The Watercooler: 6/23/08
By Craig Kennedy - June 23rd, 2008; 12:52 am
It’s Watercooler time, but I’m afraid I don’t have much to start it off. At LiC it was all LAFF all the time this weekend and there was no time for new releases.
It looks like The Love Guru would’ve stiffed even if I had seen it though. Did anyone see it? Was it as bad as it looked?
Come on. Fill a brother in on what happened over the weekend in the real world. In the mean time, stay tuned for another LAFF dispatch later today.
Filed under: Miscellaneous
Related Posts: - The Watercooler: 8/25/08
- Muriel is Coming…
- La France
- The Watercooler: 6/30/08
- The Watercooler: 11/3/08
It’s like finding ourselves left alone overnight in the toy store with you absent, Craig. You’d think we could entertain ourselves with the usual fun stuff all around us, but we’re nuthin’ but a bunch of wet Mogwais without our Gizmo when you’re gone.
What Ryan said….and, I have seen almost nothing this weekend.
Saw Get Smart…why? It was free.
Then saw “Married Life” with peeps that had not seen it, and they were bored and I was forced to write a review.
Still did not get to see “Son of Man” liked I wanted to, maybe Wednesday or something.
My schedule {I have a schedule now} is unnaturally full for the next few weeks, what with me seeing “Wanted” tomorrow, and then “Choke” either this week or the next, if the bitches don’t change the preview date. Whatever, none of those films are American Teen, so I don’t care.
Been downloading quite a few things, will watch them and review them soonish.
My own moviegoing this weekend included the viewing of two films and a early-summer cartoon festival at a movie palace in Rockland County, New York.
I saw CHRIS AND DON: A LOVE STORY on Saturday night at the Quad. This affectionate and well-crafted consideration of the partnership between Christopher ‘Cabaret” Isherwood and Don Bachardy, in spite of their thirty year age-difference, is presented with insightful interviews (directed John Boorman plays a major role here as a good friend) re-enactments, voiceovers of Isherwood’s diaries, archival footage and a creative use of drawings and animation. In the end, a story of lasting affection, loyalty and longevity. (Isherwood died at the age of 80 of prostate cancer.) Co-directors Guido Santo and Tina Mascara have collaborated on a documentary that stands among the best of 2008.
I finally saw ROMAN DE GARE last night at the Cinema Village. I must cast my lot with Craig on this stylish and nifty thriller, even if it may seem convoluted at a few junctures. The story pulls you in, and makes excellent use of the various locations, cosmopolitan music and deft direction. It is breezy, but no less challenging, as its unassuming narrative slant eventually yields to some shocking twists in the final scenes. This will definitely take its place among Lelouch’s finest efforts. Excellent performances by the principals.
An eleven-item hodgepodge of Looney Tunes, Popeye, Tom and Jerry, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, and The Three Stooges as a final Saturday morning offering at a movie-palce long committed to classic programing, was a treat for my entire family. The offerings were dliberately of the more “obscure” variety, allowing us to see things that we don’t own on out Warner Brothers Looney Tunes DVD collections, and to see them the way they were meant to be seen. The best news of all was the announcement by the program’s coordinator that the seixth annual season of the classic film series would commence in September! The kids really had a ball.
I would love to hear that wrap-up report on the festival Craig, several items have piqued our interest. Your rare absense from the movie theatre scene this weekend was well-justified. Few people get the opportunity that you did.
Nick, I’m pretty jealous that you’re getting to screen Choke. I can’t wait for that. I look forward to hearing what you have to say about it.
As for me, I saw The Incredible Hulk (lots of fun action), Get Smart (lots of laughs), and Falling Down (for the first time). I enjoyed all of them and only had to pay for one, which is always a plus.
It’s been a while since I posted on The Watercooler, so I thought I’d mention that I finally got to see 2001 in theaters a couple weeks ago. It was one thing my Dad had done way back when and I was always jealous of him. Seeing it on the big screen was an amazing experience and if anyone ever gets a chance to, do it!
Ah, Falling Down. I was seriously just thinking about that movie this morning. Weird. Must be the summer heat.
And I missed at 70 MM print of 2001 about a month ago. Dang it.
Craig, here’s the news: LAFF was the best thing playing all weekend - in LA or elsewhere. I saw Kung Fu Panda again. Still enjoyable, but not as surprisingly enjoyable the second time. Jokes worked the second time, too.
Sam, I agree that the acting in RdG was a large part of the reason the twists and story worked so well.
Will see Surfwise tonight - and maybe, against all logic and common sense, Get Smart, too…
Sam and Justin, between classic cartoons and 2001 on the big screen I’d say I envy both of you the most. Sounds great.
Thankfully for me I was able to occasionally check in on LIC this weekend (even if the Holiday Inn’s free wi-fi is fickle master). We got to a late screening of Indy last night and I already commented on that one on the review page, so that’s all I got.
Yes indeed, Daniel, the acting was pretty extraordinary, especially for that kind of films, which veers off in different directions with so many sub-plots. Agreed.
Thanks Joel, our brood was waiting for months on that venue. I guess nearly all of us are waiting for next week’s opening of WALL-E……it does seem that one is really bringing everyone on board, even those skeptical with the animation genre.
I saw nothing, did nothing cinematic, and basically watched soccer. Boring, boring me. :)
I saw “The Hunger” yesterday. What a strange, strange film…but I sorta kinda enjoyed it (feel almost ashamed of admitting that, oddly. Tony Scott’s definitely gone for style over substance from the beginnning…but is that really so bad?).
Also, let’s not mention soccer. Please.
Saturday to was too beautiful here to spend it in a movie theater, so I spent it in my Mom’s pool instead. :-)
Got in about a half-hour of swim time on Sunday too but then it started lightning and thundering.
There were no good movies to go out and see in her neighborhood. Get Smart and The Love Guru were the only two movies playing at the multiplex that we hadn’t already seen - no thanks. And Mongol was playing at the arthouse, but I really don’t have much interest in it. So we stayed home and watched movies she already owns - a Disney festival of the original animated 101 Dalmatians and Lady and the Tramp. I especially adore the second one. That Peggy Lee was something else, wasn’t she.
On Sunday, after being kicked out of the pool by a massive thunderstorm, we watched Singing in the Rain for the millionth time. It never gets old. Gene Kelly, Donald O’Connor, Cyd Charisse, Jean Hagen - they will all be missed, but they left us with stunning entertainment before they were gone.
Firstly, Sam, that’s great about seeing Roman de Gare. The more I think about it, the more I like it (I saw it about three weeks ago). It’s a tasty, breezy thriller and I do agree it’s in the upper echelon of Lelouch’s filmography. Just a really intelligent, challenging but quite fun thriller.
Friday, I saw Mongol at the cinema, for which I wrote a review at CCC. Then saw Dirty Harry again at home.
Saturday, watched Blue Velvet again, Five Miles to Midnight with Sofia Loren and Anthony Perkins for the first time, The Key with William Holden and Sofia Loren for the first time and Beat the Devil again, John Huston’s “cult classic” and last collaboration with Humphrey Bogart.
Sunday, watched Godard’s Band of Outsiders again (my favorite Godard, and I love the scene Chuck pointed towards here a few days ago, the dance sequence of the Madison), Masculin Feminine again, and then I saw this Australian 2002 satirical noir called The Hard Word with Guy Pearce, which was rather entertaining and interesting, and then this small Italian gangster film from 1970 starring John Cassavetes, Machine Gun McCain.
I’d be scared to see Kung Fu Panda again, Daniel, since I doubt it would get me as well a second time as the first. I’d rather just leave at one viewing, at least for now…
All in all, a very cinematically eventful weekend.
I know it’s kind of off-topic, but, because of all the viral marketing for The Dark Knight, I feel like it should be coming out right now. Those Gotham City News broadcasts, that are about ten minutes apiece, are good fun. Thanks, Comcast. The people behind the marketing for this film have found startling ways in which to make many a person psyched for it. I usually dislike The History Channel, but even their special about Batman looks unusually interesting.
Hey there all. Just getting caught up on a bunch of stuff before I get to writing about LAFF Day 4. Suffice it to say for now that Sunday was a stellar day. I’ll have more later on Man on Wire, Visual Accoustics, Largo and Prince of Broadway all ranging from good to great.
Just a quick question before I’m off…I see Alexander saw Dirty Harry. What’d you think? I rented it last weekend and was happy to see it held up really well for me.
Hedwig. I haven’t seen Hunger for years, but it’s a classic in its own right. One of a very few Tony Scott movies I’d ever want to see again.
Justin. Good to see you take time out from music for some movies! Welcome back.
More later.
Dirty Harry (1971) definitely holds up, Craig. The direction by Siegel is taut and Eastwood’s performance is still something of a wonderment, making the borderline rogue cop into a fully formed being. His response to Chico’s wife about why he remains a cop–”I don’t know, I really don’t,” for instance still packs a good punch.
Also love that the street I live right off of–Sir Francis Drake Boulevard–gets a big mention! Yeah! But Scorpio wants to get to the Santa Rosa Airport? Um, that’s about another hour’s drive northbound on 101, my sick friend.
I don’t think one needs to feel apologetic for enjoying The Hunger. It’s excellent entertainment, stylistic eye candy, and super cool. I can readily evoke its imagery, music, and dialogue:
- John Blaylock: “Forever…?”
- Miriam Blaylock: ” …and ever.”
And in line with this quote, the story is not without substance. Exploring the timeless ideals of romantic love rubbing up against our mortal time clocks.
Another Scott film is one of my all time favorite pure entertainments -> True Romance. I’ve never understood the tendency among cinephiles to go out of their way to dismiss and ridicule the guy as a hack.
Over the weekend we watched The Royal Tenenbaums. Still my favorite Wes Anderson film, and that’s saying something. Gene Hackman’s performance was genius.
Must be tough standing in Ridley’s shadow, but The Hunger and True Romance are two ultra-cool movies.
Sizing up a new aquaintance, their ability to identify the source of “Okey dokey doggy daddy” is a litmus test I use to measure movie IQ ;-)
” guess nearly all of us are waiting for next week’s opening of WALL-E”
Well Sam, all you US people are going to be seeing it this weekend, me, I have to wait until 11 July.
Yeah, I’m feeling sorry for myself.
Yep, Wall-E is the one I’m waiting for.
WALL-E and Christian BAL-E
Nick: I know one day you will be residing on these shores.
I “think” that’s a good thing! LOL!
Hang tight while we make the wilderness safe for Progressives, Nick. Won’t be long now.
Thanks for covering my back, doggy daddy.
Nick, as the resident LiC summer blockbuster grouch I am completely indifferent to the Wall-E opening. It looks excessively cutesy to me in the trailers. However, never say never. I’m open to developing enthusiasm if y’all rave about it.
We can always refer him to the Twin Cities!
sartre: I originally felt the way you now do about WAL-E, but I have been convinced by a number of hysterical people, both young and old. LOL!
All joking aside though, the advance work is nothing less than spectacular. The proof will be in the pudding.
No Sam, California is the place he ought to be. More particularly, San Francisco. He can wear flowers in his hair, read Kerouac and London, and accompany man mountain Alexander to the Castro theater.
One thing I know for sure Sam, those kids of yours are going to love Wall-E.
How coincidental, I just watched True Romance last night. It’s one of my wife’s favorite movies and she’s sick, so it helped to cheer her up a bit.
When Clarence gets home from “visiting” Drexl, and Alabama is in tears, is one of my favorite moments in that movie. “That’s just so romantic.” Best, most unexpected line ever.
I am really looking forward to Wall-E. It looks like a classic in the making, hearkening back to the cartoons of old. The ones that were actually made for adults. Can’t wait.
That’s a fun and character illuminating moment in the film Justin, and as you say completely unexpected the first time around. The sequence between Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper is an acting masterclass, and as an emotionally charged marker of female empowerment over male arrogance nothing much tops Alabama’s victory over Gandolfini’s hitman.
I’m sure I will be living it up with the best of you in no time :) As long as I get to see the good stuff earlier rather than later, don’t mind the location.
It’s just odd because there have been no press screenings of it at all; yet last Thursday I saw Hancock, tomorrow I am seeing Wanted, and sometime next week or the week after that, Hell Boy, none of them I am excited for, not in the least bit. Maybe if I act indifferent towards Wall-E, my luck will change…
LOL on that San Fran scenario for Nicholas, sartre!!!!!
and indeed, the kids are already talking about that robot just about every day! I do think it is odd and unfortunate that there haven’t been any press screenings down by Nicholas, what with all the hoopla surrounding the film.
As always sartre, your’s and Justin’s illuminations on TRUE ROMANCE are always fascinating.
You know you’re welcome here, Nick, despite the Grand ‘Ole Party’s party in two months.
Not to get too off topic here, but I’m either cynical or ignorant. There are a lot of concerns in St. Paul about protests against the Bush administration. Why? Isn’t it a little late?
I guess some people still have a small problem with war crimes, erosion of civil liberties, profound mismanagement of the economy, protection of special interests, neglect of the environment, denigration of America’s status among allies and neutrals, and every other manner of venality and stupidity.
I agree Daniel, it seems way too late.
And what real chance does McCain have of carrying Minnesota, unless he chooses Pawlenty as his running mate? Even then nothing is certain.
I’m carving out time from LAFF for Wall-E on Friday. Enough said.
Don’t worry, sartre. Those complainers will soon be squelched. I believe the new term is “managed democracy”.
Alison, I looked the term up and found a review for a book by Wolin in which he “portrays a country where citizens are politically uninterested and submissive–and where elites are eager to keep them that way. At best the nation has become a “managed democracy” where the public is shepherded, not sovereign. At worst it is a place where corporate power no longer answers to state controls.”
By the way, Daniel and Sam I don’t think you’re cynical or ignorant to think its too late for such protest. It’s a very understandable reaction with regards where best to direct ones present energy. But I can’t help think the current bozos are getting off too lightly in the face of such profoundly destructive and corrupt actions.
I’ve heard of that book, sartre, though I haven’t read it yet. But that paragraph accurately sums up what I (and many others) have been observing for some time now.
I’m profoundly pessimistic.
Always look on the bright side of life, Alison :-)
well said sartre—it would be hard to dispute those perceptions.
Damn, sartre, now that song is going to be in my head.
:-)
Due to the number of times it’s been referenced the last couple weeks in anticipation of The Happening, I checked out Lady in the Water from the library and watched it last night. Here’s some of my (long-winded) thoughts on it:
Lady in the Water isn’t so much a bad film as a film that does not equal the sum of its parts. The opening animation is simple and sets the right tone for the film that follows. The sets and cinematography are incredible, evoking (probably intentionally) some of the atmosphere of Rear Window. I wasn’t surprised to find that Christopher Doyle was the d.p. While the fact that Shyamalan cast himself in a pivotal part from his script is self-indulgent and even narcissistic, I didn’t find anything particularly wrong with his performance. He’s really not a bad actor – turning in understated performances here and in Signs. The lead role couldn’t have better suited Paul Giamatti and Bryce Dallas Howard is appropriately ethereal. Poor Jeffrey Wright, as always, is underused.
However, the film never feels cohesive; it never converges on one theme or one compelling moment. A lot of the scenes–the pool party, for instance–could have been more suspenseful. And some of them seem downright silly. The film critic’s death scene was the best example of this. It had nothing to do with the rest of the film and its gleeful tone plunged the rest of the last half hour off course. The things Shyamalan got right should have made for a satisfying film, but the flimsy script and slipshod editing made all the good elements look like window dressing. If a talented script doctor and an economical editor had been on the project, I think we’d have a near-masterpiece. But that’s kind of like saying if George Bush didn’t invade Iraq, he would’ve been a good president, isn’t it?
I chalk this up as a noble failure. I don’t have the desire to ever see it again, but it’s not as serious a disaster as most are calling it (nothing really ever is–well, other than Bush’s War). Other than that, we had beautiful weather that wasn’t conducive to movie-going. Three cheers for global warming!
BTW, there’s an interesting article in the NY Times about Wall-E: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/movies/22onst.html
A lot of it is old hat about Pixar’s status as the rogue, risk-taking studio, but it also features some interesting details about the plot (without spoiling too much) that are new to me. It sounds pretty deep, even for Pixar. I can’t wait.
I enjoyed Lady in the Water for the children’s tale that it is. I really got into Paul Giamatti having to go door to door to piece things together.
As long as we’re talking about films that I love and other people dislike AND Tony Scott, I think Man on Fire is a masterpiece, and Domino is a very original and effective anti-biopic.
I hate what you said, K., but I love that you said it.
I think The Hours is awful, and I think True Lies was the last great good guy/bad guy/buddy comedy action movie.
Wow, it took me a moment to “get” what you meant by saying you thought The Hours was awful, Daniel. I kept thinking, “Where did The Hours come from in this discussion?” Then, five seconds later I finally understood what you meant. Good one.
I’ll take the more predictable position by saying I typically find Tony Scott very irritating. His style, for what it is, can be fleetingly interesting in small doses, but his movies tend to feel like listening to a very mediocre but highly energetic heavy metal band. The Hunger and True Romance are his highlights in my eyes, and Crimson Tide was less abrasive than his average outing.
The fact that he’s in the process of remaking Taking the Pelham 123 with Denzel Washington as the central character, and supposedly will remake Walter Hill’s The Warriors after that… Oh dear.
I really like True Romance too. I had an “introduction to Tarantino” evening with my mom not too long ago, and I showed two scenes from it: the opening one (because I feel Tarantino put a lot of himself in Clarence, especially in that beginning), and of course the brilliant Dennis Hopper/ Christopher Walken one.
It’s always nice to see the cleavage lines of movie criticism. Personally I can’t think of many films in the last five years that I’ve hated more than Man on Fire; Domino, on the other hand, is a movie too pathetic and garbled to really muster much strong emotion about in the first place. I feel like the Tony Scott style is born out of extreme insecurity and panic - if he doesn’t have something shiny happening every other second he thinks he’ll lose the audience (ditto Michael Bay). However, I like The Hunger and Enemy of the State.
After all my bitching an moaning, the Wall*E press screening here is on the 1st of July, so I wont have to wait forever after all.
Hehe, sorry for the bizarre tangent, Alexander. I just saw an opening to make an outrageous statement and went for it.
I still am having difficulty figuring out what you are saying in regards to THE HOURS? Was that comment tongue-in-cheek, or literal? I am walking around in a fog today………I am a fan of THE HOURS so this statement is startling……….if you get a chance explain……..LOL.
Unfortunately, Sam, it was literal!
K said “As long as we’re talking about films that I love and other people dislike “, and I piggybacked on that, except I reversed it. I dislike a movie that other people love - The Hours. I saw it in the theater and appreciated its scope and range, but I found it forgettable and now unwatchable on repeated viewings. Don’t even get me started on Nicole Kidman’s nose!
It was stretch, to be sure, and had nothing to do with Tony Scott. Sorry for the confusion!
I love “The Hours.”
Of course Domino is garbled. The story is supposed to be incoherent. It’s a story fueled on mescaline being told to get a rise out of a cop. It’s a lie stitched together from bits and pieces of memory and pop culture detritus. That’s true of most biopics, but this one is open about the essential fictitiousness of the exercise.
I’m suprised lefties don’t like Man on Fire more. Fundamentally, it’s a story about an American man of violence resorts to self-righteous killing when approaching a foreign system that his frame of reference can’t compute.
I watched True Romance recently and the funny thing about it was it felt like a Tarantino knock-off, though probably a better way to look at it is proto-Tarantino. So many of the tropes were there, but they didn’t seem fully formed or expressed.
Rather than piling on The Hours or Domino, I’m trying to think of a different movie much beloved but not by me…
…ok, I can’t think of one so let’s go back to The Hours. Am I the only one who couldn’t stand Phillip Glass’s score? Sometimes that guy works for me, but other times it’s fingernails on a chalkboard.
WJ. “I chalk this up as a noble failure” You almost make me curious to see Lady in Water just with that sentence. I’m so tired of the Hulks and the Iron Mans and the summer status quo that it’s refreshing to see someone swing for the fences even if they strike out. Show me something. Anything. Try to move me, not medicate me.
Other than True Romance and to a lesser extent, Crimson Tide, I either dislike or hate pretty much every thing else that Tony Scott has done. Sorry, K. I used to like the Hunger but I revisited it a few years ago and found my esteem for it significantly diminished. I used to like Top Gun for what it was but I’ve come to realize it’s actually pretty poorly slapped together now.
The trailer for Man on Fire was much better than the movie. It highlights Scott’s ability to combine music with a series of beautiful moving images. The movie was about 140 minutes too long.
I also respect the man for helping to bring The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford to the big screen, although I wonder if he was one of the stumbling blocks Dominik later encountered in getting his vision to the big screen. I’m not sure if Dominik’s issues were solely with his distributors or the production company as well.
K. Bowen, what you said is exactly why I hate Man on Fire (the fact that it’s a movie about an American who decides that torturing brown people is a good idea, released at the same time that Abu Ghraib came to light, is also why).
You seem to think that the movie is critical of what Creasy does. It seems pretty clear to me that the movie is a full-fledged cheering endorsement of his actions. Likewise, somebody should have told Tony Scott that Domino was about what you said it was about.
Oh, I also dislike The Hours, so there’s one more.
for jellyfish Page
hmm yeah i was the fifth person to vote for this. and you can see the score i gave it too. :)
Interesting you raise the Tarantino angle Craig. Because ‘so many of the tropes were there, but they didn’t seem fully formed or expressed’ is how I experience Tarantino’s own post-Jackie Brown work. He went from a must-see in the theater director for me to a wait for the DVD one (and possibly after Death Proof I’ll not bother at all). His early films were so cool, fresh, inventive, cleverly structured, and filled with brilliantly funny and intelligently crafted dialogue. He also had a knack for shaping wonderful performances. Jackie Brown suggested he was starting to evolve as an artist. And then nothing for years followed by a series of homages to/parodies of trash genres. I could never find anything substantial in even Tarantino’s best work in terms of messages or social commentary but that was never a problem when it was such intelligent and innovative entertainment. But his fetishizing of trash that I never found entertaining and artful in the first place, and doing so without being fully on his game, makes for a remarkably empty experience. He’s always going to produce sequences and moments of dazzle, and offer up some kick ass funny dialogue but these oases don’t make up for what I’m finding increasingly arid interludes between them. I think he’s lost his mojo and originality, but I know many whose opinions I respect think otherwise.
sartre: You can definitely count me in on your present disdain for Mr. Tarantino. His artistic output has pretty much been spent at this point. I love the way yourdescribe his decent from vivacious film auteur to adequate entertainer, to eventual purveyor of commercial junk. Those early films have been emulated by a number of others, but his subsequent works have been an endless rehash of the same motifs. Tarantino is no longer someone to look for, and indeed as you aptly pose: “he has lost his mojo and orginality.”
Can I jump in at the defense of Death Proof, at the very least? It wasn’t so much a return to form as an evolution, a new step. Like Kill Bill (pts. I and II), it was dismissed by many as cinematic wankery, but while I’ll conceed the point on KB (I recently rewatched both parts, and while there are moments of brilliance, it’s incredibly self-indulgent - not to mention fanboy/girl-indulgent), Death Proof, for me, is a different creature altogether.
Death Proof is, simply put, a brilliant genre deconstruction, and especially in the shorter, Grindhouse version, it shows a masterful control of tone and also a capacity to manipulate the audience that’s quite impressive. The thing is, Tarantino doesn’t pull at our emotions, at least not at our empathy, like master manipulators like Spielberg do. No: instead, he first makes us feel comfortable with the protagonists, hanging out with them, even getting annoyed with them and growing just a little impatient… and then, BAM. Three times, just because we asked for it.
In many ways, DP is an experimental film. It’s in two parts, with only one character to connect the two. Aside from that character, there’s aren’t any really big “name” stars. It’s unlike anything out there….and yet, the most diverse people, from my dad to my rom-com loving friend, like it, albeit all for different reasons.
But you know, maybe the best testament to DP I can give is this: I’ve seen it 4.5 times now, I think, and I still notice new things, and more importantly, it still makes me think. I might overthink it, give Tarantino more credit than he deserves….but I think it’s all too easily dismissed.
True, like many people, Tarantino was one of the filmmakers who made me a cinephile, and turning into a true cinephile made me realize Tarantino wasn’t as extraordinary as I thought. But DP convinced me it’s worth fighting the backlash.
I’ll grant you that Kill Bill is completely self-indulgent and/or fanboy/girl wankery, but many, if not all, the best directors out there have indulged themselves with a film or two here or there.
I don’t see anything wrong with that and I don’t think Deathproof was entirely self-indulgent. Grindhouse as a whole was fairly self-indulgent, but Deathproof actually had something to say. Or it tried.
Can we call it a ’stylish romp’ or must it be degraded into ’self-indulgent wankery’? Or are they ultimately the same things, just depending on whether you liked them or not?
While I’m not confident DP did anything as momentous as deconstructing the genre, I join you in defending the film, Hedwig.
Spielberg used to know how to construct an action film/sequence without the overt emotional manipulation, as evidenced by Duel. DP is very much in that film’s wheelhouse and I loved it. You just made me really want to see the film again.
Well, both Hedwig and Joel present excellent arguments. It matters not if I completely agree, the point is from where both of you are coming from it’s hard to refute.
But that aside, I must also confess to (not liking) RESERVOIR DOGS all that much despite its stylish filmaking and crastsmanship. It ranks as one of the most unremittingly gruesome and nihilistic films ever, and its sadism is in a class by itself (maybe not on SALO’s level of course) I just can’t muster up to courage to look at this film again—the torture and burning of the policeman is just too much. It crosses a line with me.
But I know I am in a severe minority with this one.
I don’t share your high regard Hedwig, but I admire the passionate and thoughtful defense.
Joel, fair point re how the best directors can sometimes indulge themselves. But I just don’t care for Tarantino’s particular brand of it. And its been 11 years since Jackie Brown, when does the indulgence - present to some degree since - end?
I’m interested to hear what Death Proof had to say to people.
Sam, Dogs crossed a line for many people at the time. I still remember seeing arthouse patrons stream out of the theater in disgust. I think it’s an amazingly executed, scripted and acted film that pushed the form forward in exciting ways. The violence was at a tolerable level for me though I winced a little when it seemed to be taking us much further than what is actually delivered - fortunately it never quite crossed the line for me.
Death Proof truly does get better with each viewing. Tarantino recently called the Kill Bill saga his Apocalypse Now, which I don’t really agree with. Apocalypse Now is an entirely different beast in terms of what it represented, although I’ll concede that there is certainly a vaguely similar directorial derring-do (or self-indulgence, if you will) to it, and perhaps that is what he meant by that.
The Kill Bill movies, which I really ought to see back-to-back one weekend afternoon, haven’t held entirely held up the way his three ’90s films still have. They’re partially more experimental, but I do concede to Tarantino critics that post-Jackie Brown Tarantino did sort of go through an artistic retreat, and for many his films have devolved into a kind of masturbatory waste.
I do tend to think that the Kill Bill movies probably play better together, and I do love the spaghetti Western/cheap samurai knock-off/epic revenge action flick blending of it all. Kill Bill as a whole may represent my least favorite piece of Tarantino’s art, but that’s really saying more about Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown and Death Proof.
Hedwig, that was an excellent analysis of Tarantino’s methodology. To me, that’s what Death Proof most truly represented: It was something of another breakthrough for him, offering us a slice of life involving two sets of girls, and as I’ve said many times before, the bar in which (theatrically) we first get our good glimpse of Kurt Russell’s former stuntman is atmospherically possibly my favorite setting from 2007, the place I’d most like to hang out in if I could.
That all said, I do think Tarantino’s films do rely on manipulation (the ways he makes us see many things from the perspectives, emotional and otherwise, of Mr. Orange, or Jackie Brown, or The Bride, or his other protagonists, entails a certain manipulation of the contextual panorama, which I think is one of the subtler but highly successful aspects of his films).
It certainly wasn’t something that could be summed up in a single sentence, but there was a lot in that film about the pure pleasure of cinephilia, along with the pure pleasure of being young and silly and having fun.
There’s more to it than that.
Also I don’t think a movie as well-made and rich as Reservoir Dogs can accurately be called ‘nihilistic’ which is a term that I don’t think can truly be applied to any movie, including Salo, except total schlock or Michael Bay movies - movies that have as their goal to numb the senses and pound us into submission. Reservoir Dogs, whatever you want to say about it, is made by somebody who wants us to feel - feel the horror of being the cop, the betrayal of being Keitel’s character, the guilt of being Roth’s.
“but there was a lot in that film about the pure pleasure of cinephilia, along with the pure pleasure of being young and silly and having fun.”
I could see that was part of what Tarantino was aiming to evoke. It just seemed by the numbers to me. I found the Death Proof characters as irritating, uninteresting, and disposable as young victim fodder is in routine American horror flicks. If the dialogue had been smarter and snappier (even spoken by the young and the vacuous, or a grizzled macho cliche of a villain) I might have taken pleasure from the delivery.
Can’t help you there.
I’m beyond help jeff.
Jeff: Fine enough, that’s your interpretation, and I respect it. I stand by my own perception of nihilistic intent, even if that wasn’t the sole purpose.
SALO was out and out nihilistic, both for its execution, story and characters and for the way it gruesomely foretold its directors demise, and his psychological state of mind. Most of our major scholarly critics have referred to it as a prime example of nihilism in the cinema.
sartre: your arguments here are insightful, thorough and tinged as always with your seeming guilt to disagree with anyone. You are the best, I wish I could meet you some day.
Shit, I’m missing out on an awesome Tarantino argument!
I feel like the kid stuck inside doing his homework while the rest of you are all outside playing kick the can or hide and seek.
Suffice it to say for now that I I love both Death Proof and Kill Bill, warts and all. Hedwig does a pretty fine job of defense without my help and I agree with her completely. I wish I had more time to elaborate.
Tarantino is jazz. All I’m saying.
Sam J., I guess I don’t know what your definition of ‘nihilistic intent’ in Reservoir Dogs consists of.
On a similar note, I’m happy to disagree with most of our major scholarly critics re: Salo. I’d say the very act of creating a film is proof that the filmmaker is not a nihilist, because otherwise they’d just sit in their squalid apartment and smoke.
I think that if Reservoir Dogs were truly nihilistic, Mr. Orange (Roth’s undercover cop) wouldn’t have had that look of sheer horror on his face after killing the woman who shot him. Likewise, the almost aboriginal response of Mr. White hearing the truth of Mr. Orange’s identity after defending him to his colleagues, and even Chris Penn’s Nice Guy Eddie recognizing the loyalty of Mr. Blonde, etceteras.
Not sure we’ll get to NY before heading to live and work overseas again at the end of July, Sam. But whenever I get there I’d love to meet LiC’s illustrious NY contingent - you, Alison, and Dorothy.
I very rarely feel guilt. I just see my own takes as opinions, no more or less valid than those of everyone else here. The differences between us make for interesting discussion and sometimes it’s fun to play the devil’s advocate a little.
Jeff: I get the feeling you haven’t read much on Pasolini, his life and why he made movies near the end of that life. Perhaps that’’s why you disagree with our scholarly critics, who have interviewed him and studied his life. Apart from that anyone who could make a film like SALO is beyond nihilism.
sartre: Don’t forget me please if you make that trip, we’ll definitely meet up and have dinner!!
Actually, Sam, I’ve read a pretty fair amount, so there you go. I think we must differ in our definitions.
I haven’t forgotten your references to superb deli sandwiches Sam.
I agree Alexander, though dark I didn’t find Reservoir Dogs nihilistic and those character reactions you described certainly contributed to the sense of a moral viewpoint. At least some of the characters expressed their personal codes too, admittedly these were fairly fucked up, but they possessed a code nonetheless.
I saw Kill Bill 1 and 2 back-to-back one night on my friend Tom’s amazing home theater system a few years back and I’d have to say, it kinda wears me out. I think they work better as separate entities, although I welcome a DVD featuring them together as one film…for posterity’s sake.
Tarantino’s films don’t strike me as nihilistic, although he did write the script for Natural Born Killers and to me, that is a very nihilistic story. Reservoir Dogs is a fairly cynical film, possibly fatalistic, but the relationship between Orange and White at the center of it makes it work great for me.
“Can we call it a ’stylish romp’ or must it be degraded into ’self-indulgent wankery’?”
Nothing wrong with an occasional self-indulgent romp of stylish wankery in a squalid apartment.
(I have homework too Craig. Yours sounds more fun than mine.)
LOL
Oh yes, in Manhattan we have Katz’s and the Carnegie Hall Deli for starters, and ethnic eateries of all persuasion–many quite excellent………and you do have a great memory there.
Jeff: I don’t think I said what I said the way I wanted to say it, and I do apologize. I acknowledge that the people are this site are astute movielovers, yourself proven many times with your excellent submissions.
I just feel that in Pasolini’s final years, he became an introspective deporessent, who actually foretold his grisly demise. It is admittedly easy to use the word ‘nihilist’ but in his singular case I do feel it strongly points in that direction.
But if you feel otherwise, I can and will completely understand and leave this issue be.
A friend of mine was looking at the postings in this and other threads and he claimed that I (and many others here are a bunch of syncophants.) I had to start some kind of a row with Jeff to prove otherwise. Now not like the battles at Awards Daily with Borrotto, but it will prove that there are some disagreements on these pages!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sam, tell your friend to go f*** himself :-)
No problem, Sam, like I said, I think it’s basically a semantic difference. I’m aware of Pasolini being depressive, cynical, introverted, and the film certainly reflects those attitudes as well as a general anger and despair. But I think if he was genuinely ‘nihilistic’ he wouldn’t have made it. Even the desire to express nihilism is in itself a creative, and therefore positive, act.
Jeff: You do make a valid point there.
satre: I already did!!! LOL!!!! Now this man redefines cynicism. He lives in the U.K., and he never minces what he is thinking, even if what is says is overty nasty or confrontational. He is quite a character!
I like your point too jeff - the act of expressing oneself creatively is not one of negation.
Alexander, if you ever hit Austin, you can go to the Texas Chili Parlor and sit in that very corner booth, drink beer and eat chili and savor Stuntman Mike’s ghost. I was there with my texas-ex just a few months ago…sigh. She hated DP because of the bimbos but we love that place.
Wow, thanks, Christian. I’ll definitely remember that if/when I ever make it there. That’s great.
Nobody says “Tell ______ to go f*** himself!” like William Holden in Network, Sartre. :)
“Tarantino is jazz.” Golden analogy, sweetheart. Just gorgeous.
From my perspective, I haven’t been disappointed in Quentin’s output or the quality of his work. Not in the least. But then the last thing I saw was KB VOLUME II.
I own both I & II. As an astonishing ode to revenge and female empowerment, there’s never been anything quite like those two films and I doubt seriously that they’ll ever drop out of my personal top 20. The juxtaposition between the Oriental flavoured martial arts fuelled first half and the ode to Sergio Leone influenced spaghetti westerns in the second is practically legendary. Only someone with Quentin’s great love of film and bombastic energy could pull that off.
UMA THURMAN did some of her career best work in those films. LUCY LIU was fabulous and David Carradine was a terrific villain. Those action sequences in the first movie were breathtakingly choreographed. Some of the set pieces in the second (B. destroying the coffin where she’s buried alive) are particularly mind blowing.
To each their own, but Quentin hasn’t lost me. YET.
I’m with Sam and Nicky. I adore THE HOURS.
I also liked DOMINO and thought that Keira was quite good in it.
I think that’s it for this thread…
Glimmer, I understand that was an “A-” for Jellyfish? Very interesting.
I’m changing the topic, but I wanted to share this for those who may not have seen it and this week’s Watercooler seemed like the perfect place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PiZSFIVFiU
My brother and I grew up with him and loved him. We used to quote from his routines all the time (as well as from the quotable movies - we still do that and it drives my sister-in-law crazy).
yep daniel i went A- for jellyfish maybe i’ll try to explain that soon. i still haven’t recovered from watching it(and that was saturday)
and i may have given it a few extra points because i feel it’s accessiblity+different slant needs to be 300% supported/especially in an atmosphere that’s sort of devoid of it/much that’s actually feels different/and not just plays on the usual so established stuff/genre stuff.(aka sort of like *right now*)
wait until award season noms comes/people best of the year list hit for further details….(to see indies trad heart in bloom…*arrgh*)
so i’m A-ing with a smile.
maybe i’m as surprised that i’m rating/ranking this film as higly/maybe my surprise is sort of like the look of surprise batia has when coming home from the hospital. but more a look of joy… :)
That was great Alison. Thanks.
I should’ve said something about George. I know he was in movies, but I so associate him with stand-up that I decided to let it be.
Rufus!
And don’t forget Cardinal Glick, either (”If only we had their numbers….”)
dudes, stop trying to make me feel bad! :)
Yes, glim! I’m glad you needed a “recovery”, too. I still don’t think I even understood it. Good thing I don’t have to write a review about it…
Not to make you feel worse (you know I would NEVER do that - I’m sure that you’re aware that I adore you, Craig) but…
I do have a tribute to George up at my site. I wasn’t exactly sure where he fit either. He was involved in a lot of things over the course of his career (books, TV, comedy records, film etc.) so when EW had a photo gallery in celebration of him I put it up.
That was the deciding factor. I was only too happy to talk about him. I just needed the appropriate spark.