"Kagemusha"
steve
Yikes, what an awful film! Worst Kurosawa Ive seen (and Ive seen a few).
The music is wrong. Some of the camera work (in an early scene) just feels
wrong...a hand held shaky camera as a messenger runs through the castle
feels more like the New York city streets than 16th century japan...and
that's the only time we see that type of camera work in the film making it
seem all the more out of place.
There is little of interest...characters are flat, the story is trivial and
drawn out interminably, the battle scenes are confusing when they arent just
dull, and the ending is intolerably artsy fartsy...are we supposed to
sympathize with Kagamusha? Does he symbolize something as he runs wildly
into the gunfire? Is it an anti-war revelation that three armies are
slaughtered in one senseless battle? Oh, how I hate this film!
The only saving grace; the occasional breathtaking scenery. Not nearly
enough to save this overlong stinker. It would have been better had
Kurosawa not gotten the funding for this film. Somewhere along the line the
guy just lost it.
steve
--
"Local firemen improvised."
Benny Hill
Lincoln Spector
you take offense at). Coming, as it did, between his last two masterpieces,
Derzu Uzala and Ran, it's a real disappointment. It's slow, off-putting,
formalized passed all humanity, and cares more for the traditions of feudal
Japan than for the individual characters. For the usually humanist Kurosawa,
it's a real let-down.
Is it his worst film? Try The Idiot. Or his last film (the name of which
escapes me at the moment). They're worse.
Kurosawa is my all-time favorite filmmaker, but even he made some stinkers.
Lincoln
"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote in message
news:toGdnWSTQ82...@rcn.net...
dennis
"Lincoln Spector" <Notr...@myemailaddress.com> wrote in message
news:JMKQe.285$lU2...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Sean O'Hara
> SPOILER WARNING. Danger, Will Robinson!
>
> Yikes, what an awful film! Worst Kurosawa Ive seen (and Ive seen
> a few).
>
awful. There are a few great moments, especially in the last hour,
but ultimately I think the build-up takes too long and the pay-off
doesn't justify it.
I've only seen the full length Japanese version, but I wonder of the
butchered American version is better.
> The music is wrong. Some of the camera work (in an early scene)
> just feels wrong...a hand held shaky camera as a messenger runs
> through the castle feels more like the New York city streets than
> 16th century japan...and that's the only time we see that type of
> camera work in the film making it seem all the more out of place.
>
I, on the other hand, thought that, along with the army marching
against the sunset, was one of the best scenes from the first hour
of the movie.
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
I don't believe anything. Which is very confusing on Thursday nights.
--Morrissey
Anne Budgell
----------
In article <toGdnWSTQ82...@rcn.net>, "steve" <st...@steve.com>
wrote:
> SPOILER WARNING. Danger, Will Robinson!
>
> Yikes, what an awful film! Worst Kurosawa Ive seen (and Ive seen a few).
Ha! Bet you haven't seen "Dreams", or even worse, "Sugata Sanshiro 2".
>
> The music is wrong. Some of the camera work (in an early scene) just feels
> wrong...a hand held shaky camera as a messenger runs through the castle
> feels more like the New York city streets than 16th century japan...and
> that's the only time we see that type of camera work in the film making it
> seem all the more out of place.
>
> There is little of interest...characters are flat, the story is trivial and
> drawn out interminably, the battle scenes are confusing when they arent just
> dull, and the ending is intolerably artsy fartsy...are we supposed to
> sympathize with Kagamusha? Does he symbolize something as he runs wildly
> into the gunfire? Is it an anti-war revelation that three armies are
> slaughtered in one senseless battle? Oh, how I hate this film!
>
> The only saving grace; the occasional breathtaking scenery. Not nearly
> enough to save this overlong stinker. It would have been better had
> Kurosawa not gotten the funding for this film. Somewhere along the line the
> guy just lost it.
>
I'll agree with you on that closing comment, Steve, but I don't think he did
until a few years later. I like "Kagemusha" a lot better than you did (and
not only because it was the movie I took--dragged?-- my long-time love to on
our very first date way back in '81...), tho it's hardly my favorite
K-flick. Nakadai, a great actor but one who is occasionally prone to
alarming over-emoting if not reined in (see Okamoto's "Sword of Doom" for
another example), does a fair bit of scenery-chewing here.
The eponymous role was originally written for Katsu Shintaro, star of the
long-running Zatoichi series, and a much more burly and rumbustious actor
than the ever-refined Nakadai. Unfortunately the egomaniacal Katsu clashed
with "Emperor" Kurosawa on the first day of shooting, the star was fired,
and the film was hurriedly re-cast with Nakadai in the lead role, seemingly
made up and directed to look and physically act like Katsu-- a
miscalculation on the director's part, perhaps. A younger Mifune Toshiro
might have been ideal for the role, but he was 60 at the time, and in any
case had sworn never to work with Kurosawa again.
The film itself is deliberately bleak as all hell, signalling Kurosawa's
final loss of his humanist idealism (the final nail in that coffin is "Ran",
which you should definitely see if you haven't).But I've always liked
"Kagemeusha" nonetheless, tho not as much as "Ran" and vertainly not as much
as K's classic work.
I dunno if it helps, but story-wise "Kagemusha" is based on the career of
Shingen Takeda, a real-life samurai warlord of the late 16th century, a
period of civil wars. Shingen might have established his own ruling dynasty,
but fate had other plans, and Tokugawa Ieyasu (also a character in the film)
gave his name to the coming historical era instead.Shingen was reputed to
employ several kagemushas (doubles)-- hence the inspiration for the story.
Like I said, Steve, try "Ran". If that doesn't work for you, it's back to
the fifties with ya...
GMW
steve
On 30-Aug-2005, smacked up and reeling, "Anne Budgell"
<gm...@pop2.intergate.ca> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> > Yikes, what an awful film! Worst Kurosawa Ive seen (and Ive seen a
> > few).
>
> Ha! Bet you haven't seen "Dreams", or even worse, "Sugata Sanshiro 2".
Hi Dr Watson. Who's "Anne Budgell"?
Yes, I've seen "Dreams" and you are so right. Must have blocked it out.
Havent seen the other.
> The eponymous role
You made me go to dictionary.com for that? :^)
> The eponymous role was originally written for Katsu Shintaro, star of the
> long-running Zatoichi series, and a much more burly and rumbustious actor
> than the ever-refined Nakadai. Unfortunately the egomaniacal Katsu clashed
> with "Emperor" Kurosawa on the first day of shooting, the star was fired,
> and the film was hurriedly re-cast with Nakadai in the lead role,
> seemingly
> made up and directed to look and physically act like Katsu-- a
> miscalculation on the director's part, perhaps. A younger Mifune Toshiro
> might have been ideal for the role, but he was 60 at the time, and in any
> case had sworn never to work with Kurosawa again.
So the blind swordsman and AK couldnt see eye to eye.
> The film itself is deliberately bleak as all hell, signalling Kurosawa's
> final loss of his humanist idealism (the final nail in that coffin is
> "Ran",
> which you should definitely see if you haven't).But I've always liked
> "Kagemeusha" nonetheless, tho not as much as "Ran" and vertainly not as
> much
> as K's classic work.
You know I find these comments interesting (yours and some similar in the
thread) because one of the films weaknesses I see is the attempt to put a
human face on Kag-dude as in his relationship with the kid. On the other
side of the coin, much of AKs earlier work (the stuff I like: "Bad Sleep
Well", "HIgh and Low", "Throne of Blood" etc.) seems no less negative on the
nature of man...aggressive, underhanded, hypocritical, greedy. So I dont
really see this film as a departure from that stuff. But I do see it as a
rather empty film. No brain and no heart...and the heart can harbor the
dark and ugly, so that crticism doesnt mean the film is too nagative, rather
that it is without depth and insight.
Beyond that, AK does something I really hate in film, and that is to
transparently and predictably set up a dilemma...the horse, for example.
And while Im at it, the final battle scene is insulting. Three armies rush
headlong into total annihilation...let me see if I can discern the hidden
meaning in that complex image. And, by the way, isnt that "humanist
idealism"...at it's artistic worst?
> I dunno if it helps, but story-wise "Kagemusha" is based on the career of
> Shingen Takeda, a real-life samurai warlord of the late 16th century, a
> period of civil wars. Shingen might have established his own ruling
> dynasty,
> but fate had other plans, and Tokugawa Ieyasu (also a character in the
> film)
> gave his name to the coming historical era instead.Shingen was reputed to
> employ several kagemushas (doubles)-- hence the inspiration for the story.
No explanation will change the viewing experience, but I appreciate the
information.
> Like I said, Steve, try "Ran". If that doesn't work for you, it's back to
> the fifties with ya...
Well, I guess it's back to the 50s, because Ive seen Ran 3 times (once in a
theater in Los Angeles when the film was fresh meat, and as recently as this
year on DVD) and Ive never liked it. Funny, though, because when Kag was
over I turned to my wife and said something like "Well, I thought I hated
'Ran', but that's 10 times the film this is." She likes Ran, BTW, and
doesnt hate Kag.
Just for fun I went to IMDB and counted the number of AK directed films Ive
seen...up to 18, now, out of 32 listed. Hated about 5 of them. Loved about
5. Enjoyed the rest.
steve
blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> It's a pretty weak entry in his filmography, but I wouldn't call it
> awful. There are a few great moments, especially in the last hour,
> but ultimately I think the build-up takes too long and the pay-off
> doesn't justify it.
Just curious...what were the great moments in the final hour? By that time
I was suffering, watching the clock, rolling my eyes, and suppressing
laughter for the benefit of my wife who didnt hate the film.
> I've only seen the full length Japanese version, but I wonder of the
> butchered American version is better.
This version was 179 hours...er, I mean minutes, I think...which is the
longest listed on IMDB. A little editing would have been merciful.
herr blob
Lincoln Spector wrote:
> It is a disappointing movie (although I actually like that messenger scene
> you take offense at).
it's one of his best.
> Coming, as it did, between his last two masterpieces,
> Derzu Uzala and Ran, it's a real disappointment.
dersu and ran are great but former is somewhat flat and the latter is
inflated with a long sagging middle. kagemusha is dynamic throughout,
a model of dramatization and plotting.
> It's slow, off-putting,
> formalized passed all humanity, and cares more for the traditions of feudal
> Japan than for the individual characters. For the usually humanist Kurosawa,
> it's a real let-down.
slower than dersu or ran? formalized more than red beard, dodeskaden,
ran, or dreams? kagemusha is far more concerned with the individual.
or rather, it examines where the individual and group identity clash in
a society such as feudal(or for that matter, modern) japan. as such,
it is in the tradition of all other kurosawa films. individuals in his
films rarely succeed. they always submit to a higher calling, for
better or worse.
>
> Is it his worst film? Try The Idiot. Or his last film (the name of which
> escapes me at the moment). They're worse.
>
> Kurosawa is my all-time favorite filmmaker, but even he made some stinkers.
>
> Lincoln
it's one of his best.
herr blob
Sean O'Hara wrote:
> In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful steve declared:
> > SPOILER WARNING. Danger, Will Robinson!
> >
> > Yikes, what an awful film! Worst Kurosawa Ive seen (and Ive seen
> > a few).
> >
> It's a pretty weak entry in his filmography, but I wouldn't call it
> awful. There are a few great moments, especially in the last hour,
> but ultimately I think the build-up takes too long and the pay-off
> doesn't justify it.
it's one of his best. and it's great throughout. its main weakness is
the music, especially the blaring trumpets after the final bloodbath.
>
> I've only seen the full length Japanese version, but I wonder of the
> butchered American version is better.
no, no. the full length version is one of the all-time greats ever.
>
> > The music is wrong. Some of the camera work (in an early scene)
> > just feels wrong...a hand held shaky camera as a messenger runs
> > through the castle feels more like the New York city streets than
> > 16th century japan...and that's the only time we see that type of
> > camera work in the film making it seem all the more out of place.
> >
>
> I, on the other hand, thought that, along with the army marching
> against the sunset, was one of the best scenes from the first hour
> of the movie.
>
the problem with you is you lack patience, power of cultural empathy,
and curiosity. you just want the movie to do everything for you.
Lincoln Spector
> long-running Zatoichi series, and a much more burly and rumbustious actor
> than the ever-refined Nakadai. Unfortunately the egomaniacal Katsu clashed
> with "Emperor" Kurosawa on the first day of shooting, the star was fired,
> and the film was hurriedly re-cast with Nakadai in the lead role,
> seemingly
> made up and directed to look and physically act like Katsu-- a
> miscalculation on the director's part, perhaps. A younger Mifune Toshiro
> might have been ideal for the role, but he was 60 at the time, and in any
> case had sworn never to work with Kurosawa again.
the other way around.
An important aspect of this casting mishap is that Shintaro had a strong
sense of comedy, as did Mifune. Nakadai did not. That lack of comic ability
through the character off and made him less sympathetic.
Lincoln
Lincoln Spector
> thread) because one of the films weaknesses I see is the attempt to put a
> human face on Kag-dude as in his relationship with the kid. On the other
> side of the coin, much of AKs earlier work (the stuff I like: "Bad Sleep
> Well", "HIgh and Low", "Throne of Blood" etc.) seems no less negative on
> the
> nature of man...aggressive, underhanded, hypocritical, greedy. So I dont
> really see this film as a departure from that stuff.
and cruel by human aggression and greed, but his protagonists are usually
those trying to make this world a better place. The protagonists may suffer
or even die for this, but the world is better for what they have done, and
they themselves are saved by it.
Think of Ikiru, Seven Samurai, and Red Beard (the most obvious statement of
this theme). Also the end of Rashamon. In High and Low, Mifune's character
ruins his career to save the life, not of his son, but of his chauffeur's
son. In The Bad Sleep Well, Mifune's goal of vengeance is only successful in
the end through love (I don't think I gave too much away, here). Throne of
Blood is an exception.
Lincoln
herr blob
Anne Budgell wrote:
> ----------
> In article <toGdnWSTQ82...@rcn.net>, "steve" <st...@steve.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > SPOILER WARNING. Danger, Will Robinson!
> >
> > Yikes, what an awful film! Worst Kurosawa Ive seen (and Ive seen a few).
>
> Ha! Bet you haven't seen "Dreams", or even worse, "Sugata Sanshiro 2".
dreams is excellent. it has some weak segments but it's a gorgeous
beautiful work. sanshiro sugata 2 isn't really kurosawa. he was
playing hack to military overseers.
> >
> > The music is wrong. Some of the camera work (in an early scene) just feels
> > wrong...a hand held shaky camera as a messenger runs through the castle
> > feels more like the New York city streets than 16th century japan...and
> > that's the only time we see that type of camera work in the film making it
> > seem all the more out of place.
> >
> > There is little of interest...characters are flat, the story is trivial and
> > drawn out interminably, the battle scenes are confusing when they arent just
> > dull, and the ending is intolerably artsy fartsy...are we supposed to
> > sympathize with Kagamusha? Does he symbolize something as he runs wildly
> > into the gunfire? Is it an anti-war revelation that three armies are
> > slaughtered in one senseless battle? Oh, how I hate this film!
> >
> > The only saving grace; the occasional breathtaking scenery. Not nearly
> > enough to save this overlong stinker. It would have been better had
> > Kurosawa not gotten the funding for this film. Somewhere along the line the
> > guy just lost it.
> >
> I'll agree with you on that closing comment, Steve, but I don't think he did
> until a few years later.
he never lost it. he grew with his movies--wiser and more childlike. he
ripened into a rather sweet elderly filmmaker.
> I like "Kagemusha" a lot better than you did (and
> not only because it was the movie I took--dragged?-- my long-time love to on
> our very first date way back in '81...), tho it's hardly my favorite
> K-flick.
it's one of his best.
> Nakadai, a great actor but one who is occasionally prone to
> alarming over-emoting if not reined in (see Okamoto's "Sword of Doom" for
> another example), does a fair bit of scenery-chewing here.
he's excellent in the role. also, nakadai was less of an emoter than
other japanese actors, esp. mifune. in kagemusha, he plays an uncouth
ruffian forced to play a great lord. the movie is about the tension
within the self and within the society.
>
> The eponymous role was originally written for Katsu Shintaro, star of the
> long-running Zatoichi series, and a much more burly and rumbustious actor
> than the ever-refined Nakadai. Unfortunately the egomaniacal Katsu clashed
> with "Emperor" Kurosawa on the first day of shooting, the star was fired,
> and the film was hurriedly re-cast with Nakadai in the lead role, seemingly
> made up and directed to look and physically act like Katsu-- a
> miscalculation on the director's part, perhaps. A younger Mifune Toshiro
> might have been ideal for the role, but he was 60 at the time, and in any
> case had sworn never to work with Kurosawa again.
>
katsu would have been more convincing as a ruffian thief but less as a
great lord. nakadai is more convicing as a great lord and less as a
ruffian thief.
anyway, nakadai did a very good job of playing a little man trapped
inside a great man... who actually may not have been as great as he was
made out to be.
> The film itself is deliberately bleak as all hell, signalling Kurosawa's
> final loss of his humanist idealism (the final nail in that coffin is "Ran",
> which you should definitely see if you haven't).But I've always liked
> "Kagemeusha" nonetheless, tho not as much as "Ran" and vertainly not as much
> as K's classic work.
nonsense. the film is not bleak as hell. only the ending is bleak. i
have problems with the kuro's dwelling on the fallen soldiers and
horses. after all, didn't people die like this throughout innumerable
battles? so, why is it suddenly tragic at the end of the movie? was
kurosawa sneaking in a humanist message about the horror of war, how it
ruthlessly destroys good men?
but, in a way, i think the scene works--though not the terrible music.
it works because mankind is about hope. as long as we have hope and a
goal, all our sacrifices seem worthy. why is it that US lost great
many people in civil war and WWII yet we don't look back on those
conflicts as pointless tragedies? because the 'good side' won and peace
was restored. so all those dead soldiers served a great noble cause.
as long as shingen's clan was viable, its losses on the field served a
cause: to defend the domain, to expand its power. but, when the clan
falls apart at the end, everything had been in vain.
in a way, this was kurosawa's comment about WWII. even if japan's
casualties had been doubly greater, had japan won the war it would have
seemed noble, just as the huge russian sacrifices in WWII will be
honored by russians for all eternity. but having lost the war,
everything was really for nothing. the bloodshed and mayhem had been
pointless... just as we remember vietnam as an awful tragedy--though we
lost far fewer men than in WWII or even WWI. not only did we lose
soldiers but we lost the war.
anyway, is the movie bleak as hell? no, only the ending and only
because the takeda clan loses. it's always bleak for the losers,
especially in japan where the sense of loyalty to the group is more
powerful than in most societies. for the takeda men, the final loss is
the end of the world. but, most of the movie is filled with suspense.
alot of things go well. there are moments of humor. enemies are fooled
into thinking shingen is still alive and some battles are won. it
becomes bleak because, like the military leaders of WWII, shingen's son
starts to believe in the myth of shingen. shingen and his men had used
the myth to guard their domain, but they knew what really won battles
and maintained power were caution and meticulous planning. but, the
fool son really comes to believe in the shingen myth. fueled by pride,
he takes his men into battle as though the gods on his side.
anyway, kurosawa was always a humanist. but, he always believed that
man is nothing on his own. in ikiru, a dying man gains meaning thru
doing something for others. in red beard, an ambitious young doctor
sacrifices his pride to work for poor people. dersu uzala finds meaning
by communing with nature and by associating with russian explorers. in
seven samurai, mifune character prefers to join the samurai and die for
a cause than be a lone wanderer. similarly, the thief in kagemusha
finds a higher meaning thru his association with the takeda clan. as
this was a pre-democratic japan, there was no concept of individual
freedom. and while takeda clan seems pretty ruthless and warlike, it's
no worse--or better--than other clans. also, it has its values,
justifications, and loyalties that understandably fascinate and inspire
a man who'd been nothing more than an uncouth thief.
kurosawa doesn't pass moral judgment on anyone in the movie. even
takeda's enemies are not evil nor villainous. they are protectors of
their own domains, doing what they have to do. the only person who
comes close to the villain role is the son of shingen because of brash
stupidity and pride. but, even his grudges carry some validity as he'd
always been humiliated by his father and his father's retainers.
i suppose kurosawa was saying that you could have been good on a little
scale in pre-modern or pre-democratic japan. take the ending of
rashomon or seven samurai where samurai defend a small village. but on
a macro political level, feudal japan was about clan loyalty and war,
not about higher morality or individual sense of right and wrong. and,
kagemusha is a depiction of this world.
still, though there is no humanism as a value system in this world,
kuro's perspective is still humanist. instead of passing easy
judgment, he weighs every character and respects his humanity and his
concept of reality and values.
are kagemusha and ran anti-humanist cuz they're tragic? then what
about 'bad sleep well'? in that movie, good loses out and bad
prevails. anti-humanist? no, it's still humanist. kuro says in all
three movies that despite man's foolishness and evil, we still go on
and must go on and so on and so on. we may lose BIG but we can still
be good in a little way. despite all the corrupt politicians in ikiru,
one can still be a good person. though the shoemaker in high and low
loses his entire business, he starts again from scratch. and despite
the horrors of kagemusha and ran, people can still lead small decent
lives--though these little people are not shown. that was the point of
seven samurai. warriors fade but farmers go on. the dead soldiers of
kagemusha are like dead samurai in seven samurai. in war, one side
loses and another side wins. nothing lasts forever. only ordinary
people last forever.
in seven samurai, the samurai and the brigands lose out. the farmers
win.
in kagemusha, a petty brigand comes to play the role of a samurai lord.
as a brigand he had no roots in society. as a samurai lord, his role
was tightly fixed. he dies at the end, as both and as neither brigand
or samurai. yet, the farmers will go on planting seeds and so on. that
was the point of the final image of 'dreams'.
kurosawa's humanism took on more shadings but he never lost it.
herr blob
the last thing kuro wanted was for the shadow warrior to be a buffoon.
by the way, nakadai had great comic talent and was a far subtler actor
than mifune, and his range astonishing--odd obsession, sword of doom,
human condition, hara kiri, etc.
in kagemusha, he's funny and engaging when he needs to be.
but the point is his role as the great lord is both an honor and a
prison. there's no time for monkey business. he must spend every
moment of the day
playing the role of the lord. he's constantly supervised, tutored,
observed, even spied upon. and, this isn't a game but a matter of life
and death for the clan. the double mustn't fool just the enemy but
everyone within the takeda compound except the few who know the secret.
in order for him not to make a mistake, he must be careful at all
times. he must not only play the lord but internalize the lord in habit
and manners. even his dreamstate is colonized by his social role.
maybe a goofy katsu or emotive mifune would have been more fun, but
kagemusha is not about individual asserting himself but an individual
mummifying himself for the glory of the clan. you needed an actor with
great control and mastery, and nakadai was such an actor.
nakadai's problem really arose with ran, where after the character
loses his mind, kuro gave him absolutely nothing to do.
had mifune or katsu taken the role, the performance would have been
pretty much the same. kuro wouldn't have allowed for anything else.
not because kuro gave up on strong charismatic roles but because
kagemusha didn't call for one.
nakadai's role in kagemusha is comparable to mifune's role in bad sleep
well. both characters are trapped in another world. the difference is
nakadai's character tries his best to fit in while mifune's conformity
is just a ruse.
to an extent, kagemusha may be a comment on kuro's own devotion to
filmmaking. a perfectionist, he left nothing to chance. just as the
double must fit into his role at all times, kuro demanded of himself
and his collaborators to give 100% to the art of filmmaking. kuro was
fascinating cuz his mindset was 1/4 universal humanist, 1/4 westernized
ironist, 1/4 feudal samurai, and 1/4 earthy slavicist. also, a nature
worshipper.
in kagemusha, the thief starts out as folksy russian-like ruffian. he
enters into the rigid world of samurai honor. there are many ironies.
and finally, we realize humanity is much grander than the myths,
facades, and conceits of a single clan, no matter how powerful or
deeply felt its values may be. like the graves being windblown to dust
in seven samurai, the proud takeda flag sinks into the deep vast sea.
humanity is bigger than any clan, and nature is bigger than humanity.
steve
<Notr...@myemailaddress.com> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> I disagree. Kurosawa's best work does indeed show a world made indifferent
>
> and cruel by human aggression and greed, but his protagonists are usually
> those trying to make this world a better place. The protagonists may
> suffer
> or even die for this, but the world is better for what they have done, and
>
> they themselves are saved by it.
>
> Think of Ikiru, Seven Samurai, and Red Beard (the most obvious statement
> of
> this theme).
I absolutely hate two of the three..seven samurai being the
exception...because they so blatently push that theme. And SS shows us some
pretty negative actions by the wonderfully innocent farmers. Though Im not
in total disagreement with you, showing characters striving to make the
world a better place is not the same as closing ones eyes to the harsh
nature of man. And the world is not always better for it...take "Bad Sleep
Well" for example. Evil wins out in the end. The big boss (we never see)
is protected...and that's life.
> Also the end of Rashamon.
I find that ending is somewhat at odds with the film itself. Hope is not
reality.
> In High and Low, Mifune's character
> ruins his career to save the life, not of his son, but of his chauffeur's
> son.
The ironys pile up pretty high in that film. But the protagonist is,
without a doubt, a moral and caring man. Yet it's still a pretty dark world
depicted.
In the end I dont see that Kag is so different.
steve
<cerebur...@hotmail.com> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> > I'll agree with you on that closing comment, Steve, but I don't think he
> > did
> > until a few years later.
>
> he never lost it. he grew with his movies--wiser and more childlike. he
> ripened into a rather sweet elderly filmmaker.
"wiser and more childlike" is a contradiction, Tony. Children have no
wisdom. That's just a foolish, romantic notion.
> he's excellent in the role. also, nakadai was less of an emoter than
> other japanese actors, esp. mifune. in kagemusha, he plays an uncouth
> ruffian forced to play a great lord. the movie is about the tension
> within the self and within the society.
How do you see that? Certainly that's the nature of the plot, but the
character is as deep as a puddle and remains so. This isnt a film about
individuals...not successfully, anyway...but one that deals clumsily with
larger ideas. The main chracter is just a paper cutout propped up and
manipulated. And when he falls over, then suddenly hes this sullen ghost of
a man.
> > The film itself is deliberately bleak as all hell, signalling Kurosawa's
> > final loss of his humanist idealism (the final nail in that coffin is
> > "Ran",
> > which you should definitely see if you haven't).But I've always liked
> > "Kagemeusha" nonetheless, tho not as much as "Ran" and vertainly not as
> > much
> > as K's classic work.
> nonsense. the film is not bleak as hell. only the ending is bleak.
In a way I disagree with both of you. Even the ending isnt bleak, because
it's laughably transparent...and I did have to suppress the laughter. But
neither is the film humanist in any (successful) way.
> but, in a way, i think the scene works--though not the terrible music.
> it works because mankind is about hope
Grow up, Tony.
You know, Tony, because of your past I cant even credit your comments as
sincere...they may be, but how can I tell?
herr blob
steve wrote:
> On 30-Aug-2005, smacked up and reeling, "herr blob"
> <cerebur...@hotmail.com> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
> > > I'll agree with you on that closing comment, Steve, but I don't think he
> > > did
> > > until a few years later.
> >
> > he never lost it. he grew with his movies--wiser and more childlike. he
> > ripened into a rather sweet elderly filmmaker.
>
> "wiser and more childlike" is a contradiction, Tony. Children have no
> wisdom. That's just a foolish, romantic notion.
childlike isn't same as childish. one can be wise, intelligent, and
childlike. yoda is childlike in empire strikes back.
>
> > nonsense. the film is not bleak as hell. only the ending is bleak.
>
> In a way I disagree with both of you. Even the ending isnt bleak, because
> it's laughably transparent...and I did have to suppress the laughter. But
> neither is the film humanist in any (successful) way.
not as laughable as your comments.
>
> > but, in a way, i think the scene works--though not the terrible music.
> > it works because mankind is about hope
>
> Grow up, Tony.
>
> You know, Tony, because of your past I cant even credit your comments as
> sincere...they may be, but how can I tell?
>
first of all, i wasn't even responding to your inane--it doesn't even
qualify as insane--post.
also, no one's forcing you to respond to mine. so ignore my posts and
i'll ignore yours and everyone will be happy.
steve
<cerebur...@hotmail.com> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> > "wiser and more childlike" is a contradiction, Tony. Children have no
> > wisdom. That's just a foolish, romantic notion.
>
> childlike isn't same as childish. one can be wise, intelligent, and
> childlike. yoda is childlike in empire strikes back.
I didnt suppose you meant "childish". What aspect of childlike do you find
compatible with "wisdom"?
"yoda"? Is that a defense? LOL! In the words of Ronald Reagan..."There
you go again."
Maybe you dont do it on purpose....hmmmm...
> > In a way I disagree with both of you. Even the ending isnt bleak,
> > because
> > it's laughably transparent...and I did have to suppress the laughter.
> > But
> > neither is the film humanist in any (successful) way.
>
> not as laughable as your comments.
Seems I struck a nerve. I think, despite your trolling activity, you want
respect for your film observations (as well as your philosophical
ramblings)...and I give you none.
As for the scene in question...Ive been meaning to start a thread on
anti-war sentiment in film (and popular politics)...that I find it generally
content free...Ill get to that soon.
> first of all, i wasn't even responding to your inane--it doesn't even
> qualify as insane--post.
> also, no one's forcing you to respond to mine. so ignore my posts and
> i'll ignore yours and everyone will be happy.
Just letting you know, Tony, the position you've put yourself in over the
years. Now, even if you want to discuss film seriously, you have a big
hurdle to get over.
Funny, too, since youve joined so many of my threads...ostensibly to discuss
film seriously...and then digress into something bizarre. Now you invite me
to stay away. You're entertaining if nothing else, Tony.
herr blob
steve wrote:
> On 30-Aug-2005, smacked up and reeling, "herr blob"
> <cerebur...@hotmail.com> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
> > > "wiser and more childlike" is a contradiction, Tony. Children have no
> > > wisdom. That's just a foolish, romantic notion.
> >
> > childlike isn't same as childish. one can be wise, intelligent, and
> > childlike. yoda is childlike in empire strikes back.
>
> I didnt suppose you meant "childish". What aspect of childlike do you find
> compatible with "wisdom"?
>
> "yoda"? Is that a defense? LOL! In the words of Ronald Reagan..."There
> you go again."
>
take zorba the greek. childlike but full of earthy wisdom.
or, zatoichi. childlike but profoundly compassionate.
>
> > > In a way I disagree with both of you. Even the ending isnt bleak,
> > > because
> > > it's laughably transparent...and I did have to suppress the laughter.
> > > But
> > > neither is the film humanist in any (successful) way.
> >
> > not as laughable as your comments.
>
> Seems I struck a nerve.
like a toothache or hemrrhoids.
> I think, despite your trolling activity, you want
> respect for your film observations (as well as your philosophical
> ramblings)
...and I give you none.
funny but everyone ignores me completely except you... so who's the
moron?
>
> As for the scene in question...Ive been meaning to start a thread on
> anti-war sentiment in film (and popular politics)...that I find it generally
> content free...Ill get to that soon.
>
> > first of all, i wasn't even responding to your inane--it doesn't even
> > qualify as insane--post.
> > also, no one's forcing you to respond to mine. so ignore my posts and
> > i'll ignore yours and everyone will be happy.
>
> Just letting you know, Tony, the position you've put yourself in over the
> years. Now, even if you want to discuss film seriously, you have a big
> hurdle to get over.
my schtick is this. i have crap inside me head--mostly caca--and i dump
it here. this ng is my mental toilet.
i don't see any value in posting in the ngs except as self-therapy.
so if you wanna give me sermons about the color of my poo, go right
ahead.
>
> Funny, too, since youve joined so many of my threads...ostensibly to discuss
> film seriously...and then digress into something bizarre. Now you invite me
> to stay away. You're entertaining if nothing else, Tony.
>
it's like this. your beginning post was just ding dong, and i've come
to the conclusion that you're incorrigibly ding dong. it makes no more
sense trying to fill your head with sense than trying to fill a
bottomless bucket with water.
so, i just let you be.
but, i still believe other foolish folks in this ng have some--though
not much--chance of seeing the light. so i addressed them.
Lincoln Spector
Kurosawa doesn't close his eyes to the harsh nature of man. Far from it. But
his most consistant theme (to my mind, of course, and not in all of his
films but in many of them) is that this very brutishness makes it essential
to commit acts of kindness and generosity.
Bad Sleep Well is, I admit, a stretch here--it's a very dark noir, and
probably his most depressing film before Ran. But (SPOILER WARNING--SKIP TO
END OF PARAGRAPH IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT) what the boss loses at the end is
the love and respect of his children. And it's Mifune's basic decency that
creates that loss.
>
>> Also the end of Rashamon.
>
> I find that ending is somewhat at odds with the film itself. Hope is not
> reality.
Of course it is. Humans can't live without hope.
And the ending isn't all sweetness and light. The woodcutter (an imperfect
soul who stole a knife and gave false testimony to cover up his crime) takes
on a heavy responsibility at the end. His life will be more difficult
because of it. But he'd rather have that difficulty than have a baby starve.
People are as capable of great good as great evil (although the great evil
generally hurts more people than the great good helps). And the reminder of
this restores the priest's faith.
>
>> In High and Low, Mifune's character
>> ruins his career to save the life, not of his son, but of his chauffeur's
>> son.
>
> The ironys pile up pretty high in that film. But the protagonist is,
> without a doubt, a moral and caring man. Yet it's still a pretty dark
> world
> depicted.
And it would be a darker world if the protagonist wasn't a moral and caring
man. It's the darkness of Kurosawa's vision that make his heroes' morality
important.
>
> In the end I dont see that Kag is so different.
If there's a moral and caring man in that movie, I missed him. It seems as
if the only morality espoused there is "Be loyal to your feudal lord," which
isn't what I expect from Kurosawa.
Lincoln
j...@netcom.ca
liberal humanist side. If you prefer the nihilistic, despairing side,
of course, that's a different kettle of miso.... mmmmm Yojimbo...
Ran...
John Harkness
steve
<cerebur...@hotmail.com> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> take zorba the greek. childlike but full of earthy wisdom.
> or, zatoichi. childlike but profoundly compassionate.
Any examples from real life? Are you at all familiar with real life?
> funny but everyone ignores me completely except you... so who's the
> moron?
Oh, I agree, there. I'll probably end up regretting this exchange as well.
But it seems like a fun idea at the moment.
> my schtick is this. i have crap inside me head--mostly caca--and i dump
> it here. this ng is my mental toilet.
> i don't see any value in posting in the ngs except as self-therapy.
> so if you wanna give me sermons about the color of my poo, go right
> ahead.
Strange. Brains dont usually need a toilet.
> it's like this. your beginning post was just ding dong, and i've come
> to the conclusion that you're incorrigibly ding dong. it makes no more
> sense trying to fill your head with sense than trying to fill a
> bottomless bucket with water.
> so, i just let you be.
>
> but, i still believe other foolish folks in this ng have some--though
> not much--chance of seeing the light. so i addressed them
Well, tell you what...this could be fun...maybe...I have to run out the door
just now (guitar lesson) but later today, if you're willing, I'll defend my
ding dong comments and you can justify yours...all for the benefit of those
other foolish folks. Are you game? Let me see what you got, mo-fo.
herr blob
steve wrote:
> On 30-Aug-2005, smacked up and reeling, "herr blob"
> <cerebur...@hotmail.com> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
> > take zorba the greek. childlike but full of earthy wisdom.
> > or, zatoichi. childlike but profoundly compassionate.
>
> Any examples from real life? Are you at all familiar with real life?
my nextdoor neighbor billy bob.
>
> > funny but everyone ignores me completely except you... so who's the
> > moron?
>
> Oh, I agree, there. I'll probably end up regretting this exchange as well.
> But it seems like a fun idea at the moment.
still fun, eh?
>
> > my schtick is this. i have crap inside me head--mostly caca--and i dump
> > it here. this ng is my mental toilet.
> > i don't see any value in posting in the ngs except as self-therapy.
> > so if you wanna give me sermons about the color of my poo, go right
> > ahead.
>
> Strange. Brains dont usually need a toilet.
at least i just need one. yours is one.
>
> > it's like this. your beginning post was just ding dong, and i've come
> > to the conclusion that you're incorrigibly ding dong. it makes no more
> > sense trying to fill your head with sense than trying to fill a
> > bottomless bucket with water.
> > so, i just let you be.
> >
> > but, i still believe other foolish folks in this ng have some--though
> > not much--chance of seeing the light. so i addressed them
>
> Well, tell you what...this could be fun...maybe...I have to run out the door
> just now (guitar lesson) but later today, if you're willing, I'll defend my
> ding dong comments and you can justify yours...all for the benefit of those
> other foolish folks. Are you game? Let me see what you got, mo-fo.
>
no, forget it. but, if you want, i'll tell you why you're so screwy
about art.
if you don't wanna know, i won't tell ya. if you want, i'll tell ya.
it's up to you.
David Oberman
>> take zorba the greek. childlike but full of earthy wisdom.
>> or, zatoichi. childlike but profoundly compassionate.
>
>Any examples from real life? Are you at all familiar with real life?
"God is nowhere," said the Atheist. But the child replied, "God is now
here."
>Well, tell you what...this could be fun...maybe...I have to run out the door
>just now (guitar lesson)
Cool! Whatcha gonna play for the teacher?
steve
<dobe...@IGNOREsocal.rr.com> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> >Well, tell you what...this could be fun...maybe...I have to run out the
> >door
> >just now (guitar lesson)
>
> Cool! Whatcha gonna play for the teacher?
"When Sonny Gets Blue" and several Mingus tunes: "Self Portrait in Three
Colors", "Boogey Stop Shuffle", and one amazing tune called "Free Cell Block
F: 'Tis Nazi USA". Mingus was a mutha-fucka, oh yea.
steve
> no, forget it. but, if you want, i'll tell you why you're so screwy
> about art.
> if you don't wanna know, i won't tell ya. if you want, i'll tell ya.
> it's up to you.
Oh, yea, go ahead. Inquiring minds want to know. But first be sure to tell
me what "screwy about art" means.
herr blob
steve wrote:
> On 31-Aug-2005, smacked up and reeling, "herr blob"
> <cerebur...@hotmail.com> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
> > no, forget it. but, if you want, i'll tell you why you're so screwy
> > about art.
> > if you don't wanna know, i won't tell ya. if you want, i'll tell ya.
> > it's up to you.
>
> Oh, yea, go ahead. Inquiring minds want to know. But first be sure to tell
> me what "screwy about art" means.
>
you really wanna know?
you suffer from a temperamental disposition toward art. if you feel
good one day, you like what you see. if you feel bad, you don't like
what you see. there is no rhyme or reason to your concept of good and
bad in art.
it all comes down to how steve feels this day, that day. you're a
prisoner of your feelings. you're truly childish--as opposed to
childlike.
how do i know this? because you like some very excellent complex films
while not having the slightest understanding for other films of equal
caliber.
now, i understand someone who likes grand illusion and bicycle
thieves(both great films) but doesn't care for porkys or old school.
or, i understand someone who prefers porkys and old school over art
films. hey, different strokes for different strokes. but, you're the
kind of person who claims to like grand illusion but sees nothing of
value in vertigo, while, at the same time, praising porky's as a great
work of art but dismissing old school as shit.
now, i'm just using these films as examples as i dont' know what you
think of them.
but, it generally follows that someone with a certain sensibility will
prefer or value certain things over others. i understand star wars
geeks believing the force is the greatest thing in the universe. and i
understand cineastes admiring bergman. they have a more or less
definable criteria of what constitutes art or entertainment.
but, you? you're just bonkers. how can someone who claims to like
children of paradise have zero tolerance for films of similar richness
or complexity?
is it cuz you're complex and sophisticated? no, it's because you're
just nuts.
it's no wonder your favorite musical people are stravinsky and
coltrane. NOT because you really appreciate their art. it's just that
the emotional tumult of their music is in tune with your mental lunacy.
you seem to think everything is a matter of split decisions, chaos,
improvisation, violence... like your tantrum-riddled personality. so
even your artistic sensibility or critical attitude has no grounding
whatsoever.
it's just whatever you feel like at the moment.
also, you mix arrogance with ignorance. when i do such, at the very
least i go into crazy mode so i can plead insanity. but, you claim to
be a paragon of REASON yet i've never come across more irrational
opinions than yours. it's like some crazy drunkard with a bellyfull of
moonshine pretending to philsophize-like about things he aint know
nuttin about.
now, i don't mind you not liking a lot of movies. there are lots of
movies i admire without liking. much of renoir, children of paradise,
some tarkovsky flicks like nostalgia and the mirror. but, at the very
least, i try to understand the artist's intentions--as long as it's
done with intelligence, talent, and honesty. i shut up and try to
listen. i remove the blinders of personal preference and prejudice and
try to see with new eyes.
i ONLY go ballistic when the artist turns out to be a total phony,
poseur, bullshitter, crank, or shithead: greenaway and ackerman, the
worst of the worst.
but, you just get into this cocky, laughing-like-tard,
nose-n-butt-picking, food tossing, chicken chasing, woman's
arse-pinching mode when some degree of respect and effort is called
for.
maybe the problem is you haven't culturally harmonized all the
influences in your life. you have a hillbilly chicken chasing
background. you married a dragon lady. you worship the negro power for
playing that wild funkass music that white man can't and for punching
out my mama. you studied computers when your rustic mentality would
prefer to ride bulls at a rodeo. you know nothing about culture but
made some decent money and heard from urban yuppie people that it's
cool to learn about art and stuff so you've decided to see some foreign
movies and pretend to like them so as to pass yourself as sophisticated
like.... when all you really really wanna do--subconsciously--is listen
to hank williams, marry a big busted blond southern gal, wrestle and
milk cows, drink beer and moonshine, and shoot tin cans with a rifle
there.
instead, you've unnaturally opted for a cross between a nascar redneck
and yuppie bohemian.
you have the curiosity--and the status vanity--of a bohemian to seek
out and watch different stuff--above and beyond of the unwashed masses!
but, your redneck side often pops out and you use the tv like a
mechanical bull: to sit your ass and fart on.
now, when you're feeling good on some day, you just sit back and enjoy
whatever movie that's playing like it's a lasso-a-chicken-contest at a
country fair and fool yourself that, hey, you can really appreciate
art!
what you say is never interesting. but you are is an astounding
specimen of the cultural breakneck hybridization that's going on... a
process so fast and furious that there's no time for the individual to
come to terms and meaningfully integrate the various forces at work.
it's no wonder you also like zhang yimou. his films are about backward
hillbilly china struggling to be modern... or, struggling to be
preserve a sense of self between old and new, east and west. yimou, at
least, has some empathy and humility.
but, because you're so arrogant, dismissive, cocky, and boorish, you'll
never learn to appreciate life, art, and so on.
you're like greystoke the legend of tarzan or the wild child. a true
primitive dropped into the middle of a complex world.
steve
<cerebur...@hotmail.com> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> > Oh, yea, go ahead. Inquiring minds want to know. But first be sure to
Your theory fails on the simple basis of consistency. Were you correct I
should like a film one day and hate it the next. Yet that is not the case.
Further, I show a consistency of sorts that defies your explination...for
example I like Reniors earlier films "Rules...", "Lower Depths", and
(somewhat less) "Grand Illusion", but not his later films (couldnt even
finish "Golden Coach" or "French Can Can"). I love not only "Children of
the Paradise", but also "Droll de Drame" and (especially) "Port of Shadows".
Three good days? I love Bergman films from the late 50s through the late
60s (we watched "Shame" just two nights ago...what a beautiful and complex
film experience that is!) but care not for his work from the 70s...and many
of these preferences are echoed by the regs in this NG. I love evry Ozu
film Ive seen (including the silent "Floating Weeds") except "Good Morning"
which I cant even finish. Im a big fan of John Huston. "Treasure..",
"Heaven Knows...", "Moby Dick", "Asphalt JUngle", "Key Largo", etc. All on
good days...every time I watch them?
And, of course, there is Fritz. Fritz rules. Do I only watch Fritz when Im
in a good mood?
It seems there is some consensus in the NG that "Kag" is a weak effort from
AK. Did my bad mood just come at the right time or do I, in fact, have some
sense of art?
And still further I have never celebrated trash like Porkys. I'll tag on my
recently created list of 50 or so of my favorites, and you can tell me what
trash sits in the group.
> but, you? you're just bonkers. how can someone who claims to like
> children of paradise have zero tolerance for films of similar richness
> or complexity?
> is it cuz you're complex and sophisticated? no, it's because you're
> just nuts.
I went into some detail about what I loved about that film. You could
probably still find it if you google the film title (english, probably) for
this NG. Maybe you should do that.
> you seem to think everything is a matter of split decisions, chaos,
> improvisation, violence... like your tantrum-riddled personality. so
> even your artistic sensibility or critical attitude has no grounding
> whatsoever.
> it's just whatever you feel like at the moment.
I think you miss the consistency in my judgements because it is based on
criteria that we do not share.
> but, you just get into this cocky, laughing-like-tard,
> nose-n-butt-picking, food tossing, chicken chasing, woman's
> arse-pinching mode when some degree of respect and effort is called
> for.
LOL! I knew this would be amuzing. My list follows. Find the trash or get
back to me with an admission that you just plain have it wrong.
steve
Testament of Dr Mabuse
The Blue Angel (1930)
Port of Shadows
* Droll de Drame (comedy)
Amores Perros
Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Asphalt Jungle
Rififi
The Bad Sleep Well
High and Low
Woman in the Dunes
Thrown of Blood
Touch of Evil
The Trial
Winter Light
A Clockwork Orange
Night of the Iguana
Five Easy Pieces
Carnal Knowledge
Pioniere in Ingolstadt (Fassbinder)
La Caza (The Hunt)
Kiss or Kill
Alphaville
My Life to Live
Farewell my Lovely (1975)
Cape Fear (1962)
Saturday Night and Sunday Morning
Of Human Bondage (1934)
Deliverance
Shanghai Triad
Happy Times
Raise the Red Lantern
I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang
The Birds
Notorious
Chinatown
Blood Simple
A Sunday in Hell
El Bruto (1953)
Diary of a Chambermaid (1964)
The Filth and the Fury
Key Largo
Rikyu
To Kill a Mockingbird
They Made Me a Fugitive
The Third Man
Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf
Ulysses
Odd Man Out
Memento
Mulholland Drive
Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, The
Night and the City (1950)
The Offence
Shanghai Express
Top Ten (at the moment)
1. Testament of Dr Mabuse (1933)
2. The Trial
3. Shanghai Express
4. Treasure of the Sierra Madre
5. M
6. Woman in the Dunes
7. Rififi
8. La Caza
9. El Bruto (1953)
10. Port of Shadows
Comedy:
It's a Gift
The Bank Dick
Here comes Cookie
Never Give a Sucker and Even Break
Six of a Kind
Stand-In (1937)
Twentieth Century
The Man Who Came to Dinner
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie
I Was a Male War Bride
Droll de Drame
Going Berserk
Monkey Business
Sullivans Travels
Caddy Shack
David Oberman
>now, when you're feeling good on some day, you just sit back and enjoy
>whatever movie that's playing like it's a lasso-a-chicken-contest at a
>country fair
:O
BWWAHHHAAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAaahahaaa!!!
(sorry steve but it was just funny)
Tony, you should write a personality profile for every reg in the
group!
And how can you write so many paragraphs about steve & not mention a
word about liberterrariumism & the encroaching, tyrannical state
playing a role in a film's worth?
David Oberman
> Three good days? I love Bergman films from the late 50s through the late
>60s (we watched "Shame" just two nights ago...what a beautiful and complex
>film experience that is!)
You should read what Pauline Kael said about it ("A Sign of Life" in
"Going Steady"). She loved it!
" 'Shame' is a masterpiece. ... Sven Nykvist's photography is so
straightforward it's like an unblinking eye on the universe --
realistic photography that achieves an aesthetic effect beyond
realism. ... 'Shame' is an elegy written in advance for a civilization
that seems already lost. ... The terror in 'Shame' is in how
prosaically awful the end can be. ... Bergman uses the sounds of war
percussively -- war becomes a monster beating & waiting. ... Treating
the most dreaded of all subjects, the film makes one feel elated. The
subject is our responses to death, but a work of art is a true sign of
life."
>Comedy:
>Here comes Cookie
This is the damnedest thing I've ever seen. Cookie converts the entire
mansion into a theater -- just by twisted reasoning & a barrage of non
sequiturs. Anyone better at film reading might see disgust with
bourgeois values or despair over the corroding ability of language to
signal shared human concerns -- but if it's there somewhere, that
makes "Cookie" Dada! Anyway, I love "Here Comes Cookie," which would
be as great as "Duck Soup" . . . if it had the Marx Brothers in it.
Your Pal Brian
> Tony, you should write a personality profile for every reg in the
> group!
EGON: That would be bad.
VENKMAN: I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, bad?
EGON: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and
every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
VENKMAN: Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks,
Egon.
Brian
David Oberman
Hehheh. Bien entendu.
bamc...@yahoo.com
> On 30-Aug-2005, smacked up and reeling, "herr blob"
> <cerebur...@hotmail.com> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
> > > "wiser and more childlike" is a contradiction, Tony. Children have no
> > > wisdom. That's just a foolish, romantic notion.
> >
> > childlike isn't same as childish. one can be wise, intelligent, and
> > childlike. yoda is childlike in empire strikes back.
>
> I didnt suppose you meant "childish". What aspect of childlike do you find
> compatible with "wisdom"?
>
> "yoda"? Is that a defense? LOL! In the words of Ronald Reagan..."There
> you go again."
Then why not the poet Ryokan? You caught his drift.
I adore both of you.
Warm regards,
Bryce
steve
<dobe...@IGNOREsocal.rr.com> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> >now, when you're feeling good on some day, you just sit back and enjoy
> >whatever movie that's playing like it's a lasso-a-chicken-contest at a
> >country fair
>
> :O
> BWWAHHHAAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAaahahaaa!!!
>
> (sorry steve but it was just funny)
No need to apologize to me. Im laughing as much as you are, no doubt. Tony
is at his best, it seems, when he rants about yours truly.
> And how can you write so many paragraphs about steve & not mention a
> word about liberterrariumism & the encroaching, tyrannical state
> playing a role in a film's worth?
We've talked about this issue before...the effect of ones world view on ones
perception of art. Three points:
1. Everyone is subject to that. What strikes you as important, truthful,
relevant, insightful...all of those judgments must be informed by a personal
philosophy. And I doubt anyone would dispute that those judgments are a
legitimate part of ones reaction to art. If they arent, then what the fuck
is art all about?
2. Personal philosophy and world view can (and do, in my case) go well
beyond political and moral issues...ones view of the nature of man, for
example.
3. My film evaluations are not dogmatic applications of my political
philosophy. Examination of my cool films list should show that.
Regarding point 1, I think many films are elevated by a primarily liberal
audience because of their world view..."Network", "Dr Strangelove" (not that
it isnt a good film..), "Y Tu Motorcycle Tambien Diaries" etc. The world of
art discussion and academics has long been in the hands of the liberal
elite. If my judgements didnt clash with theirs on a regular basis, Id be
worried. And if you criticize me for allowing my world view to inform my
artistic judgements, you need to start pointing fingers all over the place
if you want to be consistent.
steve
<dobe...@IGNOREsocal.rr.com> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> " 'Shame' is a masterpiece. ... Sven Nykvist's photography is so
> straightforward it's like an unblinking eye on the universe --
> realistic photography that achieves an aesthetic effect beyond
> realism. ... 'Shame' is an elegy written in advance for a civilization
> that seems already lost. ... The terror in 'Shame' is in how
> prosaically awful the end can be. ... Bergman uses the sounds of war
> percussively -- war becomes a monster beating & waiting. ... Treating
> the most dreaded of all subjects, the film makes one feel elated. The
> subject is our responses to death, but a work of art is a true sign of
> life."
Id like to hear your own words on the film. I'll have a lot to say about it
after I watch it again...probably this weekend.
> This is the damnedest thing I've ever seen. Cookie converts the entire
> mansion into a theater -- just by twisted reasoning & a barrage of non
> sequiturs. Anyone better at film reading might see disgust with
> bourgeois values or despair over the corroding ability of language to
> signal shared human concerns --
Uh huh. I like the part where he drums on her head.
Seriously, though, why would anyone read philosophy into this film?
steve
steve
<cerebur...@hotmail.com> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> you really wanna know?
>
> you suffer from a temperamental disposition toward art. if you feel
> good one day, you like what you see. if you feel bad, you don't like
> what you see. there is no rhyme or reason to your concept of good and
> bad in art.
> it all comes down to how steve feels this day, that day. you're a
> prisoner of your feelings. you're truly childish--as opposed to
> childlike.
I want you to know, Tony, that I sent the text of this message to several of
my friends and they're all laughing their asses off. You really have an odd
talent for humor.
herr blob
no, like a baby you develop a fixation on something that gives you
intense pleasure a given moment. but, you fail to realize it has
nothing to do with the movie but with your mood.
for instance, a baby who has just soiled his diapers will cry when
given a lollipop and may permanently associate the lollipop with
discomfort in the buttocks.
but, if the baby's clean at the moment, he might even smile at a bug
and associate the bug with eternal happiness. your likes and dislikes
are entirely about how you feel at a given moment or how the movie
makes you feel justified with your silly world views.
>
>
> Further, I show a consistency of sorts that defies your explination...for
> example I like Reniors earlier films "Rules...", "Lower Depths", and
> (somewhat less) "Grand Illusion", but not his later films (couldnt even
> finish "Golden Coach" or "French Can Can"). I love not only "Children of
> the Paradise", but also "Droll de Drame" and (especially) "Port of Shadows".
> Three good days? I love Bergman films from the late 50s through the late
> 60s (we watched "Shame" just two nights ago...what a beautiful and complex
> film experience that is!) but care not for his work from the 70s...and many
> of these preferences are echoed by the regs in this NG. I love evry Ozu
> film Ive seen (including the silent "Floating Weeds") except "Good Morning"
> which I cant even finish. Im a big fan of John Huston. "Treasure..",
> "Heaven Knows...", "Moby Dick", "Asphalt JUngle", "Key Largo", etc. All on
> good days...every time I watch them?
you must have a good supply of diapers, then. just don't run out so we
won't have to play the role of their changing your dampened moods.
but, it's not just about consistency. it's about your sensibility in
general.
it's one thing to consider an important movie and declare it's not to
your taste. but, you cackle and guffaw like some cracker ruffian,
sneering and snorting, belching and nosepicking. it's one thing to not
to care for kagemusha, films of fellini, bicycle thieves, or diary of a
country priest. the problem is you go into moonshine-intoxicated god
mode, like you're something special, like you have the right to pass
flippant and hostile judgment on artists much greater than your
fleabitten self or on film characters much more complex and
interesting--despite their fictional status--than your realass self.
you are howard dork.
there are many here with whom i disagree. but, they have some internal
brakes, a modicum of respect and reflectiveness. but not you. you act
like a crazy alcoholic or a cheap twobit james bond villain with the
fiendish laughter.
now, some artists deserve all the derision in the world. but, i just
fail to understand what in bicycle thieves, kagemusha, films of
fellini, or diary of a country priest would get anyone so fired up in
such a nasty contemptuous manner.
and you can make all the lists you want. i think you like movies if
your mood/mental diaper is clean that day or if it supports--in your
delusional mind--your brand of libertarianism.
why do you like amores perros? cuz it agrees--or so you think--with
your worldview that men are shit and so libertarians are right to say
'i got mine so fuc* you'.
why do you like children of paradise? after being ridiculed by
everyone as a boob, you've pretended to like an art movie that even
most cineastes don't really care for. oh, how precious! once that's
accomplished, back to bad habits. so, loony views--totally lacking in
empathy, curiosity, fascination--on bresson, kurosawa, fellini, etc.
>
> And, of course, there is Fritz. Fritz rules. Do I only watch Fritz when Im
> in a good mood?
keep watching his movies and you'll come across a 'bad' one on a bad
day. i guarantee.
at any rate, i think you like lang cuz his worldview is dark and that
makes you feel good. why? cuz it justifies your libertarian view that
mankind is shit and you gotta get what you can get and screw everything
else. so, lang movis are libertarian pep rallies for you.
most people feel bad when they lose faith in man. you feel bad when you
gain some trust in man. so you come home all pissed. gee, if not
everyone's an arsehole, maybe my libertarian view is wrong. then you
watch a lang movie and boy oh boy, you can slap your thigh again and
holler at the moon and look out the window and give everyone the middle
finger and say 'i got mine so fuc* you, arseholes. and don't try to
mabuse me cuz i can mabuse your kaboose before you can abuse my
mabuse'.
>
> It seems there is some consensus in the NG that "Kag" is a weak effort from
> AK. Did my bad mood just come at the right time or do I, in fact, have some
> sense of art?
i disagree with them folks. but, the point is not what we think or say
but how we think and how we say it. it's one thing to consider
kagemusha and give an honest opinion. but, you act like some boor
tossing empty beer cans, guffaw like a mutant laboratory babboon, and
make sweeping obnoxious statements.
unless you're some pathological psycho, i just don't see how anyone
could get so negatively worked up over kagemusha.
personally, i think alot of people have problems with it because
kurosawa concentrates as much on the system and social structure as
characters and individuality(personally, i found this fascinating, no
less than in mizoguchi's 47 ronin or kobayashi's hara kiri). also, the
film may be deemed culturally enclosed instead of reaching out to
western or universal sensibilities--though i think the film errs in
having too much of that.
at any rate, i just don't understand your dismissive tone and tone of
arrogace and superiority, the general ugliness of your attitude toward
that film and many others.
i can understand getting worked up over the smugness of payne, the
sadism of tarantino, the self-pitying morbidity of solondz, etc, etc.
but, flipping out and huffing and puffing like a big bad wolf over
kagemusha, bicycle thieves, early fellini classics, etc? when an
artist is reasonably honest, dedicated, talented, and intelligent, i
think we should make an honest effort too, to understand and
appreciate. we don't have to like their films. and some major
directors have made movies that are absolute shit--ready to wear by
altman--, almost as an afterthought. but, kagemusha and many other
films that you dismiss so absolutely have so many good things in them
that i don't see any effort on your part. you start watching a movie
and if it doesn't hook you in the first 15 minutes, you go into beavis
and butthead mode and shit on everything in the movie. indeed, a movie
is either totally good or totally bad in your book. nothing in the
middle.
>
> And still further I have never celebrated trash like Porkys. I'll tag on my
> recently created list of 50 or so of my favorites, and you can tell me what
> trash sits in the group.
well, you seem to love benny hill.
>
>
> > but, you? you're just bonkers. how can someone who claims to like
> > children of paradise have zero tolerance for films of similar richness
> > or complexity?
> > is it cuz you're complex and sophisticated? no, it's because you're
> > just nuts.
>
> I went into some detail about what I loved about that film. You could
> probably still find it if you google the film title (english, probably) for
> this NG. Maybe you should do that.
again, mood first, movie second. in fact, you oughta call them moodies.
if you feel good, you find something good. if you bad feel bad or
can't get excited in the first 10 minutes, you find notthing but bad.
>
> > you seem to think everything is a matter of split decisions, chaos,
> > improvisation, violence... like your tantrum-riddled personality. so
> > even your artistic sensibility or critical attitude has no grounding
> > whatsoever.
> > it's just whatever you feel like at the moment.
>
> I think you miss the consistency in my judgements because it is based on
> criteria that we do not share.
what are your criteria? i can't discern any except mood swings and
libertarian values.
it's not a matter of whether you like trash or not. it's just that
your critical tools make no sense. i don't understand how someone who
thinks so highly of bad sleep well can find nothing of value in
kagemusha. i don't understand how someone who thinks highly of ozu
couldn't even sit thru ohayo. i'd understand if you thought kagemusha
or ohayo was respectively lesser kuro or lesser ozu. but, can't even
sit thru them without going into cackling eyerolling saliva drooling
fits?
the point is whether your preference is for trash(and trash can be
great--think of seijun suzuki) or for art cinema, there is no rhyme or
reason to why you like this and hate that. you're schizo. or, your
brain consists of water and your smiles, frowns, and even your posts
are involuntary acts of your muscles, in which case it makes no sense
for me to go on.
and your top ten is the epitome of pointless and contrarian frivolity.
steve
> > Your theory fails on the simple basis of consistency. Were you correct
> > I
> > should like a film one day and hate it the next. Yet that is not the
> > case.
>
> no, like a baby you develop a fixation on something that gives you
> intense pleasure a given moment. but, you fail to realize it has
> nothing to do with the movie but with your mood.
You havent made the case for this, Tony.
> you must have a good supply of diapers, then. just don't run out so we
> won't have to play the role of their changing your dampened moods.
> but, it's not just about consistency. it's about your sensibility in
> general.
So, it appears, you concede that my taste in film does show a pattern of
consistency. An unavoidable conclusion, really, given the evidence.
> it's one thing to consider an important movie and declare it's not to
> your taste. but, you cackle and guffaw like some cracker ruffian,
> sneering and snorting, belching and nosepicking. it's one thing to not
> to care for kagemusha, films of fellini, bicycle thieves, or diary of a
> country priest.
Uh, I liked that film ("..priest"), but had some problems with it. My wife
hated it, BTW. Crazy bitch.
> the problem is you go into moonshine-intoxicated god
> mode, like you're something special, like you have the right to pass
> flippant and hostile judgment on artists much greater than your
> fleabitten self or on film characters much more complex and
> interesting--despite their fictional status--than your realass self.
> you are howard dork.
I have that right, and I dont think for a second that Fellini is
great...much less greater than me. Of course, just by coincidence, I could
have been in a bad mood every time I saw a fellini picture (I believe the
count is 4). Or maybe there's a more credible and likely
explanation....hmmmmmm...nope, cant come up with anything. Baffling,
really.
No, wait...it's coming to me....maybe fellini actually totally and
completely sucks! Ive hit on something here, Tony. That could be it, you
know. Yup, he sucks big donkey dick. Slurps it right up.
> there are many here with whom i disagree. but, they have some internal
> brakes, a modicum of respect and reflectiveness. but not you. you act
> like a crazy alcoholic or a cheap twobit james bond villain with the
> fiendish laughter.
Thank you for that sober reflection, Tony. If only I could maintain a calm
and respectful demeanor like you do.
> now, some artists deserve all the derision in the world. but, i just
> fail to understand what in bicycle thieves, kagemusha, films of
> fellini, or diary of a country priest would get anyone so fired up in
> such a nasty contemptuous manner
Tony, get your facts straight. Yes I trashed Fellini and Kag, but my
reaction to BT was muted and, on balance, I liked County Priest.
> why do you like amores perros? cuz it agrees--or so you think--with
> your worldview that men are shit and so libertarians are right to say
> 'i got mine so fuc* you'.
This is old territory and factually false. That's not my world view, nor my
attitude. It does not matter if people are wonderful or shit. My right to
say "Ive got mine" depends not upon the nature of man, but on the nature of
morality. And that film doesnt say any such thing, IMO. It says (in part)
that we are responsible for the moral choices we make...that morality
matters..that actions have consequences. It's an attack on moral
relativism. And, yes, this comports with my world view and I make no
apology for that.
> why do you like children of paradise? after being ridiculed by
> everyone as a boob, you've pretended to like an art movie that even
> most cineastes don't really care for. oh, how precious! once that's
> accomplished, back to bad habits. so, loony views--totally lacking in
> empathy, curiosity, fascination--on bresson, kurosawa, fellini, etc.
Uh huh. So Im a take no prisoners bomb thrower with unmitigated
arrogance...but I wanted to score points and gain the respect of the group
with CoP... a film that you say isnt even well regarded (I wouldnt know,
frankly)...so I lied? Once again, Tony, your theory fails by any reasonable
measure.
And, may I say yet again (it's been a while) that it's fun kicking your ass
logically. You almost make it too easy.
> keep watching his movies and you'll come across a 'bad' one on a bad
> day. i guarantee.
Oh, Ive come across at least two that I didnt like (hated "The Indian Epic",
luke warm on "Destiny")...but you fail to acknowlege the consistency in my
appreciation of the bulk of his films. Logic, Tony. Go there once in a
while.
> unless you're some pathological psycho, i just don't see how anyone
> could get so negatively worked up over kagemusha.
OK, how about because I abhore empty, anti-war sentiment. Oh, look,
senseless slaughter! All violence, be it unprovoked aggression or defense
against the same, must be wrong. We can see how wrong it is by watching
soldiers bleed and horses kick. Obvious, isnt it?
And it's just as wrong to push an old lady out of the path of an oncoming
bus as it is to push her into the path...or dont you agree with that last
statement?
See what I mean? The artists view of war is usually simplistic and
insulting ("Shame", OTOH is quite different). I hate "Kag" in part, Tony,
because I have the ability to reason and the film asks me to ignore that
ability.
> indeed, a movie
> is either totally good or totally bad in your book. nothing in the
> middle.
Dont be confused by the facts, Tony. I give reviews in the middle ground
quite often. Recall my take on "Dead Reckoning" by any chance?
Again, your ass is kicked.
> > And still further I have never celebrated trash like Porkys. I'll tag
> > on my
> > recently created list of 50 or so of my favorites, and you can tell me
> > what
> > trash sits in the group.
>
>
> well, you seem to love benny hill.
I dont "seem to". I do. And you? You have something against funny jokes
and hot chicks half naked?
> > I think you miss the consistency in my judgements because it is based on
> > criteria that we do not share.
>
> what are your criteria? i can't discern any except mood swings and
> libertarian values.
It's not a check list.
> it's not a matter of whether you like trash or not. it's just that
> your critical tools make no sense. i don't understand how someone who
> thinks so highly of bad sleep well can find nothing of value in
> kagemusha. i don't understand how someone who thinks highly of ozu
> couldn't even sit thru ohayo. i'd understand if you thought kagemusha
> or ohayo was respectively lesser kuro or lesser ozu. but, can't even
> sit thru them without going into cackling eyerolling saliva drooling
> fits?
Maybe I only like the coolest stuff, Tony. Maybe "Good Morning" is a shitty
film. With all the great stuff out there...music and films...why should I
spend a minute watching something I hate? I only watched Kag to the end
because my wife selected it and I didnt want to make her feel bad by walking
away. Otherwise I would have bailed after about 45 minutes and watched
something else, played guitar, or listened to some music.
> and your top ten is the epitome of pointless and contrarian frivolity.
Interesting. So you thing "Treasure.." is pointless? "The Trial"? "M"?
Have you even seen "Testament..."? Ill bet you havent.
Once again, Tony, Im glad you havent dismissed any well regarded films with
arrogance. If only I had your measured tone and reflective wisdom.
Too easy.
So...your ass is kicked again. Doesnt it hurt after a while?
Oh, and you werent funny this time, either.
Sean O'Hara
> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>
>>I, on the other hand, thought that, along with the army marching
>>against the sunset, was one of the best scenes from the first hour
>>of the movie.
>>
> the problem with you is you lack patience,
That's very true. I prefer fast-paced films like Giant and Once Upon
a Time in the West.
> power of cultural empathy, and curiosity. you just want the movie to do everything for you.
>
Too right. From now on I'll stick to Gilliam and Lynch.
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Basically, without me there wouldn’t be biscuits at Kentucky Fried
Chicken. You’re welcome.
-Tom Wilson
herr blob
Sean O'Hara wrote:
> In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful herr blob declared:
> > Sean O'Hara wrote:
> >
> >>I, on the other hand, thought that, along with the army marching
> >>against the sunset, was one of the best scenes from the first hour
> >>of the movie.
> >>
> > the problem with you is you lack patience,
>
> That's very true. I prefer fast-paced films like Giant and Once Upon
> a Time in the West.
you lack patience to understand another culture or probe into alien
mindsets and values.
giant and once upon west are both american mythmaking, familiar to us
all.
>
> > power of cultural empathy, and curiosity. you just want the movie to do everything for you.
> >
>
> Too right. From now on I'll stick to Gilliam and Lynch.
>
gilliam is a prime example of cinema as pigout cake.
i think you like lynch only because it's so underground and kewl.
herr blob
steve wrote:
> On 1-Sep-2005, smacked up and reeling, "herr blob"
> <cerebur...@hotmail.com> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
> > > Your theory fails on the simple basis of consistency. Were you correct
> > > I
> > > should like a film one day and hate it the next. Yet that is not the
> > > case.
> >
> > no, like a baby you develop a fixation on something that gives you
> > intense pleasure a given moment. but, you fail to realize it has
> > nothing to do with the movie but with your mood.
>
> You havent made the case for this, Tony.
but you have again and again. go back to sucking on your thumb.
>
> > you must have a good supply of diapers, then. just don't run out so we
> > won't have to play the role of their changing your dampened moods.
> > but, it's not just about consistency. it's about your sensibility in
> > general.
>
> So, it appears, you concede that my taste in film does show a pattern of
> consistency. An unavoidable conclusion, really, given the evidence.
no consistency. just prejudices, erratic at that. and funny you are,
to say la dolce vita is great but other fellini films suck.
and it kills me how you tell us you like all these slow, difficult art
movies and then you throw impatient fits over other comparable films.
do explain why you think throne is blood is cool but kagemusha isn't?
is it cuz mifune served your fantasies of riding horses and shooting
arrows? i think it just comes down to that. it fun for steve on day
he feel high on who knows what.
>
> > it's one thing to consider an important movie and declare it's not to
> > your taste. but, you cackle and guffaw like some cracker ruffian,
> > sneering and snorting, belching and nosepicking. it's one thing to not
> > to care for kagemusha, films of fellini, bicycle thieves, or diary of a
> > country priest.
>
> Uh, I liked that film ("..priest"), but had some problems with it. My wife
> hated it, BTW.
and your reason is the most ridiculous. cuz the priest was a depressing
weirdo. i mean the movie wouldn't be what it is without the priest
being what he is. what did you expect? an idealized character? the
priest doing the dr. mabuse thing?
>
> > the problem is you go into moonshine-intoxicated god
> > mode, like you're something special, like you have the right to pass
> > flippant and hostile judgment on artists much greater than your
> > fleabitten self or on film characters much more complex and
> > interesting--despite their fictional status--than your realass self.
> > you are howard dork.
>
> I have that right, and I dont think for a second that Fellini is
> great...much less greater than me.
he was great at least up to 8 1/2. and i'd like to see you make a film.
that would make all of us laugh till our bellies burst.
yes, steve the auteur. watch out, ed wood.
> Of course, just by coincidence, I could
> have been in a bad mood every time I saw a fellini picture (I believe the
> count is 4). Or maybe there's a more credible and likely
> explanation....hmmmmmm...nope, cant come up with anything. Baffling,
> really.
listen to what i say. you get into a bad mood sometimes and you
associate it with certain directors. you didn't like fellini and now
you associte fellini with all things bad. your way of thinking is
infantile and tribal.
also, it's about pride. you see something and don't like it and say
something childish in this ng. people point out your ridiculousness
and then it becomes a point of pride with you. you must stubbornly
stand your ground and so your already strong opinions only grow
stronger.
why don't you just chill out and stop barking like a pitbull at the tv
screen. your rabid lunacy never seems to abate.
>
> No, wait...it's coming to me....maybe fellini actually totally and
> completely sucks! Ive hit on something here, Tony. That could be it, you
> know. Yup, he sucks big donkey dick. Slurps it right up.
you see, you prove my point. fellini 'totally and completely sucks'.
this is your chickenstealing eggsucking personality in action. there's
NOTHING good about fellini. he's ALL bad. now, even fellini's most
ardent detractors would never go that far. indeed, no one with any
brains or heart would believe any such thing. but you? either you're
nuts or your pride has gotten the better of you. you can't admit you're
a narrowminded, smallhearted boor.
you think in absolutes. you speak not with reason and moderation but
with hysteria and delirium.
>
> > there are many here with whom i disagree. but, they have some internal
> > brakes, a modicum of respect and reflectiveness. but not you. you act
> > like a crazy alcoholic or a cheap twobit james bond villain with the
> > fiendish laughter.
>
> Thank you for that sober reflection, Tony. If only I could maintain a calm
> and respectful demeanor like you do.
i was talking of others. i can do whatever i want cuz i'm insane.
what's your excuse?
>
> > now, some artists deserve all the derision in the world. but, i just
> > fail to understand what in bicycle thieves, kagemusha, films of
> > fellini, or diary of a country priest would get anyone so fired up in
> > such a nasty contemptuous manner
>
> Tony, get your facts straight. Yes I trashed Fellini and Kag, but my
> reaction to BT was muted and, on balance, I liked County Priest.
your views on bt was the most ridiculous i've ever come across. i mean
totally baked. you didn't like the movie cuz ricci didn't act rational
according to your libertarian philosophy. i mean....
>
> > why do you like amores perros? cuz it agrees--or so you think--with
> > your worldview that men are shit and so libertarians are right to say
> > 'i got mine so fuc* you'.
>
> This is old territory and factually false. That's not my world view, nor my
> attitude. It does not matter if people are wonderful or shit. My right to
> say "Ive got mine" depends not upon the nature of man, but on the nature of
> morality. And that film doesnt say any such thing, IMO. It says (in part)
> that we are responsible for the moral choices we make...that morality
> matters..that actions have consequences. It's an attack on moral
> relativism. And, yes, this comports with my world view and I make no
> apology for that.
since when does morality have a nature? or, are you saying morality
itself is suspect as a concept? besides, don't libertarians base their
moral concepts on their understanding of the nature of man?
>
> > why do you like children of paradise? after being ridiculed by
> > everyone as a boob, you've pretended to like an art movie that even
> > most cineastes don't really care for. oh, how precious! once that's
> > accomplished, back to bad habits. so, loony views--totally lacking in
> > empathy, curiosity, fascination--on bresson, kurosawa, fellini, etc.
>
> Uh huh. So Im a take no prisoners bomb thrower with unmitigated
> arrogance...but I wanted to score points and gain the respect of the group
> with CoP... a film that you say isnt even well regarded (I wouldnt know,
> frankly)...so I lied? Once again, Tony, your theory fails by any reasonable
> measure.
>
> And, may I say yet again (it's been a while) that it's fun kicking your ass
> logically. You almost make it too easy.
hmm, what befuddles me is why you would mistake your mouth as my ass?
you think you're mr. natural but you're just a windup toy conditioned
by everyone else in this ng. just look at the stever pattern. he
watches an art film and says it's shit. people jump on him. he gets
all defensive. then he claims to have seen some really esoteric or
difficult movie and by golly, surprise surprise, he likes it, he likes
it!! so, steve comes here and bashes art cinema. we bash him. then he
comes back and says he likes an art film and we're warm up to him.
feeling secure, he comes back and shits another art film. we bash him.
so he likes another art film and so on and so on.
>
> > unless you're some pathological psycho, i just don't see how anyone
> > could get so negatively worked up over kagemusha.
>
> OK, how about because I abhore empty, anti-war sentiment. Oh, look,
> senseless slaughter! All violence, be it unprovoked aggression or defense
> against the same, must be wrong. We can see how wrong it is by watching
> soldiers bleed and horses kick. Obvious, isnt it?
you completely missed the point of the movie. kagemusha is NOT
anti-war. if you paid any attention, you'd have known this.
>
> And it's just as wrong to push an old lady out of the path of an oncoming
> bus as it is to push her into the path...or dont you agree with that last
> statement?
is this where benny hill meets ayn rand?
>
> See what I mean? The artists view of war is usually simplistic and
> insulting ("Shame", OTOH is quite different). I hate "Kag" in part, Tony,
> because I have the ability to reason and the film asks me to ignore that
> ability.
kagemusha isn't anti-war. if you think it is, you can't see nor think.
>
> > indeed, a movie
> > is either totally good or totally bad in your book. nothing in the
> > middle.
>
> Dont be confused by the facts, Tony. I give reviews in the middle ground
> quite often. Recall my take on "Dead Reckoning" by any chance?
>
> Again, your ass is kicked.
actually, dead reckoning is a perfect description of your brain
functions.
at any rate, your views are often very extreme and rabid.
also, you have a funny definition of asskicking.
maybe in the world of computer geeks, a mere refutation or denial
qualifies as asskicking.
woah, did i just kick your ass!! woo hoo, i'm badass now.
>
> > > And still further I have never celebrated trash like Porkys. I'll tag
> > > on my
> > > recently created list of 50 or so of my favorites, and you can tell me
> > > what
> > > trash sits in the group.
> >
> >
> > well, you seem to love benny hill.
>
> I dont "seem to". I do. And you? You have something against funny jokes
> and hot chicks half naked?
nothing wrong with benny hill. i like him too. but when you watch
serious stuff, you have to shift gears. you can't watch a film as rich
as la strada or kagemusha like beavis n butthead, snorting and
guffawing and giggling and cackling and picking your teeth and running
back and forth from the kitchen for yummies and etc. why don't you
just play videogames instead.
>
> > > I think you miss the consistency in my judgements because it is based on
> > > criteria that we do not share.
> >
> > what are your criteria? i can't discern any except mood swings and
> > libertarian values.
>
> It's not a check list.
it's like list of mental symptoms.
>
> > it's not a matter of whether you like trash or not. it's just that
> > your critical tools make no sense. i don't understand how someone who
> > thinks so highly of bad sleep well can find nothing of value in
> > kagemusha. i don't understand how someone who thinks highly of ozu
> > couldn't even sit thru ohayo. i'd understand if you thought kagemusha
> > or ohayo was respectively lesser kuro or lesser ozu. but, can't even
> > sit thru them without going into cackling eyerolling saliva drooling
> > fits?
>
> Maybe I only like the coolest stuff, Tony. Maybe "Good Morning" is a shitty
> film. With all the great stuff out there...music and films...why should I
> spend a minute watching something I hate? I only watched Kag to the end
> because my wife selected it and I didnt want to make her feel bad by walking
> away. Otherwise I would have bailed after about 45 minutes and watched
> something else, played guitar, or listened to some music.
attention deficit disorder. and i still don't understand how someone
thinks everything ozu did is 'cool' but somehow ohayo is shitty.
ohayo is such a typical ozu movie that if it sucks, then everyone ozu
did must suck too.
if someone gave you ten identical dishes of ice creams, you'd say 9 are
great but one is really shitty. why? cuz you're nuts.
>
> > and your top ten is the epitome of pointless and contrarian frivolity.
>
> Interesting. So you thing "Treasure.." is pointless? "The Trial"? "M"?
> Have you even seen "Testament..."? Ill bet you havent.
no, your list is pointless because you make them in bad faith.
also, lists and lists, who cares? what i know is there's a long list
of estimable movies that you've dismissed callously as total shit.
ANYONE can come up with a list of good movies he or she likes.
even the nutcase grand inquisitor liked some good movies.
the point is you don't have the temperament, sensibility, patience,
curiosity, a degree of humility to properly appreciate cinema. it's
mostly what makes steve feel good right there and then. it's the ralph
kramden schtick.
you're so full of yourself that when something doesn't perk you up
right away, you blame it and never yourself.
>
> Once again, Tony, Im glad you havent dismissed any well regarded films with
> arrogance. If only I had your measured tone and reflective wisdom.
i only dismiss total shit and never with arrogance. my taste in movies
is that of god himself.
>
> Too easy.
>
> So...your ass is kicked again. Doesnt it hurt after a while?
oh you computer geeks. okay, i'll make you happy and stoke your geek
machismo. oy, oy, it hurts, it hurts.
>
> Oh, and you werent funny this time, either.
and, you're a riot again, though unintentionally.
why don't you make some movies. you can remake bicycle thieves as ricci
the objectivist. or diary of a capitalist priest. we need some decent
comedies.
and please don't kick my ass again via the modem, you masterful big guy
you.
i'm sooooo terrified.
David Oberman
>you see, you prove my point. fellini 'totally and completely sucks'.
>this is your chickenstealing eggsucking personality in action. there's
>NOTHING good about fellini. he's ALL bad. now, even fellini's most
>ardent detractors would never go that far.
Heck, even Simon loved "I Vittelloni" & "The White Sheik"!
herr blob
i wouldn't include simon in the fellini detractor camp. he hated the
later fellini films but admired fellini up to la dolce vita.
real fellini detractors are people like dave kehr and david thompson
the lowlife punk.
steve
On 1-Sep-2005, smacked up and reeling, "herr blob"
<cerebur...@hotmail.com> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> >
> > You havent made the case for this, Tony.
>
> but you have again and again. go back to sucking on your thumb.
Well, "good morning", tony. Another round, is it?
> > So, it appears, you concede that my taste in film does show a pattern of
> > consistency. An unavoidable conclusion, really, given the evidence.
>
>
> no consistency. just prejudices, erratic at that. and funny you are,
> to say la dolce vita is great but other fellini films suck.
Once I saw the whole film I hated it. The 45 minutes or so I saw the first
time included some very stunning visual scenes... one with Anita Big Ass
Eckberg wading in the fountain. I was taken by the images. Once I saw the
entire film I hated it.
Here's something you dont get, Tony. I despise aspects of the typical
artistic sensibility..a tendency towards confusion rather than clarity, a
logical disconnect whenever violence is a factor, a refusal to see mans
baser self as a controlling factor, romantic idealism...when films betray
that sensibility I recoil. You see a film like "Children of the Paradise"
and probably take it as romantic idealism and wonder how I can love it so.
But I dont see it that way. The language is lofty but the message is
earthy. The "romance" (as I pointed out in my comments months back) is
delivered with irony and double meaning. In other words, subtleties and
details matter.
> > Uh, I liked that film ("..priest"), but had some problems with it. My
> > wife
> > hated it, BTW.
>
> and your reason is the most ridiculous. cuz the priest was a depressing
> weirdo. i mean the movie wouldn't be what it is without the priest
> being what he is. what did you expect? an idealized character? the
> priest doing the dr. mabuse thing?
You could take my comments that way if it's your desire to see me as a
baffoon, but that's not the content of my criticism. See if you can follow:
If you want to portray some aspect of the human condition, the characters
must be substantially human. The Priest obviously acted as if he had a
personality disorder, hence I cant see the relationship between him and
humanity as a whole. Because subtleties matter, I spent a good portion of
the film trying to reconcile his personality with the story itself. That's
a distraction, and, in my mind, a weakness. The strength of the film, IMO,
was in the astouding beauty and (especially) the incredible scene where the
schoolgirl uses Christs words to offer herself to the priest. Fuckin'
amazing.
Now, you may disagree with that assessment, but I cant understand why you
would dismiss it as loony. And, in fact, in order to dismiss it as such,
youve simplified it to the point of stripping its core meaning. So, in
fact, what you reject as loony is just a product of your own lunacy.
> > I have that right, and I dont think for a second that Fellini is
> > great...much less greater than me.
>
> he was great at least up to 8 1/2. and i'd like to see you make a film.
> that would make all of us laugh till our bellies burst.
> yes, steve the auteur. watch out, ed wood.
My canvas is staff paper. I write music...cool music. You wouldnt dig
it...square.
> why don't you just chill out and stop barking like a pitbull at the tv
> screen. your rabid lunacy never seems to abate.
LOL! "Rabid lunacy"...now who fits that description in this NG? Hmmmm....
> you see, you prove my point. fellini 'totally and completely sucks'.
Dont you know when your being toyed with? Get a fucking clue (I gave you
several).
> i was talking of others. i can do whatever i want cuz i'm insane.
> what's your excuse?
Um...because you're insane?
> your views on bt was the most ridiculous i've ever come across. i mean
> totally baked. you didn't like the movie cuz ricci didn't act rational
> according to your libertarian philosophy. i mean....
Once again, you misunderstand and ascribe the most insulting interpretation
of my criticism. I felt his dilemma was false..or at least his attempted
solution was nearly pointless and less effective than several other
options... and that not only robs the film of it's core, but it also makes
me question the artists intention. I will admit, however, that you did help
me to appreciate the scene where he goes after the crook with the cop in
tow. Often tribalism, because Im not the least bit tribal, escapes me as it
did in that scene.
And, no, I dont expect any character to act as a libertarian. But you
prefer to paint me with that simplistic brush, so you will continue to make
that claim.
> > This is old territory and factually false. That's not my world view,
> > nor my
> > attitude. It does not matter if people are wonderful or shit. My right
> > to
> > say "Ive got mine" depends not upon the nature of man, but on the nature
> > of
> > morality. And that film doesnt say any such thing, IMO. It says (in
> > part)
> > that we are responsible for the moral choices we make...that morality
> > matters..that actions have consequences. It's an attack on moral
> > relativism. And, yes, this comports with my world view and I make no
> > apology for that.
> since when does morality have a nature? or, are you saying morality
> itself is suspect as a concept? besides, don't libertarians base their
> moral concepts on their understanding of the nature of man?
Weve discussed my philosophy ad nauseam. Ive taken you through the steps
from which I derive the ownership of the self, and all else follows. It
does not depend upon man being noble nor does it fail if man is a scoundrel.
Others derive thier "libertarian" philosophy from various sources,
including "natural law", a concept I call bullshit. Your problem,
seemingly, is that your own feelings would not allow you to embrace
individualism unless you believe man is a scoundrel. I do not share your
seemingly weak and insecure self definition.
> you think you're mr. natural but you're just a windup toy conditioned
> by everyone else in this ng. just look at the stever pattern. he
> watches an art film and says it's shit. people jump on him. he gets
> all defensive. then he claims to have seen some really esoteric or
> difficult movie and by golly, surprise surprise, he likes it, he likes
> it!! so, steve comes here and bashes art cinema. we bash him. then he
> comes back and says he likes an art film and we're warm up to him.
> feeling secure, he comes back and shits another art film. we bash him.
> so he likes another art film and so on and so on
Well, lets examine the evidence further. If you recall, I rented the first
half alone, loved it (or claimed to, under your theory), then rented part
two the next netflix cycle. Had it been my intention to falsely claim
enjoyment, why wouldnt I have rented both parts at once? Fact is, when Dr
Watson claimed it was "romance" I nearly knocked out of my queue altogether
and rented just the one in anticipation of quite possibly hating it. Now
either I anticipated this discussion and cleverly rented the film one bit at
a time in order to lay the foundation for this claim, or...gee, maybe I
loved the film after all. You have a choice between simple truth and
elaborate lie...and you choose elaborate lie. And, once again, it seems to
be based on the presumption of personal insecurity. Perhaps youve noticed
that Im not you. No, I guess you havent.
And, once again...ass kicked.
> you completely missed the point of the movie. kagemusha is NOT
> anti-war. if you paid any attention, you'd have known this.
So tell me what the focus on dead soldiers and writhing horses is intended
to convey. And, I might add, that intention and successful execution are
two different things.
> > And it's just as wrong to push an old lady out of the path of an
> > oncoming
> > bus as it is to push her into the path...or dont you agree with that
> > last
> > statement?
>
> is this where benny hill meets ayn rand?
Yea, and he fucked her, too...in the ass.
> at any rate, your views are often very extreme and rabid.
> also, you have a funny definition of asskicking.
> maybe in the world of computer geeks, a mere refutation or denial
> qualifies as asskicking.
I presented evidence against your theory..repeatedly. That is the ass
kicking Im talking about. All of your evidence is based upon your
presumptions about my personality and purposeful misreading on my comments.
> > I dont "seem to". I do. And you? You have something against funny
> > jokes
> > and hot chicks half naked?
>
> nothing wrong with benny hill. i like him too. but when you watch
> serious stuff, you have to shift gears. you can't watch a film as rich
> as la strada or kagemusha like beavis n butthead, snorting and
> guffawing and giggling and cackling and picking your teeth and running
> back and forth from the kitchen for yummies and etc. why don't you
> just play videogames instead.
My brain is always on the job, Tony, even watching Benny.
> attention deficit disorder. and i still don't understand how someone
> thinks everything ozu did is 'cool' but somehow ohayo is shitty.
> ohayo is such a typical ozu movie that if it sucks, then everyone ozu
> did must suck too.
Let me tell you briefly one aspect of what I love about Ozu. The
compositions, placement of the people in the frame and relative to one
another, are serene and sometimes subtly comical. I didnt see any of that
in "Good Morning"...but that's just the start, so dont take that as the
totality of my perceptions.
> > > and your top ten is the epitome of pointless and contrarian frivolity.
> >
> > Interesting. So you thing "Treasure.." is pointless? "The Trial"?
> > "M"?
> > Have you even seen "Testament..."? Ill bet you havent.
>
> no, your list is pointless because you make them in bad faith.
Presumption, once again. Im not you, Tony. Thankfully, only *you* are you.
> also, lists and lists, who cares? what i know is there's a long list
> of estimable movies that you've dismissed callously as total shit.
> ANYONE can come up with a list of good movies he or she likes.
Such undisciplined thinking on your part. You claim that I extol the
virtues of trash like Porkys, I present evidence to the contrary (a list I
posted here long before this discussion..of course, it could have been a
calculated deception in anticipation of this discussion), and suddenly it
does not matter if I did or did not celebrate trash. You set em up, I knock
em down...and then you set em up diferently. Do me a favor...show me one
trash film that Ive celebrated over the years (and "so bad it's good" doesnt
count for obvious reasons). Lets see some real evidence to back up your
bullshit. You've got nuthin, Tony, except your own insecurity projected
onto me.
David Oberman
>> Heck, even Simon loved "I Vittelloni" & "The White Sheik"!
>
>i wouldn't include simon in the fellini detractor camp. he hated the
>later fellini films but admired fellini up to la dolce vita.
Okay, so he liked five Fellini films: White Sheik, Cabiria, Bidone,
Strada & Vittelloni. He probably considers Fellini an artist with a
very brief period of actual artistry.
>real fellini detractors are people like dave kehr and david thompson
>the lowlife punk.
I never did get around to buying the big Thompson dictionary, but I
know he's always been a bit contrarian.
herr blob
i'm gonna kick his ass for his dumdumb statements about kurosawa. the
bloke is soooo bloody arrogant.
herr blob
steve wrote:
> On 1-Sep-2005, smacked up and reeling, "herr blob"
> <cerebur...@hotmail.com> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
> > >
> > > You havent made the case for this, Tony.
> >
> > but you have again and again. go back to sucking on your thumb.
>
> Well, "good morning", tony. Another round, is it?
oy, massuh steve, please don't kick my arse.
here, you can have the silver but don't kiiiiiiill me.
>
> > > So, it appears, you concede that my taste in film does show a pattern of
> > > consistency. An unavoidable conclusion, really, given the evidence.
> >
> >
> > no consistency. just prejudices, erratic at that. and funny you are,
> > to say la dolce vita is great but other fellini films suck.
>
> Once I saw the whole film I hated it. The 45 minutes or so I saw the first
> time included some very stunning visual scenes... one with Anita Big Ass
> Eckberg wading in the fountain. I was taken by the images. Once I saw the
> entire film I hated it.
so you can only stand 45 minutes of great images while 3 hrs of great
images are bad?
>
> Here's something you dont get, Tony. I despise aspects of the typical
> artistic sensibility..a tendency towards confusion rather than clarity, a
> logical disconnect whenever violence is a factor, a refusal to see mans
> baser self as a controlling factor, romantic idealism...when films betray
> that sensibility I recoil. You see a film like "Children of the Paradise"
> and probably take it as romantic idealism and wonder how I can love it so.
> But I dont see it that way. The language is lofty but the message is
> earthy. The "romance" (as I pointed out in my comments months back) is
> delivered with irony and double meaning. In other words, subtleties and
> details matter.
why don't you just stick to WWF or ultimate fighting? simple logic
there. man are base and they like to bash eachother for money and fame.
happy?
you've only proven my point. your understanding of humanity is limited
and you have no power of empathy.
i have my likes and dislikes too. for instance, i don't care for the
cultural values of ozu films. but, i understand there are people who
set their behavioral clocks to those values. i empathize.
i hate communists but when i see 'land and freedom', i'm moved by the
idealism--no matter how deluded--of those leftwing crusaders.
as long as it's conveyed with intelligence, honesty, and talent, i say
all films are worth a look and deserving of our empathy.
also, children of paradise is MORE than earthy or romantic. it's BOTH.
do you ever realize that great works of art tend to be multifaceted and
multilayered. but, you like children of paradise ONLY because you've
spotted its earthy logic, whatever such may be. a potted brain?
i have nothing against earthiness. indeed, i prefer earthiness over all
else, which is perhaps my top two are seven samurai and siberiade. and,
i'm all for logic. but, there's more to humanity than logic. there is
a thing called personality, emotions, memory, passions, etc. good or
bad, they make us human--hopeful, grand, tragic, foolish. yet, you
seem to think you understand mankind perfectly. you seem to think
everyone is as simpleminded and simplehearted as yourself. never mind
that even you are not as simple as you think you are. you're a bundle
of illogical contradictions, extreme and erratic passions, etc.
indeed, if you're so logical, why can't you be coolheaded about people
and art? why not just acknowledge that some people are benighted and
don't see what you see, and let it go at that? instead, you throw
fits, pull on your hair, roll your eyes, snort and guffaw and groan and
moan and hiss and piss and get all insecure and post these lists of
yours that's supposed to demonstrate what an openminded and superduper
intellect you is.
admit it, stever. you're very insecure. you're very infantile. you want
our approval. you're also machismo oriented and get a kick out of being
plain contrarian here and play the bad boy.
it's all about baby emotions.
ask yourself why a man of your reason and logic would get WORKED UP
over stuff you disdain? doesn't a cool logical person just yawn and
walk away? but, you throw tantrums. you go into ralph kramden mode.
>
> > > Uh, I liked that film ("..priest"), but had some problems with it. My
> > > wife
> > > hated it, BTW.
> >
> > and your reason is the most ridiculous. cuz the priest was a depressing
> > weirdo. i mean the movie wouldn't be what it is without the priest
> > being what he is. what did you expect? an idealized character? the
> > priest doing the dr. mabuse thing?
>
> You could take my comments that way if it's your desire to see me as a
> baffoon, but that's not the content of my criticism. See if you can follow:
> If you want to portray some aspect of the human condition, the characters
> must be substantially human. The Priest obviously acted as if he had a
> personality disorder, hence I cant see the relationship between him and
> humanity as a whole.
what? you don't care for individuals? you want characters to stand for
HUMANITY? you want generic characters or broad categories?
fictional characters--and art in general--are interesting because of
the tension between individuality and universality. no one is a
complete island and no one is completely universal. we navigate
between those two extremes. but, like so many political types, you
see movies only in a generic way.
the great thing about bresson was he muted the obvious exterior
uniqueness--the quirks ala jack nicholoson--of his characters in order
to reveal internal uniqueness, one that belonged to the individual
alone but also found unity with other men and with higher spirits thru
a channel and on a level unknown to our rational senses--which would
include cocksure religious dogma.
and what do you mean by 'substantially human'? who decides?
so if i meet someone like the priest in real life--and there are
plenty--i should say, 'dude, try to be more substantially human'?
> Because subtleties matter, I spent a good portion of
> the film trying to reconcile his personality with the story itself. That's
> a distraction, and, in my mind, a weakness. The strength of the film, IMO,
> was in the astouding beauty and (especially) the incredible scene where the
> schoolgirl uses Christs words to offer herself to the priest. Fuckin'
> amazing.
oh, mr. subtlety steve didn't like the priest because he wasn't mr.
cardboard humanity. do you even know the meaning of subtlety?
also, your views are nuts because the priest's 'personal disorder' is
central to the story. he's a pained, awkward, and tormented character.
he's equally a saint and a socially inept boob, and maybe there is a
connection between the two. indeed, how many well-adjusted people
become saints?
also, the imagery of the film is powerful mainly because it conveys the
priest's inner condition. it's a vision of the world as severe,
unforgiving, desolate, but also beautiful, devout, and holy.
>
> Now, you may disagree with that assessment, but I cant understand why you
> would dismiss it as loony. And, in fact, in order to dismiss it as such,
> youve simplified it to the point of stripping its core meaning. So, in
> fact, what you reject as loony is just a product of your own lunacy.
it is looney. you simply don't seem able to match the character with
the imagery which is crucial in the movie. it's like someone wondering
what a piece of ham is doing between two slices of bread.
>
> > > I have that right, and I dont think for a second that Fellini is
> > > great...much less greater than me.
> >
> > he was great at least up to 8 1/2. and i'd like to see you make a film.
> > that would make all of us laugh till our bellies burst.
> > yes, steve the auteur. watch out, ed wood.
>
> My canvas is staff paper. I write music...cool music. You wouldnt dig
> it...square.
the musical world is saturated with third rate jazz. if you wanna add
to the buzz, go ahead.
>
> > why don't you just chill out and stop barking like a pitbull at the tv
> > screen. your rabid lunacy never seems to abate.
>
> LOL! "Rabid lunacy"...now who fits that description in this NG? Hmmmm....
you.
>
> > you see, you prove my point. fellini 'totally and completely sucks'.
>
> Dont you know when your being toyed with? Get a fucking clue (I gave you
> several).
>
ooooooh, so you've been toying with us. slick steve is quite a jazzman
in the ngs, yessuh. he's been toyin wid me. he's not all that extreme
or hateful or rabid. he just blowing hot and cold just to liven up the
joint. dang!
>
> > i was talking of others. i can do whatever i want cuz i'm insane.
> > what's your excuse?
>
> Um...because you're insane?
okay, if i jump off a cliff, you follow.
>
>
> > your views on bt was the most ridiculous i've ever come across. i mean
> > totally baked. you didn't like the movie cuz ricci didn't act rational
> > according to your libertarian philosophy. i mean....
>
> Once again, you misunderstand and ascribe the most insulting interpretation
> of my criticism. I felt his dilemma was false..
yeah, you'd make a great police officer.
'officer, someone just stole my car'.
'sorry mister, but your dilemma is false.'
>or at least his attempted
> solution was nearly pointless and less effective than several other
> options...
maybe. but you just don't get it. desica wasn't telling us that if a
crook steals our bike, we should search for it all day and at the end
of it try to steal someone else's. instead, he was telling a very
plausible story of a proud stubborn man driven to desperation.
also, it's postwar italy where 1000s of desperate people are vying for
the lowest of jobs. maybe all these dumb greaseballs could do things
better. i dunno. but, why would anyone see bicycle thieves as an
instruction book on how to react in case of victimization by a criminal
or how to get rich in a postwar economy?
if it was a documentary educational movie, you'd have a point. but,
movies are about people, and people aren't usually all that rational.
after all, isn't it more rational for you to be doing something more
productive than posting stuff in this ng? heaven knows i got better
things to do(or maybe i don't). but, that's life. people are often
stupid and crazy.
even if ricci is stupid and moronic--which he isn't--the film
intelligently dramatizes his stupidity. at any rate, ricci is not meant
as an ideal. he's both a flawed and wronged character who learns a
thing or two about life.
> and that not only robs the film of it's core, but it also makes
> me question the artists intention. I will admit, however, that you did help
> me to appreciate the scene where he goes after the crook with the cop in
> tow. Often tribalism, because Im not the least bit tribal, escapes me as it
> did in that scene.
so you're saying because you aint such, you don't see it in others.
see, you have zero power of empathy.
look, most of us are not islamic loonies. but, if we were to see a
movie about islamic loonies, we must try to understand things from
their point of view. understanding doesn't mean agreeing or condoning.
also, you ARE tribal. you belong to the tribe of
white-males-who-got-theirs-and-tell-everyone-else-to-fuc*-off-while-pretending-to-be-logically-infallible.
your anti-tribalism is only a conceit, just as communist
anti-religiosity was also bogus. communism was a secular religion.
and you're a tribal libertarian yuppie. it's all about economic
identity with you.
>
> And, no, I dont expect any character to act as a libertarian. But you
> prefer to paint me with that simplistic brush, so you will continue to make
> that claim.
you don't expect it but you want it, you want it.
>
> > > This is old territory and factually false. That's not my world view,
> > > nor my
> > > attitude. It does not matter if people are wonderful or shit. My right
> > > to
> > > say "Ive got mine" depends not upon the nature of man, but on the nature
> > > of
> > > morality. And that film doesnt say any such thing, IMO. It says (in
> > > part)
> > > that we are responsible for the moral choices we make...that morality
> > > matters..that actions have consequences. It's an attack on moral
> > > relativism. And, yes, this comports with my world view and I make no
> > > apology for that.
>
>
> > since when does morality have a nature? or, are you saying morality
> > itself is suspect as a concept? besides, don't libertarians base their
> > moral concepts on their understanding of the nature of man?
>
> Weve discussed my philosophy ad nauseam. Ive taken you through the steps
> from which I derive the ownership of the self, and all else follows. It
> does not depend upon man being noble nor does it fail if man is a scoundrel.
> Others derive thier "libertarian" philosophy from various sources,
> including "natural law", a concept I call bullshit. Your problem,
> seemingly, is that your own feelings would not allow you to embrace
> individualism unless you believe man is a scoundrel. I do not share your
> seemingly weak and insecure self definition.
i don't care what you believe in. but, whatever it is, you should check
it in at the door when you see movies, etc.
now, no one can possibly void himself of all political or ideological
values. we wouldn't be human. but, we should try to understand that
different people have different angles, different experiences, and
worldviews. as long as these artists treat their material with
intelligence, honesty, and talent, we should try to understand--if not
agree--with what they're trying to get across.
>
>
> > you think you're mr. natural but you're just a windup toy conditioned
> > by everyone else in this ng. just look at the stever pattern. he
> > watches an art film and says it's shit. people jump on him. he gets
> > all defensive. then he claims to have seen some really esoteric or
> > difficult movie and by golly, surprise surprise, he likes it, he likes
> > it!! so, steve comes here and bashes art cinema. we bash him. then he
> > comes back and says he likes an art film and we're warm up to him.
> > feeling secure, he comes back and shits another art film. we bash him.
> > so he likes another art film and so on and so on
>
> Well, lets examine the evidence further. If you recall, I rented the first
> half alone, loved it (or claimed to, under your theory), then rented part
> two the next netflix cycle. Had it been my intention to falsely claim
> enjoyment, why wouldnt I have rented both parts at once? Fact is, when Dr
> Watson claimed it was "romance" I nearly knocked out of my queue altogether
> and rented just the one in anticipation of quite possibly hating it.
why this animosity toward 'romance'? you got something against love or
beauty of spirit?
also, if you hate romance so much, why rent something expecting to hate
it?
> Now
> either I anticipated this discussion and cleverly rented the film one bit at
> a time in order to lay the foundation for this claim, or...gee, maybe I
> loved the film after all. You have a choice between simple truth and
> elaborate lie...and you choose elaborate lie. And, once again, it seems to
> be based on the presumption of personal insecurity. Perhaps youve noticed
> that Im not you. No, I guess you havent.
>
> And, once again...ass kicked.
no, please stop kicking my ass, massuh. it done hurt sooo bad. i's
aksing for mercy. massuh please.
and you can have my silver, gringo. but don't kiiiiiill me.
>
> > you completely missed the point of the movie. kagemusha is NOT
> > anti-war. if you paid any attention, you'd have known this.
>
> So tell me what the focus on dead soldiers and writhing horses is intended
> to convey. And, I might add, that intention and successful execution are
> two different things.
it's about the tragedy of loss, i should say total loss. it's an
expression of hopelessness when ALL is lost. it applies universally to
anyone or group who've lost everything, including the kitchen sink.
if kagemusha was anti-war, it would have denounced all forms of
fighting THROUGHOUT the movie. the ending of kagemusha shows what it is
like to lose completely.
it's one thing to lose many lives when your hope or vision is still
alive. but, at the end, the takeda clan is wiped out. everything
they'd built up over the yrs, everything they've fought and sacrificed
for had been for nothing. everythings becomes pointless.
there had been dead takeda soldiers before, soldiers who died just as
horribly. but, at the end of the movie, it's really the end for the
clan. there's nothing left but despair. takeda soldiers have become
zombified in body and spirit.
if kurosawa was anti-war, he wouldn't have made seven samurai. in that
movie, the peasants win so all the bloodshed served a purpose. in
kagemusha, it's complete tragedy for the takeda clan. their soldiers
have died for nothing.
it's not end for the other clans. indeed, tokugawas would eventually
triumph.
so, it's not end of the world.
but, kagemusha is about the takeda clan and the final tragedy is tied
with that clan.
the problem with the takeda clan is it comes to believe in its own
myth, or it's so with the son of shingen. in a way, this is a
commmentary on the japanese during WWII.
some say kagemusha is anti-humanist but it's very humanist. it says
man is ultimately man--flesh and blood--not some mythic divine force of
nature.
during WWII, japanese invoked the concept of the divine wind, as though
japanese were imbued with godlike spirit that would triumph over the
americans. japanese confused metaphor with reality.
in kagemusha, shingen and his advisors understand the power of metaphor
and myth. when channeled creatively, the spirit can inspire men to
move mountains. but, they understand that what really wins wars is
strategy and men in battle. software of myth can aid the hardware of
men in battle, but one mustn't confuse the two. shingen's son confuses
the two like japanese militarists of the pacific war.
consider the final charges by the takeda clan. the horses and men look
like natural forces, like wind and fire. but, they are just men, just
like kamikaze pilots were men inside machines, not divine winds.
so despite man's penchant for mythmaking, man is man. unlike winds and
forces of nature, the soldiers and horses are cut down by gunfire.
shingen utilized myths in order to have his men fight and move LIKE
wind and fire. his son confuses his men AS wind and fire, just as
japanese militarists confused the yamato spirit as a real thing.
in fact, this theme is introduced from the very beginning. in the
first scene, we see three men: shingen, shingen's bro, and the thief.
the clan myth claims that shingen is a great extraordinary lord above
and beyond that of ordinary man. but, there's a thief who looks like
him. could shingen's greatness really be the product of social
happenstance, luck, accident? indeed, later the thief plays the role of
shingen as well as shingen himself.
then we go to the scene where a muddied soldier runs thru scattered
crowds of soldiers. despite all the mythical claims of both clans in
warfare, war comes down to the nitty gritty. armies like to project
the image of the noble dignfied soldier but the crucial player is a
soldier all covered in mud.
and the later image of soliders muddied up in their own blood serves as
a counterpoint to the muddy soldier in the beginning.
so, the final image of kagemusha isn't anti-war perse. it's about the
tragedy of total loss, the foolishness of warmongering where myths
sidestep reality, the vulnerability of man exposed when illusions are
lost.
kurosawa was NOT saying all wars are bad and unjustifiable.
also, kagemusha preaches nothing. there is no good guy or bad guy.
every clan is equally justified in a world of constant warfare.
ruthlessness is the order of the day. takeda has no more reason to win
than to lose. they just lose because they make a huge mistake.
furthermore, because of its central character, kagemusha is deeply
ironic. we have the lowest of low going to the highest of the high. a
petty thief enters the innermost sanctum of the takeda clan. on one
level, we see his growing socialization, his deepening loyalty to the
clan. on the other hand, he's just an outsider. he becomes loyal to a
clan which sees him merely as a tool.
it's both pathetic and moving, which is very human.
>
> > > And it's just as wrong to push an old lady out of the path of an
> > > oncoming
> > > bus as it is to push her into the path...or dont you agree with that
> > > last
> > > statement?
> >
> > is this where benny hill meets ayn rand?
>
> Yea, and he fucked her, too...in the ass.
Fatass Shrugged.
>
> > at any rate, your views are often very extreme and rabid.
> > also, you have a funny definition of asskicking.
> > maybe in the world of computer geeks, a mere refutation or denial
> > qualifies as asskicking.
>
> I presented evidence against your theory..repeatedly. That is the ass
> kicking Im talking about. All of your evidence is based upon your
> presumptions about my personality and purposeful misreading on my comments.
no, please. stop kicking my ass. it hurts so bad. i beg for mercy. no
more please!
>
> > > I dont "seem to". I do. And you? You have something against funny
> > > jokes
> > > and hot chicks half naked?
> >
> > nothing wrong with benny hill. i like him too. but when you watch
> > serious stuff, you have to shift gears. you can't watch a film as rich
> > as la strada or kagemusha like beavis n butthead, snorting and
> > guffawing and giggling and cackling and picking your teeth and running
> > back and forth from the kitchen for yummies and etc. why don't you
> > just play videogames instead.
>
> My brain is always on the job, Tony, even watching Benny.
you need brains to watch benny?
figures.
>
> > attention deficit disorder. and i still don't understand how someone
> > thinks everything ozu did is 'cool' but somehow ohayo is shitty.
> > ohayo is such a typical ozu movie that if it sucks, then everyone ozu
> > did must suck too.
>
> Let me tell you briefly one aspect of what I love about Ozu. The
> compositions, placement of the people in the frame and relative to one
> another, are serene and sometimes subtly comical. I didnt see any of that
> in "Good Morning"...but that's just the start, so dont take that as the
> totality of my perceptions.
then you're blind. ohayo has all of that.
>
> > > > and your top ten is the epitome of pointless and contrarian frivolity.
> > >
> > > Interesting. So you thing "Treasure.." is pointless? "The Trial"?
> > > "M"?
> > > Have you even seen "Testament..."? Ill bet you havent.
> >
> > no, your list is pointless because you make them in bad faith.
>
> Presumption, once again. Im not you, Tony. Thankfully, only *you* are you.
>
> > also, lists and lists, who cares? what i know is there's a long list
> > of estimable movies that you've dismissed callously as total shit.
> > ANYONE can come up with a list of good movies he or she likes.
>
> Such undisciplined thinking on your part. You claim that I extol the
> virtues of trash like Porkys, I present evidence to the contrary (a list I
> posted here long before this discussion..of course, it could have been a
> calculated deception in anticipation of this discussion), and suddenly it
> does not matter if I did or did not celebrate trash. You set em up, I knock
> em down...and then you set em up diferently. Do me a favor...show me one
> trash film that Ive celebrated over the years (and "so bad it's good" doesnt
> count for obvious reasons). Lets see some real evidence to back up your
> bullshit. You've got nuthin, Tony, except your own insecurity projected
> onto me.
oh yeah, i project everything onto you cuz i love playing pin the
donkey. jackass.
steve
> > Well, "good morning", tony. Another round, is it?
>
> oy, massuh steve, please don't kick my arse.
OK, now Ive had enough and the fun is gone.
Have a nice holiday, Tony.
herr blob
steve wrote:
> On 2-Sep-2005, smacked up and reeling, "herr blob"
> <cerebur...@hotmail.com> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
> > > Well, "good morning", tony. Another round, is it?
> >
> > oy, massuh steve, please don't kick my arse.
>
> OK, now Ive had enough and the fun is gone.
>
> Have a nice holiday, Tony.
>
thanks fo' whoopin' me no mo', massuh. and please be generous with the
leftovers on labor day. i's been pickin too much cotton, i's be
hungerin fo some chitlin pie.