Most Overrated Film of 1995
st...@rosie.uh.edu
thomas
Jim Cowling
I give it a 7 out of 10, but it's certainly not one of the 10
best films of 1995 by any stretch of the imagination. How can
anyone care about the characters? How can suspense be built
when we *know* *exactly* how it'll end?
Yes, Ron Howard should have been nominated as director of the
most technically proficient movie of the year...but that and
Visual Effects are the only things it should be nominated for.
-------
Jim Cowling, moderator, rec.arts.comics.info
http:/www.islandnet.com/~scowling
-------
Fairall Dennis
> Date: 15 FEB 1996 17:23:07 GMT
> From: st...@Rosie.UH.EDU
> Newgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
> Subject: Most Overrated Film of 1995
>
> Easily Get Shorty.
>
> thomas
>
>
I'd put it this way
Most overrated by critics - Sense and Sensibility
Most overrated by audiences - Dangerous Minds
Most overrated by everyone - Apollo 13
Jer
Bert Bulmer
> Bert Bulmer (537...@interlog.com) wrote:
> : Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart
> : Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart
> : Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart
> : Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart
> : Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart
> : Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart Braveheart
> : Braveheart Braveheart and again BRAVEHEART!!!
>
> : Bert
>
> : --
> : "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed
by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing
about them." -- George Orwell, "Notes on Nationalism," 1945
>
> I disagree for the simple reason that it was basically overlooked the
> entire year. We heard "Oh Apollo 13 is the Best", "Did your see Get
> Shorty?", "The American President is one of the best movies of the year."
> , "To Die For is hilarious", "Nixon is a brilliant character analysis"
> etc.... Braveheart was largely ignored by the critics. They said "Oh Rob
> Roy is a much better picture" (yeah right), "Oh it doesn't have a shot
> because it was released in May" etc.... The professional critics
> basically put it down. Yet here we are and where is Get Shorty? Where is
> The American President? Where is Nixon? Braveheart stood against all the
> negativism and is still standing and as we say "Has the BIG MO" going
> into the Oscars. See you there. :)
>
> Cordially,
>
> Nathan Parker
If you're using the Oscars as some sort of serious critical barometer you
have more to worry about than your obviously bad taste in film.
Bert
--
"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." -- George Orwell, "Notes on Nationalism," 1945
DANNY KIM
=->Easily Get Shorty.
=->
=->thomas
--Heat, Braveheart, Desperado, and Goldeneye.
>Danny Kim_d...@nevada.edu<
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>front 242~kmfdm~lords of acid~tkk~veruca salt~one dove~nin~cranes<
>mazzy star~tori amos~traci lords~sarah mclachlan~moby~heather nova<
*----------------_Film of the Week: City of Lost Children_-----------------*
Nathan Parker
: Bert
The point of my post was not so much about the Oscars than it was the praise
afforded to all the above movies save Braveheart. Braveheart was not
overrated. If anything it was underrated. I suspect that the only reason
you say that Braveheart is overrated is BECAUSE of the number of Oscar
nominations it has received. Without the recent Oscar nods there is no way you
could claim that Braveheart was overrated by the critics because as I stated
before it was largely ignored. When you look at all the hype we got from some
of the above films it is almost embarrasing. Heck, Nixon was the cover story
for 2 major national magazines. Get Shorty I can't even begin to describe how
way overhyped this was. How The American President, fluff if there ever was,
can be said to be one of the best of the year by the critics is beyond me. The
only rationale that I could come up with was that the critics agreed
with the politics and by god we're going to support it regardless of the
damage it does to our credibility. By what definition do you say
Braveheart was overrated? Clearly it wasn't overrated by the many raters
out there (the Siskel & Ebert's of the world). If Braveheart which you
obviously don't like hadn't picked up 10 Oscar nominations would you have
still said it was overrated? I suspect not. So who's using the Oscars as a
barometer now?
Cordially,
Nathan Parker
K Cooper
Matthew Jotham Millheiser
>
> Get Shorty was wonderful!
Get Shorty was horribly over-rated.
It wasn't a TERRIBLE movie, but it wasn't THAT great either. It was,
as someone else here has put it, "just kind of there."
The moral of the movie, Hollywood Producer Types = Underworld Mob
Types, has been done to death. Tell us something we don't know!
Granted, it retained much of the revered Elmore Leonard dialog, but
dialog alone does not make a movie.
Ehh.
_Matt_
Dwayne Goettel - R.I.P.
Get Shorty, in my opinion, was just a Pulp Fiction type movie for old
people. People that couldn't handle the craziness and far out humor of
Pulp Fiction went to see Get Shorty .. it tried to have its crazy moments
.. .bu overall, Get Shorty was pretty bad
Matthew Jotham Millheiser
>people. People that couldn't handle the craziness and far out humor of
>Pulp Fiction went to see Get Shorty ..
That's just about the nicest, dead-on way to describe the movie... :)
-Matt-
VICTOR VOLKMAN
-> Subject: Re: Most Overrated Film of 1995: GET SHORTY!
-> Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 20:56:28 -0500
-> Organization: Shadow Information Services, Inc.
-> Message-ID: <3127D8...@email.ir.miami.edu>
-> <pine.sgi.3.91.960216183959.15415a-1 00...@server.uwindsor.ca>
-> <4g8c91$20...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host:
->
-> K Cooper wrote:
-> >
-> > Get Shorty was wonderful!
->
-> Get Shorty was horribly over-rated.
->
-> It wasn't a TERRIBLE movie, but it wasn't THAT great either. It was, as
-> someone else here has put it, "just kind of there."
->
-> The moral of the movie, Hollywood Producer Types = Underworld Mob Types, has
-> been done to death. Tell us something we don't know!
-> Granted, it retained much of the revered Elmore Leonard dialog, but dialog
-> alone does not make a movie.
I have read and enjoyed 3 or 4 Elmore Leonard books. I was disappointed
because I pictured Danny Devito as Chilly and John Travolta as the ditzy
dry-cleaner man.
I agree with you that overall the production values were equivalent to earlier
Leonard scripted movies such as "Cat Chaser" that would make a fine HBO Movie
or CBS Movie of the Week, but don't stand up to a theatrical audience who is
expecting "Beverly Hills Cop" or "Lethal Weapon" or ...
Raj Dixit
THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT
EXOTICA
LEAVING LAS VEGAS
Raj K. Dixit
Paul Melito
>
>Apollo 13, hands down.
>
>I give it a 7 out of 10, but it's certainly not one of the 10
>best films of 1995 by any stretch of the imagination. How can
>anyone care about the characters? How can suspense be built
>when we *know* *exactly* how it'll end?
>
Apollo 13 gets a 10 out of 10 as far as I'm concerned, second only to the
Usual Suspects, which gets an 11. So what if you know exactly how it will
end. Unless you walk in saying "I know exactly what's going to happen, I
can't enjoy this movie" you're going to get caught up in the movie because
the it's so good. Besides there's hardly a fictional movie where an idiot
can't figure out what's going to happen, or you don't already know because
somebody told you.
Above all Apollo 13 supplied a sense of adventure, danger and tension without
any violence, guns, threats, drugs, crime, sex, nudity or anything else
negative. Although I'm not against those things in any way, it's nice to see
a really good, tense, adventure movie without those things in it. That
accomplishment alone makes it a Best Movie candidate as far as I'm concerned.
Todd Kristel
>>EXOTICA<<
Well, I guess some people just don't like films that require them to
pay attention.
Todd Kristel
Todd Kristel
in cyberspace. The Usual Suspects is a nice little film that isn't
remarkable in any respect - and that includes the writing and ensemble
performances - but for some reason people seem to think it's a
brilliant film simply because it has a predictable and not particularly
imaginative "trick" ending. Seven is a facile but empty (not to mention
mean-spirited and cliche-ridden) movie that seems to impress people
because it also has a silly "trick" ending and because it's suffused
with glib nihilism that makes it seem "hip."
Dagwood
>Seven and The Usual Suspects are the most overrated films of the year
>in cyberspace. The Usual Suspects is a nice little film that isn't
>remarkable in any respect - and that includes the writing and ensemble
>performances - but for some reason people seem to think it's a
>brilliant film simply because it has a predictable and not particularly
>imaginative "trick" ending.
I've agreed w/ most of Todd "Let me first give it the nod" Kristel's
posts (saying little more than i've enjoyed same movies for similar
reasons). But, sit down Todd. 'Suspects was well written and only
somewhat pretenious. Acting was great across the board
--
Dagwood
.
American President
Braveheart
Apollo 19
Heat
*Nixon*
jbh
Schh...You Know Who.
> In article <4g2l0l$u...@sanjuan.islandnet.com>, scow...@islandnet.com says...
> >
> >Apollo 13, hands down.
> >
> >I give it a 7 out of 10, but it's certainly not one of the 10
> >best films of 1995 by any stretch of the imagination. How can
> >anyone care about the characters? How can suspense be built
> >when we *know* *exactly* how it'll end?
> >
That is precisely why it gets 10/10, because it built up the suspense and
kept you on the edge of your seat even though everyone knows exactly what
will happen.
Seeyoulater
Andrew.
*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*
"I see a little shillouetto of a man, scaramouch, scaramouch,
will you do the fandango?" Queen 1977
* * * * * * * * * *
"http://www.dur.ac.uk/~d421e8" E-mail - A.J.D...@dur.ac.uk
Collingwood College, South Road, PO Box 158, Durham, DH1 3YP
*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*
VICTOR VOLKMAN
-> Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
-> NNTP-Posting-Host: ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
-> Mime-Version: 1.0
-> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
-> In-Reply-To: <4gmc1a$5...@netaxs.com>
->
-> American President
-> Braveheart
-> Apollo 19
It must be that you never bothered to see this last one. So you consider it
overrated without seeing it, an opinion hardly worth expressing.
Here's a clue, the number "13" was emphasized several times during the film.
The last ever Apollo mission was 17, president Nixon cancelling 18 thru 20
about this time.
DANNY KIM
=->
=->THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT
=->
=->EXOTICA
WHAT!!!!!!?????????????? Hmm...
=->
=->LEAVING LAS VEGAS
=->
Okay, now I know you're nuts.
=->Raj K. Dixit
=->
--
VICTOR VOLKMAN
-> I've agreed w/ most of Todd "Let me first give it the nod" Kristel's posts
-> (saying little more than i've enjoyed same movies for similar reasons).
-> But, sit down Todd. 'Suspects was well written and only somewhat
-> pretenious. Acting was great across the board
-> --
-> Dagwood
What we're saying is that it DOESN'T merit the 30-week long thread that has
been going on about "whether verbal = soze". Please spare us all more of that
kind of crap and the mindless drivel about time travel theory and practice in
12 Monkeys.
z_vau...@titan.sfasu.edu
> Seven and The Usual Suspects are the most overrated films of the year
> in cyberspace. The Usual Suspects is a nice little film that isn't
> remarkable in any respect - and that includes the writing and ensemble
> performances - but for some reason people seem to think it's a
> brilliant film simply because it has a predictable and not particularly
> mean-spirited and cliche-ridden) movie that seems to impress people
> because it also has a silly "trick" ending and because it's suffused
> with glib nihilism that makes it seem "hip."
>
overrated in cyberspace. But, I don't think its fair to assume as to why
people think they are great films. you don't know these people. Their
opinions are no better than yours. You are no better than them. Why can't
you just state that you think the film is overrated and state why YOU didn't
think it deserves such respect, and leave your judgements of other people out
of it?
Jeez.
Unknown
M. Ince
: seven
there is NO way that this movie can be classified as overrated. it was
exciting and thrilling.
my vote would be SPEED
matt
Dave Cowen
>
>In article <4hfn6o$p...@news.nyu.edu>, mqd...@is2.nyu.edu (Mike D'Angelo)
wrote:
>
>> Greg Lind (li...@llnl.gov) wrote:
>
>re; Exotica and Crumb
>
>> Mike "next time, try more than one word" D'Angelo
>
>Fair enough, Mike.
>
>IMHO, Exotica was full of holes...
OK, I'm game. What holes?
>and seemed to revel in it's own broody quagmire.
It certainly does. It's called atmosphere. People, believe it or not,
like atmosphere in films. There's even a _genre_ of atmospheric films, named
film noir. Some people even go to _restaurants_ with atmosphere, instead of
going to brightly lit fast food places. How they can see their food is
anyone's guess.
>It's been a while and I'm weak on specifics, but it just seemed
>to wander aimlessly about. It was also very visually hard to watch.
It's called "non-linear storytelling", and a second viewing will clear
up all of the so-called holes for you: all the characters fit together rather
nicely -- it just takes a little bit of synaptic firing to put it all
together. As for visually hard to watch, well, many of us found it quite
beautiful. A film doesn't have to be brightly lit and sterile to be brilliant
(although, admittedly, the brightly lit and sterile motif worked quite well in
Safe...)
Dave Cowen (es...@fische.com)
Mike D'Angelo
[we're discussing his distaste for Egoyan, Kieslowski, Tarkovsky, et al]
: I didn't like the taste, and if this means I have no understanding of
: contemporary cinema, then so be it. I have, believe it or not, enjoyed many
: "art movies": Jean de Florette, Manon des Sources, Cinema Paradiso,
: Germinal, Cyrano de Bergerac, Toto le Heros, Ran, Ikiru, Rashomon, Ju Dou,
: Black Rain (by Imanura, not the stupid Michael Douglas film ;)), etc., etc.
: I do try to see foreign and "art" films on occasion, partly because they
: are highly praised, partly because of the "cultural medicine" rationale,
: but mostly because they are often excellent and provide a fresh complement
: to standard Hollywood fare (which I crave, but do not wish to be limited
: to).
You've listed quite a few excellent films above. However, I note that,
while they're arthouse films, they're definitely populist arthouse films:
plot-driven for the most part, easily comprehensible, appealing (as most
films do) more to the emotions than to the intellect. Nothing wrong with
that at all, and I like some of the films above quite a lot (namely the
Berri films, the Kurosawa films, and JU DOU; I haven't seen Imamura's BLACK
RAIN, though I did endure the Ridley Scott film). It does, however, help
to clarify what it is that you *don't* like, which I would rather glibly
categorize as "weird arthouse films."
Now, if you don't like this sort of movie, that's just fine. However,
I'm going to make a confession: I didn't like them once, either. The
first Kieslowski film I saw was THE DOUBLE LIFE OF VERONIQUE, and when
people asked me what I thought of it, my standard response was "I didn't
get it." My first exposure to Egoyan was THE ADJUSTER, which is *much*
stranger than EXOTICA, and I actively hated it. Like you, I found these
films pretentious and incomprehensible, and I found that they angered me,
because I felt as though I was being laughed at by the filmmaker for
failing to understand his work. (I still have this response sometimes,
most recently to Michael Snow's experimental film WAVELENGTH.)
I kept seeing these directors praised by people I respected, however, so
I returned to their films, and gradually, over a period of two years or so,
I began to warm to them; now, I'm looking at movies in a completely
different way, and my favorite films of 1994 and 1995 were made by
Kieslowski and Egoyan, respectively. I managed, through sheer diligence
and a desire to understand what the hell everybody else thought was so
terrific, to expand my horizons considerably. This takes some effort; it
requires one to put aside ingrained ideas and to be open to frustration.
The reward, I've found, is immense. And it's completely complementary; I
still love good Hollywood films as much as I ever did (though I am more
contemptuous of bad Hollywood films than I used to be). It's also an
ongoing process that I expect will continue for the rest of my life.
If you don't want to bother, I respect that. If, on the other hand, you
want to keep trying, allow me to make a suggestion. I've elided the plot
summaries that you composed for the "Three Colors" films, EXOTICA, THE
SACRIFICE, and so forth, because it's a pointless exercise; you've
correctly surmised that "what happens next" is not the appeal of such
films. Yes, their stories seem random and/or contrived when set down
baldly on paper, because the strength of the films isn't so much in
their narratives, or even in what they're "about" (stop worrying about
that), but in the gestalt. They're more than the sum of their parts. In
particular, don't let yourself get too concerned with what they "mean"; I
don't know that I can articulate what the hell RED "means", and it was my
favorite film of '94. Leave that to people who get paid to write reviews
(you can read their reviews later, to see if their interpretations make
sense to you). Just kinda let 'em wash over you, and see where that
leads you. That's what I started doing.
I'm afraid that I may sound condescending; I don't mean to be. It's just
that I can easily imagine myself, just a few short years ago, voicing the
same complaints you've voiced. If you stick with these "difficult"
films, you may eventually find yourself wondering what was wrong with
your taste previously, as I do now (about my own taste, not yours).
Or not.
One further flippant comment before I head out, about EXOTICA's score:
: I suppose the music did lend an exotic flavor to the film and was thus
: appropriate, but to a person who's heard those notes played hundreds of
: times the "right" way, it was a stomach-turning experience. Probably
: similar to what French audiences felt when they heard Berlioz's
: distortion of the "Dies irae" in the SYMPHONIE FANTASTIQUE. Or, imagine
: the beautiful instrumental theme of the Ode to Joy (Beethoven's 9th
: symphony, fourth movement) played far too slowly (largo, for example),
: and played on some weird electronic synthesizer to boot.
Actually, I don't have to imagine it; all I have to do is rent DIE HARD,
the score of which distorts "Ode to Joy" almost precisely as you
describe. I thought it worked beautifully.
: Well, that's enough for now. By the way, what did you think of my
: analyses of LEAVING LAS VEGAS and THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT?
I loved LEAVING LAS VEGAS and mildly liked THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT, but
can easily understand why others might hate them. I've seen very
intelligent and persuasive dismissals of LLV; I just don't happen to
agree with them. (Generally, critics of the film claim it's dishonest,
that beneath its depressing, sordid exterior is a fin-de-siecle version
of LOVE STORY [that's my own analogy, but I think it's an accurate
assessment of the criticism]. I can't argue with this, but then, that's
actually what I like about the film.) I don't care if I never hear about
or see THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT again as long as I live, though I enjoyed
it while it was in front of me.
Mike "you're still here? It's over. Go home" D'Angelo
Tisch School of the Arts, NYU
http://pages.nyu.edu/~mqd8478
Michael Brooke
: RED: Irene Jacob befriends old weirdo who spies electronically on his
: neighbors. Old weirdo recounts story of seeing his girl cheat on him,
: some strange parallel present in Jacob's character's life. Jacob gets on
: a boat, which sinks, the only survivors being the protagonists from each
: of the films in the trilogy? Point? Life is a series of crazy
: coincidences and utter chance? That point could have been made in a far
: more entertaining fashion. Perhaps the point was that only totally
: shallow and superficial people deserve to live? Typical Kieslowskian
: elitist dreck. I suppose I may be compelled to see another of his films
: due to friends who enjoy such things, but I will avoid his works if at
: all possible. Certainly I will never again choose to see another of his
: films purely of my own volition.
I think you'd be pleasantly surprised if you did - you've seen all his
French work now, which is *very* different (and as far as I'm
concerned less successful) than his earlier Polish films, which I
suspect would be more on your wavelength judging from your comments
above. For a start, he's working in a language and context that he
understands perfectly (this is why I found 'White' so disappointing,
because I was expecting a return to the razor-sharp observation of his
earlier films), and so the films are considerably less elliptical.
Michael
Greg Lind
Cowen) wrote:
> So, what in Exotica wasn't classy? Perhaps you expected a tit film
> and got some fruity movie about a man's suffering and widely varying
> sexual preferences?
If I want tit-illation (ar ar), Canadian "art" films aren't my chosen
genre. I went into EXOTICA expecting something along the lines of BLUE
VELVET. As for the man's suffering; I felt nothing for him. Nada. Zip.
The pet-shop owner egg smuggling operation was amusing detraction,
however.
> Exotica is a film that could have been extremely
> sleazy, that could have only given the audience cheap thrills...
True, but somehow I knew it wouldn't, even though the trailers relied
heavily upon the T&A factor.
> but instead dishes out some finely intricate drama, and some wonderfully
> exotic characterizations. Perhaps Exotica just a delicacy which is an
> aquired taste
Perhaps. I slightly resent your elitist insinuation, but I'll get over
it.;-) I was 30 before I could tolerate avocados. Perhaps there's hope
for me yet, eh?
> What in Exotica had you seen before
> that has already been beaten to death in other films?
My mutton dressed up as lamb analogy was not specific to EXOTICA, but of a
over-hyped critic's darling not being all what you were led to expect.
Like I said earlier, I beleive my expectations were a tad high. This has
happened before and will undoubtedly reoccur. I don't *hate* EXOTICA,
Dave. I just don't think it's any masterpiece. Sorry, nothing personal.
- greg
Raj Dixit
: In article <4hff3g$d...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, ez06...@bullwinkle.ucdavis.edu
: (Raj Dixit) wrote:
[my complaints about art films deleted]
: Fair enough. Though never feel obliged to take medicine. I do notice
: however that, as is the case with a lot of people, the kind of "art
: movies" that you cite as to your taste are often foreign-language
: equivalents of bigtime Hollywood movies, with a heavy emphasis on
: conventional narrative structure. The first five films listed were all
: massive hits in their country of origin, and if they present a fresh
: complement to standard fare it just shows the heightened sensibilities of
: the mainstream outside the US. These are conventional films in many
: respects, even the superior Asian ones.
The films I listed deserved to be massive hits in both their country of
origin and in this country, IMHO. I would disagree with your assessment
that these films are conventional; perhaps we have different
interpretations of the word. I define a conventional film as one made
purely for entertainment's sake, a la DIE HARD, or other typical
Hollywood fare. The films I listed do not strike me as conventional in
that many of them were made as striking commentaries on the cultures and
societies of their countries of origin. They made poignant statements and
managed to be enthralling at the same time. The works of Egoyan,
Tarkovsky, and Kieslowski don't strike me in this manner.
: I feel the art closest to film is poetry. The more complex the reading,
: the multiplicity of themes, allusions, references, the more rewarding. And
: more difficult. These are lazy times, however, and I understand how it is
: that narrative and star persona have come dominate the medium so
: comprehensively, and help influence and confound the enjoyment you and
: others hoped to take from the uniformly brilliant films that you list: The
: Double Life Of Veronique, Kieslowski's Trois Coleurs trilogy, Tarkovsky's
: Sacrifice and the film that started this all off, Exotica.
This sounds a bit condescending, although I am confident that it is
unintentional. I do not consider myself an intellectually lazy person. Is
there some code of ethics that states that anyone who dislikes the above
directors is automatically heathen and brainless? I disliked the films
because there's "no THERE there". I didn't see anything poetic in any of
the above movies. Of course, I consider most poetry pretentious nonsense,
unless it comes from the masters (Shakespeare, Donne, etc.). None of the
directors discussed remotely approaches that type of beauty in their
filmmaking.
: I thought the latter was great: exquisite tone and colour palette, the
: usual power editing, excellent cast on top form (Don McKellar:
: outstanding) and not without similarities to the over-lauded Usual
: Suspects in its unwrapping of plot. Moving, too. The most accessible
: Egoyan yet; I still prefer Calendar (now that's one people *really* hate),
: but maybe I need to see Exotica a few more times to soak it all up. Love
: to see it on a double bill with Showgirls (wasn't *that* a hilarious
: film?)
I haven't seen SHOWGIRLS, but I'd probably prefer it to any of the films
in question. At least I know I'm getting entertainment. Stupid, vulgar,
pathetic, and debauched entertainment, to be sure, but ENTERTAINMENT
nonetheless: which is more than I got from VERONIQUE, THREE COLORS,
EXOTICA, or SACRIFICE, especially the last.
Cheers,
Raj K. Dixit
Raj Dixit
: At any rate, Egoyan's and Kieslowski's films are far from
: plotless (you provided fairly accurate, if rather biased, synopses for
: them yourself); it's just that plot is not, perhaps, their foremost
: concern. There is such a thing as non-narrative cinema -- Stan Brakhage,
: for example, excels at it -- but the directors we're discussing here
: definitely work within (but at the same time subvert) traditional
: narrative form.
It has become fairly obvious by now that we'll all just have to agree to
disagree like the gentlemen (?) we are. (highly questionable in my case :))
However, we've been able to discuss this subject in a relatively
civilized fashion, which bodes well for the future. At least we agree on
DELICATESSEN; perhaps that's a starting point. However, I still find the
idea of a film that doesn't have plot as its ABSOLUTE concern inconceivable.
: Consider a painting analogy. Hollywood films are like, say, Norman
: Rockwell (the best of them are like Rembrandt): clear, naturalistic,
: depicting easily recognizable forms and situations. Brakhage's
: non-narrative films are the equivalent of, say, a Jackson Pollack
: painting (and some of his films actually do look like Pollack in
: motion): utterly abstract. I'd use later Picasso, or the Impressionists,
: as an analogue for what directors like Kieslowski and Egoyan and
: Tarkovsky do. The forms and situations are still recognizable, but
: they've been distorted, toyed with, turned into something simultaneously
: familiar and fantastic. You wouldn't call Seurat pretentious or
: egotistical, would you? ("What's with all the dots? Why doesn't he
: paint people who look like people?") I dunno, maybe you would; his
: contemporaries certainly did. Anyway, I think I'm out of my depth with
: this analogy, as my knowledge of graphic art is pretty limited. But
: maybe that'll help put some things in (heh) perspective.
The analogy to painting is an intriguing one. Don't worry about being out
of your depth with graphic art, since your knowledge of it no doubt
surpasses mine. I enjoy Rockwell and thus I enjoy most of Hollywood. I
admire Rembrandt, and thus appreciate Tinseltown's more quality efforts.
By the way, I might consider quality Hollywood fare to more closely
resemble Vermeer rather than Rembrandt. But pardon this small attempt at
criticism. As to the films in question, however, I don't quite agree that
they are Impressionistic: Impressionist paintings (at least to me) are
still more concrete depictions of meaningful life than anything I saw in
Kieslowski, for example. Is THREE COLORS based on any real life occurrence?
The paintings of, say, Manet, though impressionist, at least represent
something that was actually there. However, the films like VERONIQUE or
EXOTICA are not based on existing personalities (as far as I know). Of
course, the stories within could possibly take place, but they are
apparently wholly created out of the director's mind, and not based on
his impression of anything. Maybe Symbolism would be a more appropriate
analogy here than impressionism, but as this sails into waters I dare not
tread without further study, I should keep my peace.
I wouldn't call Seurat pretentious because his paintings did look like
real people and things, just not with photographic accuracy. Pointilism
is a clever idea, almost seeming in anticipation of computer pixels. As
far as Picasso goes, even his far out works like "Guernica" and "Les
Demoiselles d'Avignon" were based on real people, places, and events,
distorted as the representations might have been. These films, however,
have no "there" there. They twist familiar situations into bizarre ones,
as you pointed out, but those "familiar situations" are wholly fictitious
to begin with. An impression of a daydream? If a director wants to make a
film about a story entirely of his/her own creation, then he/she should
at least have the decency to crystallize the depiction into a form
recognizable to the average audience.
: Let me clarify. I didn't mean to suggest that films like RED or EXOTICA
: are meaningless, or that they're not about anything. I was merely noting
: that the experience of viewing them might be less frustrating if you
: freed yourself from the expectation of fully understanding them
: (especially after only one viewing -- I only truly began to appreciate
: the two films above after I saw each a second time).
I suppose THREE COLORS and EXOTICA are not meaningless, and are about
something. I just find that something to be preposterous: a colossal,
pompous, dull, third-rate bore with pretentious of intellectuality. The
meanings, if any, are trite and are more ably presented in Aesop's Fables.
I can't imagine spending time and money to see any of these films again,
unless some friends who are arthouse types really put me up to it.
VERONIQUE was, for all my loathing, perhaps the easiest to get through,
since I was in the company of friends, one who loved it, and one who
hated it more viruently than I do, swearing off Kieslowski forever more,
without exception.
: Some films benefit from simplicity; others suffer from it. If the plot
: of, say, DIE HARD were too convoluted to comprehend from moment to
: moment, the film would be a crashing bore. On the other hand, if EXOTICA
: were told in a linear, straightforward fashion, it would be ridiculous.
: "Aha!" I hear you exclaim, "that's just my point!" I hear you. But
: sometimes, I find, the way the tale is told can be more important, more
: interesting, more involving, than the tale per se. I suspect that *this*
: is the kind of storytelling that you reject. And, as Stuart Smalley
: would say, that's...okay.
You are correct in that I reject this type of storytelling. If the
telling of the tale is the focus, rather than the tale itself, then the
tale couldn't possibly be much good to begin with. If a tale isn't worth
telling straight up, why on earth would anyone want to hear an indirect
rendition of it? I suppose the only redeeming feature of EXOTICA, THREE
COLORS, and VERONIQUE is that they avoid being totally ludicrous by their
deliberate vagueness. These movies do provoke thought: namely, the viewer
struggles to understand what the hell is going on, and why. That at least
kept me from walking out of the theater after 15 minutes, since I initially
wanted to answer the challenge. I've concluded, however, that the
challenge isn't worth meeting. As I stated before, those aren't the
type of thoughts I want provoked. Some people wish to view only Kieslowski,
Tarkovsky, Egoyan, and the like. Fine. Some people never want to see
anything above the level of Ace Ventura. Quite OK---understandable, in fact.
Most of us (you and I presumably included) are somewhere in between.
: : These films just seem to be
: : cinema for cinema's sake. I go to movies to be uplifted, thrilled,
: : educated, moved, diverted, driven to laughter or tears, but above all
: : to be ENTERTAINED.
: Hey, so do I. However, I often find the traditional notion of
: "entertainment" to be extremely limiting. To most of my family, for
: example, "being entertained" is roughly equivalent to "I'm in a good mood
: when it's over." To them, comedies and action films are entertaining;
: dramas and "depressing" films are not. I don't understand this. I
: certainly find the sort of films we're talking about *immensely*
: entertaining; if I didn't, I wouldn't like them. On the other hand, I
: find something like PRETTY WOMAN about as entertaining as a blow on the
: elbow with a rusty tire iron. Chacun a son gout.
I can certainly find good dramas and depressing films entertaining. Perhaps
this is the wrong word for such films, with "engrossing" or "captivating"
being more appropriate. I had no smiles on my face after SCHINDLER'S LIST
or JU DOU, but I found them both superb, gripping from start to finish.
One thing about our discussion: I've tried to be clear and
straightforward about why I disliked these films, and about what makes me
enjoy a movie (at least I think I've been clear, don't hesitate to
correct me if needed). However, I still am not clear about what exactly
you enjoy in such films. You mentioned that RED was one of your favorite
films last year; why? What did you see in it? I had the same reaction to
it as you had to PRETTY WOMAN. What is it in these films that you
consider worthy of your time, attention, money, and energy? I would be
interested in knowing.
: Mike "that's French for 'I'm right, you're wrong'" D'Angelo
Actually, I thought it meant "To each his own taste." :) And I deleted
your little quote about Julia Ormond in the interests of space. I like
her! I enjoyed FIRST KNIGHT, LEGENDS OF THE FALL, and SABRINA far more
than any of the films we've discussed. I suppose my least favorite of all
would be Tarkovsky's THE SACRIFICE. Never again. This was like being
hooked up to an IV that sucks out all of your blood slowly and painfully,
leaving you cold and close to unconsciousness. I suppose my "favorite"
wouild be EXOTICA: I'll rate it a C- (feeling generous today).
Kieslowski's stuff gets D's all round. Tarkovsky gets an F. However, I
might force myself to watch ANDREI RUBLEV because I've heard such glowing
things about it. Would you recommend it? I look forward to hearing your
thoughts on these issues.
Respectfully,
Raj "Rumble in the Bronx is better than any of the films we've discussed"
K. Dixit
Michael Brooke
: A REPLY TO MR. BROOKE'S WELL-REASONED ANALYSIS:
: : Raj Dixit (ez06...@bullwinkle.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: [some stuff deleted]
: : : Certainly I will never again choose to see another of his
: : : films purely of my own volition.
: : I think you'd be pleasantly surprised if you did - you've seen all his
: : French work now, which is *very* different (and as far as I'm
: : concerned less successful) than his earlier Polish films, which I
: : suspect would be more on your wavelength judging from your comments
: : above. For a start, he's working in a language and context that he
: : understands perfectly (this is why I found 'White' so disappointing,
: : because I was expecting a return to the razor-sharp observation of his
: : earlier films), and so the films are considerably less elliptical.
: : Michael
: You also found WHITE disappointing? I found it the worst of the trilogy.
: I can't imagine the words "razor-sharp observation" and "Kieslowski" in
: the same sentence. I have also heard rumors that Kieslowski's work became
: unintelligible when he left Poland for France, supposedly because he lets
: French workers do most of the detail work while he mainly stays in the
: background, thus producing a bizarre hodgepodge of a film. I might be
: willing to try one of his Polish works: was DECALOGUE among them? Outside
: of his more recent French works, Kieslowski's films are difficult to find
: in the US. Of course, I don't look very hard :)
Judging from what you've written elsewhere in this thread, you might
well like 'Decalogue' (and this isn't just a cynical attempt to force
you to sit through another Kieslowski film against your will!).
'Decalogue' is in fact a cycle of ten films, but they can be seen in
any order, you don't have to see them all, and the only real benefit
you derive from seeing them all in the correct order is that there are
a number of little in-jokes regarding cameo appearances in the
later films from characters in the earlier films.
The films are obviously by the same director, but they're a lot less
elliptical, they tend to be more obviously about something specific
and identifiable (on the most basic level, each of the ten films is
pivoted around a breaking of one of the Ten Commandments), they all
have strong linear narratives leading up to memorable endings, and
they're all in Kieslowski's own language, which is an immeasurable
advantage. Added to which, none of them are longer than an hour, so
you can take them in very small doses (though if at all possible, I
recommend the feature-length 'A Short Film About Killing' and
especially 'A Short Film About Love' - the latter, I think, is
Kieslowski's best film - in preference to Decalogues Five and Six,
which are cut-down versions). And I stand by the phrase "razor-sharp
observation" with reference to 'Blind Chance', 'No End' and the
'Decalogue' films - 'A Short Film About Love' in particular is so
tightly-constructed that it makes Robert Bresson look flaccid.
Personally, I consider the five days I spent watching all ten
'Decalogue' films to be among the cinematic high points of my life
- and my viewing of Kieslowski's subsequent films is obviously
coloured by this. But of course the vagaries of international
distribution usually play a major part in how people see films - us
Brits were into Tarkovsky way back in the Sixties (apart from 'Andrei
Rublev', everything was released within a year or so of its Russian
debut) and we've had Kieslowski's films since 'Camera Buff' in 1979,
whereas Americans kicked off with 'The Sacrifice' and 'The Double Life
of Veronique', both very late works. Mind you, we were *very* late to
catch on to Pedro Almodovar (we didn't get anything until about 1989),
so the pendulum swings both ways...
Michael
Raj Dixit
: Raj Dixit (ez06...@bullwinkle.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
[some stuff deleted]
: : Typical Kieslowskian
: : elitist dreck. I suppose I may be compelled to see another of his films
: : due to friends who enjoy such things, but I will avoid his works if at
: : all possible. Certainly I will never again choose to see another of his
: : films purely of my own volition.
: I think you'd be pleasantly surprised if you did - you've seen all his
: French work now, which is *very* different (and as far as I'm
: concerned less successful) than his earlier Polish films, which I
: suspect would be more on your wavelength judging from your comments
: above. For a start, he's working in a language and context that he
: understands perfectly (this is why I found 'White' so disappointing,
: because I was expecting a return to the razor-sharp observation of his
: earlier films), and so the films are considerably less elliptical.
: Michael
You also found WHITE disappointing? I found it the worst of the trilogy.
I can't imagine the words "razor-sharp observation" and "Kieslowski" in
the same sentence. I have also heard rumors that Kieslowski's work became
unintelligible when he left Poland for France, supposedly because he lets
French workers do most of the detail work while he mainly stays in the
background, thus producing a bizarre hodgepodge of a film. I might be
willing to try one of his Polish works: was DECALOGUE among them? Outside
of his more recent French works, Kieslowski's films are difficult to find
in the US. Of course, I don't look very hard :)
I don't like elliptical films. If a movie makes me ponder the meaning of
life, or my role in society, or teaches me about historical events, or
moves me to be concerned about its characters, then that is a good movie.
If I have to expend major effort to FIND a plot, however, then the movie is
worthless, IMHO. I don't mind a mystery that keeps me in suspense until
the end (I greatly enjoyed THE USUAL SUSPECTS), or complex plot twists
(RAN or RASHOMON, perhaps), but if the plot is deliberately vague, I
become furious. Kieslowski or Tarkovsky, for example: is it "brilliant"
to slap together a collection of disjointed, obfuscated, meaningless
scenes and then, to top it all off, demand that the AUDIENCE put it
together, on pain of being declared intellectual inferiors? I paid money
to those morons; the least they could do is provide a storyline.
Egoyan was a little bit better in EXOTICA: the storyline was slightly
more comprehensible. But what was the point? I'm not the Soviet Central
Committee condemning all formalism in art, but I do like films to have a
clear message and meaning. EXOTICA's musical score also drove me to the
verge of vomiting, it was so hideous.
Questions, comments, complaints?
Respectfully,
Raj K. Dixit
Charles B. Francois
[Re. EROTICA]
>
> I thought the latter was great: exquisite tone and colour palette, the
> usual power editing, excellent cast on top form (Don McKellar:
> outstanding) and not without similarities to the over-lauded Usual
> Suspects in its unwrapping of plot. Moving, too. The most accessible
> Egoyan yet; I still prefer Calendar (now that's one people *really* hate),
> but maybe I need to see Exotica a few more times to soak it all up.
I suspect the order in which one sees CALENDAR and EXOTICA makes a big
difference, since some key motifs from CALENDAR are repeated (and to my
mind, diluted) in EXOTICA. The ritual reenactment of a great hurt as a
form of therapy and the attempt to control emotions (love, usually) by
reducing them to transactions are a couple of themes that affected me a
lot more in CALENDAR.
I'm fortunate that Mr. Egoyan has been a long-time darling of the New
York film scene. He was already one of my favorite working directors
when I had a personal attack of the Stendhal Syndrome upon first seeing
CALENDAR at the NYFF. After that he reigned supreme. In fact, CALENDAR
remains my favorite movie of the 90s.
One of the things I've liked best about it has been the range of
equally compelling readings that the different folks I've taken to see
it (yes, there were a few) have applied to it. Reflecting my own
experience, I saw it as a meditation on cultural alienation: to me,
it's about a man who must lose his own country as the price of his
(successful?) assimilation into another culture. My friend the painter
insisted it was really about the blindness that is inevitably brought
on by the necessary selectivity of an artist's vision, and the
attendant personal costs of that tunnel vision. I accused him of
projecting. :-)
I mean, when was the last time *you* fainted at the sight of a flock
of sheep? Egoyan is God. Really.
--
Charles B. Francois charles....@sun.com
Mike D'Angelo
: I enjoy movies that have plots. (Strange as that may seem to many of the
: people around this newsgroup) :) I don't necessarily agree that these
: films are easily comprehensible. For example, consider JU DOU: the story
: is easy enough to follow, but the vast cultural differences between that
: society and ours boggle the mind to such an extent that they are
: difficult to conceive. Weird arthouse films usually turn me off, it is
: true. Would you consider DELICATESSEN to be such a film? I enjoyed it
: immensely...
As did I. At any rate, Egoyan's and Kieslowski's films are far from
plotless (you provided fairly accurate, if rather biased, synopses for
them yourself); it's just that plot is not, perhaps, their foremost
concern. There is such a thing as non-narrative cinema -- Stan Brakhage,
for example, excels at it -- but the directors we're discussing here
definitely work within (but at the same time subvert) traditional
narrative form.
Consider a painting analogy. Hollywood films are like, say, Norman
Rockwell (the best of them are like Rembrandt): clear, naturalistic,
depicting easily recognizable forms and situations. Brakhage's
non-narrative films are the equivalent of, say, a Jackson Pollack
painting (and some of his films actually do look like Pollack in
motion): utterly abstract. I'd use later Picasso, or the Impressionists,
as an analogue for what directors like Kieslowski and Egoyan and
Tarkovsky do. The forms and situations are still recognizable, but
they've been distorted, toyed with, turned into something simultaneously
familiar and fantastic. You wouldn't call Seurat pretentious or
egotistical, would you? ("What's with all the dots? Why doesn't he
paint people who look like people?") I dunno, maybe you would; his
contemporaries certainly did. Anyway, I think I'm out of my depth with
this analogy, as my knowledge of graphic art is pretty limited. But
maybe that'll help put some things in (heh) perspective.
: The THREE COLORS trilogy and EXOTICA typify the type of thought
: provocation I dislike. If I have to spend considerable time and energy
: just figuring out what the plot is, there's something drastically wrong.
: If "what happens next" is not the appeal of these films, then they have
: no appeal for me at all. If they are not "about" something, and don't
: "mean" anything, then what's the point?
Let me clarify. I didn't mean to suggest that films like RED or EXOTICA
are meaningless, or that they're not about anything. I was merely noting
that the experience of viewing them might be less frustrating if you
freed yourself from the expectation of fully understanding them
(especially after only one viewing -- I only truly began to appreciate
the two films above after I saw each a second time).
Some films benefit from simplicity; others suffer from it. If the plot
of, say, DIE HARD were too convoluted to comprehend from moment to
moment, the film would be a crashing bore. On the other hand, if EXOTICA
were told in a linear, straightforward fashion, it would be ridiculous.
"Aha!" I hear you exclaim, "that's just my point!" I hear you. But
sometimes, I find, the way the tale is told can be more important, more
interesting, more involving, than the tale per se. I suspect that *this*
is the kind of storytelling that you reject. And, as Stuart Smalley
would say, that's...okay.
: I am against censorship in any form, and I don't want to imply that
: I'm taking some sort of Soviet stance against formalism in art, but I
: do dislike movies that apparently have no function other than to
: stroke the director's intellectual ego. These films just seem to be
: cinema for cinema's sake. I go to movies to be uplifted, thrilled,
: educated, moved, diverted, driven to laughter or tears, but above all
: to be ENTERTAINED.
Hey, so do I. However, I often find the traditional notion of
"entertainment" to be extremely limiting. To most of my family, for
example, "being entertained" is roughly equivalent to "I'm in a good mood
when it's over." To them, comedies and action films are entertaining;
dramas and "depressing" films are not. I don't understand this. I
certainly find the sort of films we're talking about *immensely*
entertaining; if I didn't, I wouldn't like them. On the other hand, I
find something like PRETTY WOMAN about as entertaining as a blow on the
elbow with a rusty tire iron. Chacun a son gout.
Mike "that's French for 'I'm right, you're wrong'" D'Angelo
Tisch School of the Arts, NYU
http://pages.nyu.edu/~mqd8478
"In fact, in Legends of the Fall, First Knight, and Sabrina she played
basically the same role -- 'I'm torn between two men but I'm really only
in love with the handsome one but oh dear I'm confused so I think I'll
look forlorn for a while.'"
-- Liza Esser on Julia Ormond
Michael Brooke
: In article <4hhktc$6...@nrtphba6.bnr.ca>,
: Christopher Smith <css...@bnr.ca> wrote:
: >EXOTICA seemed to draw out the SPI's (Self Proclaimed Intellects) and
: >thats about it. Most artsy films do. Unfortunately some films are panned
: >as bad by them and the movie goes nowhere.
: This no doubt explains why the ACE VENTURA movies did so badly.
A *slight* difference - the 'Ace Ventura' movies are hardly aimed at
the kind of people who read reviews. The likes of 'Exotica' most
definitely are - and as a former independent cinema manager who
specialised in films closer to the latter, I have plenty of horrible
memories of being completely dependent on the critics (because we
didn't have anything like a decent publicity budget)...
Michael
z_vau...@titan.sfasu.edu
> In article <lind1-04039...@128.115.79.109> li...@llnl.gov (Greg Lind) writes:
>>From: li...@llnl.gov (Greg Lind)
>>Subject: Re: Most Overrated Film of 1995
>>Date: Mon, 04 Mar 1996 11:44:09 -0700
>
>>Most overrated film of '95?
>
> Get Shorty
I second that motion. I saw the film a week before it came out - so I didn't
have a clue what the critics would say. Then the critical mass was generally
very good and I was in total disbelief.
Zach Douglas
says...
>
>You also found WHITE disappointing? I found it the worst of the trilog
>n >the same sentence. I have also heard rumors that Kieslowski's work bec
>ets>French workers do most of the detail work while he mainly stays in the
> >background, thus producing a bizarre hodgepodge of a film. I might be
>willing to try one of his Polish works: was DECALOGUE among them?
I've seen one pre-French Kieslowski film - the Camera? Cameraman? It is
about a Polish worker who is hired to film his company and enters in the
struggle between his own visions of art and what the company wants him to do
(with some extra twists thrown in). But all in all, it was a lot different
than what I have seen of the 'French Kieslowsi' (RED). Perhaps though I
picked the wrong movie to see from his earlier works as it seemed a bit
constrained when compared to what he was able to do with Red.
>I don't like elliptical films. If a movie makes me ponder the meaning
>of life, or my role in society, or teaches me about historical events, or
>moves me to be concerned about its characters, then that is a good mov
>ie.
>If I have to expend major effort to FIND a plot, however, then the mov
>ie is worthless, IMHO. I don't mind a mystery that keeps me in suspense
until the end (I greatly enjoyed THE USUAL SUSPECTS), or complex plot twists
>
>(RAN or RASHOMON, perhaps), but if the plot is deliberately vague, I
>become furious.
I'm always under the assumption that it 'must mean SOMETHING' and that does
create a problem when directors make a movie that is so ambiguous that it
becomes futile to make that SOMETHING appear.
I did feel a bit disapointed by Exotica - either I didn't get the half of
it, or there was nothing to get. I tend to pick the later - (possible
spoilers) It turned out at the end that the characters were related in a way
that was not previously known, but this revelation really didn't turn a key
in any lock that explained much more than the character relations - it
didn't seem to explain the character's ACTIONS. Of course, I may have
missed some things and would benefit from seeing it again.
The end of Red on the otherhand was somewhat bewildering but at the same
time made sense of a lot of things (to me). (SPOILERS) The capsized ferry
did not solve any puzzles, but it did 'finish' things nicely. I thought it
was a great moment.
>Egoyan was a little bit better in EXOTICA: the storyline was slightly
>more comprehensible. But what was the point? I'm not the Soviet Centra
>l >Committee condemning all formalism in art, but I do like films to have
> a clear message and meaning. EXOTICA's musical score also drove me to th
>e >verge of vomiting, it was so hideous.
What did you think of Barton Fink then? I enjoyed the movie a lot, but made
little sense of it. A friend told me (who seems to know these things) that
it DOESN'T make any sense and it never will. He says it's all meaningless
symbolism......(The bird/beach scene?)
{talk about the music of Exotica}
I didn't find the music, or the atmosphere to be very appealing either.
I've seen b movies on cinemax unintentionaly capture a similar atmosphere.
It must have really gotten to Ebert though (or was it Siskel who loved it so
much?)
Peter Reiher
>But of course the vagaries of international
>distribution usually play a major part in how people see films - us
>Brits were into Tarkovsky way back in the Sixties (apart from 'Andrei
>Rublev', everything was released within a year or so of its Russian
>debut) and we've had Kieslowski's films since 'Camera Buff' in 1979,
>whereas Americans kicked off with 'The Sacrifice' and 'The Double Life
>of Veronique', both very late works.
Americans who attended repertory theaters got to Tarkovsky a lot earlier
than "The Sacrifice." Both "Solaris" and "Stalker" showed up fairly
often in rep theaters in the 80s. "Andrei Rublev" eventually did, too,
though long after its original Russian release. For quite a while, it
was one of those films that critics talked about but no one else had
seen.
I don't remember a single Kieslowski film showing in LA until "The
Double Life of Veronique," leaving aside a showing of "The Decalog"
at the LA Film Festival. It's not impossible that one or two of
his earlier films also popped up at the Festival, particularly in
its Filmex days, when the guy running it never met a foreign film he
didn't like. Filmex was notorious for cramming around 300 films into
two weeks of screenings, and lots of stuff got lost in the shuffle.
The US has basically been screwed on "The Decalog," so far. Legal
problems involving distribution rights kept it from showing up everywhere
except a few film festivals. (And on video.) I've heard that it's
currently playing in NYC, so maybe the legal problems have finally
been cleared up.
--
Peter Reiher
rei...@wells.cs.ucla.edu
<http://www.cs.ucla.edu/project-members/reiher>
Michael Brooke
: I've seen one pre-French Kieslowski film - the Camera? Cameraman? It is
: about a Polish worker who is hired to film his company and enters in the
: struggle between his own visions of art and what the company wants him to do
: (with some extra twists thrown in). But all in all, it was a lot different
: than what I have seen of the 'French Kieslowsi' (RED). Perhaps though I
: picked the wrong movie to see from his earlier works as it seemed a bit
: constrained when compared to what he was able to do with Red.
It's very early Kieslowski (1979) - technically his debut feature (he
made an earlier feature, the little-seen 'The Scar', for TV). His two
subsequent features, 'Blind Chance' (1982) and 'No End' (1984), were
major leaps forward from the film that I know as 'Camera Buff' (but
which has gone under other English titles as well).
Michael
Michael Brooke
: I didn't find Babe overrated btw, but don't think it should win either. It
: seems unfair when you have so many non-human actors! How can they be bad??!
I refer you to the memorable scene in Francois Truffaut's 'Day For
Night', when a film crew is trying to get a cat to act...
Michael
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: Peter Thomas Chattaway (pet...@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
: : Ouch, that's a low blow. Unless you meant to say that Arsinee is a
: : *good* actor. But having seen all of Egoyan's films in the space of a
: : month, and having seen how Arsinee plays the same character in every one,
: : I'm inclined to think that either [a] she has no range, or [b] Atom's not
: : giving her the chance to do anything.
: Sorry, but I can't agree with you here at all. I see few similarities
: between her role in THE ADJUSTER and her role in CALENDAR, for example.
: And her role in SPEAKING PARTS is different from both of those.
Different names, different scripts, different directions. But still
Arsinee, with no real distinction between any of them. It's like saying
Woody Allen plays different roles -- he does, sort of, but not really,
and as much as I love him as a writer and director, I'm not convinced
he's an "actor".
: If you looked at the
: entire body of work of almost *any* actor, even very good ones, in a
: short period of time, they'd appear to be doing the same thing over and
: over.
Not true. I saw `Interview with the Vampire' and `Little Women' back to
back and was shocked at the range Kirsten Dunst showed.
: Very few actors are excellent chameleons. Look at a dozen Spencer
: Tracy movies in the course of a month. Was *he* a lousy actor?
Sorry, don't know Spencer that well. Come to think of it, my beef with
Arsinee might be more to do with the fact that Egoyan tends to give her
such bland, emotionless parts ... then again, there's the possibility he
does that because he knows that's all she can do ...
: Mike "I'd rather watch Arsinee Khanjian than Julia Roberts any day" D'Angelo
That's like saying I find Chris Farley funnier than Adam Sandler.
Julia's something of a straw woman, wouldn't you say?
Richard Akis
Chattaway) wrote:
> Sorry, don't know Spencer that well. Come to think of it, my beef with
> Arsinee might be more to do with the fact that Egoyan tends to give her
> such bland, emotionless parts ... then again, there's the possibility he
> does that because he knows that's all she can do ...
Having seen "Exotica", my beef with Egoyan is that he gives EVERYONE
such "bland, emotionless parts"! One gets the feeling that Egoyan must
have crash landed on earth from Star Trek's planet Vulcan! Egoyan's
characters are so emotionally detached from the audience that you
just don't give a damn about what happens to them, making "Exotica"
a sure fire cure for insomnia.
Richard A.
Mark A Fontana
Peter Thomas Chattaway <pet...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>Well, I actually liked `Exotica', but `The Adjuster' and `Family Viewing'
>were much worse, imho. `Next of Kin' -- his first and least pretentious
>-- is probably my favorite of his, next to `Exotica' perhaps. (I am
>very, very, very glad, though, that he ditched that tedious obsession of
>his with video cameras for `Exotica'.)
Actually, he didn't completely ditch the video obsession in EXOTICA--
about 2/3 of the way through, there are some flashback scenes where we
are treated to a full-screen blowup of crappy home video of his
deceased wife and daughter playing the piano. "Play something happy!
Play something happy!" Yuck...
EXOTICA has a *cool* soundtrack, though. It's one of my favorites.
Mark Fontana
Lisa McElroy
>...all of this is in my humble opinion, of course -- I wouldn't be >pretentious
>enough to try and speak for whatever it is rattling around inside >>the Coen's collective heads. However, in response to the original >comment, I
>would hope the above interpretations would be considered strong >enough to
>dispel the notion that the symbolism in Barton Fink is >"meaningless", when
>it's really a very intricately structured story.
>Anyway, I've spouted off enough tonight. I'll shut up now.
>Dave Cowen (es...@fische.com)
>Eschatfische. -------------------------------------- http://www.fische.com
Yeah, yeah, but did Charlie kill Barton's parents?
--lmm
Chooi Siew H.
2. Leaving Las Vegas
3. Rob Roy
tomlinson
: Yeah, yeah, but did Charlie kill Barton's parents?
Forget that. What I want to know is, is there any relation between
Charlie Meadows, a. k. a. Mundt, Karl Mundt, also known as Madman
Mundt, and Congressman Karl Mundt, Republican from <mumble> Dakota?
-et
--
Ernest S. Tomlinson - some day a real rain'll come and wash all the scum off
the streets +---------------------------------------------------------------
------------+ "We don't have the First Amendment, thank God, in Canada."
- Tim Collings, an instructor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, B. C.
Bruce Reznick
Mad Man Muntz was an early huckster of televisions sets in the Los
Angeles area. He made them under his own label, and advertised widely
on local tv in the 50's. He was the Ur-Crazy Eddie.
Raj Dixit
Good to hear from you again, Mr. D'Angelo. A few responses:
(my words are preceded by the double colons)
: : What is it in these films that you
: : consider worthy of your time, attention, money, and energy? I would be
: : interested in knowing.
: At any rate, your question is a difficult one; it's generally easier for
: me to articulate the reasons that I *don't* like something than the
: reasons that I *do*, as the latter are often intensely personal and
: somewhat nebulous. Nor do I imagine that any explanation I could offer
: would make you a believer. However, I'll try to give you an example, so
: that you can, at least, get an idea of what I love about these films,
: even if you won't ever feel similarly.
: Let's look at RED. Now, on one level, I'm simply interested in the
: film's themes: chance, coincidence, recurring events, modes of
: communication, missed opportunities, and so forth. I'm intrigued by the
: notion of two people who make a connection, but who were born too far
: apart to allow it to blossom into the romance that might otherwise have
: ensued; by the idea of one person's life repeating the course of
: another's; by the concept of two people linked by circumstance and
: proximity but utterly unaware of each other's existence. I found
: Kieslowski's investigation of these possibilities both moving and
: masterful. Do I necessarily understand everything that happens
: onscreen? Frankly, no. Valentine poses for an advertisement in front of
: a red backdrop; in the film's final shot, as she's rescued from a sinking
: ship, a TV camera freezes her in a virtual duplicate of the photo. What
: does this "mean"? Hell if I know, but it puts a big lump in my throat
: nevertheless. It resonates. It raises more questions than it answers,
: which is anathema to classical Hollywood narrative construction but
: perfectly fine by me. I find it much more memorable and emotionally
: affecting than, say, the conclusion of APOLLO 13 (a movie I liked a lot,
: by the way, and even saw twice).
I found the concept of RED (and indeed, the plot concepts of all the
THREE COLORS films) intriguing. However, I was disappointed in the
presentation---the very thing you enjoyed so much. Of course, your
knowledge of film greatly exceeds mine: I didn't even notice the
repetition of Irene Jacob's pose, for example. Even you admit, however,
that you don't know what this "means". On the one hand, we can each
ascribe our own meaning (which could make the film more interesting). On
the other hand, why does it raise so many questions? (Of course, the
raising of questions might well have been Kieslowski's goal, in which
case he achieved a notable measure of success.)
APOLLO 13, however, does much more for me. It was a true story, for one
thing. No matter how moving I may find a fictional tale (SHAWSHANK
REDEMPTION, RAN, or what have you, and I can and do find them quite
stirring), I simply can't bring myself to care that much about fantasized
characters and situations. APOLLO 13, with the realization that this
actually happened, that those men were really in danger, that the world
really did hold its breath, that the NASA personnel really did expend
such great ingenuity---all of these make my mind, at least, evoke a much
greater sense of wonder and emotional response.
: On another level, I simply find the film beautiful -- in its use of
: color, in its careful compositions, in its graceful and evocative camera
: movements (e.g. the sudden pan up when the Judge tells of dropping his
: book), and in simple moments such as the one when the light bulb burns
: out and the Judge replaces it, a tiny detail that I found overwhelmingly
: lovely. This kind of appreciation has nothing whatsoever to do with plot
: or characterization, and hence is probably of little interest to you
: (based on what you've written previously). However, it's the primary
: reason that I enjoy these films so much.
: I don't know whether that helps at all, but at least now you know that
: there's something more to it than "hey, that's obscure and will irritate
: the man on the street -- I like it!"
Once again, this relates to your more complete understanding of cinema.
I didn't notice the types of details in RED that you point out: I never
do in any film, for that matter. Because of some technical knowledge, I
sometimes notice special effects/stunts that grossly violate physical
law, but that's about it. About the only time I've ever thought about
camera work was my brief rumination that it was clever for Spielberg to
have used black and white for SCHINDLER'S LIST, because that added a
flavor of documentary and authenticity, like that of actual WWII footage.
The reason why I don't notice such things, I suppose, relates to what you
said: they have nothing to do with plot or characterization. Perhaps I;m
sort of like Wagner, who condemmed operatic arias as "artificial" in
their prettiness, and boasted that in his work, "every single bar of
music is there only because it contributes to the dramatic action."
I never felt that you enjoyed films simply because they annoyed common
folk like myself. However, to my irritation, there seem to be a lot of
people who praise Kieslowski et al for precisely that and no other
discernible reason.
: I see from another article that you recently saw and semi-enjoyed CAMERA
: BUFF. In that case, I urge you to keep an eye out for DECALOGUE, which I
: saw over the weekend and consider an unqualified masterpiece -- and
: which, more importantly, I think Michael Brooke is correct in suggesting
: that you might well enjoy. Imagine CAMERA BUFF, but shorter, more
: polished, and with a stronger narrative hook: that's each of the
: DECALOGUE tales in a nutshell (I think number Ten, in particular, would
: appeal to you). I can't imagine that you'd consider them a waste of your
: time.
I've also heard good things about DECALOGUE. Unfortunately, I can't find
these films anywhere in Davis, and Sacramento's arthouse theaters are in
notoriously unsavory areas. By the way, why would film number Ten
especially appeal? If I remember correctly (a big if, I admit), the Tenth
Commandment is "Thou shalt not covet." Would the film be appealing
because of its plot, or because of its stylistic approach?
Regards,
Raj K. Dixit
Gary Russel /ADVISOR L. FAUSETT
Eugene Zhu Xia
: Let's look at RED. Now, on one level, I'm simply interested in the
: film's themes: chance, coincidence, recurring events, modes of
: communication, missed opportunities, and so forth. I'm intrigued by the
: notion of two people who make a connection, but who were born too far
: apart to allow it to blossom into the romance that might otherwise have
: ensued; by the idea of one person's life repeating the course of
: another's; by the concept of two people linked by circumstance and
: proximity but utterly unaware of each other's existence. I found
: Kieslowski's investigation of these possibilities both moving and
: masterful. Do I necessarily understand everything that happens
: onscreen? Frankly, no. Valentine poses for an advertisement in front of
: a red backdrop; in the film's final shot, as she's rescued from a sinking
: ship, a TV camera freezes her in a virtual duplicate of the photo. What
: does this "mean"? Hell if I know, but it puts a big lump in my throat
: nevertheless. It resonates. It raises more questions than it answers,
: which is anathema to classical Hollywood narrative construction but
: perfectly fine by me. I find it much more memorable and emotionally
: affecting than, say, the conclusion of APOLLO 13 (a movie I liked a lot,
: by the way, and even saw twice).
I agree completely. Beyond that I would say that films like Blue and Red
are also to be enjoyed like paintings or abstract music. After watching
Blue, a friend of mine said that one can take just about all the shots
in the film. Blow them up and put them up on the wall. Like abstract
music, it is very difficult to tell why certain sequences move me.
They are just overwhelming. I am an opera fan, and had always felt that
most of the films I had seen are inferior (which is true) until
I watched BLUE. The story is as simple as any Wagnerian opera and
the emotion it conveys is just as poingnant and sublime. RED is
just as moving if on a smaller scale--warm, delicate, mythical and full
of subtlties. A minor point, for example, Van Den Bundenmeyer's (who
was mentioned in Blue) picture was shown in RED in Kern's house.
Later Valentine and Auguste (with his girlfriend) were listening to
his music in the music store. Auguste left first and when Valentine
ordered a copy, we were shown a picture of Bundenmeyer and was told
it was sold out. The first thing came to my mind was, who bought the
last copy (Auguste just left). Now combine this with the reccuring theme
of broken classes, out of battery. The movie is filled with this
sort of things. When taken as a whole, it becomes overwhelming.
Now a quiz. How did Kern guess Valentine's brother was using drugs?
I am not implying RED should be treated as a puzzle. Far from it,
the first time I watched it, I was totally confused by the story.
In fact, I confused Auguste with Michel. Even then the mood of the
film moved me deeply just as any great music composition does even
though I don't know what it is about.
Apollo 13 is a great film. I watched it twice, but am unlikely
to watch it a third time. I rented Blue and watch it in three
consecutive nights. Haven't seen WHITE. My friends all told me
it is not that great. What do y'all think?
Eugene
K Cooper
kill me now.:-)
Joseph Rich-TP-LUCENT(HOH177)NONE
Eugene Zhu Xia
: ...Perhaps I'm
: sort of like Wagner, who condemmed operatic arias as "artificial" in
: their prettiness, and boasted that in his work, "every single bar of
: music is there only because it contributes to the dramatic action."
Raj, I don't think the pretty scenes in RED are artificial at all.
Unexplainable perhaps, but hardly artificial. If anything,
they brought unity to these films. With regard to forms, the
"Three Colors" are very Wagnerian. They both have very simple
plots, recurrent themes (leitmotif) and charaters that are
somewhat larger than life and mythical.
There is very little plot in Wagner's opera and everyone
in the audience knows the plots ahead of time. Wagner, if
anything, advocates the abandanment of reason when listening
to his music. This is how I approach "The Three Colors".
I don't worry about the plot line, but concentrate on the emotion
these movies are conveying. It also helps to watch it again
and again, just as one would with Mozart and Wagner's opera.
For one thing, on second or third rounds, one doesn't have to
worry about the plot and can concentrate on the dramatic impact.
Eugene
Peter Longworth
>
>
For me it would have to be "Braveheart"..
Mel can't act for peanuts - he was too old.. how can a 40 + year old play
an 18 year old; the history was totally inaccurate; and the
film was particularly bad how it sterotyped and treated gay men... This
is not a suprise seeing Mel is a homophobic prick.
The only redeeming feature of the film was the great battle scenes..
Overall, it was a very mediocre film with a poor screen play and direction.
The sad thing it will probably win a whole swag on Oscars that the film
definitely does not deserve... I really can't see why people liked this
horror of a very bad film.
"Sense and Sensibility" puts such a film to shame....
Friendly Regards,
Pete :)
Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
E-mail: hor...@brushtail.hna.com.au
Jeffrey Wheeler
>For me it would have to be "Braveheart"..
>Mel can't act for peanuts - he was too old.. how can a 40 + year old play
>an 18 year old; the history was totally inaccurate; and the
>film was particularly bad how it sterotyped and treated gay men... This
>is not a suprise seeing Mel is a homophobic prick.
>The only redeeming feature of the film was the great battle scenes..
>Overall, it was a very mediocre film with a poor screen play and direction.
>The sad thing it will probably win a whole swag on Oscars that the film
>definitely does not deserve... I really can't see why people liked this
>horror of a very bad film.
>"Sense and Sensibility" puts such a film to shame....
And "Babe," "Dead Man Walking," "Nixon," and even "Il Postino" should
be noted as better than "Braveheart." In other words, I'm with you
brother!
Jeffrey Wheeler
sha...@ns.syncentral.com
Matthew Sievert
>
>Technically well made but I found it very boring. None of the
>performances were great and Ron Howards direction was simply competant.
>I was reminded of that 1969 film Marooned, which has since been MSTed.
>(Mystery Science Theater 3000, for the uninitiated)
>And this (Apollo) was the movie of 95 that both critics and audiences
loved.
Apollo 13 is very overrated. Whats worse is that the audience I saw it
with clapped when the capsule made it back to Earth? What! were they
waiting for a different ending??
Matt
Kotaro Yamaguchi
Tom Hanks' boyish charm/innocence shine through.
kota
On Mon, 25 Mar 1996 06:57:24 -0600, Msie...@smartnet.net (Matthew
Sievert) wrote:
>Apollo 13 is very overrated. Whats worse is that the audience I saw it
>with clapped when the capsule made it back to Earth? What! were they
>waiting for a different ending??
>
>Matt
--
ko...@carroll.com http://www.carroll.com/p/kota/
"All generalizations are false, including this one."
-Alexander Chase
W. T. Ho
<e...@wam.umd.edu> writes
I saw Blue, White and Red in sequence at a Rep a few months back and
whilst most people stayed to watch Blue and Red, many walked out when it
came to show White. Big mistake as far as I can see as in its way it
holds its own quite well. As a trilogy, B,W+R is that rare thing - an
entity greater than the sum of its parts. Personally I liked Red the
least not because it wasn't brilliant, which it is, but because a
pattern had already been established with the other two and it played to
that (esp the ending - it was good for a wryly ironic laugh but not much
else). Also I am a little uncomfortable with the metaphysical slant Red
introduces - it throws an element on Blue and White which was almost
totally non-existant and thus slightly jarring. The first 2 films made
it on the strength of purely human stories with no frills. Having it all
part of some divine plan seems a little like a cop-out to me.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
W. T. Ho -=w...@demon.net=- -=w...@vorpal.demon.co.uk=-
-=w...@frontline7.demon.co.uk=-
These opinions are my own and not of Demon Internet Ltd. So there.
Jeffrey Davis
> Personally I liked Red the least not because it wasn't brilliant,
> which it is, but because a pattern had already been established
> with the other two and it played to that (esp the ending - it was
> good for a wryly ironic laugh but not much else). Also I am a
> little uncomfortable with the metaphysical slant Red introduces -
> it throws an element on Blue and White which was almost totally
> non-existant and thus slightly jarring. The first 2 films made
> it on the strength of purely human stories with no frills. Having
> it all part of some divine plan seems a little like a cop-out to me.
The storm at the end was another echo from The Tempest. It wasn't
a divine plan: it was authorial intent.
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu> It's 1927 and the goose is hanging high.
Raj Dixit
: they brought unity to these films. With regard to forms, the
: "Three Colors" are very Wagnerian. They both have very simple
: plots, recurrent themes (leitmotif) and charaters that are
: somewhat larger than life and mythical.
I suppose THREE COLORS did use visual leitmotifs, but I can't remember
any of them. Since music appeals to me more as an abstract medium than
cinema does, I can tolerate Wagnerian style, but Kieslowski so far has
made me want to retch.
: There is very little plot in Wagner's opera and everyone
: in the audience knows the plots ahead of time. Wagner, if
: anything, advocates the abandanment of reason when listening
: to his music. This is how I approach "The Three Colors".
: I don't worry about the plot line, but concentrate on the emotion
: these movies are conveying. It also helps to watch it again
: and again, just as one would with Mozart and Wagner's opera.
: For one thing, on second or third rounds, one doesn't have to
: worry about the plot and can concentrate on the dramatic impact.
:
: Eugene
Dramatic impact? What dramatic impact? I didn't find one iota of dramatic
impact in any moment of the THREE COLORS films, nor in THE DOUBLE LIFE OF
VERONIQUE. I suppose at the end of RED, where the survivors of the ferry
disaster are revelaed to be the protagonists of each of the three films,
I threw up my hands at the idiotic absurdity of the whole thing. That was
all the impact I felt.
I can't help worrying about plot: for me, if it doesn't have a plot, then
it's essentially not a movie and not worth watching. I certainly don't
intend to waste time, money and energy seeing any of these works AGAIN!
I'm still angry about the first time. I can abandon my reason when it
comes to music: that's what it is for. But for film? I can understand
suspension of disbelief, but I refuse to tolerate meaningless stream of
consciousness.
Raj K. Dixit
Daniel Bredy
>I would have to say "Babe"is the most overrated film of 1995.Please don't
>kill me now.:-)
>
I agree completely!
Dan
Eugene Zhu Xia
: I suppose THREE COLORS did use visual leitmotifs, but I can't remember
: any of them. Since music appeals to me more as an abstract medium than
: cinema does, I can tolerate Wagnerian style, but Kieslowski so far has
: made me want to retch.
Visual AND musical leitmotifs.
Wagner wrote musical dramas which are supposed to be "total art"
combining music, visual art and poetry. The THREE COLORS (especially
BLUE) can be considered an attempt at this and succeeded to some
extend.
: Dramatic impact? What dramatic impact? I didn't find one iota of dramatic
: impact in any moment of the THREE COLORS films, nor in THE DOUBLE LIFE OF
: VERONIQUE. I suppose at the end of RED, where the survivors of the ferry
: disaster are revelaed to be the protagonists of each of the three films,
: I threw up my hands at the idiotic absurdity of the whole thing. That was
: all the impact I felt.
How about the moment in BLUE when Julie sits on the stair in the
middle of the night and begins to see blue crystals as she closes her
eyes and the recurring music comes backs again...
: I can't help worrying about plot: for me, if it doesn't have a plot, then
: it's essentially not a movie and not worth watching. I certainly don't
: intend to waste time, money and energy seeing any of these works AGAIN!
: I'm still angry about the first time. I can abandon my reason when it
: comes to music: that's what it is for. But for film? I can understand
: suspension of disbelief, but I refuse to tolerate meaningless stream of
: consciousness.
I understand. I don't mind people dislike my favorate movies. All
I am saying is that perhaps, these films will look very different
if one approaches them from a different angle. It is regrettable to
see someone with a fine taste in music, but is unable to appreciate
these films which are probably the closest things to classical music.
The gap is very small, and all it takes is a slight effort to bridge it.
Eugene
Jonathan McCann
picture or best director. I enyouyed the movie but I did not think that it
deserved to win.
Nikki James
Raj Dixit
I suppose THREE COLORS did use musical leifmotifs as well as visual
ones, but I found both types to be meaningless.
: Wagner wrote musical dramas which are supposed to be "total art"
: combining music, visual art and poetry. The THREE COLORS (especially
: BLUE) can be considered an attempt at this and succeeded to some
: extend.
I love Wagner's music, but I haven't seen any of his operas. Even if they
are excessively long (I believe GOTTERDAMMERUNG is 6 hours!), they would
at least have beautiful music, which is more than I can say for THREE
COLORS. The music of BLUE had no other effect but to bore me.
: How about the moment in BLUE when Julie sits on the stair in the
: middle of the night and begins to see blue crystals as she closes her
: eyes and the recurring music comes backs again...
I barely remember this as I've tried to consciously delete the memories
of these films from my mind. I found the music mediocre at best and the whole
scene phony and contrived.
: I understand. I don't mind people dislike my favorate movies. All
: I am saying is that perhaps, these films will look very different
: if one approaches them from a different angle. It is regrettable to
: see someone with a fine taste in music, but is unable to appreciate
: these films which are probably the closest things to classical music.
: The gap is very small, and all it takes is a slight effort to bridge it.
Well, I should hope that you don't mind people disliking your favorite
movies. I really don't care what movies people like or dislike, since it
is entirely their business. I only become upset when other people not as
polite as you are attempt to blackmail/brainwash/flame me into accepting
their aesthetic tastes.
THREE COLORS represents the furthest thing from classical music that I
can think of. Classical music entertains, pleases, relaxes, and at its
peak, moves the soul to joy...or to tears. Kieslowski's work utterly
fails me in any of these respects. I can honestly say that I've had surgical
procedures performed on me that were less painful than THREE COLORS or
DOUBLE LIFE OF VERONIQUE.
Raj K. Dixit
Hiroshi Amari
: THREE COLORS represents the furthest thing from classical music that I
: can think of. Classical music entertains, pleases, relaxes, and at its
: peak, moves the soul to joy...or to tears. Kieslowski's work utterly
: fails me in any of these respects. I can honestly say that I've had surgical
: procedures performed on me that were less painful than THREE COLORS or
: DOUBLE LIFE OF VERONIQUE.
Although I do not totally agree with you, I tend to value the strength of
script highly as you do. I thought "Double Life of Veronique" was a total
flop. "Red" was better, but I am not sure how good it is. I do not trust
my judgement on this movie. It is mainly because I do not know much about
European movies.
I cannot talk about Three Colors as a whole, because I have only seen *Red*.
The movie was unusual and interesting, but these two do not make a movie
masterpiece. *Red*'s themes seem to me that (1) fraternity among people
who quietly feel sad and hurt because of their conscience, and (2) nature
could play a big role in determining destinies of humans. I accept (1)
entirely and (2) partially. The nature who played the chess in the movie
was very nice to the characters. It is uplifting, because I like a woman
I happened to see in some places. But I do not believe in such a game.
(Mike, do not flame me on my double life. I am not serious:-)
The dogs also played critical roles in pulling people together on and off
screen. Should we accept any stories if dogs and nature tell us stories?
I don't have any good answer. The director seemed to choose a risky path
by making the movie almost geometric. We see some parallels among human
and animal relationships. They made me suspect that the judge and the
woman are actually a father and a daughter. I said 'risky' because in a
way the movie seems artificial to some audience. The movie left us wonder
about the untold story. This type of movie is hard to evaluate, because I
am not sure what kind of untold stories are deep.
I have not decided how I should appreciate its cinematography. In many
declining cultures, architecture became very decorative. Are his films
full of decorations to please bored audience who like pretty dazzles? I
cannot answer that.
My gut feeling tells me that *Red* is pretentious and not so deep. I say
this without any proof. The style of the movie deters the proof, but it
is not the strength of the movie. I *feel* that using nature and animals
to tell us a story is a clever excuse.
--
Hiroshi Amari