The Watercooler: 9/29/08
I guess you have to hand it to Spike Lee. He had a problem with the fact that Clint Eastwood’s Flags of Our Fathers overlooked the role played by African-American soldiers in World War II and, after complaining about it, he put his money where his mouth with his own World War II film. The result is Miracle at St. Anna based on the novel by James McBride. The film tells the story of a group of African-American GIs known as Buffalo Soldiers who find themselves trapped in a small Tuscan village behind enemy lines. Because the Buffalo Soldiers’ story is one so infrequently told, it’s all the more frustrating that this one is such a mess.
After starting with a mystery set in Harlem in 1983 — a black postal worker shoots another man and the ensuing investigation reveals a piece of ancient Italian statuary worth $5 million on the black market — the story flashes back to 1944 during the Allied invasion of Italy. By the time the slow, plodding, messy story fully unwinds, all the pieces are put together and all the questions are answered, you no longer really care. The acting is good and the characters are interesting, but the narrative has no momentum. The story flounders around and there are several heavy-handed moments as Lee drives home the irony of these men fighting in a foreign country for ideals that they themselves aren’t free to take advantage of. Ultimately, it’s all too sloppy to have the impact it should. Call Miracle at St. Anna a missed opportunity.
That was the extent of the movie watching around LiC this weekend. How about you?
Filed under: Watercooler
Tags: James McBride, Miracle at St. Anna, Spike Lee
Related Posts: - The Watercooler: 7/7/08
- Clint Has Some Advice for Spike
- To 3D and Beyond?
- Weinstein Defends Death Proof
- What’s Doing in Toronto
That’s too bad about Miracle at St. Anna. I’m not a huge fan of Spike Lee but the filmed seemed really promising.
My weekend consisted of the Takashi Miike movie Zebraman, my umpteenth viewing of The Hudsucker Proxy, and Eagle Eye, which is okay but easily deferable until DVD.
Well, that’s still more than I saw, which was nothing. I’m sort of unhappy that even you found ‘Anna’ a huge pile of suckage, I thought maybe you’d be the one to convince me to actually see the film after all. Well, right now, I don’t want to. If that changes, well, it might take a miracle.
And I am glad you said that Jeff, because I prefer seeing Shia in the privacy of my own home…long scary story, and I’ll spare ya all.
“Disappointing” seems to be the consensus about St. Anna. Too bad…
I actually didn’t see THAT many movies over the weekend, considering I’m reporting on a film festival. That’s because I’ve decided to focus more on the fringe things.
On Friday, I saw 9 student films, of which no less than 7 were actually pretty good. At night, I saw two new Dutch feature films, [i]Het Zusje van Katia/The Sister of Katia[/i], which was quietly amazing, and [i]Het Echte Leven/The Real Life[/i], which was a lot of meta fun: it’s about a man making a movie with his girlfriend, in which he and his girlfriend play a couple. In the movie she’s supposed to (temporarily) fall for someone else, but then the actress falls for the actor who plays that someone else, and maybe not temporarily. The fun part is that we start out seeing the first 10 minutes or so of the movie that they’re making, and only then the camera pulls back to reveal the upper level.
Saturday I saw a Dutch silent from 1927, [i]Bigamie[/i], with a new orchestral accompaniment. And then: the “Variety Cinema Militans Lecture”, given this year by none other than George Sluizer ([i]The Vanishing[/i]). It was a bit of a disjointed lecture, which other wasn’t about movies at all for up to a quarter of an hour, but it was interesting.
Then: a documentary, [i]Jan Mesdag zingt/sings Brel[/i]. Only an hour, and with a bit too much time filled by talking heads, but it’s a moving story of a singer/actor who was dying of AIDS and then fulfilled a lifelong dream: making a CD with covers of songs by Jacques Brel.
I saw a lot more, of course: a preview of a new historical series, [i]The Netherlands in 12 murders[/i], some new films by alumni of the Dutch film academy, made in honor of the 50th anniversary, many, many BN’ers (”well known Dutchies”) and Paul Verhoeven. It’s kind of great, having a film festival in your back yard.
Must cash in my chips and go to bed finally… And so…
Sounds like Hedwig wins this weekend. Awesome weekend of cinematic adventures in the Netherlands! I’ve been wanting to see Bigamie for ages.
Hedwig, it’s apparent that you are attempting to italicize film titles. At LiC, you have to use the < and > keys to do so rather than the [ and ] you are using. But obviously you have the right idea!
I keep hearing that from just about everyone regarding Miracle at St. Anna, Craig. Too bad. I’ll probably see it eventually, but I’ll be going in with very low expectations at best.
Friday, I saw John Carpenter’s Assault on Precinct 13 again. Afterwards, I spent a great deal of time re-reading Thucydides’ The History of the Pelopennesian War, and then watched the The Big Debate and the endless coverage before, during and after. The Super Bowlization of American politics continues unabated. Somehow the combination of Carpenter, Thucydides and McCain-Obama was just about right.
Saturday, I stayed home and once having finished my review of Broken Blossoms, watched Brokeback Mountain, The Machinist (a kind of I’m Not There/Dark Knight double dipping of Ledger and Bale), then switched gears with The Big Parade, Broadway Melody and G.W. Pabst’s magnificent Pandora’s Box.
Sunday, I watched Fort Apache, the Bronx, Slap Shot, The Sting, Cool Hand Luke (see a pattern?) and finally Clint Eastwood’s underrated Bronco Billy, which is a wonderfully Capraesque romantic comedy-drama.
Next weekend, a film I haven’t seen, darn it… and Herodotus!
I caught up with 2 films in the cinema that I missed in the US – 4, 3, 2 and Up the Yangtze.
I thought both were superbly made. 4 weeks was a harrowing journey and an unflinching investigation of the physical and psychology abuses that can result from abortion being driven underground. I liked the long takes and editing rhythm in general, the washed out color scheme, and cinema verity jerky handheld camera work together with the use of close-ups and darkness in the moments of nervous energy and flight. All the directorial decisions for me served the material. I don’t know whether I could bring myself to watch such a tragic story again, but I’m glad to have been exposed to its craft and the important story told.
I want to especially thank Daniel for keeping Yangtze in the forefront of my mind, and as a result prompting me to see a film I would likely have bypassed. I loved how a monumental sociological story was told without recourse to heavy-handedness and undue didacticism. By focusing in a naturalistic and understated way on the journey of a few of the ultimately relocated our empathy for and understanding of the human consequences were deepened. Multiplying that out to some 2 million souls is a gut-wrenching mental exercise. I was amazed that the director established enough trust with the most-closely followed family that such raw and un-sanitized emotion and exchanges were captured. The cinematography at times showed off the natural beauty of the great river to striking effect. And the willingness to mostly allow the story to tell itself heightened the impact of subtle visual metaphor and the few moments in the film when the refugees of the dam development spoke more directly of their suffering. There was also the reminder, without diluting the likely painful consequences for the majority, that the shared adversity may have prompted some into better circumstances.
Many filmmakers could have sold the powerful subject matter of this documentary, but for me Yung Chang’s skill and aesthetic choices maximized its power to move and inform.
The sight and sounds of the peasant farmer struggling up the steep bank with a large wardrobe upon his back were heartbreaking and truly iconic.
What a truly magnificent and eloquent assessment of both 4 MONTHS and UP THE YANGTZE by sartre. These were two of the supreme masterpieces of the past two years (in fact YANGTZE is a very strong contended for #1 of 2008) but I do agree with our esteemed friend in New Zealand (and SF) that the Romanian film is too difficult to watched repeatedly, especially for that one scene I will not talk about.
I can’t say much to Alexander, LOL! as I can’t keep up with that kind of a torrid viewing diary, but the films viewed are terrific, except for maybe FORT APACHE and ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13! SLAPSHOT is a Paul Newman film that is always an utter delight to revisit. Nice resurrection there!
Congratulations Hedwig on that unforgettable weekend with that Dutch silent (which I would love to see!) and that Sluitzer lecture. THE VANISHING is some kind of masterwork, but the buried alive stuff is simply horrifying and impossible to revisit. And the mere mention of JACQUES BREL sends me into a tizzy, as I am a lifelong fanatic for his songs, and luckily saw (last year) the Broadway revival of “Jacques Brel is Alive and Well…….” There are too many songs I love to pick an absolute favorite. And those nine student films? Wow.
What with the launching of a new blog, this was surely the most hectic week in memory in a cultural sense. I saw a number of DVDs in the comfort of my own home in view of the need to be close to the computer–I watched the new Eclipse Ozu set (had already seen these films) and I watched THE FALL and SNOW ANGELS, both of which I will have more to say on soon. I also watched the new Criterion (again) of AN AUTUMN AFTERNOON, and I watched the Region 2 of a film from earlier in the year Iiked a lot, WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU SAW YOUR FATHER? with Jim Broadbent and Colin Firth.
Finally, I watched the new BFI S. Ray release of CHARULATA, and this masterpiece finally got a decent transfer.
In the theatres, I did get to see four new films, all over the weekend.
The Class *** 1/2 (Friday evening; NYFF)
The Duchess **** (Saturday evening)
Choke *** (Saturday evening)
Miracle at St. Anna ** (Sunday evening)
I was warned by Craig late yesterday that ST. ANNA was a dud, but I didn’t take his advice, and opted to endure this two hour and forty minute disaster. Good acting, yes, but all else failed as the film was disjointed, boring and torturous basically for the reasons Craig elaborated on above, which I concur with. The real tragedy was that I got home at 1:30 A. M. in the morning. That is mighty sick!
CHOKE had some hysterical set pieces (I especially loved that interplay between senile old woman and Rockwell) but the film was not cohesive and too much didn’t work.
THE DUCHESS was far better than some critics would have you believe, and Rachel Portman contributed the most ravishing and sweeping score of her career here. Great acting by Keira Knightley and Mr. Fiennes, and a rather engrossing period piece.
THE CLASS, at the New York Film Festival was quite the event, but the film, despite some excellent components, wasn’t on the level of past Palme d’Or winners. I have written a review of it.
Friday afternoon I saw a screening of Up the Yangtze. Loved the subject matter and the execution, but some of it felt really fake to me. I’m still trying to process why I feel this way, even though my review is posted over at MovieZeal.
That evening, I showed The Silence of the Lambs to two friends who had never seen it. Masterpiece … through and through. They thought the same.
Sunday night I watched This Is England again at a film discussion get-together. A bit more melodramatic than I remembered it, but still a grand recognition of the need for a father in your life. It made me very grateful. The film has a tremendous final sequence, too.
Phillip, one great thing about friends who don’t live and breathe movies, you can always surprise them with something awesome. Cool that they responded to Silence. Sometimes it helps to see a movie with fresh eyes to remember why you like it so much in the first place.
Hedwig and Alexander definitely win the weekend so far (seriously Alexander, how does your brain not explode?). Those are amazing lineups, but Jeff gets honorable mention for combining Paul Newman and the Coen Brothers.
Sam, I’m kind of glad you saw St. Anna even though I didn’t like it. Now at least I feel comfortable in my dislike. I guess I liked Choke a bit better than you did. I agree it was disjointed, but that was part of its scruffy charm for me. I also share your positive take on The Duchess, much to my suprise. Much better than the generally middling reviews it seems to be getting.
The interesting thing about Sartre’s selections is that neither film matched my expectations of it…..in good ways. I was expecting more of a Chinese-centric story with Yangtze, but it was really a universal human story. With 4 Months I wasn’t expecting such a suspenseful and….I hate to say it….such an entertaining film.
Nick, sometimes seeing nothing is good.I finally settled on St. Anna but would’ve been better off staying home.
K, normally I can look at a movie I didn’t like and still see that others might see good in it. St. Anna is far from the worst movie I’ve seen lately, but I can’t think of a single compelling reason anyone should see it. I’ll have to see what critics are saying, but this one is a bit of a head scratcher for me.
Friday night was spent amongst friends watching the CNN Super Presidential Bowl. As Alexander points out, it’s somewhat ridiculous how politics have become a spectator sport, complete with pre- and post-game shows. Next election they’ll have Janet Jackson performing at half time with sponsorship from Chevrolet.
Saturday I spent in a funk all day over Paul Newman’s passing. I revisited The Godfather II on Blu-ray (saw Godfather I earlier in the week) and even a true masterpiece of cinema couldn’t turn my frown upside down for long. Truly a sad day.
Sunday I saw Miracle at St. Anna and as much as I’d like to have drawn some deft conclusion that makes it a worthy recommendation, I must concur with all of Craig’s comments. It’s a true mess of film making, School Daze meets Saving Private Ryan. The film has some brilliant moments, some very impressive performances, and some beautiful cinematography, but it’s mildly incoherent, at times corny and pompous, and mostly a muddled mess. Before I get worked up into a lather over this one, I’ll stop myself and say that Spike Lee did something truly impressive: he answered Clint Eastwood’s Flags of our Fathers with a movie equally well-meaning but completely wrong-headed.
Stop preaching, Spike. It’s not one of your strengths, to say the least. Get back to the career resurgence you were on with 25th Hour, Inside Man, and When the Levees Broke.
One last question (CONTAINS A MILD SPOILER for MASA): What the hell is Spike Lee’s problem with interracial romance, specifically with Italian women? While he’s telling us all to deal with our own racism maybe he needs to dig into his own racial and sexist issues.
I officially hate politics by the way, especially of the US variety because my beloved “Grey’s Anatomy” won’t be screened this Thursday on account of a PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE stealing its slot. I’m sorry, but on what planet is politics considered entertainment? When it’s being poked fun at sure, and I get that watching politics go down is a joke unto itself, but that is just mean and cold hearted and I cannot wait for Obama to win already and get it over with. Damn it.
First, I extend belated thanks to Hedwig, who recently directed our attentions to the joys of pepernoten. Since I love the flavor of anise, I’m tempted to tackle your recipe.
Like others here, I was preoccupied over the weekend by the political debates and cable-channel wonky talk, which diverted my focus from the John Payne noir film, Kansas City Confidential. One thing I noticed from it, though, is confirmation of Payne’s substantial acting abilities, not to mention his range, which covers singing, intense drama and light romantic comedy.
I saw one current release — Towelhead — and have contributed my thoughts on the thread accompanying Craig’s review of that film. This excursion gave me the opportunity to see the big-screen trailer for Rachel Getting Married. I’ll probably see it but am unsure how I’ll respond to a steady stream of an intensely intense Anne Hathaway. (I’m just glad that Bill Irwin and Debra Winger are in it to provide some balance.)
Since sartre mentioned 4, 3, 2, I’ll add that I loved that film — especially the elements that gave the film so much resonance — for example, the contrasts in how the main character and the pregnant woman reacted to the story’s situations. This film is so much more than a one-dimensional, linear narrative on the grueling nature of abortion in an Eastern bloc country.
Despite everything that’s been said about St. Anna, I intend to see it soon. I have my own theories as to how well it will be received by the public, the critics and the Academy but will defer such comments until I catch the film in a theater.
sartre, so glad that you got to finally see 4, 3, 2 and liked it so much. It’s one of my top movies of the year and your thoughts on it concur with mine (though you wrote them much better).
My friend and I tried to get to the Film Forum screening of The Godfather on Saturday (it would have been awesome to see that on the big screen again) but it was sold out (probably long before we ever decided to go), so we went around the corner to the IFC and saw Trouble the Water. An excellent and moving documentary. Those people were amazing.
Too bad about St. Anna.
Glad you caught Trouble the Water Alison! Good call.
Pierre, I’m not going to tell you not to see St. Anna, but as I was saying to K this is a rare instance when I can’t think of a compelling reason why you should. As Joel notes, there are some great moments in it, but for me this made it all the more frustrating. There was an epic, powerful film to be made from this story, but this isn’t it. Maybe I’ll read the McBride novel.
Nick: Politics is entertainment on the Planet USA. It’s a sporting event now and it makes me sick.
Joel, what’s your verdict on how the new Godfathers look?
All I saw was the chick flick, The Jane Austen Book Club. Oddly, my husband enjoyed it much more than I did. It was amiable enough, not terrible, but it wasn’t the missed gem I’d hoped it would be. I guess the whole Jane Austen angle and the inevitable parallels in their lives felt way too contrived; it would have been better as simply The Book Club (even though, I of course, love Jane Austen).
Anyway, that’s the only movie I’ve seen not only all weekend, but the entire week (unless you count a few miserable scenes from Ghost Rider on TV and half of The Maltese Falcon on TCM, which I’ve seen so many times it doesn’t seem like it should count).
I’m ready for a movie in the theater. Any movie, any theater.
Ahem…well. I don’t have my thoughts fully formed and I want to sit down and review it some time this week, but I believe I am going to be going significantly against the tide with St. Anna. It’s definitely, definitely flawed - but I ended up actually liking it in spite of itself.
Interestingly, Sam, I thought the acting was one of the weakest parts, especially on account of Derek Luke’s awkward line reading.
I don’t know anything about the background on the production and I haven’t read the book, but I feel like this is the only story Lee felt he could use to bring attention to African-Americans in WW II. Had he done a by-the-book Letters from Iwo Jima version like Eastwood, it probably would have completely sunk with audiences, if they showed up at all. But there’s a story here, albeit a fantastical one, that first of all hooks you into going to the theater, and second of all hooks from the first moments of the film. I found myself surprisingly engaged by the “mystery”, even though he didn’t have to take so much sweet time resolving it. At the end of the day, it’s a war movie that stands out because it’s not about a legendary battle or celebrated American hero. I appreciated the lack of slow-mo heavy handedness that Tropic Thunder beautifully satired.
So I’m already way out on a limb here, that’s fine. I also thought it was brilliantly filmed, and that the languages and cultural details seemed truly authentic. If nothing else it goes to show once again that Lee has incredible talent, even if this story was pretty bizarre.
All in all I feel like it may have been a wasted opportunity, but it was a risk no one else was willing to take, and one that Lee pulled off with moderate success. I’d say a B+/A-, but again, this is the first I’ve actually written any of my thoughts about it, so that could change positively or negatively.
Alright, so that was really rambling - kind of like the movie…
Time and work otherwise conspired against me this weekend and I didn’t see anything else, leaving me way, WAY behind with new releases. I should be seeing Appaloosa tonight, though, for which I have tempered my expectations. I watched the debate and was moderately entertained. I think this Thursday’s debate will be must see TV. Who knows, Nick, you might even find it worth watching!
Thanks for those thoughts on Yangtze, sartre. Truly poetic. I’ll once again remind folks that it’s going to be on PBS in October. You may not want to miss it, for free no less: http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2008/uptheyangtze/preview.html. For that matter, you might be interested in Critical Condition, another documentary screening this week about the 47 million Americans without health insurance. Call it Sicko but without Michael Moore’s manipulative voiceovers. I plan to check it out if my schedule allows: http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2008/criticalcondition/. You can sign up for a one time email reminder for both documentaries as well.
I toyed with seeing the Austen film JB because of the cast alone…but something scared me off. Not the chick-flickyness of it exactly…just something. Sounds like I didn’t miss too much.
Interesting take on St. Anna, Daniel. I agree that there was a great story here, but that frustrates me all the more that this felt like such a missed opportunity. The bookend scenes worked way better for me than the ones in Saving Private Ryan for example, but the overall mystery stopped being interesting fairly quickly.
See, when people say that Choke was incoherently written, I just saw it as constantly surprising and original.
Well, you’ve convinced me. I’ve been debating whether to see “St. Anna” in the theater, but after reading this, Ebert’s (and many, many others) less than enthusiastic review, I’ve decided to wait for the DVD. Bummer.
Why is it that whenever Lee tackles some amazing subject, 9 times out of 10 he just does not deliver? To this day, I think his two most complete films are “Do The Right Thing” and “Malcolm X,” and they came out almost two decades ago. There have been some nice little films since, but nothing that I can refer to as a smashing success.
As usual, Daniel, you exhibit great bravery going against the tide with Miracle at St. Anna. I meant to say in my post back around 2:30–I’d rather see a Spike Lee failure than a Ratner or Bay or Fill-in-the-Blank success. He seems to always swing for the fences, no matter what he does, and with that in mind he does strike out with regularity, but at least his at-bats are fun to watch.
However, I think you and I disagree about 25th Hour (which I love), so maybe we’ll disagree about his World War II epic.
Rather than going to bed like I said I should/would, I actually watched my Blu-ray DVD of The Fall. I eagerly anticipate Sam’s commentary concerning this–speaking of Daniel, he and I seemed to be, for a while here, alone in our enthusiasm for that film.
Terrific analysis of two tremendous films, Sartre. Thank you for relating your thoughts about both with such lucidity.
Craig, I did feel as though my head was going to explode Friday night, but as I watched the post-game analysis of The Big Debate, I was able to contentedly grill some trout I had caught early that morning at a nearby lake (just a couple of miles from home, actually) on my patio. Fresh fish helps!
Jacques Brel is indeed something else, Sam, or perhaps someone else, haha.
Well I’m glad Daniel is striking a contrarian response to St. Anna because I don’t want to be the guy to talk people out of seeing it, as I said.
If you’re interested at all Dorothy, the theater is the way to go because it was a nice looking film and some of the combat scenes will benefit from the sound system.
KB, glad to hear another voice in the “Choke is Good” chorus. I’m not going to argue with people for whom it didn’t work….as I’ve said elsewhere I think it was flawed, but flawed in ways that actually work to its benefit. I think it reached for meaning too hard in the end and didn’t quite reach it, but that’s ok.
Craig, my opinion is my own only but I say the new Godfather release is very nice. My HD TV is nothing special, but it looked and sounded better than any version I’d seen before. I was a little surprised at how soft the actual focus of Willis’ camera work is, but I know this was intentional because if I looked very closely on my display I could see actual film grain, which is pretty impressive. Part II looks better than Part I, probably because Part II was in much better shape as far as negatives go but both parts looked beautiful.
The subtle beauty of the flashbacks with De Niro as young Vito are absolutely breath taking, as though Willis and Coppola used a time machine to capture the events as they happened.
We’ve discussed this elsewhere, but this release will likely annoy some home theater aficionados out there who think every Blu-ray release should be ultra sharp and shiny. They can suck it. This is as close as we’ll get to what Willis and Coppola originally intended us to see and it is quite exquisite, even when Willis takes things a little too far.
This is one of those releases that actually makes me pine for a HD projector and a ten foot screen to properly enjoy the film as it was intended, rather than just seeing it on fairly small display.
I’ll be curious to read your review of St Anna, Daniel. Maybe you can help me to appreciate the film on a level other than what I experienced yesterday.
As for The Debate, I’m a cable free household, but somehow I’ve managed to fall madly in love with Rachel Maddow. Yes, I know she’s a lesbian and I have no chance with her, but she’s smart and funny. Honestly, the fact that I can’t have her makes her all the more attractive to me, but then I’m a little touched in the head that way.
I sorta liked The Jane Austen Book Club a tiny, tiny bit jennybee, probably about the same amount as you. I saw it on DVD, and I also felt it was waaay to contrived, but I liked Emily Blunt and the other older lady whose name I have just forgotten, and the sound track. That’s about it.
Joel, I couldn’t help but note that despite the setting of St. Anna, judging by the trailer it was still about Lee’s angst-ridden portrait of black-Italian relationships.
Thanks for relating the look of The Godfather films on Blu-ray, Joel.
I’m actually on my way to see EAGLE EYE (there’s a gas shortage around here so heading to closest theater playing MIRACLE AT ST. ANNA would have been unwise), but other than that the only new release I saw over the weekend was MISTER FOE, which was pretty good. Not a great film, but I enjoyed myself.
On the older films front I watched THE SWEET HEREAFTER for the first time, which I loved, and also an absolutely dreadul 70’s horror film called THE DEVIL’S RAIN, starring William Shatner, Tom Skerritt, Ernest Borgnine as a satanic priest, and John Travolta in his film debut. It was…interesting to say the least. I watched it for Shatner and in that regard it delivered the campy entertainment value. It’s hilariously bad.
I also watched LOVE ME TONIGHT over the week, which is a wonderfully naughty pre-code musical that I enjoyed quite a bit. One of the very best film musicals that hardly anyone knows about.
Love Me Tonight is awesome, Matthew. I love me some pre-code.
The Sweet Hereafter is a great film.
The Sweet Hereafter was a knockout, Matthew. I saw it after all the hype, and it actually lived up to it.
By the way, I saw “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” over the weekend and absolutely loved it. I fell into a deep spell watching this film, and it is possibly one of my top 3 favorite Allen movies. Everyone was on their element; especially Cruz and Hall, to the extent that I can see nominations for both ladies. I give a significant advantage to Cruz — what a powerhouse she’s become. Bardem is at his sexiest, and Johansson was subtle and charming.
I’ve also realized that for some reason I *really* respond to voice over narration in films. From “Jules et Jim” to more recently “Little Children” and “The Assassination of Jesse James.” When done correctly, it can give a film an added feeling of intimacy and richness.
So yeah, VCB: A
Phillip was my hero last week, and Dorothy is my hero this week.
I totally f’ing agree with you about VCB and the more resistance I’ve gotten to that movie, the more adamant I become. I was completely charmed by it and I’m not that easy of a date.
And I also agree with you on voiceover in general. As I’ve said elsewhere, I think some people automatically knock it because they’ve read it’s lazy screenwriting…well I think that’s lazy reviewing. When it’s used well, it really really works. The Coen Brothers often use it to great effect.
VCB, I had to warm up to the guy’s voice. The first time I kept hearing Woody Allen’s words, but the voice didn’t fit. The second time, it was fine.
Pierre, I meant to add that I liked Rachel Getting Married quite a bit. It’s unlikely I’ll be getting up a review by Friday at this point, but I’ll give it a shoutout in the Weekend Forecast. I’m not sure from your comments where you stand on Hathaway, but I thought she was quite good. Her character was unlikeable, but she was great.
THE SWEET HEREAFTER is the second greatest Canadien film of all-time behind MON ONCLE ANTOINE and ahead of JESUS OF MONTREAL.
Matthew, I agree with you on THE DEVIL’S RAIN, definitely an obscure film, but I have the DVD.
LOVE ME TONITE is one of the three or four greatest film musicals in the entire history of the cinema.
Alexander, you will be pleased with my opinion of THE FALL, I soon will write a review of it. (completely in my own words, LOL)
Daniel, that is a most interesting take on the Spike Lee film and the difference of view on the acting; I eagerly await your review.
Yeah, I loved The Sweet Hereafter as well, that movie is LOVE.
I know I’m the only one around these parts that kind of fell for Snow Angels, but I got a strong Sweet Hereafter vibe off it. It’s not as good of a movie, but there was just something about it.
Maybe it was the snow.
I may not have outright fallen for Snow Angels, but I did like it, and I still consider one of the better films of the year. Good comparison to The Sweet Hereafter, Craig, both in the intimate propulsion of the tragic tale in each film and the white, wintry setting.
KB has Snow Angels in his Top 5 of the year, or at least he did a while ago.
It’s at least a contender for my Top 10 as of now.
KB is also a Choke booster, so me and the monkeys are KB fans.
Count me in the VCB fan club. I was quite charmed by it although I admit I found the voice over to be irritating. But then again I’m not a fan of voice over narration in general (although it definitely worked in THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES).
The “white wintry” setting and the tragic context as Alexander so eloquently poses, are what precipate a just comparison between SNOW ANGELS and THE SWEET HEREAFTER. Craig, you are NOT alone on SNOW ANGELS–I was mesmerized and moved by the film, and it definitely contends for my ten best list, as it does for Alexander’s and K. Bowen’s. I wanted to keep my feelings under wraps until I wrote something, but I’ve been dying for days to issue unqualified praise for it. So there you have it.
I will remain silent on VCB, as I want to remain a member of this distingished gathering, LOL!, which includes just about everyone with the exception of Chuck Bowen.
I am nogt with the monkeys on CHOKE though, despite some moments of writing brilliance.
Yep Nick, SWEET HEREAFTER is love incarnate.
Matthew, I forgot in my earlier post to mention that I also watched The Devil’s Rain this weekend. It was entertaining enough for what it was.
Sam, is there anyone here who isn’t ‘eloquent’?
Thanks for welcoming my moderate praise of St. Anna with words of understanding and not disdain. Most places I would probably lose any credibility that I have (but don’t deserve) for going against the grain on this one, but good ‘ol LiC always allows for differing opinions.
I’ll see if I can make a legitimate case in a review, but I’m not out to change people’s minds, either. There’s plenty about it not to like, and maybe I’m giving it a bit of a pass because I feel Spike Lee has earned it. Incidentally, I didn’t see Levees but I really wasn’t moved by either Inside Man or She Hate Me or 25th Hour, as you have correctly stated, Alexander. I agree that his best years were in the late 80’s/early 90’s, but I like that he’s still ambitiously taking on projects like this. I’m not thrilled about the idea of Inside Man 2 as his next film, but I’ll be there.
Regarding The Fall, well I still stand behind it as a visual feast, Alexander, but it remains somewhat lacking in terms of a gripping story in my head. I might rather watch a highlight reel of the coolest moments (which would comprise about a half hour of footage anyway) than watch the entire thing again. In any case, I admire Tarsem’s effort in making it as well.
The lesson of the day, then, is that I guess I reward filmmakers for going out and creating their own work instead of lazily waiting for their agent to call them about some ridiculous sequel that the Pinheads are kicking around.
Yeah, you Jeff.
LOL!
THE FALL has one of of the most breathtaking openings of any film in recent years with that thundering use of the famed “Alegretto” (second movement) of Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony. Tarsem didn’t demure and he went for the jungular by using one of the greatest codas in all of music. Daniel’s objections pretty much line up with the naysayers in the severely split concensus. The story is admittedly inconclusive and lacking in cohesion, much in the way THE FOUNTAIN was, but the metaphorical and metaphysical imagry form a story of their own. It is an astounding, suggestive and utterly ravishing work that defies traditional criticism. This is what film must ultimately strive to be, methinks.
But again, it’s taste and varying perceptions. I fully respect your position Daniel from where you are coming.
We happily agree on The Fall Daniel, so we can happily disagree on St. Anna.
It actually sounds like we’re not too far off in our responses, but giving a different weight of importance to different things….if that makes any sense.
The Sweet Hereafter was indeed a lovely, lovely film. I happened into that one without knowing a thing about it just as I was on the cusp of getting interested in film. It’s one that gets better and better, I think. It’s also the first screenplay I read (after, of course, seeing it).
Nick, we are very much in agreement on Jane Austen BC. I also rather liked Hugh Dancy’s character as the misunderstood man, but yeah, it’s not one to regret missing.
I haven’t seen St. Anna yet, and probably won’t unless it gets a bunch of surprise Oscar noms. I’m in the pro-25th Hour camp, though. And of course Inside Man, cuz it’s a heist film and it has Clive Owen, my own sweet hereafter.
Rachel Maddow is my secret hero, Craig. I think I have a bit of a girl crush on her, too.
Let it never be said you don’t have great taste JB.
I kept trying to put this in previous posts, but failed to do so: Pierre, I saw Kansas City Confidential the previous week, and I too was struck by the palpable talents of John Payne, among many other things, such as the overall quality of the film, and I had seen it twice before.
As much as I love 25th Hour, Daniel, both She Hate Me and Inside Man left me very much cold and I doubt I’ll ever revisit them.
Your points concerning The Fall, including your criticisms, are well-formulated even if I partly disagree. Though, like you say, it’s better to see an ambitious filmmaker waltz with folly rather than accepting the task of making a worthless Studio Pinhead sequel.
I admittedly haven’t seen much of Spike Lee’s oeuvre, but I never understood the hype around INSIDE MAN. It didn’t do anything for me at all.
THE FALL is one of my favorite films of the year. And while its focus is most definitely on the visuals as many of you have pointed out, I think many of the weaknesses in the story were intentional - normal logic and storytelling conventions do not apply when it comes to children’s bedtime stories, especially when the story is filtered through the child’s frame of reference.
Notice how the Indian in the story as told by Lee Pace’s character is supposed to be a Native American, but the girl, being Indian, imagines him as a native of India.
It is the little details like that that made me love THE FALL.
Not adhering to ‘normal logic’ may explain the story within the storyin The Fall, but they don’t explain the weaknesses of the story proper.
I’ll have to side with Daniel on Miracle at St. Anna. It’s poorly structured at times, with various side-plots that suddenly distract the viewer from the main dramatic arc that builds between the Americans and the Italian villagers, but I was still compelled by the characters, the performances and some great individual moments.
I admire that Lee throws everything into the mix even if it doesn’t always work. It’s an interesting blend of heroic, old-fashioned American war film and European anti-war tragedy. Everything with the boy was incredible. And I was moved for the most part, though the very ending is a bit much. I liked it, though.
And very much disagree with the enthusiasm for The Fall, unfortunately, and it’s the visuals I blame, not the story. I liked the characters, I liked the performances (the girl was very sweet, Pace was excellent), but the visuals are pretty in the way a Lexus commercial is pretty. He uses slow-motion for the sake of it, not because it’s really called for or because it adds anything to the moment. He frames the actors for a cool pose like they’re models at a photo-shoot, not characters in a story. And how many shots did he lift from Baraka? Too many.
Anyway, don’t kill me. Just didn’t care for it.
” And how many shots did he lift from Baraka? Too many.”
Lol, Ari. I’m going to see it soon, so I’ll look out for that.
I didn’t really have any problems with the story proper. It wasn’t as strong as the fantasy at its core but I don’t think it was really meant to be. It worked precisely because of the fantasy.
if that makes any sense.
It makes every bit of sense, Craig. Count me as ambivalent about The Fall. Like others here, I was wowed by the visuals, but at times the settings seemed staged, which Ari describes so well. I tried to accept this seeming contrivance as tied to theme but never quite got there. Whether or not my sentiments change down the road about this aspect, there are many things to value and enjoy about the film.
Craig — I know my comment about Anne Hathaway is vague. Generally, I think she has talent because it was on display in Brokeback. However, my feeling is she needs the right role. Prada kept her face out there but did little for her creatively. All I can say about Rachel is I hope her character gets to relax at some point — I don’t wanna sit through 2+ hours of Hathaway in stress mode — beautiful as she is — whether it’s good acting or not.
Dorothy and Matthew, I’m pleased to hear your reactions to VCB. I think the film is good not just for the confectionary pleasures but also thematically. It says more than it appears to be saying, is what I’m suggesting. (If you care to wade through a sea of in-depth film analysis, you could always check out the many comments on Craig’s review of the film.) And Sam, I love you even though you share different sentiments on this one.
I dunno if I’ll like Choke, but the trailer entertained me.
The Fall: There’s one scene in particular that was obviously inspired by Baraka, but overall there weren’t that many others. The Lexus ad comment is a bit more accurate to my memory, although I think the visuals were more exotic than they were pretentiously luxurious. ; )
I agree with Jeff’s comment about it though. I could forgive some obvious narrative lapses if either of the storylines had worked, but neither did for me.
ST ANNA SPOILERS BELOW-
Ari: I generally agree with your comments about St Anna, but I think Lee’s didactic and typically obvious comments on race overwhelmed the truly inspired scenes they were interspersed with. I found it annoyingly simplistic that all the racist characters were stupid, ineffectual, and grossly overbearing (Bishop included) where as the few racially-aware characters were smart, wise, and caring. Its simplistic and dangerous to connote racism with a low IQ, a lack of education, or a specific economic background.
For me, the ice cream shoppe sequence was utterly ridiculous. Those soldiers would have been court-martialed in a heart beat and what the hell were German POWs doing state-side during the war? If they were brought all the way back to the US during the war, why take them out for sundaes? It struck me as a completely contrived sequence. But it almost works because of what follows it, which is probably the single best scene in the entire film. Together, that group shot of the soldiers suddenly has double-meaning and takes on a whole new resonance. Sadly, the ice cream shoppe scene is so over-the-top it derails much of the dramatic value of what follows.
Many of the characters were compelling and some of the performances (including the young boy) were excellent, but
I would prefer Lee tell the story and let me see his point of view rather than beat me over the head with it for 165 minutes.
and what the hell were German POWs doing state-side during the war?
Not having seen St. Anna yet, I’m not sure what you’re referring to, Joel. But I can tell you that there were plenty of German POWs in the USA during World War II. They were utilized in virtually all states to provide much-needed labor in factories and fields. Japanese POWs also were interned here, but not as many were allowed to leave the prisons and work amongst Americans, primarily because of racial attitudes.
In many areas of the country, security at the German POW camps was lax, especially in areas where first- or second-generation German immigrants (or Scandinavians, for that matter) had a cultural affinity with them. Although fraternization wasn’t allowed on an official basis, it’s known that some of the POWs sometimes traveled freely for brief periods of time within the communities where they were imprisoned. Going out for sundaes is entirely plausible. Because the POWs were treated so well by the American authorities, scarcely any of them tried to escape.
Wow, so many comments… and I’ll respond only to one that has almost nothing to do with movies, comment #5 waaaay back:
I know I need to use the pointy brackets. But for my filmtotaal reviews, I need to use the square ones [], so when I’m in a hurry, I sometimes do it wrong…
Anyway, on topic: I really am looking forward to VCB, which unfortunately doesn’t come out here til December… when, incidentally (yeah, talk about burying the lede): I will have a job. As a PhD-student, to be precise (it’s a paid job here). So… yeah. Ought to keep me busy until 2012
Congrats, Hedwig! Let’s hope your doctoral studies don’t put too much of a dent in your Living in Cinema time.
Congrats, Hedwig!!!!!!!!!!!
That is really great Hedwig–best wishes and a hearty congrats to you! That is a STAGGERING accomplishment, that dwarfs everything else.
Indeed, Hedwig - that’s quite an impressive achievement!
Sounds we’re of the same mind on St. Anna, Ari - stranded like the soldiers in the movie…
Fair points on the characters’ intelligence, Joel. One that I think you could make of so many of Lee’s movies. For what it’s worth, I didn’t think the highest level military officials here were portrayed as unintelligent, even if the lower ranking people were - the German and the American captains, especially. But I realize that’s a stretch and I concede the point.
Another positive about St. Anna is that it features four young, talented African-American actors. Like I already mentioned, I was actually the least impressed with Luke, who is the most established of the four, but I look forward to seeing all of those guys hopefully get some legitimate roles going forward.
Hedwig, I don’t know many Dutch people or paid physicists or film critics. As a combination of all three, well that just puts you in a class all your own.
Congratulatoins, Hedwig! I figured you knew which brackets to use already, but there was the 0.0002% chance that maybe you had been hit in the head and lost a handful of memory items like in an old episode of 24, a show which I only watched once so I don’t know why I’m bringing it up. Congrats!!! Craig’s last comment in this thread sums it up.
Hehe, thanks, all. I actually love that the inscription Paul Verhoeven wrote for me in his biograpgy says “we have a lot in common”: he has an MSc in maths/physics too. I hope I’ll be able to continue combining the two for at least the next four years.
BTW: I totally forgot to mention that I’d watched a screener of the French biopic Sagan over the weekend. Which is telling. She obviously led a fascinating life…which led to particularly forgettable and full movie, alas.
Brand new to the site, but I wanted to chime in about The Fall.
Having had a chance to recently see it, I absolutely loved it. Truthfully, the ending is a big part of the reason why.
And this might drift into spoiler-kingdom, so discretion is advised the rest of the way.
I liked it, because even with Roy doing everything he could to push away Alexandria, it was her love for him, call it as a friend, call it a paternal love, but that love was the first unconditional thing he’d felt, and in the story, when Evelyn is finally rejected, that it really felt right as a redemption story. I can understand some people really not liking it’s flaws, and immediately, I was off put by some of the things, but, in the end, I think it really worked.
It’s not my place to welcome you Michael (Craig will surely be thrilled to have you here and rightly so) but welcome anyway LOL……..I agree with you on THE FALL in th end and enjoyed your take.
As divided as people are on The Fall, I have to say it’s remarkable how it keeps coming up in discussion. Even though the film didn’t quite work for me the way it did for some of you, I have to admire the fact it still has people thinking and talking.
I think that largely has to do with the fact that THE FALL is completely different than anything that we ever see in the marketplace now, Craig.
You know how much I wanted to love it. But it really is a mess. What’s truly a bloody shame is how GREAT it could’ve been. But it just falls short in so many respects.
There’s a lot of good stuff in it and it is beautiful to look at. LEE PACE and CATINCA UNTARU were superb.
But that’s not enough. Not even for four stars.
I have some work to do. But when I come back I’d like to talk about how BRIDESHEAD REVISITED (the film) shapes up against BRIDESHEAD REVISITED (the 80s miniseries). Now that I’ve purchased the TV thing and have seen it in its entirety.
Anybody that reads it is in for a big surprise, methinks.
All right…
Craig was talking to me this summer about BRIDESHEAD REVISITED.
When I told him that I was going to purchase the much praised miniseries from the early 80s, he said that he wondered how I would feel about them both when I got a chance to finally compare and contrast them.
Well, I bought the miniseries and I’ve finally watched it in its entirety. I’ve seen the film six times and I’m going back for a seventh viewing within the next few days.
This will likely be a very long post. This is all going to be one subject and I think it will likely only interest half a dozen LiCers.
So feel free to just skip it if it’s not your cup of tea.
This is all about BRIDESHEAD REVISITED - the miniseries AND the current film in release…
There is no right and wrong in terms of artistic critiques. There are only opinions.
I can understand why the Granada miniseries is so revered. It’s definitely an achievement. Especially for that particular time period.
But classic? I’m not so sure.
I think A LOT of people that were let down by the movie are bathing themselves in the golden glow of nostalgia. They likely saw the miniseries when they were young or at a particular point where life was incredibly glorious for them. I’m willing to bet many of them haven’t seen it since and the positives have only grown in terms of their memories.
To be fair, if I had seen the miniseries I would’ve had a rather large fit about the movie being made. I almost did - and I hadn’t seen the majority of the TV thing.
Well, now I’ve seen both. In all sincerity, I prefer the film by A WIDE MARGIN.
I will tell you why.
First of all, the film is superior to the miniseries on a number of levels. Its score is far lovelier. The cinematography is much more elegant and vivid. It’s beautifully shot. The miniseries was shot on 35mm. Some of it is glorious. Some of it looks like mud. It looks like TV. Late 70s/early 80s TV, which is exactly what it is. You see a lot of shots of grey, chilly England too. It’s severely offputting.
Plus the miniseries IS TOO DAMN LONG. It’s 11 eps and 13 hours. They could easily have cut in it in half. EASILY. There were so many unnecessary scenes and subplots that didn’t have to be in there. The film, in less than 2 and a half hours, brilliantly encapsulates all the major events. It’s edited exquisitely and it has a wonderful flow to it.
I never read the book. Now that I’ve seen both of these versions I don’t have to. But I’m no purist. I imagine that the TV thing may be closer to the novel. But to me that’s not a selling point - to any degree.
I can only go with what I’m passionate about and what captures my imagination.
The acting is quite flawless right across the board. Everyone rises to the task and does the best job they can with the material that they’re given. Don’t want to be shallow. I’m going to end up backing the most stereotypically beautiful person in either case.
I guess that’s just the way it goes.
Kills me. But JEREMY IRONS, to my great surprise, was well over 30 when he agreed to star in the TV thing. So were the others that played the principal characters. He looked MUCH TOO old to be portraying an 18 year old, though he was fine when they got into Charles’ 20s. I liked MATTHEW GOODE from the film much more. He had an earnest innocence, a great warmth to him and a genuine wit.
It’s hard to sympathize with Charles in the TV thing. He’s a real cold fish.
I ADORED EVERY SINGLE MOMENT THAT ANTHONY ANDREWS’ SEBASTIAN WAS ON MY TV SCREEN.
HE WAS PERFECT. He was a great actor giving a grand performance in a role that he was born to play. Very, very rare. Not only was he one of the most gorgeous men I’ve EVER laid eyes on but he was brilliantly talented.
His Sebastian left such an impression on me that I found that the miniseries simply wasn’t as fascinating when he disappeared. But that performance…For him to go from this dashing bon vivant - carrying his beloved bear around, endlessly drinking champagne - to that sad emaciated wreck in the hospital bed was truly something.
BEN WISHAW in the movie could never compete with that kind of star power in a million years. He’s not gorgeous or a deeply masculine presence. He can’t help it. He’s rather impish and lighthearted. That’s not his fault. He gives the best performance he can.
But he has a completely different kind of physicality. Plus ANTHONY ANDREWS is an endlessly talented actor giving the performance of his career in the role of a lifetime. It’s something that can’t be helped. It’s just the way it is.
It’s a real shame that JUDE LAW never got a shot at playing SEBASTIAN. He was supposed to - and this role could have been a high point in his career. He is the only actor currently working today that would have perfect. He has the beauty and the talent.
He would have been delicious….
I liked CLAIRE BLOOM’S LADY MARCHMAIN in the miniseries as opposed to EMMA THOMPSON’S take in the movie. But, although she has talent,. I’ve always thought that Emma is one of the most overrated actors in the history of film.
CLAIRE BLOOM possesses beauty and charm. Two things that Emma Thompson lacks. She’s cast against type here and it really works for her. In both versions Lady Marchmain is cold, ruthless and manipulative. But, due to the way the miniseries is written, you don’t understand that immediately. You get the vibe that that could be the case. But you’re not quite sure.
In the TV thing Lady Marchmain hides behind her lovely and gracious facade. You don’t understand what a complete fraud she is - and exactly how dangerous - until much later. Claire Bloom makes the most of that and the subtlety in the writing makes her characterization much more powerful.
Finally, I’ll take HAYLEY ATWELL’S JULIA (from the movie) over DIANA QUICK’S version ANY DAY. Diana seemed rather subdued to me. She had an aristocratic bearing and she was sexy in an offbeat way. But Hayley is not only gorgeous but she had a real spark. She was witty and enticing and drew you in with her enveloping sensuality. She was fascinating.
NO CONTEST.
There were some major (and minor) differences between the two. In EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE, I side with the film.
First of all, the Catholic thing. The Catholicism (which proves to be the essential ruination of all the characters) is front and centre in a couple of eps. It’s also mentioned now and then throughout the miniseries.
But in the film it permeates EVERY SINGLE FRAME. To me, there was a great romance to that. Also a lovely kind of tragic quality. You don’t get that from the miniseries.
It starts with the opening dialogue, where Charles says that he really has no conception of anything any more. He’s only aware of the basic facts of life. But he has suffered greatly from this religion and so did the people that he loved. He feels an enormous amount of guilt - and then it begins……
Also, there were some definite differences in the relationships between the major characters. It’s fairly obvious (in both versions) that Sebastian is gay. But Charles is harder to understand.
In the miniseries, you can’t be sure. Is he bisexual? Is he closeted? Is he really THAT attracted to women or is he just rolling with the party line because it was expected of him? He does really appear to love Julia. But it almost sounds as if he got involved with her because she reminded him of Sebastian and he never got over him.
You’re never really sure in the TV thing EXACTLY what went on between Charles and Sebastian. I’m going on the assumption that they were lovers at one point and it was just never shown. You never see any real physical contact between them. Charles doesn’t ever seem fazed by Sebastian’s friendships with other men. But you never see him with any women either. That would definitely indicate a romantic attachment ot some kind. As far as I’m concerned.
Julia is a real peripheral character. Charles gets to know her at the very beginning. He has absolutely no interest in her until MANY years later when he’s married and Sebastian is long gone from his life.
In the film, it’s TOTALLY different. The physical relationship between the two young men is played up a liitle more. (There’s an actual kiss.) Sebastian is clearly in love with Charles. But Charles is either bisexual or (more likely) going through an exploratory phase. As soon as he meets Julia, he is incredibly fascinated by her. It’s all that moth to the flame stuff.
SHE’S IT FOR HIM - and he wants no one else.
In that way, the movie is MUCH MORE INTERESTING to me. There’s all that lurking unexpressed passion and pining that was TOTALLY missing from the miniseries.
The scene in the film where they first have sex - it’s a sweeping, glorious mutual seduction that happens within MINUTES of the first meeting they’ve had in ten years - is a hell of a lot more exciting than that LONG DRAWN OUT GLUMNESS from the miniseries. It took forever for them to get together on TV. What was the point?
Also, Charles is an agnostic on TV. In the film, he’s a full blown atheist. Much better in the movie. More dramatic.
I just found the film to be far more beautiful all around. The production values are exquisite: the clothes, the cars, Venice, London….
Oddly enough, Castle Howard was used in both versions as Brideshead. It looked like far more of a knockout showpiece in the film.
The movie was much more evocative. You get a sense of glorious days, golden summer, extravagant youth. The miniseries never hits those heights.
The ending of the film carries much more meaning to me as well. If I have to choose between some ramrod straight cold Brit climbing into his jeep, hearing some lines in voice over from the novel while he’s driving over a pothole AGAINST a haunted man on the cusp of middle age, going into a chapel to contemplate the religion that’s destroyed his life and yet NOT being able to extinguish the flame burning in that candle - I’ll take the latter, thank you very much.
I find the film FAR MORE provocative, achingly gorgeous, nostalgic and incredibly rich. On many, mahy different levels.
But that’s me.
So, four stars (BARELY) for the miniseries.
FIve stars for the movie. It’s a classic…
Thanks for following up with that Miranda. I suspect you’ll stir up some controversy because the miniseries is like sacred text in some circles.
My understanding is that the film version was somewhat controversial for being more concretely bisexual because I believe the novel doesn’t make it clear either. I don’t know this for fact because (being an illiterate) I haven’t read the novel.
I wonder if you’d seen the miniseries first, if you’d feel differently. You were already in love with the movie so every way the miniseries diverges is going to feel wrong. Then again, from the things you say you loved about the movie it sounds like you might not have been too keen on the miniseries in the first place. The film obviously pushed some buttons for you that the miniseries (and perhaps the novel) simply didn’t come close too.
That’s your next homework assignment. Read the book and then let me know how it goes. :)
Friday night I watched MCCAIN VERSUS OBAMA: ALL POLITICIANS ATTACK! a terrific, though sometimes slow giant monster movie that almost seemed for realz. I was rooting for the Obama, who handily took down his bitter opponent by merely looking at him.
Wish it had more special effects though.
I was aching for a knockdown blow and was disappointed not to get it, but I’m hoping if Obama simply doesn’t blow it between now and November, he’s in.
Wouldn’t it be, like, really cool if someone who didn’t support The Bailout was someone running for president who had a snowball’s chance in hell of winning?
The monster movie Friday night was amusing, Christian, but I thought character actor Jim Lehrer kind of stole the show with his subtle human acting. I especially liked the scene where he practically pleaded with the two monsters to recognize America’s fiscal, monetary and economic reality, but the Obamination and the Paleolithic McKraken would have none of it.
friday ‘towelhead’ saturday ‘choke’
monday ‘in search of a midnight kiss’ tuesday ‘how to lose friends and alienate people’
that been the last few days for me. and i as usual i don’t have anyything to say or am too tired mentally to attempt…
hey does someone know what issue of film comment get flashed /background as guy in suit/walked by at the start of towelhead at the airport scece)
so yeah i now go to movies more because of lic/ad/cp
i just usually don’t say anything about them.because guess i’m not wowed enough…
“so yeah I now go to movies more because of lic/ad/cp”
Thanks, glimster. So we’re good influences on you, yes?
Craig, I appreciate the reply to my BRIDESHEAD post. SO MUCH. It would’ve been awful to go to all that trouble and just have it hang there.
You’re the loveliest of the lovely, Craig…
No, I came into the miniseries with an open mind. (I had to. It cost me $70. Don’t tell me that I was going to pay for it and not give it a fair shake.)
If people want to desecrate the film (when it’s so brilliant), good for them.
Evelyn Waugh is not exactly sacred territory. How many versions of various Shakespeare plays (both theatrical and film) have there been? Give me a break.
Though Claire Bloom was fantastic, THE ONLY THING that I adored about the miniseries was ANTHONY ANDREWS. Wasn’t just his acting either.
I’ve been with men that beautiful and of that particular physical type (one in particular) and when there’s a connection with someone like that it can go very deep. Walking away is just like leaving a car wreck.
Ah, well…
That was long ago and far away….
And I’m not EVER reading that damn book.
Well, it’s too bad you were underwhelmed by the pricey miniseries, but it’s good you got so much out of the movie version.
I know, Craig.
The film version hit me like a bolt of lightning. I think it’s like anything else.
Some things (books, television, music, film…) you just connect with.
DEEPLY.
There is no right or wrong. Due to your past experiences, what you naturally feel is important, your priorities, your passions, the things and people that you love = there will always be artistic enterprises that just hit you where you live.
It may not make any sense to anybody else. But you have a full comprehension of the subject matter and it just speaks to you for whatever reason.
Please don’t misunderstand. I genuinely think that the film version of BRIDESHEAD IS that great. But it also has a deep and profound resonance with me where most artistic forms don’t even get a chance to mesmerize me.
It’s not all lost. ANTHONY ANDREWS was so fabulous in the miniseries that I’ll always enjoy observing his character arc.
And just generally observing him, too….
But the film will ALWAYS be the definitive version.
For me.
Unless, of course, ANOTHER version comes out before I kick it. Ha ha,.
Then I’ll go take a look at that, too.
It’s always good to keep an open mind…
Or something…
Have you seen The Duchess yet? I think you might just like it. Maybe just because I was surprised at how much I liked it myself.
I doubt it will resonate with you the way Brideshead did, but who knows?
I feel it is worth mentioning that Rachel Portman’s sweeping and melodious score for THE DUCHESS may well be the most distinguished of the year. I agree with Craig on the overall take. ****
No, I wasn’t gonna go.
Do you think I should, Craig?
If you REALLY think it’s worthwhile…
Weren’t you the dude that had the handle on different peoples’ movie tastes - based not only on the commenter’s personalities but also on their previously stated film likes and dislikes?
If I recall correctly you figured out our lovely Hedwig to a T and she was kinda shocked.
If you REALLY think I should go, I may consider.
But, if you can, I’d like to know the reasons WHY you think I would like it.
However, no fair bringing KEIRA, RALPH and (OF COURSE) my beloved HAYLEY into the mix directly. As you know that I’m fond of all of them….
Your tastes are hard for me to pin down. It’s almost like you willfully defy categorization :)
You seem to like stuff with a bit of class and this has that in spades. Plus the cast you mentioned. All three were quite good.
It also has a nice feminist slant.
I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t hate it, but you might find it a little dull. It certainly won’t grab you like Brideshead, but depending on how well you identify with the lead character, you might get into it.
How’s that for a vague answer? If you’re looking for something to see, I’d recommend it, but I make no promises.
Sam’s right about the score, btw.
I’m an actor, Craig. We hide behind all kinds of facades.
Plus my take on relationships (from adolescence on) is that, the more people know about the way you REALLY are, the easier it is to hurt you. BADLY.
Whether it was short term or long, I was always careful not to let the cat out of the bag. So to speak. I had fun, got my needs met (um…yeah) and I walked away when things started to go to hell. Or I was really unhappy.
Either/or.
Now I can see that that’s maybe not such a good thing. Hard to have any real intimacy (I mean, aside from the obvious) if you can’t show anyone who you really are.
So it all depends…
But, yeah, I DO willfully defy categorization.
Oh, buddy. The stories I could tell…
I would never hold you to anything. I’m NOT like that.
If I hated THE DUCHESS (and I don’t think I would), then I wouldn’t be one of these whiners that bitches and moans three years after the fact that “Craig told me to see that awful movie and I wasted two hours of my life that I can never get back.”
It’s like anything else. You’re an adult with free will. A friend recommends something. You hate it, you like it or you love it. But it’s your choice to go. No one put a gun to your head.
I’ve actually had friends recommen