic conversation about life, marriage, expectations, memories and how they fade, etc.), I very much fell for it.
"And that´s bad... why exactly?"
I guess if you actually are a part of the wealthy bourgeoisie given to similar bitching and moaning yourself, I guess it might indeed seem relevant somehow. To me, it doesn´t.
In all seriousness though, the basis for my complaints is admittedly more than just a little subjective - films that involve this kind of painstaking, wordy soul searching and characters psychoanalysing themselves at great length aren´t exactly my thing even at their best... which is the reason I´ve never found Bergman particularly compelling. Here, I guess, the dialogue/monologues are not quite as banal, aimless and tedious as they are, for instance, throughout the overlong middle section in Godard´s Le Mepris, but at the same token, they´re not exactly up to snuff with something like Who´s Afraid Of Virginia Woolf?, either. All this back-and-forth between them where they´re trying to make up their minds whether they love... or do not love... or still love... or feel just pity for each other... etc... is just kind of clumsy.
I don´t see it in any way "unfair" to compare La Notte to L´Avventura as they are considered essentially parts of the same trilogy (haven´t seen L´Eclisse) - especially as I´m basically just acknowledging that I find ones approach to storitelling more interesting than the others´ and that I personally think Antonioni was better at communicating without words than he was with them (in fact, the very main thing I find fascinating about his films, are the silencies). And where did you get the idea I´m out to convince you - or anyone else - that their opinion concerning the poignancy of the narrative is in need of a re-evaluation or whatever? Just stating how ´I´ see it.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
I guess if you actually are a part of the wealthy bourgeoisie given to similar bitching and moaning yourself, I guess it might indeed seem relevant somehow. To me, it doesn´t.Just FYI, I was being facetious with that remark - hence that emoticon. Obviously I don't think just about any film which contains "bourgeoisie bitching and moaning" is automatically worth checking out (just to clarify, FWIW).
And where did you get the idea I´m out to convince you - or anyone else - that their opinion concerning the poignancy of the narrative is in need of a re-evaluation or whatever?Figure of speech. Just a way of expressing how I feel on the matter. Lighten up, franz.
Here, I guess, the dialogue/monologues are not quite as banal, aimless and tedious as they are, for instance, throughout the overlong middle section in Godard´s Le MeprisOh dear... Well, yeah, if you aren't into Bergman and Godard (two artists whose works I very much hold dear and consistently admire), I can understand your resistance to Antonoini's La Notte.
All this back-and-forth between them where they´re trying to make up their minds whether they love... or do not love... or still love... or feel just pity for each other... etc... is just kind of clumsy.Well, sometimes life is clumsy. Sometimes, you don't know what you want. Sometimes, words aren't enough to express your feelings because they can't be summed up in one or two simple words. It's all very relevant, you see. All this back-and-forth occurs between two people trying to communicate but they keep failing and therefore try again. You're right. It is clumsy in a way and I think it is supposed to be. They don't know what they want and on top of that, they don't know how to express how they feel: their existential malaise, their fading memories of what they once had, their thwarted dreams and desires, their future, etc. - which is, I believe, a very human quality (and no, "complicated" feelings are not just specific to the wealthy bourgeoisie). The subtext is just as important as the text - even moreso in films like these actually. Now all this being said, you can't divorce the conversation/words of the characters from the images themselves; that sort of reductionism is likely to render some of the greatest masterpieces as mediocrities and even worse, as trainwrecks (think of all the Jean Renoir films in which there's constant chatter about nothing). So again, the "tedious conversations" between the characters should not be looked at in isolation from the performances of the characters, the cinematography, the mis-en-scene, etc. because all of these combine to produce something greater than the sum of its parts. It's just a lot more likely that it will come off as pretentious (urgh, not that word again) if you do. JMHO, ofcourse.
I didn´t to mean give an impression I´m up-tight about it all... maybe shoulda used some emoticons of my own...
Anyways, I´m perfectly capable of appreciating Bergman and all: what I meant was that I don´t find his stuff that compulsively (re)watchable as I do, well, Eyes Wide Shut, for a handy instance. I have ´liked´ all of his movies I´ve seen, but that´s exactly how far it goes. It´s not very cinematic in the sense that it might almost as well be performed on stage and it´d not lose too much of its impact (Persona, possibly, being the exception here).
I have only seen 2 Godard´s - Breathless & Le Mepris - and both left me rather unimpressed, although for different reasons. The former is technically a superior effort, of course, with its innovations still appearing fresh and inspired, but when it comes to the content and general tone, it almost feels like kind of a proto-Tarantino. And Tarantino at his most hollow and obnoxious, for that matter. As for Le Mepris, then, as noted, the 40-minute stretch in the middle of the movie really sinks the whole enterprise completely - it´s just poorly written, utterly tedious, self absorbed yammering (compared to that, the last half hour of La Notte is quite impressive material, actually). Other than that, the first third of the film looked promising and the last third borderline great (for one thing, it´s got one of the most gorgeous soundtracks in any film), but you can´t fully save a movie that has such a gaping whole in the middle of it no matter what you do. But, at any rate, I´m certainly not throwing in the towel yet when it comes to Godard - he´s made too many movies and gone through too many different phases for that.
And you´re right of course - human interaction is indeed often clumsy like this. But as far as I´m concerned, it doesn´t make for much enjoyable cinema; it should be possible to get those things across by more effective, less heavy handed means, perhaps. And funny that you mention Renoir - La Regle Du Jeu happens to be one of the biggest pain-in-the-ass disappointments I´ve ever come across, talking of acknowledged classics. The endless chatter and the painfully unfunny slapstick are enough to drive anyone mental... or so I´d figure if I had no idea of its acclaim. In my opinion, the ceaseless blather only eats away at whatever the film had to offer visually... and I may ´get´, in principle, the rationale behind the presence of the said blather, but it don´t make me like it any better (on the other hand, I did think Renoir´s earlier La Chienne is an outstanding, pretty great film though).
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
I didn´t to mean give an impression I´m up-tight about it all... maybe shoulda used some emoticons of my own...Ha, that's fine, I suppose. This is IMDB after all and overuse of emoticons is rarely, if ever, a good sign. (I take that chance anyway.)
It´s not very cinematic in the sense that it might almost as well be performed on stage and it´d not lose too much of its impact (Persona, possibly, being the exception here).Hmm, that's sort of baffling to me since I firmly believe that The Seventh Seal, Cries and Whispers, Fanny and Alexander and Bergman's very own Faith trilogy (to name a few) would lose much of their potency if they were turned into stage plays.
I have only seen 2 Godard´s - Breathless & Le Mepris - and both left me rather unimpressed, although for different reasons. The former is technically a superior effort, of course, with its innovations still appearing fresh and inspired, but when it comes to the content and general tone, it almost feels like kind of a proto-Tarantino. And Tarantino at his most hollow and obnoxious, for that matter.The thing about Godard (that you're probably very aware of) is that he loves to experiment with the narrative by subverting any notions that audiences would typically associate with the genre of the film in question. In Breathless, for example, the fact that Michel is on the run for killing a cop is a set-up that doesn't really pay off (unless you count the film's climax) - no matter how you put it, the whole "crime drama" element is rushed and exists solely as a means for Godard to depict the philosophical ruminations (or nonsensical banter - whatever floats your boat) of Michel and Patricia. The "hollow and obnoxious" tone you're referring to - I believe - is probably an understandable side effect of Godard's cinematic approach (influenced by Brecht's epic theatre). His films were never about sentimentality or emotion in the traditional sense (except for Contempt, I suppose); his stuff often left audiences cold because his films were always so anti-genre, rarely, if ever, fulfilling their expectations. In Breathless, much of the entire middle section of the movie is spent in a tiny apartment inhabited by two characters who talk about a bunch of things that have very little relevance to the superficially "gripping" introduction and more to do with their own personal persectives, feelings, emotions, suspicions about their relationship, life, etc (or about nothing at all - take your pick).
As for Le Mepris, then, as noted, the 40-minute stretch in the middle of the movie really sinks the whole enterprise completely - it´s just poorly written, utterly tedious, self absorbed yammering (compared to that, the last half hour of La Notte is quite impressive material, actually). Other than that, the first third of the film looked promising and the last third borderline great (for one thing, it´s got one of the most gorgeous soundtracks in any film), but you can´t fully save a movie that has such a gaping whole in the middle of it no matter what you do.There is plenty happening in the whole 40-minute middle section (behind all the ceaseless yammering) that you vehemently dislike. It's one of those really nuanced scenes - in which so much is communicated about the mental states of the two characters and in such visually interesting ways (shot composition and contrast, its use of color, the suffocating atmosphere provided by the apartment setting mirroring the couples' deteriorating relationship, that brief poetic montage that attempted to visualize their passing thoughts, etc.) - that leave you swooning for more. How's that for a different opinion?
But, at any rate, I´m certainly not throwing in the towel yet when it comes to Godard - he´s made too many movies and gone through too many different phases for that.I would hope so although I wouldn't be terribly optimistic. Sure, Godard has many gems among his extensive oeuvre and while they're visually gorgeous, they're also very light on plot and heavy on - what you would probably refer to as - yammering.
La Regle Du Jeu happens to be one of the biggest pain-in-the-ass disappointments I´ve ever come across, talking of acknowledged classics.[...] In my opinion, the ceaseless blather only eats away at whatever the film had to offer visually...Haha, I really hit the mark with the Jean Renoir example. Not a huge fan of Rules of the Game myself but I do understand its acclaim, even if it's not a personal favorite of mine from Renoir.
"Would lose much of their potency if they were turned into stage plays".
Not sure about this. At any rate, the essence or the substance, as it were, of Bergman is foremost to be found in dialogue and the visuals are very much secondary. You´d lose ´something´ with such a transition, but it´d still be recognisibly the same work with its artistic value more or less intact.
"Godard´s subversion of the crime drama genre and the character´s philosophical meanderings were more than enough to win me over".
Firstly, it´s Godard, so I didn´t expect to see a crime drama in the first place. Secondly, the way the "crime drama set-up" was subverted, didn´t look particularly impressive to me. Thirdly, I´m generally not very eager to hear the "philosophical meanderings" of some lowlife hoodlum (there ´are´ exceptions though, such as the hoodlum in Mike Leigh´s Naked) and a vapid´ish blonde woman. Belmondo & Seberg make for a very unengaging couple here, be it due to Godard´s failing or by design - the former is, and remains, an annoying, one-dimensional, chainsmoking bum who himself thinks he´s some kinda cock of the walk. A boring, irritating poster boy for urban alienation (but, of course, I suppose what or whom anyone finds intriguing, IS sort of subjective, so...)
"His films were never about sentimentality or emotion in the traditional sense".
F-ck sentimentality. However, if you set out to make a film that is, for all intents and purposes, character driven, it wouldn´t hurt if you gave your characters - and film - at least some semblance of emotional depth.
"As for the Tarantino reference, I don´t see it".
The secondary concern of Breathless, right behind the techical tinkering and formal innovation, seems to be appearing as cool and hip as it possibly can. Which is the defining tonal element of Tarantino´s work. Besides, QT himself appears to be a fan of Godard´s (isn´t his production company named after a JLG movie - Band Apart or something?)
"Has there been anyone more of a crowd pleaser than Tarantino?"
Oh, thousands, probably, starting with the likes of Spielberg etc. As a matter of fact, Death Proof might just be the most crowd repellent movie ever made - I don´t think QT seriously thought anyone but himself is going to want to see a 2 hour long foot fetishizing home movie about a bunch of chicks who babble endlessly about things that are completely irrelevant probably even to themselves. He´s got nothing to say and, with the exception of the 2 car chases taking up perhaps 1/6 of the film, it´s got no entertainment value, either. It´s a very bad film, but I do sort of admire it for its utter defiance of the audience.
"How´s that for the different opinion?"
I can live with it.
"Not a huge fan of Rules Of The Game myself, but I do understand its acclaim".
So do I - whatever I may think of its certain aesthetic choices, I´d never try to argue it´s unimportant or irrelevant. Must be great to anyone able to survive the overbearing chatter.
"As the visuals are as awesome as they are in Contempt, you should have, by my calculations, forgiven any perceived flaws in the dialogue or pacing".
The visuals are impressive, yes. But while I could forgive flaws that take up 5 or 10 minutes of the movie, here we´re talking some 1/3 of the entire running time. And the first third wasn´t anything particularly outstanding, either. And no film ever would, as far as I´m concerned, survive chatter as pervasive and abundant as in La Regle du Jeu, no matter how great the visual style. Just imagine this type of sh-t over Barry Lyndon or Days Of Heaven... it´d flat out ruin them, too.
"We should be judging the quality of a film based on its cinematic and artistic merits rather than some arbitrary, restrictive "no excessive talk allowed" policy".
The dialogue is sort of also part of that "cinematic or artistic merit", innit? Should I just ignore the trivial yammering in Breathless or Le Mepris and base my opinion solely on the jumpcuts in the former and the Adriatic vistas in the latter? Besides, I´m not overlooking the positive aspects in the films we´ve discussed here; after all, I´ve rated both Breathless and La Notte 7/10 - and Le Mepris 6/10 - which is not exactly a wholesale dismissal. Also, despite the strong tendency to gravitate towards more visual cinema, I can very well stomach "excessive talk" if it´s well written, witty or poetic or what have you. Who´s Afraid Of Virginia Woolf, Network, Glengarry Glen Ross being some of the favourites and all... as well as several Woody Allen films, Altman´s ensemble efforts... all talky.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
[deleted]
At any rate, the essence or the substance, as it were, of Bergman is foremost to be found in dialogue and the visuals are very much secondary. You´d lose ´something´ with such a transition, but it´d still be recognisibly the same work with its artistic value more or less intact.Sure, there are probably some Bergman films that could work just as effectively as stage plays but such films, I'd argue, would be few and far between. All of the films I mentioned above wouldn't work as stage plays particularly because of the cinematic qualities they possess that would render any such transition fruitless in capturing the essence of the art. In The Seventh Seal, Bergman DOES adopt a rich visual language to tell the story and communicate to the audience its underlying themes. Just off the top of my head, I remember a shot of the setting sun against the chessboard laying motionless on the rock, the long shot of the enigmatic dance of death, the rich detail in the mis-en-scene which served to give scenes such as the ones in the church and Knight’s house depth, the black-and-white, mood-setting cinematography whose nuance simply can’t be translated into a stage play, etc. With respect to Cries and Whispers, how do you reckon the anguish and pain of Agnes (the dying sister) could be captured without the use of superbly timed extensive close-ups? The emphasis on Agne’s deteriorating condition is further highlighted by the abrupt bursts of light provided by the scenes in which Agnes was of good health (Bergman's editing patterns); how could the dream-like memory of such scenes be done justice on stage? How would you do justice to the scene in which the shattering of the glass creates such an obnoxiously loud sound – accompanied with a close-up – in a stage play? How about Bergman’s The Silence (his last entry in the Faith trilogy) which, for the most part, really lives up to its name (little dialogue). To generalize Bergman’s work by saying that most of them would work just as well as stage plays is, as per my understanding, not a fair assertion to make.
Thirdly, I´m generally not very eager to hear the "philosophical meanderings" of some lowlife hoodlum and a vapid´ish blonde woman.I’m generally not eager to watch a film about poor people tricking dying rich farmers into marriage in order to claim their wealth. But I am provoked by what I see because of HOW it is shown to me. Taken in the context of the whole film and the film's overall execution, the “meanderings of some lowlife hoodlum” might actually amount to something meaningful (for the audience).
F-ck sentimentality. However, if you set out to make a film that is, for all intents and purposes, character driven, it wouldn´t hurt if you gave your characters - and film - at least some semblance of emotional depth.I’d say there was “at least” some semblance of emotional depth but I’d also say that any (more than a semblance of) emotional depth would prevent you from being the critical observer that Godard wants you to be. In fact, don't even read the words in the brackets. You'll see as you watch more of Godard how he loved to make the characters in hs film directly address the viewers, habitually breaking the fourth wall, preventing the film from being a form of escapism for the audience.
The secondary concern of Breathless, right behind the techical tinkering and formal innovation, seems to be appearing as cool and hip as it possibly can.Belmondo is trying to appear cool and hip (Godard gently mocking the appearance of the typical crime drama hero) but would you assign the same qualities to the movie itself? The yammering made it cool and hip now? If by these words you mean to suggest there’s a certain vacuousness, a certain emptiness (in the relationship between the couple, in the film itself), it might just be the effect Godard was going for. But this is subjective, so moving along…
Death Proof might just be the most crowd repellent movie ever made… It´s a very bad film, but I do sort of admire it for its utter defiance of the audience.I think I’ve seen it in bits and pieces but I don’t remember disliking it as much as you do. Regardless, Tarantino has undoubtedly made movies designed to give instant hard-ons to male teens (movies such as Kill Bill and the like) so once again, I don’t know if there’s really that much of a connection in their art beyond the fact that Tarantino’s a fan of Godard. There’s probably some influence but I don’t know if it’s strong enough for me to say that they’re outright similar based on a few, insignificant and barely noticeable similarities – like I said, I don’t buy the “hip and cool” thing (and you’ll probably reverse your ruling once you’ve seen more than one Godard movie). Tarantino’s works are hardly as subversive or insightful as Godard’s.
Just imagine this type of sh-t over Barry Lyndon or Days Of Heaven... it´d flat out ruin them, too.Really? You’re going to ignore the fact that they are both entirely different movies made by idiosyncratic directors who have their own unique style much different compared to that of Renoir’s or Godard’s? Do I really even need to explain why this comparison is sort of silly since they are movies made for entirely different intents and purposes? It feels like we’re in the sticky territory of “I dislike B because it isn’t like A and I prefer A because it is much more superior – it satisfies “my” expectations and what "I" want out of it”. FWIW, the chatter in Rules of the Game is different from the dialogue in Breathless or Contempt which isn’t irrelevant chatter as much as it is a microscope into the lives of discontented people living their lives, trying to search for truth or love or something concrete.
Also, despite the strong tendency to gravitate towards more visual cinema, I can very well stomach "excessive talk" if it´s well written, witty or poetic or what have you.If the scene in Contempt during which the couple waltz around the real reason behind their deteriorating relationship without really ever getting to the root cause of the growing resentment (i.e. the section you’re not very fond of) does not possess a certain poetic grace and beauty (due to the dialogue as well as how Godard films and edits the whole goddamned thing), then I seriously need to reassess what is meant by terms such as “well-written” and “poetic”.
as well as several Woody Allen films, Altman´s ensemble efforts... all talky.Don't you mean “Stiffy Allen”?
"To generalize Bergman´s work by saying that most of them would work just as well as stage plays is, as per my understanding, not a fair assertion to make".
Indeed it is. However, I never did make such an assertion - "being recognisibly the same work" and "their artistic value remaining more or less intact" isn´t exactly the same as, you know, insisting they´d lose nothing at all with the transition. Anyways, I haven´t seen The Silence, but even if there are a few exceptions, it is still accurate to say the main thrust of Bergman´s artistic value is of a literary kind - so much so that his stuff retains most of its integrity & substance even when it never leaves the paper. There aren´t many directors/screenwriters about whom you can say that.
"Belmondo is trying to be cool and hip/-/, but would you assign the same qualities to the movie itself".
It´d probably be inaccurate to suggest JLG was aiming to be "cool and hip" merely for the sake of it, but that´s the pervasive tonal element, yes. Besides, I don´t really find Breathless that awfully deep to begin with, regardless of the aesthetic routes taken to make the points. It´s a very well made film that manages to present a snapshot that´s probably somewhat emotionally/socially authentic to its time and place, but that´s exactly how far it goes for me.
"Tarantino has undoubtedly made movies designed to give instant hard-ons to male teens".
I guess Kill Bills in particular can be seen as such although I´d still argue it´s about QT´s personal hard-on first and foremost. It can be theorized that his reverting back to emulating fluffy B- or C movies of the past after Jackie Brown (his most mature picture by a considerable margin), was partly motivated by its relative financial failure though. Probably ´some´ truth in it. Overall, he sort of IS that geeky male teen himself, so there ain´t much difference.
"I don´t know if there´s really that much of a connection in their art beyond the fact that Tarantino´s a fan of Godard".
Yeah I was speaking about Breathless only - I´m not quite as irrational as to make sweeping generalizations about someone as prolific as Godard based on only 2 films, you know. And I have no doubt he´s had a thousand times more to say than QT ever will have (not very hard); whether or not I find his cinematic/ideological statements compelling, is a different story and remains to be seen. He does seem to be a very divisive figure, to say the least.
"Do I even need to explain why this comparison is sort of silly since they are movies for entirely different intents and purposes".
The comparison is broad and indeed somewhat misapplied, but the point still stands - I don´t see myself enjoying ´any´ movie that comes with such an amount of empty chatter. Look, I understand very well that the characters in La Regle du Jeu being such vapid socialites filling their daily existence with that same empty chatter is precisely the point, but for chrissakes, make your satire at least funny then. Let´s have a laugh at them sumbitches instead of just suffering through the interminally dull blather for more than one and a half hours.
"It feels like we´re on a sticky territory of "I dislike B because it isn´t like A and I like A because it is much more superior - it satisfies "my" expactations and what "I" want out of it"".
Umm, how it seems to ME is that you have some sort of a preconception that a true film fan should be some kind of a cinematic omnivore digesting all acclaimed classics with equal enthusiasm and without ever questioning the actual value of this or other element. I find such an attitude rather off-putting and, frankly, I´m not sure what to think of folks that actually ´are´ such omnivores without any particular stylistic preferences.
"If the scene in Contempt during which the waltz around the real reason behind their deteriorating relationship/-/ does not possess a certain poetic grace and beauty/-/ then I seriously need to reassess what is meant by terms such as "well-written" and "poetic"".
Well I suppose you do because the scene is about as graceful and poetic as the party programm of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Granted, some of the finer nuances probably get lost in translation (I don´t understand French), but at least what came out in English in the subtitles, was banal stuff. And, at any rate, watching two self obsessed people spending more than half an hour mumbling and trying to figure out whether or not they want to go to bloody Capri isn´t exactly my idea of engaging filmmaking.
"Don´t you mean "Stiffy Allen"?"
Yes, sorry, that´s him. Honest mistake.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
However, I never did make such an assertion - "being recognisibly the same work" and "their artistic value remaining more or less intact" isn´t exactly the same as, you know, insisting they´d lose nothing at all with the transition.But the point to which his literary elements are enhanced on screen would ensure that you would lose PLENTY with such a transition. You're right in that some of Bergman's films could probably "survive" as stage plays (better than, say, something like Days of Heaven) but again, they would hardly be as provoking as the films themselves IMO - Bergman's aesthetic is far too instrumental in their profundity to just discount like that.
Yeah well I guess Kill Bills can be seen as such although I´d still argue it´s about QT´s personal hard-on first and foremost.Why do I get the feeling you dislike Tarantino?
or chrissakes, make your satire at least funny then. Let´s have a laugh at them sumbitches instead of just suffering through the interminally dull blatherYeah, I do agree that some of it got tediuos and dull. Some of it was - dare I say it - mildly amusing on some level. I think I need to give it a rewatch to see if my opinion of it has changed.
Umm, how it seems to ME is that you have some sort of a preconception that a true film fan should be some kind of a cinematic omnivore digesting all acknowledged classics with equal enthusiasm and without ever questioning the actual value of this or other element. Obviously, I must dislike the dialogue of certain films because I´m prejudiced. What else could it be.Fixed.
I find such an attitude rather off-putting and, frankly, I´m not sure what to think of folks that actually ´are´ such omnivores without any particular stylistic preferences.You mean, you are sure but you'd rather hint at what you mean rather than point it out explicitly.
Looks like IMDB ate up our last, few posts. No worries, though; I saved my response to your latest post so we can pick thinks up from where we left off.
Well it´s not as black and white as that - in fact, you´ll find Jackie Brown among the top 25 favourite movies listed in my profile.Well, I must see it ASAP then. Quite surprising to see it listed so high.
The implication seemed to be that a true cinephile must love all great directors in about equal measure and dare not diss a single more-or-less universally acknowledged masterpiece. THAT kind of omnivore.I don't think I've ever implied that. And if I somehow have, it sure as hell wasn't intentional.
Sure, I tend to be kind of opinionated when it comes to certain issues, but I suppose everyone (excluding you?) tends to be to some extent.I really can't think of anything in particular that I dislike (actually, I can - see below). If it's done well, I'll like it and if not, then I won't. It's as simple as that for me. I guess I'm generally always open and accepting to all sorts of works precisely because I don't want to miss out on anything. The first time I saw 2001 ASO (which was long ago), it left me cold, irritated and annoyed and had I not muted my expectations and approached it with an open, accepting mind the second time around, I don't think I could have ever marvelled at its genius or you know, let it move me. That's not to say that that approach works for EVERY acclaimed film but I'm genuinely careful not to turn over a masterpiece because it doesn't appease me instantly. You mention you don't do this either so I guess my approach is one shared by most.
In fact, I actually appear to be growing ever more tolerant, especially when it comes to older, pre-60´s films - used to have numerous gripes with them (one of the gripes being, you guessed it, excessive talkiness), but now it seems that the more I see them the more interesting it all gets.Ha, there was a time when I needed color in all of the films I watched. Long ago, ofcourse, before I intentionally decided to hunt for cinema's greatest treasures. If a movie was filmed in black and white, it'd take days of mental preparation before I could manage to finally turn it on.
(jesus, is that one poor attempt at paraphrasing... Stiffy Allen, I thinkI'm sort of lost by what you mean here. Care to elaborate? Do you mean to ask me if I dislike Woody Allen? I'll answer, anyway: not really but then again, I haven't seen much. I've only seen four(Annie Hall, Manhattan, Hannah and her Sisters and Vicky Christina Barcelona) and to tell you the truth, the only one I care about is Annie Hall. Manhattan, I didn't particularly like nor can I remember what it was really about - if my memory serves me right, it felt like a variation on Annie Hall with a younger female lead and with Allen reprising basically the same character he played in Annie Hall. I'm not so sure. Another viewing in order maybe? Hannah and her Sisters - don't remember much. It was alright, I suppose. VCB was okay too.
Must be some classics you hate yet were always afraid to revealHaha, not "afraid to reveal" so much as "need to rewatch to form a better opinion" but thanks for taking that cheap shot; don't think it's as rude as my sarcastic quip but whatever (at least you edited it out). But since you ask, I wasn't particularly fond of The Third Man when I saw it during the start of my cinephile phase. I haven't it seen since so I can't outright say I dislike it. There are a couple of Luis Bunuel movies here and there that I dislike (think one was called The Milky Way or something, too heavy-handed for my tastes and that's saying something since it was really one of his surrealist films). Not so fond of Tsai Ming-Liang's works; always pushing the envelope (imo) is not always the perfect way to get your "message" across - even if I sort of like his unique visual style. And Citizen Kane really isn't THAT special. Behind all the technical tinkering and Welles' synthesis of the long-take and montage techniques, there's really a sort of an okay storyline. I know I always preach "it's not what you say; it's how you say it" but I dunno if I'm really THAT impressed by the "how" (not as much as I am by other pioneers of cinema such as, say, DW Griffith). Just don't have particularly strong feelings for it though I understand why so many do.
Thanks for saving it. I´ve never seen such sh-t before - apparently, stuff got deleted all across the board.
"Quite surprising to see Jackie Brown that high".
It´s the only movie of QT´s where his undeniable genius for manipulating image and sound is married to a mature story with characters that are believably human and not some hipsterist constructs belonging firmly in the realm of moviedom (here only S.L.Jackson has that typically Tarantino´esque smartass patter). Add to that a smartly constructed plot, fine acting allaround and we have a truly outstanding film. The key that it turned out the way it did, especially character-wise, is obviously the fact that it was adapted from a book - something QT badly needs to do again instead of writing his own shtick over and over again, with rapidly diminishing results.
"Don´t know if there´s really a unique "concept" to kung-fu movies per se".
What I meant is that I don´t get why would anyone want to watch movies of which ONLY purpose is to showcase fake fighting. If you wanna watch people fight, there´s tons of K-1, boxing or MMA available on YouTube - the real thing instead of a bunch of guys ´pretending´ to hit or kick each other. It´s a little like watching animated porn or something. Kill Bill 2, on the other hand, is largely OK I guess although also suffering from QT´s inability to give his characters little personality beyond them being wordy hipsters with an attitude.
"I´m actually one of those who love Inglorious Basterds".
I´ve discussed IB way too much with various folk already, so I keep it succinct and simple - a) with the exception of the opening scene, the dialogue is relatively poor yet there are several seemingly endless scenes of yammering, b) the action is either unengaging or, as noted, disgustingly sadistic (QT has always had this sadistic streak), c) the two central storylines fail to harmonise properly and the one featuring the titular Basterds is a complete letdown also in- and of itself, d) the humour is actually funny only sporadically and the Hitler-caricature´s just dumb... etc etc. And yes, the mentioned critique of the effects of make-believe, especially make-believe violence is indeed totally hypocritical as QT himself has been and still is one of the worst offenders when it comes to portraying violence with irresponsible nonchalance. Someone like Haneke is in a position to lecture us about it because he´s never resorted to it himself; with QT, it´s a different story.
"If it´s done well, I like it and if not then I won´t".
Yeah well except that I think movies like Broken Blossoms, La Regle du Jeu, Shadow Of A Doubt, The Treasure Of Sierra Madre, The Searchers, Lawrence Of Arabia, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Death In Venice, Star Wars etc are badly made and, pardon the expression, suck.
"There was a time I needed color in all of the films I watched".
The lack of color in itself has never been a big problem - it´s mainly that the classic era movies have that certain aesthetic narrowness compared to later times. They´re mostly studio-bound, feature a lot of talking heads, have mostly orchestral soundtracks, feature exaggerated, theatrical acting that´s difficult to get used to plus there´s a whole array of things you couldn´t do or say on screen due to The Code. It takes a bit of conditioning to learn to, you know, look closer and see that world appearing more varied & taking on color, even if just metaphorically. At the moment it seems that most of the latest films I´ve discovered that I really dig, tend to be the older ones. There´s plenty to discover there.
"I´m sort of lost by what you mean here? Care to elaborate?"
Mr Stiffy once made a film called "Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex, But Were Afraid To Ask" which I tried to paraphrase - with less than great success, unfortunately. I thought you´d get the reference though. As for Stiffy himself, than I have seen about 20 of his films and I guess I ´like´, more or less, about 2/3 of them. Favourites are Crimes & Misdemeanors and Radio Days. I do however think he hasn´t made anything wortwhile for about 15 years now, just repeating himself with rather poor results... but that´s just my opinion. And I don´t dig Manhattan much, either (it´s supposedly one of his very best). Maybe you should try some of his early movies - made before Annie Hall, starting with which he began to aspire to being some kind of American Bergman - all wacky comedies basically, of which Bananas is probably my favourite (I just watched that Everything You Always Wanted To Know thing for the first time - it´s basically 5-6 standalone sketches, some of which are hilarious, some OK and one, the first, that´s atrocious). I don´t generally like his totally "serious" films much.
"There are a couple of Luis Bunuel movies here and there that I dislike"
He´s hit and miss with me, too - L´Age d´Or and Belle du Jeur are both indeed very heavy handed, obvious and (in the case of the latter) also unbearably obnoxious. On the other hand, Un Chien Andalou & Viridiana are great and El Angel Exterminador is also impressive. Generally I think Bunuel is sort of too ´normal´ even nor as complex or as aesthetically idiosyncratic as I find Lynch to be (as they´re often lumped together as "surrealists").
"And I don´t like Scarface".
I think of it as ´the´ ultimate coke movie (as well as the ultimate film about the American Dream, I suppose) where the style is designed to match the content - over-the-top is where Tony Montana lives and the film resides close by as well. It´s purposefully broad and not exactly "in good taste", but De Palma is the man to pull such a stuff off with his customary operatic sensibilities and fluid camerawork (even as he´s toned down his stylistic excess considerably here). I shudder to think what would have become of it had Oliver Stone (one of the most overrated hacks in Hollywood history) directed it as he originally wanted to. Also, Pacino is in absolute top form here, giving a performance that is actually a lot more subtle than most seem to realize. And characteristically for DePalma, Scarface has a pretty good sense of humour about it - if you think you see something funny in it, chances are it´s intentional. I don´t, however, agree at all that it´s either ridiculous or melodramatic - even if DePalma is usually one of the extremely few that are able to render sentiment in the way that is not off-putting (Spielberg has a thing or two to learn from him). Moroder´s synth score does induce a strong current of pathos in it, but I wouldn´t want it any other way. Ultimately though the reason that it is such a huge fav of mine that I´ve seen it about 25 times, among other things, is the personal affection with the 80´s style, having wathced Miami Vice & stuff on TV as a kid etc - and Scarface is pure eighties, pure false glamour and excess. Oh and it´s definitely inaccurate to say that it is only liked by "mainstream masses" - whoever they are - as, surprisingly even to myself, on Rotten Tomatoes it has a freshness rating of 88%. Most critics are hardly some bling loving gangsta rapper wannabe´s, I figure... And I also hate Slumdog Millionaire.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
What I meant is that I don´t get why would anyone want to watch movies of which ONLY purpose is to showcase fake fighting.The short, simple answer: they're fun. The violence in the Kill Bill movies is intentionally OTT and absurd (and as a result, comic and entertaining) and that's exactly how Tarantino wants it. If I'm allowed to expand on your analogy (or modify it), instead of "animated porn", I'd say it's more of a self-aware, glamorous version of hardcore porn - unrealistically exaggerated duration, overbearingly gratuitous, cartoonishly "gritty" (instead of digustingly so) and sometimes outright comical.
Kill Bill 2, on the other hand, is largely OKSince both movies share the same tone and general OTT atmosphere, it's harder for me to differentiate between the two. It is true, though, that the "drama" aspect of it is more highlighted in the second part so I understand why it's more tolerable.
a) with the exception of the opening scene, the dialogue is relatively poor yet there are several seemingly endless scenes of yammering,I'll try to follow the short and succinct route too.
b) the action is either unengaging or, as noted, disgustingly sadistic (QT has always had this sadistic streak),
c) the two central storylines fail to harmonise properly and the one featuring the titular Basterds is a complete letdown also in- and of itself,
d) the humour is actually funny only sporadically and the Hitler-caricature´s just dumb... etc etc.
And yes, the mentioned critique of the effects of make-believe, especially make-believe violence is indeed totally hypocritical as QT himself has been and still is one of the worst offenders when it comes to portraying violence with irresponsible nonchalance.Hmm, I think I need some elaboration here as well (sorry, I know you're done discussing this movie but I can't help but want to know why you despise it). Isn't that what adds another layer to the whole film? I mean, just like the film that the Germans were marvelling at (in Shosanna's cinema) was a false representation of actual events, so is Inglourious Basterds itself - the difference lying in the fact that we're well aware that IB butchers the actual events. That layer of metafiction enriches the movie, doesn't it? Or am I missing something?
Yeah well except that I think movies like Broken Blossoms, La Regle du Jeu, Shadow Of A Doubt, The Treasure Of Sierra Madre, The Searchers, Lawrence Of Arabia, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Death In Venice, Star Wars etc are badly made and, pardon the expression, suck.I've seen half of those but I don't think the ones I've seen "suck". Just that they didn't really live up to the hype.
It takes a bit of conditioning to learn to, you know, look closer and see that world appearing more varied & taking on color, even if just metaphorically.QFT.
I thought you´d get the reference though.Yeah, haven't seen the film or much of Woody Allen. Anyway, for someone who likes the majority of his works, why do you refer to him as Stiffy Allen? Is it 'cause the latter portion of the films he's made in his career haven't been impressive?
On the other hand, Un Chien Andalou & Viridiana are great and El Angel Exterminador is also impressive.I thought Viridiana was pretty good but I really loved The Exterminating Angel and Un Chien Andalou. I actually sort of enjoyed Belle de Jour and Bunuel's critique of middle class morals but yeah, it was heavy-handed alright. I'm not quite enthusiastic about most of his non-surreal films but of his non-surreal ones, the best would have to be El and Los Olvidados.
Generally I think Bunuel is sort of too ´normal´ even nor as complex or as aesthetically idiosyncratic as I find Lynch to be (as they´re often lumped together as "surrealists").Yeah, Bunuel has a generally simple, economical approach with the camera and his style couldn't be more different from Lynch's (which, as you note, is more cinematic and aesthetically complex). Also, Bunuel's surrealism usually carries with it a comical and/or cynical undertone (and is almost always centered around the lacking morals and hypocrisy of the middle/upper class... and/or some anti-religious sentiment) while Lynch's is dark, somber and at times, even terrifying and his themes more provoking (speaking of Lynch, I can't get past the first few scenes of Inland Empire; I'm afraid of what I might see...).
Oh and it´s definitely inaccurate to say that it is only liked by "mainstream masses" - whoever they are - as, surprisingly even to myself, on Rotten Tomatoes it has a freshness rating of 88%.But those same "critics" gave X-Men First Class a whopping 87% when it's much closer to a 40-50%. I think the "Top Critics" is a better indicator of quality on that site but RT hasn't collected enough reviews to form a score there for Scarface. Metacritic has it at 65 but the sample's too small (just 9 reviews). Anyway, I might as well unsubsribe from my "I'm open and accepting to multiple rewatches of a film I didn't like on my first viewing" mantra if I'm not going to give Scarface another shot... if only because the rest of the films in your Top 43 (?) are utter favorites of mine: Don't Look Now, Last Year at Marienbad, Taxi Driver, Barry Lyndon, Mulholland Dr, etc etc (even Zerkalo was intriguing); don't think my opinion will change much though.
And I also hate Slumdog Millionaire.How it managed to win all those Oscars and accolades is beyond me.
Sorry for the delayed reply. Been elsewhere.
"The short, simple answer: they´re fun".
Yeah it´s just a personal thing; I understand some people even enjoy watching ballet (huh?)
"If you´re attempting to make fun of WW2 films, you´re gonna put in "endless scenes of yammering"".
The problem is that every character is essentially speaking with the same voice (their creator´s) and it´s wearing thin. Sure, that´s the way it´s always been - with the noted exception of JB and perhaps, to a lesser extent, RD - but it lacks the freshness it used to have and imo its quality isn´t the same anymore, either. The first scene at the farm is very strong, but it´s all downhill from there on.
"In response to "c", I´d like to ask you to elaborate a bit".
I´ve only seen the film once, so my memory may be a bit fuzzy on the details, but I generally found the Basterds storyline severely underdeveloped - they just wandered around in the back of the woods, through a basement brasserie shootout or two and then suddenly popped up at that gala or whatever. They didn´t even get that much screentime... although the scene where Brad Pitt was taught Italian was one of the few genuinely funny moments in the film.
"That layer of metafiction enriches the movie, doesn´t it?"
Certainly, but it also makes it somewhat problematic - it all depends of course on the exact reading of the thing. On the basic level IB takes to task the (mis)use of the medium for ideological purposes and also seems to raise an accusatory finger towards the consumer of film for buying all that sh-t (as it´s suggested we the viewers are put in the position of the poor bastard into whose scalp the sign is carved in the last scene, thus laying the blame and shame on ´us´, as well). And since QT has been guilty of similar misuse of the medium in the past himself, it is not wholly unjustified to suggest he´s being a bit hypocritical there. But maybe I´m making too much of it; as said, I´ve only seen it once. Anyways, I can believe IB overall is a critique of "American exceptionalism" as opposed to promoting it as its critics have claimed, but either way the tone of the film seems pretty confused and inconsistent in these regards - QT still seems to be having way too much fun bashing in brains as he´s always done before. I dunno. Guess I´ll rewatch it sometime.
"And re: Star Wars, I´m actually kind of glad you mention your disdain for it".
Actually, it doesn´t even belong in the bunch with the rest of those mentioned classics because all others are considered more or less ´art´ while SW is firmly in the popcorn department. But you´re right - it ´is´ very basic stuff from top to bottom and comes across awful synthetic, manufactured. On the other hand, something like Dune may be hugely flawed, but at least to me it has this genuinely uncanny vibe of something truly alien, from another time, intruding the screen.
"QTF".
??? Sorry for being dense, but what´s it mean?
"Why do you refer to him as Stiffy Allen"?
"Information given on the need-to-know basis only. Sorry, chap".
"Bunuel´s surrealism usually carries with it a comical and/or cynical undertone".
Bunuel´s indeed pretty up-front with his stuff usually and always out to fight whatever social/political/religious windmills he finds around as you point out; always the provocateur - a bit too much so for my tastes. Although I guess perhaps one needs to be obvious to a certain degree if you´re out to make a point for as wide an audience as possible (L´Age d´Or is all about that and despite it being disappointingly in-your-face, I suppose the gleefulness of the taboo-breaking got to me as well). Maybe, in a sense, I´m yet to learn to take & appreciate Bunuel fully on his own terms, after the initial certain disapointment. I wonder, however, how much of the free-associative, out-and-out surrealism that carried Un Chien Andalou, may come from Dali... because, as is known, he and Dali parted ways whilst making L´Age d´Or and that work bears a lot closer resemblence to his later stuff than the debut.
"I can´t get past the first few scenes of Inland Empire; I´m afraid of what I might see".
Yeah well IE would be the most intense and scary film I´ve ever laid my eyes on; I was quite obsessed with it for a year or so, watching it at least once a month. But I think Lynch´s later day creepshows have that soft, alluring element to their eerie mysteries which lends them a great rewatchability... they´re not disturbing in an icky kinda way like Eraserhead is.
"But those same "critics" gave X-Men First Class a whopping 87% when it´s much closer to a 40-50%".
You apparently mean it´s "closer to 40-50%... in your estimation" because you can´t really contest the factual number - unless you insist the math is done wrong in getting the average. To the point though, I wasn´t trying to legitimize the quality of Scarface by referring to RT (I try my best to keep clear of fallacies), just to demonstrate that not only "mainstream masses" - which I sense is like the more polite way of saying "wannabe gangsta rappers" - have been able to find value in it. But all that is not very important as far as I´m concerned and I don´t think you´re in any way obligated to rewatch it over and over again until death comes knocking. Two attempts sounds fair enough.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Sorry for the delayed reply. Been elsewhere.No worries. I was beginning to wonder if you'd quit on me but I figured you were just busy with stuff (judging by one look at your posting history).
it lacks the freshness it used to have and imo its quality isn´t the same anymore, either.I guess this is subjective and another one of those things we'll have to disagree on. For what it's worth, I finally got around to watching RD a couple of days ago and there were times when the dialogue got really dull and insipid; during many scenes, I just wanted the action to move forward since the pace became excruciatingly slow amidst all the banter. The dialogue in IB - by contrast - is far more involving, humorous, and inspired; there's far more happening beneath the surface than just some pop culture references.
I generally found the Basterds storyline severely underdeveloped... They didn´t even get that much screentime...They got plenty of screentime (probably even moreso than Shosanna storyline) - or more appropriately, enough - and although your description might be a somewhat accurate account of the scenes revolving around the Basterds, you're not considering the nuances of Tarantino's direction and script - which tell you all that you need to know about the Basterds, the monstrosities they've committed, their ignorance, their plans, etc.
On the basic level IB takes to task the (mis)use of the medium for ideological purposes and also seems to raise an accusatory finger towards the consumer of film for buying all that sh-t (as it´s suggested we the viewers are put in the position of the poor bastard into whose scalp the sign is carved in the last scene, thus laying the blame and shame on ´us´, as well).Call me short-sighted but I've never actually interpreted the last scene in that way. I've always thought it was the ultimate act of barbarism on the part of the "good" side, the final rule (and cliche) that Tarantino breaks for the WW2 genre film. Also, the part where Pitt's character goes "I've just made my masterpiece" - or something to that effect - after carving the swastika on Landa's forehead is basically Tarantino referring to his own film.
"QTF".QFT = Quoted for truth. My apologies for the confusion.
??? Sorry for being dense, but what´s it mean?
"Information given on the need-to-know basis only. Sorry, chap".??? Sorry for being dense, but what´s it mean? ... No seriously, stop it with the references. I'm not getting them.
as is known, he and Dali parted ways whilst making L´Age d´Or and that work bears a lot closer resemblence to his later stuff than the debut.I'm inclined to agree that Dali probably had a lot of influence on the style of Un Chien Andalou since, as you point out, Bunuel never really created anything quite similar to it after parting ways with him. Although... now that I think about, I do think that a couple of the films Bunuel made towards the end his career were somewhat reminiscent of Un Chien Andalou. The Phantom of Liberty, in particular, comes to mind because it too consisted of a string of loosely connected, incredibly weird episodes without any strictly identifiable narrative arc.
Yeah well IE would be the most intense and scary film I´ve ever laid my eyes on; I was quite obsessed with it for a year or so, watching it at least once a month.So now, I think I've seen about half of it (as much as I could watch between work and classes) and although on one hand I LOVE Lynch's cinematic aesthetic, I'm suddenly getting a little wary of it. At times, IE feels like a loose remake of Mulholland Drive in terms of the presentation (and heck, even the themes). And a thought keeps popping into my head: I've already seen this and I loved it the first time around... so why am I watching version number 2 if the first left me so darn satisfied? Well, yeah, I'm quite enjoying it but I dunno; it's just not blowing me away or anything.
You apparently mean it´s "closer to 40-50%... in your estimation" because you can´t really contest the factual number - unless you insist the math is done wrong in getting the average.Yeah, I meant that it's much more worthy of a 40-50% score rather than the 80% RT's (correctly) calculated and assigned to it.
Two attempts sounds fair enough.Yeah, I don't see myself listing it as one of my favorites anytime soon. Just not my cuppa, I suppose. Probably just catch it on TV or something.
"There were times when the dialogue got really dull and insipid".
It´s been a few years since I last saw RD, but I don´t recall having ever been bored by its dialogue the way I was bored with IB´s lengthy sequences at various coffee- and other kinda tables. I agree however that the pop culture references in the 1992 film haven´t aged particularly well - the early Madonna conversation once used to be kind of humorous I guess, but the last time around it was almost embarrassingly lame and juvenile. At any rate though I felt the dialogue generally came more organically from the characters than in IB... but ultimately it all may have a lot to do with which film you saw earlier as it´s still the same stuff by and large. Having seen everything there is to see of QT before IB was rolled out, it just felt like something past its Best Before date. QT may switch genres all he likes, but even in the WW2 setting, his characters sound and behave like these same smartass hoodlums from SoCal.
"They´ve got plenty of screentime (probably even moreso than Shosanna storyline)".
Guess my memory´s even fuzzier than I thought it was - the way I remember it, the basterds were in it for barely 1/3 of the running time.
"Tarantino´s primary intention pretty much seems to lie in the deconstruction and subversion of the tropes and motifs associated with the genre".
Yeah - I just thought it´s kind of half-assed in its subversion and doesn´t ultimately do much interesting with the concept. I may have been wrong though, considering what other people have had to say about it; the trouble is that one doesn´t really expect QT to make a movie that has outright intellectual tendencies... or much of anything to say at all, for that matter. And he still doesn´t strike me as a guy who would concern himself with essentially showing that one side may not necessarily be that much better than the other and has monopolized the history by having "won the battle for the projection booth", as someone wrote. But I suppose that, at this point, I´m forced to give QT some benefit of a doubt after all.
"But frankly, I don´t see how Tarantino is guilty of such "misuse of the medium" himself".
I meant his habits in terms of the depiction of violence in his films - it´s more often than not played for sh-ts and giggles, purely for effect and treated with a fairly nihilistic attitude. Stuff like Pulp Fiction or the Kill Bill films are, I think, prime examples of the kind of fare Haneke thinks he´s battling with his Funny Games, for instance (hardly successfully though - and I don´t think it´s a very good film, for a variety of reasons). As for his intelligence in supposedly recognizing he´s contradicting himself... I don´t think he´d really care. But then again, as noted, I didn´t think he´d concern himself with meaningfully engaging with the legacy of WW2, either.
"Stop it with the references. I´m not getting them".
Not sure I even expected you to get it. From The Living Daylights, I think. Seasoned Bond fan as I am.
"At times, IE feels like a loose remake of Mulholland Drive in terms of the presentation (and heck, even the themes)".
I don´t agree that it´s that similar in presentation - the aesthetic is wildly different even if just for the differing qualities of film and digital video. It doesn´t look or feel like MD at all (except for the sinister atmosphere, but that´s there in almost every film he´s ever made). Also, the way IE is structured is nothing like MD where the first 3/4 of the film at least pretended to play by the rules of mainstream cinema; all in all I think MD is ´not´ among his more radical films. IE, on the other hand, can be considered a pretty bold break even in the context of Lynch´s other highly idiosyncratic material - formally, that is. Sure, it has plenty of his usual stylistic elements popping up again, but he´s also expanding his cinematic vocabulary in pretty inspired ways. As for the themes than yes, acting & filmmaking are again focused on, but there´s a huge difference in the way they´re approached - while MD depicts Hollywood as a rotten cemetary of lost souls and fallen ingenues, in IE, acting ultimately is seen as a healing, redemptive process (of course, you wouldn´t know as you haven´t gotten that far yet). Also, the scope of IE is arguably even more vast - even if just temporally and geographically - and its experiences more universal. It goes the places MD wouldn´t dream of (and it dreams of plenty). Also, IE again deals with women in trouble, but that trouble here is of a rather different nature. Etc. But of course in the end, IE is one monster of a film, very much undiluted Lynch straight-up and lasts for 3 hours so undoubtedly the more casual fans tend to be not quite up for the trip. I do however have considerable difficulty accepting anyone who thinks IE is "crap" as Lynch fans (nothing to do with you, I suppose, but there have been a few who´ve made such a contradictory claim). It just doesn´t make any sense to me cuz it´s as Lynch as Lynch can be (dis rhyme or what?)
"Can I answer the "how familiar are you with DePalma" question, anyway"?
For a moment I thought you weren´t up for the task... only for a moment. Anyways, considering you´ve only seen 3 films that are among his more mainstream, stylistically restrained works (well, I guess Carrie´s ending in particular isn´t much restrained, exactly, but it´s adapted pretty straight from the King book which sets it somewhat apart from his more typical work) you´re hardly initiated at all in matters concerning DePalma. His real self is found more in material like Dressed To Kill or The Fury... or pretty much any film made from 1973 and Sisters to 1984 and Body Double. A lot of these are in large parts pastiche, Hitchcock deconstructions, but that´s something he did really well, recontextualizing Hitch´s central concepts & set-ups with great imagination not to mention visual brilliance. He DOES have, however, way more than his fair share of haters so it´s impossible to tell how any one person might react to his shenanigans. As far as pastiche artists are concerned, I certainly prefer him to Tarantino though. Unlike QT, he doesn´t have that obsession with trying to be "cool"; despite the playful operatics that define his visual style, he takes the people - and particularly their death - more seriously than QT.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
My turn to apologize for the delay. Been busy and probably will be for the next few days. Did have time to respond to this one though.
the trouble is that one doesn´t really expect QT to make a movie that has outright intellectual tendencies... or much of anything to say at all, for that matter.lol. Okay, so maybe the whole "Tarantino makes films that HE wants to see" argument of yours is somewhat valid (yeah, I take back about what I said about Tarantino aiming to be a crowd-pleaser, lol) but it doesn't mean that he doesn't have anything of substance to say. And since you already correctly count Godard as an influence, you can sure as hell bet that all of the genre subversions in IB didn't just happen out of some odd coincidence.
I meant his habits in terms of the depiction of violence in his films - it´s more often than not played for sh-ts and giggles, purely for effect and treated with a fairly nihilistic attitude.Again, I don't see it. In response to what you've said (which is more or less correct), I'd like to say, so what? I mean, even if you choose to take a broader view of Tarantino's philosphy in IB, he's basically criticising the standardisation of cinema and its constant pandering to audience expectations that prevent the birth of anything worthwhile... and that has little to do with Tarantino's sadistic depiction of violence. If you were to argue that the majority of Tarantino's works stick to a certain, cliched formula, then, I believe, you'd have an argument.
Not sure I even expected you to get it. From The Living Daylights, I think. Seasoned Bond fan as I am.That's quite some way to side step the Stiffy Allen question. With a reference you didn't even expect me to get.
I don´t agree that it´s that similar in presentation...Well, yeah, it's not THAT similar in presentation. Hence, the use of the term "loose". What I meant was that it carried the same hauting atmosphere and a similar wish fulfilment fantasy/dream set-up as the one in MD - at least, it appeared as such initially.
Also, the way IE is structured is nothing like MD where the first 3/4 of the film at least pretended to play by the rules of mainstream cinema;Yeah, I think the key word here is "pretended" because there was certainly a surrealistic quality even during the dream phase. (I guess I saw something similar in IE initially - I had thought "reality" would rear its head more frequently in IE and I guess I was correct, to some extent, since the whole film is a distorted, surreal depiction of reality. Wait, doesn't that make it a dream? nvm...)
IE, on the other hand, can be considered a pretty bold break even in the context of Lynch´s other highly idiosyncratic materialHe really goes off the deep end on this one, doesn't he? The film is geniusly constructed, its surrealistic immersion unparalleled, but its meaning is also indecipherable (at least, on a first viewing) - unlike Lynch's other masterpiece, MD. Perhaps, subsequenty viewings will allow me to make more sense of the buried narrative (if there even is one) but the experience of it all more than made up for my inability to exactly grasp what was happening - and that's what matters, really, i.e. that I was perplexed by what I saw but moved and engaged by it anyway.
I do however have considerable difficulty accepting anyone who thinks IE is "crap" as Lynch fansI agree wholeheartedly. I watched IE with my brother (who rates MD as one of his favorite films ever) and he quite disliked it, criticising it because it didn't mean sh-t. I asked him to reconsider and think about what the many snippets that were at least somewhat coherent in the film probably meant - in isolation of each other and when taken together; he was quiet for a while but he remained unsatisfied. I guess some people are looking for quick answers instead of the experience of being immersed in a surrealistic world that provokes thoughts and feelings more than it tells a coherent, linear narrative emphasizing its message to the point that they don't need to think or ponder what's being depicted at all.
A lot of these are in large parts pastiche, Hitchcock deconstructions, but that´s something he did really well, recontextualizing Hitch´s central concepts & set-ups with great imagination not to mention visual brilliance.That sounds great, tbh. I will make it a point to check out some of the works you've mentioned (and possibly, more). As you can see, for some reason, I take much pleasure in effective deconstructions of any genre/concept.
Well okay, I better warn up front that after having gone through coupla exciting movie experiences, I have a good news and a bad news. Which one first? Right. You won´t like it though.
"It doesn´t mean that he doesn´t have anything substance to say".
Well, there´s this essential difference between an intelligent director and an intellectual one and while, some of the more recent worrying developments aside, QT has certainly been the former, with equal certainty he´s never been - or even aspired to be - the latter. His films have, of course, always been mainly about films, and there´s clearly an agile cinematic mind behind them, but very obviously he´s mainly been out to have fun. Not pushing any ideologies, performing deep dissertations of deep issues, addressing philosophical concerns, making politics or even being socially conscious. Sure, moral issues occasionally do rear their head - loyalty in RD, getting out of "the life" to become "bum" after an, umm, divine intervention (rewarded by survival whereas SLJ´s partner in crime shall shortly meet his demise) in PF, generally mature world view in JB (although obviously thanks to Leonard who wrote the book) etc - but none of this goes far enough to serve as serious food for thought. He´s a smart guy, but also a lazy, self absorbed hipster. Dissecting history, providing revelatory insights into politics or the like... not something QT would ever be interested in. For better or worse, it is obvious that the Godard influence does not go anywhere beyond the technique.
"The genre subversions in IB didn´t just happen out of some odd coincidence".
OK then - during the last few days I actually took the time to go through IB the second time to see where it all might lead me this time around. Firstly, to address the subversion, I do not see any particular method behind it all or that is any deeper level he´s getting at by doing so; the standardization of cinema point is fair & there, but of politics, history, ideology, hypocrisy... all that stuff? He seems to be turning things around, again, only because he likes to ´play´ and thinks it is ´cool´. Does he stick his finger into the rotten pool of moral equivalence, to criticize tendencies akin to fascism in the US politics of today and yesterday? Possible. But watching the whole thing through, taking account the general tone of the film & what he seems to be up to, I´d still submit that there´s a considerable possibility that he´s not, in fact, himself fully - or maybe at all - aware of what is happening in his film on the metaphorical level. I dunno. There is no sign anywhere in anything he´s ever done before or said before, that would lead one believe he gives two sh-ts about any of the historical, social or political stuff.
But I still leave him some of that benefit of a doubt there. Much more problematic, to put it mildly, is the aesthetic make-up of IB; in fact, I´d go as far as to submit that the film is quite appallingly badly made in pretty much all respects. Firstly, I was surprised to re-discover just how much blather and twaddle there is in the movie - it is essentially made up of a series of conversations, one after another, going on and on. The extent to which this guy likes to hear himself talk, is nothing short of obscene. I´ll grant him the opening farm scene and the one in a Bierstube in the basement where he skillfully and effectively ramps up the suspense - all of the rest, howeverk, is simply not up to snuff in any shape and form. It´s pitifully dull, self conscious and self satisfied... why oh why did the critics once have to tell him he´s good at writing dialogue? Because now that is pretty much ALL he does, filling in for drama, action, visual storytelling at every turn. Also, it doesn´t help that, for all intents and purposes, there is precisely one character in the film - Quentin Tarantino. I remember I used to make fun of the British Pulp Fiction knock-off Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels due to there being about 20 characters who all have the same father cuz they all talk and act the same - like wordy, strongly narcissistic tough guy hipsters with a constant drive to impress. Now, QT is there himself, far more cconcerned with striking poses than investing anything genuine in work. Also, one has to bemoan that very little is left of his dazzling technique - the camerawork and shot selection is pretty uniformly stale, basic and unimaginative. Worse yet, he seems to have lost his ear for finding perfect soundtrack for the onscreen action (Jackie Brown is SUBLIME in these regards) - very rarely works the music to either enhance or contrast the action successfully. The several spaghetti western inspired licks are exactly as out of place as would think they´d be. Then there are thankfully-not-very-frequent bizarre quirks - inserting stylized subtitles or documentary footage going off to wild if brief narrative detours, or for some reason suddenly including a few words of voiceover towards the end of the film when there has been none before - only serve to even more instingly remindya as to who that is at the helm of this movie. And lastly, there´s even an element of sappy kitsch introduced in one or two scenes towards the end when another one of those skinny, ugly blonde chicks with an anger management problem he´s in love with (that Uma person is thankfully too old by nowI guess), Shoshanna or whatever the f-ck her name was, slowly and ponderously puts on a red dress. So, in short... oh screw it, I´ve probably totally pissed you off by now anyhow. For which I apologize... but I just had to let this out after that one last honest attempt to get with the program when it comes to later day Tarantino. That´s just the way I see it. And that´s that (did I say sometime, before going into this IB stuff, that I was sick and tired of discussing this film? And therefore keep it short and simple? Hm... )
At this point, I´m tired and shall take a break. Be back soon with the rest. Tschüss.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
His films have, of course, always been mainly about films, and there´s clearly an agile cinematic mind behind them, but very obviously he´s mainly been out to have fun...Oh sure, his films have always been entertaining (and fun) on a superficial front but that obviously doesn't mean they can't carry some deeper meaning - as IB proves... more on this below.
For better or worse, it is obvious that the Godard influence does not go anywhere beyond the technique.But when SO many critics have had a similar reading of Inglourious Basterds, one has got to wonder, don't you think? There's too much in the art that supports our interpretations, too much content to simply ignore and chalk off as mere coincidence... on account of the fact that Tarantino's simply not an intellectual director and so he's not capable of intellectual thought. True, Tarantino is doing in this film what he loves to do (appeasing himself and his whims) but he's also saying something important... and that's ultimately artistic self-expression is about, really. Indulging yourself and hoping your audience gives a sh-t. (Okay, so there might be some finer difference in there but in my books, self-indulgence definitely isn't a bad thing if you can get the audience to give a rat's ass about what you're blabbering about.) Fellini, for example, is one hell of a self-indulgent filmmaker but his films are aesthetically and thematically sublime despite (and hell, probably because of) his self-indulgence. With IB, Tarantino is essentially telling audiences to move the f-ck on from the genre and yes, he's having fun but he's also communicating his ideas and thoughts in ways he never has before - it's sort of like what Inland Empire is for David Lynch (I think you just did a spit-take). You can't tell me that the metafictional elements, the genre subversions, the statement of IB that it's a replacement of history and superior to politics, etc weren't planned to be there. (And you don't, I guess, given that you've stated you're giving Tarantino the benefit of the doubt.)
Dissecting history, providing revelatory insights into politics or the like... not something QT would ever be interested in.Come on, man. You would know this how? We can make assumptions as much as we'd like based on a past director's works but we've gotta be cautious and be aware of the fact that there's a high chance we could be wrong. After all, they're assumptions. Also, he's not dissecting history as much as he is the World War 2 film and that is clearly something he would attempt (a) given his past influences and (b) given his tendency to "shock" audiences (for the fun factor or whatever).
OK then - during the last few days I actually took the time to go through IB the second time to see where it all might lead me this time around.I'm thinking I should see it too now. And for some reason, it makes me glad that our conversation convinced you to give it a second shot - regardless of your negative opinion.
Does he stick his finger into the rotten pool of moral equivalence, to criticize tendencies akin to fascism in the US politics of today and yesterday? Possible. But watching the whole thing through, taking account the general tone of the film & what he seems to be up to, I´d still submit that there´s a considerable possibility that he´s not, in fact, himself fully - or maybe at all - aware of what is happening in his film on the metaphorical level.Haha. To me, it seems like you sense there's something deeper under the surface but because this is Tarantino we're talking about, you're unsure. Isn't there an ad hominem in there somewhere, lol?
it is essentially made up of a series of conversations, one after another, going on and on.Oh God, I don't want to get into your anti-talking preferences again, haha. I guess all I can really say here is that I enjoyed them for what they were and that I was thoroughly entertained by the opening scene (which remained dramatic and srs in order for the rest of the Shosanna plot to flourish) all the way up until the end (the basement scene was damn great so I'm glad you agree there at least, and there's another scene I remember in particular: the one in which the clueless British officers at Headquarters - during their unimportant chatter - are revealed to be a bunch of cinephiles... lol). Seriously, can't think of any conversation during which I might have rolled my eyes (unlike, say, his debut effort, RD). I think we've come to the point of repeating ourselves, at least when it comes to the dialogue.
Also, it doesn´t help that, for all intents and purposes, there is precisely one character in the film - Quentin Tarantino.Wait, don't writers create characters to service their story? ... unless you mean that all of the characters never really stick as "real" characters and that they're merely different versions of Tarantino playing dress-up in front of a camera. Okay. First of all, they're not supposed to be fully formed, three dimensional characters (except for Shosanna, I suppose - she's a caricature of sorts too but Tarantino certainly wanted to give her character and story some dramatic depth). Secondly, the caricatures are very well done, imo. The Basterds, Landa, even that actress, they all have their own quirks and the smartly written dialogue and the great acting certainly enhance the characters. Again, all in my opinion.
lso, one has to bemoan that very little is left of his dazzling technique - the camerawork and shot selection is pretty uniformly stale, basic and unimaginative.I disagree vehemently. Dull and unimaginative? Come on. I'd have accepted exaggerated, overdone or irritatingly over-assertive, or something. Anyway, his visual style has never been more compelling and bizarre; contrast his use of his sudden comical character introduction with his handling of the Shosanna storyline - one in which he's able to add genuine dramatic depth (consider the scene in which Landa meets her for the first time in that hotel after all those years; she instantly recognises him and he has no f-cking clue - the girl's acting in the scene is spectacular) and the consider the way his style zig-zags between the two. Or consider his appropriate use of the 360 degree tracking shot in the scene set at the cinema when the Basterds and Landa have their discussion that's not only suspenseful but also comically delightful.
Then there are thankfully-not-very-frequent bizarre quirks - inserting stylized subtitles or documentary footage going off to wild if brief narrative detours, or for some reason suddenly including a few words of voiceover towards the end of the filmOh franz. Now it just seems like you're nitpicking and one can do it for every film they don't really want to give a f-ck about. Anyhow, those narrative detours (and notice how they affect or influence the story, i.e. the character introduction added a weird, humorous vibe to something that would be treated in the utmost serious way in a typical WW2 film; and again, the detour concerning the history of "film" ... or rather, its physical properties - are you telling me you don't see the connection and/or why that scene was amusing and/or smartly executed at all?) were incredibly entertaing, if nothing else (harhar, see what I did there).
And lastly, there´s even an element of sappy kitsch introduced in one or two scenes towards the end when another one of those skinny, ugly blonde chicks with an anger management problem he´s in love with (that Uma person is thankfully too old by nowI guess), Shoshanna or whatever the f-ck her name was, slowly and ponderously puts on a red dress.Again, that was deliberate on Tarantino's part. This was all obvious set-up for the potential cross political romantic pairing but obviously, the love story never materialized as both essentially kill each other off in ludicrous, melodramatic fashion (notice Tarantino's ridiculously obnoxious score and the camera angles with which he sought to capture Shosanna's thought processes during the whole scene) and that's exactly what he was going for as I've repeatedly stated. In another side story, he's essentially subverted another audience expectation and in such an entertaining way. The scene in which she was putting on her red dress? I loved it. It was stylish, cool and sexy... and given the fact that it was all build-up for... what it was, I can't say I was disappointed.
I´ve probably totally pissed you off by now anyhow. For which I apologize.Hey, no way, man. There's no need to apologize for anything since I've loved skimming through your thoughts on the film (and other films, too, ofcourse). I mean, if we all had one opinion on everything, how boring would life (and these discussions forums, to be more specific) be? So yeah, I've quite enjoyed our slow-paced back-and-forth yammering (ha!) if only because they've led me to a better understanding of why I like/dislike something. (Okay, it's late so I don't know if I'm making sense. Bear with me, heh.)
That´s just the way I see it. And that´s that (did I say sometime, before going into this IB stuff, that I was sick and tired of discussing this film? And therefore keep it short and simple? Hm... )Haha, yeah. I really opened up a Pandora's box with my last post, didn't I? Haha, it's up to you if you want to keep continuing with this particular conversation but in my humble opinion, I think we've reached the saturation point of our discussion concerning all matters Tarantino and Inglourius Basterds, haha. However, I'm glad we got it out of our system and if anything, our conversation has reaffirmed my appreciation for it and for that, I thank you. I'm always game for more if it means we can get past the "I love it and you don't... and that's it" position we seem to be stuck in. Actually, I'm game for it in any case.
Late, huh? We´re rather close then as far as timezones go. It´s 3.30 a.m. right now and I´m positively too wasted to even contemplate a longer answer. Just 2 points - apparently our opinions regarding IB´s aesthetic qualities are so radically different that we could carry on discussing them for years without getting anywhere... in fact, after viewing IB I felt so bad I had to watch Mann´s aesthetically mind bending Miami Vice for like the 7th time... "to get rid of this godawful feeling" (far as references go, this one´s easy, right?) And secondly, the question concerning QT´s intentions with IB boils down to whether he sees the exploits of the Basterds unacceptable, no less evil than the Nazis... or he thinks they´re cool and kick ass. And again, all that is known of QT - most importantly that he eats and sh-ts pop culture & cares little about anything "serious" - suggests that he indeed celebrates the sadism of the psychopathic Jews (as he´s always celebrated sadism before in his films... like the loving slow-mo deconstruction of dismemberement in Death Proof or crushing eyeballs under bare feet in KB 2). I think he´s an overgrown, if technically graced, child wandering around with his cam´ra and increasingly vapid, self congratulary scripts, blissfully unaware of what is happening in his own movies... besides Really Cool Stuff like carving and bashing in sculls and his inept approximations of WW2 era Germans and Britons, based on Them Moviefillums He Seen, striking The Cool Poses, talking The Cool Talk.
And yes, I do find his giggly attitude towards the gruesome violence disgusting - and he tops his years-long obsession off in IB where the real, actual purpose of showing us the murder of that older blonde woman turns out to be... that it gives him an opportunitty to pull off "A Weel Cwever Wuentin Joke" ie to further indulge his foot fetish, almost sticking his camera between her toes. Now who else but Wuentin could possibly come up with a scenario as clever as that, huh? After all, that´s why he´s in the movie business in the first place - to show the world BARE FEET; bet there´s a sinister cabal, a world wide Foot Illuminati out there (lorded over by the fallen angel Al Bundy, no less) which Wuentin dutifully serves with his tiny lil cam´ra. He´s a sick f-ck, Fink.
Goddamnit.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
And secondly, the question concerning QT´s intentions with IB boils down to whether he sees the exploits of the Basterds unacceptable, no less evil than the Nazis... or he thinks they´re cool and kick ass.What it boils down to is that you dislike Tarantino and you have this very cynical (and somewhat incorrect, I'd argue) understanding of his intentions and all matters concerning him. Anyway, do we have to assess Tarantino's intentions AGAIN after we agreed (did we?) that the work of art contains enough proof of his actual intentions? And anyway, I'm quite shocked by the cynical comment above; do you really think that Tarantino thinks the Basterds are cool and kick ass? Or was he merely presenting them in that way, making a mockery of those who similarly celebrate such heroes, while at the same time, entertaining the audience (and himself, sure), what with his infrequent interruptions of the "main" narrative for some "cool" tid-bit about a particular character or object? I mean, really?
And again, all that is known of QT - most importantly that he eats and sh-ts pop culture & cares little about anything "serious" - suggests that he indeed celebrates the sadism of the psychopathic JewsFirst of all, he's made Jackie Brown. Obviously, he thought he could do it justice (despite having not written it) and he did (based on your experience, at least). So the comment about him always attempting to appear "cool and kick-ass" should already be a bit of a generalzation in your eyes. There's an exception. Secondly, the comment is also a kind of a farfetched assertion to make since he was hardly "celebrating" the sadism of the psychopathic Jews and Nazis - in fact, he was exaggerating it - almost glamorising it but also making it sickening and gruesome - to make his point: WW2 films have been done to death and to the point that they've nothing new to offer (due to the tried-and-tested formula and the corresponding deterioration in quality and artistic worth of such films that the typical use of such a formula brings) and that they're sickeningly one-sided in their portrayal of both sides (in the filmmakers' obvious aims to please the crowd). As I've said numerous times already, IB was Tarantino's (metafictional) stamp on the genre.
he tops his years-long obsession off in IB where the real, actual purpose of showing us the murder of that older blonde woman turns out to be... that it gives him an opportunitty to pull off "A Weel Cwever Wuentin Joke" ie to further indulge his foot fetish, almost sticking his camera between her toes.Oh, come on. Tarantino's ability to subtly incorporate his foot fetish on a narrative level is something that should be appreciated - I didn't even notice it that much in the first viewing. (And how come Bunuel gets away with all his foot - or shoes, was it? - fetishes and the numerous ways in which he incorporates them into his movies? Let's not single out Tarantino for being weird and for injecting his weirdness into his films... in some ways, we're all weird after all.) Needless to say, the scene in which Landa puts the high-heeled shoes on the actress' foot could be an allusion or reference to something else entirely...
"You dislike Tarantino and you have this very cynical understanding".
Firstly, I was indeed pretty drunk last night and went a bit overboard perhaps. But there is nothing cynical about the opinion that QT has never been the one to intellectualize, that most of his films are not particularly rich with meaning etc. I think that´s universally accepted & understood anyhow so it is a bit disingenious to single me out as the target of your wrath. As I said before the most recent rant, I´m giving him a benefit of a doubt in regards to his stance towards the goings on in IB. Strange how he´s suddenly become a man concernéd with the "big issues" though. It´s like a bolt out of the blue. There is no "proof" anywhere to be found that he´s become politically/ideologically conscious overnight, least of all in his previous body of work.
"Making a mockery of those who similarly celebrate such heroes".
Emulating the subjects of your satire too closely essentially turns you into what you´re ostensibly criticizing; there is no meaningful difference between the two (similarly, if Haneke would have presented the violence in the same fashion as it is presented in the torture porn he critiques, Funny Games would also been torture porn no matter his intentions. Haneke understands the difference, QT apparently does not). And his taste for portraying gratuitous violence & sadism is well documented, being increasingly present in his previous films.
"What of the infrequent interruptions of the "main" narrative for some cool tidbit".
What of them? At any rate, they´ve lost their novelty a long time ago. Ain´t impressed.
"First of all, he´s made Jackie Brown. Obviously, he thought he could do it justice".
I´m sure Michael Bay also thought he´d do the subject matter justice when he took on Pearl Harbor - the road to hell is paved with best intentions as they say. And, as already noted many a time, all the character depth and complexities of the midlife crisis are planted in the film by the author of the book. That´s why it´s tonally quite different from everything else he´s done.
"Tarantino´s ability to subtly incorporate his foot fetish on a narrative level is something to be appreciated".
I should appreciate that slobbering over bare feet is higher in his priorities than that the owner of the said foot is being murdered? And putting on the shoe is an allusion to... what, exactly?
I´ll get to other, hopefully more pleasent topics shortly.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Firstly, I was indeed pretty drunk last night and went a bit overboard perhaps.I think I actually sort of like your drunken self. I dunno, there's a refreshing honesty about him.
As I said before the most recent rant, I´m giving him a benefit of a doubt in regards to his stance towards the goings on in IB.Yeah, and I'm sure that that's the farthest we're ever going to get on the topic.
Strange how he´s suddenly become a man concernéd with the "big issues" though. It´s like a bolt out of the blue.Perhaps - as I've said before - he's finally learned to how make good use of his eccentricities.
There is no "proof" anywhere to be found that he´s become politically/ideologically conscious overnight, least of all in his previous body of work.But hasn't he been constantly experimenting? Let me elaborate. After his mediocre debut effort largely taking place in just at one particular location revolving around various men who need to be careful in trusting each other after a robbery-gone-wrong, he came out with one of his best films: Pulp Fiction - another brand of darky comedy layered with the usual sadistic undertones and a weird sense of the ordinary from Tarantino (... also, by the way, haven't there been numerous "intellectual" analyses of what the film is about, what the suitcase is a metaphor for, the bizarre storytelling, etc, etc). Tarantino then quickly changed gears and he made the "masterpiece" Jackie Brown (however, you make sure in your recent commment that Tarantino gets as little credit as possible for this - unfair, imo but whatever...) After that didn't quite work out, he did his own, fun interpretation of the kung fu genre with his Kill Bill series. In 2007, he made the completely inaccessible Death Proof which I can't imagine is modeled after anything at all. And most recently ofcourse, the subject of our discussion: his stamp on the WW2 genre.
Emulating the subjects of your satire too closely essentially turns you into what you´re ostensibly criticizinglol, I think I've responded to this a gazillion times already, franz. If you did not find my explanations satisfactory, you just needed to say so and I'd have just said "agree to disgree". As it stands, I must repeat myself too. Tarantino's not only emulating them, he's EXAGGERATING them and their traits to the point that they're just utterly ridiculous caricatures - incredibly well-done but caricatures nonetheless.
What of them?Tarantino's playfulness loosens the tension in the air when this is the same content that would be played for drama in any other film purporting to depict the cruelties of the war. If this is not mockery, I don't know what is. Oh, and it's not like the wacky introduction that boasts about the number of Nazi dudes the brute's brutally murdered is not presented in the most glamorous way possible.
I should appreciate that slobbering over bare feet is higher in his priorities than that the owner of the said foot is being murdered?Okay, it's not like the whole scene was about the friggin' foot, dude. TBH, I don't even remember the scene: was the camera on her feet while she was being strangled? Even if it was, Tarantino was - for the first time - sparing you of the brutality being committed off-screen... is that really cause for complaint now?
And putting on the shoe is an allusion to... what, exactly?Well, I know what "I" was certainly thinking about but I haven't gotten as far as to tie it the theme of the movie itself - except for the "genre subversion" part, I suppose. And come on, you know what I'm thinking about. It's rather obvious, I'd assume.
Have you seen the article about the film connections in IB in the most recent "edition" of Bright Lights Film Journal? It´s pretty interesting, even for me... and no, I never denied his occasional heroics in the field of intertextuality.
"Haven´t there been numerous intellectual analysis´ of what the film is about".
You can write an intellectual analysis about anything, even about Transformers.
"You make sure in your recent comment that QT gets as little credit as possible for this".
Why should I give him credit for writing the source material when he did ´not´ write the source material? I give him duely earned credit for everything else, but these very clearly are not Tarantino´s chacacters at all and some of the problems they´re dealing with are otherwise completely alien to him.
"Expressing just how different and unique each of his films have been relative to each other".
He´s doing some interesting genre hopping, but that´s all essentially cosmetic as he´s always got exactly the same tone and he drags this one character he´s ever been able to create, everywhere - as noted, the Tarantino´esque SoCal Hipster we first saw in RD is present even in WW2 period Europe which is kind of obscene in his own right.
"He´s EXAGGERATING them".
Maybe he´s trying to, but either way it doesn´t work because he very palpably takes pleasure in their nasty exploits - always has.
"Sparing you of the brutality committed off-screen".
He´s not "sparing" us, he´s making a stupid joke of it.
"And come on, you know what I´m thinking about".
Richard Reid the failed shoe bomber of American Airlines Flight 63? Okay... you´re probably thinking of Cinderella.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Have you seen the article about the film connections in IB in the most recent "edition" of Bright Lights Film Journal? It´s pretty interesting, even for me...That was an amazing read. Thanks. I think I had already seen the spaghetti western connection but most of the others (including Leni and her works) I really had no clue about. Given the level of thought that Tarantino seems to have put into the film, I can't help but appreciate it even more. But, damn, that was really a well-written article and if you're not convinced of Tarantino's genius at least when it comes to IB, nothing I could say could ever do the job. I might as well stop trying. I know you want me to.
Why should I give him credit for writing the source material when he did ´not´ write the source material?I guess I should have been clearer but I didn't mean the writing obviously. I was referring to his direction of that film. The characters or story weren't his but he did the source material justice. All I meant.
He´s doing some interesting genre hopping, but that´s all essentially cosmetic as he´s always got exactly the same tone and he drags this one character he´s ever been able to create, everywhereI can't seem to recall any such characters in his Kill Bill series which were hardly the 'talky' type in the first place. He does maintain his sense of absurdity and exaggerated depictions of violence in all of his films but I believe he's having more fun (and more interested) with his genre subversions.
Maybe he´s trying to, but either way it doesn´t work because he very palpably takes pleasure in their nasty exploits - always has.(a) Works for the film obviously, and (b) he always hasn't - unless you want to be all cynical and you want to deliberately place unwarranted importance on a couple of scenes in some of his films that emphasize his penchant for celebrating sadistic violence (and really, the biggest exception, his Kill Bill series, was more about the elaborately choreographed action sequences and let's not forget they were set in a highly unrealistic, cartoonish universe.) Violence has certainly formed a part of his films but I think he's more about producing the desired effect in the audience rather than glorifying the violence itself. He's never taken it seriously himself largely because few of us do when we go to watch these typical action flicks (guilty of the same 'crime'). If that article you've mentioned above emphasizes anything, it's Taraninto's love for cinema and that's always been his primary focus; not a farfetched claim to make, therefore. (I think this was attempt # 43 at tackling this particular remark.)
He´s not "sparing" us, he´s making a stupid joke of it.How about both? Doesn't matter (to me), really. I think it's more important to consider what the scene was a reference to (even excluding the subtle incorporation of Tarantino's own foot fetish)...
Okay... you´re probably thinking of Cinderella.Yeah, I was. Another allusion, this time, to a fairy tale; only this was a twisted variation of it in which the traitoress princess got her due. Disappointed the article above didn't mention it. Ah, well.
Okay, a few concluding words on IB.
I´m impressed with his film knowledge and ability to use these references. I guess you could call it a "genius" if you want, but I´d sort of expect more from a "great" film than screwing around with old movies as that in itself does not constitute any noteworthy "depth" nor does it make it "intellectual" (not that being "intellectual" is by all means necessary for a film... it isn´t at all... but that´s what you propose). IB is still a pretty empty exercise in bad taste and poor technique otherwise. It´s no less a silly geek film than Death Proof.
And that´s that. Too bad though that the experience with IB turned out the same as with Scorsese´s Shutter Island, going from disappointing & mediocre upon first viewing to a horrid failure on the second. Guess some things just aren´t meant to be.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
OK, I´ll try & go back a page or so to pick up the plot unrelated to QT.
"Similar wish-fulfillmet fantasy/dream set-up as the one in MD".
Not really - the only wish fulfillment in IE comes in the end. Here, Dern may be living in a palace, but seems vaguely troubled and is having difficulty remembering things ("what the yesterday was all about..."). Then she gets sucked into the screenplay and by way of acting, opens up a door to another reality... and confusion of identity to Lynch is one of the most terrifying things. But here, of course, all the worlds traversed present an incarnation of the same story, the same tragedy.
"I had thought reality would rear its head more frequently in IE".
I´m not entirely sure, but the venue closest to any true "reality" or whatever, may be the crying Gruszka sitting on the bed watching the drama unfold onscreen. It appears, she´s both the victim and the culprit in the original "cursed story" that was then made into the German film 4/7 (unfortunately springing to life with tragic results for the leads) and is now "remade". Of course, even earlier it had already been converted into the "longest running radio play in history" - like the so-called curse, a metaphor for destructive desire ie adultery resulting in lethal violence. Hence the reflexive rabbit stuff and a crucial shift in Dern´s identity taking place during a sex act with Devon/Billy. The "curse" is of course older than Gruszka, but it is her spiritual destiny that´s on the line in this particular story with Dern being drawn in to provide salvation after going through her own hell. In the end, through the power of acting, Dern finds a way to redeem her so she can move on from the limbo she´s been stuck in. Finally, Lynch has given his film an undisputably blissful ending which is also thoroughly earned.
"Perhaps, subsequent viewings allow me to make more sense of the buried narrative".
Trying to piece the story together on the first viewing is, of course, a hopeless task for anyone. However, further viewings have revealed just how organized, meticulously contructed the whole madness is. The film is constantly riffing off itself, the patterns repeating and reflections piercing through the huge worlds Lynch is creating. Even setting aside all narrative mechanics, it works beautifully in the way music does, with its rhythms constantly pitch perfect, the transitions arranged to a magical effect as the film develops from passage to passage (some complain that the proverbial foreplay before all hell breaks loose, is too brief, others that it´s "boring", but to me it sets following shifts up beautifully and is perhaps even scarier in its quiet foreboding than anything that comes later). In the words of Dick Laurent, it´s smooth as sh-t from ducks ass throughout - perhaps later on in the film the pacing occasionally falters, but that´s peanuts in the belly this beast. So in short, yes, I think more understanding will emerge with repeat viewings (as someone, in some essay, put it - to watch Lynch´s film(s) is to rewatch it/them; only after the film is over can its images begin to make sense). There are, of course, not even supposed to be unambiguous, clear-cut answers to each aspect or development of the movie as the confusion, so deeply ingrained in the film´s identity, is a large part of the point. There´s a huge deal to discover - I´ve seen IE about 24 times and it´s far from giving up all its goods.
"I think some people are looking for quick answers instead of experience".
Yeah well Lynch obviously isn´t their go-to-guy. And the thing is, if they think IE is "meaningless"... what the hell did they get out of his other films in the first place? To me the vast majority of them are built with a similar mindset, playing by similar rules (yes, even The Straight Story is very far from straight, btw). I think some who declare that MD makes sense yet IE doesn´t, are sort of misreading the former - I don´t think it´s quite as clear-cut as the somewhat boring dream/reality scenario. Essentially, IE isn´t anymore complicated than MD or LH (which is to say it´s pretty damn complicated), it´s just bigger and more splintered. Oh and there is also the complementary 1,5 hour of outtakes More Things That Happen which further expands as well as sheds some light on some issues... while apparently further complicating others. I could elaborate more, perhaps, within my powers, but your request for discussing IE´s "intricacies" was pretty vague... Btw, have you seen all Lynch´s films?
"As you can see, for some reason, I take much pleasure in effective deconstructions of any genre/concept".
DePalma is all about visual storytelling, mostly, and some of his Hitchcock deconstructions are arguably even more complex than Hitch´s originals - like Body Double compared to Rear Window & Vertigo, perhaps. Complexities aside though, to me his main attraction is still that he´s loads of fun. And his style is much warmer, softer than Hitchock´s, sometimes almost bordering on kitsch (deliberately so, of course - which makes it also very funny) - I think someone described that same Body Double as "the cheesiest avant-garde film ever made". Just thinking of its lush romanticism and operatically melodramatic sweep makes me giggle. Oh and I forgot to mention that one of the 3 DePalma´s you´ve seen, The Untouchables, is in my opinion among his weakest as his sensibilities seemingly mismatched with the period setting and fact based story. And it has Kevin Costner in a particularly righteous mode...
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
I´d sort of expect more from a "great" film than screwing around with old movies as that in itself does not constitute any noteworthy "depth" nor does it make it "intellectual"It ofcourse does more than just "screwing around" but given that you believe you've already gotten Tarantino all figured out, there's not much I can do to change your perception.
Too bad though that the experience with IB turned out the same as with Scorsese´s Shutter Island, going from disappointing & mediocre upon first viewing to a horrid failure on the second.Never really cared for SI to be honest. Don't think I'd even consider a second viewing; I'd rather watch Taxi Driver or even, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore again. SI had some good moments but overall, it was pure kitsch to be honest; bland, predictable narrative executed in the most paint-by-the-numbers - and obnoxiously sentimental - manner. Sad that Scorsese manages to conjure up a dark, ominous tone only to take himself way too seriously, resulting in a work that almost plays like a parody of the genre.
The film is constantly riffing off itself, the patterns repeating and reflections piercing through the huge worlds Lynch is creating. Even setting aside all narrative mechanics, it works beautifully in the way music does, with its rhythms constantly pitch perfect, the transitions arranged to a magical effect as the film develops from passage to passageVery true. It does sort of have a hypnotic sort of effect on you, doesn't it? I mean, as I've said before, even if I didn't quite completely "get" what I was watching, I was completely immersed in the surreal universe Lynch had created. Every little cut, every visual motif, every word uttered - it was all so complete and rife with meaning. I almost can't wait to watch it again - and this time, with a more critical eye.
I don´t think it´s quite as clear-cut as the somewhat boring dream/reality scenario.Well, it's certainly the most logical of the various theories. And I don't find it boring at all! In the end though, it's honestly the way in which Lynch uses his penchant for visual brilliance to explore the human mind that makes MD such a pleasure to watch. Ofcourse, there are other themes (i.e. unfulfilled ambitions, unrequited love, suicide as a means of coping with guilt, etc etc) implicit in MD but it is really Lynch's use of Diane's mind as a playground - in some sort of wish-fulfilment fantasy - to explore (and at times in a rather ambiguous way) her state of mind as well as her guilt that really sells it for me (and for most, I'd reckon). There's simply nothing ever boring about Lynch's films and there's something certainly complex about the dream/reality scenario that you're discounting for whatever reason. Even if you disagree, though, we can always reach this conclusion: it's not what you say; it's how you say it and Lynch completely owns in this respect.
Btw, have you seen all Lynch´s films?Nope. I've seen most of his popular ones, I suppose. Eraserhead, The Elephant Man, Blue Velvet, Mulholland Drive and finally, Inland Empire. I'm actually really glad I still have plenty of other Lynch works to chew on and I'm sort of "saving" them for later.
Oh and I forgot to mention that one of the 3 DePalma´s you´ve seen, The Untouchables, is in my opinion among his weakest as his sensibilities seemingly mismatched with the period setting and fact based story.You should have said sooner! Anyhow, the way you describe DePalma makes me think that he's right up my alley. Suddenly, can't wait to get my hands on Body Double. I hope you haven't hyped him too much for me.
Fully agree about Shutter Island - one figured Scorsese would be a completely wrong guy to go near material like this and now we have positive evidence. He claimed himself he went for sort of a Hitchcock tribute, but what came out, bears much closer resemblence to shlocky B or C horror instead, something Argento would do - on a bad day. All stylistic elements are ramped up to the max from the start, without any restraint or sense of proper pacing; some of the flashbacks are indeed so kitschy that, at some point, I almost convinced myself it HAS to be a send-up, a deliberate mockery of the genre. But of course that was not the case - Marty´s deadly serious about his faux-psychological thriller that some of the scenes are nothing short of embarrassing to watch. Also, the guy just can´t keep a secret - the second viewing revealed just how obvious DiCaprio´s actual situation is as heavy handed hints kept coming at a steady pace... actually, in some aspects SI bears a close resemblence to Lynch´s Lost Highway which pretty much shows how this kinda tale is better handled; as noted elsewhere, doing psychological horror right requires a rather specific sensibility & set of skills and very few have them. Scorsese has made numerous more or less successful forays out of his comfort zone of crime dramas, tales of gritty urban alienation & examinations of male insecurity (Alice Don´t Live Here Anymore is sort of a chick flick for chrissakes, yet he pulls it off with little flaw... same with The Age Of Innocence, New York New York (imo his most underrated), even Kundun), but in SI, nothing works. His other relative failures include After Hours, Cape Fear & The Aviator, but none is as badly bungled as this. I actually thought Inception is a much better movie than Marty´s opus.
When I first saw Inland Empire, it was similar - I didn´t ´get it´ yet somehow I indeed did ´get it´; at all times, there was a strong feeling Lynch knew exactly what he was doing and the structural pattern seemed very tightly controlled - from its first moments, it has its goal(s) clearly in sight & the story follows a path wholly logical in an abstract kind of way. We´re in a constant freefall towards Lodz which forms the heart, the center of gravity of the story. And then spinning out from there, again (it´s a little like Eyes Wide Shut in these regards).
I´ve come to feel the simple, clear-cut, literal minded division between (Diane´s) dream and reality in MD, is a bit too cute as well as limiting. Obviously, no one can deny the story involves dreamworlds, is in fact entirely constructed in the language of dreams, but there is, in fact, legitimate reason to doubt the very "logic" of the Diane´s Dream scenario which gets trumpeted all the time. For instance, why would a dream of hers start off starring the other protagonist (it takes almost 20 minutes for Betty to arrive at LAX). Why, when the narrative shift occurs, the double take when The Cowboy is at Diane´s door (there is a brief moment when the screen goes black in the middle of the short scene... and closer observation reveals that the room seen ´before´ the brief darkness, features a different looking bed in a different condition. Seems we see him "two more times" during these very scarce seconds). And why does it seem that the elderly red headed woman keeps haunting the story, always moving on its outskirts? It appears to be suggesting she has a far more important role in the grand scheme of things than usually given credence by people. In short, one needs to convolute the story quite a bit at make rather big leaps in (dream) logic in order to make the ´single mind dreaming´ interpretation fit.
A much more sympathetic & intriguing way of seeing MD is as a story consisting of several overlapping dreams sprung from not only from the consciousness of one failed actress, but also from other minds and perhaps a sort of an abstract spirit of L.A. and its "dream factory", themselves. I should also mention that the tagline for MD is "A love story in the city of dreams" - firmly in plural and emphasizing the role of the place with its history as an entity unto itself (much like in The Shining where it is the past of the place, the hotel, itself that casts a spell). Secondly, in the dialogue in that über-creepy scene at the Winkies between Dan and Herb, Dan talks about dreams in plural as well - "it´s the second one I´ve had... and they´re both the same" (suggesting, I think, that the scene we see is, in fact, a dream as well).
It must be said that, comparing MD & IE as we´ve attempted here, there is one undeniable structural similarity they share in that they both feature a place, a location that serves as sort of a Ground Zero in the middle of the phantasmagorias on display - in IE, it is the "Smithy´s house", at first a movie set with nothing but a wall behind the door which then develops into a place that opens up everywhere, including Poland. In MD, it is the Winkies as 3 crucial scenes/events play out there - first, it is there that Diane orders the hit on Camilla; secondly, it is there that Rita suddenly remembers the name Diane Selwyn; and lastly, the very telling Dan/Herb scene takes place there (it basically serves as a mini capsule for the entire movie, I think).
As for the Lynch you´re yet to see, I´d say that Lost Highway might just be his most sinister and aggressive film, with an approach that puts it firmly next to MD & IE as part of the so-called "Hollywood Hallucination" trilogy. Wild At Heart, on the other hand, is imo his worst film, occasionally coming across as sort of a "proto Tarantino" effort... and Tarantino is - or used to be - much better at making Tarantino films than anyone else. And I sure as hell envy you because you have the whole Twin Peaks universe to discover - 30 episodes of the greatest TV show ever made (not exactly a perfect beast throughout, but when it works, boy does it work. And it mostly does work) plus a prequel feature film to go with it (also not a perfect picture, but uniquely powerful stuff nevertheless). All I´d say about The Straight Story at this point, is that it isn´t "straight" at all.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
I actually quite liked After Hours actually but yeah, I agree with pretty much everything else.
why would a dream of hers start off starring the other protagonistWhy not? I mean, I don't think you need to be "present" in the dream yourself. Anyhow, would a Diane wish-fulfillment fantasy not give the role of damsel-in-distress to an ex-lover who has caused her much pain in real life? Wouldn't Camilla "survive" the hit in the fantasy - the one that Diane herself had arranged in real life? (The blue box/key then becomes the symbol of Diane's repressed guilt and the truth - it was the key the hitman said would mark evidence of completion of the job. When the box is finally unlocked after that overwhelmingly powerful and abstract Club Silencio sequence, Diane realises that this was only a dream and she remembers that she was the who'd arranged for the murder - thus destroying the paradox.) To continue with the rhetoric, wouldn't Camilla be stripped of her identity in the dream and wouldn't she be the one to rely on Betty's kindness and support, her being the charming and uberly talented actress? The role-reversal is uncanny since the reality portion depicts Diane as the wistful, depressed woman lusting after an unconcerned Camilla (who doesn't appear to give a sh!t about anything other than making out with the director).
Why, when the narrative shift occurs, the double take when The Cowboy is at Diane´s door (there is a brief moment when the screen goes black in the middle of the short scene... and closer observation reveals that the room seen ´before´ the brief darkness, features a different looking bed in a different condition. Seems we see him "two more times" during these very scarce seconds).In the "reality" part of the film, it was revealed that The Cowboy was just a guy in a cowboy hat attending the engagement party that sort of sealed Diane's emotional and mental breakdown. In her dream then, she fantasizes about how a covert political organization (or the mafia) coerces the director to hire a less-than-spectacular actress (instead of herself) for the job and her subconscious puts The Cowboy in charge. Don't think there's any more meaning to it other than the fact that she's picked a memorable, wacky and mysterious figure to play some sort of showrunner for the whole thing, to ramp up the "mystery" or something; it's there simply to highlight the relation between Diane's dream and subconscious. Also, during the scenes in which The Cowboy tells Diane to "wake up" - which occur after the blue box has been unlocked (i.e. the paradox on which her whole fantasy hinged has been revealed), Diane realises it was all a fantasy and snippets of the truth, of what actually happened, are then remembered in which everything comes together.
And why does it seem that the elderly red headed woman keeps haunting the story, always moving on its outskirts?I'm not sure about the importance of the elderly red headed woman. She played the aunt in the fantasy but she wasn't depicted in "reality". She only cropped up that one time, though - right before the Cowboy beckons for Diane to wake up.
In short, one needs to convolute the story quite a bit at make rather big leaps in (dream) logic in order to make the ´single mind dreaming´ interpretation fit.Well, I don't know where you've been reading about the interpretation since the film fully supports such a reading of the film.
I should also mention that the tagline for MD is "A love story in the city of dreams" - firmly in plural and emphasizing the role of the place with its history as an entity unto itselfOh, come on now. Lynch won't bury the answer to his work in the tagline. Regardless, "city of dreams" could merely be a reference to Hollywood and how so many - like Diane - come with their own expectations and dreams... only to never see them realised.
Secondly, in the dialogue in that über-creepy scene at the Winkies between Dan and Herb, Dan talks about dreams in plural as well - "it´s the second one I´ve had... and they´re both the same" (suggesting, I think, that the scene we see is, in fact, a dream as well).What we were seeing was a part of Diane's dream. This is the same place where she - in reality - contracted the hitman to assassinate Camilla; this is also same place where Diane sees Dan BY THE COUNTER - looking at her conversing with the hitman. It therefore makes complete and utter sense that Diane would allot her dread and fear - in her fantasy - to a person who was a witness to the assassination agreement; she would pass on those feelings to someone who only reminded her of what she did.
It must be said that, comparing MD & IE as we´ve attempted here, there is one undeniable structural similarity they share in that they both feature a place,Yeah. Apart from that, Lynch loves to establish patterns and visual motifs in the form of scenes that repeat or play out similarly to one another with a couple of changes here and there (and not necessarily subtle). In MD, the black limousine drives through Mulholland Drive until it abruptly comes to a halt, resulting in an inquisitive question from the curious woman in the back passenger seat - the scene plays out twice, first with Camille at the beginning and then Diane during the reality phase. In IE, there are plenty of visual motifs as well - PLENTY. Obviously, that Polish chick crying was the most important one which Lynch kept coming back to. And then, there's the scene in which one of Dern's characters climbs up the dark, poorly lit stairs to enter the room inhabited by the lone policeman. Actually, there were quite a few visual motifs in Inland Empire now that I think about it. That's what made it so difficult to unravel since any interpretation of it would have to be be far more complex than a simple fantasy-then-reality interpretation. I've read somewhere that IE was Lynch's answer to all those who claimed they had figured MD out and damn, what an answer it was.
And I sure as hell envy you because you have the whole Twin Peaks universe to discoveredYeah, I'm quite looking forward to it being quite the TV junkie. Do you watch much TV yourself, American or otherwise? I've read quite discouraging reviews of the Twin Peaks film, though, so that's disappointing. They don't know what they're talking about, I hope.
I must say up-front that I´m really not particularly keen on discussing the minutiae of MD here - mainly because the arguments you´re offering here are old hat; I´ve heard it all a thousand times before & debated it more than just a bit. All I was - and am - trying to accomplish is to offer an alternative that deviates from the usual nice and tidy Diane´s dream thing. I´m not saying it´s "wrong" necessarily - it worked well enough for me for quite some time - but that there are certain discrepancies, oversights and leaps in logic present in its fabric. Just something to consider... or reconsider as too many folks accept the mainstream interpretation without ever really questioning it. It´s easy and comfortable and seems to resolve everything... which is the most tragic part, methinks, cuz, you know, quoting Oscar Wilde: "once you fully understand a work of art, it becomes dead for you". I don´t want MD to die.
"I don´t think you need to be "present" in the dream yourself".
In fact, it is stranger to ´be´ present in your dream in the third person than not be there. Either way the problem is how the opening stretch is structured, setting up Rita as the central character, bookending the Winkie´s scene with shots of sleeping (or dead) Rita and then "calling in" Betty. It makes less sense for it to be conjured up by Diane than it is to look at it from a different perspective, as a merger of different points of view perhaps. As for the rest of your first paragraph - yes, it all makes psychologically sense. But that don´t mean it´s all there is to it, necessarily. Also, it is Rita who opens the box, by which time Betty has already vanished into thin air. Kind of suggests Rita is the number 1 protagonist, don´t it? Not that I´m willing to go much anywhere with this speculation, but what it DOES do, is cast some reasonable doubt on the mainstream interpretation. In courts, reasonable doubt is, of course, enough to get an acquittal as we all know...
"In the "reality" part of the film, it was revealed that The Cowboy was just a guy in a cowboy hat attending the engagement party".
Firstly, there may be no "reality section" in MD at all - it has been suggested that the impossibility, in our thoroughly mediated postmodernist world, of returning to the safety of reality, is precisely the point. Secondly, that´s what I don´t like about the Diane´s Dream interpretation - the "evidence" is awful thin and dependent on some oversimplified pop-Freudian dream interpretation mumbo-jumbo. Seeing the cowboy-hatted dude at the party for about a second or two - even in a distressed state of mind and hightened senses - is a shaky ground for such theories and conclusions.
"The scenes in which The Cowboy tells Diane to "wake up"".
He doesn´t tell that to the woman that we actually see waking up after the transition is completed. The woman whom The Cowboy visits, turns up dead.
"I´m not sure about the importance of the elderly red headed woman/-/ she only cropped up that one time".
How many times have you seen MD?
At any rate, her role seems to be a lot bigger than usually given credence for". And we see, her, in fact 3 times - packing and leaving when Rita arrives at Havenhurst; packing and leaving when Diane & Rita arrive at Sierra Bonita and then, of course, when she hears a thud in the bedroom and comes to investigate, finding nothing. Plus, she calls Betty from the so-called "Canada". The idea that is sympathetic to me is that what we see in MD, actually originates from her experience and is now played out by Watts and Harring on these metaphysical landscapes, in "dreams".
"The film fully supports such a reading of the film".
Sure - if it comes from the whims of one fairly deranged mind, pretty much anyhthing goes. For all we know, the entire thing might as well be hallucinated by a farmer who trains prize fighting cangaroos in the suburbs of Melbourne or something. That´d, however, also be a case of majorly sloppy film-making... and Lynch is not known to be sloppy.
"Lynch won´t bury the answer to his work in the tagline".
What answer? It´s not like it somehow unravels the film´s mysteries. But it IS in plural and therefore does not support the one-mind-dreaming-theory. More reasonable doubt.
"Could marely a reference to Hollywood".
But it could also be more than merely a reference to Hollywood.
"What we were seeing was a part of Diane´s dream".
How do we know that? It´s easy to put forth empty assertations... As mentioned, the scene is bookended by shots of sleeping/dead Rita, which suggests her as the more likely dreamer. But personally I prefer to take it in a more abstract way as already noted. Btw some have, in the past, proposed that Dan is the central figure of the entire film.
"Do you watch much TV yourself, American or otherwise".
I think last year I watched the World Cup, Champions Leaugue later stages plus Winter Olympics and that was it. Strangely, for some reason, I´ve lost the habit of watching TV almost completely. I do use the TV set however for watching the old VHS tapes (I´ve got some 200 films recorded from TV during the first half of the previous decade). I used to watch plenty of TV back in the day - to the point that I felt awkward without the light cast by the TV filling the room so I kept it open even when I didn´t watch it. These days, I´m engaged to Internet.
"They don´t know what they´re talking about, I hope".
Never do. Most negative reviews I´ve read about Fire Walk With Me seem to have very little insight into what was going on and zero interest in even trying to obtain any of that insight. Of course, it´s more difficult for those who ain´t seen the TV show, but I submit that it is very much possible to view it independent of the show and enjoy it. Because when I first saw it, I had only seen the Pilot and nothing more... and I think I watched it something like 6-7 times during the first few weeks. Very intoxicating little number.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
mainly because the arguments you´re offering here are old hat; I´ve heard it all a thousand times before & debated it more than just a bit.That's all fine but if I were to be blunt as you, I'd like to point that your responses don't really seem to indicate a sound grasp of the theory.
... which is the most tragic part, methinks, cuz, you know, quoting Oscar Wilde: "once you fully understand a work of art, it becomes dead for you". I don´t want MD to die.Even in the Diane dreaming theory, there are still so many intricacies and details that can't be answered and that continue to mystify. The experience of watching MD isn't diminished just because most of us now hold a theory which "explains" the initially confusing happenings of the film. Lynch's execution and the visual brilliance he brings to explore the dream landscapes of a woman who's committed murder remains powerfully evocative as ever. As an example of why MD will never die, consider that completely abstract Club Silencio sequence - can it ever be completely resolved by any theory?
Either way the problem is how the opening stretch is structured, setting up Rita as the central character, bookending the Winkie´s scene with shots of sleeping (or dead) Rita and then "calling in" Betty. It makes less sense for it to be conjured up by Diane than it is to look at it from a different perspective, as a merger of different points of view perhaps.Actually, it makes complete sense that Diane would be thinking about Camilla's impending murder. She imagines a positive, naively optimistic outcome for her (combine this with the darkly humorous scene of that inept hitman as evidence of Diane's regret and her hope that the murder never actually transpired) and in the process, turns her into a blank slate of a character, helpless and lost and in search of an identity (and later, completely dependent on herself, ie Diane/Betty).
Also, it is Rita who opens the box, by which time Betty has already vanished into thin air. Kind of suggests Rita is the number 1 protagonist, don´t it?Not really. As we've already established the meaning of the blue box and blue key, it's not out of the ordinary to see - from Diane's perspective - the Camilla stand-in in her dream unlock the truth of Camilla's actual fate (or, in other words, what Diane did to her real-life counterpart).
Firstly, there may be no "reality section" in MD at all - it has been suggested that the impossibility, in our thoroughly mediated postmodernist world, of returning to the safety of reality, is precisely the point. Secondly, that´s what I don´t like about the Diane´s Dream interpretation - the "evidence" is awful thin and dependent on some oversimplified pop-Freudian dream interpretation mumbo-jumbo. Seeing the cowboy-hatted dude at the party for about a second or two - even in a distressed state of mind and hightened senses - is a shaky ground for such theories and conclusions.I think it's a safe assumption that the latter portion of the film (starting with the second 'black limousine driving through MD' scene) constitutes reality (or snippets of it, at least). There's the drastic change in tone and the scenes suddenly become somewhat incoherent, bleeding into each other (losing much of that otherworldly and plastic quality that had dominated the entire previous portion of the film - now becoming something made of melancholy and despair); they are not as absurd or ridiculous, they suddenly take Diane's perspective (which is immensely important), and they give meaning to the weird scenes established prior to the unlocking of the blue box (i.e. blue box = blue key, the importance of the Winkies location as I've noted above, etc). Secondly, the interpretation is strongly supported by everything Lynch does in the film: his patterns, his visual motifs, his editing. Pretty much everything. No, there doesn't need to be a "conclusive" answer to his work (it is quite apparent that this is something you vehemently dislike) but the theory just "clicks" with the film.
The idea that is sympathetic to me is that what we see in MD, actually originates from her experience and is now played out by Watts and Harring on these metaphysical landscapes, in "dreams".I've seen the movie three or four times. And yeah, she "physically" appeared twice and in short segments. Oh, and she called from Canada. Just these three moments, and you don't think that your theory - the one quoted above - is not far-fetched and without much evidence?
Sure - if it comes from the whims of one fairly deranged mind, everything and anyhthing goes. That´d, however, also be a case of majorly sloppy film-making...Well, no. Remember, the dream theory operates on the assumption that the latter portion of the film is reality (and that's a safe assumption to make). So "everything and anything" must somehow be something that could embed itself into Diane's subconscious; it must somehow be relevant.
But it IS in plural and therefore does not support the one-mind-dreaming-theory.Oh come on. You blame the mainstream theory for being an oversimplification whereas you're relying on something that doesn't even exist in the work itself. If this isn't a leap in logic, I don't know what is. My main problem with your "multitude of dreams" theory is that it leaves too much to be desired. It's unnecessarily vague; it deliberately confuses the obvious reality/dream demarcation in a never-ending, silly search for something "deeper" (even though the mainstream theory only further enhances the thematic depth of Lynch's masterpiece and although "simple", hardly even affect its cinematic depth); and finally, it doesn't really want to consider things from Diane's POV which is undeniably the most important POV (as evidenced from the last half hour).
It´s easy to put forth empty assertations...Sure it is - as you've just proven. However, that statement wasn't an assertion. It formed part of the Diane dream theory. The logical reasoning that followed the sentence ensured that it certainly wasn't "empty"/without evidence.
But personally, of course, I take it in a much more abstract way; it doesn´t much matter who, if anyone at all, exactly dreamt it.It probably doesn't... but on second thought, the Diane dreaming theory does invite you to sympathize with Diane's situation to a greater degree (at least, for me). There's just something about knowing that this is the dream of one messed-up person - instead of many - that really invites sympathy for Diane and the mess she's landed herself into - not to mention, the cruel, unconcerned people she's surrounded herself with in order to achieve that Hollywood fame.
I think last year I watched the World Cup, Champions Leaugue later stages plus Winter Olympics and that was it.Ah, I meant TV shows in the vein of The Sopranos, The Wire, Mad Men, etc.
"Your responses don´t really seem to indicate a sound grasp of the theory".
I don´t think I feel like commenting on such sneering remarks now or in the future. At any rate, it is not my business to write you elaborate essays outlining my understanding of the theory in detail.
"The experience of watching MD isn´t diminished just because most of us now hold a theory which explains the initially confusing happenings of the film".
My "experience of watching MD" is not diminished or affetced in any way by ´any´ theories. I´m not trying to analyze it while watching it.
"Club Silencio sequence - can it ever be completely resolved by any theory"?
It is fairly obvious what it basically communicates. But of course, if one thinks of the first 3/4 of MD rigidly as a literal dream somebody is having, then explaining CS is a bit of a bitch as it obviously exists on a different plane of (un)reality altogether.
"It is silly to deliberately avoid or discredit the actual meaning and happenings of the film".
So now you´re fantasizing you hold some kind of monopoly on the "actual meaning" of the film. How nice. Also, we´re talking about the narrative structure, the pov of the film, not the "meaning". And I don´t think the "meaning", as it were, is that much different in either case.
"Not really".
Yes, really. It seems you´re prepared to go to any lengths necessary to gloss over any shadow of a doubt that might endanger the Diane´s Dream theory - or even prevent the introduction of some more alien ideas into its basic framework. So of course the facts that we never see Diane go to sleep nor get up (during the first segment), that Rita enters the film before Betty and exits only after she´s disappeared, that the scenes involving Adam´s meeting with Castiglianes and Joe´s bungled hit take place while Rita is snoozing on the bed... they don´t mean nothing. Not even worthy of contemplation.
"Lynch´s approach is hardly based on some simplification of Freudian psychology".
Precisely - he´s not quite the layman psychologist some folk try and make him out to be. He´s more into the abstract and the metaphysical - the latter undoubtedly inspired by the philosophy his beloved TM promotes. And just because MD takes its cues from the subconscious, doesn´t mean some one person has to be literally dreaming it all up somewhere. That IS kind of restrictive imo, no matter how brilliantly realized. Agree about Marnie though - parts of it are nothing short of embarrassing.
"You don´t think that your theory is not far-fetched and without much evidence"?
It´s not "my theory", more like an interesting thought to play around with. But yes, her frequent appearences and the circumstances of these appearences (she seems to be inhabiting the same space Betty/Rita do, but still be somehow elsewhere & out of synch with the dynamic leading duo) do obviously point to her being a far more important figure than given credence for. After all, if she didn´t have any significance, there would be no reason for her to be in the film at all. Lynch is usually a very subtle filmmaker - and this IS subtle, something perfectly hidden in plain sight as it requires an altogether different mode of thinking to become seriously suspicious of her... unlike pulling fairly sophomoric sh-t like "recasting" The Cowboy in a dream on the basis of split second sighting at a party. But she IS there and never comes face to face with Betty or Rita (when leaving Havenhurst, she tellingly fails to see Rita although she by all means should have... is Rita a ghost? Existing in a different time from her?) I´m not sure how exactly is it supposed to work, but unlike the story about Diane having a snooze, it at least involves an intriguing concept.
"Your relying on something that doesn´t even exist in the work itself".
I´m not "relying" on it - something that´s quite obvious from the wording of the sentence you´re apparently replying to. At this point it appears you´re just choosing to be wilfully ignorant of anything that might suggest the Diane´s Dream theory is not quite the one and perfect answer after all. If you´re unwilling to even acknowledge any elements within the film´s fabric that point away from the clear-cut/open-and-shut Diane´s Snooze interpretation, I don´t really see any purpose in wasting more time talking about MD; I didn´t quite expect that my offering some unorthodox ideas would start a war instead of possibly making the MD experience richer. Sorry about that.
"Silly search for soemthing "deeper"".
Something bigger, wider and more imaginative, rather. Which is not to say the "usual" interpretation is small, narrow or unimaginative necessarily...
"I meant TV shows".
No TV shows, either. The last time I actually followed a TV show - on TV - was The X Files more than 10 years ago.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
I must apologize upfront about my somewhat haughty response. I didn't realise I was turning this into an irritating argument instead of the worthwhile discussion it was originally supposed to be.
I don´t think I feel like commenting on such sneering remarks now or in the future. At any rate, it is not my business to write you elaborate essays outlining my understanding of the theory in detail.Alright, my bad. In my defense, I only responded in kind. Or at least, I thought I did.
It is fairly obvious what it basically communicates. But of course, if one thinks of the first 3/4 of MD rigidly as a literal dream somebody is having, then explaining CS is a bit of a bitch as it obviously exists on a different plane of (un)reality altogether.Well, it can be explained under the theory but what is more important, in any case, is what it means.
And I don´t think the "meaning", as it were, is that much different in either case.You're right. It isn't. And yeah, I did mean narrative structure. Thanks for the correction.
So of course the facts that we never see Diane go to sleepThat's weird because I distinctly remember a scene right at the beginning which suggested someone was gonna land their hand on a pillow. Right after that junebug contest montage, the camera focuses on the carpet/bed (top-down view) accompanied by sounds of heavy breathing (and sobbing, I think, which sounds remarkably like Watts). The camera pans towards the pillow and slowly zoom towards it. There's a fade to black (after which the film essentially begins ie limousine on Mulholland Drive)... This is all in the first-person perspective but I'm sure as heck that's a distraught, sobbing Diane falling to sleep (or half-sleep or something of the sort) on her bed. And I don't think she gets up until the end when she finally commits suicide - at which point, she's already started hallucinating - so there's no reason for "her getting up" to be in the first half anyway.
that Rita enters the film before Betty and exits only after she´s disappeared, that the scenes involving Adam´s meeting with Castiglianes and Joe´s bungled hit take place while Rita is snoozing on the bedI think I've already somehow elaborated on the former. As for the latter, that's certainly a good catch and worthy of contemplation but I don't really see it discrediting the theory (which is - as you know - quite flexible, ie Lynch's conformance to traditional narrative rules translate into Diane's dream structure where she essentially establishes the different storylines one at a time).
That IS kind of restrictive imo, no matter how brilliantly realized.I see and appreciate your point but - for me - the dream theory fits beautifully into the film's narrative structure and is hardly restrictive. [It's all about Lynch's visuals anyway and at any rate, you don't need to unravel and figure out the narrative to understand the film.]
unlike pulling fairly sophomoric sh-t like "recasting" The Cowboy in a dream on the basis of split second sighting at a party.Well, I'll try to elaborate why it's hardly a superficial matter - at least, for me. The Cowboy is just another symbol like the blue box - it reminds Diane of the party which marked a turning point for her and which was the final event which caused her mental breakdown, motivating her to arrange the hit on the woman who had invited her there. The emphasis should not be on "split-second sighting" as much as it should be on Diane's distraught state of mind during the party.
I´m not sure how exactly is it supposed to work, but unlike the story about Diane having a snooze, it at least involves an intriguing concept.I guess there's no reason why you shouldn't search for another way to understand and untangle the narrative structure of the film but just like the mainstream, I'm quite content with what I got out of it. I'm not quite sure how the redhead fits into the Dream theory as well, FWIW. The mother figure Diane never had yet always longed for, perhaps? Dunno but it's certainly good food for thought in any case.
If you´re unwilling to even acknowledge any elements within the film´s fabric that point away from the clear-cut/open-and-shut Diane´s Snooze interpretation, I don´t really see any purpose in wasting more time talking about MDBut is the tagline really a part of the film's fabric and even if it is, how significant is it compared to, you know, the film itself? I'm just not convinced, franz; seems like a leap to me especially since "city of dreams" is so friggin' vague and seems like it's naturally a reference to Hollywood (and the dreams that people bring to it only to see them never realised such as Diane). Yeah, it could be more than that but I'm just simply not convinced.
Sorry about that.Yeah, could have toned down the aggression a bit.
No TV shows, either.That's a bummer. Lot of worthwhile stuff out there; plenty worth exploring.
Yeah I guess I sometimes tend to get a bit excessively assertive or combative myself without necessarily noticing...
"Well, it ´can´ be explained under the theory".
At any rate, it requires going beyond Diane´s head with all its dreams and whatnot... although, of course, dreams in Lynch serve often as gateways to sort of a metaspace. You´ll run into this concept in Twin Peaks and I suppose also in Lost Highway.
"This is all in the first person perspective, but I´m sure as heck that´s a distraught, sobbing Diane".
We never see who that is, so it is impossible to be "sure as heck" that it is Diane Selwyn. All you have is conjecture and highly interpretative circumstancial evidence. Usually, there is a good reason Lynch shows us something in his films - and there must also be a good reason he ´doesn´t´ show us something. He´s well aware he´s leaving this crucial question open there. Do ´I´ think it´s Diane? More probably than not, I guess - but in no way is it set in stone. And again, wholesale dismissal of Cowboy´s double take at the door is required in order to preserve the purity of the DD concept; why is it necessary to present it in such an elaborate way - and let us know the woman in the bed is dead - if the action should, by that logic, just continue with Diane´s awakening? Also, the corpse is "played" by a different woman and she´s also actually credited for the role. Who is she?
"But I don´t see it discrediting the theory".
I´m not aiming to discredit the concept that stuff is dreamt by Diane who lives through her wish fullfilment fantasies until they eventually crumble. But it does kind of seem that the whole Hollywood powerplay angle is at least initially entering the film through Rita (Rita Hayworth from Gilda... an old Hollywood soul?).
"The dream theory fits beautifully into the film´s narrative structure".
Some aspects of it seem kind of convoluted and forced. But if it works for you, then fine; just thought you´d be interested in some more unorthodox ideas I´ve been picking up from various places.
"The mother figure Diane never had yet always longed for, perhaps"?
From the way she´s presented, I don´t think that works at all. Her being there in the Havenhurst apartment after both Betty and Rita have evaporated, strongly suggests she´s somehow a rather crucial part of it all. And if it indeed were ´her´ story, somehow re-enacted or re-dreamed by Betty/Rita, it´d among other things explain the plentiful 60´s style furniture and decor in the apartment. Or the presence of a yesteryear Hollywood starlet such as Ann Miller. Or Lee Grant. Something´s going on there.
"But is the tagline really a part of the film´s fabric"?
In a way, it is, of course. Taken separately, it wouldn´t be worth mentioning even as a vaguely suggestive element, but as I´ve demonstrated, there are more references to multiple dreams (such as Dan´s story) and the same fact that Rita spends most of the first 45 minues asleep when all sorts of strange shenanigans are going on elsewhere. Together, all this does constitute something worth giving a thought, at least. It´s a strongly intuitive thing to me - and one I find pretty difficult to explain - but I sort of seem to sense the L.A. of MD being a living, breathing, dreaming entity unto itself, comprising of the experience of many. It ´feels´ right. But I guess I´ve also been way too harsh to the Diane´s Dream thing because I used to watch MD solely with that on mind and found it all absolutely devastating. But when you´ve seen it over 20 times as I have (28, I think, at this point), things are bound to change shape and color ever so slightly.
"Plenty worth exploring".
I dunno, watching TV just doesn´t feel like a natural course of action anymore. The habit´s gone... although I´ve indeed heard/read that the quality of TV shows, especially as compared to the declining film industry, has gone up (at least talking about the best the medium has to offer; vast majority though seems to be even worse than before with totally idiotic fare like "reality TV" shows taking up most of the schedule etc). I´m certainly planning to see The Wire which seems to get a huge deal of praise everywhere. Btw my all-time second favourite show after Twin Peaks is Crime Story, produced by Michael Mann 1986-88 - it has as much style as Miami Vice yet far more substance. Highly recommended.
"Can you elaborate"?
The easiest thing for me to do at this point is to direct you to the Body Double board where, at the bottom of page 1, is a post titled "great Body Double essay" which contains, well, a great Bloody Bubble... Double... essay.
"How come DePalma gets away with his sadistic depiction of that gruesome murder when Tarantino doesn´t for similar crimes?"
You seem to be suggesting there is some kind of similarity, however remote, between the typical DePalma violence and the typical QT violence. Well, there isn´t. As some have noted, a death in a DePalma film is always made to count, the devastation of the tragedy is always emphasized and the focus is on the victim and the terror s/he goes through (incidentally, in The Untouchables, the strongest scene is Connery´s death, treated with all the seriousness and empathy you´re ever gonna get from a scene of this sort... and it is stuff like this which throws the film out of balance because mostly, it is trying to be kind of old fashioned, broad and sort of folksy with cliches flying left and right... and then there´s gut wrenchingly "real" scenes like that one). In Body Double, the actual drilling is not shown btw... and even in Scarface, we never really see the chainsaw cutting into flesh or whatever - just the terrified eyes of the victim and blood spurting on Montana´s face. For Tarantino, as pointed out before, lethal violence is either a joke (Julius Winfield, after shooting a guy to comical effect: "Oh? Did I break yer concentration? You were saying something about best intentions... oh you´re finished? Then allow me to retort!") - or insistingly nasty & starkly fetishized, like giving us cozy close-ups of eyeballs being crushed under bare feet as in KB 2 etc. I guess I shouldn´t be making such a big thing of it, but it does kind of irk me a bit in his recent films. Btw I watched both Res Dogs and Pulp Fiction the day before yesterday and, to my relief, his recent crappy form hasn´t at least retroactively soiled his early work for me as I kind of feared - I still found those pictures quite outstanding. Especially Pulp Fiction. So I hope never again encounter any disingenious claims along the lines that I don´t dig IB because I´m prejudiced against QT or whatever; there aren´t too many directors that have 3 movies I rate ´at least´ as high as 8,5/10. He used to be great.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Apologies for the late response. Work and stuff.
Usually, there is a good reason Lynch shows us something in his films - and there must also be a good reason he ´doesn´t´ show us something.He doesn't explicitly show "who" the person is but if I approach this with the DD theory in mind, wouldn't showing who it is sort of ruin the overwhelming realisation that the whole film was a dream in the first place?
why is it necessary to present it in such an elaborate way - and let us know the woman in the bed is dead - if the action should, by that logic, just continue with Diane´s awakening?I don't know if I quite follow you. The action is happening in Diane's mind and we don't really ever leave it. Even after she "awakens" moments before killing herself, she's in a hallucinatory state and we're basically seeing what she is (or experiencing what she is experiencing). As for the "elaborate way" in which Lynch tells us, I'm not quite sure what you mean... I mean, sure, it's an elaborate way to tell us that the woman in the bed is going to kill herself but it's obviously much more than that; it explores the various reasons for her desire to end her life (her failed ambitions as far as Hollywood was concerned, her pain over the unrequited love, her guilt over her actions, etc) employing an unconventional structure that is as thought-provoking as it is visually remarkable.
just thought you´d be interested in some more unorthodox ideas I´ve been picking up from various places.'Course I am. Even if the DD theory works for me, I'm still curious.
From the way she´s presented, I don´t think that works at all.Well, I'm basing this on the little (yet important) tidbit of information we got during the engagement party scene in which Diane reveals she moved to Hollywood after the death of her aunt. If her aunt's death was enough motivation for Diane to move to Hollywood, we know that Diane was probably close to her. In Diane's wish-fulfilment fantasy, the aunt is very much alive (although largely absent, as you noted) and she lets her niece stay at her cozy apartment (on top of that, she has contacts in the industry... right? I can't seem to remember if the aunt was the one who set Diane's audition).
sort of seem to sense the L.A. of MD being a living, breathing, dreaming entity unto itself, comprising of the experience of many.How would you explain the scene of the inept hitman or the mafia scenes or the Cowboy firmly instructing the director to select Camilla for the part of the lead actress? What's happening after the blue box has been opened ie the second limousine scene and onwards? IOW, how would you account for the differences between the first three quarters and the last quarter of the film when the sudden role-reversal (or at least inversion) takes place? What do you make of the various patterns and motifs that Lynch establishes (ie Dan's story = the scene in which Diane sees Dan when hiring the hitman, or the director being coerced to hire a "Camilla" = Camilla's the actual name of dream-Rita and she's dating the director)? At the moment, your interpetation just seems to me a largely easy and unrewarding one and - more importantly - not nearly as satisfying as the overwhelming, devastating DD theory.
But when you´ve seen it over 20 times as I have (28, I think, at this point), things are bound to change shape and color ever so slightly.Very true. And damn. 28 times? I'm suddenly a little bit jealous.
The easiest thing for me to do at this point is to direct you to the Body Double board where, at the bottom of page 1, is a post titled "great Body Double essay" which contains, well, a great Bloody Bubble... Double... essay.Good essay but I found it rather too brief.
You seem to be suggesting there is some kind of similarity, however remote, between the typical DePalma violence and the typical QT violence. Well, there isn´t.Oh, come on. DePalma was having as much fun with the drill scene as Tarantino does with any of his sadistic violent stuff. Did you forget the part where the woman had her back against the wall and the disfigured man couldn't drive the drill into her because the extension cord just fell a little bit too short? I mean, seriously? There was nothing comical and sadistic about that? And when the woman begins to make a run for it, she (conveniently) falls down after slamming against the bedside? Come on. It was sadistic... and hilarious at the same time and I loved it.
So I hope never again encounter any disingenious claims along the lines that I don´t dig IB because I´m prejudiced against QTI hope you don't either but if you're going to label him as you have in this thread (based on his recent works), I wouldn't be surprised if you did (encounter such claims).
"It´s an elaborate way to tell us that the woman in the bed is going to kill herself".
You mean, premonition like? I guess that might work if you want it to work. But again, what I meant is that we see the bed twice before darkness consumes all, and it has been noted that these are actually two different beds, in different conditions. Meaning - two different apartments, two different women? (We have all this stuff with switching apartments and all in the movie, 17 and 12... and number 16 in between... but that´s getting too in-depth and confusing here. For this kinda stuff there´s the mad MD board). But whether it´s just Diane who´s conjuring everything up or if it´s coming from elsewhere originally, I certainly think the "dreamer" is dead, anyway (note the opening jitterbug sequence, how people are essentially dancing with shadows, emerging from the purple background as if coming back to life etc). Also, there´s a strong aural suggestion that the story may be cyclical - the low, sinister rumble heard over the ending credits is, in fact, also the very first sound we hear in the film, before the jitterbug thing kicks in. More stuff to think about?
"If her aunt´s death was enough motivation for Diane to move to Hollywood, we know that Diane was probably close to her".
I don´t think that it is implied aunt´s death motivated Diane´s move to Hollywood - she just "left her some money". But, either way, that is far from a satisfactory explanation to the circumstances under which we keep encountering the "aunt". I can´t pretend to have all the answers to the mysteries that arise... but it is the "aunts" existence ´outside´ or ´around´ the story - she´s the last woman standing, after all - that seems to throw a few things off. A somewhat vague notion perhaps, but an exciting one.
"What happens after the blue box has been opened".
If we go with the notion that the entire story comes from that old red-haired woman, this would all be her despairing Hollywood reality as played out starring Diane in sort of a karmic nightmare, after the dream - an attempt to "get rid of that god-awful feeling" ie achieving redemption of sorts - went bad... for all sorts of confusing reasons. It´s a big load of metash-t as envisioned by certain parties active on the MD board. Hell, I wouldn´t even necessarily consider myself a proponent of that theory; it is, however, kind of intriguing. Just throwing a few of those ideas out there. Anyway it does appear that MD does in fact lend itself to more than one fairly well supported narrative readings.
"Your interpretation seems to me a largely and unrewarding one".
"Easy" is the last thing it is; it´s goddamn HARD.
"I´m suddenly a bit jealous".
Not sure if that is something to be jealous of; just a sign of unhealthy obsession and not much better to do with my time (there ´are´ folks though - I know from the MD board - that have seen the film some 50 times, so...). But that´s the way it is with me - the niche that I really-really dig ain´t too large, but there is this some stuff I really like a LOT, and keep returning to. Always been a big re-watcher generally, too - I reckon there´re some 40 films I´ve seen 10 times or more over the years. Something I like to state as if I were proud of it. Screw that.
"DePalma was having as much fun with the drill scene as Tarantino does with any of his sadistic violent stuff".
I guess there´s some fun in the concept of a bizarre looking "Indian" raising hell with a power drill and there´s some typically DePalma´esque playfulness in the presentation, but nothing whatsoever that I´d describe as "sadistic" - in the sense of deriving juvenile kicks and giggles from the victim´s suffering that is sometimes characteristic of QT. As for the extention cord, that´s a typical Hitchcockian suspense technique. But generally I explained DePalma´s approach to violence at length in my previous post so I won´t repeat myself - agree with it or not (I hope, at least, you don´t propose DePalma makes films just because he´s this gigantic misanthrope and wants to see people suffer and die... as one person recently did on the Dressed To Kill board). Glad you liked Body Double though - and, as said, most of his 70´s-early 80´s catalogue is quite similar in approach. Blow Out - a bit less extravagant number perhaps though - should be interesting to anyone who´s seen Blowup & The Conversation; actually, I think it´s better than the former which I´m not a very big fan of - there are elements about the Antonioni flick that I don´t quite like. The Conversation, however, can´t be touched.
"I wouldn´t be surprised if you did (encounter such claims)".
Well I guess his two most recent works have overwhelmed my perception of him lately. But as they say - you´re only as good as your latest work is. And you know my opinion of his latest work.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
More stuff to think about?Ha, 'course, there's plenty to think about even if you're resorting to particular reading of the narrative. The "cyclical" aspect in the sound design is certainly an interesting touch; I guess it makes sense thematically (ie how many like Diane will never accomplish their dreams of stardom and fame in Hollywood). Cool.
But, either way, that is far from a satisfactory explanation to the circumstances under which we keep encountering the "aunt".It's not surprising that Diane and her aunt never meet even in her dream. She's always providing a helping hand (the apartment, the audition, etc) but she's never physically present herself. When she does appear in the doorway frame of the house, the room is empty and Diane is nowhere to be found. Could this be Diane's guilt, too? That she was never there for her aunt? That she never lent a helping hand back to her aunt? Notice how this scene comes after the unlocking of the blue box. So yeah, it does make sense if you look at it from the DD perspective, too.
"Easy" is the last thing it is; it´s goddamn HARD.
I hope, at least, you don´t propose DePalma makes films just because he´s this gigantic misanthrope and wants to see people suffer and die... as one person recently did on the Dressed To Kill boardHa, no. At the very least, I don't think I've even seen enough DePalma to make a conclusive statement like that. In any case, I really enjoyed Body Double and I'm already excited about Blow Out (having a fondness for both of those films). I think I've already read about some of your issues with Blow Up. Personally, I loved it though and it's easily one of my favorite works. Antonoini's cinematic eye is wondrous in its ability to create the melancholy mood (wonderfully appropriate for his pieces on existential ennui) and significantly enhancing his themes by just using his imagery.
I thought I´d mention that, talking of the dreamer(s) in MD being dead, I recall how it´s been noted how the opening limo ride can be interpreted as Rita/Camilla being escorted to the underworld in that black coffin-like machine. Several years ago I read an essay which deconstructed MD in accordance to ancient Egyptian/Greek mythology, as a descent into Hades, the underworld, but I can´t really remember at all where it was that I chanced upon that essay (it´s on the Web).
I just watched the damn movie for the 29th time; what does indeed strike me is the number of overhead shots of Los Angeles, especially during the first 30-45 of the film, which is why I always get that described feeling of the sub- or unconscious of the entire place, as such, with its history of glory & doom being laid bare and not solely a mind of one starry-eyed ingenue. There´s something incredibly evocative in the way Lynch shoots the city, conveying this feeling.
Maybe MD´s indeed Lynch´s most perfect picture after all in its lush gorgeousness and gorgeousity, as pretty a picture and an aesthetic tour-de-force as one´s ever likely to see (of course, Inland Empire uses its own digital aesthetic to the maximum effect - indeed the only other movie to use DV to such an awesome effect is Michael Mann´s hyper-underrated masterpiece of intoxicating aestheticism, Miami Vice - getting kind of up close - too close... just think of the number of the ultra close-ups of faces, distorted with the fish-eye lenses... an extremely unsettling, eery device - and personal. But that effect is always more jagged, more down-to-street, dirty. Which of course, in itself, isn´t necessarily a drawback nor an advantage... but in the sense of pure cinematic luxuriousness, MD does have something of an edge on IE, I suppose). Both MD and IE have been, btw, called neo-noirs - but in these particular regards, both are overshadowed by Lost Highway, Lynch´s most (self consciously) noirish affair - even the tagline goes "21th Century Horror Noir". It´s a night time equivalent to MD´s mainly daily dreamscapes flooded with an illuminating, almost palpably burning brightness as the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek somewhere described it (he´s written a book on Lost Highway btw).
And talking of light - in particular the "kind of a half-night" Dan describes in his Winkie´s monologue, it just came to me that Diane, at the end of the film, actually is sitting on her couch, alone, in just the kind of half-day/half-night twilight before shooting herself.
And another small yet undoubtedly very deliberate detail worth a thought - why does the scene with the midget on a throne ("do you want to shut everything down?"... "then we´ll shut everything down") end in a slow fadeout, suggesting some sort of a shift in story. Does the dreamer conjuring up the phantasmagorias on display, die at that moment "outside" the story? After all... everything shuts down. I find this, too, a charming speculation.
Worth noting that another slow fadeout occurs after Adam´s received a good talking to by the Cowboy... and the next time we see him (Adam), he´s done good, cast Camilla Rhodes and put his troubles behind. And along comes Betty to exchange looks of recognition (not attraction as most suggest) with him; it´s as if some kinda awareness dawns on both of them for a moment.
Rambling here...
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
I can´t really remember at all where it was that I chanced upon that essay (it´s on the Web).Goddamit, franz. Learn how to use bookmarks!
There´s something incredibly evocative in the way Lynch shoots the city, conveying this feeling.Well, there's definitely something evocative about it, that's for sure - conveying that feeling of doom and gloom, perhaps highlighting the dreamer's perception and/or foreshadowing that the worst is yet to come. Diane's perception of Hollywood (cold, unfeeling and uninviting) sinking in to her dream maybe?
Maybe MD´s indeed Lynch´s most perfect picture after all in its lush gorgeousness and gorgeousity, as pretty a picture and an aesthetic tour-de-force as one´s ever likely to seeI haven't seen the bulk of his works but nonetheless, I think you're probably very right. There's something so visually remarkable about each shot, each scene from start to finish.
of course, Inland Empire uses its own digital aesthetic to the maximum effect - indeed the only other movie to use DV to such an awesome effect is Michael Mann´s hyper-underrated masterpiece of intoxicating aestheticism, Miami ViceI should really get around to seeing Miami Vice (you've mentioned it quite a few times now). Speaking of films which use the digital aesthetic to maximum effect, I am obligated to mention Shunji Iwai's All About Lily Chou-Chou, a stunningly gorgeous film depicting the messed-up lives of some Japanese school-going youth - it was simply a wonder to look at and the soundtrack was also brilliant in the way that it enhanced the dreamy visuals (as it was supposed to). I really loved but I'd give it a cautious recommendation because at times (at least, initially), the violence felt a bit too unrealistic and manipulative. Even so, the film is centered around a fan website where anonymous individuals who - being fans of Lily Chou Chou's ethereal music - post messages about their love and adoration for her, some becoming friends in the process (or not, I dunno). The emotion translates through very well, in any case.
It´s a night time equivalent to MD´s mainly daily dreamscapes flooded with an illuminating, almost palpably burning brightness as the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek somewhere described it (he´s written a book on Lost Highway btw).Okay, I really need to see Lost Highway now. It's the only Hollywood-themed story of Lynchs' after IE and MD that I haven't yet seen.
why does the scene with the midget on a throne end in a slow fadeout, suggesting some sort of a shift in story.The unthreatening, short-sized man is the leader, the man in charge, the showrunner of the whole affair. His power extends to Hollywood; he has control over who gets cast and in which movies. There's an underlying irony and comic mystery to the scene (those men taking orders from a midget) - on the surface, the whole scene seems to be an exaggerated joke, not meant to be taken seriously; yet, the sinister touches and the eerie atmosphere seem to higlight otherwise on the part of the dreamer. There's an underlying genuine belief that actual talent never gets (or got, in the case of Diane) rewarded and that it's all one sick joke.
And along comes Betty to exchange looks of recognition (not attraction as most suggest) with him; it´s as if some kinda awareness dawns on both of them for a moment.Not farfetched to assume that an aspiring actress would fantasize about a well-known, popular director who spots her immediately for her talent. It surely wasn't meant to be a look of sexual attraction; that would turn Diane into a Camilla figure and as a result, undermine Diane's belief of her acting skill. She wouldn't want that.
"Conveying that feeling of gloom and doom".
But also a hellish allure; again it IS a city of dreams. It´s the kind of road to hell one considers taking even knowing the consequences. And it is this seductive vibe that sets most clearly apart the early Lynch of Eraserhead and the short films proceeding it as well as Elephant Man coming on its coattails on one hand and the later stuff on the other. The early work is disturbing in a more nasty, visceral way. I always kinda think twice before rewatching Eraserhead. It´s uncomfortable.
"There is something so visually remarkable about each shot, each scene from start to finish".
The perfect harmony of colors, compositions never ceases to amaze - I have a habit of taking snapshots of films & MD´s a true murder - would like to photograph it all, rim and hang onto the wall. Rhymes.
"I should really get around to seeing Miami Vice".
Well you´ve been forewarned as even most Mann fans consider it a bad film - apparently because it largely trades narrative ie plot complexity as well as character development through verbal means for fairly pure audiovisual storytelling; it´s like Days Of Heaven of contemporary south Florida drug trafficking & violent crime or something, the main narrative velocity being provided via aural means (there are long, multi-part sections of the film played out almost wordlessly - the first of such stretches kickstarting the film without any introducing titles, establishing the rhythm with headlong energy, then carrying it through with some mellower stuff; needless to say, in my opinion, it´s one of the most perfectly scored films ever, the visual ebbs and flows harmonizing with the soundtrack perfectly). So. There´s the sales pitch. At any rate, Mann is one of the most recent more-or-less fav directors I´ve discovered - in full accordance with my general tendency to gravitate towards the more laconic as well as leisurely material as of late.
"Okay, I really need to see Lost Highway now".
Before I forget that as well - the Zizek´s book of LH dissertation (laced with a host of other themes and wild detours as usual) is called "The Art Of The Ridiculous Sublime". So you know what to look for after absorbing the film - which might just be Lynch´s most sinister, aggressive picture (well I guess Wild At Heart is more ´aggressive´, but it´s generally an artistic failure as far as I´m concerned). The Art Of The Ridiculous Sublime should be available to read on the Net as well... yup, it is, just verified.
"The unthreatening, short sized man is the leader".
Yes, the top of the food chain, apparently - although strangely mellow and hesitant, inevitably calling to mind Wizard Of Oz with the tiny man behind the curtain pretending to be big. Such a wonderful archetype & exquisitely fleshed out yet ever-elusive power structures. Who really IS in charge, anyway?
"Not far fetched to assume that an aspiring actress would fantasize about a well-known, popular director".
Betty clearly gets scared, staring at Adam as if it reminded her of something she´d forgotten and trying to keep it that way. Obviously, we know what it is... the memory, all suddenly flooding in... it´s the scene we did yesterday, but I know it´s tomorrow... as Nikki Grace´s monologue in bed with Devon in IE went. And Adam also seems unsettled by the sight of her... and I still wouldn´t dismiss him as nothing but a dream player in Diane´s mind. The multiple perspectives, viewpoints... seem such a rich, intriguing idea, for the time being. The tantalizing "what-if´s" and room dream some mo´.
PS: Have you ever given any thought to David Lynch being or not being a religious man (not counting the TM thing, that is)? Strangely enough, perhaps, I had not.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
But also a hellish allure; again it IS a city of dreams.Well, yeah, there is a suspiciously optimistic undercurrent running throughout the first half of the film but it does just seem like a facade or a cover-up of how f-cked up life really is in the "city of dreams". But yeah, the "seductive vibe" certainly makes for a more "enjoyable" experience compared to Lynch's earlier flicks (totally understand where you're coming from on the topic of Eraserhead's gooeyness).
I have a habit of taking snapshots of films & MD´s a true murder - would like to photograph it all, rim and hang onto the wall.Interesting. I've always thought about taking snapshots but then I think about how much of the work I'll lose by making a still of it. Would be murder for me to make a habit of seperating Lynch's shot compositions from his deft camera movements.
Well you´ve been forewarned as even most Mann fans consider it a bad filmlol. I'm not even particularly fond of what I've seen of Mann already. The Insider felt like Oscar bait to me and Public Enemies was a dull and insipid nauseating bore. But I read "wordless" and "perfectly scored" in your description of MV so I'll probably give it a shot eventually.
Betty clearly gets scared, staring at Adam as if it reminded her of something she´d forgotten and trying to keep it that way.I must have missed this since I don't recall her being scared at all. There's more of a wishful longing in her eyes than fear itself.
Obviously, we know what it is... the memory, all suddenly flooding in... it´s the scene we did yesterday, but I know it´s tomorrowOr it could be what I said earlier. Interesting tie-in with IE though.
Have you ever given any thought to David Lynch being or not being a religious man (not counting the TM thing, that is)? Strangely enough, perhaps, I had not.No, I hadn't. Let me guess: he's an atheist? I've never really gotten any "religious" vibe from his work but I obviously could be wrong. Tell me why you ask and what you know.
"Suspiciously optimistic undercurrent".
Well people don´t go there to fail on purpose, do they? And Hollywood in Lynch has never been all bad anyway - if it were, he´d hardly be a director in the first place. There´s beauty and there´s uglyness - everywhere - and Lynch´s skills in balancing the two have been improving the whole time. Still, finishing IE in such a joyous fashion did perhaps surprise a little at first, but it is by all means honestly earned. As I´ve noted before, acting in IE had a huge healing power, it´s a tool of redemption there. It´s complex world, full of - in the words of The Dude - lots of ins and outs and what-have-you´s.
"Eraserhead´s gooeyness".
Yup. But no other film I´ve ever seen has felt this uncannily alien yet familiar
to boot; it´s like humanity had moved to a different galaxy or something. Hugely uncomfortable; and nowhere else I know of has natural reproduction been rendered a gross abnormality, a source of soul shattering disturbance & terror. It´s a miracle of a film and probably THE most mind blowing feature debut in cinema history (no, I did not forget Citizen Kane... which imo has more or less deserved the fame it´s gotten).
"How much of a work I´ll lose by making a still of it".
I see what you mean, but I don´t necessarily agree - some 8-12 stills I usually take isn´t really that much for a 2 hour movie. Plus, I like to use those movieshots as desktop background etc
"I´m not even particularly fond of what I´ve seen of Mann already".
These 2 that you´ve seen are some of the least Mannly material in his undeniably auteurist ouvre - and I personally regard The Public Enemies his only other artistic failure besides the dismal The Keep (have seen all his pics with the exception of Ali (Jamie Foxx as Ali? K, thanks). It´s not utterly bad through and through although overlong and generally quite uninspired - for Mann´s mesmerizing success outside his usual home ie urban crime dramas, simultaneously macho and amazingly sensuous, check out Last Of The Mohicans. It is powerful as sh-t, pumping with heartfelt passion, lush romanticism and some of the most gorgeous cinematography - as well as almost disturbingly ferocious scenes of brutal hand to hand combat - ever crafted (filmed in North Carolina, the ol´ Apalache mountains). One of the very-very-very rare films that have made me cry... and one of the only 4 period pictures that I truly love. The others being Days Of Heaven, Barry Lyndon and Tess.
As for The Insider, it surely ´is´ a Big Issue Film and has Pacino doing his grandstanding (don´t read too much into this - Pacino´s my all time favourite actor) etc but I wouldn´t call it Oscar Bait at all; c´mon, Oscar Bait is audience pandering, obvious, stupidly sentimentalist stuff like Titanic (actually the 1953 Titanic starring Barbara Stanwyck - who is rapidly becoming my all time favourite actress - is clearly the better film and 1958 A Night To Remember outdoes both) or Schindler´s List or Forrest Gump. I think The Insider is a well made, relevant film although somewhat hunching under its own ambition and weight. I don´t think Mann necessarily does prestige pictures. His typical, more Mannly work includes Thief, Manhunter (far and away the best Hannibal Lector film), Heat, Collateral and Miami Vice. The latter two can perhaps be described as exercises in aestheticism, more than anything else, but what exactly is wrong with exercises in aestheticism when it comes to art? In fact, MV is probably Mann´s most "arty" picture; those who hate it are often simply not accustomed to the idea that cinematic depth is NOT almost exclusively to be found in verbal exchanges. Their loss, of course. But for me, it was precisely MV which finally made me ´get´ Mann - about 2 years ago, I would have told you he´s a very unremarkable figure of very limited interest yet now... here I am, shamelessly trying to sell him to you. Good people.
"I don´t recall her being scared at all".
He glanced at Adam twice, then literally ran away, even though she was supposed to audition in that "project for which she´d kill". And Adam also looked awful unsettled. But I agree that there´s also longing in her eyes (although it is unclear if it is longing for him as a man or as a big name director in whose hands she "coulda been a contenda" - don´t tell me you don´t get ´this´ quote or reference).
"Or it could be what I said earlier".
What did you say earlier? Either way, this is precisely where the ever-thickening sense of dread comes from all along - the suppressed knowledge increasingly shining through the daydream, the illusion. Subconsciously, she feels from the beginning something´s seriously wrong with this gorgeous vision of wish fulfillment. This is what emotionally drives the entire Betty/Rita section - a fear of losing ones dreamworld, have it shattered by the devastatingly tragic truth that there´s "a man in the back of this place" and "he is the one who´s doing it"; they´re already dead and gone, trying desperately to remanifest, reincarnate, maintain the illusion, achieve redemption.
"Let me guess: he is an atheist".
As an atheist, I tend to presume or take for granted that other folk are atheist, too - unless they show clear signs to the contrary (hi there again). And in Northern/western/central Europe they usually are, of course... meaning, if Lynch were an atheist, I wouldn´t have even asked this question. However, in an interview with Guardian last december, he was asked if he "still believes in god"; he was brought up a Presbyterian (don´t ask). Lynch´s answer: "For sure. Meditation has maybe made the belief even stronger". Thereya go.
Edit: I think I´m gonna watch L´Eclisse today... just for a moment remembered on which board we actually are. I really hope to dig it as Antonioni at his best, as probably noted before, is capable some real powerful stuff. Yesterday btw I watched Fellini´s La Strada which I found a very mediocre film of very little going for it. The main problem of course being the horrible, horrible, horrible performance by Masina or whatever the f-ck the prick´s name was... sometimes it was like watching a particularly retarded musical/vaudeville. Anthony Quinn as well as the really good last 20-25 minutes secured it a 6/10, but for making a better film, Fellini shoulda created a character not a caricature for his leading lady to play & and crafted a story that holds interest for longer than the 1/4 of the way La Strada managed... barely. One epically overrated film that was.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Well people don´t go there to fail on purpose, do they?All I meant was that everything around the Betty story carried a weird over-the-top "happy" vibe as a result of which it felt quite manufactured and forced (that drawn-out, spectacularly acted audition, for example, was far too self-indulgent - with the tone become incredbily serious - to be "real", right?). And I've yet to unravel IE and its many details; a rewatch is in order.
It´s a miracle of a film and probably THE most mind blowing feature debut in cinema history (no, I did not forget Citizen Kane... which imo has more or less deserved the fame it´s gotten).I completely agree with you about Lynch's masterpeice of a debut film. Amazes me how he had the guts to do something so unique and out of the ordinary for his first film. And re: Citizen Kane... *shrug* I probably 'care' more about it than, say, Rules of the Game but I'm not particularly moved by it. Yeah, it's got universal themes firmly rooted in an engaging narrative and Welles' synthesis of the long-take and montage techniques sure enhance the story... but in the end, it just doesn't leave me amazed like so many other films do. It's great but I don't believe it is the #1 film of all time - not in my opinion, at least. (It would probably fall somewhere outside my own top 50.)
I like to use those movieshots as desktop background etcOh yeah, I understand. Not a bad idea, by any means.
It´s not utterly bad through and through although overlong and generally quite uninspiredThat's completely right. For me, that's what makes it a bad film. I saw it when it first came out and I honestly can't remember a positive thing about it; I just remember wanting it to end so I could carry on with studying for exams. And Last Mohican's in good company, seeing that you've mentioned it with Lyndon and Days of Heaven, both of which I love, so I'm certainly optimistic about this one (need to see Tess, too - haven't seen much of the director).
I think The Insider is a well made, relevant film although somewhat hunching under its own ambition and weight.I don't know about it not being Oscar bait (hey, the ship sinking scene in Titanic was pretty darn cool... not much soul in the film but at least it entertains on the basis of visual spectacle). Doesn't The Insider pander to the audience in its straightforward approach to the narrative and its characters, the way it dumbs everything down so everyone can keep up? I dunno; perhaps, I'm wrong since, again, I saw this years ago. In any case, I didn't hate it but I didn't love it either. And yeah, I also don't understand people who need plenty of dialogue in their films. I mean, go watch a sitcom or something but seriously, don't complain about their being no dialogue.
"coulda been a contenda" - don´t tell me you don´t get ´this´ quote or referenceHa, I've seen On the Waterfront! I think I saw a pig fly by my window!
What did you say earlier?More or less what you said after you asked this, only less eloquently.
Lynch´s answer: "For sure. Meditation has maybe made the belief even stronger". Thereya go.Eh, who would've thought? Don't think he's ever made anything to clue us in.
I think I´m gonna watch L´Eclisse today... just for a moment remembered on which board we actually are. I really hope to dig it as Antonioni at his best, as probably noted before, is capable some real powerful stuff.So did you like it more than L'Avventura? (I'm 100% sure you preferred it to La Notte - even if you'll never quite make the same number of posts in the L'Eclisse board - since it was more to your liking; certainly less chatter in that one.) So yeah, the key question is whether you preferred it to the first entry. Myself, I'm not quite so sure. Depends on my mood, I suppose.
The main problem of course being the horrible, horrible, horrible performance by Masina or whatever the f-ck the prick´s name wasDoes. Not. Compute. Are you really criticising the acting talent of the lovely Giulietta Masina? I mean, I guess I could understand why her character could be off-putting for some but there is no doubt (in my mind, at least) that she did a wonderful job of portraying the naive girl, incorporating the innocent emotions of Gelsomina on her face with a delicate, natural grace that feels real and genuine. I don't think La Strada is pitch perfect (there was something 'off' about it and tbh, it probably was the somber melodrama which was a bit too overdone imo) as so many others do but I certainly did like it overall. Fellini's best work with his wife is, hands down, Juliet of the Spirits... which you MUST see ASAP if you haven't already (and given your distaste for Masina, I'm sure you haven't). It's Fellini's first color film but one certainly wouldn't jump to the conclusion given Fellini's wonderful control of the camera in it; indeed, I've yet to see a film from a director who has made a smoother transition from B&W to color than Fellini has with his Juliet of the Spirits, a visually resplendant film that is just so gorgeously shot and has such an eerily colorful mis-en-scene that it leaves no question in my mind of Fellini's innate artistic sensibilities. What makes the film a masterpiece in my books is how Fellini brings everything he excels at into this one gem of a film, especially his surrealist elements which add depth and meaning to the beautifully told story. Highly recommended.
"That drawn out, spectacularly acted audition, for example, was far too self indulgent - with the tone becoming incredibly serious - to be "real", right?"
Not sure what you´re getting at - in that scene, a lot of the true nature of Diane was revealed. How she was quick to use whatever means necessary - foremost, her body - to get what she wanted (it´s her that takes Katz´s hand and positions it firmly on her ass). And the dialogue itself illustrated her darker, manipulative side she does not wish to acknowledge.
"But in the end it just doesn´t leave me amazed".
I also ´appreciate´ Citizen Kane and not actually ´love´ it - hell, I´ve only seen it 5 times in 8 years. But I also don´t really see any flaw in it and wouldn´t necessarily dispute its reputation (I guess some film has to come out number 1 in various polls, and CK being that is OK with me. Who cares about these lists anyway).
"Haven´t seen much of the director".
I´ve seen all but 2 myself; it´s safe to say Polanski hasn´t made a true masterpiece after Tess in 1979. Until that, however, I count some 5 masterpieces - Repulsion, Rosemary´s Baby, Chinatown, The Tenant and this same Tess. He´s a true original and has a great personal vision. The later films aren´t bad, mostly (well, Pirates don´t work at all and The Ninth Gate is very silly even though fun and very well made), but nothing truly amazing has emerged. Always interesting though.
"Doesn´t The Insider pander to the audience?"
Pander how? I don´t think the characters or the story are dumbed down at all - it doesn´t feature too much in the way of exposition the way, say, Spielberg´s films always do and I think Crowe´s character is excellently acted and never is he portrayed as some kinda martyr, but rather a flawed man (after all, he only made the stuff public ´after´ he was fired cuz it hurt his pride; he´s not the one dimensional goody-good hero Frank Serpico is in Serpico... which is also the defining flaw of ´that´ film - out-and-out heroes are uniformly quite boring). Also, the way both the tobacco empire as well as the realities of newsmen´s everyday life are complexly observed and feel true (no wonder considering the amount of research Mann put into it - as he always does no matter the subject... matter. But you´re right that Mann is usually not at his best when it comes to dialogue - or subplots featuring domestic life or romance - his forte is the audiovisual storytelling and in that, very few even equal him. Miami Vice is my favourite in a large part because it´s so laconic most of the time. It´s almost music driven, one might say.
"I´ve seen On The Waterfront. And I saw a pig fly by my window".
A pig, sir? Direct him over here cuz I can at least eat the sonofabitch. But, of course, Raging Bull´s final scene also references it - and Boogie Nights, in turn, references ´that´.
"Eh, who would´ve thought. Don´t think he´s ever made anything to clue us in".
Yeah, sure - he obviously believes in afterlife (most clearly evidenced by Twin Peaks), but one figured that could´ve come from TM as well. Overall I don´t mind filmmakers being religious at all - as long as they spare us the preaching (in fact, the profound works of directors mentioned in this paragraph make the notion of religion as such more acceptable & meaningful than anything else I can think of could). It´s very obvious Malick, for instance, is also Christian, but this view of life is presented very subtly and can be read as any form of spiritualism, however one wishes to see it - for instance, he tends to portray sun as an embodiment of the god concept (especially in TTRL) which can lead us to read it as some nature-centered pagan belief. Eventually, it doesn´t really matter what name you gave god; it´s the same thing regardless. And no need to even mention Tarkovsky - that the essentially & obviously religious nature of his art went unnoticed by the Soviet censors is nothing short of hilarious; they musta been real dim. Btw I watched Zerkalo for the fourth or so time and it´s a f-cking stunner top to bottom. A film of jaw dropping depth and complexity, perfectly presented in its fractured form - Tarkovsky´s meshing of different timelines and places is no less organically awesome than Lynch´s in Inland Empire. And its musings on time and memory no less perceptive than Marienbad´s. Out of 4 I´ve seen from him, this is his highest achievement far as I´m concerned (of course, Solaris, Stalker - and perhaps to a lesser degree Nostalghia - are masterpieces as well.
"So did you like it more than L´Avventura".
No, not quite, but it´s certainly giving Professione: Reporter a good run for its money for the second spot. It seemed kind of meandering for a long time (´seemed´ being the operative word here as it appears this one certainly needs a rewatch to put the pieces together as they´re supposed to be). It´s excellent though and the ending is breathtakingly awesome. So my Antonioni rankings and ratings would go as follows:
L´Avventura 9,5/10
L´Eclisse 8,5/10
Professione: Reporter 8,5/10
La Notte 7/10
Blowup 7/10
Zabriskie Point 6/10
"Are you really criticizing the acting talent of the lovely Masina".
I dunno, maybe not necessarily - I guess she played it as her hubby wanted it (although it must be said she gives a rather similar performance in Notti di Cabiria). The character, however, is insufferable and I have never understood the goofy, vaudevillian sense of humor Italians tend to have. Did she really ´have´ to be this deeply retarded (you may search for less severe words if you so wish, but that´s what she essentially was). Also, the film is quite low in engaging incident and this is not the masterful underdramatization of Antonioni or, at least a lot of the time, Wenders here. And what surrealism are you talking about? Guess I missed that one. Overall, I´ve seen only 3 Fellini´s so far and imo Amarcord is his best (although perhaps a notch below Mr Stiffy´s similarly themed Radio Days which I once already mentioned). What you think of Antonioni´s conversion from B & W to colour between L´Eclisse and Deserto Rosso though? I´m yet to see that for myself...
Edit: I hate it that one can´t edit the PM´s once they´re sent away - I wrote too fast and a host of spelling errors as well as misuse of various expressions etc were left in. Sorry about that.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Not sure what you´re getting atThat the scene was too odd to be actually happening in "reality" (ie Diane Dreaming theory). For me, Betty's audition was more about Diane playing out her fantasy: A mesmerizing, sexually charged, go-for-broke type of performance on her first audition leaves everyone marvelling at Betty's talent. Ofcourse, that is something that "could" occur in real life but it's really the way in which Lynch films its (as if, that scene exists in a realm other than the dream itself) that makes it tonally inconsistent with everything that comes before and after it (up until the last quarter of the film). What it all really highlights is Betty's divine acting talent, her ability to transform into another character, much different from her innocent self, so convincingly. What it reveals about Diane is her "belief" in her talent, which unfortunately never got realised (if we assume that the latter portion of the film were indeed fragments of reality).
Who cares about these lists anywayTo a certain extent, I do. I mean, it does bother me that films superior to Citizen Kane in terms of intellectual, emotional and/or cinematic depth will be seen by fewer people. And there are many starting with Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, Edward Yang's Yi Yi or A Brighter Summer Day, Kurosawa's Ikiru, etc. But I guess, it's all pretty subjective, anyway, and no critical darling list could appease everyone.
I don´t think the characters or the story are dumbed down at allWell, after reading your synopsis, some of the narrative came back to me and okay, maybe it wasn't bad as I had initially remembered it. It didn't leave a lasting impression, that's for sure. I'm a sucker for audiovisual experiences and I'm beginning to get excited for MV. It better live up to the hype or I'll send a couple of Boeings your way.
A pig, sir? Direct him over here cuz I can at least eat the sonofabitch.The "I saw a pig fly by my window" remark signified that a miracle had occurred because I finally got a reference of yours...
Overall I don´t mind filmmakers being religious at all - as long as they spare us the preachingI whole-heartedly agree with this. The minute I feel that somebody else's religious views are being forced down my throat is the minute I want to turn off the film. Filmmakers who excel at making religious art are the ones who are somewhat subtle in their approach and are those who at least know how to treat their audiences (and their viewpoints) with respect. Religion should never be imposed anyway.
that the essentially & obviously religious nature of his art went unnoticed by the Soviet censors is nothing short of hilarious; they musta been real dim.Ha, no kidding. They probably didn't even pay attention because "nothing happens" and everything, eh. I've only seen Zerkalo once and although it was a mesmerizing and certainly memorable experience, I've yet to decipher its meaning on a shot-by-shot basis (and I really want to try, at least); I remember much of it leaving me confused and puzzled since it's so deliberately abstract... Do you think Resnais' Marienbad was an influence given the similar themes? Anyway, I'm not sure I agree that Solaris is a masterpiece; it just felt overlong and meandering despite there being some good scenes. Even the poetic dialogue felt forced in this one. One might say the script in Stalker was made of the same material but in terms of visual brilliance, Stalker's unparalleled and the visuals easily adds to the poetic dialogue of the characters. I do remember really liking Andrei Rublev though. Saw it a long time ago, however, so I won't be able to tell you why but I did nonetheless.
So my Antonioni rankings and ratings would go as follows:Blow-up just a 7? :(
The character, however, is insufferable and I have never understood the goofy, vaudevillian sense of humor Italians tend to have.Heh, yeah, I understand where you're coming from. Those scenes certainly aren't my favorite part of the whole thing but it really does contribute to the narrative and mis-en-scene of the film (the only "job" the poor "retarded" girl could find). They're like short bursts of comedy (forced for you but welcome for me... to some extent) in what is essentially a tragic story.
And what surrealism are you talking about?Is 8 1/2 not one of the three movies you've seen? (There was no surrealism in La Strada; I was talking about Juliet of the Spirits with that comment.) Because it certainly possessed some surrealistic elements.
What you think of Antonioni´s conversion from B & W to colour between L´Eclisse and Deserto Rosso though?Saw that a long time ago (one of the films I saw at the start of my cinephile phase); don't remember much but I'll be surprised if the transition was as amazing as Fellini's.
Edit: I hate it that one can´t edit the PM´s once they´re sent away - I wrote too fast and a host of spelling errors as well as misuse of various expressions etc were left in. Sorry about that.Yeah, I mean, sheesh, why can't the PMs operate as a personal thread or something. Will respond to the PMs later.
"The scene was too odd to be actually happening in reality".
I don´t think anything in MD happens in reality. The Real, however, can´t be kept from rearing its ugly head - the acting scene´s both wish fulfillment for Diane (she "knocks it right out of the park") as well as a brief glimpse of the real Diane, a disturbed woman not beyond resorting to sleazy tactics - for which she condemns Camilla - herself. There are several occasions during the Betty/Rita segment when Watts very subtly lets on that there´s something rather dark & dangerous beneath that pink little jacket and awed smile (like when she first enters the bathroom where Camilla took a shower, she lets out a strange muted laugh with an alarmingly maniacal undertone. Also, at a few other times, her face expresses sort of an obsessiveness... all, as said, very subtle and it took me at least many viewings to catch that sh-t.
"Films superior to Citizen Kane".
I don´t think there are any films that´re so much better than CK as to form a category clearly above it. 2001 and CK as well as a number of others are masterpieces, undisputable classics and I feel no particular need to assign concrete numbered rankings to them. I do, however, say that Ikiru is perhaps a tad weaker than CK because of the overly sentimental tone it occasionally employs... but that´s a small flaw, of course and Ikiru still a great movie.
"Maybe it wasn´t bad as I had initially remembered it".
Of course it wasn´t; as a matter of fact, it is so far from any "pandering" that I´m quite sure you´re thinking of a different movie altogether. I often rewatch movies I happen to be debating, to make sure I know ´exactly´ what I´m talking about and that´s what I did with The Insider today - viewed it for the 6th time. And what I saw was an uncompromisingly intelligent, mature, perceptive film about the very nature of corporate America, it´s corruption and disregard for anything except making billions of dollars of money. I did misremember the details concerning Crowe´s whistle blowing though - he didn´t seek publicity right after getting fired, but rather after he´d been in contact with Pacino´s "60 Minutes" producer - which had got nothing to do with the Brown & Williams coverups - and was threatened, in roundabout ways, with a gruesome fate that´d befall him & his family should he squeal... something that hadn´t even crossed his mind. Which then angered Wigand beyond belief. It´s a highly complex tapestry of moral issues we´re presented and all of it feels true and authentic, from the mechanisms of big business/media to observing the behaviour of the players, high and low, caught up in this game (it helps that the outstanding cast does an exceptional job - it´s Crowe´s best work and one of Pacino´s best of the past 20 years. And Plummer is fine as always). The Insider may probably be Mann´s talkiest picture and one of the more restrained ones stylistically, but the flow, the rhythms of the film are spot on throughout as is his choice of soundtrack; there is a tiny crumb of corn that reveals itself at the very end, but it´s a masterfully controlled work and I even raised its rating to 9/10 which puts it in Mann´s top 3 for the moment.
"Filmmakers who excel at making religious art".
Ew... I don´t think even Tarkovsky made "religious art", strictly speaking, but rather they present a highly spiritual world view; but I guess I´m just nit picking over semantics here.
"Religion should never be imposed anyway".
Yes. It is safe to say that a part of the reason my nation is so overwhelmingly atheistic, is that religion was indeed imposed on us, brought here with sword and fire, as it were... and when, centuries later, our national "awakening" occurred, everything that had a direct connection - such as Christianity - to our oppressors, became detested and this attitude seems to have been passed along the generations with considerable success.
"They probably didn´t even pay attention".
In fact, as the story goes, Tarkovsky was in a consistent threat of being shut down completely as a filmmaker because the censors simply had no idea as to what his films were about or what went on there. And how can you permit something you can´t understand? It is largely due to Tarkovsky´s huge popularity amongst the Western cinematic circles that he was allowed to continue - after all, they didn´t want to show SU as completely backwards or anything.
"I´m yet to decipher its meaning on a shot-to-shot basis".
I don´t think that every scene or shot or vista has some kind of a symbolic or metaphorical meaning though... like the house burning in the rain, for instance. Generally though I don´t find Zerkalo ´that´ confounding at all - after all these wars I´ve fought with Inland Empire & stuff, that´s hardly surprising though. The film clearly has two timelines, interwined with great subtlety & grace, often connecting through mirrors. It´s essentially a rendering of a life experience of a dying man whom we almost never see and who, near the end of the film, apparently does die (the white bird flying out of the bedroom and stuff). It´s also an ode to Mother Russia of course and added historical/political dimension makes it so much richer, how poetically all of it is rendered. And Arseni Tarkovsky´s poems... a truly amazing film where every artistic choice has paid off in spades.
"I´m not sure I agree Solaris is a masterpiece".
Well it admittedly is a notch below Stalker and another notch below Zerkalo - and it is kind of flawed I suppose - but it´s still spellbinding, beautiful. I rewatched it a month or so ago and found it quite satisfactory (btw Solaris is probably the most famous film that has featured my countryman in one of the starring roles - Snaut is played by Estonian Jüri Järvet. Meanwhile, the actor playing Kris Kelvin is Lithuanian so it´s a pretty Baltic thing we´ve got there). Have you read the Lem´s book the film is based on though? It´s different in its main thematic/ideological thrust and quite remarkable all in all (Lem apparently was very dissatisfied with the course Tarkovsky took with his adaptation, accusing him of turning it into some kinda musing on that same Mother Russia).
"Blowup just a 7"?
I don´t like the self consciously "hip" Swinging London vibe, the occasional bout of goofing around... and the music club scene is dated to the point of being completely silly. The silence and the wind in the park though... sublime.
"Is 8 1/2 not one of the three movies you´ve seen"?
Nope. Just Amarcord, Notti Di Cabiria and La Strada.
"Yeah, I mean, sheesh, why can´t the PM´s operate as a personal thread".
Second the sheesh.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
The Real, however, can´t be kept from rearing its ugly head - the acting scene´s both wish fulfillment for Diane (she "knocks it right out of the park") as well as a brief glimpse of the real Diane, a disturbed woman not beyond resorting to sleazy tactics - for which she condemns Camilla - herself.Exactly. Maybe after watching Camilla's tactics and her success, she's accepted one needs to resort to such behaviour in the first place. Although I find this little paradox interesting, are these really "sleazy tactics"? Isn't it a part of acting to be highly convincing, to become your character? In any case, I know what you mean about the subtle moments which reveal Diane's darker side; I think I caught them, too.
Watts very subtly lets on that there´s something rather dark & dangerous beneath that pink little jacketI don't they were dark and dangerous at all. (Sorry, I know that was lame... but I couldn't help myself.)
I don´t think there are any films that´re so much better than CK as to form a category clearly above itI think there are plenty. Maybe this is just me but I don't have any emotional connection with the film. As I said before, Welles' technical mastery aside, I don't think there's much in it in terms of "emotion"; yeah, there's an engaging narrative and neatly embedded universal themes but as such, I'm not moved the way I am by, to name a few, Kieslowski's Dekalog and Three Colors Trilogy, Bergman's Persona and Cries & Whispers, Resnais' Marienbad, and even Lynch's own Mulholland Drive. All these, I believe, are far ahead of Citizen Kane in terms of emotional and cinematic depth. But yeah, it's all pretty subjective anyway. And I do understand where you're coming from about the futility of assigning "concrete numbered rankings" to such films but I do think that these belong in a category higher than the one CK is placed in.
it´s a masterfully controlled work and I even raised its rating to 9/10 which puts it in Mann´s top 3 for the moment.Hmm, I guess I'll need to give this one a rewatch and put my current "opinion" of it on hold until then. I have to keep in mind that you're rating it higher than L'Eclisse.
I don´t think even Tarkovsky made "religious art", strictly speaking, but rather they present a highly spiritual world viewPossibly but as we know where he's really coming from, it wouldn't be incorrect to call it "religious art". Right? But yeah, doesn't matter, I guess.
when, centuries later, our national "awakening" occurred, everything that had a direct connection - such as Christianity - to our oppressors, became detestedWoah, that's quite enlightening and does sorta explain a lot.
It´s essentially a rendering of a life experience of a dying man whom we almost never see and who, near the end of the film, apparently does die (the white bird flying out of the bedroom and stuff).Yeah, but since the memory of the dying man was understandably murky, it did get a bit confusing at times - even if I did understand the overall themes and motifs in the film. The sad part is I've only seen it once so I guess, it's not particularly surprising that I feel that I don't understand it enough. With a film like Zerkalo, I suspect the pieces fall more comfortably into place once you watch it a second or third time and you've already developed an initial understanding of what it's about and where it's headed.
btw Solaris is probably the most famous film that has featured my countryman in one of the starring roles. Have you read the Lem´s book the film is based on though?Oh, cool. I couldn't recommend anything anyone from my own country has starred in. And no, I haven't read the book. Given where I live, I don't think I'll be able to get my hands on it, sadly - unless I'm able to find it someplace online.
I don´t like the self consciously "hip" Swinging London vibe, the occasional bout of goofing around... and the music club scene is dated to the point of being completely silly. The silence and the wind in the park though... sublime.I actually loved the contrast set up between those "hip" scenes - featuring dark, grey and uninviting interiors set to irritatingly vacuous music - and the ones in the park featuring copious amounts of greenery set to the sound of the wind (sublime indeed) but perhaps, that's just me. Those scenes just gather so much meaning when viewed in light of those club scenes imo.
Just Amarcord, Notti Di Cabiria and La Strada.8 1/2, La Dolce Vita, and Juliet of the Spirits are, in my opinion, his best movies. I'm surprised though you didn't start with 8 1/2 - being his most critically acclaimed film and all.
"Isn´t it a part of acting to be highly convincing?"
Where did you hear that rubbish? Kidding aside, it seems Betty´s ´too´ convincing... although it perhaps relates more to her sexual history as a teenager or a pre-teen as there appear to be even hints of incest having occurred in a tender age - the demonic oldsters knocking and crawling in her room, a portrait of the historic incest victim-turned-murderess Beatrice Cenci featuring prominently on the wall. (Oh and btw, concerning our debate over how to approach MD - shouldn´t a religious person be more fond of metaphysical interpretations and an atheist more prone to psychological reading, generally speaking? It´s seemingly the other way around here).
"I don´t have any emotional connection with the film".
Well that´s the most subjective criteria of them all; I´m sure there´s some guy out there who gets a huge emotional uplift from watching, I dunno, Triumph Des Willens (hell, I even heard about a guy who jerks off to Triumph Des Willens). Certain other facets of a work of art can be observed more objectively though - does CK not have a fairly grand sweep, going for the very jugular of what might or might not define a human experience, a human life, its essence? Is this theme not gracefully, perceptively handled? Does it also not comment on the media and corporate tycoons? Is the aesthetic prowess of the film not remarkable? Is it not outstandingly acted? Etc. I think CK scores highly on all of those accounts and really cannot see any flaw worth mentioning.
"You rate it higher than L´Eclisse".
It is quite arbitrary if I rate one film 8,5/10 & the other 9/10. What I AM sure of, is that both of these tackle some weighty subject matters and present their case very skillfully. Besides, I´ve seen The Insider 6 times while L´Eclisse only once, and, as noted, it does not seem like the kind of film that can be fully grasped with just one viewing. Generally though The Insider is the kind of intelligent, mature picture we see less and less of coming from Hollywood. With filmmakers like Lumet or Altman (2 of the filmmakers who always retained their artistic integrity, even when coming up with an occasional stinker as these were honest failures... and they also never condescended to the audience by assuming they´re buncha stupid sh-ts... even though most moviegoers indeed ´are´ buncha stupid sh-ts conditioned to solely seek the formulaic and the trite) falling from the face of the Earth, it just gets lamer and lamer; we also shall´t not forget a host of big name directors are hitting - or already have hit - 70 years of age and there really ain´t enough young talent to properly replace them. It´s kinda tragic when goofy hacks like, for instance, Darren Aronofsky are treated like visionaries because there´s no one better or more deserving of praise out there in Hollywood anymore.
"It did get a bit confusing at times".
I love confusion. And there certainly are lots of enigmatic dots to connect (the confusion of the protagonist´s mother & wife is, of course very much intentional and kind of the point). But generally, yes, there are precisely 2 timelines, the 1930´s and 1970´s, that are very much possible to recognise. The film´s a long visual poem and acts accordingly, moving intuitively and gracefully on an essentially free-associative basis. I have no idea though if Tarkovsky had seen Marienbad or not... and even if he had, I don´t think it influenced him too much as Zerkalo feels like a Tarkovsky film through and through. Btw what you think of Bresson? He was one of two people in the world whose opinion of his work meant anything to Tark (or so he apparently claimed) yet I watched A Man Escaped and Pickpocket this week and wasn´t particularly impressed with either - they´re dry, lifeless, overly calculated, without a whiff of any cinematic exhilaration or imagination (Pickpocket was quite silly, actually, and hilariously pretentious with its loudly advertised Crime & Punishment undertones). Neither was even ´that´ great technically, as the sort of action procedurals. So if you want a good recontextualization of Dostoyevsky´s novel, check out Aki Kaurismäki´s Rikos & Rangaistus (Crime & Punishment in Finnish). Seen any of Kaurismäki btw? He´s one my most recent discoveries whom I´ve began to dig a lot.
"I don´t think I´ll be able to get my hands on it".
Don´t you have access to Amazon? It´s most assuredly available in English. And there´s nothing really in the book that could be called challenging to any religion or such.
"I´m surprised you didn´t start with 8 1/2".
I sometimes leave the alleged best for later on purpose.
PS: Some shocking news, too - we´ve been discussing Bergman a lot and now I watched my 5th or 6th of him, Autumn Sonata and lo and behold, even if it is excessively talky even by Bergman´s theater man starndards, I found it quite spellbinding and, yes, pretty great (not mention utterly disturbing, cruel and unforgiving). Strange how the last 2 I´ve seen from him, also form my overall top 2... beating out the landmarks The Seventh Seal & Persona... and that these 2 are simultaneously some of the lesser known works of his. Next I´ll probably check out Winter Light.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
the demonic oldsters knocking and crawling in her room, a portrait of the historic incest victim-turned-murderess Beatrice Cenci featuring prominently on the wallThe demonic oldsters, I always assumed, were representative of Diane's perception of her parents (or was it grandparents?): forever smiling but not really knowing why, unable to fathom what she was going through, oblivious to her plight. But damn... I did not know that the portrait was of an incest victim-turned-murderess. Certainly adds another layer of complexity to her character. Did you immediately notice that the portrait was of Cenci or did you read this somewhere yourself? Just curious.
Oh and btw, concerning our debate over how to approach MD - shouldn´t a religious person be more fond of metaphysical interpretations and an atheist more prone to psychological reading, generally speaking? It´s seemingly the other way around hereHahaha, good question. It's a testament to Lynch's cinematic prowess that both of our interpretations can apply (and given that he considers himself to be religious, it really does sorta bolster your metaphysical interpretation).
I think CK scores highly on all of those accountsYes, it does score highly on all of these accounts but at the same time, there's just this element from it missing that I can't seem to easily pinpoint and define. Its rendering of its theme is, in a way, simplistic for me. BTW, what do you think of Kieslowski? Given your love for the metaphysical, you should love his works; the way he subtly dramatizes his themes and ponders life's questions by making connections with the metaphysical is what, in my eyes, makes him special and puts his films far ahead of anything Welles' produced (generally speaking).
even though most moviegoers indeed ´are´ buncha stupid sh-ts conditioned to solely seek the formulaic and the triteYeah, I encounter them where I live everyday. Many here do not even understand the concept of "film as art"; for them, it's all about instant, cheap thrills and never about a work that's ever an artistic expression of a filmmaker's thoughts on life or the human experience (the number of people who flock to watch Transformers in 3D and give it rave reviews upsets me). The looks I receive from people after they hear about my obsession with "old, foreign films" are infuriating (as are the questions carrying mocking undertones that usually pertain to my experience of watching such films ie 'what could you possibly get out of watching a silent film such as The Last Laugh'?). Urgh.
It´s kinda tragic when goofy hacks like, for instance, Darren AronofskyOh no, you didn't! Okay, yeah, I'm already aware of how you feel about Aronofsky (I've seen other people - unsuccessfully - tackle the same subject with you) and The Fountain (one of my favorite works ever). I don't think Aronofsky is some visionary; he certainly hasn't earned that title yet. His recent film, Black Swan, was certainly "good" but in the end, it was honestly a superficial rendering of its themes. Requiem for a Dream was an overly melancholic, preachy film that I don't ever want to see again. Pi was interesting and weird - what with the protagonists' obsession with mathematics, its eerie black-and-white cinematography, and the murkiness of the whole affair (hey, it's pretty confusing so you might even like it, heh) - but really, the only outstanding work he's produced is The Fountain (which unfortunately doesn't get the universal acclaim that it deserves). I understand you find it to be an empty, pretentious and excessively melodramatic film but I personally am in love with the way Aronofsky beautifully depicts the suffering of this man (and his redemptive healing process) from various points of view by using multiple timelines often connected through recurring visual motifs (which carry their own symbolic importance). The universal struggle against death, our attempts to make sense of the transcience of life and to make the most of it, the essentially pointless nature of the chase for eternal life, etc - the way Aronofsky masterfully embeds all of these themes into his visually resplendant work is a testament to the artist within. And ofcourse, that soundtrack... just amazing.
Don´t you have access to Amazon?It's going to be darn expensive though. And given where I live, there's always the risk that something goes wrong and I don't receive the order I've paid for.
I sometimes leave the alleged best for later on purpose.Oh, so that's why you still haven't watched Bergman's Cries and Whispers and Wild Strawberries.
Autumn Sonata and lo and behold, even if it is excessively talky even by Bergman´s theater man starndards, I found it quite spellbinding and, yes, pretty great (not mention utterly disturbing, cruel and unforgiving)I've seen plenty of Bergmans but Sonata must have slipped under my radar. Will give it a shot. How did you find Winter Light? I think you shoulda gone in order; the first part of his Faith trilogy is Through a Glass Darkly, followed by Winter Light and finally (and possibly Bergman's most "silent" film, appropriately titled) The Silence. I really liked Winter Light (an 8, I think) but I thought it lacked the emotional depth and cinematic complexity of the others.
"Representative of Diane´s perception of her parents/-/ forever smiling, but not really knowing why".
The way they grin in their limo is about as menacing a "smile" as I´ve ever seen. Quite unambiguously demonic... and that´s what they, also quite unambiguously, represent in the film´s final scene - demons that drive Diane to suicide. Also worth noting the limousine which connects the oldster´s ride with the two other limo rides - ending with catastrophe - we see.
"Did you immediately know that the portrait was of Cenci".
I had never heard of Cenci or ever seen the portrait before it was brought to my attention on the MD board. Btw did you know that MD probably has the most interesting, insightful website of its own - "Lost On Mulholland Drive". Information and speculations and theories to last a lifetime.
"It´s a testament to Lynch´s cinematic prowes that both our interpretation can apply".
Yes, and there is no way to deny the strong psychological elements and dynamics, however "metaphysical" the general view. Most of the resonance and powerful emotion come from the pov being etched so close to the psyche, mainly concentrating on the depiction of the devastating ripples that result from the actual events that have happened, rather than the events themselves.
"There´s just this element missing from it that I can´t seem to easily pinpoint".
Guess we´re talking of that emotional resonance again, of which presence is, as noted, highly personal. I don´t think, however, that the rendering of its themes is so simplistic - the flashback structure isn´t anything out of the ordinary necessarily (the more familiar and typical the more noirs you´ve seen, of course) so it hardly seems much radical NOW, but I think it handles this structure well and it serves the movie properly. And although it´s not among the films I get the most out of, emotionally, it doesn´t leave me cold, either.
"What do you think of Kieslowski".
I saw Red in a theater back in 1995 and White on TV a few years later, but since then ain´t seen nothing from him at all. Both of these left a positive impression back then though (bit of an understatement in Red´s case... although I remember fairly little of the actual plot) and I´ve been planning to take on Kieslowski more seriously in near future. Including The Dekalog which, incidentally, received the highest praise from Kubrick.
"It´s all about instant, cheap thrills".
No different from anywhere else, then. Btw I´ve never seen a film made by an Islamic Middle Easterner, so I´ve been looking for that stuff; Abbas Kierostami seems to be a pretty high profile figure in the current cinema, so I might as well start there. No better way to learn about how alien cultures perceive the world than through film (Kaurismäki´s work btw is Finnish through and through, accurately representing the nation´s spirit. To a lesser extent, Õunpuu also captures our nation´s defining sensibilities, I think. Sügisball aka Autumn Ball particularly stands out in these regards). Btw - I might as well ask this here rather than in a PM which is something to do for later - what is that "another forum" where they name drop obscure Estonian filmmakers?
"I´ve seen other people - unsuccessfully - tackle the same subject with you".
I had a lengthy discussion about Aronofsky and The Fountain in particular, on MD board in january or around that time, yes, and there have been other instances as well... which is why I´d rather not "tackle" it anymore as I´d just be repeating myself. What you mean by the discussion having been "unsuccessful" though - or what would constitute a "success", for that matter? Converting me into an Aronofsky fan? That was never gonna happen I think the poster whom I debated it with, ever expected as much, either (although he woulda had a chance of doing so, at least, had he actually told me something about The Fountain that I didn´t already know). I agree with your words about Requiem to the boot though... and I kinda liked Pi for its original look - but the utterly silly, dumb, literal minded ending ruined it all. A f-cking Jew conspiracy topped off with a dopey "love conquers all" message. The Fountain, however, puts Aronofsky´s kindergarteners sensibilities and lack of any artistic insight or vision at the most naked display. Maybe it´s not among the ´worst´ films I´ve seen, but is indeed one of the most ridiculous and pretentious, with an intended scope only a few steps short of 2001 or Inland Empire.
"I don´t think it was pretentious or silly at all".
Silly in the sense that Bresson, apparently, sought to authentically depict the mechanics of pickpocketing - sort of like A Man Escaped was mainly about the technical minutiae of preparing and executing a prison break - yet what we actually got, is totally unconvincingly rendered, sometimes to the point of absurdity - some have attempted to argue that it was all the protagonist daydreaming, but then, why hire an actual pickpocket to give technical advice if it was just a glorified fantasy of pickpocketing, anyway? As for the "pretentious" part - the movie simply didn´t seem to warran any parallels with Crime & Punishment and its occasional aspirations to emotional depth seemed awfully out of place. In fact, it threatened to make the whole thing quite farcical, as if it were some Monty Python skit or something. Overall I didn´t quite ´hate´ the picture, but its reputation as a timeless masterpiece puzzles me. And to me, A Man Escape is not particularly "deeper", or visually striking, than Siegel´s Escape From Alcatraz. I like your take on these films though and I´ll definitely give both of them another look; maybe I´ll be able to tune in better, then.
"How did you like Winter Light?"
With a few reservations, I liked it. One major weakness, to me, at least, was the terribly lengthy Thulin´s monologue facing the camera. It shoulda been handled with more creativity. Other than that, there´s really not much wrong with it, and the rendering of its themes was graceful and haunting enough (also, it´s surprisingly funny in spots, under the veil of existential grimness - Von Sydow´s nuclear anxiety in particular was nothing short of hilarious. Even Björnstrands hate speech to and of Thulin resolved in a rather humorous fashion... as such, it´s actually better than the very similar scene in Haneke´s Das Weisse Band... which you... haven´t seen? I´ve mentioned Haneke´s work quite a few times during this thread, but from your lack of response I gather you´re not familiar with the guy. Personally I think he´s at least somewhat interesting even in his failures, such as Funny Games 2007).
Btw, from our discussions here, it seems that you´re much more familiar with European cinema than American... that true? With me, it´s been the other way around - as is, I suppose, with most film fans.
Oh and btw 2 - I just saw Pierrot Le Fou a few days ago and liked it a whole lot better than either A Bout De Souffle or Le Mepris. Seemed more playful, imaginative and less bogged down by lengthy, vapid conversations. Some seem to criticize it for a lack of soul or emotional depth and see it as not much beyond an intellectual exercise - and they´re probably right to a degree - but to me it had a strong ispired energy, a momentum going for it and cinematography/editing´s extraordinarily imaginative. And it IS, kind of, reminiscent of Tarantino at his best, with all its movie-referencing and a reckless gusto.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
demons that drive Diane to suicideWell, ofcourse, Diane's gonna turn their smiles into something "demonic" since she doesn't understand WHY they're always so cheerful (and oblivious to her plight); we're all viewing this from her perspective, anyway. If the demonic parents/grandparents were really haunting as a result of her incestuous past, I think that's a bit, I dunno, weird. Did the grandmother/mother also have incestuous relations with her? Why is she wearing the demonic smile, if not? Although the portrait might hint at an incestuous past, what if Lynch was making some other connection with his character (rather than the straight-forward and simple one we seem to come up with)? Maybe Diane, too, was horribly scarred by her failure in Hollywood (and her failure in love) in the same way a person with an incestuous past is?
Btw did you know that MD probably has the most interesting, insightful website of its own - "Lost On Mulholland Drive". Information and speculations and theories to last a lifetime.Yes, I did. In fact, I found out about it not longer than 10 minutes after I finished watching Mulholland Drive. Quite reassuring at the time since I had initially thought there was actually a fixed "answer" to it all, or something.
I don´t think, however, that the rendering of its theme is so simplisticEven if the flashback structure was used to good effect, the narrative itself was quite simple. Just cause it jumbled up the chronology of the plot (yes, to good effect) doesn't make it a complex and "deep" rendering. I dunno; maybe I'm just being nitpicky.
Including The Dekalog which, incidentally, received the highest praise from Kubrick.I hate to remind you but so did La Notte (way to bring it back into the conversation, lolamirite?). On a serious note, I suspect you'll find Kieslowski and his Dekalog much to your liking given your affinity for the more visually driven cinema and as noted, Kieslowski's ability to beautifully dramatize his themes that deal with the metaphysical is sure to please your own tastes (I hope...). And FWIW, when you're watching his spellbinding Three Colors trilogy, watch them in order (ie Blue, White, and finally, Red).
Abbas Kierostami seems to be a pretty high profile figure in the current cinema, so I might as well start there. No better way to learn about how alien cultures perceive the world than through filmI've only seen one film of Abbas Kiarostami's (The Wind Willy Carry Us) and it was a beautifully slow-paced, philosophical contemplation of life and death, set in a bizarrely constructed rural village firmly resting on a mountaneous region of the desert (in which the self-preserving lifestyle of the locals was very much viewed from an outsider's perspective). Dunno if it tells you much about how these cultures perceive the world but ofc, the rest of the filmography could very well achieve that purpose.
Btw - I might as well ask this here rather than in a PM which is something to do for later - what is that "another forum" where they name drop obscure Estonian filmmakers?If one with a passion for cinema were to research the current "indie" scene, they would easily come across an obscure artist such as Ounpuu, I think - that's the magic of the Interwebz. Anyhow, 'tis a forum 'based' in my country (yeah, I'm not the only one - from my country - into cinema, eh).
What you mean by the discussion having been "unsuccessful" though - or what would constitute a "success", for that matter? Converting me into an Aronofsky fan?Ofcourse, I never expected some sort of a sudden 180 degree turn (if only it were that simple). On the other hand, I never saw him affecting your thoughts on Aronofsky or The Fountain - at all. So ya, that's all I meant up there.
The Fountain, however, puts Aronofsky´s kindergarteners sensibilities and lack of any artistic insight or vision at the most naked display.Reminds me of how vastly different our opinions can be (sorta like our earlier discussion/ different thoughts on Inglourious Basterds). I'll try to keep this short and simple. The Fountain isn't perfect (but is any work of art 'perfect' by all standards, even?) and yes, there are some technical flaws (for example, when he overdoes the color scheme in the present timeline - everything's almost "too" yellow), evidence of Aronofsky's rich sensibilities and artistic vision are easily found in the way he masterfully juggles the three timelines - each depicting man's universal struggle against death and ofcourse, specifically a man's attempts to deal with the impending loss of a loved one by hopelessly chasing the idea of immortality, losing sight of everything that mattered in the first place - that finally culminates in a visually stunning, musically haunting, and devastatingly emotional climax which, in largely simplistic terms, mirrors the man's overwhelming realization, his 'healing' self, the part of him that's accepted death and its finality. And what, even, to make of that last timeline, the one set in space? A literal reading of it or a metaphorical one? In any case, it's difficult for me to understand why The Fountain is called pretentious since it consistently lives up to its grand premise and scope, what with its superb attention to detail, its symbols and motifs, cinematography and editing. When the themes are so wonderfully etched into the film's crux and the aesthetics alone set the mood and visualize the mental state of a man attempting to make sense of death so vividly and so beautifully, it's hard - for me, at least - to find it pretentious.
yet what we actually got, is totally unconvincingly rendered, sometimes to the point of absurdityWell, I can't exactly recall but I don't remember it feeling unconvincing to me. Perhaps, the action was somewhat slowed down so that the camera - and the audience - could keep up with what was happening but as such, it didn't really 'cause me to throw my hands up in the air in utter disbelief. Haven't seen Escape From Alcatraz so I can't really comment.
I´ve mentioned Haneke´s work quite a few times during this thread, but from your lack of response I gather you´re not familiar with the guy.Yup. The only film of his that I've seen is Cache and I remember it left me with a positive impression of the director. Quite an unsettling, psychological study of the protagonist, I must say.
Btw, from our discussions here, it seems that you´re much more familiar with European cinema than American... that true? With me, it´s been the other way around - as is, I suppose, with most film fans.Probably. I mean, there's still PLENTY to explore in European cinema but yeah, I haven't really dived into any American filmmaker's filmographies. I still have to see so many of the so-called American classics...
Oh and btw 2 - I just saw Pierrot Le Fou a few days ago and liked it a whole lot better than either A Bout De Souffle or Le Mepris. Seemed more playful, imaginative and less bogged down by lengthy, vapid conversations. Some seem to criticize it for a lack of soul or emotional depth and see it as not much beyond an intellectual exercise - and they´re probably right to a degree - but to me it had a strong ispired energy, a momentum going for it and cinematography/editing´s extraordinarily imaginative. And it IS, kind of, reminiscent of Tarantino at his best, with all its movie-referencing and a reckless gusto.Glad a Godard flick was finally able to pull you in (makes sense, too, what with Pierrot le fou's innovative aesthetics) - and glad it reminded you of Tarantino at his best. As for the "lack of emotional depth" criticism that most people love to fall back on, I think it's quite irrelevant since it was hardly the effect Godard was going for, given his adherence to Brechtian principles that seek to alienate the viewer and put them in a position of being a critical observer, in effect creating an intellectual exercise rather than one which provides a form of audience-pandering escapism (as I've probably mentioned before to defend his other films from similar criticism). But yes, the energy and momentum that Godard creates as a result of the editing, the prismatic and colorful feel and look of the film, and the aimless narrative that often loses itself in abstract layers of complex thoughts, emotions and feelings (ofcourse, the emotions and feelings do come through the aesthetics and not in the conventional sense) certainly makes it one of my favorite Godards. Maybe, you should watch his deconstruction of the sci-fi genre next, Alphaville. Or you could just move chronologically... as I did.
"Did the grandmother/mother also have incestuous relations with her"?
That´s a bit humorous... but anyway, often mothers know about such stuff, but are in denial/pretend not to see etc so it is understandable that she, too, may appear demonic from the perspective of the victim. But of course that´d be just one of the reasons as they surely are an embodiment of her entire failure as an actress and as a human being, sort of.
"Maybe I´m just being nitpicky".
Good for you; otherwise I´d almost feel a little strange having such a fairly long - well, not ´that´ long, perhaps - list of classics I find unworthy of the praise.
"Lolamirite".
Huh?
But I mean to watch La Notte again - mainly, though, to see what shape do the first 3/4 take. If they kick like a mule, maybe I´ll be easier on the concluding jabberfest as well. As of now - and as already mentioned - I´ve found the long conversations in Bergman´s Autumn Sonata and Winter Light far more compelling than the socialite chatter in Antonioni´s film.
"Watch them in order".
Well, I already watched Red so there ya go... but, as said, I´ve seen 2 of the 3 before - even if memory don´t serve too well when it comes to them - and I know ´why´ one´s best advised going in the order of their release. Btw, back in 1996 or something, I also tried to watch Blue, but found it too much of a tearjerker and quit at about 30 mins into the thing. Of course, at that time I wasn´t much of a cinephile, either - that stuff kicked in back at around 2000-2001 when I started recording films from TV and, uhh, "collecting" them, I suppose. I´d always been big on that kinda thing, so it makes sense I only started to see more - and more - once I had kind of a table or a chart of the movies I "own". How long have you been this fairly hard-core film freak?
"I never saw him affecting your thoughts on Aronofsky or The Fountain - at all".
Why would he? As said, I didn´t hear anything new from the guy, he presented no new angle from which to approach him/it or anything - which would be the only way to make one reconsider the opinion. And besides, I also sampled parts of the film, for the purposes of our discussion, and the silliness on display far and away overrode any arguments the guy had to offer. Apparently we just differ in our respective evaluation of the film´s aesthetics and storytelling prowess; to me it´s juvenile, unimaginative New Age nonsense with all its tree hugging and the dude hovering around in a lotus position and the dude doing the Captain Willard schtick against the backdrop of a starry sky etc etc. And I really mean to put an end to this conversation here - after all, I wouldn´t want it to become another interminable Inglorious Basters debate which, as I recall, started off by my announcing that I have no intention of debating it. It´s one of those topics that seems to have come up once too often already. But it is, indeed, curious how differently people can perceive things, especially people that have otherwise serious overlappings in taste. As banal as it sounds.
"The rest of the filmography could very well achieve that purpose".
Yeah I think, quite seriously, that maybe there´d be less animosity between nations & cultures if people just watched (more) films from countries they´re prejudiced about. To see that mostly, there´s plenty more common to all of us than one´d think... It is always the Unknown that is easy to demonize, based mostly on hearsay and sometimes propaganda (from Stefan Zweig´s wonderful autobiographic book The World Of Yesterday, for instance, one can learn how deeply the French were conditioned to hate even the shadow of any German prior to World War 1 - something that seems unthinkable today... and yes, the book comes highly recommended as it paints an extremely vivid, insightful picture of the times of the author´s life, from turn of the century until his suicide in early 1941 or 42. The observation of how the Nazi regime took foothold in Germany/Austria is particularly informative).
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
That´s a bit humorousAnd perverted.
"Lolamirite"."LOL. Am I right?"
Huh?
I know ´why´ one´s best advised going in the order of their releaseAh well, that's no good. The element of surprise certainly makes Kieslowski's metaphysical connections at the end of the film far more overwhelmingly transcendent.
How long have you been this fairly hard-core film freak?I think the cinephile in me was awakened about three years ago (early 2008) but I didn't really go beyond easy American stuff (must have seen a bunch of Scorseses and Spielbergs, a couple of old classic Hollywood Westerns and romance films, and thought I'd seen practically pretty much all... yeah, pretty ignorant...) and my desire to discover classics certainly sorta died down by the end of 2008. But it wasn't until late 2009 when someone recommended Stanley Kubrick when I realised, quite simply, I didn't know sh-t about film. From then on, I can say I was seeing cinema and its capabilities for the first time; started properly with Hitchcock and didn't see the work of a foreign cinematic artist - in my film freak mode - until last year, I think (started with Ozu, if my memory serves me right). Did you use the IMDB boards back then? I was definitely inspired by some of the posters here, the ones who'd do a terrific job of defending 2001 against the naysayers (I wasn't a naysayer myself; just darn confused and looking for someone to provide some guidance) and I was wondering if you were one of them.
And I really mean to put an end to this conversation here - after all, I wouldn´t want it to become another interminable Inglorious Basters debate which, as I recall, started off by my announcing that I have no intention of debating it.I'm fine with that, actually. I don't think I can say anything you don't already know so there's hardly any point if there's no chance of some genuine discussion emerging.
Stefan Zweig´s wonderful autobiographic book The World Of YesterdayThanks for the rec; should start making a list. Do you read often btw? (Myself, I'm too busy with work/cinema to really focus on literature or anything of the sort.)
Actually, I was interrupted last night by a sudden loss of Internet connectivity - good thing I posted the stuff after each paragraph. Shall continue...
"I don´t remember it feeling unconvincing to me".
Come on, there are scenes in Pickpocket where the thief removes a wallet from guys that´re actually facing him, by sticking his hand into their shirt pockets or something. That simply cannot happen unless he hypnotizes his victims first or otherwise renders them unconscious. And since the technique seems to be very much a focus of the film... I´m not getting it. As for A Man Escaped, the comparison with Siegel´s Escape From Alcatraz means that both are decent, well made movies, but little else to me - at least the first time out.
"Quite an unsettling, psychological study of the protagonist".
Well, above all, Cache is a fierce allegory of French colonial past, its mistreatment (if you want to call wars and massacres that) of the Algerians both overseas and on the home turf. Just as Das Weisse Band, Haneke´s other undeniable success in my book, is about - although not limited to - the rise of Nazism in the early 20th century. Haneke´s main weakness though is that he´s got no sense of humor, coming across as a stern German teacher, ready to whack you over the fingers with a ruler every moment; things get occasionally very heavy handed as well as on-the-nose provocative with him. I also kinda liked Benny´s Video, but Funny Games ´07 and Piano Teacher... not so much.
"I haven´t really dived into any American filmmaker´s filmographies".
Yeah it´s the other way around with me as my familiarity with European/Asian greats remains rather spotty. Which is a good thing - something to look forward to. Talking of Yankies though, any experience/opinion about Coen brothers? Terry Gilliam (although he revoked his citizenship when GWBush was elected for the second term)? Just rewatched The Adventures Of Baron Münchhausen - whattan amazing spectacle.
"As for the "lack of emotional depth" criticism/-/ I think it´s quite irrelevant".
With Pierrot it didn´t bother me either as the deconstruction was so obviously what JLG went for - and the very artificiality was always emphasized (like those wonderful shots of them "driving" with spots of lights flashing allover, a regular kaleidoscope). Sometimes it had this great feeling it could go pretty much anywhere... and it did. Gets a good 8,5-9/10 from me (I see I still kinda like to rate things... films... I´ve done so on IMDb as well - last week I finally reached number One Thousand here. How ´bout you in these regards?)
I´ll see about the above post later.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
"LOL. Am I right?"
I´m illiterate, too. Good.
On the other hand though... Lola Mirite? Italian?
"Did you use IMDb boards back then?"
I´ve been on here as a matter of routine from something like March 2008, I think. Mostly Lynch related in the beginning; my presence on the 2001 board has been fairly continuous from early 2009 at least... don´t recall having done any particular "defending" though - it´s not like there´s a shortage of watch dogs and other fans & cinephiles (among others, a few quite visible Kubrick... well, scholars, I suppose, are active there on a regular basis. Including the overlord of probably the most exhaustive Kubrick site on the Internet). Don´t think I remember you from there, either though (you´re talking like 2010, right?)
"Started properly with Hitchcock".
Just to mention that Hitch remains the guy from whom I´ve seen by far the most films - 30, currently. Lumet, Altman, DePalma and Stiffy are all at about 20.
"I´ve seen three Brian DePalma flicks in the past few days and I´ve liked pretty much all of them".
Good that he amuses you as he does me; I wouldn´t say any of the 3 are much predictable exactly though - in my experience, it´s quite the opposite as his anarchic sensibility and lack of regard for mundane logic makes his pictures quite UNpredictable on the first viewing. A somewhat similar feeling as I described when talking of Pierrot Le Fou here... besides, I read that The Fury was the film that renewed Godard´s enthusiasm for making movies when he had some kinda inspirational crisis in the late Seventies. Unlike the co-star Cassavetes, who allegedly hated the film, he seems to have really liked it a lot. Surprise surprise. But it´s a hugely fun, energetic film of course - just as Sisters and Dressed To Kill are.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
[deleted]
Stanley Kubrick Top 5 Film (1972 Positif)
01. I Vitelloni (Federico Fellini)
02. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles)
03. La notte (Michelangelo Antonioni)
04. Kind Hearts and Coronets (Robert Hammer)
05. La Ronde (Max Ophüls)
La Notte never feels like the dream Eyes Wide Shut is constantly flirting with.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]