MovieChat Forums > bravo_bravo > Replies
bravo_bravo's Replies
p.s. This thread got me reading up a bit on Reeve's work on Superman on Wikipedia; apparently he had "based his portrayal of Clark Kent on Cary Grant in his role in 'Bringing Up Baby'." Grant happens to be one of my favorite actors and "Bringing Up Baby" one of my favorite movies. Always nice seeing a convergence of favorites.
I also read about casting director Lynn Stalmaster's efforts to get Reeve the opportunity:
[quote]Lynn Stalmaster, the casting director, put Reeve's picture and résumé on the top of the pile three separate times, only to have the producers throw it out each time. Through Stalmaster's persistent pleading, a meeting between director Richard Donner, producer Ilya Salkind, and Reeve was set in January 1977 at the Sherry Netherland Hotel on Fifth Avenue.[/quote]
So, thank you to Mr. Stalmaster.
For me, this question begins and ends with only one answer... Yes,
Christopher Reeve in Superman (1978)
The epitome of superhero for me. His Superman was a proper hero, and his Clark Kent a gentleman. It was a great call to depict masculinity with not only strength and courage, but also gentleness and vulnerability. He was superhuman *and* human, he had nerve *and* heart. And rarely if ever has devotion to your loved one been this heroic ([spoiler]What does he do when the woman he loves dies, but [i]go back in time[/i] in answer? He literally moved heaven and earth to save someone. Hard to top that.[/spoiler]). But most gutsy and genius of all is his innocence. I never saw any of the Superman sequels, but at least in the original Superman, he managed to hold on to the part of him that's pure. I admire that.
He was also the first superhero (and probably the first hero) I ever saw in movies. And from what I've read about his life, he was a great human being, too.
"Weather forecast for tonight: dark. Continued dark overnight, with widely scattered light by morning."
* * * * *
"The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it."
* * * * *
“People can't seem to get it through their heads that there is never any healing or closure. Ever. There is only a short pause before the next "horrifying" event. People forget there is such a thing as memory, and that when a wound "heals" it leaves a permanent scar that never goes away, but merely fades a little. What really ought to be said after one of these so-called tragedies is, "Let the scarring begin.”
* * * * *
"The most unfair thing about life is the way it ends. I mean, life is tough. It takes up a lot of your time. What do you get at the end of it? A Death! What’s that, a bonus? I think the life cycle is all backwards. You should die first, get it out of the way. Then you live in an old age home. You get kicked out when you’re too young, you get a gold watch, you go to work. You work forty years until you’re young enough to enjoy your retirement. You do drugs, alcohol, you party, you get ready for high school. You go to grade school, you become a kid, you play, you have no responsibilities, you become a little baby, you go back into the womb, you spend your last nine months floating …and you finish off as an orgasm.”
Glad you got your answer so quickly!
[quote]Also, I really wish there was a board to discuss movies people have forgotten the name of, because I have plenty![/quote]
You might also want to try the "I Need to Know" sub-board. That's where these types of questions often were on the old IMDb boards, anyway.
On MC, it's the first link under the "Trivia! Trivia!" section, or direct link here:
[url]https://moviechat.org/bd0000001/I-Need-To-Know[/url]
Thank you for the recommendations, brux.
Barbara Ehrenreich does great work; I haven't read any of her books but I've come across a few of her articles and it's always worthwhile.
I started Jared Diamond's "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" a while back and am still getting through it; it's pretty sobering but great.
Yeah, "The Untold History of the United States" is good, and it's the best thing Oliver Stone has done lately. I was hoping he'd bring the same lucidity and even-handedness to his take on "Snowden," but alas... maybe next time.
Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow" has been on my list, but I'd forgotten about it—thanks for reminding me of it!
And yes, "A Fine Mess" is one for right now. Yesterday, even!
I haven't read or heard anything about how they managed to get the film made, but in Australia there were two organizations that lobbied to have it reclassified, which would've effectively banned it in Australia. They weren't successful, though, according to Wikipedia; the Classification Review Board voted in favor of maintaining the original rating.
Yeah, it's rare for a film like this to be made and distributed, and I'm glad it's part of our cinema. If a film is going to tackle something as disturbing and real as child sexual abuse, it should be done seriously, with substance and a lot of care, and I think Araki succeeded there.
"Milk" is well done, just a little conventional or safe for my taste. There seems to be two sides to Van Sant, the more mainstream side that we get with films like "Milk," "Good Will Hunting," and "The Sea of Trees," and the more auteur, intimate, and experimental side with films like "Drugstore Cowboys," "My Own Private Idaho," "To Die For," and "Elephant" (that I've now also seen).
I'm partial to the latter, but "Milk" is definitely a good film. Sean Penn and Josh Brolin are also very good in it.
Ah, sorry, man, I took your "kidding" to be absolute. That one's going in the queue, too, now!
Ruth Negga is gorgeous. I haven't seen any of her movies yet, though.
Cool, another Michael Shannon grand moment! (I love his small, eccentric role in "Mud," btw.) There are some actors about whom I can just know that I enjoy them even if I haven't seen or won't see much of their work, and Shannon's one of them. Gary Oldman, Tilda Swinton, Javier Bardem, Sam Rockwell, and Philip Seymour Hoffman are some others. Awesome actors.
> > I guess I inadvertently settled on a theme of “grief and guilt following a family tragedy.”
Funny, last week I inadvertently went down the "coming-of-age young woman with mother issues [spoiler]leaves home[/spoiler]" road with "Lady Bird" and "Columbus."
> > Throughout the movies I kept thinking, “Why don’t these people get some professional help?”
I know, right? I feel like we really want to see these people get back up, and part of me just wants to reach through the screen and go, "Argh, come on, man, you can do it!"
But maybe these characters (well, at least the one in "Manchester" as I haven't seen "The Deep End of the Ocean,") are very private, inward individuals who tend to keep things to themselves, and maybe they'd be even less inclined to talk about their issues with strangers than with the people they know. Also, just speaking from my own experience knowing people who've gone through rough times, maybe they don't believe that professional help will actually help (at least if we're talking therapy, not medications), because therapists seem to only offer help with process, when what people need is someone who can personally and specifically understand what they're going through, someone who understands more of the context, because they share some of the same experience. Only friends and family who know them and the people they'd lost can do that. That's why I think it's very fortunate for Lee in "Manchester" that he has George (played by C.J. Wilson).
I love this movie, though it is draining to watch in places.
The "playing him- or herself" question is so interesting to me when it comes to actors in general; it's something I've been debating my feelings about, because it feels like a choice between valuing technical difficulty or craft, versus authenticity or honesty (and for me, a performance has to feel honest, or nothing else matters. There have been actors I've seen transform on the outside, but not bring to life the interior of their characters, their "soul," so it doesn't feel honest to me, and so I'm not impressed by their technical work, and I would've preferred that they put more into the spirit of the character instead).
These days I'm also starting to think that every actor is recognizably themselves if we watch enough of their work. Whereas I used to think that that signaled a limitation, now I think an actor's ability to make their recognizable self thrive as their character is actually what makes good actors good. So maybe it's not that they crafted something out of nothing, it's that they crafted what's truly themselves to the role, and made the symbiosis work. I used to describe these actors as "disappearing into their roles," but now I'm thinking, they didn't disappear at all. They played themselves, in a way that made us believe them in the context of their character. They and their character are both there in front of us, but we buy it that it's one person. (Oh boy, just typing that, I just saw flashes of [spoiler]Liv Ullman/Bibi Andersson[/spoiler] in Ingmar Bergman's "Persona" popping up in my head—freaky!) I think where greatness comes in, is how alive that one person seems, how much of themselves an actor channels into the character, and through to us. That's my thinking, anyway...
So I've come to judge actors by how convincing and compelling I think they are within a given role, rather than how same or different they may be from their public persona or other roles. (This also saves me from feeling like I should watch a lot of an actor's other movies that maybe I don't want to. lol)
But yeah, the "playing themselves" question remains an interesting one to me!
[quote]Manchester by the Sea (2016) - I’m not familiar enough with Casey Affleck’s work to really judge him in this role. I remember him from the “Ocean’s” movies, but that was a while ago. The reason I say this is because, for all I know, he could have been “playing himself.” It happens. But not knowing for sure, I still think he did well in this role. 7/10[/quote]
Besides this film, I've also seen Casey Affleck in "To Die For," The "Ocean's" movies, "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford," "Gone Baby Gone," "Out of the Furnace," and "Interstellar," and I'd say he does very well with this kind of role, where he plays wounded characters who internalize grief, anger or frustration, and keep things pent up because they don't know how to deal with their turmoil constructively or don't trust themselves to. They'd rather shut down, or deflect with dark humor or sarcasm.
I think his best single scene to date is in "The Assassination of Jesse James," but I love his work overall here. Since his character isn't one for talking, his performance hinders so much on his body language, and I think he conveyed a great deal with his eyes and face. Maybe he was more dynamic or overtly memorable in "Jesse James," but I think he's just as convincing here, and it's a more mature and empathetic role, as well.
(EDITED because I had referenced a scene from "Gone Baby Gone" thinking that it was in "Manchester." I don't know why I conflated the two performances. Maybe this does make a case that Affleck was playing himself! haha, man oh man...)
(continued)
Cool. One thing I always thought was great and kind of funny about those old IMDb boards was how you could reply to ancient posts by people who weren't active there anymore, and it didn't matter. It was fine. People acted like it was perfectly normal, and would jump in on any ole' conversation whether they'd ever been part of it or not. LOL I loved that.
Yeah, Moonlight won. I tend to talk like it doesn't much matter what the Academy thinks, because, well, it doesn't, to me. :)
I do still favor Manchester, have yet to see La La Land, it keeps getting pushed down on my list.
> > The political aspect is that society and our government is so different today that it gets political. I read a lot of neuroscience books. They talk about how interesting it is to discover how the brain works, but that is not what they are doing. They are finding ways to manipulate us all on a scale that we've never seen before.
Yeah, politics is pretty divisive right now. The good thing is more people are becoming more informed and more positively engaged. I think as long as that keeps up, there are ways forward.
Manipulation on a scale we've never seen before? Are there books you'd recommend, if you don't mind my asking?
> > I think there is far too much fear and violence and I believe this had had an effect on American society that is very detrimental.
My concern is there isn't enough fear to go with the violence. I think we should worry for the lives of the central characters, at least, in violent movies. It shouldn't feel like it doesn't matter if people live or die. Some movies are good at getting us emotionally invested in the central characters, and some aren't. To me it's the latter that can be detrimental. That's why I so disliked Edgar Wright's "Baby Driver," but I'll leave it at that in case you haven't seen it.
> > I like more European movies, small movies.
I like how they tend to feel more authentic, and about real people. The downside is they can be a little... maybe too quiet, as you put it, but the good ones are well worth it.
> > I admit I will go see Alien sequels and Star Wars and even Star Trek even though I don't much care for how they are handled.
They can fit my "pure imagination" definition of good. (Not as much the new Star Trek, but I liked the originals, namely "The Wrath of Khan.") Another sci-fi blockbuster that I liked recently was Bong Joon-ho's "Snowpiercer."
> > I hope with this Weinstein thing that the movie and entertainment industry will be purged of a lot of corruption.
It's about time.
> > The last movies I saw were on NetFlix, the Trip series to Spain and Italy with Rob Bryden and Steve Coogan. Those are kind of cute, and maybe too quiet. Also saw Scorsese's silence about the Christian priests in Japan in the 1600's. Not sure what to make of that, but I respect the effort a lot more than most of Scorsese's stuff which I don't like most of. I respect movies that try to deal with real things.
I haven't seen any of those yet, but I've been catching up on some of Werner Herzog's recent documentaries. I liked "Lo and Behold, Reveries of the Connected World," and "Into the Inferno" looks good...
> > I would like a small film like Manchester By The Sea, but that movie had no point really. It was depressing and did not show any growth by the central character
Yes, there's very little growth by the central character Lee. It's an interesting change from most stories, to have a protagonist who's passive, doesn't seem to even try to move forward with his life, but instead only reacts to and is pulled along by events and other people. But I think it's very realistic that way, considering his personality and what he's experienced, and I also think it's hopeful in another way: how sometimes we're redeemed by the love and compassion of others. We see Lee's ex-wife, his friend George, and his nephew Patrick all trying to help him up, and the way he responds to each of them is very much in line with the role they can play in his life.
> > ... or indeed who would care about such a character if it was not a good looking Hollywood action playing the part. The guy was a complete loser.
I think the nice thing about the multitude of actors we have, is that they can portray a wide spectrum of human personality, experience and culture. I don't think any actor can resonate the same way or at all with everyone, but I don't think they should, either, if they're being authentic, and we're being authentic.
Yeah, I see how Lee can be considered a loser, but personally I think the film did a great job humanizing him. I recognize things about him that feel true and understandable. His tendency to withdraw, his anger, his depression. His idea of coping and moving on as apparently being about the ability to walk through town, or remember where he parked his car. If we can feel something for him, I feel that's a gift that stories like these can offer us, that ability to stay connected with the part of us that's sympathetic, that can imagine and relate, that can hope something for someone. But whichever stories, movies, and actors do that for us, is different for everyone.
> > Interesting. I have gotten to the point where I don't care at all about the big production Hollywood blockbuster and action movies. I don't like the sex movies, like say "Hard Candy" or "40 Shades". Don't like comic book movies or the action movies like Borne whatever or Planet of the Apes.
I'm open to all genres on principle, haven't seen "Hard Candy" or "Fifty Shades," but basically I think film sex has to be sensual, erotic or emotional to work, *and* should serve the story in some way, but sometimes it seems like shows and movies just go for people panting on a bed to fill some time.
I don't watch many comic book and action movies because they tend to be boilerplate (same plot, same character archetypes, just different names, clothing, and maybe locations), and don't feel like they matter much. Which can be fine if they're at least entertaining, but if I don't really care about the lead character(s), I likely won't care much about the movie, either. A lot of these movies have such huge budgets that they're made by committee and go through focus groups. Or forget the focus groups—they're going straight for the built-in audience and it doesn't matter how they do it, as long as it's not that different from what's already out there. How do you get a coherent and distinct personal vision across, and a line through to characters who are memorable or who feel like authentic human beings that way? Basically, I'm not the target audience for these movies. lol
Hey, Shogun, thanks! Yeah, Oldman's awesome. I love him in
JFK
Dracula
True Romance
Leon
Immortal Beloved
The Fifth Element
the "Harry Potter" movies
Christopher Nolan's "Batman" movies
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy
and Lawless (actually think that movie needed 3x more Oldman; Tom Hardy's wonderful but that film seemed to rise to another level every time Oldman was on),
And I really need to see Meantime, Sid and Nancy, and State of Grace. Looking forward to seeing Darkest Hour sometime, too.
Cheers!
Sorry for the late reply, Holly, and thanks! I think unexpected, unscripted developments during a live broadcast that might make various people look bad in front of millions of viewers can have a strange effect on people who by profession care about their image. I do think it was an honest mistake on PWC's part.
"Moonlight" is a lovely film.
A belated thank you, Gerard. I had spent more time watching those red envelopes go around the stage than I have entire TV episodes. (And it was a bit more interesting and revealing than many TV episodes, too.)