Gladiator: Death Knell for Writers?
marvel
read an incredible headline: "50% of Virgin Island Women HIV Positive!"
Of course it was untrue. The idiot editor had gotten it all wrong. The local
health care worker he had spoken to had told him 50% of the Island's IV drug
users are HIV positive. There are less than 10 or 20 IV drug users on this
island. In one fell swoop this idiot had maligned 100,000 Island women.
I needed to know how this was possible. I investigated and found out the
editor -- yes, editor -- of the newspaper was a 19 year old kid a cousin had
brought down to run the paper. The cousin was the editor of the flagship
newspaper which was on another island. He brought his cousin down to run the
new one they started on the second island. The kid had absolutely no writing
or journalism background to speak of.
The point here is that the movie Gladiator is a testament to all the things
we're taught Not to do when writing a screenplay. If you remember the
Batman movies you'll recall even Batman had limits, even he couldn't take on
ten bad guys at one time. But Gladiator's Maximus can. How in God's name
does a Roman General -- or anyone -- get in the arena with ten seasoned
gladiators and slays them all? If you were an script editor and something
like that passed your desk would you sign off on it?
Gladiator is the death knell to all writers who have struggled to learn
their craft. The screenplay was written by somebody's cousin -- possibly the
same happy idiot who gave us the headline "50's of Virgin Island Women are
HIV Positive!"
I prayed that this movie would be roundly cursed and spit at by the critics;
then when this didn't happen, I prayed it wouldn't get nominated for an
Oscar. Imagine my near-suicidal feelings when I awoke this morning to see
the headlines.
Bottom line, this is the worst movie to ever win Best Picture. And now
we'll all be kissing the ass of the Ben Afleck type who wrote it. He's the
new genius on the block. Pucker up, sweat hogs.
Prof Marvel
FWIW
"marvel" <mar...@acsplus.com> wrote in message
news:99ndom$2pp$1...@web.onecall.net...
Professor! Professor! Lighten up. Take a break. You'll burst a vein!
Gladiator was FICTION, my man, FICTION. (Look it up). It is not intended
as a pretentious historical documentary. It is make-believe--like James
Bond, The Terminator, Rosanne, etc.
Did you come unglued when Peter Sellers, aka The Pink Panther, had his
pratfalls and came away unscathed? Did you go ballistic when Indiana Jones
took on the entire pre-WWII German Army and won the battle, got the girl and
saved the Arc of The Covenant? I hope not.
You need to get a grip, buddy. And spit out those sour grapes, they're
making your face draw up funny.
--Geno<second best fiction writer on the newsgroup>Royer
marvel
"FWIW" <sire...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:99nebb$dcs$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
I admit I'm deeply affected by this, but I question whether Gladiator was
the type of movie you say. My take is that it was meant to be a serious
movie, along the same lines of Spartacus.
Prof. Marvel
>
>
>
>
Eric Pinnell
wrote:
>The point here is that the movie Gladiator is a testament to all the things
>we're taught Not to do when writing a screenplay. If you remember the
>Batman movies you'll recall even Batman had limits, even he couldn't take on
>ten bad guys at one time. But Gladiator's Maximus can. How in God's name
>does a Roman General -- or anyone -- get in the arena with ten seasoned
>gladiators and slays them all? If you were an script editor and something
>like that passed your desk would you sign off on it?
If you watch the filk closely, you'll see the the gladiators in teh
North African arena are scared shitless of Maximus. Presumably
because he's done this shit before.
>Gladiator is the death knell to all writers who have struggled to learn
>their craft. The screenplay was written by somebody's cousin -- possibly the
>same happy idiot who gave us the headline "50's of Virgin Island Women are
>HIV Positive!"
So, it didn't prevent the film from winning Best Picture and making
a ton of money. The latter is the only thing the studios care about.
>
>I prayed that this movie would be roundly cursed and spit at by the critics;
>then when this didn't happen, I prayed it wouldn't get nominated for an
>Oscar. Imagine my near-suicidal feelings when I awoke this morning to see
>the headlines.
>
>Bottom line, this is the worst movie to ever win Best Picture. And now
>we'll all be kissing the ass of the Ben Afleck type who wrote it. He's the
>new genius on the block. Pucker up, sweat hogs.
>
>Prof Marvel
Worst picture to win Best Picture? Not even close.
Mr Helsing
anyone -- get in the arena with ten seasoned gladiators and slays them all?
Don't you ever watch the WWF?
**************************************************************
"Cunnilingus and psychiatry brought us to this."
Tony Soprano
SPAMNOTch...@onix.com
wrote:
>...The point here is that the movie Gladiator is a testament to all the things
>we're taught Not to do when writing a screenplay...
We've obviously been taught by different people.
> If you remember the
>Batman movies you'll recall even Batman had limits, even he couldn't take on
>ten bad guys at one time. But Gladiator's Maximus can...
Ever heard of a notion called...hmm, what was it? Oh yeah--
Romanticism. Did you learn that pix can't have romantic heroes (and,
if so, do you realize how many motion pictures you're going to have to
toss in the trash heap?).
> How in God's name
>does a Roman General -- or anyone -- get in the arena with ten seasoned
>gladiators and [sic] slays them all?
How does bloody Oedipus single-handedly slay his father, his father's
entire military escort, and his father's entire entourage? Goodbye
OEDIPUS REX--you don't meet Marvel's standards.
How does James Bond defeat 25 or so goons in the running waterfront
fight scene in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE? Goodbye to that, too, I guess.
How does Audie Murphy single-handedly turn back a company-strength
German infantry assault by hopping up on a burned-out Sherman tank and
blazing away with the .50 cal like a madman? Whoops--that's history.
Guess it didn't happen. Bush will have to revoke Murphy's
Congressional Medal of Honor, posthumously--and order all prints of
THE AUDIE MURPHY STORY destroyed.
>Gladiator is the death knell for all writers who have struggled to learn
>their craft. The screenplay was written by somebody's cousin -- possibly the
>same happy idiot who gave us the headline "50's of Virgin Island Women are
>HIV Positive!"
This is plain and simple ignorance on your part, "professor."
Firstly, because you have obviously never read David Franzoni's
GLADIATOR script. It's quite gorgeous, and evocative of James
Goldman.
Secondly, you not only never bothered to learn Franzoni's name, but
you are ignorant of his writing credits (AMISTAD, CITIZEN COHN--do
*they* meet your standards?).
What's the deal, Prof? Are we just a little j-e-a-l-o-u-s, and all
bitter and nasty because we can't get past the secretary at LIVE
ENTERTAINMENT, while Franzoni wins an Oscar?
Sheesh.
Check out that ridiculous competition for screenplays as "literature."
You should be quite happy, there.
--Christopher
Remove "SPAMNOT" from address to reply.
Rick and Sue Deschene
>
<snip>
> Secondly, you not only never bothered to learn Franzoni's name, but
> you are ignorant of his writing credits (AMISTAD, CITIZEN COHN--do
> *they* meet your standards?).
>
<snip>
Wow, he wrote the screenplay for "Citizen Cohn"? Taking what was, IMO,
one of the most badly written books I've ever read (I read it after I'd
seen the movie) and turning it into a coherent, absorbing film deserves
some kind of award.
Sue
marvel
<SPAMNOTch...@onix.com> wrote in message
news:3abf75eb....@news.onix.com...
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 07:51:13 -0600, "marvel" <mar...@acsplus.com>
> wrote:
>
> >...The point here is that the movie Gladiator is a testament to all the
things
> >we're taught Not to do when writing a screenplay...
>
> We've obviously been taught by different people.
Obviously.
>
> > If you remember the
> >Batman movies you'll recall even Batman had limits, even he couldn't take
on
> >ten bad guys at one time. But Gladiator's Maximus can...
>
> Ever heard of a notion called...hmm, what was it? Oh yeah--
> Romanticism. Did you learn that pix can't have romantic heroes (and,
> if so, do you realize how many motion pictures you're going to have to
> toss in the trash heap?).
Please rework your syntax. You give us gibberish directly above.
>
> > How in God's name
> >does a Roman General -- or anyone -- get in the arena with ten seasoned
> >gladiators and [sic] slays them all?
>
> How does bloody Oedipus single-handedly slay his father, his father's
> entire military escort, and his father's entire entourage? Goodbye
> OEDIPUS REX--you don't meet Marvel's standards.
Sorry, I missed the year the Oedipus movie you speak of got the Oscar. What
year did you say it was?
>
> How does James Bond defeat 25 or so goons in the running waterfront
> fight scene in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE? Goodbye to that, too, I guess.
Which is exactly why not one of the James Bond movies has ever even been
nominated for Best Picture. Try to keep up, will you?
>
> How does Audie Murphy single-handedly turn back a company-strength
> German infantry assault by hopping up on a burned-out Sherman tank and
> blazing away with the .50 cal like a madman? Whoops--that's history.
> Guess it didn't happen. Bush will have to revoke Murphy's
> Congressional Medal of Honor, posthumously--and order all prints of
> THE AUDIE MURPHY STORY destroyed.
And now you equate a .50 caliber with a short sword. You're not even trying,
are you?
>
> >Gladiator is the death knell for all writers who have struggled to learn
> >their craft. The screenplay was written by somebody's cousin -- possibly
the
> >same happy idiot who gave us the headline "50's of Virgin Island Women
are
> >HIV Positive!"
>
> This is plain and simple ignorance on your part, "professor."
Really?
>
> Firstly, because you have obviously never read David Franzoni's
> GLADIATOR script. It's quite gorgeous, and evocative of James
> Goldman.
>
Do you have access to it? I'd love to see the part where Maximus walks into
the arena and slays 6 or 7 bad guys with one blow each. How does that
read...? Maximus swings and kills the first gladiator, then he swings and
kills the second. He swings again and kills the third. Then he swings yet
again and kills the fourth. Once more he swings and another gladiator goes
down. Yet again he swings and another one bites the dust...then on his way
back to his cell he tosses his sword down and guess what? That's right, the
last gladiator slips and lands right under it...
That the way you do it, Chris? That the way they teach you in film school?
Gee, the genius of it just reaches out and grabs you by the lapels, don't
it?
> Secondly, you not only never bothered to learn Franzoni's name, but
> you are ignorant of his writing credits (AMISTAD, CITIZEN COHN--do
> *they* meet your standards?).
I doubt if Amistad was totally his baby. Citizen Cohn probably was, it
sounds contrived enough.
>
> What's the deal, Prof? Are we just a little j-e-a-l-o-u-s, and all
> bitter and nasty because we can't get past the secretary at LIVE
> ENTERTAINMENT, while Franzoni wins an Oscar?
>
On my worst day I never would have created scenes like this Franzoni did.
The movie was an abomination, horrible, the worst I've ever seen. Every step
of the way he butchered it. The dialogue was so asinine, so cliched, so
pretentious. And I'm really sorry if I offended you. I deeply hated this
movie. I deep hate the shortcuts that were taken, the stupidity, the
laziness, and mostly, how it lowers the bar. This movie was a piece of
garbage -- the worst. Everything bad about Hollywood was in this movie and
later rubberstamped by the Oscar. It was the silliest, stupdiest, most
pretentious epic ever made, period.
Prof. Marvel
SPAMNOTch...@onix.com
<rdes...@recorder.ca> wrote:
>Wow, he wrote the screenplay for "Citizen Cohn"? Taking what was, IMO,
>one of the most badly written books I've ever read (I read it after I'd
>seen the movie) and turning it into a coherent, absorbing film deserves
>some kind of award.
I agree, Sue...and he got one, last night...
SPAMNOTch...@onix.com
wrote:
What I will address later in another post--just want to answer one of
his questions, right now.
Is this the scene you mean? (Copr. 1998, David Franzoni--to whom I
apologize for posting his work without his permission)...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXT. COLOSSEUM - ARENA - DAY
At last we see it.
The mighty Colosseum Arena.
Nothing we could have possibly imagined could have
prepared us for the sight of the thousands and thousands
of screaming spectators, the row after row of cheering
faces.
It is staggering.
But for Maximus none of this exists. His full attention
is focused on one spot alone. The Imperial Box.
He can see Commodus and Lucilla sitting in the box. The
box is elevated fifteen feet above the arena floor at the
top of a sheer black marble wall. A cohort of fifty
imposing Praetorian Guard Archers surround the box.
Commodus' personal Body Guard of six Centurions actually
stand in the box itself, eyes constantly watching like
modern Secret Service agents.
Commodus is untouchable.
Meanwhile, three teams move from different entrances to
the arena.
As Cassius orates to the crowd:
CASSIUS
This day we reach back to hallowed
antiquity to bring you... THE FALL
OF MIGHTY CARTHAGE...!
(the crowd cheers)
... On the barren armies of the
barbarian Hannibal! Ferocious
mercenaries and warriors of all
brute nations bent on merciless
conquest! Your Emperor is pleased
to give you... THE BARBARIAN HORDE!
He gestures to the gladiators in the arena. The crowd
laughs, jeering the "barbarians."
The drummers begin pounding out a more insistent, heroic
beat.
CASSIUS
But on that illustrious day the Gods
sent against them Rome's greatest
warriors...! The very life-image of
nobility and glorious valor... who
would on this day, and on these same
arid Numidian deserts, decide THE
FATE OF THE EMPIRE... Your Emperor
is pleased to give you... THE
LEGIONNAIRES OF SCIPIO AFRICANUS!!
The crowd EXPLODES in cheers as the huge doors at one end
of the arena suddenly burst open and ten chariots thunder
in --
Each chariot has a driver and an archer, both dressed in
theatrical versions of the familiar Roman Lorica
Segmentata.
A chaos of dust -- and the battle is on --
The chariots zoom around the arena -- the archers keeping
up a deadly hail of arrows.
Maximus immediately dives onto a passing chariot and kills
the charioteer and archer -- he dramatically leaps from
the front of the chariot to a lead horse and cuts it free.
And Maximus takes control, we see the General of the Felix
Regiment gloriously alive again as he barks out orders and
leads his gladiators in battle. They follow him
faithfully, his stern commands unquestioned.
His strategies are quick and smart, he makes the
gladiators work together.
This kind of slaughter could last for hours...
We see flashes of the endless battle... Maximus races on
his horse past another chariot, kills the driver, the
chariot smashes into a wall... the sun sinks lower, the
shadows on the sand lengthen... areas of the sand are
swamps of blood, Juba slips, pulls himself up fighting...
Maximus uses Vibius to create a diversion, two chariots
collide... the crowd roars... a gladiator is dragged
between a chariot and the side wall of the arena... the
drummers pound out their relentless tattoo...
Finally...
Maximus is on his horse across from the final chariot.
We can see that Juba and Vibius and a few other gladiators
are still alive. The rest of the arena is polluted with
the dead and injured.
Maximus spurs his horse and gallops toward the final
chariot -- the charioteer whips his horses and zooms
toward Maximus --
The crowd is breathless -- watching the final battle --
Maximus and the chariot speed toward each other -- like
Medieval jousters --
And collide in a flashing explosion of steel --
Maximus sails from his horse -- as the charioteer sails
from his chariot --
Maximus lands hard but quickly pulls himself up, he races
to the final charioteer. The charioteer is defeated but
not dead.
Maximus glances around, all his opponents are defeated.
He stands over the final charioteer. Then he simply
tosses down his sword.
The crowd is stunned by this strange act of mercy. But
then an enormous roar grows from the crowd -- wave after
wave of adulation for the hero of the day.
Maximus looks around, taking it all in.
Then he turns to the Imperial Box.
Maximus slowly walks to before the the Imperial Box. The
Praetorian Archers immediately raise their bows, pointing
down at him.
Maximus glares up at Commodus through his helmet mask.
Commodus returns his gaze, curious.
The crowd is intrigued, growing quiet. What is going on?
Then Maximus simply turns and begins walking away.
COMMODUS
Slave! Who are you?
The Colosseum is suddenly silent. The Emperor is speaking
to a gladiator.
Maximus keeps walking.
COMMODUS
SLAVE! WHO ARE YOU?
Maximus keeps walking, his fists clenched now.
Commodus suddenly grabs a spear from a nearby Praetorian
and hurls it with perfect aim -- the crowd gasps -- the
spear sails past Maximus -- actually nicking his shoulder
-- it slices into the sand ahead of Maximus.
Maximus stops.
COMMODUS
SLAVE! WHO ARE YOU?!
Maximus can hold it no longer. He spins to Commodus --
ripping off his helmet mask -- and THUNDERING:
MAXIMUS
I AM MAXIMUS MERIDAS, GENERAL OF THE
FELIX REGIMENT OF THE ROMAN ARMY AND
SERVANT TO THE EMPEROR MARCUS
AURELIUS!
Commodus eyes shoot wide -- Lucilla bolts up -- Gracchus
leans forward -- Proximo is stunned -- the crowd is
mystified --
MAXIMUS
I AM FATHER TO A MURDERED SON AND
HUSBAND TO A MURDERED WIFE AND
LANDLORD TO A MURDERED WORLD -- AND
I WILL HAVE VENGEANCE!
The Praetorian Archers tense their bows -- ready to kill
the defiant slave --
But something extraordinary stops them. Almost as one
being the crowd roars -- they leaps to their feet and
thrust their thumbs up! They cheer and stomp their
approval of Maximus.
Commodus looks around at the people of Rome, amazed.
He finally plasters on a benevolent smile and thrusts his
thumb up! The Praetorians lower their bows.
And the crowd cheers. Never in the long, long history of
the Colosseum have they ever seen such a thing.
Maximus leads his gladiators out of the arena.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*That* is a beautifully crafted and very well-written action scene.
Somebody ought to give that guy an Academy Award...
More later, friend.
marvel
<SPAMNOTch...@onix.com> wrote in message
news:3abfa593...@news.onix.com...
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:17:27 -0600, "marvel" <mar...@acsplus.com>
> wrote:
>
> What I will address later in another post--just want to answer one of
> his questions, right now.
>
> Is this the scene you mean? (Copr. 1998, David Franzoni--to whom I
> apologize for posting his work without his permission)...
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> EXT. COLOSSEUM - ARENA - DAY
>
> Somebody ought to give that guy an Academy Award...
>
> More later, friend.
>
> --Christopher
The scene is beautifully written but b-movie fare and here we see the depth
of your ignorance about such matters. You confuse gripping, well-written
prose with original drama. So does Franzoni. There's nothing original about
Franzoni's ideas here. Whether he realizes it or not, he's regurgitating a
thousand B-Western plots filtered into his mind over years of watching
television and Saturday matinees. Like him, you're a superficial thinker and
writer whose point of reference is Spaghetti Westerns, Hawaii Five-O, and
Marvel comic books. This has little to do with Rome and nothing at all to do
with Roman Gladiators.
Thanks for so marvelously confirming my opinion about you.
Prof. Marvel
SPAMNOTch...@onix.com
wrote:
>Ho Hum... Another graduate of alt.flame. Why do they all end up here, is
>what I'd like to know.
No one has "flamed" you--I certainly haven't. I engaged in no name
calling and confined myself to the subjects of GLADIATOR,
screenwriting, and the picture business.
How does that add up to a "flame?"
By your own admission, you are criticizing a picture you have not
seen, and (not by your admission, but obviously) commenting on a
screenplay you have not read.
A good general picks a battlefield that will give him the advantage.
I can't help but notice you've chosen to conduct this discussion here
at MW, rather than at MWS. I know there are some fine professional
writers here, whose opinions I value.
But there are fewer *screenwriters* here, "professor"--exactly the
people who'd be most likely to disagree with your opinions.
You said:
>Gad, never heard of Sparta, did you? And directly below he lectures me on my
>ignorance of history. This guy is a riot.
It's a riot that you can't seem to recall that the Spartans were
defeated by *Roman* troops. Sparta---and all of Greece--was a Roman
province at the time GLADIATOR was set.
>...[W]hat's the most important thing about characters in fiction? Change, the way
>they evolve over the course of the story.
Why on earth would you bring this up, since you *have not seen the end
of the picture*? How would you know whether Maximus changes or
not?--he does, incidentally.
> ...Think back to Spartacus. We believe [Douglas is] Spartacus. We
>sense his fear as he sits with the other rookie gladiators waiting to enter
>the arena. In Gladiator we get none of this...
Because Spartacus wants to live. Maximus wants to die.
>... Russell Crowe's battles are
>comedies, not suspense. Perhaps if he used skill to slay 6 men at once we
>could believe it, but he doesn't. He swings, and a gladiator drops. He
>swings again, and another drops... ...such garbage.
We seem to finally agree on something--SPARTACUS is a brilliant
picture, and certainly a better one than GLADIATOR. But you'd better
watch some of SPARTACUS' action sequences again--Spartacus "swings,
and a gladiator drops. He swings again, and another drops."
The difference?--you like SPARTACUS, but not the piece of GLADIATOR
you saw.
Proximus also complains about Maximus dispatching his foes so
quickly--(oh--but I guess maybe that's in the part of the pic you
didn't bother to watch).
A soldier kills his enemies quickly and efficiently, with as little
fuss as possible. A gladiator is a *performer*--and makes the same
act as dramatic as possible.
What you see as a "flaw" makes perfect sense, given who Maximus is,
how he's been trained, and what he's experienced.
>...Commodus was the biggest joke going and if you knew anything about
>the history you give so much mouth service to you'd know his contests were
>not legitimate ones.
I agree. But you may recall, he still wound up dead--apparently,
there was either an accident or he did have one "legitimate" and fatal
fight.
A *writer* would go with the "legitimate" angle--and perhaps create a
character like Maximus. That's where GLADIATOR comes from.
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:17:27 -0600, "marvel" <mar...@acsplus.com>
wrote (quoting me):
>> How does bloody Oedipus single-handedly slay his father, his father's
>> entire military escort, and his father's entire entourage? Goodbye
>> OEDIPUS REX--you don't meet Marvel's standards.
And replied:
>Sorry, I missed the year the Oedipus movie you speak of got the Oscar. What
>year did you say it was?
Gee--I forgot that only screenwriting was writing. How ignorant of me
to have used an example from one of the greatest theatres the world
has ever known.
>> How does James Bond defeat 25 or so goons in the running waterfront
>> fight scene in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE? Goodbye to that, too, I guess.
>
>Which is exactly why not one of the James Bond movies has ever even been
>nominated for Best Picture. Try to keep up, will you?
I was giving you an example of a romantic hero defeating what would
realistically be overwhelming and impossible odds. That seems to be
one of your major problems with GLADIATOR, and suggests that you
understand neither the conventions of action screenwriting or
Romanticism--since almost all action pix are romantic.
>> How does Audie Murphy single-handedly turn back a company-strength
>> German infantry assault by hopping up on a burned-out Sherman tank and
>> blazing away with the .50 cal like a madman?
>And now you equate a .50 caliber with a short sword. You're not even trying,
>are you?
You'd have a point if the German company were carrying swords instead
of Mausers and Schmeissers. ONE man--Murphy--defeats an entire
COMPANY of well-trained, disciplined enemies.
The Romantic Hero in real life--but the point missed you just as the
Kraut bullets missed Murphy.
>> Firstly, because you have obviously never read David Franzoni's
>> GLADIATOR script. It's quite gorgeous, and evocative of James
>> Goldman.
>>
>
>Do you have access to it? I'd love to see the part where Maximus walks into
>the arena and slays 6 or 7 bad guys with one blow each. How does that
>read...?
Already posted it. The scene you describe is pieced together in your
memory from different scenes in the portion of the pic you saw.
I actually think you refer to an earlier sequence--but the "princess"
(BTW--since when did the Romans have "princesses?") wasn't present in
that, nor does Maximus throw down his sword.
>I doubt if Amistad was totally [Franzoni's]his baby.
Because you liked AMISTAD. But you don't *know* that (which doesn't,
interestingly enough, stop you from saying it).
>Citizen Cohn probably was, it sounds contrived enough.
It "sounds contrived?" You don't learn, do you, "professor?" Once
again, you are criticizing a picture you have not seen. What, are you
psychic, as well?
>On my worst day I never would have created scenes like this Franzoni did.
You should be so lucky.
>The movie was an abomination, horrible, the worst I've ever seen.
Then you haven't seen very many, have you?
PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE? THE ROBOT VS. THE AZTEC MUMMY? ISHTAR?
BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES? BARNEY'S ADVENTURE?
GLADIATOR was worse than those?
>The dialogue was so asinine, so cliched, so
>pretentious.
MAXIMUS
On my signal...unleash hell...
Terrible--wasn't it?
>And I'm really sorry if I offended you. I deeply hated this
>movie.
You didn't offend me.
I would *respect* your hating the picture--disagree with, but respect
it--if you had *seen* the damned picture.
But you haven't.
I would *respect* your criticisms of the SCR--disagree with, but
respect them--if you had *read* the damned script.
But you haven't.
That's what upset me. And I think it puts you in an indefensible
position. What I saw in your post was petulant, childish, and jealous
("I'm never going to the movies again, I'm never going to write a
screenplay again"). If that wasn't your intention, sorry, but that's
the way it read.
You don't like the rules of the game, so you don't want to play any
more. It *is* hard for me to either respect that, or to take it
seriously.
You *can't* criticize pix you haven't seen, and scripts you haven't
read. You *can't* criticize an action-oriented piece for being
romantic, when nearly all action pix are romantic.
Those are my main points--and you have't directly confronted either of
them.
And thereby hangs a tale.
SPAMNOTch...@onix.com
>>>But Gladiator's Maximus can. How in God's name does a Roman General -- or
>anyone -- get in the arena with ten seasoned gladiators and slays them all?
>
>Don't you ever watch the WWF?
Friend Helsing...
I don't think the "professor" would--unless they could get Bergman to
direct.
Death vs. Mankind...that'd be fun, wouldn't it?
SPAMNOTch...@onix.com
wrote:
>The scene is beautifully written but b-movie fare and here we see the depth
>of your ignorance about such matters...
"Professor"...
Nice try at goading me into actually flaming you--but I won't.
You aren't worth the effort.
Let's see whether you or I has had "the depth of [his] ignorance"
confirmed.
> You confuse gripping, well-written prose with original drama.
Umm..."Professor." Did you actually *read* what you've written,
there? "[G]ripping, well-written prose?"
You see, Ace, if you take 110-120 pages of "gripping, well-written
prose" and put them all together, you get what we real screenwriters
call "a good screenplay."
> Whether [Franzoni] realizes it or not, he's regurgitating a
>thousand B-Western plots...
Those are *romantic* plots. Those are *romantic* heroes. If you are
going to have a *romantic* hero, you inherit all the baggage of
Romanticism. Why is this so difficult for you, "professor?"
Do you constantly avoid this issue because you have no more idea than
a dead clam what "romantic" means?
Spartacus is a *romantic* hero, as well. That Spartacus and Maximus
both wind up dead isn't important--they both defeat *overwhelming*
odds through their *individual* choices and actions.
The only reason you aren't complaining about the unbelievability of a
rag-tag army of freed slaves defeating--over and over again--crack
Roman legions is because you know it happened.
Nothing that happens in GLADIATOR is any more unbelievable than that
historical *realityt*. In fact, it's *more* believable.
>Like [Franzoni}, you're a superficial thinker and
>writer whose point of reference is Spaghetti Westerns, Hawaii Five-O, and
>Marvel comic books.
Firstly, thank you for the comparison to Franzoni.
Secondly, OEDIPUS REX is neither a Marvel Comic Book nor a Spaghetti
Western (quite a few of which are *damned* good pix, incidentally).
But it was *you* who made the snotty, immature comment about OEDIPUS
REX never having won an Oscar--not I.
Thirdly, *once again*, YOU ARE CRITICIZING WORK YOU HAVE NOT SEEN OR
READ!!!
How can THAT possibly elude you? What's your "professorship"
in--Obtuseness?
I'm a "superficial... writer?"
Uh-huh. And you've seen *which* of my pictures? You've read *which*
of my screenplays?
You criticize Franzoni's work without having read it, you criticize
Scott's work without having seen it, and now you criticize *my* work
when you don't have the remotest notion who I am or what I've done.
How's that for ignorance, Champ?
--Christopher
Oh, BTW...drop by MWS--where opinions are running about 16-1 against
your childish comments. Seems a lot of screenwriters there feel that
criticizing what you haven't read or seen isn't professional,
reasonable, remotely helpful, or even sane.
marvel
<SPAMNOTch...@onix.com> wrote in message
news:3abfba25...@news.onix.com...
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:40:38 -0600, "marvel" <mar...@acsplus.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Ho Hum... Another graduate of alt.flame. Why do they all end up here, is
> >what I'd like to know.
>
> No one has "flamed" you--I certainly haven't. I engaged in no name
> calling and confined myself to the subjects of GLADIATOR,
> screenwriting, and the picture business.
You threw the same kind of temper tantrums they throw over there.
>
> How does that add up to a "flame?"
>
> By your own admission, you are criticizing a picture you have not
> seen, and (not by your admission, but obviously) commenting on a
> screenplay you have not read.
You mean the screenplay is better than the movie? There's hope yet. (And I
did see the movie)
>
> A good general picks a battlefield that will give him the advantage.
> I can't help but notice you've chosen to conduct this discussion here
> at MW, rather than at MWS. I know there are some fine professional
> writers here, whose opinions I value.
I can't help to notice you didn't check MWS before putting your foot in your
mouth.
>
> But there are fewer *screenwriters* here, "professor"--exactly the
> people who'd be most likely to disagree with your opinions.
Oddly, none of the screenwriters seem to disagree with me.
>
> You said:
>
> >Gad, never heard of Sparta, did you? And directly below he lectures me on
my
> >ignorance of history. This guy is a riot.
>
> It's a riot that you can't seem to recall that the Spartans were
> defeated by *Roman* troops. Sparta---and all of Greece--was a Roman
> province at the time GLADIATOR was set.
Actually, Spartans were defeated by Macedonian troops long before the Romans
had at them...what was left of them, that is; and if you're going to put
yourself forth as a crackerjack historian you'd be well served to get your
facts straight first.
>
> >...[W]hat's the most important thing about characters in fiction? Change,
the way
> >they evolve over the course of the story.
>
> Why on earth would you bring this up, since you *have not seen the end
> of the picture*? How would you know whether Maximus changes or
> not?--he does, incidentally.
You don't understand. In Spartacus we saw Spartacus grow into a great
gladiator. We don't see this in Gladiator. The idiot screenwriter has no
time for such niceties. One moment Maximus is the best general in the
civilized world, the next he's the best gladiator. With people like you
lining up to buy tickets why bother with the build up? Cut to the chase and
be done with it.
>
> > ...Think back to Spartacus. We believe [Douglas is] Spartacus. We
> >sense his fear as he sits with the other rookie gladiators waiting to
enter
> >the arena. In Gladiator we get none of this...
>
> Because Spartacus wants to live. Maximus wants to die.
Oh, you remember the line. Very good. And I suppose you think it's
wonderfully original too, don't you? I cringed when I heard it. That line
has been around since the Old Testament -- longer. Geezuz, man, don't you
get it? Franzoni (the screenwriter) is a product of Hulk Hogan and bad Kung
Fu movies. The guy never picked up a book about ancient Rome, gladiators,
combat in his life, and you can tell. His ignorance is so vast. The guys
involved in Spartacus knew something about their material. They'd been
through the Second World War. Your pal Franzoni misses so much. How is it
possible he doesn't give us a moment of tension throughout the whole film?
This movie has nothing to do with Gladiators -- nothing at all, and worst,
it will probably prevent a real movie about gladiators from ever being made.
Ever see the movie Andersonville? Check it out and get back to me.
>
> >... Russell Crowe's battles are
> >comedies, not suspense. Perhaps if he used skill to slay 6 men at once we
> >could believe it, but he doesn't. He swings, and a gladiator drops. He
> >swings again, and another drops... ...such garbage.
>
> We seem to finally agree on something--SPARTACUS is a brilliant
> picture, and certainly a better one than GLADIATOR. But you'd better
> watch some of SPARTACUS' action sequences again--Spartacus "swings,
> and a gladiator drops. He swings again, and another drops."
Bullshit. Never in the entire movie does Spartacus take two guys on at
once -- but in Gladiator, Crowe takes on entire rows of gladiators time and
time again.
>
> The difference?--you like SPARTACUS, but not the piece of GLADIATOR
> you saw.
And with just cause.
>
> Proximus also complains about Maximus dispatching his foes so
> quickly--(oh--but I guess maybe that's in the part of the pic you
> didn't bother to watch).
No doubt stuck in by the producers to cover their own embarrassment at the
stupidity of it.
>
> A soldier kills his enemies quickly and efficiently, with as little
> fuss as possible. A gladiator is a *performer*--and makes the same
> act as dramatic as possible.
Where do you get this crap from? Don't tell me -- you make it up as you go,
right? Do you know anything at all about Roman gladiators?
"...makes the same act as dramatic as possible..."
I submit to you, readers, the sentence directly above is the same kind of
ludicrous thinking we see throughout this dumb movie -- men in an arena
fighting for their lives are going to be keen on making their death struggle
dramatic. How can anyone even write something so dumb let alone post it on
the world wide web?
>
> What you see as a "flaw" makes perfect sense, given who Maximus is,
> how he's been trained, and what he's experienced.
More jabber. If there was training that enable men to take on -- and slay --
six gladiators at a time, don't you think such technique would be taught to
gladiators? You make no sense at all. You don't even think about what you
write. You're more enthralled by the sound of your words than their
substance-- all of which why you defend this dumb film. Like you, Franzoni
is clearly a marginally educated fellow, one with a deep interest in things
he doesn't understand. So what he does is fake 'em the same way you fake
being a history pundit. And we see it throughout the film. All of the
dialogue -- all of it! -- is clichéd...faked. Pretty words with no
substance. Cryptic glances, posturing, eloquent jabber that doesn't advance
the plot an iota, has no discernable meaning, or completely dead ends
without any punchline -- such stupidity. Of course children don't notice
this, just like they don't notice "professional" rassling is all faked. But
anyone with half a brain following the dialogue has his intelligence
insulted time and again. The dialogue is all puffery, window dressing,
background music, white noise. Nothing!
>
> >...Commodus was the biggest joke going and if you knew anything about
> >the history you give so much mouth service to you'd know his contests
were
> >not legitimate ones.
>
> I agree. But you may recall, he still wound up dead--apparently,
> there was either an accident or he did have one "legitimate" and fatal
> fight.
There you go forgetting the point your were trying to make again. The
question isn't whether he had one legitimate fight, the question is whether
he was a legitimate gladiator. He wasn't.
>
> A *writer* would go with the "legitimate" angle--and perhaps create a
> character like Maximus. That's where GLADIATOR comes from.
Heaven knows what you're trying to say here. More than likely you don't know
yourself.
Prof. Marvel
Wendy Chatley Green
wrote:
:The point here is that the movie Gladiator is a testament to all the things
:we're taught Not to do when writing a screenplay.
Having never been taught to write a screenplay, I
must state that this sentence is untrue in my case.
Having noticed that "Gladiator" was a commerical
success and has won some awards, I must opine that what you
may have been taught about screenplays is no longer viable
in today's markets.
BTW, you seem to have started multiple threads on
this topics--are you insecure or do you have a slow
newsfeed?
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
Phil Innes
wrote:
> The scene is beautifully written but b-movie fare and here we see the depth
> of your ignorance about such matters. You confuse gripping, well-written
> prose with original drama. So does Franzoni. There's nothing original about
> Franzoni's ideas here. Whether he realizes it or not, he's regurgitating a
> thousand B-Western plots filtered into his mind over years of watching
> television and Saturday matinees. Like him, you're a superficial thinker and
> writer whose point of reference is Spaghetti Westerns, Hawaii Five-O, and
> Marvel comic books. This has little to do with Rome and nothing at all to do
> with Roman Gladiators.
>
> Thanks for so marvelously confirming my opinion about you.
>
> Prof. Marvel
you are a tough guy, perfessor
i read a review of spartacus which was compared to salammbo in a similar way
that you have done above. it is very difficult, no? to write from a
pre-christian sentiment, and indicate that climate, rather than an
'acceptable' one that we can now take in
no one would dare make a film of flaubert's novel because it would be truly
shocking and we only wish to be 'suitably' shocked (pun intended)
phil innes
marvel
<SPAMNOTch...@onix.com> wrote in message
news:3abfcf0c...@news.onix.com...
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 17:16:23 -0600, "marvel" <mar...@acsplus.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The scene is beautifully written but b-movie fare and here we see the
depth
> >of your ignorance about such matters...
>
> "Professor"...
>
> Nice try at goading me into actually flaming you--but I won't.
>
> You aren't worth the effort.
>
> Let's see whether you or I has had "the depth of [his] ignorance"
> confirmed.
>
> > You confuse gripping, well-written prose with original drama.
>
> Umm..."Professor." Did you actually *read* what you've written,
> there? "[G]ripping, well-written prose?"
>
> You see, Ace, if you take 110-120 pages of "gripping, well-written
> prose" and put them all together, you get what we real screenwriters
> call "a good screenplay."
That wasn't the point. The key words were "original drama." You mentioned
Franzoni wrote beautifully. You posted part of the screenplay. I agree. His
prose is gripping and well-written. I don't agree with the leap of logic you
make from there. Gripping and well written prose doesn't equal orginal or
even good drama.
>
> > Whether [Franzoni] realizes it or not, he's regurgitating a
> >thousand B-Western plots...
>
> Those are *romantic* plots. Those are *romantic* heroes. If you are
> going to have a *romantic* hero, you inherit all the baggage of
> Romanticism. Why is this so difficult for you, "professor?"
You really are in a rut, aren't you? I suppose you think if you repeat this
enough you'll make some kind of enduring point here. Read my lips -- "The
movie sucked." Now tell that to your film teacher the next time he starts
rattling on about romantic plots.
>
> Do you constantly avoid this issue because you have no more idea than
> a dead clam what "romantic" means?
I'm not avoiding the issue, I've said it plain enough -- Gladiator is a
piece of crap. I've given you specific reasons why the movie is a piece of
crap. The action scenes are ludicrus, the dialogue pretensious and cliched,
the plot insipid. If all this is what you mean by romantic than I guess you
and I finally agree on something.
>
> Spartacus is a *romantic* hero, as well. That Spartacus and Maximus
> both wind up dead isn't important--they both defeat *overwhelming*
> odds through their *individual* choices and actions.
Very good, but what does this have to do with anything we're talking about?
>
> The only reason you aren't complaining about the unbelievability of a
> rag-tag army of freed slaves defeating--over and over again--crack
> Roman legions is because you know it happened.
Heheh... you're stating to get funny. Hey! real quick, what color socks am I
wearing?
>
> Nothing that happens in GLADIATOR is any more unbelievable than that
> historical *realityt*. In fact, it's *more* believable.
*really?* and *how so* is *that?*
>
> >Like [Franzoni}, you're a superficial thinker and
> >writer whose point of reference is Spaghetti Westerns, Hawaii Five-O, and
> >Marvel comic books.
>
> Firstly, thank you for the comparison to Franzoni.
Actually, I think you *are* Franzoni.
>
> Secondly, OEDIPUS REX is neither a Marvel Comic Book nor a Spaghetti
> Western (quite a few of which are *damned* good pix, incidentally).
> But it was *you* who made the snotty, immature comment about OEDIPUS
> REX never having won an Oscar--not I.
I was being witty. I won't take advantage of you like that again.
>
> Thirdly, *once again*, YOU ARE CRITICIZING WORK YOU HAVE NOT SEEN OR
> READ!!!
And you're critcizing things about me you YOU have not SEEN or READ. That
makes us EVEN!!!
>
> How can THAT possibly elude you? What's your "professorship"
> in--Obtuseness?
Pig Latin
>
> I'm a "superficial... writer?"
>
> Uh-huh. And you've seen *which* of my pictures? You've read *which*
> of my screenplays?
All of them. In fact I'm in the smallest room of my house reading one now.
In a moment I'll put it behind me. Then I'll stand up.
>
> You criticize Franzoni's work without having read it, you criticize
> Scott's work without having seen it, and now you criticize *my* work
> when you don't have the remotest notion who I am or what I've done.
>
Neither do you
> How's that for ignorance, Champ?
One of my thoughts would bust your head wide open.
Prof. Marvel
Anne M. Marble
> On 26 Mar 2001 17:03:29 GMT, mrhe...@aol.com (Mr Helsing) wrote:
>
> >Don't you ever watch the WWF?
>
> Friend Helsing...
>
> I don't think the "professor" would--unless they could get Bergman to
> direct.
>
> Death vs. Mankind...that'd be fun, wouldn't it?
I'd watch!
Can we have Antonius Block as the referee? And Jof and Mia can sing songs
or juggle or something. I can easily envision Jos giving biting ringside
commentary.... Do they burn a witch at the end?
BTW I think there must be a mistake in Roger Ebert's on-line review of the
film. http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/greatmovies/seventh_seal.html
"A knight returning from the Crusades finds a rude church still open in the
midst of the Black Death..." A rude church?! What did it do, cuss at the
knight?
nucleareel
marvel
"Wendy Chatley Green" <wcg...@cris.com> wrote in message
news:emrvbtkeo0tlfst63...@4ax.com...
You stupid woman. Can't even keep up with the conversation.
Prof. Marvel
SPAMNOTch...@onix.com
wrote:
Drivel.
Your mind is not rational enough to conduct an argument.
You have not, and will not respond to TWO simple points:
1. You're criticizing what you haven't seen or read.
2. You're criticizing a romantic piece for being romantic.
You accuse me of reiterating the same points--you're right--I
reiterate them because you cannot and will not respond to them.
You are a spoiled child, and I regret the time I've wasted writing to
you as if you were capable of intelligent discussion or argument.
--C.
Goddess
Now that's just plain juvenile. Although, come to think of it, that's an
insults to juveniles everywhere. Can't take a little questioning or
disagreement, can you? What a loser.
Marg
Mark Das
>
> Gladiator is the death knell to all writers who have struggled to learn
> their craft.
even worth
the nomination. Traffic, Wonderboys, Crouching Tiger.., were all superior
movies
with, <gasp> characters deeper than a wading pool for baby ants
and <gasp, gasp> an actual story that's more deep than the edge of a dime.
My opinions, of course. Gladiator was just a step above a movie like U-571.
It was entertaining, action packed, and a technical achievement. But it
wasn't
the best picture, not by a long shot. (again, my opinions)
> I prayed that this movie would be roundly cursed and spit at by the
critics;
It kinda did. Look at the "cream of the crop" reviews at rotten-tomatoes.
And, most of the critics I've seen weren't too fond of Gladiator or
"Chocolate"
> then when this didn't happen, I prayed it wouldn't get nominated for an
> Oscar.
I still don't see why it was nominated. No characters, no story. Basically,
it was
about a guy who went aound killing other people while he dreamed about his
family.
Nevertheless, it had a buzz.
>Imagine my near-suicidal feelings when I awoke this morning to see
>the headlines.
What bothered me was Michael Douglas not even being considered for
best actor in Wonderboys. I pretty much knew Gladiator would win.
Crouching Tiger, ... couldn't win both best pic and foreign pic, and Traffic
is a bit too dismal for a best pic.
But it's not worth contemplating suicide.
> Bottom line, this is the worst movie to ever win Best Picture.
IIRC, "True Grit" beat "Citizen Kane". If true, that would be the
biggest travesty. As for worst movie to win best pic, well, hmmm...
Titanic won. And, did The English Patient win too?
> And now
> we'll all be kissing the ass of the Ben Afleck type who wrote it. He's the
> new genius on the block. Pucker up, sweat hogs.
Awww, but I really liked Good Will Hunting.
>
> Prof Marvel
My hope is critics will look back on this a few years later and nod their
heads in
shame. Or, it could be that maybe you and I (and many others) just didn't
understand
its greatness.
-Mark
Dr Zen
Phil Innes
<rma...@mail.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> My hope is critics will look back on this a few years later and nod their
> heads in
> shame. Or, it could be that maybe you and I (and many others) just didn't
> understand
> its greatness.
>
> -Mark
the people just want circuses, mark, the formula is trumpets, blood, some
knowing sadism, and primal images of fire
i suppose a test of what i wrote above is what did anyone admit to feeling
after watching it
phil
Montreal Writer
writes:
>> By your own admission, you are criticizing a picture you have not
>> seen, and (not by your admission, but obviously) commenting on a
>> screenplay you have not read.
>
>You mean the screenplay is better than the movie? There's hope yet. (And I
>did see the movie)
That's a crappy attempt at diversion. You quote part of what he wrote but
can;'t even address it. You are criticizing a film you have not seen, drop it.
Montreal Writer
Montreal Writer
writes:
>ow in God's name
>does a Roman General -- or anyone -- get in the arena with ten seasoned
>gladiators and slays them all? If
Not that hard when the "seasoned" gladiators are too stupid to rush him.
They ended up fightig one on one. And Maximus was an accomplished fighter, plus
he did get trained as a gladiator too.
Montreal Writer
>This has little to do with Rome and nothing at all to do
>with Roman Gladiators.
You insulting rude troll. First of all, no one every claimed that Gladiator
was a movie about Rome and gladiators in general, but about a specific
individual who goes to hell and back. Why must you insult those who have
opinions that differ from yours? Are you really so arrogant that you believe
only you can be right?
Montreal Writer
writes:
>
>You stupid woman. Can't even keep up with the conversation.
>
>Prof. Marvel
Insolent pup. Professor indeed. Professor of stupidity and irrelevant
insults. Go away little child.
Wendy Chatley Green
(Montreal Writer) wrote:
:In article <3ac0609c@grissom>, "Dr Zen" <dave...@nospamnospam.hotmail.com>
:writes:
:
:>
:>FOITN.
:
: Huh?
"Fan of Irony, Take Note"
Rick and Sue Deschene
>
<snip>
> IIRC, "True Grit" beat "Citizen Kane". If true, that would be the
> biggest travesty. As for worst movie to win best pic, well, hmmm...
> Titanic won. And, did The English Patient win too?
>
<snip>
I never did understand all the hoopla over "The English Patient." I must
be as shallow as Elaine, because I found it to be a real snorer. Love
story? More like a bloated lust story. We weren't even halfway through
the movie, and I couldn't have cared less what happened to anybody. I
thought all the the nominees for Best Picture that year were vastly
superior to "The English Patient." My personal favorite was "Secrets and
Lies."
We never even saw "Titanic" because we figured it was "The English
Patient" on a boat.
Sue
Rick and Sue Deschene
> I
> thought all the the nominees for Best Picture that year were vastly
> superior to "The English Patient."
Oops, that was supposed to be "all the *other* nominees." Sorry 'bout
that.
Sue
marvel
<SPAMNOTch...@onix.com> wrote in message
news:3ac00998...@news.onix.com...
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 20:31:47 -0600, "marvel" <mar...@acsplus.com>
> wrote:
>
> Drivel.
>
> Your mind is not rational enough to conduct an argument.
>
> You have not, and will not respond to TWO simple points:
>
> 1. You're criticizing what you haven't seen or read.
Why you keep repeating this is a mystery. Obviously, I've seen more of this
movie than I can bear.
>
> 2. You're criticizing a romantic piece for being romantic.
>
I'm merely saying it's a romantic piece of trash. What part of that don't
you understand?
> You accuse me of reiterating the same points--you're right--I
> reiterate them because you cannot and will not respond to them.
Ho Hum, more silly games from you. Why don't you put your Tonka toys away
and try and debate like an adult? I remind you again, this isn't alt.flame.
>
> You are a spoiled child, and I regret the time I've wasted writing to
> you as if you were capable of intelligent discussion or argument.
Good. And I look forward to never seeing your name in a header of mine
again. I won't respond to any of yours either. Deal?
Prof. Marvel
marvel
"Montreal Writer" <mtlw...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010327081853...@nso-cl.aol.com...
No, the act of killing or incapacitating a trained fighter is unbelievably
exhausting. The people behind Gladiator weren't even remotely close. Death
matches could never happen the way they depict them. The matches we see in
Gladiator are so wide of the mark they're not even representations of staged
exhibitions. Had Maximus survived one match with one gladiator he'd be in no
condition to fight another for days. The toll such an encounter takes on the
mind, body and spirit is horrific. We get nothing like this, instead we get
Hulk Hogan meets The Undertaker. Obviously, the people behind this stupid
movie think the WCW depicts real bouts. It doesn't.
Prof. Marvel
plugboy
> > You accuse me of reiterating the same points--you're right--I
> > reiterate them because you cannot and will not respond to them.
The Prof proved his point by saying:
> Ho Hum, more silly games from you. Why don't you put your Tonka toys away
> and try and debate like an adult? I remind you again, this isn't
alt.flame.
LOL.
> > You are a spoiled child, and I regret the time I've wasted writing to
> > you as if you were capable of intelligent discussion or argument.
>
> Good. And I look forward to never seeing your name in a header of mine
> again. I won't respond to any of yours either. Deal?
Count me in... As long as you stop clogging everyones newsreaders with the
same old threads.
SPAMNOTch...@onix.com
wrote:
>Why you keep repeating this...
You haven't seen the picture, troll.
You haven't read the screenplay, troll.
Any "criticism" you post is meaningless...
...troll.
--Christopher
Montreal Writer
<wcg...@cris.com> writes:
>>FOITN.
>:
>: Huh?
>
> "Fan of Irony, Take Note"
>
Thanks.
M.A. Zikk
marvel wrote:
> How in God's name
> does a Roman General -- or anyone -- get in the arena with ten seasoned
> gladiators and slays them all? If you were an script editor and something
> like that passed your desk would you sign off on it?
Historically this is somewhat believable. I am basing this on the power of
perception and fear, as well as the Spartan military machine. The Spartans were
the most feared land power in ancient Greece. At the height of Spartan
population, Sparta only had an estimated 8000 hoplites. With this number they
were still feared. Even during the Peloponnesian War, when their numbers sank as
low as 1000, they were still feared beyond belief. This is because a Spartan
hoplite was trained from the age of seven in the art of war. As a hoplite
phalanx, they were the most formidable land power in Greece.
A similar military upbringing would have occurred in Rome. Knowing Maximus'
background (and seeing his ability prior) an opponent would not want to fight
him, and would fight poorly when forced. Human condition, my friend.
> Gladiator is the death knell to all writers who have struggled to learn
> their craft.
Well... this is a questionable statement. I think you are confusing the "art" of
film making with the capitalist realism of movie making. If a writer's goal is
to make money, then a marketable product is the first and foremost issue. Case
in point: Independence Day. It is complete and utter garbage - but it made a lot
of money.
> I prayed that this movie would be roundly cursed and spit at by the critics;
> then when this didn't happen, I prayed it wouldn't get nominated for an
> Oscar. Imagine my near-suicidal feelings when I awoke this morning to see
> the headlines.
Yeah... I don't think it is worthy of best picture. (But I am glad Traffic
didn't win)
Zikk
marvel
"Montreal Writer" <mtlw...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
Another Sir Walter Raleigh with a hardon.
Prof. Marvel
marvel
<SPAMNOTch...@onix.com> wrote in message
news:3ac0d1be...@news.onix.com...
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 12:05:18 -0600, "marvel" <mar...@acsplus.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Why you keep repeating this...
>
> You haven't seen the picture, troll.
>
> You haven't read the screenplay, troll.
>
> Any "criticism" you post is meaningless...
>
> ...troll.
>
> --Christopher
And this is what generally happens to you weak minded sorts after getting
smacked around by me -- you retreat behind the repetitive stupidity we see
above. Do you really think it marks you as a wit, Christopher? By now even
your fans are embarrassed for you. As I say, you're a poseur, a phony who
can't even keep up his facade for three posts once someone like myself comes
along.
C'mon, stupid. Let's go at it again.
Prof. Marvel
marvel
"M.A. Zikk" <pros...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3AC122A1...@sympatico.ca...
>
>
> marvel wrote:
>
> > How in God's name
> > does a Roman General -- or anyone -- get in the arena with ten seasoned
> > gladiators and slays them all? If you were an script editor and
something
> > like that passed your desk would you sign off on it?
>
> Historically this is somewhat believable. I am basing this on the power of
> perception and fear, as well as the Spartan military machine. The Spartans
were
> the most feared land power in ancient Greece. At the height of Spartan
> population, Sparta only had an estimated 8000 hoplites. With this number
they
> were still feared. Even during the Peloponnesian War, when their numbers
sank as
> low as 1000, they were still feared beyond belief. This is because a
Spartan
> hoplite was trained from the age of seven in the art of war. As a hoplite
> phalanx, they were the most formidable land power in Greece.
You're going off on a tangent. Maximus and the Spartans you describe are
separated by over 500 years of history. Moreover the Spartan phalanx was a
group effort -- front line hoplites being pushed through the enemy by
second, third, fourth and fifth line hoplites. The idea was to use the 8 to
12 foot spears to gut, gorge and otherwise maim and kill the members of the
opposing phalanx as the fearsome pushing continued. This kind of warfare has
no similarity at all to gladiatorial combat. The battle is not decided by
individual heroics, but by maintaining the integrity of the phalanx, pushing
forward in one solid line until a break or the redoubt in the enemy line is
effected.
>
> A similar military upbringing would have occurred in Rome. Knowing
Maximus'
> background (and seeing his ability prior) an opponent would not want to
fight
> him, and would fight poorly when forced. Human condition, my friend.
This is silly. Commodious didn't even know who Maximus was, yet you imply
ignorant gladiators did. And your conclusion that a Roman general would be
seasoned in close combat is not supported by what history tells us about the
kind of men who became Roman generals.
>
> > Gladiator is the death knell to all writers who have struggled to learn
> > their craft.
>
> Well... this is a questionable statement. I think you are confusing the
"art" of
> film making with the capitalist realism of movie making. If a writer's
goal is
> to make money, then a marketable product is the first and foremost issue.
Case
> in point: Independence Day. It is complete and utter garbage - but it made
a lot
> of money.
Up until last night the two were generally not mutually exclusive, thus the
title of this thread -- Gladiator: Death Knell for Writers?
>
> > I prayed that this movie would be roundly cursed and spit at by the
critics;
> > then when this didn't happen, I prayed it wouldn't get nominated for an
> > Oscar. Imagine my near-suicidal feelings when I awoke this morning to
see
> > the headlines.
>
> Yeah... I don't think it is worthy of best picture. (But I am glad Traffic
> didn't win)
To say it's worthy of Best Picture means (presumably) it's worthy to be
studied in film and screenwriting courses. Your explanation of the
cartoonish combat scenes is itself cartoonish. Teachers of film and
screenwriting need ideas and scenes that make sense, the ones in this movie
don't.
Prof. Marvel
>
> Zikk
>
>
Dave Hitt
>On my worst day I never would have created scenes like this Franzoni did.
>The movie was an abomination, horrible, the worst I've ever seen. Every step
>of the way he butchered it. The dialogue was so asinine, so cliched, so
>pretentious. And I'm really sorry if I offended you. I deeply hated this
>movie. I deep hate the shortcuts that were taken, the stupidity, the
>laziness, and mostly, how it lowers the bar. This movie was a piece of
>garbage -- the worst. Everything bad about Hollywood was in this movie and
>later rubberstamped by the Oscar. It was the silliest, stupdiest, most
>pretentious epic ever made, period.
Then you've never seen Waterworld. (a.k.a. Fishtar)
----
Economics for Democrats - Tax cuts made simple
http://www.davehitt.com/feb01/democrats.html
-Dave Hitt hit...@bigfoot.spamblocker.com (Remove "spamblocker" to reply)
Dave Hitt
>You stupid woman. Can't even keep up with the conversation.
>
>Prof. Marvel
You sanctimonious twit. Please join the other twits in my kill file.
<plonk!>
Dave Hitt
>Mark Das wrote:
>>
><snip>
>
>> IIRC, "True Grit" beat "Citizen Kane". If true, that would be the
>> biggest travesty. As for worst movie to win best pic, well, hmmm...
>> Titanic won. And, did The English Patient win too?
>>
><snip>
>
>I never did understand all the hoopla over "The English Patient." I must
>be as shallow as Elaine, because I found it to be a real snorer. Love
>story? More like a bloated lust story. We weren't even halfway through
>the movie, and I couldn't have cared less what happened to anybody. I
>thought all the the nominees for Best Picture that year were vastly
>superior to "The English Patient." My personal favorite was "Secrets and
>Lies."
TEP was someone's attempt to be arty and, as often happens, only
creating complete boredom. Gawd, what an awful movie.
>We never even saw "Titanic" because we figured it was "The English
>Patient" on a boat.
It was a dopey popcorn movie, with a cliche plot and an ending that
didn't surprise anyone, but I found it fun, just once. It's beyond me
why anyone would see it dozens of times. Or even twice.
M.A. Zikk
Dave Hitt wrote:
> It was a dopey popcorn movie, with a cliche plot and an ending that
> didn't surprise anyone, but I found it fun, just once. It's beyond me
> why anyone would see it dozens of times. Or even twice.
Read "Boom Bust and Echo, 2000". The author (name escapes me) makes a good case
that this was a simple phenomenon of demographics. Thousands of teenage girls
going for the escapism of DeCaprio.
Zikk
John Martalo
>The point here is that the movie Gladiator is a testament to all the things
>we're taught Not to do when writing a screenplay.
And for his next act, our nameless coward will tell us how the Stephen
Kings and Tom Clancys of the world are failures as "real writers."
John (They must be since they only make about $20 million per book)
Martalo
Rick and Sue Deschene
>
<snip>
> Said it before, say it again, best picture should have gone to Traffic or
> Crouching Tiger.
> Gladiator shouldn't even have been nominated.
>
<snip>
We just watched "Gladiator" because my husband's younger brother came to
visit and had that with him on tape. I thought it was an OK movie. Not
great, not horrible. The thing that weirded me out was how obvious so
many of the special-effects scenes were. It's like there was no escaping
the fact that particular scenes were done digitally, so I was never
really able to suspend my disbelief. That's not a complaint about any
kind of lack of quality, because the special effects were quite good;
it's just that they never provided the totally convincing illusion I
needed to forget where I was and be tranported back to that period of
time. I was always aware that they were digitally enhanced and/or
created images.
"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" is being shown as part of the local
film series here next month. I'm looking forward to seeing it then. From
what I've heard/read, it certainly sounds like it would be vastly
superior to "Gladiator." But, then again, that's pretty much how I've
felt about most of the Oscars' Best Movie winners over the past couple
of decades.
Sue
marvel
Dave Hitt
=
>"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" is being shown as part of the local
>film series here next month. I'm looking forward to seeing it then. From
>what I've heard/read, it certainly sounds like it would be vastly
>superior to "Gladiator."
It is.
So is just about everything else.
Hugh Watkins
>
>To say it's worthy of Best Picture means (presumably) it's worthy to be
>studied in film and screenwriting courses. Your explanation of the
>cartoonish combat scenes is itself cartoonish. Teachers of film and
>screenwriting need ideas and scenes that make sense, the ones in this
>movie
>don't.
I saw it when it came out because you guys panned it
I think I will wait for a directors cut DVD before I make up my mind
certainly flawed but a better try than some of the older "Roman" films
Hugh W
Mark Das
Rick and Sue Deschene <rdes...@recorder.ca> wrote in message
news:3AC2244D...@recorder.ca...
> Mark Das wrote:
> >
> <snip>
>
> > Said it before, say it again, best picture should have gone to Traffic
or
> > Crouching Tiger.
> > Gladiator shouldn't even have been nominated.
> >
> <snip>
>
> We just watched "Gladiator" because my husband's younger brother came to
> visit and had that with him on tape. I thought it was an OK movie. Not
> great, not horrible.
to say than good.
It was a decent action flick, but was on the level of U-571, inferior to
Space Cowboys
and a few levels lower than Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Traffic.
> The thing that weirded me out was how obvious so
> many of the special-effects scenes were. It's like there was no escaping
> the fact that particular scenes were done digitally, so I was never
> really able to suspend my disbelief. That's not a complaint about any
> kind of lack of quality, because the special effects were quite good;
> it's just that they never provided the totally convincing illusion I
> needed to forget where I was and be tranported back to that period of
> time. I was always aware that they were digitally enhanced and/or
> created images.
This seems to be a no-win situation for them. Max out the CGI and it looks
too good to be true. Lessen the CGI and it doesn't look true. I thought the
graphics were fine, but I'm more into characters and story for some
god-awful reason.
Go figure. Pretty pictures and cardboard characters just don't do it for me.
> "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" is being shown as part of the local
> film series here next month. I'm looking forward to seeing it then. From
> what I've heard/read, it certainly sounds like it would be vastly
> superior to "Gladiator."
I made the mistake of watching it with a biased perspective. I saw it again
letting the movie create the universe that these characters lived in. I
loved it.
I still had problems with the change in the scene (the desert flashback) but
that seems to be only me.
> But, then again, that's pretty much how I've
> felt about most of the Oscars' Best Movie winners over the past couple
> of decades.
Really. I'm curious. What did you think was the best picture last year?
My nominees of what I saw would be American Beauty, The Insider,
Being John Malkovich, Fight Club, The Matrix, with The Insider winning
best pic and Kevin Spacey as best actor. But if any of those movies would
have won best pic, I'd be fine with it.
And, just for kicks: (of the movies I saw)
Best actress: Annette Benning (American Beauty)
Best actor(1): Spacey (above), then Crowe (The Insider), Norton (Fight
Club), Bacon (Stir of Echoes)
Best supporting actor: Cruise (Magnolia), then Pitt (Fight Club), Loren Dean
(Mumford)
Best supporting actress: Toni Colette (Sixth Sense)
Best director: same as best picture.
Best comedy: Galaxy Quest, then Toy Story 2.
Biggest disappointment: SW:TPM, Eyes Wide Shut.
Best movie no one saw: Mumford, Stir of Echoes.
Worst movie everyone saw: SW:TPM
Most creative: Being John Malkovich
Most overall influential: The Matrix
Best comedy actor: Fraser (The Mummy)
Best supporting comedy actor: Tony Shaloob (Galaxy Quest), guy from American
Pie,
Best screenplay: The Insider.
Sorry about that. Have some time to kill waiting for a call.
-Mark
Rick and Sue Deschene
>
<snip>
> Really. I'm curious. What did you think was the best picture last year?
<snip>
Last year was one of the few years I thought they got it right. I'm torn
between "American Beauty" and "Magnolia." I think both were superb, and
both equally deserving. "The Insider" was very good, but IMO, not quite
up there with the other two.
Sue
Dave Hitt
American Beauty was a magnificent piece of art.
http://www.davehitt.com/movies/moviesrecent.html#american
Magnolia was a self-indulgent butt-numbing piece of crap.
http://www.davehitt.com/movies/moviesrecent.html#magnolia
Rick and Sue Deschene
>
> Rick and Sue Deschene <rdes...@recorder.ca> wrote:
>
> >Mark Das wrote:
> >>
> ><snip>
> >
> >> Really. I'm curious. What did you think was the best picture last year?
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >Last year was one of the few years I thought they got it right. I'm torn
> >between "American Beauty" and "Magnolia." I think both were superb, and
> >both equally deserving. "The Insider" was very good, but IMO, not quite
> >up there with the other two.
>
> American Beauty was a magnificent piece of art.
>
> Magnolia was a self-indulgent butt-numbing piece of crap.
>
I disagree. (Which was probably obvious from my earlier comments.)
Sue
Rick and Sue Deschene
> were exceptional and was definitely the #2 guy for best supporting actor.
> I was torn between American Beauty and The Insider, and for a while
> though American Beauty was the better of the two. Why I changed my mind
> was after seeing again, I enjoyed the tension being perserved throughout
> almost
> the whole movie. Every scene felt natural, but intense. There were some
> scenes
> in AB which felt just a bit forced.
>
Some of Annette Bening's scenes were a bit too over-the-top for my
tastes. But, then again, that was consistent with her character.
> I will say that, cheesy as it may seem, I thought the scene with the flying
> plastic bag
> was absolutely beautiful and the most memorable part of the movie (including
> the
> ending)
>
You mean the videotape of the plastic bag caught in a whirlwind of
leaves? Visually, that was memorable. I was more intrigued by the
characters, and especially by Kevin Spacey's treatment of his daughter's
friend, the one he was so fixated with. It would've been so easy for him
to take advantage of her vulnerability. Instead, because of how he had
grown as a person, he did the right thing and treated her with respect.
Kind of surprising, coming from Hollywood's exploitive mentality. I also
liked the fact that the teen-age videotaper/drug dealer was not
portrayed in a stereotypical way. He was a real person, a highly
intelligent and sensitive person. It was unfortunate, I thought, that
his father was treated in a more stereotypical way . . . the repressed
homosexuality being expressed through violence. That's been an
unfortunate theme in several Hollywood films. But, in terms of plot, it
worked because it probably meant that the killer would never be caught.
The obvious suspects would be the daughter and her boyfriend, or the
wife. And yes, rejection has been met with violence. Of course, that's
true regardless of sexual orientation. But I've never liked the way
Hollywood exploits this specifically with regard to homosexuality.
("Looking for Mr. Goodbar" is one of many that comes to mind. Of course,
that film was based on the book, so I guess my real complaint is with
the book.)
Sue
SPAMNOTch...@onix.com
<rdes...@recorder.ca> wrote:
>You mean the videotape of the plastic bag caught in a whirlwind of
>leaves? Visually, that was memorable. I was more intrigued by the
>characters, and especially by Kevin Spacey's treatment of his daughter's
>friend...
Sue...
Some good insights on AMERICAN BEAUTY...I agree with everything you've
said.
Except...
>...Kind of surprising, coming from Hollywood's exploitive mentality...
I think that's unworthy of you, from the quality of thinking you
display in this and your other posts. Sure, Hollywood produces a lot
of disposable crap--but so does the publishing industry. It's more
geographically diverse than the picture industry, so it's not so
clearly defined a target.
Let's face it--both Hollywood and the pub biz are looking for stories
that will sell to an audience. I don't find that "exploitive"--it's a
simple reality.
You seem to care about motion pictures--try making a list of the ten
you love the most.
And I'll bet 6-9 of them come from "exploitive" Hollywood.
Best to you...
--Christopher
Mark Das
Rick and Sue Deschene <rdes...@recorder.ca> wrote in message
news:3AC621BC...@recorder.ca...
gotta be true then.
-Pierre Salinger
Rick and Sue Deschene
>
> Sue, you're simply wrong. Dave is right. After all, he has a website. It's
> gotta be true then.
>
Sue
Rick and Sue Deschene
industry, anyway:
1. "Blue" (from the "Trois Couleurs" trilogy)
2. "Red" (from the "Trois Couleurs" trilogy)
3. "The Sweet Hereafter"
4. "The Crying Game"
5. "Secrets and Lies"
6. "Kolya"
7. "Lilies"
8. "American Beauty"
9. "Magnolia"
10. "Wings of Desire" (and also its sequel, "Far Away, So Close")
And I'll bet after we see "Hidden Tiger, Crouching Dragon" later this
month, it'll be on this list. Those are the 10 I can think of right off
the top of my head, but there are plenty more.
Perhaps 10 years ago, my Top 10 films would've been from U.S. film
studios. But then I married a Canadian fellow with quirky tastes in
movies (and music, and books), and he opened my eyes to everything else
that's out there. It's pretty amazing what I'd shut myself off to,
thinking that it had to be from Hollywood to be "the best." I was wrong,
and am more than happy to admit it now. It's not that Hollywood doesn't
put out any good films; it does. But it isn't the *only* entity putting
out good films. That was the mistake I made before. And, more and more,
I find that independent and/or foreign films are the ones I enjoy most.
Sue
Rick and Sue Deschene
>
<snip>
> Actually, most of them are "foreign" films. Foreign to the U.S. film
> industry, anyway:
>
> 1. "Blue" (from the "Trois Couleurs" trilogy)
> 2. "Red" (from the "Trois Couleurs" trilogy)
> 3. "The Sweet Hereafter"
> 4. "The Crying Game"
> 5. "Secrets and Lies"
> 6. "Kolya"
> 7. "Lilies"
> 8. "American Beauty"
> 9. "Magnolia"
> 10. "Wings of Desire" (and also its sequel, "Far Away, So Close")
>
<snip>
Ah, another gem: "Run Lola Run." How could I have forgotten that one?
It's among my all-time favorites.
Sue
Rick and Sue Deschene
>
<snip>
> And I'll bet after we see "Hidden Tiger, Crouching Dragon" later this
> month, it'll be on this list.
<snip>
LOL! That's what I get for posting before having my morning cup of
coffee. Oops. Obviously, that should've been "Crouching Tiger, Hidden
Dragon."
Sue
Dave Hitt
But then, if yo do put up a web site, and disagree, how will we ever
resolve it?
I'm so confused!
Rick and Sue Deschene
>
> Rick and Sue Deschene <rdes...@recorder.ca> wrote:
>
> >Mark Das wrote:
> >>
> >> Sue, you're simply wrong. Dave is right. After all, he has a website. It's
> >> gotta be true then.
> >>
> >Well, there you go. I can't compete with that.
> >
>
> But then, if yo do put up a web site, and disagree, how will we ever
> resolve it?
>
> I'm so confused!
>
things up?
Sue
Mark Das
> > I will say that, cheesy as it may seem, I thought the scene with the
flying
> > plastic bag
> > was absolutely beautiful and the most memorable part of the movie
(including
> > the
> > ending)
> >
> You mean the videotape of the plastic bag caught in a whirlwind of
> leaves? Visually, that was memorable. I was more intrigued by the
> characters, and especially by Kevin Spacey's treatment of his daughter's
> friend, the one he was so fixated with. It would've been so easy for him
> to take advantage of her vulnerability.
was a virgin, he probably would have not stopped. I think when she said
that he realized, "My God, she's still a girl". Now, that's not to imply
that only non-virgins can be women, only that that's what went through
his mind.
> Instead, because of how he had
> grown as a person, he did the right thing and treated her with respect.
I'm not sure if I saw it as a growth, but more like a change in perspective.
There were many immature things he did throughout the movie. His
realization of that near the end was the "positive climax" of the movie.
Of course, all doesn't end well.
> Kind of surprising, coming from Hollywood's exploitive mentality.
>I also
> liked the fact that the teen-age videotaper/drug dealer was not
> portrayed in a stereotypical way. He was a real person, a highly
> intelligent and sensitive person.
I'll give you that it was non-stereotypical. And in that sense, it was
a good thing. But I still have issues about that character. He was
the strongest of them all and changed them all either directly or
indirectly. I thought it allowed one to believe that if you smoke the
right pot, then you're really living. He was the only true character,
everyone else was living a facade.
> It was unfortunate, I thought, that
> his father was treated in a more stereotypical way . . . the repressed
> homosexuality being expressed through violence.
Not sure if I can remember a movie where a homosexual was treated that way.
I haven't seen too many movies so it might be my lack of knowledge.
Usually they're comic relief. IMO, *that's* the Hollywood travestry. That
being
said, Will and Grace is still a hilarious show.
>That's been an
> unfortunate theme in several Hollywood films. But, in terms of plot, it
> worked because it probably meant that the killer would never be caught.
> The obvious suspects would be the daughter and her boyfriend, or the
> wife.
Right, but for me, whether he was caught or not was irrelevant.
I saw the movie ultimately as a tragedy. Lester lives a facade then comes to
look at life another way. Looking at it in that way allows him to
realize what he actually had (hence him asking the girl about how
his daughter is doing in school and looking at the picture of the family).
The tragedy comes just when it all started to piece together.
An averted tragedy was, what would have happened if
Caroyln came in and Lester wasn't already killed? Would
she have gone through with it? We saw her reaction when she saw
Lester. Imagine if she had done it. But that's all an aside.
For me, American Beauty was a snapshot of life. It took real characters
in believable lives. None of the characters were perfect, nor
two dimensional (much unlike the horrible Gladiator thing). They all
had underlying personalities and it was interesting seeing how
the direct and indirect relation with Ricky Fitts allowed that to surface.
And a cool plastic bag too.
> And yes, rejection has been met with violence. Of course, that's
> true regardless of sexual orientation. But I've never liked the way
> Hollywood exploits this specifically with regard to homosexuality.
> ("Looking for Mr. Goodbar" is one of many that comes to mind. Of course,
> that film was based on the book, so I guess my real complaint is with
> the book.)
Hollywood does many things right and many things wrong. That's why
I think it's great to develop a taste for subtitles and watch foreign
movies.
Seeing a movie as beautiful as "Cinema Paradiso" or as sad as
the animated "Grave of the Fireflies", or as suspenseful as "Wages of
Fear" or as magical as "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", you don't
even realize you're reading subtitles. All you think is "damn, that's a
great movie."
But that's another topic.
-Mark
gekko
broken and worn from their labors, struck the long-sealed stone
door, the portal to a place from which no living person had ever
returned. They had only a moment to ponder the meaning of the
ancient inscription, "<TiOx6.235$vQ5....@news.pacbell.net>",
before the massive slab fell outward to reveal all that remained
of "Mark Das" <rma...@mail.pacbell.net>, croaking these words of
doom:
Sue Deschene mentioned, concerning "American Beauty":
>> It was unfortunate, I thought, that
>> his father was treated in a more stereotypical way . . . the
>> repressed homosexuality being expressed through violence.
>Not sure if I can remember a movie where a homosexual was
>treated that way. I haven't seen too many movies so it might be
>my lack of knowledge. Usually they're comic relief.
a co-worker disliked that movie, for this reason alone, in
his words:
"Every single character in that movie was seriously flawed, with
two exceptions. Every single one. Except for two. The only two
that did not have any flaws, that were presented as 'normal' and
even 'perfect', were the gay next-door neighbors. There was some
sort of agenda, there."
I thought about it. The gay guys were like ozzie and harriet.
To me, that was NOT normal, you know? The mid-life crisis
couple, the rebellious teen, the nut-case militant dad, the
whacked-out peeping mad video-taper, the attention-seeking
sex-kitten, the abused mom ... those were slice-of-life,
stereotypical images of America. The Ozzie-and-Harriet gays
were the only unrealistic images.
I don't know about any agenda, but they seemed as cartoonish
as the rest of the cast, to me.
--
gekko
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation. - H. H.
Munro (Saki) (1870-1916)
SPAMNOTch...@onix.com
<rdes...@recorder.ca> wrote:
>> Actually, most of them are "foreign" films. Foreign to the U.S. film
>> industry, anyway:
Sue...
Well, I stand (or, more properly sit) corrected.
It's a fine list of pictures you posted--only confused by the absence
of Warner's CASABLANCA.
But that's a personal blind spot--any list of "best" pix without
CASABLANCA confuses me.
Rick and Sue Deschene
>
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 16:04:49 GMT, Rick and Sue Deschene
> <rdes...@recorder.ca> wrote:
>
> >> Actually, most of them are "foreign" films. Foreign to the U.S. film
> >> industry, anyway:
>
> Sue...
>
> Well, I stand (or, more properly sit) corrected.
>
> It's a fine list of pictures you posted--only confused by the absence
> of Warner's CASABLANCA.
>
> But that's a personal blind spot--any list of "best" pix without
> CASABLANCA confuses me.
>
> Best to you...
>
husband has. We'll have to rent that one sometime.
I love "Citizen Kane." But, as time goes by, it shifts down the list of
my favorites. It's one of those "the more I see, the more my list
changes"-type things. The more I'm exposed to, the more my perception of
what's "good" or even "great" expands from what it used to be. So my
"best of" lists are never static. The only way they could be is if I
never saw another movie ever again in my life, or if I never saw
anything new that I liked.
Sue
Rick and Sue Deschene
>
> Rick and Sue Deschene <rdes...@recorder.ca> wrote in message
> news:3AC6248B...@recorder.ca...
> > > I will say that, cheesy as it may seem, I thought the scene with the
> flying
> > > plastic bag
> > > was absolutely beautiful and the most memorable part of the movie
> (including
> > > the
> > > ending)
> > >
> > You mean the videotape of the plastic bag caught in a whirlwind of
> > leaves? Visually, that was memorable. I was more intrigued by the
> > characters, and especially by Kevin Spacey's treatment of his daughter's
> > friend, the one he was so fixated with. It would've been so easy for him
> > to take advantage of her vulnerability.
> Well, but he did take advantage of her. <spoilers> If she didn't admit she
> was a virgin, he probably would have not stopped. I think when she said
> that he realized, "My God, she's still a girl". Now, that's not to imply
> that only non-virgins can be women, only that that's what went through
> his mind.
>
had perceived her only as the object of his sexual fantasies. When she
told him that, it wasn't just that she was telling him she was still a
girl; she went from being just a sex object to being a human being to
him. Some people wouldn't have stopped at that point; he did.
> > Instead, because of how he had
> > grown as a person, he did the right thing and treated her with respect.
> I'm not sure if I saw it as a growth, but more like a change in perspective.
> There were many immature things he did throughout the movie. His
> realization of that near the end was the "positive climax" of the movie.
> Of course, all doesn't end well.
>
Well, I guess I felt he had grown by making mistakes. He'd been so
careful, so overly cautious throughout his life, that he'd stopped
taking risks. And, as a result, had stopped growing as a person. (Which
is something many of us have faced at some point in our lives.) So,
sure, he did some dumb things. But how else do we learn except by making
mistakes? It's our refusal to make mistakes that stunts our emotional
growth. He stumbled out of that, yes, but at least he made the effort.
And, as a result, he grew as a person. The reason he did immature things
is, I think, because that's where he was emotionally. The growth of his
emotional self was very much stunted as a result of all the attention he
paid to his professional and/or social growth. So it's no wonder he did
some immature things. But how else do you work your way out of that?
That's what I think led to his self-revelation there toward the end. And
yes, it was tragic. But, then again, wouldn't it be nice if we all went
out at the exact moment when we really knew ourselves? He was literally
at the high point of his life. He never had to face the disappointment
that perhaps things wouldn't work out for him even though he did know
himself.
> > Kind of surprising, coming from Hollywood's exploitive mentality.
>
> >I also
> > liked the fact that the teen-age videotaper/drug dealer was not
> > portrayed in a stereotypical way. He was a real person, a highly
> > intelligent and sensitive person.
> I'll give you that it was non-stereotypical. And in that sense, it was
> a good thing. But I still have issues about that character. He was
> the strongest of them all and changed them all either directly or
> indirectly. I thought it allowed one to believe that if you smoke the
> right pot, then you're really living. He was the only true character,
> everyone else was living a facade.
>
I don't know. I guess I didn't really get that message. I got that he
lived his life exactly as he wanted to, despite the constraints of some
of having a terribly dysfunctional family. He somehow managed to really
know himself . . . and, as a result, he seemed to be able to get at the
heart of who other people were. I never got the feeling that that was
because of smoking the right pot. That was just what he chose to do. But
I can see how it could be interpreted otherwise.
> > It was unfortunate, I thought, that
> > his father was treated in a more stereotypical way . . . the repressed
> > homosexuality being expressed through violence.
> Not sure if I can remember a movie where a homosexual was treated that way.
> I haven't seen too many movies so it might be my lack of knowledge.
> Usually they're comic relief. IMO, *that's* the Hollywood travestry. That
> being
> said, Will and Grace is still a hilarious show.
>
As I mentioned before, "Looking for Mr. Goodbar" immediately comes to
mind. (But, again, that was based on the book of the same name.)
You're right, though. So often, gays are used as comic relief.
Fortunately, that trend seems to be changing for the better.
> >That's been an
> > unfortunate theme in several Hollywood films. But, in terms of plot, it
> > worked because it probably meant that the killer would never be caught.
> > The obvious suspects would be the daughter and her boyfriend, or the
> > wife.
> Right, but for me, whether he was caught or not was irrelevant.
> I saw the movie ultimately as a tragedy. Lester lives a facade then comes to
> look at life another way. Looking at it in that way allows him to
> realize what he actually had (hence him asking the girl about how
> his daughter is doing in school and looking at the picture of the family).
> The tragedy comes just when it all started to piece together.
>
Exactly. Whether the killer was caught was an afterthought I had later,
as I was thinking about the movie. But it really wasn't the point of the
ending. I agree that it was a tragedy. And yet . . . well, see my
comments above.
> An averted tragedy was, what would have happened if
> Caroyln came in and Lester wasn't already killed? Would
> she have gone through with it? We saw her reaction when she saw
> Lester. Imagine if she had done it. But that's all an aside.
>
> For me, American Beauty was a snapshot of life. It took real characters
> in believable lives. None of the characters were perfect, nor
> two dimensional (much unlike the horrible Gladiator thing). They all
> had underlying personalities and it was interesting seeing how
> the direct and indirect relation with Ricky Fitts allowed that to surface.
>
He was the catalyst for change in all their lives. It seems that's a
necessary element in storytelling . . . or, at least, storytelling that
I love. There needs to be some catalyst--be it human, or supernatural,
or some natural event--that causes the characters we come to know and
love--or despise, or feel something somewhere in between--to change.
Real life tends to be far more complex; while some cataclysmic event may
well change our lives, more often than not we make changes in baby
steps. But that doesn't make for a very scintillating plot. ;-)
> And a cool plastic bag too.
>
> > And yes, rejection has been met with violence. Of course, that's
> > true regardless of sexual orientation. But I've never liked the way
> > Hollywood exploits this specifically with regard to homosexuality.
> > ("Looking for Mr. Goodbar" is one of many that comes to mind. Of course,
> > that film was based on the book, so I guess my real complaint is with
> > the book.)
> Hollywood does many things right and many things wrong. That's why
> I think it's great to develop a taste for subtitles and watch foreign
> movies.
> Seeing a movie as beautiful as "Cinema Paradiso" or as sad as
> the animated "Grave of the Fireflies", or as suspenseful as "Wages of
> Fear" or as magical as "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", you don't
> even realize you're reading subtitles. All you think is "damn, that's a
> great movie."
> But that's another topic.
>
That's very much how I've felt about my favorite foreign films . . .
"Kolya," "Blue" and "Red" from the "Trois Couleurs" trilogy (for some
reason, "White" didn't come together for me the way its bookends did),
"Run Lola Run," etc. The films are so beautifully done, I forget that
they're not in English. (Though, since I have hearing impairment, I
actually appreciate the fact that there are subtitles. Kinda like
closed-captioning in a movie theater.)
Sue
Alan Hope
>On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 16:04:49 GMT, Rick and Sue Deschene
><rdes...@recorder.ca> wrote:
>>> Actually, most of them are "foreign" films. Foreign to the U.S. film
>>> industry, anyway:
>Sue...
>Well, I stand (or, more properly sit) corrected.
>It's a fine list of pictures you posted--only confused by the absence
>of Warner's CASABLANCA.
>But that's a personal blind spot--any list of "best" pix without
>CASABLANCA confuses me.
Sue's list, if I might piggy-back, consisted of little but very recent
films. Now you may have caught her on the hop, and the more recent
stuff came flooding back to her. But I've seen this in this thread and
the half-dozen others that wuzzock Prof Marvel started: people have a
hard time recalling films from long ago, in the main.
I couldn't even sit down to write a list of Ten Best Ever without
immediately thinking of Citizen Kane, Les 400 coups, Casablanca, It's
a Wonderful Life, Paths of Glory, A Night at the Opera, Don't Look
Back, Bad Timing, Taxi Driver, Jaws, The Maltese Falcon, Et Dieu créa
la femme, Ran, Pather Panchali, The Searchers, L'Atalante, Boudu sauvé
des eaux, Close Encounters, The Usual Suspects, Miller's Crossing, The
Ladykillers, High Anxiety, The Wizard of Oz and The Sound of Music.
That's not my Ten, but they're all contenders. I think I'm like Mao on
the subject of recent films: it's too soon to say. Of course, it may
be I'm leaving my own critical faculties at the door, and going solely
by what the experts have decided down the years. It may also be, if
you like, that the very fact a film has stood the test of time is yet
another point in its favour, to add to those it intrinsically has. I
forgot to mention Napoléon, The Gold Rush, anything by Laurel and
Hardy, The General und so weiter.
Am I alone in liking old movies? Is all that stuff passé?
--
AH
Rick and Sue Deschene
>
> When pressed, SPAMNOTch...@onix.com stated:
>
> >On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 16:04:49 GMT, Rick and Sue Deschene
> ><rdes...@recorder.ca> wrote:
>
> >>> Actually, most of them are "foreign" films. Foreign to the U.S. film
> >>> industry, anyway:
>
> >Sue...
>
> >Well, I stand (or, more properly sit) corrected.
>
> >It's a fine list of pictures you posted--only confused by the absence
> >of Warner's CASABLANCA.
>
> >But that's a personal blind spot--any list of "best" pix without
> >CASABLANCA confuses me.
>
> Sue's list, if I might piggy-back, consisted of little but very recent
> films. Now you may have caught her on the hop, and the more recent
> stuff came flooding back to her. But I've seen this in this thread and
> the half-dozen others that wuzzock Prof Marvel started: people have a
> hard time recalling films from long ago, in the main.
>
I explained this in one of my later replies. There are lots of old films
that I love. But are they in my Top 10? Probably not, because what's
fresh in my mind are the newer films that have, essentially, expanded my
view of what constitutes a great film. You're probably right, that just
having seen them recently means that they are fresh in my mind, and so I
recall them more readily than the older ones. But it's also true that
the more I see, and especially the more foreign films I see, the more I
expand my perception of what great films mean to me. You list "Citizen
Kane" as one of your favorites. It's one of mine, too . . probably
hovering around 15th or 16th on my all-time favorites list. So is "In
Cold Blood." So is "It's a Wonderful Life" (because of the darker themes
explored in the movie, not because of the Norman Rockwell-ish image it's
taken on every Christmas). We just watched a great Humphrey
Bogart/Lauren Bacall film, "Dark Passage." It's probably not in my Top
20 list, but I still think it's a great film. That's the hard thing
about ranking films, or music, or books, or anything else; for me, the
list is constantly changing. As I said before, the only way that list
could become static is if I stopped watching films, or if I never saw
anything new that I liked. Not so long ago, I would've ranked "The
Godfather" trilogy as being among my Top 10 favorite films. But they've
dropped down to about 15th. I watched them recently, and while I still
enjoy them, they don't carry the same power with me that they did even
five years ago.
Sue
Frank S
"Alan Hope" <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:kpphctski7lfn93pj...@4ax.com...
How old is old?
Being There (on DVD this week [or next]), The Last Picture Show, The
Conversation, Tampopo, Melvin And Howard, Charlie Varrick, Brazil, The
Tin Drum, Accidental Tourist, Sleeper, Red Sky At Morning, Little
Murders, Young Frankenstein, Heartland, Two Lane Blacktop, THX-1138, La
Cucaracha, The Hospital, Paris Texas, Nineteen Hundred (1900), Hi Mom!,
Rules Of The Game, Breathless, Nashville, Carmen (Saura), The Lavendar
Hill Mob, The Italian Job, Modern Times, Five Easy Pieces, The Fugitive
(Henry Fonda, Dolores del Rio, Pedro Armendariz; Dir.: Ford), Grand
Illusion, Knife In The Water, Into The Night, After Hours, Harvest, The
Horse's Mouth... Each worth a second and subsequent viewings.
What do they have in common? With an exception or two, they are uncommon
in poignant ways. Not that new, either.
> --
> AH
SPAMNOTch...@onix.com
>Sue's list, if I might piggy-back, consisted of little but very recent
>films... ...[P]eople have a
>hard time recalling films from long ago, in the main.
>...Am I alone in liking old movies? Is all that stuff passé?
I surely hope not, Alan.
Very interesting list--with a few silents on it, I was glad to see.
I'd add Griffith's INTOLERANCE, Eisenstein's TEN DAYS THAT SHOOK THE
WORLD (aka RED OCTOBER), and Keaton's THE GENERAL.
You're utterly right about L & H--just my opinion, but foot for foot
THE MUSIC BOX is the funniest pic ever made (runs what--26 min.?).
You may be right about your "test of time" comment, but I don't agree.
A good pic is a good pic--whether it just came out of edit or was
wrapped 80 years ago.
I just don't care for Hollywood-bashing--too easy to get up on an
artistic high horse and let fly. But to do that, you also need to
forget CASABLANCA, A NIGHT AT THE OPERA, Lugosi's DRACULA, CITIZEN
KANE, THE MALTESE FALCON, PATHS OF GLORY, SCHINDLER'S LIST,
AMERICAN BEAUTY, etc., etc., etc.
Point is, Hollywood--or at least America--taught the world how to make
motion pictures. There'd have been no Eisenstein without Griffith,
and no Griffith without Porter.
Yes, Hollywood puts out crap--but so do publishers. In fact, I'd
hazard the pub industry puts out far *more* crap than Hollywood, since
books are so much cheaper to produce than pix.
Anyone has the right to dislike any pic--but for folks to attack the
entire American film industry because they didn't like TITANIC or
GLADIATOR or whatever is short-sighted and unfair.
Rick and Sue Deschene
>
<snip>
> Point is, Hollywood--or at least America--taught the world how to make
> motion pictures. There'd have been no Eisenstein without Griffith,
> and no Griffith without Porter.
>
> Yes, Hollywood puts out crap--but so do publishers. In fact, I'd
> hazard the pub industry puts out far *more* crap than Hollywood, since
> books are so much cheaper to produce than pix.
>
> Anyone has the right to dislike any pic--but for folks to attack the
> entire American film industry because they didn't like TITANIC or
> GLADIATOR or whatever is short-sighted and unfair.
>
Hollywood may well have taught the rest of the world how to make movies,
but the students have caught up with, and even surpassed, the teacher.
The teacher would be well-served, IMO, to take a few lessons from the
students.
Sue
SPAMNOTch...@onix.com
<rdes...@recorder.ca> wrote:
>Hollywood may well have taught the rest of the world how to make movies,
Not really, Sue--not if you look objectively.
I more than agree with you that there are superb directors making
superb pix who are not American.
But don't point to Satyajit Ray or Akira Kurosawa...point to the
entire *industries* and look at their usual outputs.
Bollywood is dominated by boy/girl musicals which don't translate to a
non-Hindi audience--Westerners find these pix comic. For every A
TAXING WOMAN or SEVEN SAMURAI Nippon graces us with, there are 50
comic-book plot action pix and laughably crude sci-fis.
The French to this day haven't learned that pictures are not about
people *talking*, they are about people *doing things*. And yes, I'm
more than aware of the exceptions to that statement.
Sweden? What have we heard from them since Bergman?
The UK? Some fine work from there, but a low output for economic
reasons.
Why do foreign filmmakers complain that there home markets are
dominated by Hollywood product? Because Hollywood product has a
tendency to translate universally--if that isn't good filmmaking, what
is?
>The teacher would be well-served, IMO, to take a few lessons from the
>students.
It does. SEVEN SAMURAI translated brilliantly into THE MAGNIFICENT
SEVEN, fr'instance. THE MATRIX crystallized, refined, and amplified
the essence of chop-socky by adding an intelligent sci-fi plot and
state of the art FX.
Rick and Sue Deschene
>
You make good points, and I agree with some of what you say. However, I
also still feel very strongly, the more I come to watch from film
outside the U.S.--and that includes Canada--that the U.S. no longer
holds the corner on quality films. That doesn't mean it doesn't make
any. But the films I'm coming to enjoy more and more seem to be coming
from outside the U.S. You don't agree. No problem. We'll agree to
disagree.
But, on a couple of points:
<snip>
> Sweden? What have we heard from them since Bergman?
>
I think this film might be Danish, not Swedish, but "Breaking the Waves"
comes to mind.
> The UK? Some fine work from there, but a low output for economic
> reasons.
>
<snip>
"Secrets and Lies" comes to mind. Still one of my all-time favorites.
It's a film I can watch over and over again, and I always get something
new out of it. The same cannot be said for what used to be included in
my favorite films list. Part of that is because some films simply don't
age very well. The other part of it is . . . well, unknown. For example,
I loved "The Goodbye Girl" when it first came out. Now, I cringe through
what little of it I can stand to watch. Why I liked it then, I don't
know. Except that perhaps some part of me responded strongly to that
film, and since then that part of me has changed. Probably grown up.
Other films are still on my "favorites" list and, even though they're
dated, seem to stand the test of time a bit better. I can still watch
"Ordinary People" and enjoy it. I have a harder time with "The Turning
Point," a film I used to enjoy. But there's one scene with a voice-over
that makes me shudder. Like, let's really whack people over the head
with this. I hope that filmmakers wouldn't consider such a move now. I
watch "West Side Story" and, even though it's obviously become dated in
certain ways, I love it as much now as when I first saw it. Not sure
what nationality "84 Charing Cross Road" would be. English? American? A
hybrid? Anyway, it's somewhere in my Top 20. I think "All Quiet on the
Western Front" (again, the original, not the remake) is an American
film. It certainly is one that I would list among the all-time greats.
I guess this is to say that my list is ever-changing. It depends on what
I see, and what I've seen, and how that changes my perception of what
constitutes greatness. It used to be that only American films were in
there. Now I've seen more, and that's opened my eyes. I no longer
restrict my view of what's "good" to Hollywood. That's the mistake I
used to make. I don't make it anymore. And I think that's a good thing.
I also think that Hollywood--the major studios, anyway--are, by and
large, not as good at telling a compelling story as they used to be.
Shirley MacLaine said as much in a fairly recent quote, and I tend to
agree with her. She said that the independents are the ones producing
the better movies now. In my perception of what I'm seeing, that's true.
You probably don't agree. I have no problem with that. I don't think I'm
going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine because
our experiences, and our perceptions, aren't the same. So we'll agree to
disagree.
Sue
SPAMNOTch...@onix.com
<rdes...@recorder.ca> wrote:
>...[T]he U.S. no longer holds the corner on quality films.
I agree, Sue. I don't think it ever did--except for that very brief
period when Edwin S. Porter figured out how to cut a series of shots
together to tell a story, while the Froggies were shooting trains
pulling into a station and factory workers leaving the plant.
>...But the films I'm coming to enjoy more and more seem to be coming
>from outside the U.S. You don't agree.
I can't possibly disagree with what pix you like, Sue--you are the
unrivalled expert on that. I will say that every picture you've cited
has been very good work.
If you have a prefernce for foreign product, that's a matter of taste.
Only a fool would argue with that--who am I to dictate what you should
*like*?
I happen to be very fond of English novels, fr'instance. Most of my
favorite novels/novelists are British (well, Conrad's a Pole, but he
writes out of the English experience). *Should* I like American
novels better? Silly question--taste, again.
I don't know what you write, Sue. If you're a novelist, I'm sure you
would accept my taste for Iris Murdoch, Joseph Conrad, and Henry
Fielding, say. But if I were to say American novels are largely
trash, you, as an American novelist, would rightly take offense.
I'm an American screenwriter. Like it or not, my market's in
Hollywood.
I don't sit down to write a commercial picture. I sit down, just as
you do, to tell a good story. In telling that story, I try to make it
as appealing and exciting to an audience as possible. But that's a
screenwriter's job--the same job as any storyteller.
Hollywood's *awfully* good at that job--but there are many
non-Americans and American independents who are also good at it.
Look at the Coens--their output is phenomenal and world class. They
started as independents--but Hollywood was pretty damned quick about
realizing both the artistic merit and the commercial potential of
their work.
Sure, we can agree to disagree--but I don't think, at bottom, we
disagree all that much.
Graham Strong
"Rick and Sue Deschene" <rdes...@recorder.ca> wrote in message
news:3ACA1309...@recorder.ca...
> SPAMNOTch...@onix.com wrote:
[snip]
> Not sure
> what nationality "84 Charing Cross Road" would be. English? American? A
> hybrid?
Hi Sue,
I think you are hitting the nail on the head. The days of purely "American"
movies is over. The studio system, which once were *the* production houses
are now becoming distributors more than anything. Any given project in the
US these days has multiple production companies doing everything from
financing part of the movie to (*gasp!*) actually making it. Things get even
more complicated when big-name directors start chipping in the financing
too.
These production companies don't come from one place either. I don't know
about "84 Charing Cross Road", but I suspect that "The English Patient" was
a hybrid of international production companies. So to with "Four Weddings
and a Funreal" and "Notting Hill".
I think these films are better for it. Take the blockbuster mentality of US
productions and temper them with the UK or Canadian sensibility (or, temper
sensibility with a blockbuster attitude, if you like) and you get a great
film.
"Four Weddings and a Funreal" is an excellent example. It's production
company called "Working Title" is described as "a company that does business
in Hollywood yet is emphatically outside Hollywood." They also produced
"Bean", so that tells you something.
Here's more:
__It was more than that. The success of "Bean" in international markets
reveals a lot about the philosophy of Working Title,
"In 'Bean' and 'Four Weddings and a Funeral,' we've had two films grossing
$250 million worldwide," notes Fellner. "But neither did more than $50
million in America. So they've taken four times as much money
internationally."
Which makes them quintessential Working Title films. Bevan and Fellner have
deliberately aimed to produce a range of work with wide international
commercial appeal--solid, well-crafted films, but mostly more accessible
than art-house fare. "What we look for," Bevan says, "is story, character
and emotion." __
AND
__Fellner and Bevan have produced the last three films of the Coen brothers
("The Hudsucker Proxy" and "Fargo" as well as "The Big Lebowski") and
"French Kiss," a Hollywood-style romantic comedy with Kevin Kline and Meg
Ryan. And under their deal with Tim Robbins, he directed the political
satire "Bob Roberts" and the death row drama "Dead Man Walking." __
[from: http://www.hollywood.com/news/topstories/02-24-98/html/1-4.html]
Of course, if you factor in the number of Canadian/British/French etc.
actors, directors and behind the scenes staff, the hybrid is continued on an
even higher level.
Americans will still churn out "Dude, Where's My Car?", Canadians will still
churn out "Porky's" and long documentaries and the British will still churn
out "Howard's End". But the wave of the future, when it comes to
Oscar-calibre movies anyway, will be the hybrid model.
IMHO,
~Graham
Dave Hitt
Whew! Thanks. I was really worried there for a bit.
Dave Hitt
>>
>> It's a fine list of pictures you posted--only confused by the absence
>> of Warner's CASABLANCA.
>>
>> But that's a personal blind spot--any list of "best" pix without
>> CASABLANCA confuses me.
>>
>> Best to you...
>>
>Believe it or not, that's one I've never watched all the way through. My
>husband has. We'll have to rent that one sometime.
I'd recomond renting both Casablanca and Raiders of the Lost Ark at
the same time. Watch Bogey first and Raiders immedatly afterward.
Although the story is entirely different, the similarities, right down
to some of the dialoge, are amazing. But you won't notice them if any
appreciabe length of time passes between watching them.
>I love "Citizen Kane." But, as time goes by, it shifts down the list of
>my favorites. It's one of those "the more I see, the more my list
>changes"-type things. The more I'm exposed to, the more my perception of
>what's "good" or even "great" expands from what it used to be. So my
>"best of" lists are never static. The only way they could be is if I
>never saw another movie ever again in my life, or if I never saw
>anything new that I liked.
Sometimes its tough to shift into the mindset of the time the movie
was made. I was watching Dr. Strangelove recently, and my kids had no
intrest in it at all. Wrong generation, and it was way to slow for
them.
Rick and Sue Deschene
>
> Rick and Sue Deschene <rdes...@recorder.ca> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> It's a fine list of pictures you posted--only confused by the absence
> >> of Warner's CASABLANCA.
> >>
> >> But that's a personal blind spot--any list of "best" pix without
> >> CASABLANCA confuses me.
> >>
> >> Best to you...
> >>
> >Believe it or not, that's one I've never watched all the way through. My
> >husband has. We'll have to rent that one sometime.
>
> I'd recomond renting both Casablanca and Raiders of the Lost Ark at
> the same time. Watch Bogey first and Raiders immedatly afterward.
> Although the story is entirely different, the similarities, right down
> to some of the dialoge, are amazing. But you won't notice them if any
> appreciabe length of time passes between watching them.
>
with "Casablanca" was that whenever it was on TV, it seemed like it was
always shown late on a weeknight. I'd start out interested, but then the
cumulative effect from work would take its toll and I'd fall asleep.
Same thing happened with "Citizen Kane." I'd make it about as far as the
scene where you first see the blonde wife in the nightclub, and then I'd
start to fade out. I finally had the good sense to tape it and watch it
on a weekend, when I was rested and alert. I finally made it all the way
through. For whatever reason, I never did that with "Casablanca."
> >I love "Citizen Kane." But, as time goes by, it shifts down the list of
> >my favorites. It's one of those "the more I see, the more my list
> >changes"-type things. The more I'm exposed to, the more my perception of
> >what's "good" or even "great" expands from what it used to be. So my
> >"best of" lists are never static. The only way they could be is if I
> >never saw another movie ever again in my life, or if I never saw
> >anything new that I liked.
>
> Sometimes its tough to shift into the mindset of the time the movie
> was made. I was watching Dr. Strangelove recently, and my kids had no
> intrest in it at all. Wrong generation, and it was way to slow for
> them.
>
Oh, yeah . . . "Dr. Strangelove." I saw that for the first time about a
year ago, and loved it. Peter Sellers was a genius. I never really
appreciated him till I saw "Dr. Strangelove," and then "The Party."
Hilarious.
Sue
Lorrill Buyens
of misc.writing, first realized the gravity of Alan Hope
<ah...@skynet.be>'s pronouncements:
>I couldn't even sit down to write a list of Ten Best Ever without
>immediately thinking of Citizen Kane, Les 400 coups, Casablanca, It's
>a Wonderful Life, Paths of Glory, A Night at the Opera, Don't Look
>Back, Bad Timing, Taxi Driver, Jaws, The Maltese Falcon, Et Dieu créa
>la femme, Ran, Pather Panchali, The Searchers, L'Atalante, Boudu sauvé
>des eaux, Close Encounters, The Usual Suspects, Miller's Crossing, The
>Ladykillers, High Anxiety, The Wizard of Oz and The Sound of Music.
>
>That's not my Ten, but they're all contenders. I think I'm like Mao on
>the subject of recent films: it's too soon to say. Of course, it may
>be I'm leaving my own critical faculties at the door, and going solely
>by what the experts have decided down the years. It may also be, if
>you like, that the very fact a film has stood the test of time is yet
>another point in its favour, to add to those it intrinsically has. I
>forgot to mention Napoléon, The Gold Rush, anything by Laurel and
>Hardy, The General und so weiter.
>
>Am I alone in liking old movies? Is all that stuff passé?
Hardly. And you forgot Blazing Saddles, Yankee Doodle Dandy, Gigi,
An American in Paris, Diabolique, The Great Dictator, The Shop on
the Square, The Wolfman, Metropolis, Dr. Strangelove, Duck Soup,
North by Northwest, Strangers on a Train, and King of Hearts. All
IMO, of course.
--
Lorrill Buyens
"To the best of my knowledge you cannot deceive subatomic
particles..." - Leo Simonetta, explaining the limitations of
quantum physics in AFU
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/6172/helpjane.htm
Dave Cain
> > > If you remember the
> > >Batman movies you'll recall even Batman had limits, even he couldn't
take
> on
> > >ten bad guys at one time. But Gladiator's Maximus can...
> >
> > Ever heard of a notion called...hmm, what was it? Oh yeah--
> > Romanticism. Did you learn that pix can't have romantic heroes (and,
> > if so, do you realize how many motion pictures you're going to have to
> > toss in the trash heap?).
>
> Please rework your syntax. You give us gibberish directly above.
Give us a break, man. If you can't understand what someone is trying to say
unless
it is written in perfect syntax, the internet is not for you. I can't
imagine how writing
would be either.
>
> >
> > > How in God's name
> > >does a Roman General -- or anyone -- get in the arena with ten seasoned
> > >gladiators and [sic] slays them all?
> >
> > How does bloody Oedipus single-handedly slay his father, his father's
> > entire military escort, and his father's entire entourage? Goodbye
> > OEDIPUS REX--you don't meet Marvel's standards.
>
> Sorry, I missed the year the Oedipus movie you speak of got the Oscar.
What
> year did you say it was?
Are you asserting Oedipus is poor writing? Or were there just too many
syntactical
errors in it? But seriously, I think Gladiator IS the worst best picture
winner I've seen, but not because
it was far-fetched. I just thought it was just an overstylish exhibit of
ancient cliches that I have had enough of.
What confuses me is why you continue to respect the Academy's assessments of
the best movies.
Politics plays too large a role in deciding the winners to take them
seriously. Tom Hanks had no chance of
winning the Best Actor award simply because he was so good in other years.
And please don't
crucify me for starting sentences with 'and' or 'but', because I am certain
you can discern what I am
saying from gibberish, gramatically correct or not.
>
> >
> > How does James Bond defeat 25 or so goons in the running waterfront
> > fight scene in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE? Goodbye to that, too, I guess.
>
> Which is exactly why not one of the James Bond movies has ever even been
> nominated for Best Picture. Try to keep up, will you?
Again, It sounds to me like you think the Oscars have always been an
accurate gauge of talent.
I think it's a ridiculous presumption to make, and I am ashamed I put so
much faith in them in years past.
Shun them like I do.
>
> >
> > How does Audie Murphy single-handedly turn back a company-strength
> > German infantry assault by hopping up on a burned-out Sherman tank and
> > blazing away with the .50 cal like a madman? Whoops--that's history.
> > Guess it didn't happen. Bush will have to revoke Murphy's
> > Congressional Medal of Honor, posthumously--and order all prints of
> > THE AUDIE MURPHY STORY destroyed.
>
> And now you equate a .50 caliber with a short sword. You're not even
trying,
> are you?
Trying what? To find something to detest in every movie?
> >
> > Firstly, because you have obviously never read David Franzoni's
> > GLADIATOR script. It's quite gorgeous, and evocative of James
> > Goldman.
> >
>
> Do you have access to it? I'd love to see the part where Maximus walks
into
> the arena and slays 6 or 7 bad guys with one blow each. How does that
> read...? Maximus swings and kills the first gladiator, then he swings and
> kills the second. He swings again and kills the third. Then he swings yet
> again and kills the fourth. Once more he swings and another gladiator goes
> down. Yet again he swings and another one bites the dust...then on his way
> back to his cell he tosses his sword down and guess what? That's right,
the
> last gladiator slips and lands right under it...
>
> That the way you do it, Chris? That the way they teach you in film school?
> Gee, the genius of it just reaches out and grabs you by the lapels, don't
> it?
>
> > Secondly, you not only never bothered to learn Franzoni's name, but
> > you are ignorant of his writing credits (AMISTAD, CITIZEN COHN--do
> > *they* meet your standards?).
>
> I doubt if Amistad was totally his baby. Citizen Cohn probably was, it
> sounds contrived enough.
>
> >
> > What's the deal, Prof? Are we just a little j-e-a-l-o-u-s, and all
> > bitter and nasty because we can't get past the secretary at LIVE
> > ENTERTAINMENT, while Franzoni wins an Oscar?
> >
>
> On my worst day I never would have created scenes like this Franzoni did.
> The movie was an abomination, horrible, the worst I've ever seen. <snip>
> This movie was a piece of garbage -- the worst. Everything bad about
Hollywood was in this movie and
> later rubberstamped by the Oscar.
Have you seen Armageddon? Gladiator is wonderful in comparison. I have
never had
such a strong urge to urinate and defecate all over the movie screen and
projector. I didn't submit to this urge,
perhaps wisely.
> Prof. Marvel
>
Dave
Tone
Gladiator (and most other action based films/books) would have been a lot
shorter if everything equated to our real world experiences/expectations.
"Dave Cain" <cyber...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9al6io$5sv$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
Lorrill Buyens
misc.writing, first realized the gravity of Rick and Sue Deschene
<rdes...@recorder.ca>'s pronouncements:
>Dave Hitt wrote:
>> Sometimes its tough to shift into the mindset of the time the movie
>> was made. I was watching Dr. Strangelove recently, and my kids had no
>> intrest in it at all. Wrong generation, and it was way to slow for
>> them.
>>
>Oh, yeah . . . "Dr. Strangelove." I saw that for the first time about a
>year ago, and loved it. Peter Sellers was a genius. I never really
>appreciated him till I saw "Dr. Strangelove," and then "The Party."
>Hilarious.
What, you don't like _Being There_?
Lorrill Buyens
misc.writing, first realized the gravity of "Graham Strong"
<graham...@hotmail.com>'s pronouncements:
>These production companies don't come from one place either. I don't know
>about "84 Charing Cross Road", but I suspect that "The English Patient" was
>a hybrid of international production companies. So to with "Four Weddings
>and a Funreal" and "Notting Hill".
>
>I think these films are better for it. Take the blockbuster mentality of US
>productions and temper them with the UK or Canadian sensibility (or, temper
>sensibility with a blockbuster attitude, if you like) and you get a great
>film.
Not necessarily. Universal plus British screenwriters & director plus
BBC involvement produced a Doctor Who telemovie that was mediocre
at best.
Rick and Sue Deschene
>
> It was on Wed, 04 Apr 2001 01:30:03 GMT that we, the good denizens of
> misc.writing, first realized the gravity of Rick and Sue Deschene
> <rdes...@recorder.ca>'s pronouncements:
>
> >Dave Hitt wrote:
>
> >> Sometimes its tough to shift into the mindset of the time the movie
> >> was made. I was watching Dr. Strangelove recently, and my kids had no
> >> intrest in it at all. Wrong generation, and it was way to slow for
> >> them.
> >>
> >Oh, yeah . . . "Dr. Strangelove." I saw that for the first time about a
> >year ago, and loved it. Peter Sellers was a genius. I never really
> >appreciated him till I saw "Dr. Strangelove," and then "The Party."
> >Hilarious.
>
> What, you don't like _Being There_?
>
"must-see" list. Just rented "Casablanca" over the weekend. First time
I've ever seen that. I'll have to rent "Being There" sometime soon.
Sue
Graham Strong
"Lorrill Buyens" <buy...@interlacken.com> wrote in message
news:3acfc32a...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
> It was on Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:57:56 -0400 that we, the good denizens of
> misc.writing, first realized the gravity of "Graham Strong"
> <graham...@hotmail.com>'s pronouncements:
>
> >These production companies don't come from one place either. I don't know
> >about "84 Charing Cross Road", but I suspect that "The English Patient"
was
> >a hybrid of international production companies. So to with "Four Weddings
> >and a Funreal" and "Notting Hill".
> >
> >I think these films are better for it. Take the blockbuster mentality of
US
> >productions and temper them with the UK or Canadian sensibility (or,
temper
> >sensibility with a blockbuster attitude, if you like) and you get a great
> >film.
>
> Not necessarily. Universal plus British screenwriters & director plus
> BBC involvement produced a Doctor Who telemovie that was mediocre
> at best.
>
Hm, maybe I should specify instead of generalize. Some of my favourite
movies (and therefore what I consider to be the best) have been
cross-culture hybrids. That's not to say that by making a hybrid will
automatically shoot you into the stratosphere of movie excellence. But what
might have simply been a good movie can sometimes be a great one when
colloborated on over borders...
~Graham