Best 'New' Director
NewEcho
that are writing and directing films for the studios and independently. But I
would have to say my favorites are...
Quentin Tarantino (He made one of the best films of the 1990's and led a new
generation of directors to the light...like several before him...Soderbergh,
Lee, Linklater..etc).
Thomas Vinterberg (He's my favorite director right now, and I can't wait for
whatever follow up he does after "The Celebration").
Jason
Grimfarrow
NewEcho wrote:
Wong Kar-Wai
-IMO the best "new" director out there
Lars von Trier
-eccentric and unapologetic. My kinda guy.
Mike Leigh
-not "new", but the 90's have improved his fame a lot. Can go from simply
shot films like Secrets & Lies and Naked to the full pageantry of Topsy-Turvy.
.....and many others, such as Ang Lee, Atom Egoyan, etc.
Grimfarrow
Nobody
Grimfarrow schrieb:
> NewEcho wrote:
>
> > Just curious as to whom everyone follows?
I do not follow any directors out there - but I would say that two american
directors clearly stood out the last two years:
* David Fincher
* Spike Jonze
Darren Arronofsky is pretty good as well - but still needs some time.
Greetings fellow geeks
Nobody
Grimfarrow schrieb:
> NewEcho wrote:
>
> > Just curious as to whom everyone follows?
I do not follow any directors out there - but I would say that two american
Nobody
Grimfarrow schrieb:
> NewEcho wrote:
>
> > Just curious as to whom everyone follows?
I do not follow any directors out there - but I would say that two american
John Harkness
wrote:
New? Atom's been around for 15 years. Von Trier for more than a
decade.
John Harkness
John Coye
NewEcho wrote in message <20000928230130...@ng-md1.aol.com>...
SJRaff
>
>
I don't get all the praise for this guy? "Pi" is a poorly executed,
amatuerishly shot film that in the end does not pay off on it's early promise
of mystery.
Sure the drill shot was cool, but every student film I see is packed with such
shots.
Stephen Rafferty
Los Angeles
Tiocfaidh Ar La
damnfine
> Lars von Trier
> -eccentric and unapologetic. My kinda guy.
Talented. Unfortunately fatally flawed by his "eccentricity", though.
Amusing that he created Dogme95 out of laziness and self-indulgence, and now
he's decided to more or less abandon it for the same reasons.
--
Damnfine,
"It's such a fine line between clever and stupid."
damnfine
> I do not follow any directors out there - but I would say that two american
> directors clearly stood out the last two years:
>
> * David Fincher
>
> * Spike Jonze
Paul Thomas Anderson and David O. Russell EASILY overshadow those two thus
far.
Not that I have anything against Fincher and Jonze though...
Grimfarrow
John Harkness wrote:
> >Wong Kar-Wai
> >-IMO the best "new" director out there
> >Lars von Trier
> >-eccentric and unapologetic. My kinda guy.
> >Mike Leigh
> >-not "new", but the 90's have improved his fame a lot. Can go from simply
> >shot films like Secrets & Lies and Naked to the full pageantry of Topsy-Turvy.
> >
> >.....and many others, such as Ang Lee, Atom Egoyan, etc.
> >
> >Grimfarrow
>
> New? Atom's been around for 15 years. Von Trier for more than a
> decade.
>
> John Harkness
And Wong Kar-Wai's being directing since 1984, and Mike Leigh also
started in the 80's. So? Compared to Martin Scorsese, Robert Altman
and Steven Spielburg, they're pretty damn new.
Unless you are talking about people like Spike Jonze, Darren Aronofsky,
& David O.Russell, who really don't have an extensive catalogue to judge
from yet.
Grimfarrow
Jeffrey Davis
>
> John Harkness wrote:
>
> > >Wong Kar-Wai
> > >-IMO the best "new" director out there
> > >Lars von Trier
> > >-eccentric and unapologetic. My kinda guy.
> > >Mike Leigh
> > >-not "new", but the 90's have improved his fame a lot. Can go from simply
> > >shot films like Secrets & Lies and Naked to the full pageantry of Topsy-Turvy.
> > >
> > >.....and many others, such as Ang Lee, Atom Egoyan, etc.
> > >
> > >Grimfarrow
> >
> > decade.
> >
> > John Harkness
>
> And Wong Kar-Wai's being directing since 1984, and Mike Leigh also
> started in the 80's. So? Compared to Martin Scorsese, Robert Altman
> and Steven Spielburg, they're pretty damn new.
>
> Unless you are talking about people like Spike Jonze, Darren Aronofsky,
> & David O.Russell, who really don't have an extensive catalogue to judge
> from yet.
David O. Russell is easily the best director to emerge in recent years.
And, ironically, he works clearly in the mainstream tradition. Flirting
with Disaster compares favorably with Bringing Up Baby and other great
screwball comedies of the 30s. Three Kings improves on its remote source
material that it is like watching the NBA after watching a grade school
pick-up game.
I also loved Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels. A dizzy updating of
PG Wodehouse and Damon Runyon. So, Guy Ritchie is someone to keep track
of.
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu>
The John Dortmunder of Lexington, Ky
John Harkness
wrote:
>
>
>John Harkness wrote:
>
>> >Wong Kar-Wai
>> >-IMO the best "new" director out there
>> >Lars von Trier
>> >-eccentric and unapologetic. My kinda guy.
>> >Mike Leigh
>> >-not "new", but the 90's have improved his fame a lot. Can go from simply
>> >shot films like Secrets & Lies and Naked to the full pageantry of Topsy-Turvy.
>> >
>> >.....and many others, such as Ang Lee, Atom Egoyan, etc.
>> >
>> >Grimfarrow
>>
>> New? Atom's been around for 15 years. Von Trier for more than a
>> decade.
>>
>> John Harkness
>
>And Wong Kar-Wai's being directing since 1984, and Mike Leigh also
>started in the 80's. So? Compared to Martin Scorsese, Robert Altman
>and Steven Spielburg, they're pretty damn new.
>
>Unless you are talking about people like Spike Jonze, Darren Aronofsky,
>& David O.Russell, who really don't have an extensive catalogue to judge
>from yet.
>
>Grimfarrow
>
By that definition, anybody's who's not an "old master" is a new
director. Von Trier, Egoyan, Wong-kar Wait are veteran directors with
considerable bodies of work. They've had multiple films in Cannes
competition, and two of them have been on the Cannes jury. They've all
made at least five films. None of them ever worked in rock video.
Jonze and Russell, those are new directors. Also Desplechin, Fincher,
John Harkness
Ruth
> David O. Russell is easily the best director to emerge in recent years.
> And, ironically, he works clearly in the mainstream tradition. Flirting
> with Disaster compares favorably with Bringing Up Baby and other great
> screwball comedies of the 30s. Three Kings improves on its remote source
> material that it is like watching the NBA after watching a grade school
> pick-up game.
He gets my vote.
--
"I tried reality once, I found it too confining" Lily Tomlin
Jeremiah Lee McVay
been a publicity stunt...
I don't think it was meant as something to be followed at all times. It was
meant as a means for a filmmaker to realize what she/he can do without relying
on excess... and I don't think it ws meant to be followed at the expense of the
film. If the film you want to shoot cannot be done within the confines of the
"Vow of Chastity," then why use it?
I, myself, liked Dancer in the Dark (however, I am guessing you probably did
not) and don't think it could have been made under the rules of Dogma 95.
~JLM
TyroneZero's Movies, etc.
http://members.tripod.com/~TyroneZero/film.html
damnfine wrote:
> Grimfarrow wrote:
> > Lars von Trier
> > -eccentric and unapologetic. My kinda guy.
>
> Talented. Unfortunately fatally flawed by his "eccentricity", though.
>
> Amusing that he created Dogme95 out of laziness and self-indulgence, and now
> he's decided to more or less abandon it for the same reasons.
>
Jeremy H.
"Jeremiah Lee McVay" <jlm...@is9.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:39D4AE25...@is9.nyu.edu...
> Just for a second, let's put aside whether or not Dogma 95 may or may not
have
> been a publicity stunt...
>
> I don't think it was meant as something to be followed at all times. It
was
> meant as a means for a filmmaker to realize what she/he can do without
relying
> on excess... and I don't think it ws meant to be followed at the expense
of the
> film. If the film you want to shoot cannot be done within the confines of
the
> "Vow of Chastity," then why use it?
>
> I, myself, liked Dancer in the Dark (however, I am guessing you probably
did
> not) and don't think it could have been made under the rules of Dogma 95.
I personally suspect EVERYTHING that vonTrier does is a publicity stunt
(including the rumored tension between him & Bjork while filming Dancer).
That doesn't make me respect his films any less.
It would take someone very short sighted to write off vonTrier, or any of
the Dogma filmmakers. None of the Domga films have been failures in my
opinion. I haven't seen The King is Alive yet though....
It's not as if the Domga tradition sprung out of nowhere. Certainly,
Breaking the Waves has Dogmatic influences, even if it's not a Dogma film...
and even vonTrier's The Kingdom, and Medea use the same style. He's NOT
simply a lazy or untalented filmmaker, as films like Europa prove. The Dogma
films work because the material is suited to the stylistic CHOICE made by
the directors. Not because they don't have the talent to set up some
lights....
Jeremy
TylrDurden
David O. Russel-Great flicks/different tones
Jonze-Hopefully as talented as BJM made him look.
These are the directors that make me excited about a movie now. Even more than
most of the "old masters" that seem to have sofened up a whole bunch.
PT Anderson doesnt even deserve mention here. He is an ridiculously
self-important director who rips off his vision more than Tarantino (and yes,
tarantino is a hack too, a good hack, but still).
TylrDurden
Jeremiah Lee McVay
> the Dogma filmmakers. None of the Domga films have been failures in my
> opinion. I haven't seen The King is Alive yet though....
>
> It's not as if the Domga tradition sprung out of nowhere. Certainly,
> Breaking the Waves has Dogmatic influences, even if it's not a Dogma film...
> and even vonTrier's The Kingdom, and Medea use the same style. He's NOT
> simply a lazy or untalented filmmaker, as films like Europa prove. The Dogma
> films work because the material is suited to the stylistic CHOICE made by
> the directors. Not because they don't have the talent to set up some
> lights....
>
> Jeremy
That is pretty much what I was trying to say... Thank you for stating it so much
more clearly than I did.
SDM
> PT Anderson doesnt even deserve mention here. He is an ridiculously
> self-important director who rips off his vision more than Tarantino (and
yes,
> tarantino is a hack too, a good hack, but still).
There isn't a hack on earth that could match one minute of Pulp Fiction.
Get a grip. I don't care about hating his work, but fuck that "hack" shit.
Sawfish
>Nobody wrote:
>> I do not follow any directors out there - but I would say that two american
>> directors clearly stood out the last two years:
>>
>> * David Fincher
>>
>> * Spike Jonze
>Paul Thomas Anderson and David O. Russell EASILY overshadow those two thus
>far.
Boy, I don't know. I think 3 Kings was pretty over-rated.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Would someone please tell me what 'diddy-wah-diddy' means?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Grimfarrow
TylrDurden wrote:
> Fincher-A true original vision
> David O. Russel-Great flicks/different tones
> Jonze-Hopefully as talented as BJM made him look.
>
> These are the directors that make me excited about a movie now. Even more than
> most of the "old masters" that seem to have sofened up a whole bunch.
>
> PT Anderson doesnt even deserve mention here. He is an ridiculously
> self-important director who rips off his vision more than Tarantino (and yes,
> tarantino is a hack too, a good hack, but still).
>
> TylrDurden
Funny, because Fincher is a hack in the best sense of the word,
and you think he's great. I mean, he literally hacks his films into bits
in Seven & Fight Club.
Grimfarrow
Grimfarrow
John Harkness wrote:
> By that definition, anybody's who's not an "old master" is a new
> director. Von Trier, Egoyan, Wong-kar Wait are veteran directors with
> considerable bodies of work. They've had multiple films in Cannes
> competition, and two of them have been on the Cannes jury. They've all
> made at least five films. None of them ever worked in rock video.
......and all of them only made their impact in the 90s. Sorry, but
being a stickler for one word is just a very trite and petty thing,
you know. I can do the same with your disingenuous use
of Wong Kar-Wait (oh, you're SO funny), but what's your point?
For example, you could have been an artist for YEARS,
but if you've "broken in" (ie., became known to the industry)
in the previous year, you are eligible for the Best New Artist
grammy, even though you might be 50 and have been a musician for 30
years. You may disagree with the use of the word "new" here,
but it doesn't change the fact that what you consider and others consider
are totally different.
Grimfarrow
Sawfish
>Fincher-A true original vision
Specifically, what is so original about what he does? Is he technically
innovative? If so, in what way(s)? Does he have a new way of handling
narrative? Is his visual imagery consistently evocative and if so, does
he know when to cut?
I mean this as no knock on Fincher--I really liked 7--but when I see his
stuff, it looks like a technically very sound and professional Hollywood
production that may have a little unusual slant to the subject matter.
>David O. Russel-Great flicks/different tones
I'll have to see more. I was pretty unimpressed with 3 Kings: from the
almost laughable "bullet cam" to the "aw, shucks, let's just do the right
thing here, boys--and damned, if these Kurds aren't decent
down-home folk..." ending. As far as I was concerned, the mood established
early was settling you up for a Treasure of Sierra Madre-like conflict,
and what it finally delivered was more like Two Mules for Sister Sara.
super...@my-deja.com
Apparently, he's shooting a film in Sweden now ... I think it's called
"It's all about love" or something & it's supposed to be a comedy.
Should be very interesting after "The Celebration" ...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
SJRaff
>meant as a means for a filmmaker to realize what she/he can do without
>relying
>on excess.
Feel free to look at any image from a Dogma95 project in either film or video.
I believe after you can easily put the word "necessity" in for "excess"
regarding lighting for sure.
John Harkness
wrote:
That was a typo.
And as to being a stickler on a word, well, that was the word in the
header. New. and I don't know where you've been, but if you'd been on
the international film fest/cinematheque circuit, those guys have all
been known since the 80s.
People in which industry? Hollywood? I haven't seen them running to
sign up any of these guys -- except Egoyan, who spent two years
dithering over a deal in LA before coming home to do The Sweet
Hereafter. Of course, Wong kar-wai is unlikely, Von Trier doesn't
travel and Mike Leigh operates on his own timetable.
Indeed, making any kind of impressive film gets the industry aware of
you in a hurry -- they have people who track new filmmakers and send
out feelers. Lodge Kerrigan, director of Clean, Shaven, which I think
we can all agree is a magnificently obscure film, had an interview at
Disney, of all places, after his film turned up in a sidebar series at
Cannes.
These aren't new directors -- they have oeuvres. a couple of them even
have books dedicated to their films.
And citing the Grammys as some kind of authority is pretty fucking
pathetic.
The ony "other" I see disagreing with me is you, and for that I'm
grateful.
John Harkness
Azat
1) who is the best director with first movie made after 1/1/95
2) who is the best director with first movie made after 1/1/00
In article <20000928230130...@ng-md1.aol.com>,
new...@aol.com (NewEcho) wrote:
> Just curious as to whom everyone follows? I follow many young
directors now
> that are writing and directing films for the studios and
independently. But I
> would have to say my favorites are...
>
> Quentin Tarantino (He made one of the best films of the 1990's and
led a new
> generation of directors to the light...like several before
him...Soderbergh,
> Lee, Linklater..etc).
>
> Thomas Vinterberg (He's my favorite director right now, and I can't
wait for
> whatever follow up he does after "The Celebration").
>
> Jason
>
--
I see dead movies
american damon
Sawfish wrote:
>
> tylrd...@aol.com (TylrDurden) writes:
>
> >Fincher-A true original vision
>
> Specifically, what is so original about what he does?
he brings anarchy and subversiveness into mainstream film.
he does it with a visual style that few living directors match.
Is he technically
> innovative? If so, in what way(s)? Does he have a new way of handling
> narrative? Is his visual imagery consistently evocative and if so, does
> he know when to cut?
>
> I mean this as no knock on Fincher--I really liked 7--but when I see his
> stuff, it looks like a technically very sound and professional Hollywood
> production that may have a little unusual slant to the subject matter.
>
> >David O. Russel-Great flicks/different tones
>
> I'll have to see more. I was pretty unimpressed with 3 Kings: from the
> almost laughable "bullet cam" to the "aw, shucks, let's just do the right
> thing here, boys--and damned, if these Kurds aren't decent
> down-home folk..." ending. As far as I was concerned, the mood established
> early was settling you up for a Treasure of Sierra Madre-like conflict,
> and what it finally delivered was more like Two Mules for Sister Sara.
ah, so being unpredictable is a BAD thing.
it was visually interesting, morally ambiguous,
and filled with smart people.
--
People say men are genetically engineered to prefer polygamy, but
you don't see that many women upset enough when their husbands leave
them to shoot everybody in sight.
american damon
Grimfarrow wrote:
>
> TylrDurden wrote:
>
> > Fincher-A true original vision
> > David O. Russel-Great flicks/different tones
> > Jonze-Hopefully as talented as BJM made him look.
> >
> > These are the directors that make me excited about a movie now. Even more than
> > most of the "old masters" that seem to have sofened up a whole bunch.
> >
> > PT Anderson doesnt even deserve mention here. He is an ridiculously
> > self-important director who rips off his vision more than Tarantino (and yes,
> > tarantino is a hack too, a good hack, but still).
> >
> > TylrDurden
>
> Funny, because Fincher is a hack in the best sense of the word,
> and you think he's great. I mean, he literally hacks his films into bits
> in Seven & Fight Club.
literally.
why, that's the exact reason the word was invented.
american damon
i am not intop film festivals and circuits,
and i was aware of leigh since 92 or so,
and of egoyan since exotica.
now, exotica is what, 93 or 94?
so that MIGHT be new.
but the only people who really
wouldn't have heard of either are those
who think the phantom menace is the end all be all of films,
and dig brittney spears.
SDM
> Let us be more constructive here:
>
> 1) who is the best director with first movie made after 1/1/95
> 2) who is the best director with first movie made after 1/1/00
1) Bryan Singer(The Usual Suspects, X-Men), Paul Thomas Anderson(Hard Eight,
Magnolia), Peter Cattaneo(The Full Monty), Kasi Lemmons(Eve's Bayou), Tony
Kaye(American History X), Tom Tykwer(Run Lola Run), Sam Mendes(American
Beauty) and Tim Roth(The War Zone).
2) Bonnie Hunt(Return to Me)
Peter Oberg
...and
Alex Proyas
Andrew Niccol
Lucas Moodysson
Peter Öberg / Panderator
----------------------------------------------------------
http://get.to/petero - the panderator homepage
http://www.mp3.com/panderator - panderator @ mp3.com
http://www.flashback.st/hardfeed - hardfeed mailinglist
http://welcome.to/thedystopiate - your guide to dystopia
----------------------------------------------------------
NewEcho
Jason
NewEcho
films so far... their high cut, well written films...
Jason
NewEcho
1970's..
Jason
NewEcho
NewEcho
about 'old' directors... I honestly feel Vinterberg made the best film by a
'young' director I saw in the last half of the 1990's.
After 1/1/00: It's hard to say so far... this has been an incredibly slow
year... most of the directors that would be lumped in the 'young' category are
busy writing or filming new movies...so there's nothing out to judge by. I was
a big fan of Tarsem Singh's film "The Cell"...Neil LaBute's new film is good...
I can't really say Cameron Crowe is 'new'...so that put's "Almost Famous" out
of it... though I would argue that he and a handful of others from the
mid-to-late 80's directly inspired this new crop more than anything...much like
the French new wave did young American directors in the late 60's...
Oh well, I'm rambling,
Jason
Reagen Sulewski
-ch1.aol.com>:
A guy who definately qualifies as 'new' in terms of making films people have heard of and
who definately qualifies as one of the best is Alexander Payne. He's probably a stronger writer
than director, but that's no fault. Both Citizen Ruth and Election were terrific satires. Tough to
make a funny movie about abortion without being onesided, but he did it.
John Harkness
Bleak Moments....
Most of the early stuff, of course, isn't theatrical, but for
television -- Nuts in May has always been a personal favorite.
John Harkness
Jeremy H.
The best directors to emerge in the last 5 years, IMHO
I've Seen More than 1 Feature:
Erick Zonca - He may have made more than "The Dreamlife of Angels" & "The
Little Theif" , but I don't know if more of his films are available in the
US. (Can anyone help me out here... and what did you think of them if there
are some?) Both of his films were stunning....
PT Anderson - I know this is insanely controversial, ... I don't need to be
reminded what a hack he his. heh
David O'Russell - Actually, I have liked his movies less and less each time
he's gone to bat, but they've all still been teriffic...
Terrance Mallick - heh, he's been outta it so long he's a virgin again :)
Just kidding...
Alexander Payne - He's directed both Laura Dern & Reese Witherspoon in
fantastic performances in GREAT satires... People like to call every new sly
comedic director "the new Preston Sturges", but I think this guy really
deserves at least a comparison.
Wes Anderson - Bottle Rocket was pretty teriffic... Rushmore was
near-classic... if the leap of quality to his next picture is as dramatic,
he'll be one of the masters.
Todd Solondz - This guy knows how to make pain funny... Hopefully, he's not
a 1 trick pony though...
Hrrm.. a lot of "comedy" directors....
Promising 1st Films (at least 1st film I've seen by the director):
Thomas Vinterberg (The Celebration)
Billy Bob Thorton (Sling Blade)
Sofia Coppola (The Virgin Suicides)
Spike Jones (Being John Malkovich)
Kimberly Pierce (Boys Don't Cry)
Tim Roth (The War Zone)
Patricia Rozema (the criminally underrated Mansfield Park)
Jeremy H.
"Sawfish" <m...@q7.com> wrote in message news:97025819...@q7.q7.com...
> >David O. Russel-Great flicks/different tones
>
> almost laughable "bullet cam" to the "aw, shucks, let's just do the right
> thing here, boys--and damned, if these Kurds aren't decent
> down-home folk..." ending. As far as I was concerned, the mood established
> early was settling you up for a Treasure of Sierra Madre-like conflict,
> and what it finally delivered was more like Two Mules for Sister Sara.
Yeah, at least check out Flirting With Disaster... it's way better than
3-Kings... and extremely accessible. Then if you feel adventurous, you might
want to try Spanking the Monkey, which I feel is pretty underrated...
Jeremy
Jeremy H.
"Azat" <az...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8r34di$ldg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Let us be more constructive here:
>
> 1) who is the best director with first movie made after 1/1/95
PT Anderson
> 2) who is the best director with first movie made after 1/1/00
Sofia Coppola
Jeremy
Sawfish
>Sawfish wrote:
>>
>> tylrd...@aol.com (TylrDurden) writes:
>>
>> >Fincher-A true original vision
>>
>> Specifically, what is so original about what he does?
>he brings anarchy and subversiveness into mainstream film.
>he does it with a visual style that few living directors match.
> Is he technically
>> innovative? If so, in what way(s)? Does he have a new way of handling
>> narrative? Is his visual imagery consistently evocative and if so, does
>> he know when to cut?
>>
>> I mean this as no knock on Fincher--I really liked 7--but when I see his
>> stuff, it looks like a technically very sound and professional Hollywood
>> production that may have a little unusual slant to the subject matter.
>>
>> >David O. Russel-Great flicks/different tones
>>
>> I'll have to see more. I was pretty unimpressed with 3 Kings: from the
>> almost laughable "bullet cam" to the "aw, shucks, let's just do the right
>> thing here, boys--and damned, if these Kurds aren't decent
>> down-home folk..." ending. As far as I was concerned, the mood established
>> early was settling you up for a Treasure of Sierra Madre-like conflict,
>> and what it finally delivered was more like Two Mules for Sister Sara.
>ah, so being unpredictable is a BAD thing.
This makes not sense unless you qualify it more.
You can have character development that demands that the character acts
within the paramenters of the character type that has been developed; to
act outside of those parameters without additionally developed motivation
will yield an "unpredictable" but horribly laughable resolution. I'm
pretty sure that that is not what you meant.
But this is *close* to what I saw as I watched 3 Kings. The main
characters--so poorly drawn as to be unmemorable, seemed determined to
come out of the war with a profit. Somewhere along the line, and for no
very apparent reason, they decided to be the benefactors of these ill-used
refugees. It reminded me of the sort of motivation that one would find in
Father Goose--the problem being that the tone of the film didn't support
this sort of farcical response, and there was no clear internal or
external motivation to cause this abrubt change, as far as I could see.
What you had was the sort of moral change of direction that took place in
The Wild Bunch, but Holden's face, and the subsequent, "walk", exposed the
change brilliantly.
>it was visually interesting,
It wasn't too bad--but the bullet was pretty hokey.
>morally ambiguous,
It wasn't even that. See The Grifters if you want moral ambiguity.
>and filled with smart people.
I must have been sleeping by then.
John Harkness
<ct...@nospam.gate.net> wrote:
>
>The best directors to emerge in the last 5 years, IMHO
>
>
>Hrrm.. a lot of "comedy" directors....
>
>Promising 1st Films (at least 1st film I've seen by the director):
>
snip
>Patricia Rozema (the criminally underrated Mansfield Park)
>
>
>
Rozema's been around since 1987, when I've Heard The Mermaids Singing
won the Prix de Jeuness at Cannes and every Canadian film award that
wasn't nailed down.
John Harkness
John Harkness
Nope -- Virgin Suicides played Cannes in 99.
John Harkness
Picking nits since 1972
Jeremy H.
"John Harkness" <j...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message
news:39d574b4....@nntp.netcom.ca...
> >Patricia Rozema (the criminally underrated Mansfield Park)
> Rozema's been around since 1987, when I've Heard The Mermaids Singing
> won the Prix de Jeuness at Cannes and every Canadian film award that
> wasn't nailed down.
>
> John Harkness
That's awesome news... I'll defintely have to check that out... Has she made
other stuff worth seeing? ... Sorry to be so dense, but in 1987 I was
watching Harry & the Hendersons... heh
Thanks
Jeremy
Jeremy H.
> >> 2) who is the best director with first movie made after 1/1/00
> >
> >Sofia Coppola
> Nope -- Virgin Suicides played Cannes in 99.
>
> John Harkness
> Picking nits since 1972
That's kinda ridiculous... Probably less than 2000 people saw the film
before 2000, and it wasn't released in the US until '99... I like to use
the Academy's rules for release years or else it becomes a confusing
mess....
Jeremy
Jeremy H.
"Sawfish" <m...@q7.com> wrote in message news:9702899...@q7.q7.com...
Not that I love Three Kings, but....
> But this is *close* to what I saw as I watched 3 Kings. The main
> characters--so poorly drawn as to be unmemorable, seemed determined to
> come out of the war with a profit.
I don't see how you can say this... 1st off, the characters are all pretty
distinctive.. We have the dichotomy between the racist redneck & the
intelligent black guy. Then we have Mark Wahlberg's character who just wants
to get home to see his kid. George Clooney's role is a little underwritten,
but he's the boss...
> Somewhere along the line, and for no
> very apparent reason, they decided to be the benefactors of these ill-used
> refugees. It reminded me of the sort of motivation that one would find in
> Father Goose--the problem being that the tone of the film didn't support
> this sort of farcical response, and there was no clear internal or
> external motivation to cause this abrubt change, as far as I could see.
I don't see how it is a farce to have characters who value human life over
personal gain.... especially men who have already volunteered to serve the
country. The external event that causes them to change their motivation is
the woman getting shot in the head! It doesn't get more overt than that!
Also, the characters felt their trip to the Gulf War was useless... they
saw this as a chance to do some good, after not doing much of anything
during the war. Beyond this, they are rescued the those same people during
the gas attack... I have problems with this film, but I thought this was
accomplished really well here...
Jeremy
Richard Norman
>Promising 1st Films (at least 1st film I've seen by the director):
>
>Thomas Vinterberg (The Celebration)
>Billy Bob Thorton (Sling Blade)
>Sofia Coppola (The Virgin Suicides)
>Spike Jones (Being John Malkovich)
>Kimberly Pierce (Boys Don't Cry)
>Tim Roth (The War Zone)
>Patricia Rozema (the criminally underrated Mansfield Park)
Gary Oldman!
Richard
--
"The platypus has the brain of a dolphin and can
be seen driving a forklift in his natural habitat
of kelp. He is the larva of the flatworm and has
the ability to regenerate after injury. No relation
to the flounder."
Grimfarrow
John Harkness wrote:
> And as to being a stickler on a word, well, that was the word in the
> header. New. and I don't know where you've been, but if you'd been on
> the international film fest/cinematheque circuit, those guys have all
> been known since the 80s.
Oh? You knew of Wong Kar-Wai since the 80s? You may
have known of Atom Egoyan before, but apart from Bleak Moments,
Mike Leigh's feature films were all made in the 90s. PLEASE. Stop
being disingenuous, especially to yourself. You may know lots about film,
but you don't know *everything*.
> People in which industry? Hollywood? I haven't seen them running to
> sign up any of these guys -- except Egoyan, who spent two years
> dithering over a deal in LA before coming home to do The Sweet
> Hereafter. Of course, Wong kar-wai is unlikely, Von Trier doesn't
> travel and Mike Leigh operates on his own timetable.
Funny you mention, because Wong Kar-Wai's next picture after
2046 is rumored to be his first English film.
The "industry" is the film industry itself. If you say people knew
of all three before the 90s, I'd seriously laugh at you. Sure, people
in the TV industry knew Mike Leigh before the 90s, and same as
the HK TV people and WKW. But you watch British and Hong
Kong Tv movies? Hah. As for Egoyan, he did both films
and TV before the 90s, but most never got any notice.
> Indeed, making any kind of impressive film gets the industry aware of
> you in a hurry -- they have people who track new filmmakers and send
> out feelers. Lodge Kerrigan, director of Clean, Shaven, which I think
> we can all agree is a magnificently obscure film, had an interview at
> Disney, of all places, after his film turned up in a sidebar series at
> Cannes.
>
> These aren't new directors -- they have oeuvres. a couple of them even
> have books dedicated to their films.
And that's why the word NEW is labeled as 'new'. Look in the
subject. See? The ' '? That says exactly how subjective "new" is.
Like I said before, people like Jonze, O'Russell, Vinterberg, etc.
have only 1-2 films to speak for them. Exactly how do you judge
effectively a director with so few films?
> And citing the Grammys as some kind of authority is pretty fucking
> pathetic.
They have more credibility as a body with decades of experience than
some person like you.
> The ony "other" I see disagreing with me is you, and for that I'm
> grateful.
And I'm grateful that most people see talent in films of Wong Kar-Wai
and Lars von Trier. You can go one hating or sleeping in their films, but
it's good that most critics have better taste than that.
Grimfarrow
>
> John Harkness
Grimfarrow
"Jeremy H." wrote:
John loves to be anal-retentive about every word written. He seems
to specialize in it.
Grimfarrow
Shaun A. Firth
Darabont deserves some credit for Shawshank. I also agree with
Fincher. I think Fight Club is a breath of fresh air visually and
stylistically. Also Rob Sitch (The Castle, The Dish), Jonathan Grazer
(Sexy Beast), Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run, The Princess and the
Warrior),Julian Schnabel (Basquiat, Before Night Falls), Robert LePage
(Le Confessional, Possible Worlds) Denis Villeneuve (August 32nd on
Earth, Maelstrom), Christopher Nolan (Following, Memento), Peter
O'Fallon (Suicide Kings, A Rumor of Angels)
--
JigShaun
Karl Rackwitz
> And I'm grateful that most people see talent in films of Wong Kar-Wai
> and Lars von Trier. You can go one hating or sleeping in their films, but
> it's good that most critics have better taste than that.
>
> Grimfarrow
>
What's the big deal? John happens to dislike one particular film by Lars Von
Trier that you happen to like. Who has told you that he doesn't see talent in
*the* works of Von Trier or sleeps in *all* Von Trier films? That's
projection. I can tell you that he admired several of his works.
As for the Golden Globe discussion in the other thread ...
Nobody knows it for sure. The Golden Globes are as unreliable as the Academy
Awards. (Whereas "Evita" - of all movies - won several Golden Globes, such
influential independent movies as "Stranger than Paradise," "Raising Arizona,"
"Drugstore Cowboy" and "My Own Private Idaho" have been completely overlooked
at the nominations.) Furthermore, there are several Golden Globe winners -
even great ones - that didn't make much money ...
To me, this is a useless battle.
Karl
Berlin, Germany
Sawfish
>"Sawfish" <m...@q7.com> wrote in message news:97025819...@q7.q7.com...
>> >David O. Russel-Great flicks/different tones
>>
>> I'll have to see more. I was pretty unimpressed with 3 Kings: from the
>> almost laughable "bullet cam" to the "aw, shucks, let's just do the right
>> thing here, boys--and damned, if these Kurds aren't decent
>> down-home folk..." ending. As far as I was concerned, the mood established
>> early was settling you up for a Treasure of Sierra Madre-like conflict,
>> and what it finally delivered was more like Two Mules for Sister Sara.
>Yeah, at least check out Flirting With Disaster... it's way better than
>3-Kings...
Will do.
Would you speculate that 3 Kings was Russell doing a Hollywood movie? As in a
worst case, Wolfgang Pedersen used to be a pretty good director with Das Boot,
but, gosh, Hollywood ruined any talent he had, for the most part.
>and extremely accessible. Then if you feel adventurous, you might
>want to try Spanking the Monkey, which I feel is pretty underrated...
Spanking the Monkey is on my list. Unfortunately, the list grows faster than I
can see films...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we use Occam's Razor, whose razor will *he* use?" --Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sawfish
>"Sawfish" <m...@q7.com> wrote in message news:9702899...@q7.q7.com...
>Not that I love Three Kings, but....
>> But this is *close* to what I saw as I watched 3 Kings. The main
>> characters--so poorly drawn as to be unmemorable, seemed determined to
>> come out of the war with a profit.
>I don't see how you can say this... 1st off, the characters are all pretty
>distinctive.. We have the dichotomy between the racist redneck & the
>intelligent black guy.
That's been done to death for 25 years...48-hours, et al.
>Then we have Mark Wahlberg's character who just wants
>to get home to see his kid.
Compare that character to Val Kilmer's character in Heat. Not that Heat was by
any means great, but this level of characterization was completely lacking in 3
Kings. And characterization is what makes any given action believable--unless you
just totally and completely disconnect your disbelief before entering the
theatre.
>George Clooney's role is a little underwritten,
>but he's the boss...
Again, they needed better development, as in Holden's role in Wild Bunch, or even
the development in Tresspass.
>> Somewhere along the line, and for no
>> very apparent reason, they decided to be the benefactors of these ill-used
>> refugees. It reminded me of the sort of motivation that one would find in
>> Father Goose--the problem being that the tone of the film didn't support
>> this sort of farcical response, and there was no clear internal or
>> external motivation to cause this abrubt change, as far as I could see.
>I don't see how it is a farce to have characters who value human life over
>personal gain....
...but that's contrary to their original stated motivation, and there is nothing
in their presented characters to indicate that they had any qualms about stepping
over the line to profit from the war.
>especially men who have already volunteered to serve the
>country.
I don't see what that has to do with why they decided to profit. If they can get
to that so easily, and we are shown no other contravening traits, they are
basically shown as opportunists.
>The external event that causes them to change their motivation is
>the woman getting shot in the head! It doesn't get more overt than that!
It is a clear, but unconvincing, impetus.
>Also, the characters felt their trip to the Gulf War was useless... they
>saw this as a chance to do some good, after not doing much of anything
>during the war. Beyond this, they are rescued the those same people during
>the gas attack... I have problems with this film, but I thought this was
>accomplished really well here...
Again, I must have dropped off at that point.
John Harkness
wrote:
>
>And I'm grateful that most people see talent in films of Wong Kar-Wai
>and Lars von Trier. You can go one hating or sleeping in their films, but
>it's good that most critics have better taste than that.
>
Where did I say that they didn't have talent? I think they're both
extraordinarily talented. In the case of Wong -- and his Days of Being
Wild is one of my favorite films -- his films have simply ceased to
interest me, however high the level of craft and talent involved. I've
never bought the "style is substance" argument. He's making Faberge
eggs rather than movies.
As for Von Trier, I was a great admirer of Europa -- named it film of
the year back when it came out (91, IIRC) I wander back and forth on
Breaking the Waves -- a film which physically induces nausea in me
because of the Panavision shakycam.
As to Dancer, well, I'm working on a lengthy piece on it now -- and
have gone back and looked at most of LVT's films -- my piece will be
up thursday at www.nowtoronto.com
John Harkness
NOW Magazine
Toronto
Jeremy H.
"Steven Chung" <s...@Radix.Net> wrote in message
news:8r41qu$40$1...@saltmine.radix.net...
> In article <8r3qaq$1aes$1...@news.gate.net>,
> Jeremy H. <ct...@nospam.gate.net> wrote:
> # Patricia Rozema (the criminally underrated Mansfield Park)
>
> Is it too much to ask that an adaptation actually have something to do
> with the book ostensibly being adapted?
>
> S.
I never read Mansfield Park (though I have the e-text on my palm) & I know
that Rozema basically grafted Austen into the script based on her diary
journals... but seriously... i think it's naive to expect a film to be the
same as a novel... They are different mediums, intended for different
audiences, created by different artists. I guess to me it doesn't matter
where the story of the movie comes from... as long as it entertains or
enlightens me.
Jeremy
Jeremy H.
"Richard Norman" <nor...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
news:8FBFBB3CFnorma...@203.2.75.243...> Gary Oldman!
I only saw the last hour of Nil by Mouth on IFC. I certainly thought it was
worthy... but since I didn't see the whole thing yet, I didn't want to put
it up there...
Jeremy
Jeremy H.
"Sawfish" <m...@q7.com> wrote in message news:97032534...@q7.q7.com...
> Would you speculate that 3 Kings was Russell doing a Hollywood movie? As
in a
> worst case, Wolfgang Pedersen used to be a pretty good director with Das
Boot,
> but, gosh, Hollywood ruined any talent he had, for the most part.
No, I wouldn't call Three Kings a "Hollywood" movie in the sense that you
are.... there are some anti-establishment sentiments that make it seem more
like a big-budget auteur piece. If Hollywood used large budgets to allow for
directors to film their visions like in this movie instead of just paying
for larger salaries & better effects, then the term "Hollywood film"
wouldn't have such a negative connotation.
Jeremy
Sawfish
>Sawfish wrote:
>> Would you speculate that 3 Kings was Russell doing
>> a Hollywood movie?
>Yeah.
>A movie that openly condemns very recent US military policy and transcends
>it's genre by being genuinely heartfelt and anti-materialistic is sooooo
>Hollywood.
Just to calibrate your statement, the Gulf War took place in 1990, right? 3 Kings
was released in 1999, nine years after the events. Vietnam, for example, ended in
1975 .How much more transcendent and contrary and heartfelt was 3 Kings than:
Apocalypse Now (79)
Boys in Company C (78)
Coming Home (78)
etc.?
All I'm trying to say is that if 3 Kings is distinguished, it is not in the area
of avante-garde political statements about a particular war. Let's look elsewhere
for its virtues.
>It was hard as hell to raise a budget for that movie... and astonishing that
>it turned out the way it did.
I don't know anything about its financial history. What is remarkable about it?
Sawfish
>Sawfish wrote:
>> >I don't see how it is a farce to have characters who value human life over
>> >personal gain....
>>
>> ...but that's contrary to their original stated motivation,
>That's exactly the fucking point! LOL!
Without some inkling that these guys were particularly moral this would qualify
as an unmotivated character flip-flop--performing an action out of character.
Like Angel Maldinado in 8 Million Ways to Die taking a runover kitten to the
vet...
Like Al Capone in The Untouchables saying, "Well maybe you have a point, Ricco.
I'll think about it..." instead of publicly braining one of the capos at the
dinner table.
>Scindler's List, for christ's sake, is exactly the same in this respect.
Wouldn't know. Didn't see SL. Even so, there's some complaint the Oskar
Schindler's character was somewhat massaged to make Schindler's character deliver
the right message...coincidentally like the guys in 3 Kings.
But that's neither here nor there. Unless the film gives you some internal
motivating reason for a big change, seeing someone get shot won't do it, in
and of itself. Would seeing a Vietnamese mom getting shot have changed the guys
in Platoon enough to decide to risk their own lives to help a Vietnamese village?
Maybe..., maybe not. If it did, we have a lot better idea why they'd change than
why the stock characters in 3 Kings would change.
Look, compare character motivation in 3 Kings to that in Tresspass (not a
particularly good Walter Hill film, but at least consistent.) Two firemen have a
chance to abscond with a bunch of drug money from an abandoned warehouse. One is
more opportunistic than the other, as is fairly clearly revealed. They tangle
with the drug guys (the obligatory Ice T, and other rappers) and the
opportunistic fireman at one point enthusiastically suggests that they thwart a
set-up because the details of the profoundly duplicitous set-up are "what *I'd*
do." This is NOT what a public servant (a *fireman* fer chrissake! the guy who
CPRs heart attack victims in convalescent homes) is supposed to do!!! Think of
ways to bushwhack people! But by that time the character has gone Fred C
Dobbs on us, and this reaction is quite believable because the writer has taken
care to reveal, over a course of 50 or more minutes, that this particular fireman
was, by nature, very opportunistic and not troubled by qualm overmuch.
>
> Again, I must have dropped off at that point.
>No kidding... because you've missed the point of this one by 180 degrees,
>bucko.
...or the point was so poorly and unconvincingly made that only those who
desperately wanted to be convinced, were.
Sawfish
>"Sawfish" <m...@q7.com> wrote in message news:97032534...@q7.q7.com...
>> Would you speculate that 3 Kings was Russell doing a Hollywood movie? As
>in a
>> worst case, Wolfgang Pedersen used to be a pretty good director with Das
>Boot,
>> but, gosh, Hollywood ruined any talent he had, for the most part.
>No, I wouldn't call Three Kings a "Hollywood" movie in the sense that you
>are.... there are some anti-establishment sentiments that make it seem more
>like a big-budget auteur piece.
Are you sure that these anti-establishment sentiments aren't really in vogue? I
mean, I'd hardly call 3 Kings controversial. It was just an adventure yarn like
Robin Hood.
>If Hollywood used large budgets to allow for
>directors to film their visions like in this movie instead of just paying
>for larger salaries & better effects, then the term "Hollywood film"
>wouldn't have such a negative connotation.
Was 3 Kings an indy movie? Sure didn't look like festival fare to me.
Norman Wilner
news:39D5A404...@excite.com...
> He seems to specialize in it.
This would only be a problem if his corrections were wrong.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
http://www.chapters.ca/wilner/
Norman Wilner
> John Harkness wrote:
>
>> And as to being a stickler on a word, well, that was
>> the word in the header. New. and I don't know where
>> you've been, but if you'd been on the international film
>> fest/cinematheque circuit, those guys have all been
>> known since the 80s.
>
> Oh? You knew of Wong Kar-Wai since the 80s? You
> may have known of Atom Egoyan before, but apart from
> Bleak Moments, Mike Leigh's feature films were all made
> in the 90s. PLEASE. Stop being disingenuous, especially
> to yourself. You may know lots about film, but you don't
> know *everything*.
Maybe it's just that the Toronto film festival has a knack for showcasing
filmmakers long before they become known to the mainstream. I'm pretty sure
we screened several of Leigh's feature-length BBC productions here in the
1980s, "Meantime" and "Abigail's Party" among them.
John Harkness
Not to mention the Montreal Film Festival, which, back in the 80s, did
an annual sampling of television films from around the world that was
often the most interesting programme in the festival.
John Harkness
Peter Tonguette
a modern classic.
PT
Grimfarrow
John Harkness wrote:
> Where did I say that they didn't have talent? I think they're both
> extraordinarily talented. In the case of Wong -- and his Days of Being
> Wild is one of my favorite films -- his films have simply ceased to
> interest me, however high the level of craft and talent involved. I've
> never bought the "style is substance" argument. He's making Faberge
> eggs rather than movies.
See, I think the real difference is that you probably prefer narrative
structure - the fact that you like Days of Being Wild, the last film
he made that had a tight, narrative structure, seems to prove it.
Films like Chungking Express & Happy Together are more about
ideas, concepts and feelings rather than trying to tell a story. I
personally prefer his later style, but I don't dismiss his more narrative
films either. I just don't get why you have a need to make blankets
statements and rather rude remarks about his films when you
just prefer one type of film over another.
> As for Von Trier, I was a great admirer of Europa -- named it film of
> the year back when it came out (91, IIRC) I wander back and forth on
> Breaking the Waves -- a film which physically induces nausea in me
> because of the Panavision shakycam.
I love Breaking the Waves. Again, it's more about ideas and passions
than a truly narrative film (the story is prety simple, really, and is
given away at the back of every video box). I have no problems with
the somewhat shaky cameras - films like the Idiots and Celebration
don't bother me either (but Julian Donkey-Boy, Mifune, etc. do-
because they aren't very good). Again, your preference of Europa/
Zentropa shows that you like narrative structure better, even though
the structure of the film is quite complex.
> As to Dancer, well, I'm working on a lengthy piece on it now -- and
> have gone back and looked at most of LVT's films -- my piece will be
> up thursday at www.nowtoronto.com
It's pretty obvious that our tastes are nearly night & day from each
other. Also, you love Almost Famous - I think it was merely pretty
good. Perhaps we should just stop on the snide remarks and just
ignore each other's posts from now on. It's not as if we're going to
agree anytime soon.
Jeremy H.
"Sawfish" <m...@q7.com> wrote in message news:97033412...@q7.q7.com...
over
> >> >personal gain....
> >>
>
> >That's exactly the fucking point! LOL!
>
> Without some inkling that these guys were particularly moral this would
qualify
> as an unmotivated character flip-flop--performing an action out of
character.
These guys aren't shown as particularily immoral though. You compare them to
Al Capone. They're like most people in that they are dynamic. They are
willing to take a chunk of gold when they're ripping off Saddam. But when
they realize they'd have to let 70 people die to get away with it, they
stop. How is this hard to believe?
And you're saying you nodded off during the movie? Why the hell are you
arguing about it then? Go watch the ending if you want to keep debating...
> >Scindler's List, for christ's sake, is exactly the same in this respect.
>
> Wouldn't know. Didn't see SL. Even so, there's some complaint the Oskar
> Schindler's character was somewhat massaged to make Schindler's character
deliver
> the right message...coincidentally like the guys in 3 Kings.
Naah, it's nothing like SL. I mean Three Kings is FICTIONAL. SL has its
basis in fact. Watch that too before you start telling us what the message
was.
> But that's neither here nor there. Unless the film gives you some internal
> motivating reason for a big change, seeing someone get shot won't do it,
in
> and of itself. Would seeing a Vietnamese mom getting shot have changed the
guys
> in Platoon enough to decide to risk their own lives to help a Vietnamese
village?
> Maybe..., maybe not. If it did, we have a lot better idea why they'd
change than
> why the stock characters in 3 Kings would change.
Actually, in Platoon there is one scene where there is a woman being beaten
& another character steps in to stop it, despite incurring the wrath of the
"bad" sergeant. But this is really apples & oranges. The people that
they're saving in Three Kings are being oppressed by Hussein... They don't
understand why they are told the war is over, but the people they were meant
to free are still held hostage. This is yet another reason why they do what
they do...
We've given you about a dozen reasons... you just don't get it... Either
watch the movie & try not to sleep, or stop slamming something you dropped
off during .
Jeremy
Jeremy H.
"Sawfish" <m...@q7.com> wrote in message news:97033261...@q7.q7.com...
> "damnfine" <raoul...@journalist.com> writes:
> Just to calibrate your statement, the Gulf War took place in 1990, right?
3 Kings
> was released in 1999, nine years after the events. Vietnam, for example,
ended in
> 1975 .How much more transcendent and contrary and heartfelt was 3 Kings
than:
>
>
> Apocalypse Now (79)
> Boys in Company C (78)
> Coming Home (78)
>
> etc.?
>
> All I'm trying to say is that if 3 Kings is distinguished, it is not in
the area
> of avante-garde political statements about a particular war. Let's look
elsewhere
> for its virtues.
There's a big differnce between public sentiment after Vietnam & public
sentiment after the Gulf War... to not acknowledge this is shortsighted...
Jeremy
John Harkness
wrote:
>
>
>John Harkness wrote:
>
>> Where did I say that they didn't have talent? I think they're both
>> extraordinarily talented. In the case of Wong -- and his Days of Being
>> Wild is one of my favorite films -- his films have simply ceased to
>> interest me, however high the level of craft and talent involved. I've
>> never bought the "style is substance" argument. He's making Faberge
>> eggs rather than movies.
>
>See, I think the real difference is that you probably prefer narrative
>structure - the fact that you like Days of Being Wild, the last film
>he made that had a tight, narrative structure, seems to prove it.
>Films like Chungking Express & Happy Together are more about
>ideas, concepts and feelings rather than trying to tell a story. I
>personally prefer his later style, but I don't dismiss his more narrative
>films either. I just don't get why you have a need to make blankets
>statements and rather rude remarks about his films when you
>just prefer one type of film over another.
Which would certainly explain my fondness for that great mystic loon
Tarkovsky. And, in fact, I didn't dismiss either Chunking Express or
Fallen Angels. I actively hated them. Fallen Angels gave me a
screaming headache.
>
>> As for Von Trier, I was a great admirer of Europa -- named it film of
>> the year back when it came out (91, IIRC) I wander back and forth on
>> Breaking the Waves -- a film which physically induces nausea in me
>> because of the Panavision shakycam.
>
>I love Breaking the Waves. Again, it's more about ideas and passions
>than a truly narrative film (the story is prety simple, really, and is
>given away at the back of every video box). I have no problems with
>the somewhat shaky cameras
Just out of curiousity, how big a screen did you see it on?
> - films like the Idiots and Celebration
>don't bother me either (but Julian Donkey-Boy, Mifune, etc. do-
>because they aren't very good). Again, your preference of Europa/
>Zentropa shows that you like narrative structure better, even though
>the structure of the film is quite complex.
And I'm obviously too stupid to appreciate complex structure. Very
nice condescension.
>> As to Dancer, well, I'm working on a lengthy piece on it now -- and
>> have gone back and looked at most of LVT's films -- my piece will be
>> up thursday at www.nowtoronto.com
>
>It's pretty obvious that our tastes are nearly night & day from each
>other. Also, you love Almost Famous
Point me to a post or a review where I said that. Any time, any place.
I don't "love" Almost Famous. I've stated that I'd prefer it if the
film were about any character other than the one it's about.
John Harkness
Steve Erickson
<grimf...@excite.com> wrote:
> John Harkness wrote:
>
> > And as to being a stickler on a word, well, that was the word in the
> > header. New. and I don't know where you've been, but if you'd been on
> > the international film fest/cinematheque circuit, those guys have all
> > been known since the 80s.
>
> Oh? You knew of Wong Kar-Wai since the 80s?
Wong Kar-wai's only 80s film, AS TEARS GO BY, is by far his weakest and
would never have received much exposure outside hardcore HK fandom if not
for his later films.
You may
> have known of Atom Egoyan before, but apart from Bleak Moments,
> Mike Leigh's feature films were all made in the 90s.
Wasn't HIGH HOPES made in 1989?
>
> Funny you mention, because Wong Kar-Wai's next picture after
> 2046 is rumored to be his first English film.
By the way, did anyone else notice that Tony Leung's character in IN THE
MOOD FOR LOVE lives in apartment 2046?
>
> The "industry" is the film industry itself. If you say people knew
> of all three before the 90s, I'd seriously laugh at you. Sure, people
> in the TV industry knew Mike Leigh before the 90s, and same as
> the HK TV people and WKW. But you watch British and Hong
> Kong Tv movies? Hah. As for Egoyan, he did both films
> and TV before the 90s, but most never got any notice.
>
I recall plenty of rave reviews for SPEAKING PARTS upon its original
release, although it didn't open in the U.S. until 1990.
> And that's why the word NEW is labeled as 'new'. Look in the
> subject. See? The ' '? That says exactly how subjective "new" is.
> Like I said before, people like Jonze, O'Russell, Vinterberg, etc.
> have only 1-2 films to speak for them. Exactly how do you judge
> effectively a director with so few films?
Starting this thread by defining "new" (as in, say, began making features
within the past 10 - or 5, or 15 - years) would probably have been a good
idea.
Steve Erickson
--
Remove "no spam" to reply.
http://home.earthlink.net/~steevee
Grimfarrow
John Harkness wrote:
> Which would certainly explain my fondness for that great mystic loon
> Tarkovsky. And, in fact, I didn't dismiss either Chunking Express or
> Fallen Angels. I actively hated them. Fallen Angels gave me a
> screaming headache.
I picture you as a Godard-hater rather than a Tarkovsky/Malick hater.
As for Chungking Express/Fallen Angels, it's funny because I think they're
WKW's best films (In the Mood for Love not counted, because I haven't
seen it). In fact, I'm starting to see a thread here. Both Chungking Express
& Fallen Angels has the style of scenes filmed with a hand-held
with lots of frames cut out, thus creating a dizzying, whirlwind effect.
Consequently, you also did not like the shaky camera of Breaking the Waves.
So you're saying that the films gave you headaches, thus you hate them?
I wonder what you thought of Blair Waitch.
> Just out of curiousity, how big a screen did you see it on?
Very small. It has probably about ten rows of seats. (this is about
Breaking the Waves, btw).
> > - films like the Idiots and Celebration
> >don't bother me either (but Julian Donkey-Boy, Mifune, etc. do-
> >because they aren't very good). Again, your preference of Europa/
> >Zentropa shows that you like narrative structure better, even though
> >the structure of the film is quite complex.
>
> And I'm obviously too stupid to appreciate complex structure. Very
> nice condescension.
Huh? I was not being condescending. I said Zentropa has a complex
structure, but it's still narrative-based. Thus you liked it.
> >> As to Dancer, well, I'm working on a lengthy piece on it now -- and
> >> have gone back and looked at most of LVT's films -- my piece will be
> >> up thursday at www.nowtoronto.com
> >
> >It's pretty obvious that our tastes are nearly night & day from each
> >other. Also, you love Almost Famous
>
> Point me to a post or a review where I said that. Any time, any place.
> I don't "love" Almost Famous. I've stated that I'd prefer it if the
> film were about any character other than the one it's about.
> John Harkness
Oh, sorry. That was my fault. It was Norm who liked it a lot.
Well, we finally agreed on something, at least.
Grimfarrow
Grimfarrow
Steve Erickson wrote:
> Wong Kar-wai's only 80s film, AS TEARS GO BY, is by far his weakest and
> would never have received much exposure outside hardcore HK fandom if not
> for his later films.
I agree.
> You may
> > have known of Atom Egoyan before, but apart from Bleak Moments,
> > Mike Leigh's feature films were all made in the 90s.
>
> Wasn't HIGH HOPES made in 1989?
Yes. I forgot about that one.
> By the way, did anyone else notice that Tony Leung's character in IN THE
> MOOD FOR LOVE lives in apartment 2046?
I'm eagerly awaiting it, but unfortunately, I have not seen it.
> I recall plenty of rave reviews for SPEAKING PARTS upon its original
> release, although it didn't open in the U.S. until 1990.
That was finished in 1989. It's close enough to the 90s. ;)
> Starting this thread by defining "new" (as in, say, began making features
> within the past 10 - or 5, or 15 - years) would probably have been a good
> idea.
I completely agree.
Grimfarrow
Jeremy H.
"Sawfish" <m...@q7.com> wrote in message news:97036796...@q7.q7.com...
> I'm not tell you what SL's message was. I'm saying that I heard that the
> main character was massaged to provide a less ambiguous, more Hollywood
> ending.
>
> Read what I wrote before you start tell us what I said.
And what I'm saying is that your hearsay as to what a film is is useless to
those of us who have seen the film. It's pointless to waste time posting
that nonsense.
> That was figurative. I didn't literally fall asleep. I saw the whole thing
> and was bitterly disappointed after reading posts, like yours, that
> glowingly recommended it as something special. It was just "good", at
> best. I'll eventually watch it again, just see if as many folks in ramc
> are as susceptible to weak character development and motivation as I first
> thought.
>
> I hope not.
The thing is that I didn't LOVE the movie... It wasn't even in my top 15
last year... There are plenty of things wrong with the movie ... I just
didn't think the reasons you were citing were valid criticism of the film...
Jeremy
Jeremy H.
"Sawfish" <m...@q7.com> wrote in message news:97036820...@q7.q7.com...
> "Jeremy H." <ct...@nospam.gate.net> writes:
> >There's a big differnce between public sentiment after Vietnam & public
> >sentiment after the Gulf War... to not acknowledge this is
shortsighted...
>
> did about 'nam; they were largerly negative. So you have a guy making a
> movie that criticized as war that few cared about since it was over in a
> flash with maybe 150 American dead. That doesn't take much daring, in my
> regard.
That's precisely what the movie calls to attention. Americans lost interest
in the human rights issues that sent us to the war in the 1st place & we
abandoned people who were still being oppressed. (Note that this isn't my
personal political belief.. it's the movie's). The Gulf War really wasn't a
war that could spawn a traditional war film. That's why this movie's not
about traditional war movie themes. There's more in there about politics...
I guess that's the daring thing... the fact that they made a "war movie"
about a war that no one cared about....
> Are you saying that 3 Kings is comparable to All Quiet on the Western
> Front in terms of political/emotional impact?
God no... I mean I'm not a huge fan of the movie... I enjoyed it a lot
though. It's hardly a classic, but it's entertaining & reaches for more than
the average Hollywood drivel....
Jeremy
damnfine
> Would you speculate that 3 Kings was Russell doing
> a Hollywood movie?
Yeah.
A movie that openly condemns very recent US military policy and transcends
it's genre by being genuinely heartfelt and anti-materialistic is sooooo
Hollywood.
It was hard as hell to raise a budget for that movie... and astonishing that
it turned out the way it did.
--
Damnfine,
"It's such a fine line between clever and stupid."
damnfine
> >I don't see how it is a farce to have characters who value human life over
> >personal gain....
>
> ...but that's contrary to their original stated motivation,
That's exactly the fucking point! LOL!
Scindler's List, for christ's sake, is exactly the same in this respect.
> Again, I must have dropped off at that point.
No kidding... because you've missed the point of this one by 180 degrees,
bucko.
--
NewEcho
Jason
Sawfish
>"Sawfish" <m...@q7.com> wrote in message news:97033412...@q7.q7.com...
>> "damnfine" <raoul...@journalist.com> writes:
>>
>> >Sawfish wrote:
>> >> >I don't see how it is a farce to have characters who value human life
>over
>> >> >personal gain....
>> >>
>> >> ...but that's contrary to their original stated motivation,
>>
>> >That's exactly the fucking point! LOL!
>>
>> Without some inkling that these guys were particularly moral this would
>qualify
>> as an unmotivated character flip-flop--performing an action out of
>character.
>These guys aren't shown as particularily immoral though. You compare them to
>Al Capone. They're like most people in that they are dynamic. They are
>willing to take a chunk of gold when they're ripping off Saddam. But when
>they realize they'd have to let 70 people die to get away with it, they
>stop. How is this hard to believe?
>And you're saying you nodded off during the movie? Why the hell are you
>arguing about it then? Go watch the ending if you want to keep debating...
>> >Scindler's List, for christ's sake, is exactly the same in this respect.
>>
>> Wouldn't know. Didn't see SL. Even so, there's some complaint the Oskar
>> Schindler's character was somewhat massaged to make Schindler's character
>deliver
>> the right message...coincidentally like the guys in 3 Kings.
>Naah, it's nothing like SL. I mean Three Kings is FICTIONAL. SL has its
>basis in fact. Watch that too before you start telling us what the message
>was.
I'm not tell you what SL's message was. I'm saying that I heard that the
main character was massaged to provide a less ambiguous, more Hollywood
ending.
Read what I wrote before you start tell us what I said.
>> But that's neither here nor there. Unless the film gives you some internal
>> motivating reason for a big change, seeing someone get shot won't do it,
>in
>> and of itself. Would seeing a Vietnamese mom getting shot have changed the
>guys
>> in Platoon enough to decide to risk their own lives to help a Vietnamese
>village?
>> Maybe..., maybe not. If it did, we have a lot better idea why they'd
>change than
>> why the stock characters in 3 Kings would change.
>Actually, in Platoon there is one scene where there is a woman being beaten
>& another character steps in to stop it, despite incurring the wrath of the
>"bad" sergeant. But this is really apples & oranges. The people that
>they're saving in Three Kings are being oppressed by Hussein... They don't
>understand why they are told the war is over, but the people they were meant
>to free are still held hostage. This is yet another reason why they do what
>they do...
Whatever.
>We've given you about a dozen reasons... you just don't get it... Either
>watch the movie & try not to sleep, or stop slamming something you dropped
>off during .
That was figurative. I didn't literally fall asleep. I saw the whole thing
and was bitterly disappointed after reading posts, like yours, that
glowingly recommended it as something special. It was just "good", at
best. I'll eventually watch it again, just see if as many folks in ramc
are as susceptible to weak character development and motivation as I first
thought.
I hope not.
Sawfish
>"Sawfish" <m...@q7.com> wrote in message news:97033261...@q7.q7.com...
>> "damnfine" <raoul...@journalist.com> writes:
>> Just to calibrate your statement, the Gulf War took place in 1990, right?
>3 Kings
>> was released in 1999, nine years after the events. Vietnam, for example,
>ended in
>> 1975 .How much more transcendent and contrary and heartfelt was 3 Kings
>than:
>>
>>
>> Apocalypse Now (79)
>> Boys in Company C (78)
>> Coming Home (78)
>>
>> etc.?
>>
>> All I'm trying to say is that if 3 Kings is distinguished, it is not in
>the area
>> of avante-garde political statements about a particular war. Let's look
>elsewhere
>> for its virtues.
>There's a big differnce between public sentiment after Vietnam & public
>sentiment after the Gulf War... to not acknowledge this is shortsighted...
Sure is. Nobady gave a shit one way or the other after the Gulf War. The
did about 'nam; they were largerly negative. So you have a guy making a
movie that criticized as war that few cared about since it was over in a
flash with maybe 150 American dead. That doesn't take much daring, in my
regard.
Are you saying that 3 Kings is comparable to All Quiet on the Western
Front in terms of political/emotional impact?
Rajiv Shukla
I like Guy Ritchie. Did anyone see his latest film yet -- Snatch? It
was great, I recommend it.
damnfine
> >That's exactly the fucking point! LOL!
>
> qualify as an unmotivated character flip-flop--performing an action out
> of character.
What kind of misanthropic bullshit is this? As unfashionable as it may be to
say, MOST people are fundamentally moral and want to do good... all that needs
to happen is fot them to be put in a situation where they're given a clear
choice. That's what the movie is.
> >No kidding... because you've missed the point of this one by 180 degrees,
> >bucko.
>
> ...or the point was so poorly and unconvincingly made that only those who
> desperately wanted to be convinced, were.
That is, anyone not a miserable, vindictive bastard by nature. Sorry.
damnfine
> That was figurative. I didn't literally fall asleep. I saw the whole thing
> and was bitterly disappointed after reading posts, like yours, that
> glowingly recommended it as something special. It was just "good", at
> best. I'll eventually watch it again,
Why bother? You clearly don't have the first clue about it, and certainly
don't WANT to like it... so what would be the point?
a damontury ends
Sawfish wrote:
>
> american damon <dcru...@mdo.net> writes:
>
> >Sawfish wrote:
> >>
> >> tylrd...@aol.com (TylrDurden) writes:
> >>
> >> >Fincher-A true original vision
> >>
> >> Specifically, what is so original about what he does?
>
> >he brings anarchy and subversiveness into mainstream film.
> >he does it with a visual style that few living directors match.
>
> > Is he technically
> >> innovative? If so, in what way(s)? Does he have a new way of handling
> >> narrative? Is his visual imagery consistently evocative and if so, does
> >> he know when to cut?
> >>
> >> I mean this as no knock on Fincher--I really liked 7--but when I see his
> >> stuff, it looks like a technically very sound and professional Hollywood
> >> production that may have a little unusual slant to the subject matter.
> >>
> >> >David O. Russel-Great flicks/different tones
> >>
> >> I'll have to see more. I was pretty unimpressed with 3 Kings: from the
> >> almost laughable "bullet cam" to the "aw, shucks, let's just do the right
> >> thing here, boys--and damned, if these Kurds aren't decent
> >> down-home folk..." ending. As far as I was concerned, the mood established
> >> early was settling you up for a Treasure of Sierra Madre-like conflict,
> >> and what it finally delivered was more like Two Mules for Sister Sara.
>
> >ah, so being unpredictable is a BAD thing.
>
> This makes not sense unless you qualify it more.
you answer it sufficiently below.
> You can have character development that demands that the character acts
> within the paramenters of the character type that has been developed; to
> act outside of those parameters without additionally developed motivation
> will yield an "unpredictable" but horribly laughable resolution. I'm
> pretty sure that that is not what you meant.
>
> But this is *close* to what I saw as I watched 3 Kings. The main
> characters--so poorly drawn as to be unmemorable, seemed determined to
> come out of the war with a profit. Somewhere along the line, and for no
> very apparent reason, they decided to be the benefactors of these ill-used
> refugees. It reminded me of the sort of motivation that one would find in
> Father Goose--the problem being that the tone of the film didn't support
> this sort of farcical response, and there was no clear internal or
> external motivation to cause this abrubt change, as far as I could see.
well, i saw it pretty well.
you seem tothink the characters were defined by greed.
that wasn't in the movie i saw.
what i saw was 3 regular blue collar characters who
thought they could get a big break by robbing a despot.
they made a big deal out of staying out of the internal affairs of
iraq. but, if you put mostanyone in the situation that precipitated
the rest of the movie, where clooney saw they were about to kill
a man, and his small daughter, andhe had the
power to stop it, you'd find *most* people
would. a lot of the movie was about thatmoment, the moment where
humanism overcomes narcissism.
i fail to see how that's a flaw. the rest of the movie came from that
moment.
they wound up helping the others because they had made a deal,
and then acted with honor through the rest of the movie.
> What you had was the sort of moral change of direction that took place in
> The Wild Bunch, but Holden's face, and the subsequent, "walk", exposed the
> change brilliantly.
>
> >it was visually interesting,
>
> It wasn't too bad--but the bullet was pretty hokey.
>
> >morally ambiguous,
>
> It wasn't even that. See The Grifters if you want moral ambiguity.
saw the grifters.
this was also morally ambiguous.
> >and filled with smart people.
>
> I must have been sleeping by then.
>
well, THERE'S your problem.
--
People say men are genetically engineered to prefer polygamy, but
you don't see that many women upset enough when their husbands leave
them to shoot everybody in sight.
a damontury ends
Sawfish wrote:
>
> "Jeremy H." <ct...@nospam.gate.net> writes:
>
> >"Sawfish" <m...@q7.com> wrote in message news:9702899...@q7.q7.com...
> >Not that I love Three Kings, but....
> ....
> >> Somewhere along the line, and for no
> >> very apparent reason, they decided to be the benefactors of these ill-used
> >> refugees. It reminded me of the sort of motivation that one would find in
> >> Father Goose--the problem being that the tone of the film didn't support
> >> this sort of farcical response, and there was no clear internal or
> >> external motivation to cause this abrubt change, as far as I could see.
>
> >I don't see how it is a farce to have characters who value human life over
> >personal gain....
>
> ...but that's contrary to their original stated motivation, and there is nothing
> in their presented characters to indicate that they had any qualms about stepping
> over the line to profit from the war.
>
> >especially men who have already volunteered to serve the
> >country.
>
> I don't see what that has to do with why they decided to profit. If they can get
> to that so easily, and we are shown no other contravening traits, they are
> basically shown as opportunists.
>
> >The external event that causes them to change their motivation is
> >the woman getting shot in the head! It doesn't get more overt than that!
>
> It is a clear, but unconvincing, impetus.
>
i find the amount of convincing youneed to be incredible.
you're defining them as one note characters- opportunists,
and so completelys elf absorbed that they refuse to consider others'
feelings.
at no point in the film were ANY of them portrayed that way.
they had wanted tointervene even earlier,
but had decided against it on clooney's orders.
but it's VERY hard for a normal person to watch someone else
be killed in front of their eyes if they can stop it.
i don't understand why you're having aproblem with this.
a damontury ends
Grimfarrow wrote:
>
> John Harkness wrote:
>
> > Indeed, making any kind of impressive film gets the industry aware of
> > you in a hurry -- they have people who track new filmmakers and send
> > out feelers. Lodge Kerrigan, director of Clean, Shaven, which I think
> > we can all agree is a magnificently obscure film, had an interview at
> > Disney, of all places, after his film turned up in a sidebar series at
> > Cannes.
> >
> > These aren't new directors -- they have oeuvres. a couple of them even
> > have books dedicated to their films.
>
> And that's why the word NEW is labeled as 'new'. Look in the
> subject. See? The ' '? That says exactly how subjective "new" is.
> Like I said before, people like Jonze, O'Russell, Vinterberg, etc.
> have only 1-2 films to speak for them. Exactly how do you judge
> effectively a director with so few films?
>
> > And citing the Grammys as some kind of authority is pretty fucking
> > pathetic.
>
> They have more credibility as a body with decades of experience than
> some person like you.
yeah! milli vanilli deserved to win!
> > The ony "other" I see disagreing with me is you, and for that I'm
> > grateful.
>
> And I'm grateful that most people see talent in films of Wong Kar-Wai
> and Lars von Trier. You can go one hating or sleeping in their films, but
> it's good that most critics have better taste than that.
>
then again, most people understood fight club.
a damontury ends
Sawfish wrote:
>
> "damnfine" <raoul...@journalist.com> writes:
>
> >Sawfish wrote:
> >> >I don't see how it is a farce to have characters who value human life over
> >> >personal gain....
> >>
> >> ...but that's contrary to their original stated motivation,
>
> >That's exactly the fucking point! LOL!
>
> Without some inkling that these guys were particularly moral this would qualify
> as an unmotivated character flip-flop--performing an action out of character.
you weren't paying attention.
there were inklings galore.
....
> Look, compare character motivation in 3 Kings to that in Tresspass (not a
> particularly good Walter Hill film, but at least consistent.) Two firemen have a
> chance to abscond with a bunch of drug money from an abandoned warehouse. One is
> more opportunistic than the other, as is fairly clearly revealed. They tangle
> with the drug guys (the obligatory Ice T, and other rappers) and the
> opportunistic fireman at one point enthusiastically suggests that they thwart a
> set-up because the details of the profoundly duplicitous set-up are "what *I'd*
> do." This is NOT what a public servant (a *fireman* fer chrissake! the guy who
> CPRs heart attack victims in convalescent homes) is supposed to do!!! Think of
> ways to bushwhack people! But by that time the character has gone Fred C
> Dobbs on us, and this reaction is quite believable because the writer has taken
> care to reveal, over a course of 50 or more minutes, that this particular fireman
> was, by nature, very opportunistic and not troubled by qualm overmuch.
saw respass.
i see your problem.
you miss subtlety.
a damontury ends
John Harkness wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 08:26:19 GMT, Grimfarrow <grimf...@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >And I'm grateful that most people see talent in films of Wong Kar-Wai
> >and Lars von Trier. You can go one hating or sleeping in their films, but
> >it's good that most critics have better taste than that.
> >
>
> Where did I say that they didn't have talent? I think they're both
> extraordinarily talented. In the case of Wong -- and his Days of Being
> Wild is one of my favorite films -- his films have simply ceased to
> interest me, however high the level of craft and talent involved. I've
> never bought the "style is substance" argument.
why not?
it's clearly the case in paintings-
picaso, monet, etc, all make distinctive marks because of stylistic
innovations.
and there's nothing else to picasso but style.
Just an ordinary Brandon, with peanuts
<dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
> i don't understand why you're having aproblem with this.
he's a genetic experiment that didnt' turn out right
--
-Brandon Blatcher (spamblocked, remove hidden implants to reply)
Why is lemon juice made with artificial flavor and
dishwashing liquid made with real lemons?
Just an ordinary Brandon, with peanuts
<dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
> John Harkness wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 08:26:19 GMT, Grimfarrow <grimf...@excite.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >And I'm grateful that most people see talent in films of Wong Kar-Wai
> > >and Lars von Trier. You can go one hating or sleeping in their films,
> > >but
> > >it's good that most critics have better taste than that.
> > >
> >
> > Where did I say that they didn't have talent? I think they're both
> > extraordinarily talented. In the case of Wong -- and his Days of Being
> > Wild is one of my favorite films -- his films have simply ceased to
> > interest me, however high the level of craft and talent involved. I've
> > never bought the "style is substance" argument.
>
> why not?
> it's clearly the case in paintings-
> picaso, monet, etc, all make distinctive marks because of stylistic
> innovations.
> and there's nothing else to picasso but style.
silly boy, he does try to say things
Sawfish
>"Sawfish" <m...@q7.com> wrote in message news:97036796...@q7.q7.com...
>> I'm not tell you what SL's message was. I'm saying that I heard that the
>> main character was massaged to provide a less ambiguous, more Hollywood
>> ending.
>>
>> Read what I wrote before you start tell us what I said.
>And what I'm saying is that your hearsay as to what a film is is useless to
>those of us who have seen the film. It's pointless to waste time posting
>that nonsense.
OK. I'll accept that, but bear in mind that we're each carrying a piece
regarding the issue under discussion: characters acting out of character
to achieve a "satisfactory" ending. When I see this in a film, the action
becomes contrived by external forces (the writer), and I have trouble
accepting this as artistically valid. In fact, I'd call it either preachy
or lazy--and that was my point about 3 Kings. You responded that
characters such as Oskar Schindler could have profound changes, and I said
that I'd read at least one source that indicated that the actual
Schindler's character was not as portrayed, and that his motives may have
been considerably more murky--hardly fit for a nice clean preachy message.
Apparently, you saw the film but didn't read my sources, and I read the
sources but didn't see the film.
>> That was figurative. I didn't literally fall asleep. I saw the whole thing
>> and was bitterly disappointed after reading posts, like yours, that
>> glowingly recommended it as something special. It was just "good", at
>> best. I'll eventually watch it again, just see if as many folks in ramc
>> are as susceptible to weak character development and motivation as I first
>> thought.
>>
>> I hope not.
>The thing is that I didn't LOVE the movie... It wasn't even in my top 15
>last year... There are plenty of things wrong with the movie ... I just
>didn't think the reasons you were citing were valid criticism of the film...
It's got problems that no one wants to address. They are too busy opening
bottles of champagne and drinking toasts to Russell. The problems are not
nit-picking problems at the pissant detail level, they are problems
stemming from flawed writing, primarily characterization. Mediocre acting
may have contributed to it, but the buck stops with the director. The
visual style was OK but a bit self-inflated at times.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sawfish
>"Sawfish" <m...@q7.com> wrote in message news:97036820...@q7.q7.com...
>> "Jeremy H." <ct...@nospam.gate.net> writes:
>> >There's a big differnce between public sentiment after Vietnam & public
>> >sentiment after the Gulf War... to not acknowledge this is
>shortsighted...
>>
>> Sure is. Nobady gave a shit one way or the other after the Gulf War. The
>> did about 'nam; they were largerly negative. So you have a guy making a
>> movie that criticized as war that few cared about since it was over in a
>> flash with maybe 150 American dead. That doesn't take much daring, in my
>> regard.
>That's precisely what the movie calls to attention. Americans lost interest
>in the human rights issues that sent us to the war in the 1st place & we
>abandoned people who were still being oppressed. (Note that this isn't my
>personal political belief.. it's the movie's).
...and this is one main place the writing went wrong from the start.
I try to observe popular opinion. In my opinion, 75-80% of the people
in the US knew, as the war was fought, that the issue was oil supply.
And there's nothing wrong with that as a motivation for hostilities. The
film stated the obvious.
This wasn't the case regarding Vietnam, nor Somalia, nor Bosnia/Kosovo.
It's a lot harder to discern the motivations for sending forces there. So,
the story merely belabored the point that human rights were not the reason
for dusting Hussein.
IN brief, the central and defining characteristic, the one that indeed did
surprise a lot of people, and the one that could have been most profitably
explored because it was fresh (to us, at least), is its extremely
one-sided nature. What does it say about those who plan it and prosecute
it? What about those who are the leadership on the *receiving* end? What
does it do to those who directly excute the orders that kill all these
apparently defenseless opponents? Interesting stuff that 3 Kings did
little with. They went with standard idealistic motivations that we seen
since Seven Samurai, and before.
About the only part that really rang was the Iraqi guy whose family got
killed int he bombing. When 3 Kings dealt with this, it did a fine job.
And the actor did a fine job, too. It takes this kind of loss to generate
the type of hatred one finds in the Balkans, for instance.
>The Gulf War really wasn't a
>war that could spawn a traditional war film. That's why this movie's not
>about traditional war movie themes. There's more in there about politics...
>I guess that's the daring thing... the fact that they made a "war movie"
>about a war that no one cared about....
I can see that there could have been some truly terrific issues raised as
a central part of a film about the Gulf War. We could have spent some time
with the morality of shooting fish in a barrel, which was basically what
we did to the Iraqi troops, with our superior standoff weaponry. Then we
could have gone into the issue of whether the US Army would stand and
fight if pressed, after having become used to the notion that you can
shoot at your opponent without much fear of effective return fire. It
would be interesting to see if the high-fives were still flying after an
effective counter attack or ambush, like at Mogadishu.
I guess in some sense the nature of the conflict was like 18-19th C
Europeans hunting Hottentots for sport. We could have dealt with that in 3
Kings, since there hasn't been such a conflict in the 20th C. The irony,
alone, would have been worth something.
>> Are you saying that 3 Kings is comparable to All Quiet on the Western
>> Front in terms of political/emotional impact?
>God no... I mean I'm not a huge fan of the movie... I enjoyed it a lot
>though. It's hardly a classic, but it's entertaining & reaches for more than
>the average Hollywood drivel....
I guess that I was more bitterly disappointed than I thought. I had
honestly expected a movie at least as powerful as Platoon, and got a Frank
Sinatra caper movie combined with Father Goose.
(BTW, the entire idea of the gold was a big mistake, I think. It clouded
the initial tone of the film, and the film had to fight back against the
initial impression. And it didn't fight very hard...)
Sawfish
>Sawfish wrote:
>> >That's exactly the fucking point! LOL!
>>
>> Without some inkling that these guys were particularly moral this would
>> qualify as an unmotivated character flip-flop--performing an action out
>> of character.
>What kind of misanthropic bullshit is this? As unfashionable as it may be to
>say, MOST people are fundamentally moral and want to do good... all that needs
>to happen is fot them to be put in a situation where they're given a clear
>choice. That's what the movie is.
Right. Most regular guys would plot to pull off a major league gold heist
after retreiving a creased (and I use the term in its fullest connotation)
map from a POW. They go well out of their way to do this. This makes them
somewhat corruptible, doncha think?
Then they turn around and decide to help the Kurds, for whom they've
developed a profound respect and sympathy. This makes them somewhat
fickle? inconsistent? Nah, just indecisive.
Then they help these poor Kurds at the risk of their own lives, and the
loss of their loot. This makes them stock film heroes.
In my opinion, if you wanted a gritty insight into what MOST people would
do, first they'd probably not try for the gold--too dangerous, oh my!. But
if they did, they probably find a way to ignore the Kurds, take the gold,
then fell piss-poor about it later. At most, they'd give one or two Kurds
some chocolate bars and maybe some medical supplies, and go off feeling
pretty smug about it.
>> >No kidding... because you've missed the point of this one by 180 degrees,
>> >bucko.
>>
>> ...or the point was so poorly and unconvincingly made that only those who
>> desperately wanted to be convinced, were.
>That is, anyone not a miserable, vindictive bastard by nature. Sorry.
"I really *like* people...and it shows!"
Sawfish
>Sawfish wrote:
>> That was figurative. I didn't literally fall asleep. I saw the whole thing
>> and was bitterly disappointed after reading posts, like yours, that
>> glowingly recommended it as something special. It was just "good", at
>> best. I'll eventually watch it again,
>Why bother? You clearly don't have the first clue about it, and certainly
>don't WANT to like it... so what would be the point?
See? THis is your first big problem: you leap to emotional conclusions.
I rented 3 Kings because after reading this group it seemed that I was
going to be treated to a "break-through" movie--something like
Taxi-Driver. I found that it had a few novel elements, but a fairly
indecisively themed execution. And then folks like you, who apparently
wanted to like it so badly as to overlook the lack of acomplishment.
It's hard for me to believe that anyone posting on this group has not seen
many films, but how does this compare to even Gallipoli?
Sawfish
No. I never did say that. They are presented as opportunistic.
>that wasn't in the movie i saw.
>what i saw was 3 regular blue collar characters who
>thought they could get a big break by robbing a despot.
>they made a big deal out of staying out of the internal affairs of
>iraq. but, if you put mostanyone in the situation that precipitated
>the rest of the movie, where clooney saw they were about to kill
>a man, and his small daughter, andhe had the
>power to stop it, you'd find *most* people
>would.
That's the story we'd like to believe.
I think most people would if:
a) it was an immediate member of their family OR a very close friend (see
Deer Hunter); OR
b) there was little personal risk to themselves AND they would lose no
great personal advantage by doing so.
Where you get these big character changes, like in Wild Bunch, is case A.
Case B is so tawdry as to not make a very good film, since people don't
like to think about this too much.
>a lot of the movie was about thatmoment, the moment where
>humanism overcomes narcissism.
>i fail to see how that's a flaw. the rest of the movie came from that
>moment.
>they wound up helping the others because they had made a deal,
>and then acted with honor through the rest of the movie.
I can see that if the moment were more clearly portrayed, that decisive
moment where you choose, one way or the other, and the paths are
unequivocally mutually exclusive, there might be some tension and some
dramatic validity. If that's what was suppsoed to happen when the
Republican Guards were shooting the Iraqi guy's wife, then Clooney
underplayed the character development to that point. His character at that
point was NOT the guy to make that decision.
>> What you had was the sort of moral change of direction that took place in
>> The Wild Bunch, but Holden's face, and the subsequent, "walk", exposed the
>> change brilliantly.
>>
>> >it was visually interesting,
>>
>> It wasn't too bad--but the bullet was pretty hokey.
>>
>> >morally ambiguous,
>>
>> It wasn't even that. See The Grifters if you want moral ambiguity.
>saw the grifters.
>this was also morally ambiguous.
But horrifyingly, internally consistently so.
Try Last Exit To Brooklyn.
>> >and filled with smart people.
>>
>> I must have been sleeping by then.
>>
>well, THERE'S your problem.
Hah! Hah! Dealt with in another post.
Sawfish
...and not be personally threatened or inconvenienced by it.
Cripes! Don't you recall what happened to the woman in NY who got killed,
in her own neighborhood, by a guy with a knife, over a period of about 10
minutes? As i recall, not less than 10 of her neighbors saw/heard it and
"didn't want to get involved."
Her own neighbors, for shits' sake! In what convent have you been raised?
>i don't understand why you're having aproblem with this.
Because I've been there. I've seen it. It's not what you think it is.
Sawfish
>Sawfish wrote:
>>
>> "damnfine" <raoul...@journalist.com> writes:
>>
>> >Sawfish wrote:
>> >> >I don't see how it is a farce to have characters who value human life over
>> >> >personal gain....
>> >>
>> >> ...but that's contrary to their original stated motivation,
>>
>> >That's exactly the fucking point! LOL!
>>
>> Without some inkling that these guys were particularly moral this would qualify
>> as an unmotivated character flip-flop--performing an action out of character.
>you weren't paying attention.
If I wasn't, it wasn't because I didn't want to. I *wanted* to like this
film.
>there were inklings galore.
If you say so.
>....
>> Look, compare character motivation in 3 Kings to that in Tresspass (not a
>> particularly good Walter Hill film, but at least consistent.) Two firemen have a
>> chance to abscond with a bunch of drug money from an abandoned warehouse. One is
>> more opportunistic than the other, as is fairly clearly revealed. They tangle
>> with the drug guys (the obligatory Ice T, and other rappers) and the
>> opportunistic fireman at one point enthusiastically suggests that they thwart a
>> set-up because the details of the profoundly duplicitous set-up are "what *I'd*
>> do." This is NOT what a public servant (a *fireman* fer chrissake! the guy who
>> CPRs heart attack victims in convalescent homes) is supposed to do!!! Think of
>> ways to bushwhack people! But by that time the character has gone Fred C
>> Dobbs on us, and this reaction is quite believable because the writer has taken
>> care to reveal, over a course of 50 or more minutes, that this particular fireman
>> was, by nature, very opportunistic and not troubled by qualm overmuch.
>saw respass.
>i see your problem.
>you miss subtlety.
Ah, so we're stooping to defining our opponent's observational abilities
by invoking a criticism of their viewing fare, are we?
I'm bringing in Trespass, admittedly not a very good film, but at least a
good, consistent character portrayal within the confines of its rather
silly premise. I believe I brought in Treasure of the Sierra Madre, as
well, as an example of well-drawn characters playing to consistent
motivation. The best you can do with this is to ignore any further
comparision and imply that even seeing one of the films is a big no-no.
Is that where you want to stop the discussion?
Reagen Sulewski
>a damontury ends <dcru...@mdo.net> writes:
>>they had wanted tointervene even earlier,
>>but had decided against it on clooney's orders.
>>but it's VERY hard for a normal person to watch someone else
>>be killed in front of their eyes if they can stop it.
>
>...and not be personally threatened or inconvenienced by it.
>
>Cripes! Don't you recall what happened to the woman in NY who got
>killed, in her own neighborhood, by a guy with a knife, over a period of
>about 10 minutes? As i recall, not less than 10 of her neighbors
>saw/heard it and "didn't want to get involved."
>
And these people also had knives of their own?
Sawfish
>Sawfish wrote:
>> It's got problems that no one wants to address. They are too busy opening
>> bottles of champagne and drinking toasts to Russell. The problems are not
>> nit-picking problems at the pissant detail level, they are problems
>> stemming from flawed writing, primarily characterization.
>Yet you've been completely unable to identify these "problems", except to say
>that the change in character motivation didn't work, which is quite clearly
>due to some sort of pre-existing attitude that you carried into it.
>Or maybe it just wasn't SIMPLE and spelled-out enough for your liking.
>Face facts... you failed the work, it did not fail you.
Awww, I can see you're in pain.
Did I poke where it hurts?
Sawfish
>m...@q7.com (Sawfish) wrote in <97041823...@q7.q7.com>:
>>a damontury ends <dcru...@mdo.net> writes:
>>>they had wanted tointervene even earlier,
>>>but had decided against it on clooney's orders.
>>>but it's VERY hard for a normal person to watch someone else
>>>be killed in front of their eyes if they can stop it.
>>
>>...and not be personally threatened or inconvenienced by it.
>>
>>Cripes! Don't you recall what happened to the woman in NY who got
>>killed, in her own neighborhood, by a guy with a knife, over a period of
>>about 10 minutes? As i recall, not less than 10 of her neighbors
>>saw/heard it and "didn't want to get involved."
>>
>And these people also had knives of their own?
Since they were all in their houses I'd assume that they could scrounge up
a steakknife, at least. Turns out hatthey couldn't even be bothered to
call the police.
But does that matter? My point was that most people won't risk much to
save a stranger. In this case, the women was ignored by her neighbors.
Read it for yourself.
http://www.lihistory.com/8/hs818a.htm