The Watercooler: 5/27/08
“There are 8 million stories in the naked city…”
The word on everyone’s lips this weekend was: Indy. Believe it or not, I didn’t see it. I didn’t make a single trip to the movie theater despite having an extra day in which to do it. There were only a few movies I was interested in that I hadn’t already seen and none of them inspired me to confront the hassle of driving and parking and contending with other human beings.
Though I didn’t actually see Indy, I did get restless and read a couple of reviews only to stumble upon a couple of very large, unmarked spoilers. I’m not complaining, it was entirely my own fault for reading the reviews in the first place, but it was still pretty annoying. This is what happens when you read reviews of movies you haven’t seen.
While I didn’t make it to the cinema, I did watch Jules Dassin’s police procedural Naked City on DVD and it was pretty terrific. Today, the low-key acting and extensive use of New York location shooting probably don’t seem very remarkable, but in 1948 I can imagine it was quite a breath of fresh air compared to the usual studio bound production of the era.
Though Naked City is often included as an example of Film Noir, in my opinion Dassin’s film doesn’t fit a definition that is narrow enough to have much meaning. It’s a fairly gritty urban crime drama, but it’s told completely from the perspective of the good guys. There is no moral ambiguity, no common men caught up in plots over their heads and no femme fatale. There is never even any doubt that the police (who are all honest and upstanding) will prevail. It’s a great movie with some Noir elements, but it isn’t Film Noir.
It’s an academic distinction I suppose, but one worth arguing.
Beyond that, I spent a large part of the weekend poring over the schedule for the upcoming LA Film Festival (6/19). I’m still in the kid-in-a-candy-store mode where everything looks exciting. Since it’s impossible to see everything, I’m trying to narrow it down. This isn’t Sundance or Cannes or Toronto, but there’s a pretty interesting mix of narrative and documentary, foreign and domestic, and known and unknown films.
In the interest of the blog, I’m going to shoot for a bunch of films that already have distributors in the hope of calling your attention to things that might be on the horizon. I hope also to hit a healthy selection of foreign films, some which may never be seen or heard from again.
There will be press screenings for the films that are being shown in competition before the festival actually starts and my decisions will be simplified if they’re scheduled at a time when I can actually see them. Last year I picked pretty dismal competition entries and missed out on some good stuff. This is a mistake I’m hoping to avoid repeating. If I can see these films before the festival starts, then I can focus on the things that are already getting some festival buzz.
In the coming days I’ll go into detail about some of the things I’m hoping to see, but for now you can see the schedule for yourself at the LA Film Festival website.
I sure talk a lot for a guy who didn’t see any movies this weekend, so let me zip it and turn it over to you. Talk amongst yourselves.
Filed under: Miscellaneous
Related Posts: - Jules Dassin, Filmmaker: 1911 - 2008
- Film Noir Month: LiC meets MovieZeal in a dark alley
- National Film Registry Selections for 2007
- Noir Zeal
- 2007 L.A. Film Festival
I stayed in too this weekend, having seen Indy on Thursday (and though it’s absolutely a deflating, flawed movie, it’s had enough fun moments that I’m seeing it again with my dad and brother this Thursday).
I saw In a Lonely Place for the first time on Saturday, and I absolutely loved it. Bogart is amazing, Grahame is wonderful, the script is pretty much perfect… Loved it. On Sunday, I watched The Wild One. I bought it after seeing Indy. It was very amusing, but not much more than that.
Then yesterday (I didn’t have a long weekend, but I’m counting monday anyway) I watched Youth Without Youth. I’m still processing that one (except a blog post to surface later in the day), but one thing’s for sure: it doesn’t deserve to be as casually dismissed as it has been.
I’m jealous that you get to go to the LA film fest. As for helping you out a little with choosing: I’ve heard good things about The amazing truth about Queen Raquela from a colleage who saw it in Berlin. The filmspotting guys liked American Son, if I remember correctly. Choke is one I’d personally love to check out. I won’t be the next Fight Club, but I love Palahniuk’s cynicism. (Can you tell I’m doing this alphabetically? Time for a new paragraph)
There’s a talk with del Toro? Cool! Of course, you just know it’s going to get taken over by LOTR fans…Fear(s) of the Dark is nice, 6 black and white animated vignettes about fear. The animation is gorgeous in some of the segments, and the last segment especially is genuinely scary and funny at the same time.
Oooh, Let the Right One In is playing! I unfortunately missed it at the Rotterdam fest, but I’ve heard nothing but good things about this young vampire film.
I’d skip Wonderful Town, which is atmospheric enough but which I found to be unbearably boring. You, the Living, on the other hand, is as entertaining and funny as art-films get. And having arrived at Y, that’s it for me.
I like that they have a whole music video program. And I love that there are so many older films screening, though some of the selections puzzle me: Silverado? The Lost Boys?.
Have fun, in any case.And I’m sure we’ll experience the fest vicariously through you.
I’ve really got to agree, even though I myself have called The Naked City a “noir” in the past. It’s one of those non-noir noirs. In other words… It’s a pretender! It’s all right. I agree that its usage of real locations is fairly remarkable for its time. Dassin was great.
Saw Indy, along with seemingly 1/4 of the rest of the world. Will this thread become yet another that’s reall about that film? Time will tell.
I saw Das Boot again for the first time in a long time. This is the director’s cut. Just impeccable. This is a film that I hold dear because, seeing it at a very young age, it was, I believe, the first film that showed that there was more to life, and more to the world, than good guys versus bad guys.
Saw the HBO movie Recount. Well-acted. Kind of bland, though. I didn’t care for how narratively schematic and visually trendy it was. On the whole, though, it was worthwhile.
And I saw Robert Aldrich’s follow-up to The Dirty Dozen, finally, Too Late the Hero. Set on an isalnd in the Pacific during World War II. Michael Caine plays a sarcastic, cynical British soldier. Denholm Elliot–Marcus Brody!–plays a kind of nutty commanding officer. An interesting film; more honest in many ways than Dirty Dozen, if at least a little shrill.
The LA Film Festival looks awesome. Definitely envious.
Regarding Indy…
Well, it really depends on my mood. But I’m simply not as jazzed about fighting the crowds and having to angle for a decent seat as I was when I was an adolescent. Particularly if the company’s hot. Then you’d just like to enjoy each other and have a good time with as little hassle as possible.
I have no qualms about setting people straight in the theatre if they’re obnoxious. 99% of the time there’s no problem. But I don’t dig kids kicking the back of my seat and people hooting and hollering in my ear. I can live without that.
So y’all may see a lot of the blockbusters before I get around to them. That’s absolutely fine by me.
I was on the fence about Indy and just glancing at the general tone of your impressions and reviews (skimming more or less) it sounds like everybody has SOME reservations AT THE VERY LEAST and it appears that no one loved it outright.
Still, though…I finally saw the trailer in front of the ungodly mess that was Iron Man and I fully expected to remain stoic in front of the onslaught. But when I heard John Williams’ score I GOT CHILLS. There’s something deliciously primal about the memories that RAIDERS engenders
Speaking of which, when the hell are they going to put out RAIDERS on DVD as a single release? I don’t like the other films and I don’t want the box set.
I’m waiting…
So I’ll check it out soon enough. Even if I think it’s awful (and dollars to doughnuts that’s the likeliest scenario) it’s not the kind of movie that should be seen on DVD at home. As bad as it may very well be, it needs a proper theatrical screening.
I was away for the vast majority of the weekend and saw MY BLUEBERRY NIGHTS again on Thursday evening. (Close enough…) The bad news is that they’re dumping it. As of last Friday, the schedule switches from afternoon/evening showings to one 9:00 performance and Young@Heart moves into the afternoon/7:00 slot to alternate.
No real surprise there. The two times we’ve seen it the house was practically empty. Had an interesting convo with a very cool, stylish young woman in the washroom who, if she wasn’t the manager, was fairly high up in the hierarchy. She was the one that told me they were kicking it out.
There’s an arthouse circuit in my city - made up of a fiveplex on the west side, a grand old movie palace from the 40s on the edge of downtown and the theatre where I saw MBN, which is a fairly large single screen from the 50s in another portion of the west side. They switch films between the three houses consistently. But this girl told me that there was no hope that MBN would be able to extend its run. She said they book all offbeat and artsy fare into her theatre that they feel will be sparsely attended - or move other films over from the other theatres to complete their runs - and that’s basically where they all go to die. It’s the last gasp before DVD.
She seemed very surprised that I was THAT enthusiastic about MBN. She laughed and said, “Well, it’s the SUMMER. People don’t want to see pictures like that. They want the big films with all the flash.” I got the impression that she was aware of the realities of the marketplace (when you either run a theatre or you’re employed by one it’s a whole different ball of wax) but she seemed ultimately more resigned than accepting of all that.
So it looks like I’ll have to scramble if I want to see it one more time.
As far as the LA fest is concerned, if you haven’t seen Silverado - DON’T. Despite a decent cast, it really is awful. Lawrence Kasdan is a very good screenwriter but he’s only made one extraordinary film: BODY HEAT. Will he ever make another?
I’d like to think, even though it’s been 25 years, that it’s possible. But Silverado was truly the back end of the bus.
I enjoyed - yes, enjoyed - Indy on Thursday evening. My expectations for a somewhat entertaining if not entirely perfect adventure were met with a mostly entertaining if not entirely perfect adventure. Go for the action, stay for Harrison Ford’s impressive rebirth, and forget about the ridiculous story.
One thing cannot be debated - nobody throws a punch like Indy. I love that Spielberg recaptured those fantastic fistfights again. Probably my favorite part.
On Saturday I ended up seeing Raiders of the Lost Ark: The Adaptation. It’s a long story so I’ll just link to it again for the details, and I’ll be posting a “review” on Gfilm later. Three young guys from Mississippi spent seven of their teenage years during the 80’s creating a shot-for-shot remake of Raiders of the Lost Ark, going basically from memory (and 602 storyboards that one of them made) until it came out on VHS in the mid-80’s and they were able to study it more. Check out “The Making Of.” The whole thing was a fun childhood memory until the Alamo Drafthouse screened in 2003. They’ve been traveling the world screening it since then, and thanks to a Vanity Fair article and some contact with Spielberg, their story is now being adapted in to a feature length film. Pretty incredible story. Oh, and their version is pretty amazing, too - for teens on a $5,000 budget. Fire? Snake pit? Truck fight? Face melting? All there.
I didn’t see anything else over a pretty busy weekend, but plan on seeing Reprise tomorrow. My pace has definitely slowed in the last few weeks, which is probably healthy in more than one way.
I was having some trouble with the film fest site, Craig - probably too much traffic coming from LiC! Can it be assumed that you’re press packet-armed and ready? Congrats if so. Looking forward with envy to your reports.
Danny, I cannot wait to see “Reprise” even though I have to. Same with “Let the Right One in” Hedwig.
LA Film fest sounds great Craig, would love to see the schedule, but the site is giving me problems…
This weekend I saw “Be Kind Rewind” which I enjoyed - but I wanted so much more, then I saw “88 minutes” - let me just say that I am almost done with my review of it - my first 1 star out of five review…I hated it, and I saw “The Forbidden Kingdom” which I didn’t enjoy, and caught some documentaries, “Over he Hill,” “Bomb it,” “Stranded,” “When Clouds Clear,” “Note by Note,” “How to become a Hero.”
And of course I saw Indy on Thursday - which was great, and a perfect trip back into why I fell in love with the franchise in the first place. And my review contained no spoilers ;) Or at least, I think it didn’t. I don’t know.
And I watched “The History Boys” last night, after a two-hour season finale of Grey’s Anatomy.
Overall, it was a good weekend, never before have I focused my time on documentaries over films, but it was worth it.
Busy weekend for me but I got to see friends and catch up, so that made it well worth all the traveling I did.
We watched Last Crusade Friday night and while I still think Raiders is probably the better film in the big picture of cinema, I think I enjoyed revisiting Last Crusade more. It’s a funnier film with more character development, although I can see how that lighter tone might turn some folks off. Overall, I think my expectations of Crusade were a lot lower than Raiders, hence it didn’t have to work so hard in charming me. Plus, I’ve seen Raiders so many times that its beginning to wear on me a bit.
Now I’m very hesitant to run out and see Indy 4, as I think I’ve inadvertently put it in the awkward position of having to overcome the original trilogy. Oh well, I’m sure it will be in theaters all summer.
I also watched Standard Operating Procedure, and while I think it’s a great counterpoint to Taxi to the Dark Side and a very powerful piece of investigative work, I’m a little unnerved by the lack of context it provides. Someone predisposed to believing the party line on Iraq could watch SOP and come away thinking it was in fact a handful of bad apples that misconstrued orders and took it upon themselves to torture prisoners. Or worse, someone 20 years from now without the context of the media focus on Iraq might draw the same conclusion more innocently.
This is not to say that Errol Morris intended to draw a specific conclusion. He focuses on the photos themselves and the individuals depicted in those photos, but as is pointed in one snippet of an interview, the photos provide no context beyond what they depict and must be seen only as evidence of a moment in time. The problem is that Standard Operating Procedure provides little of that broader context.
The film does provide a chilling snapshot of the prison itself, the individuals who were ultimately tried for their crimes, and it attempts to get at the truth of what was happening in the moments before, during, and after those photos were taken.
We also watched a couple more installments of John Adams, the HBO mini-series that recently aired on the second president. Interesting mini-series with some strong acting. Giamatti, Linney, and Tom Wilkinson are all excellent.
The retread INDIANA JONES AND THE CRYSTAL SKULL was an abysmal way to spend two hours, even if your own kids are having a ball. The gags are tiresome, the characters underdeveloped and the old spark is but a distant memory. This is one series that should be put to rest. I actually agree with Russia’s communist party, even if for different reasons.
REPRISE is a provocative, brilliant first-time effort, which is suffused with Nordic angst, literary ambition and French New Wave sensibilities. Three striking lead performances, kinetic editing (which employs superb use of black and white flashbacks) a probing examination of philosophical and psychological issues, and a score written by the director, Joachim Trier (a distant relative of the great Lars Von Trier) which superby utilized New Order and Joy Division. Cleary one of the best films of the year, although purists will arge that it is a 2006 film. I just ordered the Region 2 DVD of it from amazon.uk yesterday. Craig has this pegged quite accurately last week!
The Israeli Tribecca Best Film winner of last year, MY FATHER, MY LORD is an austere tone poem about the tragic consequences of religious orthodoxy among a Rabbi and his young son. The film grapples issues with searing and quiet intensity, and both its extraordinary lead performance and the one by the child actor ring true–in many ways standing as a microcosm of the tragic consequences of any kind of inflexible behavior. Only 72 minutes, but spellbinding throughout. It’s amazing that I saw this and the aforementioned REPRISE back to back over the weekend, in the same theatre to boot. (Montclair’s Claride Cinemas)
Lastly, I was thrilled to takes my kids to a revival movie palace in Suffern, New York(the Lafayette) to see Chaplin’s CITY LIGHTS, one of my absolute favorite films of all-time. Again the final scene with Virginia Cherill uttering “You?” and “Yes, I can see now” opend the tear ducts. The kids roared with laughter at the boxing match, the bungled attempted- drowing suicide at the beginning and the antics of the drunk who alternately remmembers and forgets the Little Tramp depending on whether he is sober or intoxicated. No matter how many times you see this masterpiece, it always creeps up on you again and again. The big screen and the interactive audience added to this singular experience, and Chaplin’s own elegiac score is one of the greatest in the history of the cinema.
Joel: I share your general enthusiasm for JOHN ADAMS, and I must disagree with anumber of people who somehow felt Giamatti was inappropriate for the lead. Having said that, I felt the earlier segments were stronger than the later, unile McCullough’s pulitzer-prize winner, which was superlative throughout. Did you feel that way yourself?
I saw RECOUNT last night on HBO, and was generally caught up in that unforgettable drama of 2000 which no doubt brought many of us in, relicating some pivotal events and characters like the Florida Supreme Court decisions, and the duplicity of Secreatary of State Harris. Of course the final interference of the U.S. Supreme Courty had many of us ready to kill. A fair enough film, not particilarly enlightening, but like a “reenactment” a pertinent piece of nostalgia. The cast was adequate.
Wow, Nick. That’s a whole lotta movies.
Indy was about what I expected. Silly, plothole-heavy fun, quite flawed, but ultimately forgivable. I thought Shia La Boeuf added some freshness to the franchise. And man does Cate Blanchett have some good skin. I’d kill for those pores. No where near as good as Raiders, but an improvement over Temple of Doom, I thought. I had high nostalgia but low expectations. And really, all they have to do is play that music and it gets a bonus star from me.
Also watched The Golden Compass, which was better than I expected, but has the same problem as the book in that the basic plot/quest is pretty convoluted with a mix of physics and original sin and interdimensional travel and all kinds of things that are probably fascinating if you’re a brilliant British atheist who wants to create an alternative mythos for the wee moppets, but otherwise difficult to understand or explain, particularly if you are said wee moppet. Great visuals/art design, though, and an awfully strong cast. Pity (sort of) they probably won’t make more.
The last movie I saw over the weekend was The Devil’s Backbone. I liked it quite a bit, I must say. Not as much as Pan’s Labyrinth, but it certainly was a strong early film by Del Toro. Definitely a companion piece to Pan’s. Didn’t he say once that he had sort of a dark-supernatural-tales-of-Spanish-war-children trilogy in mind and plans to do some third movie? I can’t remember if I actually heard that or just wished it up.
And I’ve got an acute case of LAFF envy, Craig. You go live it up there for us.
Like Daniel, I enjoyed INDY 4 and his description sums it up perfectly. I went in expecting that it would be flawed but great fun, which it was. There were amazing action sequences, I enjoyed the humor and Harrison Ford is awesome. Even Shia was fine - I was expecting him to really rub me the wrong way, but he held his own just fine and was funny. I knew that it wasn’t going to be RAIDERS - I don’t think anything can be. As I commented in Alexander’s blog, in addition to that film being a superb movie in every way, it was something, like STAR WARS, that at the time we had never seen before. That moment won’t come again, not for these two series anyway.
I also finally caught THE VISITOR, which I enjoyed a lot. It was really well-done. The acting was wonderful all around, particularly Richard Jenkins, and these were characters that the audience could care about. That’s a key thing for me - even if the movie has nothing else worth seeing, if the characters draw me in and make me care about them, I don’t get too pissed off.
On DVD I caught up with a French film called DANS PARIS that was out last summer, a film about two brothers, one who is suffering from severe depression, and the effect that it’s having on his family. It’s an interesting study of a family and how they related to one another. And it’s got a terrific soundtrack.
Sam, I’m only halfway through the series having watched 4 of the 7, so I hope my enthusiasm doesn’t flag now. ; )
But I think the casting is interesting in a number of places, not the least of which is Giamatti. He seems an odd choice for the role but not knowing much about Adams the man, I’m just taking it all at face value. He seems to be doing a great job though.
Wilkinson’s Ben Franklin has been the most unexpected performance. Whether or not it’s accurate is difficult for me to say, but he’s found an interesting take on the man. It’s quite different from what I would have expected, but makes some sense.
Also cannot wait to see “The Visitor” and “Dans Paris.”
Revisited the wonderful Withnail and I over the weekend. I first saw it in 1987 as a low budget backpack tourist in London. So it works for me as both a terrific comedy and nostalgic reminder of youthful adventure.
Craig, I’m excited about tracking your journey through the upcoming film festival.
Yes, I agree. Should be fun to see your coverage this year.
None of you are doing much to convince me I need to see Indy…even those of you who liked it seem very modest in your enthusiasm. Do I really need to see a movie I never asked for in the first place that turns out to be ‘just ok’?
Hedwig. Youth Without Youth. Really glad to hear you say that. It took me a while to process it also and though I didn’t conclude that it was a masterpiece by any stretch, I still thought it was far more interesting than it was given credit for and not at all deserving of the scorn and dismissal with which it was received. How can people not get a little excited about an American master’s late career envelope pusher? I wonder sometimes if critics even like movies anymore.
As for LAFF, thanks for the tips, some of the ones you mentioned are definitely on the radar. I noticed that several films I was looking at played IFFR and I meant to ask if you caught them, but I don’t have my list at the moment.
Alexander. Like I said, the noir question is kind of a moot point and I only threw it out there for the sake of argument. I wasn’t passing commentary on the movie so much as on the extremely loose and almost meaninglessly broad definition of noir. It’s a convenient marketing term for DVD box sets, but sometimes I think the significance has been lost.
Miranda, while it might not be what the kids want, to me Blueberry Nights is a perfect summer movie. Ethereal, beautiful and simple…it leaves a lovely aftertaste without bogging you down. A glass of lemonade on an overly hot summer’s day. Perfect.
Daniel, it sounds to me like the people who did the home made Raiders are full of the creativity and sense of fun that George Lucas long ago sold to Hasbro. How did the audience you saw it with respond to it?
Nick, it sounds like your reaction to Be Kind was very similar to my own. Liked it. Admired it. Wished it had grabbed me a little more. Also sorry to hear you didn’t like Forbidden Kingdom….and I’m increasingly embarrassed to admit that I had a lot of fun with it.
Even if your Indy review had spoilers, I wouldn’t have blamed you. I take full responsibility for my stupid actions.
In the interest of breaking up the page and not putting you to sleep…I’ll continue this in a 2nd comment.
I didn’t venture out to see Indy either, Craig. This is the last week of school, so I had a little partying and a lot studying to do (or vice versa). I spent much of Sunday procrastinating, watching a mini-movie marathon (ahh alliteration).
Watched Zodiac again — it gets better each time I see it. Then The Lady Vanishes again. Watching it again made me realize just how big a rip-off Flightplan was. The ending (the tune played on a piano, Gilbert walks through the door, surprise surprise, it’s Miss Froy) always strikes me as a bit abrupt, but a lot of Hitchcock’s early films are like that (thinking Young and Innocent and, to a slighter degree, The 39 Steps). I still love it, worts and all. Finally, I saw City Lights for the first time. I was starting to nod off toward the end (my bad, not the film’s), so it’s on my list for a re-watch. Serves me right for trying to cram three movies into one night.
I’ll probably see Indy next weekend but, until then, I’m trying to avoid reviews and the spoilers lurking within.
I’d like to hear Daniel’s response to Joel’s thoughts on SOP since he had the interesting experience of hearing Morris talk about the film.
Being a documentary, I managed to skip it (heh heh) so I don’t have a frame of reference, but I remember there was more than a little controversy over Fog of War as well. I wanted Morris to really put the screws to….whatsisname….but that wasn’t his agenda at all. He just let the guy talk. It was fascinating, but a little frustrating.
I suppose Joel I should sit down now and watch the Raiders trilogy so I can agree or disagree with your thoughts on Doom and Crusade. For now, suffice it to say that we’re on opposite sides of the fence.
Ok, phone is ringing off the hook…I’ll finish up with comments in a bit…
And we’re back…
Nick, how was When Clouds Clear? It’s playing LAFF and it’s on my master list of things to see.
Sam, so glad you liked Reprise. I still haven’t been able to analyze it and add it all up for review purposes.
Most of all, I’m thrilled that you’ve exposed your kids to Chaplin and even happier that they loved it. Silent films are an acquired taste, but once you acquire it there are plenty of treasures to be found and it gives you a new appreciation for movie magic.
Jennybee, you know I could probably just sit in a darkened theater and listen to the Williams score for a couple of hours, so perhaps I need to just sack up and go to Indy. As for Golden Compass…I don’t know, maybe I should break form and just read the book? I don’t know though, I’ve heard both good and horrible things about the movie…and that cast is awfully intriguing…
Add Alison to the Indy is Good column. That’s good news about Shia. I like the guy, but I wasn’t convinced he’s right for Indy…felt like too much pandering to the young crowd. You’ve made me feel better about it though.
My favorite parts of The Visitor were the interactions between Jenkins and the Syrian guy whatsisname (too lazy to look it up)…the Syrian guy reminded me a teeny bit of Bobby Cannavale in Station Agent…playful, a little irresponsible, but charming as hell and kind of irresistable.
Sartre, wow, I don’t think I’ve seen Withnail since college. It was all the rage with the arthouse crowd.
As for LAFF, thank you all for your encouragement. I did a pretty shabby job of coverage last year but I got a lot better with AFI. This is all good practice for Toronto and Sundance and Cannes…heh heh.
I’ll try to provide daily reviews of the stuff I’ve seen. They’ll be shorter and sloppier than the usual reviews, but hopefully I’ll find some cool things to tell you about. Much of what i’m most looking forward to has already gotten coverage at Sundance and SXSW and elsewhere, but maybe I’ll have something new to say about it.
But I’m getting ahead of myself. That’s still 3 weeks away.
WJ, you’re so right about the abruptness of early Hitchcock, but damn they were a lot of fun. Glad to hear a shout out for Young and Innocent, a nice little number that you never hear people talking about.
I really need to watch Zodiac again. I saw it twice in theaters but I’ve been holding out for the damn blu ray to watch it on DVD.
Craig, one reason separate from much of what I wrote in my review for seeing Indy is that, despite the incompetence of Koepp’s screenplay, it’s a knowing film. It winks at you. It comments on blockbusters, and the expeditious nature of filmmaking in general. Iron Man is the straight-up potion of formula; Indy 4 is partly a sly editorial on that formula. It’s more of an active game with the audience, and in the age of darker, straighter blockbusters like the newer and more improved Batman franchise, those winks seem to occur less and less these days. (Though, Hancock seems like ripe material for this type of film, I doubt Akiva Goldsman and Peter Berg are up to the task. But it may be fun… perhaps.)
You mean you wanted Morris to put the screws to McNamara in Fog of War? Interesting. Somehow, though, hearing him simply talk was more chilling. That man has a lot of blood on his hands and to non-pretentiously just listen to him, it was unsettling, though I will admit that Morris allowed him to lie and obfuscate with great ease. But what can you do? A more confrontational approach may have been equally fascinating, but somehow I doubt it.
“When Clouds Clear” is okay.
That is all I can say about it right now, but I was hardly blown away.
Standard Operating Procedure could easily merit a review with an 80+ comment thread attached. Morris has a LOT going on in that doc. My concerns aside, I found his take on the notion of perception and the authority we prescribe to “photographic evidence” intriguing, to say the least. He also makes a rather broad (and some might argue somewhat obtuse) point that it’s extremely difficult to judge the events his documentary presents if you hadn’t served in Iraq under those conditions.
Further, he does an admirable job of allowing the participants to speak for themselves, whether they choose to defend their actions or not is (apparently) left to them. It is curious though that Morris’ doc does little to acknowledge any apparent chain of command, nor does he dig very deeply into the specific orders that were given to these lower rank soldiers. By leaving that out and choosing not to document more specifically how the situation arose, it implies that the events depicted lie more with the individuals than the institution they represented. In that respect, I find Morris’ documentary very troubling.
Craig, you asked me at the time precisely why I saw THE GOLDEN COMPASS (twice) and then proceeded to put it on my Top 10 list. Particularly when I’m not a fan of fantasy and rarely see movies like that.
(And there was a LOT of competition for those 10 spots last year. BELIEVE ME. When I finally realized that LA VIE EN ROSE could not remain - painful as that was - I felt like the world had ended prematurely.)
Like jennybee, I just saw TGC recently. (I’m almost finished watching the backlog of DVDs I purchased. FINALLY.) I think it really does stand up magnificently. GREAT score. Dakota Blue RIchards is a tough little girl and makes quite the cool hero. Everything looks authentic. I guess there aren’t a lot of sets. It’s mostly CGI. Sir Ian would definitely have an Oscar nomination now for providing the voice of the bear if they gave out awards for that. Unfortunately they don’t. But it’s some of the best VO work I’ve ever had the pleasure of listening to. The fight between him and the bear king is jaw dropping in the best sense of the words. So awesome it’s practically indescribable.
And Nicole…That movie star entrance of hers is worth waiting for. Her costumes are so gorgeous…and so is she. She’s elegantly wicked and very, very cold.
But it’s not like you ever listen to me, anyway.
Did you ever see THE ENGLISH PATIENT like I told you?
*shakes blonde mane*
Craig, Craig, Craig…
You silly boy…
I saw “Indy” twice, once at a press screening and once with a paying audience, and I enjoyed it both times. The paying audience seemed more detached from it, but I had fun. Yes it’s silly but so are the originals if you think about it.
I also saw “Mongol,” which I liked but felt had some problems. It will probably do well on the art house circuit when it opens next week.
The last thing I saw was “The Tracey Fragments,” which I appreciated but couldn’t quite go with fully. It’s an audacious experiment, and not bad. But the fragments don’t necessarily add up to a satisfying whole.
For those of you considering “Reprise,” see it! It’s one of my favorite 2008 films so far.
I’d recommend reading the His Dark Materials trilogy Craig - book 1 being the Golden Compass (outside US, Northern Lights). I can appreciate that the trilogy won’t work for everyone, but as an atheist (though neither British nor brilliant) and lover of literary craft I found so much to stimulate, entertain, and move me in its meld of science, spirituality, alternative reality fantasy, cautionary representation of institutionalized religion, love story, and above all else, humanist values.
The Golden Compass was a massive disappointment for me. I’m a huge fan of the His Dark Materials trilogy and I normally am not into the fantasy/kids books. They did everything in the movie wrong, especially the ending (big surprise), and they used Ian McKellan (big misake) to voice Iorek. All I kept seeing was Magneto riding on top of him. Truly bad connotations. I feel like with a character like Iorek, one who is not only a bear, but the coolest bear in the history of literature, you can’t use a well known actor to do the voice. He’s a bear, let him be a bear. Don’t turn him into a person with a voice like that. Sorry, I’m done ranting.
Nick, you sure did get to see a bunch of movies this weekend. Maybe that’ll be able to hold you off for a while. :)
I got to watch more than I expected to this weekend. Saw Indy on Wednesday and sincerely enjoyed it. Watched King Of California and Resident Evil: Extinction on DVD, neither of which were very good. KoC was a Lifetime movie disguised as a feel good indie flick. And if it weren’t for the name Milla Jovovich and Resident Evil, I wouldn’t be watching those movies. Sadly, I’m a sucker.
I also got to see Son Of Rambow last night. A fantastic movie. I loved it wholeheartedly. The actor that played Lee Carter, the blonde boy, was amazing. And he had some seriously active eyebrows. And it ended perfectly. I was hoping they wouldn’t do one of those 5 minute epilogue closers that usually are unnecessary, and they didn’t.
Craig, LAFF sounds awesome and I am, of course, quite jealous. I’m sure you’ll have lots of fun and lots of stuff to write about here.
Sartre, well said about His Dark Materials. It has so much in it, and it’s the sort of thing that would never be captured by wimpy filmmakers.
I’d agree that I think Fog of War works so well because McNamara is damning himself with his weak vindications. The difference between that and SOP is that McNamara was making the decisions and giving the orders. McNamara was not elected nor was he a military official. In many respects he is the top rung in the ladder. To compare, the individuals in SOP are the grunts in the field or the pilots dropping McNamara’s bombs.
But like McNamara, their ignorant defenses and half-hearted explanations only further convince me of their guilt. What is amazing is that they documented their behavior, willingly and happily. It is only tangently acknowledged in the doc, but this act alone points to a broader system of abuse towering above their actions.
Well, Just, I have a ton of things to see this weekend as well, even more the next weekend, and then it is the school holidays, and more then.
So, for once, I am not complaining.
I’ve not yet seen the film Justin, but l cringe every time I hear Ian’s voice issuing from Iorek in the trailer and clips. As you say his voice is too strongly representative of other fantasy characters, Gandalf and Magneto. Even more of a problem for me is that Ian can never completely disguise the cultured sophistication at his core. Iorek may speak but he is bear at its most feral. He needs more than a cultured voice playing gruff.
Yeah, sartre, I’d agree that McKellen’s casting was perfunctory to say the least but it was a small issue for me. I just couldn’t get into the movie. I thought maybe having read the books would make it all work but then I heard how folks who read the books hated it.
It did well overseas, so except more, but likely done more cheaply.
I liked Morris’ approach with McNamara too. As well as facilitating self-indictment it prompted McNamara to illustrate the exact thinking responsible for his actions and those he served or worked closely with. That helped make the group think more explicable, no matter how wrong-headed we recognize it to be. And for me, I’m not sure that more aggressively taking him to task serves any real purpose. Or, that he deserves an even greater weight of public condemnation than he already bears. Unlike the neocons he doesn’t come across as psychopathic, primarily driven by self-interest, completely incompetent and inflexible, and a cynical manipulator. For all the magnitude of his involvement in what was wrong he seemed motivated by the genuine conviction that the right decisions were being made for the right reasons. That may be a minor saving grace in light of how monumentally wrong they were, but it’s not irrelevant to me. And from memory some of the leadership scenarios described represented genuine moral dilemmas, without easy answers. I don’t mean to come across as an apolgist as I completely deploy many of his decisions and the actions he supported. But I think a complex person, as flawed as he was talented, was behind them.
“For all the magnitude of his involvement in what was wrong he seemed motivated by the genuine conviction that the right decisions were being made for the right reasons. That may be a minor saving grace in light of how monumentally wrong they were, but it’s not irrelevant to me.”
My intuition tells me that if you dug through all the layers of egotistical, self-aggrandizing, ignorant psychosis of the key players in the Bush administration, you’d find a small group of individuals who believe that they were ultimately doing the right thing. I think they all want desperately to believe their “war on terror” and the means to that end are completely and utterly justified.
Then again, Hitler was likely drinking his own cool-aid too, so I’m not sure what to make of it.
Miranda, I wasn’t so much surprised that you enjoyed it, just confused at your motivation for seeing it in the first place since you’ve acknowledged that kind of fantasy thing isn’t your cup of tea. And you’re right…I’ve totally slacked on English Patient. Lately it’s been all I can do to keep up on the new releases.
So many movies, so little time.
Sartre/Justin, perhaps I’ll start with the books, I’m not British or brilliant or any kind of “-ist” (I prefer defying easy categorization), but I do enjoy invented mythologies. Of course if I can hardly keep up with my DVD pile, will I find time to read….?
Justin, always glad to hear from another Son of Rambow fan. Lee Carter (and I say his name in my head just like Will in the movie “I’m ready to be in your movie Lee Carter!”) was terrific. Didier Revol was funny too. Good times.
Too bad about KoC though, I’d kind of had my eye on that one since it played in theaters….never quite got around to it though… As for LAFF, Boston puts on a pretty good festival itself, no?
Sartre, I think it’s safe to say the McNamara issue is a complex one without having simple good guys and bad guys…and the important thing is Morris let it be that way. Though at the time I wanted an indictment, Morris pretty much let the guy hang himself and leave it to the audience to decide.
Regarding McNamara and today’s neocons, I think The Rules of the Game is a superlative film to quote: “Everyone has their reasons.”
In the case of the neocons in particular, I’m convinced many of their reasons are based in a fundamental misreading of history, and are fueled by a wrongheaded ideology, but reasons they do have.
I’m convinced their over-riding moral argument is that it doesn’t matter who loses as long as we win, which makes it hard for me to excuse any of their crimes based on a perceived sense of righteousness on their part.
Thanks for the clarifications Joel.
Matthew I completely agree on REPRISE. I would dare say it ranks with THE VISITOR as best films of 2008 so far.
And thanks again Craig for your abundant kind words on the Chaplin expedition. Abel Gance’s masterpiece LA ROUE is the latest silent work to appear on DVD. It is a treasure and should be acquired.
I just saw La Roue about a week ago thanks to TCM. Breathtaking, Sam. As you say, it’s a real treasure.
That’s a very reasonable response to my comment, Joel. I guess the distinction I’m trying to make is one of primary motivation. I think the wrongheaded McNamara was primarily motivated by doing the best for the country. I don’t think that many neocons are primarily motivated by doing what’s best for the country. I think their primary motivation is to represent and empower the interests of the ruling elite. I’m sure some of them believe that to do so is also in the best interests of the country, but I suspect that others have instrumentally embraced the ideology that best facilitates the achievement of their and their associates interests – hence the allusion to psychopathic traits.
I see what you’re getting at. I think a melding of what we’re saying is Cheney believes he must “take the gloves off” to fight the war on terror, but to do so he needs to subvert congressional oversight and judicial checks and balances, so he strengthens the executive branch by using presidential signing statements and secret executive orders to circumvent Congress, federal statutes, and the Constitution.
I think their policies outside of the war on terror have very little to do with any notion of whats best for the country and that they are otherwise motivated entirely by greed, selfishness, and pure contempt for the little guy. Regardless, these acts in the name of “patriotism” to fight said “war on terror” are by far the most egregious and subversive things they are guilty of.
Whoops, a little behind here.
Craig, the audience for Raiders: The Adaptation was sparse (it was a 5:30 PM showing and it was screened five times throughout the day for three days) but pretty excited. Whoops here and there, stuff like “That’s great!,” some clapping. Even an attempted standing ovation for Eric Zala, who complemented a dad dressed as Indy with one of the best costumes he’s seen, and I bet he’s seen a lot. The more I’ve read about it today the more I can’t believe the story. I’ve posted more on it for those interested, but this one might live on in obscurity for a while. It’s too bad, especially with the attention paid to Rambow and BKR, to take nothing away from either of those. It’s just that this was the real thing.
I thought The Golden Compass had the best visual effects of last year and some of the most impressive of the decade. That is all.
Joel, you make a great initial point about the lack of context in SOP, along with the minimal analysis of the chain of command. Either of these may have made it a stronger documentary, but SOP as it exists still achieves what I think was Morris’ purpose, namely the conversation that has followed here. Craig alludes to the 1.5 hour+ discussion with Errol Morris that I was witness to following a screening of SOP, but I won’t take up too much more space here. I’ve written more about it on my blog and in some older threads that you might have read here. My head was spinning, needless to say. He really came out against Bush and defended the soldiers’ collective action almost to the point of absurdity, which didn’t seem to jive with the calculated objectivity of SOP.
I guess what it comes down to is that the pictures started the story, but maybe they shouldn’t have been the story, at least not in this way. Why didn’t we get more into military command structure and human nature, or, if we’re going to focus on the pictures, why their existence is more of a crime than the torture itself? I don’t know if I’m making sense.
Clearly, Errol Morris is an expert at focusing on these incredibly complex issues, and I would say that his Interrotron allows him greater access to his interviewee’s heads than any other documentarian. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that he doesn’t really attack his subjects (on camera). He achieves such an intimate level of trust with them after staring into their faces for hours on end.
Completely off topic, but I just saw Death Proof for the 3.5th time. And you know what? It still rules. And it still makes me want to yell “yeah!” and kick the air. Which, considering I really should go to bed, is prolly not a good thing.
Anyhow, to my great, great shame, I have yet to see a doc by Morris. Especially after his great “bloggish” pieces for the NYT, Fast, Cheap, and out of Control, Vernon, Florida and the Fog of War are on my to-see list, and I’m curious about Standard Operating Procedure as well.
“Though at the time I wanted an indictment, Morris pretty much let the guy hang himself and leave it to the audience to decide.”
Right, Craig, and he kind of does the same thing here - unless he’s there to persuade the audience afterwards.
As much as I tried to feel sympathy for some of these soldiers, I still struggle with the “You don’t understand unless you’re in the military” line. You’re right, I don’t understand, but just telling me that over and over doesn’t take us anywhere.
Joel, I found it interesting that he really didn’t say anything about Graner in the discussion. Could he have possibly defended that guy if he really tried? I submit that it would be impossible.
Yeah, I’m totally aware of the fact that almost all of the people that read the Philip Pullman books hated TGC. But I loved the movie and never read the novels.
Craig, it’s true I’m not a fan of fantasy BUT the hero and main character of the story is Lyra. The fact that there was a female at the centre made all the difference to me. In these fantastical adventures it’s always a boy or a group of kids that drives the story. To have a girl was quite refreshing I thought - and far more relatable for me.
Plus I thought that Nicole would make a wonderful dark hearted glamourous villain - and she did. If there was one resounding reason I went, it was definitely for Nicole.
I didn’t know sartre was an atheist.
You may not be British, sartre, but you definitely are brilliant…
Perfectly said, Joel.
I suppose Miranda, being a boy, the boy-centricness of most fantasy doesn’t stand out to me, but I can see what you’re saying. It’s not so much the monsters and mythology that puts you off, it’s that so much of it isn’t aimed at your demographic. Is that about right?
Hedwig, it’s been a while since I’ve heard a flat out burst of unrationalized enthusiasm for Death Proof. That was awesome.
Yes, Graner is the one interview Morris really needed to make sense of the bizarre human tragedy that those photos hint at. It’s frustrating that he is a bit of an enigma in the doc, considering how much the others involved ended up offering Morris in their interviews. And that also gets at one of my frustrations with the doc, that its never clear where Graner gets the authority to do all this. Clearly he and his cohorts are the scapegoats because they foolishly recorded themselves on film, but there had to be something bigger going on. At the very least, they did nothing to conceal their behavior and others far higher up the food chain were well aware of what they were doing.
I’ll hunt down your other comments and blog entries as I find the whole concept of Morris’ doc, his execution of it, and the critical response utterly fascinating.
I read Armond White’s review of the film and while I don’t agree with White’s dismissal of Morris’ doc, he makes some very strong points about what he sees wrong with it.
All smoke and mirrors, Miranda.
I’m not ruling out the possibility of liking the TGC movie adaptation (as something very different from the book), and who knows I might even be eventually won over by Sir Ian’s voice and characterization. I also know how frustrating it is for many women, and some men, that too few films center on female leads and stories outside of the most insulting and formulaic “chick flicks”. That said most Hollywood films that explicitly target men are just as appalling. The advantage male film buffs enjoy is that more men are numbered in the ranks of directors and writers of cineaste appealing films. As a result, the natural preoccupations and sensibilities of men are more likely to be represented within their work regardless of the ambition to explore generic adult themes and stories in nuanced and creative ways.
Great insight about Graner. From what I remember, Morris said they tried but were denied access to him in prison, where, ironically, I bet he’s receiving a spa treatment compared with what he doled out at AG. And to think Lynndie England can still speak sympathetically about him!
Your mention of the word “authority” is an interesting one in this place, too. Its many sources and interpretations could have been studied in the same way as the photographs.
The critical reception is hard to understand, as you could both attack and defend so many aspects of it. I came out on the positive end mostly based on the technical components, but you can open up an entirely different discussion about “reviewing” documentaries, too.
Also, since Hedwig appropriately mentions his NYT blog, you may be interested (http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/the-most-curious-thing/). He hadn’t written this post (which I haven’t yet read) when I saw the film, but he discussed his idea for it and said it would shed light on the film. Dig in if you have…a couple hours.
Yeah, I was reading some of that but thanks for the link. Ultimately I liked the doc and think there’s a lot to think about it in it.
sartre, in your last comment you most definitely hit the nail on the head. Isn’t it odd that, in the 30s and 40s, when women had relatively little power as compared to now, the studios fell all over themselves to create great roles for them and there were just as many bankable female stars as men?
Now that women are supposedly liberated (books even speak of this century as a “post feminist” landscape) there are, of course, still parts for women. THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE. But they don’t appear to be in great numbers and some of those roles are not very challenging or good. You could actually say many of them are quite generic: mothers, grandmothers, the hero’s love interest. etc.
You’re absolutely right, sartre. But I suppose the only way the industry will ever change is if box office is affected. If they can hit their targets without doing anything, then I suppose they don’t feel that they have to.
Craig, I probably didn’t explain that adequately.
I don’t hate fantasy. I’ll see anything if I find something compelling about it. I saw STARDUST twice last summer and really enjoyed it. But, as genres, I don’t GENERALLY find sci fi, horror or fantasy very appealing.
I own 2001, STAR WARS and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. I suppose the only horror flick I’ve got at home is THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. I don’t think I even own any fantasy. Pretty much all I’ve got are dramas, comedies, musicals and thrillers - with a few action films scattered around here and there. I’ve also a number of French movies.
I’m not put off by boy centred stuff. What I’m trying to say is that I’ll see anything if it catches my interest. But fantasy doesn’t necessarily get me to rush to the theatre. For example, I genuinely did want to see TGC because DANIEL CRAIG was in it. But his part was much smaller than I realized going in the first time and that’s likely why I never really made him part of the discussions regarding that film.
Hope this clarifies…
I’m sure Craig won’t approach people at the LAFF as subtly as Jeff Wells does:
After the press conference I asked Kaufman and then producer Anthony Bregman if I could be sent a copy of this speech to give HE readers a taste of what’s really good and special about the film, and Bregman said, “Do you have a card?” No, I’m cardless, I said, but you can easily send me the dialogue through the website. I knew then and there I’d never hear from him.
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2008/05/synecdoche_baby.php
So Craig, don’t take a card with you, cos you have a website.
Miranda, I think you explained it just fine, I was trying to put more words into your mouth than would fit. Like most people, you like what you like and you know it when you see it, genres are only surface descriptions of movies.
Christian. One day if I’m ever that cool, you have permission to punch me in the balls.
Did you read Bregman’s post to Wells there? Body Slam!
I skipped the whole post for fear of even the slightest Synecdoche spoilers….but I shall read the comments now.
ahahahah…that was good. Still not reading the review though. I saw something about Kaufman being a neg-head (newsflash) and checked out.
hmm son of rambo….all the funny bits in the trailer seemed nowhere as funny with in the film. editing got to love it…
some kid…literally kid something lioke 10 or so had the movie poster with me.
how did i know ??? after the movie he was looking at it/pointing and talking to his parents(???)
weird most of the audience looked old enough to have seen the ealier rambos in the theatre.
i don’t know if this movie was what they expected…
hmm at least it wasn’t iron man. and that’s all you can ask the summer season…
and you know i have no interest in indy j.