MovieChat Forums > Los Angeles Plays Itself Discussion > Negativity is not the same as insight

Negativity is not the same as insight

posted 12 years ago by Doctor-T-
10 replies | jump to latest

WOW, THAT WAS A BUMMER. Started out really impressed with his research and how it was put together, and some good information about locations and architecture.

Then the filmmaker becomes increasingly self important, and Andersen falls into the critic's trap of mistaking negativity for insight. Halfway through the film it becomes so predictable, he talks about a film and you can just feel him struggling to come up with the "but" in which he finds some irrelevant problem so he can dismiss masterpieces as failures. He ignores what make some of these films great, and picks them apart for things they were purposely not about.

Pet peeves are fine to talk about if you realize that's what they are, but his pontifications about stuff like the abbreviation L.A. are senseless and pretentious. Get over it, EVERYone calls it L.A.

It's funny the few things he admits to liking are things he also admits aren't good, like the TV show Dragnet. He's so desperate to seem uber-cool he can admit to liking "Dragnet" but not that "Sunset Boulevard" is a masterpiece.

Oh, and no "Day of the Locust"? Really? Seriously? The obvious end of this should have been Lynch's "Mulholland Drive", the ultimate Hollywood movie, but maybe he couldn't come up with some clever dismissal.

Someone should record an alternate voiceover with more information, less sermonizing, this great assemblage of clips is too good to waste on such a downer about movies.

*
Ambient, Experimental & Neo-classical Music : http://www.myspace.com/mrdreamstream

[–] MyNeighborFanboy 12 years ago

Why the hell should he have to? Plenty has been written about why Short Cuts is a great film, what's the point of repeating it?

He's criticizing these films from a particular (and slightly tongue in cheek) fashion that's examining how they depict and utilize a certain setting, not how they function as storytelling. This is roughly similar to how certain film essays examine films from a political or philosophical viewpoint, rather than taking them film by film.

And, like an essay, this film brings up points that one can either agree with or leave behind, but all of them invite thought.

"I think it's some symbolism. It must be symbolic of JUNK."
-Mel Brooks

[–] Local Hero 9 years ago

Thank you. You seem to be the only person in this thread who actually listened and took in the tone and intent of the film. I say this not as a fanboy of the movie -- people are free to hate it as far as I'm concerned, and as you say so many different provocative points are raised along the way that it would be bizarrely coincidental to agree with them all -- but one can at least start by taking in the film for what it is, rather than getting misguidedly upset that it doesn't praise your favorite film, or agree in a facile way with your ideology, or present a light and sunny celebration of movies and the city.

These people seem to have found the film to be a downer; I find a lot of the reactions here depressing.

[–] HelloGordon 9 years ago

Thank you I wasn't the only one

I was looking forward to this documentary, and at the beginning was really interesting until he said "But what I don't like", I literally screamed at the tv "Who cares, it's not about you"

The narration was boring and monotone, which is sad because it was well researched.

[–] jpendleton6 9 years ago

Struck me more as a John Milius type which I'd never associate with left wing.

The constant references to male driven movies targeted towards male audiences. Felt like I saw a clip from every Death Wish. John Carpenter's movies were always beimg highlighted and so on.

[–] catdaddyd 9 years ago

Agree, it started out pretty good, first hour or so. Then it went down hill. I was hoping for a more this is where they filmed #%#%#% and this what it looks like today. ..

[–] themagichat 9 years ago

Well said! I share your sentiments. And ditto about Muholland Drive. Surprised (but not surprised in the end) that it wasn't included.

---------------
Do the internet a favor and proof read your posts.

[–] PatrickCurren 9 years ago

>>For example, who knew that "Chinatown" was really about...LA blacks, not Asians? <<

You think Chinatown is about "Asians"?

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] spank-my-17 8 years ago

He doesn't say anything about his overall opinions of those movies, when he critiques the depiction of a location or building within them..
I don't have a problem with distinguishing between the two things here.