LAFF 2008: Day 10 – Part 3
Robert Feinberg and Ruby Lynn Reyner are finally Finishing Heaven
I spent most of Sunday decompressing so my Saturday report is a day late. It all fits into the big picture though because the first film I watched was a documentary that tests the notion of whether late is indeed better than never. Let’s just pretend I’m late on purpose and get on with my last day at LAFF, shall we?
Dreams are the fuel that drives us, but if they go unfulfilled they can sour and become regrets that hold us back. For Robert Feinberg and Ruby Lynn Reyner, unmet expectations have been a roadblock for nearly 40 years and Mark Mann’s documentary Finishing Heaven is an examination of their attempt to reconcile their youthful hopes with the reality of who they eventually became.
In 1970, Feinberg was an NYU film student. Reyner was his girlfriend, an actress and model on the fringes of Andy Warhol’s Factory scene. Together they set out to make a film. Shooting guerilla style with little script and no budget, drawing talent from their pool of scenester friends and even having Feinberg’s professor, a young Martin Scorsese, as a producer for a time, they filled can after can of 16mm footage. Attempts were made to edit it, but Feinberg seemed frozen by a fear of failure. They were two kids full of promise and this was to be their magnum opus, but what if it wasn’t?
Over the years, Feinberg and Reyner would haul their footage from one place to another, carrying it behind them like a ball and chain to Rome and wherever else their aimless path would lead them. Eventually the two would split up and the film would go into storage. Says Feinberg: “I never walked away from the film. I just never finished it.”
He never became a filmmaker and she never became an actress, but 37 years later, she convinced him to take one last crack at finishing their film. For Feinberg it becomes mostly an attempt to overcome old demons, but for Reyner it’s a little more complicated. It’s partly an attempt to recapture her glory days, partly an attempt to finally live up to her early promise and it’s also a last effort to get some of the credit for the film she believes she deserves.
Finishing Heaven asks a lot of big questions about the ways we define ourselves and it’s a rare opportunity to to catch a pair of people at the opposite ends of their lives. It’s funny and poignant and it’s even a little bit inspirational. Once and for all it puts to the test the question of whether it’s better to try and fail than to never to try at all. (Documentary Competition)
Later that evening, they screened Feinberg and Reyner’s film as a work in progress called Heaven Wants Out. Having seen and enjoyed the documentary, I was a little unsure of whether I wanted to see the finished film. Would the quality of the film alter the message I took from the documentary? I ultimately decided that it shouldn’t.
Having said that, I’d love to report that Heaven Wants Out is a belated triumph that will change how we perceive cinema, but unfortunately life only seems to work that way in the movies. The truth is, Heaven is a bit of a mess, yet it’s perfectly in keeping with a certain avant-garde, low-budget guerilla style not uncommon in the day and pretty typical of more adventurous (if undisciplined) student filmmakers. There is also an odd sort of symmetry in its fractured structure as it bounces back and forth between seemingly unrelated scenes involving a noirish tale of a young model prepared to do most anything to live the high life she thinks she deserves.
It’s all pretty pretentious, but the saving grace is a certain skewed sense of absurdist humor that lets you know Feinberg isn’t being overly earnest. In the end, it’s not essential viewing, but it provides a fascinating coda to the documentary and an interesting time capsule of a certain 1970s New York scene that is now mostly a memory to the survivors. (Special Screenings)
The best way to describe Neil Abramson’s American Son is that it’s the film Stop-Loss dreamed of being before it was scuttled by a tendency away from the simple truth and toward Hollywood melodrama. In its tale of a young Marine’s last 96 hours before being shipped off to war in Iraq, American Son keeps it simple, personal and honest. It eschews the obvious politics in favor of a character study, thereby getting closer to the heart of what it means to send kids off to be killed than anything in the usual Hollywood fare.
Nick Cannon plays Mike, a young man who looks around at the dead ends awaiting him and his friends in Bakersfield California and he decides the easiest way out is the Marines. Unfortunately, that path inevitably leads to war.
It’s still not a bad bet when life seems to offer few other prospects, but that’s before he meets Christina (Melonie Diaz) on his final leave before deployment. Where before there were only bad choices, now he can see a brighter future and the potential consequences of fighting a war in a foreign land are suddenly more real.
This is not an overtly anti-war film. It’s a going-to-war film and a romantic drama that leaves it up to the viewer to take his or her own side. Regardless of your personal stand on the subject, the core of the story is Mike and the emotion comes from his interactions with the friends and family who don’t understand the choices he’s making and with Christina who suddenly ups the ante for him.
As a character study, the film relies heavily on the performances of the cast and both Cannon and Diaz are up to the task. Cannon perfectly portrays a smart and decent kid trying to make the most of bad options while struggling with doubts about a life or death situation. Diaz is also good (yet again) as his new girlfriend. She isn’t given as much to do as she was in I’ll Come Running (LAFF Day 3), but once again she delivers a believable honesty and naturalness. I have to admit one of the reasons I was drawn to American Son over some of the other choices was because of Diaz and she didn’t disappoint. The film made waves when it premiered at Sundance in January, but I can’t find news that it’s been picked up yet by a distributor. (Summer Previews)
Filed under: Film Festivals
The problem for many of us, is that we must keep our fingers crossed that these will be picked up for distribution, as you yourself state at the end of another splendid wrap-up. I believe I had read something of AMERICAN SON’ S reception at Sundance, and this is a topic that we are most interested in at this time, if not dreading. Great that Diaz hits the mark too.
FINISHING HEAVEN would also make a short list of prospective LAFF candidates to be seen down the road based on what you say here.
All I know is, next year {or the year after that….} I’m coming with you…
I have yet to see the melodrama that is apparently “Stop-Loss,” yet I still would like to. “American Son,” however sounds far more appealing, especially because of your word on Diaz. There is just something about her that I cannot get enough of; and it seems that the film industry feels the same.
I think Finishing Heaven will turn up on HBO next month Sam. Not sure if it’ll get a theatrical release.
I was surprised American Son doesn’t have a release date. Perhaps people are skittish over the tanking of so many Iraq themed films. It’s too bad because American Son transcends the subject matter.
Nick, if you’re going to travel thousands of miles to see a film festival, you should pick a sexier one than LAFF. Toronto or Cannes or Sundance maybe.
I’ve got my eye on Toronto for this year though it’ll most likely be next year.
I have an aunt who lives in Toronto, and she goes every year, and yet when I ask to come along, she forgets all about me. Toronto, for me, is the film festival, and with all their Cannes-padding this year, it is like two festivals in one. Next year is my 18th birthday….I think I may ask for a ticket to Toronto as my gift….so perhaps I’ll see you there?
He he, I’m such a stalker.
Finishing Heaven sounds fascinating, probably because their trajectory isn’t that far off from my own thus far. Fear of failure. Three little words that explain a lot about too many talented people. I want to see it, regardless of whether their masterpiece is such or not.
I’ve thought Nick Cannon was a promising talent since his strong work in Drumline, but he’s made a mighty mixed bag of movies since then. Glad to see he’s got a hearty dramatic role again. I’m excited about this one, too, if it ever finds a distributor. One of these days, one of these war movies is bound to hit home at the box office, right? Someday? Maybe?
Hell yeah, it would be me and you vs. all the snooty, jaded journo types. I fear for the city of Toronto!
JB, yeah Finishing Heaven kind of spoke to me too. The same three words have dominated my life and kept me from doing a lot of different things until recently.
The great thing about it is that in the process of finishing his movie, Feinberg realized that attaching so much importance to it was foolish. He would’ve been much better off just finishing it even if he fell on his face. Through the perspective of age, he realized that failing wouldn’t have been the end of the world, he would’ve just brushed himself off and moved on to the next thing. But by not finishing…it always kind of weighed on him.
I never saw Drumline, but Mr. Cannon has a lot of potential methinks and he gets to prove it in American Son. I really hope it gets a release.
Finishing Heaven sound incredible. I also remember checking off American Son from the Sundance list, but was wary about Cannon. Of course I was even MORE wary about the MTV’ed Stop-Loss, and turned out to like it quite a lot. Just goes to show what I know.
Our instincts are broken Daniel. Maybe we should just see everything that comes out.
Daniel: I just read your review of CITY OF MEN, and I successfully posted a response to it. I have yet to see this film, sorry to say, but like you, I thought CITY OF GOD was pretty much a masterpiece. I loved your lead-in and your component ratings especially, but a terrific review!
Hmm, I’ve been wondering all day if I should mention what I thought of City of God…
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don’t you dare Jeff!!!!!!
I’m a little dizzy from (a) the heat and (b) the long, four-hour drive coming down 101 this afternoon, so I’ll save reading this until maybe later tonight or tomorrow in the morning, but it looks great, Craig. Your coverage of all things LAFF has been nothing less than inspiring.
Regarding City of God, I’ll chime in on Jeff’s behalf (though his problems with the film may very well differ from mine). I just thought it was a case of a director (Meirelles) sort of taking advantage of certain realities mainly for the value of shocking the viewer while making the destitute, awful conditions of the characters depicted into little more than a pretty rote gangster movie entertainment. In short, I think I mostly disliked it for the very reasons Andrew Sarris wrote that he liked it. Don’t bite me, Sam.
Thanks, Sam. I tried not to let my devotion to City of God bleed into my thoughts on City of Men, but I really do think Men, if judged on its own merits, stands up well enough.
Alexander, you pretty much nailed it for me. I felt like it was a remake of Goodfellas in the favelas without much at its core. Terrific filmmaking (editing, cinematography) at the service of not much substance.
I know I’m in the extreme minority here, but I gotta call em as I see em. The Constant Gardener left me cold as well.
Well, to say that you are in the minority with CITY OF GOD is the understatement of the decade, Jeff, but Alexander concurs. Only a tiny handful of films received better reviews than CITY OF GOD, (worldwide) over the past ten years, and all the heavyweights have praised it to high heaven.
I agree with them, and don’t buy the objections voiced here, but so what? We have disagreed before and will disagree again, but the important thing is that the issues you and Alexander brought out were eloquently posed. One couldn’t ask for more than that.
I am very curious to know what Craig thinks of CITY OF GOD.
Agreeing with ‘heavyweights’ is pleasant, but ultimately beside the point; like somebody said on another thread in the last few days, movies aren’t a democracy.
True enough Jeff, but as I commented on a previous submission weeks back, I feel is it easy to say you dislike a film or to poke holes in what the vast majority of professional critics (and audiences have concluded); but it is far more difficult to express passion and to explain why.
There is a grave misconception —not with you—-but with a general segment of the critical population that issuing a bad review for any work in any artistic form is somehow more ‘intellectually informed’ than saying one likes anything and everthing that is praised by the establishment.
I could very easily say that I don’t like Almodovar’s TALK TO HER, Haynes’ FAR FROM HEAVEN, Payne’s SIDEWAYS, Coppola’s LOST IN TRANSLATION, Lee’s BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, Jackson’s RETURN OF THE KING, Von Donnarsmarck’s THE LIVES OF OTHERS all at the same time, and get away with it because criticism is not a democracy.
Disliking something that is roundly praised and admired by professional intellectual scommit their career to such analysis, is certainly allowed, but in the end can’t be taken too seriously.
For the record, of the above films, I did not care for LOST IN TRANSLATION after seeing it THREE times in the theatre, but loved all the others. There can be a divergence, but when someone professes to have issues with nearly every film out there, well, I think that speaks for itself (again this is not you specifically Jeff, I know others over the years who hate every release and try and come off as ‘in the know’ and ’smarter than everyone else.’)
I even know someone who thinks Melville’s MOBY DICK is ludicrous and convoluted. (Most serious scholars feel it is the greatest American novel) This same person feels Shakespeare is highly overestimated, and cannibalizes other writers.
In the end, are we to really take this criticism seriously or should be refer sucha person to an isolated ward at Bellview. In this instance and in numerous other artistic blasphemies, we must come to the conclusion that such a statement tells us more about the person writing it or saying it rather than about the work itself.
Such people are egotistical charletans.
(and again, lest I set off WW3, I am NOT talking about Jeff here, but about the nature of artistic criticism. His posting just set me off in this direction. I don’t know nearly enough about Jeff or his taste to make such an allegation.)
Jeff and Alexander, yes, Yes, YES! I thought I was alone in my uncomfortable dislike of City of God, but I see that there are others who stand in solidarity with me.
I agree with both of you. The kinetic, visual style of the film was a revelation–you were watching a director Being Born, and you knew it. But at the end I was slightly horrified with the way the subject matter was treated. If Meirelles was really trying to highlight the truly awful conditions there, then why did he go to such lengths to glamorize and stylize everything? The kicker for me was the closing shot of the film…those kids walk away, having killed a man, set to a hip, ’70s pop tune. Are you telling me what I’ve just seen is awful? If so, why are you jazzing it up with catchy music and clever editing?
Whew, so good to get that off of my chest. I’ve been holding it in for years, afraid for my life should I open my mouth. :)
LOL!!! So it’s the old “gang up” routine. No problem. This film is hardly in need of critical validation.
There is no question that CITY OF GOD was bleak, uncompromising and depressing—perhaps that’s why Meirelles needed to lighten the tone with that music—but the entire reason why the film left you numb was largely because of that viscerel power. There was much substance in the visuals, not in any sequential narrative. I was repulsed by the film, but at teh same time exhiliarated by the eclectic filmaking, which set off a spate of inferior imitations.
I feel I need to make mention of one more point directly related to these recent postings. I do NOT always agree with the “intelligensia” nor is my own opinion always in sync with the critical numbers. I thought LOST IN TRANSLATION was overated and pretentious (and I saw it three times in the theatre with different people in deference to the astonishing reverence it was receiving) and I thought PAN’S LABYRINTH was a sadistic film with way too much emphasis on the “captain’s” story. The film was rather disjointed and far more emotionally distant than many others believed. I disliked both INTO THE WILD and STRANGER THAN FICTION intensely………and so on.
But I always acknowledged in discussion and in writings that my feelings were in the minority and I invariably added “maybe it’s me.”
It is so much more fun and worthwhile to share on these threads what we liked rather than always that we don’t like something that is liked by over 90% of the best critics we have in the field. It’s like there is always someone around to ruin the party. We can’t like everything we see, but conversely we can’t take issue with every film ever made. What is the point of going to the movies if nothing pleases us? If we see 150 films a year, isn’t it a given that we will REALLY like at least a dozen or so?
Someone earlier mentioned Andrew Sarris liking CITY OF GOD. Stanley Kauffmann of THE NEW REPUBLIC, the man I consider to be the greatest living critic (he is still writing reviews at that publication at 94, bless his heart!) also thought CITY OF GOD was “extraordinary.” And so did numerous others that we all respect. I do concede, however, that Manohla Dargis, whom Craig and many others here greatly respect did have serious issues with the film.
Ha! I saw LOST IN TRANSLATION four times, not three. Three was not the charm in this case!
Ah Sam, but it’s so much fun to ruin the party sometimes, isn’t it? :)
I understand what you are saying. So much of this goes to the heart of art in general (and all of its subjectivity). What makes one work of art great and another faulty? I would posit that the number one consideration is time. Moby Dick was written over 150 years ago and people are still reading it. That makes it great art. Period. People can disagree with it, call it pretentious trash and what-not, but they can’t argue with the incontrovertible fact that it has endured the test of time and will likely continue to do so. Will City of God be viewed 10, 20, 30 years from now? Will people be talking about it then? Obviously, we can’t answer those questions now. No one can. We can make guesses, but that is all they will be…guesses.
So in the meantime, what do we have to go on? Since time machines are sadly non-existent, we have only opinions and reason. Everyone has opinions, so they count for very little, but not everyone can bring reason to bear behind their arguments. You disliked Lost in Translation, a film most critics fawned over. I don’t think you’re necessarily wrong for going against the grain (I was quite ambivalent to the film), but what really matters are your reasons. If you can provide eloquent, well reasoned arguments for why Lost in Translation is not a masterpiece, then it doesn’t matter if you disagree with everyone. Your points stand for themselves and are valid.
But really, if you put time and reasoning to the side, film is, by its very nature, a seductive art, perhaps the most seductive. Certain films cause us to fall in love in spite of our better judgment, while other films create a deep revulsion within us. The more films we watch, the more we cultivate our senses and instincts, the stronger such reactions will be. Speed Racer was, for me, a borderline orgasmic experience (I realize that is kind of disgusting, but it’s the truth). I can come up with reasons for why it is a great film, and some of my reasons, I believe, would be superior to everyone else’s reasons for why it sucked, but at the end of the day the simple truth is that it seduced me and I ate up every single frame. I don’t really care if time is good to Speed Racer or not (I believe it will be)…I fell in love and that is that.
I realize I have rambled a bit, so let me try and tie my thoughts together. The best critical judge of a work of art is time. Then comes reasoning, with some arguments proving themselves over others (for example, I find the arguments for No Country’s greatness vastly superior to the arguments that hold it is overrated). Finally comes emotion and seduction, which are the most subjective reasons for loving a film but often the most powerful. This is where you often find the lone critic standing against the crowd, and thank goodness, because 1984 and A Brave New World would be horrible places to live.
Beautiful essay here Evan, unquestionably.
I do agree with the “time argument” as the true validation of greatness. People will continue to read and perform KING LEAR hundreds of years into the future and have done so for over four-hundred to the present.
Similarly I concur that emotion and seduction are powerful (and often overiding issues) in making a judgement. Emotions and passions are what drove me to make the earlier postings in the first place. And yes indeed, I have been there, and am there a few times every year. Last year for example, I professed strong feelings for THE LIBERTINE, amidst (mostly) reprehensible reviews from the critical establishment. I loved Lars Von Trier’s DOGVILLE(people either called it a masterpiece or one of the worst films of the year), and named it the best film of it’s year (with ETERNAL SUNSHINE as the #2) and fawned over David Lynch’s INLAND EMPIRE and Darren Aronofsky’s THE FOUNTAIN, despite the fact that critics were split down the middle on both, with the naysayers evincing outrage.
There are people who have attacked NO COUNTRY, and others who have made claim that THERE WILL BE BLOOD was the far better choice for Best Film. Who is right?
Evan, your essay here puts everything into proper persective.
Jeez, I go away to sulk over a crashed hard drive for 12 hours and look at all the fun I’ve missed out on.
I am glad that Evan made a number of points I would have, and thank him. To me, in order for a film to be, in its art form, comparable to the works of Shakespeare would be if it is an old (in terms of cinema, still an extremely young art form) film that is nearly universally recognized as a landmark, important and spectacular film. Say, Citizen Kane. For the Moby Dick comparison, maybe a film like Psycho. Films made in the last decade are simply still too young to be identified as classics in the true sense of the word, even if in our respective outbursts of enthusiasm we’re prepared to crown them as “instant classics” (No Country for Old Men, for a popular example).
I personally agree with you, Sam, about Lost in Translation. I consider Talk to Her a masterpiece, but I have problems with Brokeback Mountain and Far From Heaven that prevent me from declaring them. My thoughts on Sideways (which will probably become a classic), The Return of the King and The Lives of Others are quite complicated, though they’re all films that demand my admiration at the very least.
My film professor thinks Citizen Kane, a film he likes, is wildly overrated, and that a mere herd mentality among film critics and film historians has allowed it to enjoy its perch-like position for so long. I disagree–sure, I’ll concede that a herd mentality, a willingness to go along with the in-crowd may play some part for some critics or whomever, but I’ll stand with Kane as a towering accomplishment in the medium, and just a great, superbly crafted and highly enjoyable film. Same film professor believes Kurosawa is insanely overrated, and dislikes just about everything he ever made. I adamantly disagree, and love Kurosawa, and think that Francis Ford Coppola at least had a very considerable point that Kurosawa may be the only filmmaker to create one masterpiece after another for decades. (Let’s just say, I think Kurosawa’s great and leave it at that, though.) But I do think my professor made some solid points in his favor on both counts, and though I certainly disagree with him on these (and many other) matters, I do respect him for being willing to at least occasionally take unorthodox positions.
Films stand after they are made, and your perception of them can change, at least to degrees, not just over the years but over the weeks and months. For example, my top four films for 2007 were, in this order: No Country for Old Men; There Will Be Blood; Zodiac; The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Today, I’d swap #2 and #4 and leave #1 and #3 alone. I still consider Blood a sterling film, but Jesse James just keeps getting better on repeated viewings and has just narrowly edged out both Blood and Zodiac for me.
Or, for a more exciting, less-immersed-in-minutiae example (since the differences in those three films behind No Country are, I think, just a matter of fairly slight degrees), I more or less loathed The Libertine and Dogville but absolutely adored Inland Empire, and consider it one of Lynch’s greatest films, and I’ve come to like and appreciate The Fountain more and more after seeing it again back this past January. In each case I’m coming down on one side of the playing field of critics against the other. The fact that I at least somewhat dislike Von Trier , or am at best lukewarm towards him, and love Lynch, probably has a great deal to do with it, of course.
And while I often clash and disagree with Walter Chaw, for instance, I found myself completely agreeing with him on No Country for Old Men and City of God. (Like Jeff, I also had problems with Meirelles’ The Constant Gardener, and I was kind of amused by Jeff Wells more or less panning Blindness at Cannes because it wasn’t subtle, since I consider Meirelles very unsubtle, but that’s just me.) And as you and I have said back and forth once or twice, I was pretty much with the critics with Sean Penn’s Into the Wild, much to my surprise, while you weren’t.
I suppose it could all be simplified for all of us in the sense that, we like what we like, and the rest is rationalization.
Very interesting discussion and I’m not sure how to elbow my way into it. For me, the most important things in appraising something with a critical eye are honesty and clarity; that’s why I don’t ming agreeing with whoever it is that Moby Dick is indeed ludicrous and convoluted – and for me, the convolutions are an inextricable part of why I love it and consider it a masterpiece. And Shakespeare did indeed cannibalize other writers, but he did it so magnificently that it really doesn’t matter.
There are indeed plenty of contrarians out there, and I’m sure we all fit that label from time to time, but I think that it’s a healthy and necessary attitude to have, to be willing to rub against the grain and suggest ideas that the main body of critics might have overlooked, just as it’s also useful to stand back and decide that the common wisdom is right when appropriate. I have to disagree with Sam: “Disliking something that is roundly praised and admired by professional intellectuals commit their career to such analysis, is certainly allowed, but in the end can’t be taken too seriously.” On the contrary, I think that how seriously or unseriously you take a critic shouldn’t be determined by how many others they agree with, but rather, and more simply, by how well they state their case.
Also, as far as ‘what’s art’ goes, I think the ‘test of time’ concept is a better way to gauge whether or not something is a ‘classic’ or not, not necessarily whether it has true artistic merit. People are still reading The Fountainhead decades later, but I don’t think more than a particular cult believes that it has real literary merit – longevity just means that people continue to find works relevant to their own lives, and things come in and out of fashion across the decades. That said, I agree with Evan that time, as it shapes our long-term perspectives, is necessary to determine what’s a flash in the pan and what has the power to endure.
Also for the record: I had mixed feelings about Far From Heaven, Dogville, and Lost in Translation; I liked but had reservations about Pan’s Labyrinth, Into the Wild, Lives of Others and Talk To Her; and I love Brokeback, ROTK, Sideways, and Inland Empire. Each of those four has flaws, but there comes a point in making an assessment where you have to decide if you want to look at the flaw or on the rest.
Good conversation here and I agree on most points although I’d like to interject that the test of time only works if all art is given equal opportunity for scrutiny and attention, but with all arts this is not the case.
Point in fact: Killer of Sheep was widely revered last year as one of the Ten Best Films to gain theatrical release, but it languished in near complete obscurity for decades.
If you make a masterpiece in the forest and no one bothers to praise it, is it still a masterpiece?
I agree that Shakespeare’s cannibalization of other writers was remarkably brilliant.
I also think the positives of Return of the King, Sideways and Inland Empire vastly outweight any flaws they arguably carry with them.
Joel, I agree with your point as well. Very good example with Killer of Sheep.
I tend to reject most criticism of ROTK out of hand because it’s part of a trilogy that really should be watched as one long film. I’ve sat through all three in one day and while it’s a long haul, all the “faults” of ROTK’s ending(s) pan out completely when placed into the context of the bigger story.
On the other hand, I consider Inland Empire a masterpiece but I also am willing to contend it’s not for everyone and one could just as easily condemn it for Lynch’s self-indulgences as praise it.
Joel, I agree, I think the impatience with the endings in ROTK should be ascribed to a very conventional longing for tidy endings and easy catharsis, but after spending 10+ hours with those characters, I was fine with a leisurely, non-plot-based wrapup for them.
Yeah, I agree Jeff, plus it was fairly consistent with the books. I suppose in deference to the general audience, at least PJ didn’t bother with doing the Scouring of the Shire. That alone could have easily been another 10 minutes of movie.
Woulda been a cool deleted scene though.
Basically, audiences have been trained that once the climax happens that the denoument should only last about another five minutes or so and they got super antsy when that wasn’t the case in ROTK.
And I wish the Scouring had happened as it would have been totally appropriate, thematically (which Tolkien knew and apparently Jackson didn’t).
Yes, to me losing the Scouring was probably the biggest point against The Return of the King.
I have to admit, I still haven’t seen the extended cut of The Return of the King. I’m still sort of Middle-Earthed out, but I’ve been thinking about revisiting the trilogy and viewing all three extended cuts in one long day. Was Christopher Lee included in the extended cut of The Return of the King?
I agree that when viewed as one single epically long film, it fits that the concluding movement of The Lord of the Rings should take its time as we say goodbye to the characters and watch them take divergent paths beyond what would typically be seen as past plot point necessity. I have to admit, it was a little taxing when I saw it in the theatre by itself, but I imagine you’re right, Joel.
Lee is in the long cut of ROTK for one scene, that’s it. There are some nice additions (the ghost pirates don’t feel quite as tacked-on) but nothing earth-shaking.
Thanks, Jeff. Still not having seen the extended cut of The Return of the King is a fault I will correct when I get around to seeing Jackson’s whole trilogy in one viewing in the near future. I do wish Lee’s scene had made it to the theatrical cut but at least it will be a treat to finally see it in any event.
Joel: INLAND EMPIRE is most assuredly a masterpiece, but regardless of the reservations that are being evinced here……….so is RETURN OF THE KING, which ironically enough (in addition to all those Oscars) was named best film of the year by the New York Film Critics Circle. It is one of the great films of teh new millenium.
Joel:
If it isn’t discovered, it’s still a masterpiece, methinks. Burnett’s KILLER OF SHEEP is one of the truly great American films. It towers over so many films that some of us (myself included) call great.
Alexander’s essay above, where is tackles the ongoing issue of art and film criticism is simply magnificent! And Jeff’s essay under it is exceptional as well. I enjoyed reading both immensely and can evince agreement with the lion’s share of the contentions.
Alexander, as far as your film professor thinking CITIZEN KANE is vastly overated, apparently he didn’t read Pauline Kael! LOL! Actually, years back a professor in a graduate film course made that same case with RENOIR’S LA REGLE DU JEU, a position that disturbs me to this day. You must ask yourself though if these positions are not sincere but a kind of exhibitionist behavior. It’s similar in a sense to the notorious but brilliant critic John Simon, who, while toasting Ingmar Bergman to the heavens, thought Godard was comparable to “masturbation on the screen.”
I agree with you on Kurosawa (and disagree with your professor) but I must tell you that I rate Ozu and Mizoguchi higher. Maybe it’s my love for humanism, but the latter two, by disavowing the epic spectaculars have concentrated an dramas to reach the very essence of one’s soul—yes Kurosawa had IKIRU in this sense—but the other two has abody of work that addressed itself exclusively to teh human condition………..hence, I would pose that Mizoguchi’s SANSHO THE BALIFF (Sansho Dayu) and Ozu’s TOKYO STORY are the two greatest films in the history of Japanese cinema(and world cinema for that matter), two altogether shattering works that are just about life-changing. I will never forget where I was and how I reacted when I saw both. It’s simular to what Nick Plowman said a few days ago about being teary eyed and numb, but these reactions do last a lifetime. Kurosawa of course has RAN, RASHOMON, SEVEN SAMURAI, THRONE OF BLOOD, HIGH AND LOW and others that are in the ranks of the masterpieces of world cinema, which the other two have gems liek LATE SPRING, AN AUTUMN AFTERNOON, UGETSU and THE STORY OF THE LATE CHRYSANTHEMUMS as well as others that qualify. As of late I have also raised Mikio Naruse, Kon Ichikawa, Kaneto Shindo, Masaki Kobayashi on the list of greatest Japanese directors.
This may well be the most fascinating of all nationalistic cinemas, even at least on par with the French.
My favorite film of the new millenium is Haynes’ FAR FROM HEAVEN, but even that masterpiece, has some some resistance from you guys. I think that years down the road it will be regarded as such, but we will see. The entire argument above about the essence of what art is still must have an afterward that evinces the concept that “Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder.”
In art this often trumps perceptions of what one thinks is truly exceptional.
I was surprised to come out of ROTK and hear people complaining about “the endings”.
It was perfectly appropriate and necessary. Buncha lazy, impatient bastages.
I think there has been something of a backlash against both Citizen Kane and La Regle du jeu partly because at least some perceive their astronomically high rankings among the greatest films to be more the byproduct of the stories behind their productions and releases and receptions and less to do with the films themselves, something I again disagree with but at least I can sort of understand that point.
Sam, you and I both remarked a couple of months ago I belive, how we both thought Sansho the Bailiff was a contender for the greatest film ever made. It’s one of those films that I consider truly untouchable, and it’s not hyperbole for me to call it breathtaking. I’m an enormous fan of Japanese cinema at large. Hmm, this is making me remember my Japanese cinema class with said film professor… Made me wish I had taught it, ahaha. (I hardly ever make such bold statements like that, but it was a fairly poor experience.) Anyway, I love Sansho the Bailiff, and like you I love Mizoguchi and Ozu… I don’t think they’re necessarily better than Kurosawa, but they’re certainly subtler humanists with tremendous bodies of work to their respective names.
I can understand how a critic who loves Bergman would call Godard’s movies masturbation on the screen. And he might have something of a point if he’s talking about a certain stage of Godard’s career (which I doubt he is, considering the weightiness of your quote, and since there were plenty of critics who hammered Godard even between ‘59-to-’68 run). Bergman himself in 2002 said “Godard is a f*cking bore,” and that he only “made his films for the critics.” I have to admit, I get a laugh from just imagining Bergman saying that in Swedish to the interviewer. Also interesting since Godard loved Bergman when he was a young critic, praising what are today considered less known, arguably more “minor” films from Bergman such as Summer Interlude, Secrets of Women, Summer with Monika and Sawdust and Tinsel among others. (All of which I love, too. You really can’t go wrong with Bergman in my opinion.)
(Note to Sam–since we’ve found ourselves on this subject, you might find a review I hammered out last night on Godard’s Contempt interesting. Just click my name at the top of this post. Oh yeah, and I agree with you as well about both French and Japanese cinema–as far as national cinema goes, those are my two favorites on the whole.)
Take it easy with Godard! I love to discuss cinema, yesterday I found this site witch has a video list about the 10 best movies in history. Polemical! check out http://www.weshow.com/top10/en/
re: Finishing Heaven and Heaven Wants Out
big egos and big mouths never amount to much; especially in the real world of art; however, in hollywood, that’s what it’s all about
let me just preface my few remarks by saying Ruby Lynn Reyner surely doesn’t have the big ego or big mouth mentioned above but everyone else involved in those two films does, big time
the Shapiro’s attempt at taking the vintage footage Fineberg, or should we call him fiend-berg, shot and trying to make it into something fails miserably — their all too obvious story-line, “there’s no success like failure and failure is no success at all”, stinks — it is droll and mundane, boring to the max and their film suffers for it from the first to the last scene
not to mention it’s painfully sophomoric
with some real elbow grease, and far more brilliance than quite clearly they could muster, Finishing Heaven might have been heaven
but alas it isn’t, not even close
why? well basically giving Fineberg center-stage, and in the process turning Reynor into a supporting character, forwards nothing but the obvious; clearly Fineberg has about as much “Star” quality as he has ambition
while, on the other hand, Reyner exudes star quality, both in her on-screen vintage performances and her kinda squawky, embittered but not bitter present day appearances
Finishing Heaven shows little except a nod to the fact some Warhol characters are there for all to see, and the producers to hype — without them Fineberg’s footage would not have even ended up in the Shapiro’s gargage can, let alone their cutting room floor
Ruby Lynn is “the” film and why the Shiparo’s did not run with her ball and chose instead to hype Fineberg’s gutless gonads is beyond me
As for Heaven Wants Out? in Fineberg’s hands rest assured nothing brilliant was done, or will ever be done, with footage that is genuinely valuable as a document, not as a documentary or a real “film”, that’s fer sure
in fact what needs to to be done is, like making an omelet, taking the two films, cracking their shells together over a hot pan and mushing them together with some tasty condiment and spice
its really too bad no one bothered to listen to me and, yes, i was involved in this “deal” but solely from the sidelines, as about he only thing i did was write the original contract between Ruby Lynn and Fineberg that allowed her to prevent Fineberg’s Fiend-berg personality from stealing the film from her
oh yeah, let’s not forget had i stayed involved no producer would have stolen Reyner’s right to be the star of Finishing Heaven by reducing her role to one that plays sucker to an ambitionless, greedy boulevardier, and cheap hustler, like Fineberg
Jack, I know it’s stating the obvious, but Finishing Heaven’s illustration of “you can’t succeed if you don’t try” was particularly extreme and was interesting to me, a person who has let failure avoidance hold him back for so many years.
Having said that, I do wish the documentary went into more detail about Ms. Reyner. Her tragectory seemed more interesting than Feinberg’s, even if it isn’t as easily summed up.
Out of curiousity, were you involved in the production of the documentary or in the production of the original film that became Heaven Wants Out?