Insipid defined to me is referring to an outright "myriad" (nice word, you pretentious jacka*s) of mischaracterizations in my post and then proceeding to write half your post about CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS which I did not characterize nor analyze at all, and using the other half to type extra question marks and thereby underscore your astounded self-righteous confusion. Your inability to recall your central point and actually describe a single mischaracterization thus enlightened (perhaps you meant to stick solely to my stupidity and thereby confirm your own), your judgment here is clearly in question. If your final sentence had any weight at all, it was emptied by the evidently finite nature of your ability to produce said thoughts, such that what is infinitely thought-provoking to you must, to everyone else, be immediately suspicious.
That said, my comments were positive about the film that I did analyze, and I agree that FOG is thought provoking. The primary thought it provoked in my head was: "Almost." If this was not clear enough in my post, forgive me my trespasses as we forgive those... err, maybe not. Who really cares whether I was clear enough? Make of it what you will.
To answer the actual relevant substance of your harangue, the 'fluke' of the interview did not come about when "hard hitting Errol questions forced McNamara into revealing unprecedented stuff," as you seem to suggest (thereby erroneously characterizing it as the complete opposite of a fluke), but in McNamara _agreeing_ to do the interview even after he was warned by a friend that Errol was "not someone I would want to talk to." This information was relayed to the audience by the director, so perhaps it is considered somewhat privileged, but all the more reason for the likes of jwashma to bite their tongues when they don't know wherefore they speak. Yes, Errol had to set up the interview and ask good questions; yes, Errol seems to be in charge of the show; and no, interviews are not suddenly solo performance pieces.
I don't doubt that given the opportunity Errol would have made the most of it and gotten a better interview and made a great film. By all accounts it seems evident that McNamara gave more of an opportunity for this than anyone, including Errol, and maybe McNamara, himself, expected. But he also remained closed in important ways. Is the result revealing? Of course. Is the result provocative? Sure. Is the result revealing and provocative enough to be esteemed as a first-class piece of work? No.
That was my point and I think it's not that difficult to understand if you watched the film closely. On some level Errol himself must understand this flaw because he had to negotiate the wall he eventually came up against in the interview in order to make the film appear whole. The way that he did this (by letting the audience see the wall McNamara ultimately put up) cannot satisfy him as solid way to tie up loose ends. It may be coherent, but it is a sham veneer of resolution. By apologizing for this in order to promote the greatness of this work one is basically saying: "Errol deserves praise and support because he's worked hard and makes better stuff than the next guy, so it doesn't matter what standard we hold ourselves to, what standard he holds himself to; as long as it's 'thought-provoking,' bring it on!" (No reference to W there intended)
Finally, in reference to your straw-man about what I meant Errol to do differently, you had to guess the meaning because I never said anything about what Errol should have done. It was Errol's film; I can't pretend to know that he could have done anything. Maybe he made the best film he could have possibly made, I really have no idea. What I mean to say is that part of filmmaking is picking the terrain on which you will fight, not just fighting the battle honorably. This is a pretty simple idea, and in this case I'm suggesting that Errol needed some additional terrain to make a complete film without a copout ending. What the terrain should have been or where he was to find it I'm not highfalutin or ignorant enough to suggest.
I like movies that work on any level. Secondarily, I want to see the director challenging the limits of his or her capabilities. I thoroughly enjoy watching half decent films like FOG. But great movies work on many levels--in THE FOG OF WAR, you are not looking at that kind of transcendence.
.
reply
share