"The Pledge" question...MEGA-SPOILER
Jon H.
Did Jack Nicholson have the intention of useing the little girl for bait
from the outset and fake his whole relationship with them or did it just
evolve that way ???????
Also it seems it would have been a good bet to an experienced cop that
the guy toasted in the accident was the "Wizard" on the way to meet the
girl. ?????
Any thoughts on these weighty issues ?????
Norman Wilner
news:3A689267...@optonline.net...
>
>
(spoiler space, obviously)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Did Jack Nicholson have the intention of useing the
> little girl for bait from the outset and fake his whole
> relationship with them or did it just evolve that way ???????
I believe that's intentionally left up to the viewer.
> Also it seems it would have been a good bet to an
> experienced cop that the guy toasted in the accident
> was the "Wizard" on the way to meet the girl. ?????
Yep. The last five minutes killed the movie for me -- after all that
realistic drama, suddenly a carful of police detectives becomes too stupid
to recognize a black station wagon, however badly incinerated, just so Penn
can end the movie on a down note.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
http://www.chapters.ca/wilner
KalElFan
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
In article <5t4a6.190328$59.50...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>,
"Norman Wilner" <xnwi...@xhome.xcom> writes:
>Yep. The last five minutes killed the movie for me -- after all that
>realistic drama, suddenly a carful of police detectives becomes
>too stupid to recognize a black station wagon, however badly
>incinerated, just so Penn can end the movie on a down note.
The movie's apparently getting killed by this, in terms of audience
reaction. Its overall Cinemascore is D. What's worse, the only
demos to give it that "high" a score were the 35 and ups. All four
younger demo categories gave it even lower scores, including F
from female under 21. It's not so much the lower score in the
younger demos that will kill the movie, it's the fact that to get an
overall D with this particular kind of breakdown means that very
few people under 35 (as a percentage of the total audience) are
seeing it.
I couldn't understand, when I first saw the posters for this only
a month ago, why, with Jack Nicholson, it wouldn't be getting a
bigger/better launch and buzz. I guess the studio knew it was
destined to be a crowd-displeaser and box office bomb. Everyone
involved suffers less damage having it buried in January where
they can blame it on that to some extent.
David Nusair
Norman Wilner wrote:
> (spoiler space, obviously)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Yep. The last five minutes killed the movie for me -- after all that
> realistic drama, suddenly a carful of police detectives becomes too stupid
> to recognize a black station wagon, however badly incinerated, just so Penn
> can end the movie on a down note.
Actually, I disagree. If I remember correctly, Nicholson only told Aaron
Eckhart's character about the black station wagon, and he didn't seem to
believe him. So, I have to think that Eckhart either completely forgot about
the station wagon or he just didn't make the connection, since that meeting
with Nicholson happened (I think) a year before that.
Dave
Norman Wilner
news:20010120085312...@nso-cs.aol.com...
It's nothing so complex as that -- "The Pledge" is simply not a picture with
huge commercial potential, and was never intended to be; it's a small
character drama with a very unpleasant theme, and frankly I'm surprised that
Warner bothered to run it through Cinemascore at all.
Norman Wilner
news:3A6A04D9...@home.com...
I think Black would have mentioned it to them again, in his description of
the subject who was supposedly on his way to meet the girl. But even if he
hadn't, why wouldn't _Black_ put two and two together after the fact, when
he comes across the wreck on his way out of the picnic area?
And even if he didn't, it's a small town, and that kind of accident would be
talked about for weeks, if not months. Sooner or later, Black would have
figured it out, and explained it.
There are just so many ways for the story to end logically that the ending
on the screen just rings wrong.
David Nusair
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> I think Black would have mentioned it to them again, in his description of
> the subject who was supposedly on his way to meet the girl. But even if he
> hadn't, why wouldn't _Black_ put two and two together after the fact, when
> he comes across the wreck on his way out of the picnic area?
Yeah, I thought of that too. BUT, it's pretty clear that Black's already a
little bit insane - his little breakdown at the stakeout was probably the first
step of his downward spiral - so I'm not sure that he would have been competent
enough to even be aware of the accident. And add to that the shock of losing
Robin Wright-Penn and the little girl *and* his store (well, we don't really
find out when he lost that, but I would assume soon after) and you've got one
messed up dude.
Dave
Norman Wilner
Yes, and that's all fine, but my problem is this: Penn wants the movie to
end tragically, but he also wants to vindicate Black's obsession. So we
learn Jerry was right all along, but no one else does, and it destroys him.
Which would be fine, except that the specific circumstances by which the
movie achieves that are so clumsy and contrived that they're just not
believable. After two hours of measured, emotional drama, the story takes a
completely artificial turn, and it just doesn't work.
Norm "The first 115 minutes were great, though" Wilner
Starweek Magazine
http://www.chapters.ca/wilner
KalElFan
In article <3A6A4D66...@home.com>, David Nusair
<dnu...@home.com> writes:
>Yeah, I thought of that too. BUT, it's pretty clear that Black's already a
>little bit insane - his little breakdown at the stakeout was probably the
>first step of his downward spiral...
But it's the first and last step, and the whole journey to "insanity"
in a way. The last ten minutes of the film contrive about as much
as any film I've ever seen. The idea that they would all set up, or
even need to set up, this stakeout, that the killer would just happen
to be in a spectacular fatal accident as he goes there, that the
detectives would miss checking out the black station wagon as
Norm said, that Black would have gone and remained insane so
quickly that he wouldn't have put it together later, or that the kid
and her mother wouldn't have later for that matter, and despite her
anger at Black let the cops know -- none of it rings true. It's just
one of the most spectacularly contrived endings ever filmed.
Why? That's the question -- why did Penn and anyone else
(the credits said it was based on a book) feel this ending was
appropriate? It's unbelievably dumb commercially, so maybe
Penn has a fetish of some sort about making non-commercial
films. Maybe this is his psyche's way of practicing what he
preaches when he was criticizing Nicolas Cage for making
commercial dreck. "I'll show 'em how it's done. I'll make
what could have done decent box office and been a step
above commercial dreck, but then go out of my way in the
last ten minutes to turn it into completely non-commericial
dreck. And I'll do it despite the most watchable actor in the
universe starring in my picture. Take that Nic!"
KalElFan
In article <_fpa6.198055$59.52...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>, "Norman Wilner"
<xnwi...@xhome.xcom> writes:
>> I couldn't understand, when I first saw the posters for this
>> only a month ago, why, with Jack Nicholson, it wouldn't
>> be getting a bigger/better launch and buzz. I guess the
>> studio knew it was destined to be a crowd-displeaser and
>> box office bomb. Everyone involved suffers less damage
>> having it buried in January where they can blame it on
>> that to some extent.
>
>It's nothing so complex as that -- "The Pledge" is simply not
>a picture with huge commercial potential, and was never
>intended to be; it's a small character drama with a very
>unpleasant theme, and frankly I'm surprised that Warner
>bothered to run it through Cinemascore at all.
Not sure where to begin here, but I'll start with commercial
potential. It's virtually non-existent given the last ten minutes.
Somewhere between virtually non-existent and "huge" there's
a number that would have been respectable enough to release
this last year and generate some Oscar talk for Jack again,
and maybe parlay that into even better numbers.
Next the unpleasant theme. A lot was made of this in some
of the pre-release buzz I saw, but there's nothing particularly
unpleasant about it apart from the ending. There were a few
gory crime scene photos, but Se7en and many other movies
have been much more unpleasant to look at. What's unpleasant,
again, is the ending and there's nothing particularly gory about
that either. The kid lives and the killer gets his through the
contrivance of the accident, it's just Nicholson's character
that has the unpleasant end because of the other contrivances:
he set up the stupid stakeout in the first place without telling
the mother, the cops don't believe him when the killer doesn't
show up, and he goes nuts and ends up talking to himself.
On Cinemascore, I have no idea whether WB has to "run it
through" them or not. My impression is that Cinemascore
now posts this basic information as a service to moviegoers,
not the studios. Yes, I suspect it's still funded by the revenue
they get from studios buying their more detailed reports, but
it may be that Cinemascore would still do this for all movies
that open wide enough.
I suppose studios could put pressure on Cinemascore to not
survey certain movies they know won't rate well, or to not
publish the results, or more ludicrously try to use Cinemascore
by having them only publish the good results. I suspect they
don't do this because (apart from potential legal questions)
it would make the studios look bad. It would be like a network
asking Nielsen not to rate or publish the ratings for some TV
shows, or suing AICN for posting some test screening info it
got, or withholding ads from newspapers because of bad reviews.
(Of course they have allegedly done the latter, but I think they
generally have to take their lumps and take the good news with
the bad. If they tried too hard to suppress information, even more
independent mechanisms might pop up to counter that.)
Anyway, I just don't think that your (and my) reaction to the
ending will be atypical. While I agree the movie's box office
potential would never have been "huge", had it not been for the
ending I think it could have done much better. There's no way
it needed to open 8th behind Miss Congeniality the way it did
yesterday, and perform poorly as it will from there because of
the bad word of mouth. It got on over 2,000 screens.
Some may defend the ending on an artistic basis -- that since
the movie is arguably about the old, retiring investigator here
more than it is about the crimes, it's appropriate to have the
ending follow-through with the "isn't it awful how the old get
cast out?" theme or what have you. Maybe the next time we
see some crazy old guy talking to himself, this movie is
supposed to remind us of Jack playing this character. But
are "memorable" endings like this good just because they're
memorable? Does that alone make a movie good art? I
think not. I think this movie still would have been memorable
for Nicholson's performance, and both his performance and
the movie would have been better artistically.
Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> contrivance of the accident, it's just Nicholson's character
> that has the unpleasant end because of the other contrivances:
> he set up the stupid stakeout in the first place without telling
> the mother, the cops don't believe him when the killer doesn't
> show up, and he goes nuts and ends up talking to himself.
While I agree that the movie does depend on certain plot coincidences, I
think you missed the point with respect to Nicholson's character going
nuts. He didn't suddenly go nuts at the end because no one believed
him. He was losing his sanity throughout the movie, and that is really
what the movie is about. In fact, the mystery of the killer is
secondary in this movie to the depiction of the Nicholson character
slowly losing his mind. It is more a character study than a murder
mystery. One thing that made this movie interesting, and in many ways
unique from a lot of traditional Hollywood formulas, was that the cop no
one believed was BOTH right AND crazy. This movie definitely didn't fit
a Hollywood formula, and I can see that it's commercial potential is
limited for that reason, but for me it was a brilliant, wonderful film.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Xiang6666
>Subject: Re: "The Pledge" question...MEGA-SPOILER
>From: Mike oo...@my-deja.com
>Date: 1/23/01 7:28 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <94l7jg$sra$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
sorry, couldn't resisit to read the spoiler before catching the movie on a
video. (now I'm SOOO glad I skipped it and watched Snatch Thursday with my
date, I KNEW it's going to be like crossing guard)
I just want to keep on talking about the BO disappointment of the film with
KalElFan. People don't want to watch it because they (and me and all the Jack
fans out there ) don't want to see Jack playing a pathetic loser. Come on he
just don't look like it. He's always the ignorant bastard to me. You see
that's why Sean Penn isn't a great diretcor. He trys too hard and he doesn't
understand the market image attach to Jack when you cast him. It may work with
an other actor, but no Nicloson.
Personally I think Ed Norton has much better potential to direct a great movie
one day. Look at Keeping the Faith. Very enjoyable romantic comedy. And he
understand the limitation of walking the career path of an actor-director.
CY
KalElFan
(Xiang6666) writes:
>I just want to keep on talking about the BO disappointment of the
>film with KalElFan. People don't want to watch it because they
>(and me and all the Jack fans out there ) don't want to see Jack
>playing a pathetic loser. Come on he just don't look like it. He's
>always the ignorant bastard to me. You see that's why Sean
>Penn isn't a great diretcor. He trys too hard and he doesn't
>understand the market image attach to Jack when you cast him.
>It may work with an other actor, but no Nicloson.
I think it gets back primarily to the last part of the film. Someone
said here that his character was going crazy from the start, but
I think that's just hindsight rationalization of the ending. Until
they (Penn, the writers) contrive to have the stakeout set up
without the mother's permission, and have the killer in that fatal
accident so he doesn't show up (as I write this I find the level
of contrivance even more astounding in retrospect), the movie
is decent and Nicholson is good as he always is. You don't
think of him as a pathetic loser. He's an interesting character
who kind of gets sucked into making a pledge to the mother
of the dead girl.
After the pledge, we do see some evidence of obsession, but
it's mixed with hard evidence and good detective insight and
skills, which you'd expect from this retiring cop. There's no
reason at all that the film couldn't, or shouldn't, have ended
completely differently and on a much more upbeat note. It's
just a fetish of some sort Penn has, whether he caused it to
be done that way or was attracted to a book that ended this
way.
I think there are some people (some filmmakers and critics
mainly) who simplistically equate upbeat endings with
commercialism or a "sellout", while believing this kind of
downbeat ending somehow has greater artistic merit. In
fact, the ending of this is a perfect example of how contrived
dreck can come in the form of a downbeat ending as surely
as it can an upbeat one.
That said, if the movie hadn't had Jack Nicholson I think the
ending would have been even worse. Bad and contrived as
the ending is (and they actually try to foreshadow it at the
beginning -- maybe they thought that would make it more
palatable), it can never be all bad when you have Nicholson
there doing anything, even talking to himself like a crazy
old man. Still, the last 10-15 minutes are bad enough for
me to give this a borderline thumbs down when it could
have been a clear thumbs up.
Avoid normal situations.
> MEGA-SPOILERs here and in the thread title...
> In article <3A6A4D66...@home.com>, David Nusair
> <dnu...@home.com> writes:
>>Yeah, I thought of that too. BUT, it's pretty clear that Black's already a
>>little bit insane - his little breakdown at the stakeout was probably the
>>first step of his downward spiral...
> But it's the first and last step, and the whole journey to "insanity"
> in a way. The last ten minutes of the film contrive about as much
> as any film I've ever seen. The idea that they would all set up, or
> even need to set up, this stakeout, that the killer would just happen
> to be in a spectacular fatal accident as he goes there, that the
> detectives would miss checking out the black station wagon as
> Norm said, that Black would have gone and remained insane so
> quickly that he wouldn't have put it together later, or that the kid
> and her mother wouldn't have later for that matter, and despite her
> anger at Black let the cops know -- none of it rings true. It's just
> one of the most spectacularly contrived endings ever filmed.
Even if Black did see the destroyed station wagon, or hear about it in
chat with the townspeople -- exactly how would that have gotten him able
to convince the other police? "There was a black station wagon in a car
wreck that day, so that proves my suspect was in it and on his way to
nail the girl"? I don't think that's gonna get his girlfriend back, either...
> Why? That's the question -- why did Penn and anyone else
> (the credits said it was based on a book) feel this ending was
> appropriate? It's unbelievably dumb commercially, so maybe
> Penn has a fetish of some sort about making non-commercial
> films. Maybe this is his psyche's way of practicing what he
> preaches when he was criticizing Nicolas Cage for making
> commercial dreck. "I'll show 'em how it's done. I'll make
> what could have done decent box office and been a step
> above commercial dreck, but then go out of my way in the
> last ten minutes to turn it into completely non-commericial
> dreck. And I'll do it despite the most watchable actor in the
> universe starring in my picture. Take that Nic!"
Hmmm. It's a detective movie starring Jack Nicholson. I would think that's
commercial enough. Moreover, one might also have argued, a few years before,
that having a finale wherein Brad Pitt murders an unarmed man and goes to
jail and Gwyneth Paltrow gets her head lopped off is also unbelievably dumb
commercially.
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"Willis has given up on the hair thing then." -- Ickyboy1
KalElFan
<by...@NOSPAM.olagrande.net> writes:
> Even if Black did see the destroyed station wagon, or hear about it in
>chat with the townspeople -- exactly how would that have gotten him able
>to convince the other police? "There was a black station wagon in a car
>wreck that day, so that proves my suspect was in it and on his way to
>nail the girl"? I don't think that's gonna get his girlfriend back, either...
This is why I extended my criticism back to having the stakeout in
the first place without the mother's permission. The idea that Black
would do this was a major leap to insanity. The idea that the police
force would do it was ridiculous. It's one of the most stupidly
contrived endings ever, and it's contrived so they can shoot themselves
in the foot commercially.
> Hmmm. It's a detective movie starring Jack Nicholson. I would think
>that's commercial enough....
Jack Nicholson has been in box office turkeys before, and this was
predictable too because of the ending (it's wallowing at $11M total
box office after its first two weekends -- it dropped 36% off its bad
opening, despite about a 10% increase in theaters, and it remained
at #11).
Se7en was perceived as having a shock-value type ending, not a
bad or contrived one. Despite its graphic nature, it also came to
be viewed as having some special (if not groundbreaking) artistic/
stylistic/visual merit.
Mike
xian...@aol.com (Xiang6666) wrote:
> KalElFan. People don't want to watch it because they (and me and all
the Jack
> fans out there ) don't want to see Jack playing a pathetic loser.
I have no doubt that a lot of "Jack fans" would love to see him continue
to rehash the same sort of persona over and over again, rather than see
him actually, you know, ACT. Anyone who has seen him in such films as
"Five Easy Pieces" knows that his range as an actor is much greater than
those who choose to pigeonhole him, and that was one reason why I was so
happy to see him in this movie. He did a wonderful job and this was a
wonderful movie.
.
> In article <20010121023112...@nso-fi.aol.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> nuts. He didn't suddenly go nuts at the end because no one believed
> him. He was losing his sanity throughout the movie, and that is really
> what the movie is about. In fact, the mystery of the killer is
I didn't really buy the scene where the pledge was made though... that
sort of sank the film for me... I had the same problem with the Dardennes'
La Promesse... I just didn't buy that the main character would make a
promise like that and hold to it with such incredible conviction...
I think it's very apparent he's going nuts all along (we have to assume
it's from the lack of routine caused by retirement)... but I mean, the
scene seems so incidental that it seems odd that he would fixate on that
moment... More than anything I see that as a failure of Nicholson's
performance.
The movie reminded me of Vertigo, in that we had to squirm as we watched a
guy obsess over something for half the film... but I mean it's nowhere
near Vertigo in terms of quality..
One question... how on earth does he triangulate the location he decides
to stake out? It seems a pretty silly guess to me, unless I missed
something (I saw the map scene...) ... Of course he is nuts, so maybe he's
just lucky...
Jeremy
Norman Wilner
news:9570j1$1s0e$1...@news.gate.net...
>
(snip for focus)
>
> The movie reminded me of Vertigo, in that we had to squirm
> as we watched a guy obsess over something for half the
> film... but I mean it's nowhere near Vertigo in terms of quality..
I noticed the parallels with "Vertigo" as well, though I agree that "The
Pledge" doesn't really compare.
> One question... how on earth does he triangulate the
> location he decides to stake out? It seems a pretty silly
> guess to me, unless I missed something (I saw the map
> scene...) ... Of course he is nuts, so maybe he's just
> lucky...
It's not so much triangulation as commonality -- the service station is just
below the fork that leads to the two towns north of Reno where girls had
gone missing in similar circumstances. If the killer is based in one of
those two towns, he'd probably stop in at the service station or the nearby
diner eventually, which is why Black spends all of his time at those two
locations.
Mike
kale...@aol.com (KalElFan) wrote:
> In article <20010127100722...@ng-ca1.aol.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think it gets back primarily to the last part of the film. Someone
> said here that his character was going crazy from the start, but
> I think that's just hindsight rationalization of the ending.
You clearly weren't paying close attention to the movie. The signs of
his passage into mental illness appeared well before the end of the
movie. One rather blatent example of this occured in the scene of
Nicholson's dialogue with the psychiatrist. His mannerisms with the
other cops when he showed the girl's painting was also intended to show
that however right he might have been, he was also starting to lose it.
He was clearly using the girl as bait to catch the killer, and this not
some last minute thing--remember when he told the mother that the girl
would look good in a red dress? Why do you think he said that? He was
already planning on using the girl as bait. Remember when he placed the
swing out by the road? He wanted he visible to the killer. The signs
were everywhere that he was losing his grip on reality and on what was
the right thing to do, and this was not some last minute thing.
>
> After the pledge, we do see some evidence of obsession, but
> it's mixed with hard evidence and good detective insight and
> skills, which you'd expect from this retiring cop. There's no
> reason at all that the film couldn't, or shouldn't, have ended
> completely differently and on a much more upbeat note.
The problem is that you missed the point of the film altogether. It
appears as if you are blaming it for not being a conventional detective
movie, and assumed that it was of that genre because it borrowed some of
the genre's conventions, but in fact that is not what the movie was or
set out to be. You got involved in the mystery of the killings without
paying attention to the fact that this was ,more or less secondary to
the main focus of this movie. Since you expected just a conventional
detective story, you wanted a conventional detective ending with a tidy
resolution and a happy ending. But this was not a conventional
detective story at all. It was about Jack Nicholson's personal demons
overtaking him as he obsessed over the case.
As I mentioned before, what made this so wonderfully original and
nonconventional from the typical Hollywood perspective is that
Nicholson's character was both right about the case and crazy. In most
Hollywood movies, he would be either one or the other.
Avoid normal situations.
> In article <955ogo$l8c$2...@og1.olagrande.net>, "Avoid normal situations."
> <by...@NOSPAM.olagrande.net> writes:
[..]
>> Even if Black did see the destroyed station wagon, or hear about it in
>>chat with the townspeople -- exactly how would that have gotten him able
>>to convince the other police? "There was a black station wagon in a car
>>wreck that day, so that proves my suspect was in it and on his way to
>>nail the girl"? I don't think that's gonna get his girlfriend back, either...
> This is why I extended my criticism back to having the stakeout in
> the first place without the mother's permission. The idea that Black
> would do this was a major leap to insanity.
It's not like he'd ever get her permission. It's also not like he'd get
another chance so sure to get his man. He made a promise, and he was going
to keep it to the best of his ability, come what may.
> The idea that the police
> force would do it was ridiculous.
It wasn't "the police force", it was a few men and their underlings that
Black knew in the force. There are several hints in the film that Black was
highly regarded by the other cops.
Besides, if I was a cop, I'd go on a few not-necessarily-approved ops like
this... just, if for no other reason, so I could tell people with a straight
face that I was an actual civil servant as opposed to another member of the
army of the rich.
>> Hmmm. It's a detective movie starring Jack Nicholson. I would think
>>that's commercial enough....
> Jack Nicholson has been in box office turkeys before, and this was
> predictable too because of the ending (it's wallowing at $11M total
> box office after its first two weekends -- it dropped 36% off its bad
> opening, despite about a 10% increase in theaters, and it remained
> at #11).
Surprise hits -- and surprise flops -- happen all the time. Given that,
strictly speaking, no one really knows how much or how little the general
public will take to a given picture, I would suggest that Mr. Penn and
company have done exactly what I would do -- they shot the ending that
their muses told them to shoot, they stuck to their guns, and they hoped
for the best.
Tough luck about the lack of financial return on their investment, but
this picture is one of the best I've seen released in January/February
(the traditional "let's release this piece of crud just to get it off the
shelf" season) for a long time. You don't have control over the box office
performance, but you do have control over the artistic merits of your
film.
> Se7en was perceived as having a shock-value type ending, not a
> bad or contrived one. Despite its graphic nature, it also came to
> be viewed as having some special (if not groundbreaking) artistic/
> stylistic/visual merit.
I think the ending of _The Pledge_ has merit, too, if only because it's
not the same old thing, done the same old way. In a day and age where
everyone's scared of doing a good old-fashioned tragedy, it was IMHO
refreshing.
John Harkness
Excellent post.
John Harkness
Mike
"." <ct...@dakota.gate.net> wrote:
> Mike <oo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I didn't really buy the scene where the pledge was made though... that
> sort of sank the film for me... I had the same problem with the
Dardennes'
> La Promesse...
I did find the scene with the pledge to be the weakest part of the
movie, mainly because the entire interaction with the parents didn't
really ring true for me. That being said, why would he make a pledge
like that? My feeling is that the illogic of that pledge was itself the
first sign of his impending descent into mental illness.
> One question... how on earth does he triangulate the location he
decides
> to stake out? It seems a pretty silly guess to me, unless I missed
> something (I saw the map scene...) ... Of course he is nuts, so maybe
he's
> just lucky...
>
> Jeremy
I think it was a little coincidental that he happened upon a pretty
single parent of a girl who was just the right age and physical type and
who lived close enough to the killer that he would actually run across
her.
So I think it is definitely true that the movie depended on
coincidences. That being said, I really enjoyed the movie a great deal.
Ed-D
"Jon H." <Jo...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
> Did Jack Nicholson have the intention of useing the little girl for
bait
> from the outset and fake his whole relationship with them or did it
just
> evolve that way ???????
>
I think it just evolved that way...though I suppose this one is left
intentionally vague for the viewer to make his own informed decision.
> Also it seems it would have been a good bet to an experienced cop that
> the guy toasted in the accident was the "Wizard" on the way to meet
the
> girl. ?????
>
Absolutely. What Penn was trying to communicate to the viewer was that
this guy died on his way to meeting the girl. In the book this was
communicated via the narrator. Penn should have just let us see the
burning car and not have the cops pass it. Though maybe having the
cops not realize what was up added to the tragic farce of the whole
thing......maybe that was his intent....but it doesn't look like it
worked.
On the whole I enjoyed this film. I'm glad Penn didn't Hollywoodize
the ending. I was fully expecting him to do it. I think he has a
great future as a director.
> Any thoughts on these weighty issues ?????
>
>
--
Deja SUCKS
Avoid normal situations.
[ my defense of the ending, excised ]
> What he said.
> Excellent post.
<Chicken Run>
I've gone *bright* red!
</Chicken Run> :-)
More seriously... thank you very much. Besides the more obvious virtues of
the film, I'm just plain grateful that somebody came out with a film for
grownups.
Ed-D
KalElFan
<by...@NOSPAM.olagrande.net> writes:
> Surprise hits -- and surprise flops -- happen all the time. Given that,
>strictly speaking, no one really knows how much or how little the general
>public will take to a given picture...
I think this one was predictable, and the fact it got dumped into
January suggests the people behind it knew that after the fact at
least.
KalElFan
>> I think it gets back primarily to the last part of the film. Someone
>> said here that his character was going crazy from the start, but
>> I think that's just hindsight rationalization of the ending.
>
>You clearly weren't paying close attention to the movie...
No, I noticed all those things like the red dress, and that he drifted
into using the kid as bait. But it was a huge leap from that to
what we saw at the end. I mean, you could rationalize it that he
put the swing out front not just to lay bait, but also as he said so
he could always see her as he served customers and so on, or
that she'd be safer out in plain view. You could argue that
she fit the victim profile, and he knew there was a killer still on
the loose in this area, so she (and other potential victims in a way)
were safer having him watch over her as bait or not. As far as
not telling the mother at that point, one could again argue that
he didn't want to alarm her.
So I stand by what I said that it's hindsight rationalization. Yes,
there are those things there that Penn & Co. can point to, but
they don't justify the incredible contrivances and leap to insanity
we see in the very last part of the film.
>The problem is that you missed the point of the film altogether. It
>appears as if you are blaming it for not being a conventional detective
>movie...
No, this is the kind of argument Norm likes to use but it doesn't work.
Any time someone criticizes something, the defense is "But you're
complaining about what you wanted the film to be, not what it is."
By definition that can be argued against any criticism, so it's pointless.
I think American Beauty is one of the best movies ever made (#3 on
my list). It's hardly a conventional whodunit and doesn't have a happy
ending. I've commented on Se7en, which I think had merit and again
not a conventional Hollywood ending nor a happy one. To take a genre
I like, the Donald Sutherland remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers
had a shock / downbeat ending but I thought was a very good movie
enahnced by that ending.
It's how The Pledge gets there, in the very last part of the film, that
I think reflects the director's obsession more than anything. He was
hell-bent on a non-Hollywood story/ending, no matter how inappropriate
or contrived or disliked by audiences it would become. It's a great
way to get good critical response of course -- do that "non-Hollywood
ending" for its own sake, no matter what manner of contortions you
have to go through to get there. Problem is it also gets you dumped
into January, with D Cinemascores or worse and a rapid trip to video.
But you can't have everything, eh?
Mike
kale...@aol.com (KalElFan) wrote:
> No, I noticed all those things like the red dress, and that he drifted
> into using the kid as bait. But it was a huge leap from that to
> what we saw at the end.
First of all, the red dress and the use of the kid as bait are fairly
crazy activities for an ex-cop to do, but aside from that, those weren't
the only clues I mentioned. Penn dropped a hint so big it would be
impossible to miss about his mental illness in the scene with the
psychiatrist. In that scene, Penn basically came right out and
said, "the Nicholson character is losing his mind." There is absolutely
nothing "hindsight" about his craziness in the end. It was there all
along.
> I mean, you could rationalize it that he
> put the swing out front not just to lay bait, but also as he said so
> he could always see her as he served customers and so on, or
> that she'd be safer out in plain view. You could argue that
> she fit the victim profile, and he knew there was a killer still on
> the loose in this area, so she (and other potential victims in a way)
> were safer having him watch over her as bait or not. As far as
> not telling the mother at that point, one could again argue that
> he didn't want to alarm her.
Well of course one can rationalize a character's motivations all sorts
of ways, and I believe that the movie deliberately wanted to leave a
certain degree of ambiguity about his motivation for some of those
activities on some of those points, up until the point when he agreed
that the red dress looked good on her. Once he made that comment, that
made it clear (to me, anyway) that we was indeed trying to bait the
killer with the little girl. That doesn't mean that there weren't
conflicting motivations on his part, and the ambiguity there makes for
interesting post-movie discusssions.
> No, this is the kind of argument Norm likes to use but it doesn't
work.
> Any time someone criticizes something, the defense is "But you're
> complaining about what you wanted the film to be, not what it is."
> By definition that can be argued against any criticism, so it's
pointless.
I'm not sure what your point is here. If you are claiming that one
shouldn't evaluate or critique a film based on what it sets out to do,
but instead evaluate all genres of movies the same way according to the
same criteria (an argument I would disagree with), that is one
thing--but then, your very criticism of "The Pledge" is precisely based
on the fact that it doesn't conform to the conventions of a particular
genre (in this case, a standard detective story). So when I point out
that it is not a movie of that genre per se, and so the very criteria
that you are using to criticize it for don't apply, you are now saying
that one can never be criticized for complaining about a movie not
living up to the conventions of a genre! So if you criticize a film for
not living up to the conventions of a genre, the argument you are making
is apparently that this criticism is inherently immune from debate!
In other words, when you criticize a movie based on a particular
criterion, it is perfectly legitimate for others to debate the criterion
you are using.
>
> I think American Beauty is one of the best movies ever made (#3 on
> my list). It's hardly a conventional whodunit and doesn't have a
happy
> ending. I've commented on Se7en, which I think had merit and again
> not a conventional Hollywood ending nor a happy one. To take a genre
> I like, the Donald Sutherland remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers
> had a shock / downbeat ending but I thought was a very good movie
> enahnced by that ending.
Okay, point taken that you have in other cases approved of movies which
did not conform to conventional dogmas. However, my point remains that
you seem to be criticizing THIS movie for that reason. My point also
stands that the ending did not come out of the blue. Penn could not
have made it more obvious that Nicholson was going crazy.
>
> It's how The Pledge gets there, in the very last part of the film,
that
> I think reflects the director's obsession more than anything. He was
> hell-bent on a non-Hollywood story/ending, no matter how inappropriate
> or contrived or disliked by audiences it would become. It's a great
> way to get good critical response of course -- do that "non-Hollywood
> ending" for its own sake, no matter what manner of contortions you
> have to go through to get there. Problem is it also gets you dumped
> into January, with D Cinemascores or worse and a rapid trip to video.
> But you can't have everything, eh?
If popularity is how we are evaluating films, then why discuss movies at
all? Let's just let the weekly box office figures determine what we
consider to be a good movie. Since I for one liked the movie that Penn
directed, then obviously there ARE audience members who appreciated that
film. I'm not really interested in what the general public thinks of a
movie, and that doesn't determine my own appreciation of a movie.
KalElFan
writes:
>First of all, the red dress and the use of the kid as bait are fairly
>crazy activities for an ex-cop to do, but aside from that, those weren't
>the only clues I mentioned. Penn dropped a hint so big it would be
>impossible to miss about his mental illness in the scene with the
>psychiatrist. In that scene, Penn basically came right out and
>said, "the Nicholson character is losing his mind."
I noticed that scene as well, but my reaction to it mainly involved
the unbelievability of the psychiatrist/psychologist. She knows
sweet #$@% all about him, and has no clue whether there really
is still a killer on the loose posing a danger to kids. Yet instead
of addressing what he came to her for she charges into psycho-
analyzing him and asking him about his sex life. It was almost
laughable. She's the character who would have needed counselling! :-)
The point is it was *all* part of the same trail of at best ambiguous,
red-herring type stuff that in no way justifies the huge leaps the
last part of the film took.
>Once he made that comment [about the choice of red dress], that
>made it clear (to me, anyway) that we was indeed trying to bait the
>killer with the little girl. That doesn't mean that there weren't
>conflicting motivations on his part, and the ambiguity there makes for
>interesting post-movie discusssions.
Yeah, I don't have any problem at all with the early ambiguity, and
it does make for interesting post-movie discussions. Nicholson's
performance is also very good. The movie is just ruined in the
last 10 to 15 minutes (or whatever the time was after the setting
up of that stakeout and through to the end).
>... So if you criticize a film for not living up to the conventions
>of a genre, the argument you are making is apparently that
>this criticism is inherently immune from debate!
No, it's not immune, it just has to be fought on its merits. I
really couldn't care less about the conventions of the genre
and neither do most moviegoers. They just look at it and
immediately make a judgment that the ending is very stupid
and sucks. Here on Usenet, we might analyze that further
and point out that it's incredibly contrived in taking the leap
to insanity. Saying "Well, at least it was different" is true,
but sometimes different can be good, and sometimes it can
be stupid and suck like it does here.
>If popularity is how we are evaluating films, then why discuss
>movies at all? Let's just let the weekly box office figures...
This is a whole other thread, but it's more than raw box office,
it's also box office declines and Cinemascores and the reactions
from posters (who aren't plugging the film or whatever). I'm
glad you liked it, but almost everyone who saw it on opening
night gave it a very low score, and the January release suggests
the producers knew it would displease. I liked it better than
the Cinemascore respondents did. I might even have liked
the first part of the movie as much as you did. I just think
you're way underestimating the contrivance and stupidity of
the ending, which really does sink the picture.
Mike
kale...@aol.com (KalElFan) wrote:
> In article <958bs8$lrn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Mike <oo...@my-deja.com>
> I noticed that scene as well, but my reaction to it mainly involved
> the unbelievability of the psychiatrist/psychologist. She knows
> sweet #$@% all about him, and has no clue whether there really
> is still a killer on the loose posing a danger to kids. Yet instead
> of addressing what he came to her for she charges into psycho-
> analyzing him and asking him about his sex life. It was almost
> laughable. She's the character who would have needed counselling!
:-)
Whether or not the scene rang true for isn't really the point here. The
point is that it was a clear attempt by Penn to show that the Nicholson
character was suffering from mental illness--not just from the questions
she asked, but from his reaction to her questions. There was nothing
ambiguous whatsoever about that, and the ending the film took was not
something out of the blue.
Look, it's fine that you didn't like the film, and it's fine that you
didn't like the ending, and I can accept that you might even take issue
with how EFFECTIVELY Penn led us to the ending, but there is just no way
that you can reasonably say that the ending was pulled out of a hat with
no prior warning. The hints were just too obvious to miss. I wasn't
surprised by the ending in the least. On the contrary, I found the
ending both reasonable and poignant. But I guess that's why I liked the
movie and you didn't.
> This is a whole other thread, but it's more than raw box office,
> it's also box office declines and Cinemascores and the reactions
> from posters (who aren't plugging the film or whatever). I'm
> glad you liked it, but almost everyone who saw it on opening
> night gave it a very low score, and the January release suggests
> the producers knew it would displease. I liked it better than
> the Cinemascore respondents did.
Yeah, but my response is, "So what?" I really don't care about box
office declines and Cinemascores. Really, are we allowing the general
public to decide for us whether a film is good or not? A lot of films
that I may love may also be disliked by most other people.
This has nothing to do with whether a film is good or bad. Hollywood
obviously cares, and cares a lot about the amount of mass appeal of its
films, but that just speaks to Hollywood's priorities. On the other
hand, my priorities may mean that I might just enjoy some films with
limited appeal, lacking in major distribution, and which might only be
showing at one screen in the entire city at my local art house. So I
have to say that Hollywood's priorities are fairly irrelevant to me.
KalElFan
>> I noticed that scene as well, but my reaction to it mainly involved
>> the unbelievability of the psychiatrist/psychologist. She knows
>> sweet #$@% all about him, and has no clue whether there really
>> is still a killer on the loose posing a danger to kids. Yet instead
>> of addressing what he came to her for she charges into psycho-
>> analyzing him and asking him about his sex life. It was almost
>> laughable. She's the character who would have needed counselling!
>:-)
>
>Whether or not the scene rang true for isn't really the point here...
We disagree. You've been trying to use these at best ambiguous
tidbits to rationalize an ending that leaps to insanity, and uses a
virtual deus-ex-machina contrivance to get there (i.e., the car
crash killing the killer before he gets to the stakeout). I don't
think the contrivance itself would be any less ridiculous even if
the tidbits were persuasive, but they aren't and that makes it
an even worse ending. In every case, you can look at those
things and have a completely different view than yours. In fact
I'd argue (and have) that a completely different view is even more
defendable.
For example, even when that other detective meets Nicholson's
character earlier, and acts like he believes Nicholson's character
is crazy or needs an extended vacation, we in the audience know
that guy was the same moron who deluded himself in that
"confession" he thought he "extracted" from the Del Toro
character at the beginning.
I think in some ways you're dissing the part of the film that is
pretty good. It's the ambiguity that contributes to it being good,
and Nicholson's acting in connection with that. It's not "clear"
in any way. Which is why the leaps and contrivances of the
last part of the movie ruin it all. As I think about it, the most
appropriate ending might have been to have Nicholson's great
acting abilities brought to be bear on his character confronting
these ambiguities himself, instead of being wasted talking to
himself after a ridiculously contrived ending. Maybe the killer
shows up, gets caught, and he feels vindicated by that but still
loses his relationship with the mother and kid because of the
way he used the kid.
Fast forward six months or what have you and see how that's
affected him and her. Is he still at the gas station? Maybe
he's just out fishing. Heck, maybe by now he is talking to
himself, about what bait he should use. Maybe he breaks
down there. This is still tragic, but something like this is
potentially more effective and it's certainly more plausible
than accidents in which killers get burned beyond recognition
on their way to stakeouts.
>I really don't care about box office declines and Cinemascores.
I never said there was any cause and effect relationship between
that and what you like, I like, or the Academy likes. As I said
I'm glad you liked the movie including the ending. I didn't, and
most people didn't, and the producers almost certainly knew
they wouldn't which is why they dumped the thing into January.
SJRaff
>We disagree. You've been trying to use these at best ambiguous
>tidbits to rationalize an ending that leaps to insanity, and uses a
>virtual deus-ex-machina contrivance to get there (i.e., the car
>crash killing the killer before he gets to the stakeout). I don't
>think the contrivance itself would be any less ridiculous even if
>the tidbits were persuasive, but they aren't and that makes it
>an even worse ending.
Well, like the person you are disagreeing with I think the ending to the film
was not only believable and well done, but also necessary. It is a necessity
because of the arc the film took regarding Black's mental state. It started
with the farewell party and headed down and in the same increasingly insane
path for the entire film.
One of the problems is that you are asking the audience to become a character
who gets involved with Black but with the specific knowledge of his previous
questionable decisions, but also presume some kind of detachment in order to
critisize such involvement. That is an absurd concept and one which will ruin
any film.
Although not as good as his previous two films (The Indian Runner is
excellent), Penn is someone who gets me excited about seeing films like I was
when I was young and studied them. There are few, if any, Directors anymore
who are willing to present a character study instead of a by-the-numbers plot
driven film. I very much appreciate that.
Stephen Rafferty
Los Angeles
Tiocfaidh Ar La
Mike
kale...@aol.com (KalElFan) wrote:
> >Whether or not the scene rang true for isn't really the point here...
>
> We disagree. You've been trying to use these at best ambiguous
> tidbits to rationalize an ending that leaps to insanity, and uses a
> virtual deus-ex-machina contrivance to get there (i.e., the car
> crash killing the killer before he gets to the stakeout). I don't
> think the contrivance itself would be any less ridiculous even if
> the tidbits were persuasive, but they aren't and that makes it
> an even worse ending. In every case, you can look at those
> things and have a completely different view than yours. In fact
> I'd argue (and have) that a completely different view is even more
> defendable.
I think you missed my point. You seemed to be criticizing the
psychiatrist scene for being hokey, which doesn't mean that it was
necessarily ambiguous as to what it was saying. I pointed out that it
wasn't just what the psychiatrist said, but the insight into Nicholson's
character that was shown in his response to her questions. My point was
that, hokey or not, this scene was hardly ambiguous. Penn could not
have been more obvious if he tried. You are arguing that it was an
ambiguous scne. Well, it wasn't ambiguous to me, and it wasn't
ambiguous to the person I saw the movie with, and it wasn't ambiguous to
a lot of other people either.
>
> For example, even when that other detective meets Nicholson's
> character earlier, and acts like he believes Nicholson's character
> is crazy or needs an extended vacation, we in the audience know
> that guy was the same moron who deluded himself in that
> "confession" he thought he "extracted" from the Del Toro
> character at the beginning.
This is an example of what makes this movie so interesting. Again, this
gets back to expections of conventional genres. You deny that you are
simply criticizing this film for not living up to genre expecations, but
this is a perfect example of this phenomenon. Conventional formula
Hollywood dramas would have you rooting against the jerk who extracted
the confession, would have him be totally wrong in believing that
Nicholson was going crazy, would have you rooting for Nicholson to gain
vindication and prove that he was neither wrong about the case nor
crazy. What makes this movie nonformulaic, and perhaps so frustrating
to some, is that this movie did not conform to this standard Hollywood
formula. People who expect formulas may have expected a set up--bad
cop, makes judgements about the hero cop, therefore the bad cop must
necessarily be wrong. The "confession" cop was both right about
Nicholson and wrong about the case. Since this deviates from standard
formulaic fare, it perhaps requires some thinking to appreciate this,
but there is nothing "ambiguous" about it.
Mark Barrett
> Well, like the person you are disagreeing with I think the ending to the film
> was not only believable and well done, but also necessary. It is a necessity
> because of the arc the film took regarding Black's mental state. It started
> with the farewell party and headed down and in the same increasingly insane
> path for the entire film.
I saw this film last Saturday and was shocked by the ending. I would have
been happier if it ended with everything explained and a happy ending for
Jack. However this ending had a major impact on me since I thought it was
very believable. It gave me nightmares because of the reality.
Mark
Adagio
Ditto... it turned what could have been the typical hollywood ending, into
a tragedy... I mean, the guy was both right, AND crazy....
Adagio
Ditto... it turned what could have been the typical hollywood ending, into
KalElFan
sjr...@aol.com (SJRaff) writes:
>One of the problems is that you are asking the audience to become
>a character who gets involved with Black but with the specific knowledge
>of his previous questionable decisions, but also presume some kind
>of detachment in order to critisize such involvement. That is an
>absurd concept and one which will ruin any film.
This is the most incoherent point I've read in a while, but it's in the
same vein as Mike's recent babbling. Basically, you're both in
denial about the film's major flaw -- the ridiculous contrivances
it uses to get to the ending. You think a defense that The Pledge
isn't formulaic or a by-the-numbers plot driven film, yadda yadda
yadda, somehow absolves it of its absurdities. You think hindsight
rationalization of scenes *intended* to be ambiguous rather than
conclusive, can justify any damn fool way the film leaps from A
to B in its final minutes.
There's no point continuing this discussion, because the "Pledge
isn't formulaic or by-the-numbers" defense is basically all you've
got. I imagine Penn or anyone looking at the sorry box office and
D to F Cinemascores would have to rationalize it that way too.
Mike
kale...@aol.com (KalElFan) wrote:
> This is the most incoherent point I've read in a while, but it's in
the
> same vein as Mike's recent babbling. Basically, you're both in
> denial about the film's major flaw -- the ridiculous contrivances
> it uses to get to the ending. You think a defense that The Pledge
> isn't formulaic or a by-the-numbers plot driven film, yadda yadda
> yadda, somehow absolves it of its absurdities. You think hindsight
> rationalization of scenes *intended* to be ambiguous rather than
> conclusive, can justify any damn fool way the film leaps from A
> to B in its final minutes.
First of all, many of the so-called "ambiguities", at least as it
pertains to the Nicholson character's mental illness, have already been
pointed out not to be ambiguities at all, at least not to a lot of
viewers, although apparently they are to you. Secondly, pointing out
the non-formulaic character of "The Pledge" is not a defense of
anything; it is on the contrary an expression of praise (namely for its
originality) as well as a proposed analysis of why this film may have
gone over some people's head.
>
> There's no point continuing this discussion, because the "Pledge
> isn't formulaic or by-the-numbers" defense is basically all you've
> got. I imagine Penn or anyone looking at the sorry box office and
> D to F Cinemascores would have to rationalize it that way too.
>
There you go again with the box office numbers and Cinemascores, as if
that had anything to do with how good a movie is.
SJRaff
>This is the most incoherent point I've read in a while, but it's in the
>same vein as Mike's recent babbling. Basically, you're both in
>denial about the film's major flaw -- the ridiculous contrivances
>it uses to get to the ending.
Please feel free once again explain these "contrivances" you write of.
You think a defense that The Pledge
>isn't formulaic or a by-the-numbers plot driven film, yadda yadda
>yadda, somehow absolves it of its absurdities.
Well I obviously did not find the film absurd. Black begins his mental descent
at the farewell party by going out on the investigation. He is caught up in
the horrific crime and then furthermore with the promise. Many would claim
such a promise for a retiring cop was a tad insane in itself. The arc of hiw
dementia steadily deepens with every scene. His actions and words never leap
at all.
You think hindsight
>rationalization of scenes *intended* to be ambiguous rather than
>conclusive, can justify any damn fool way the film leaps from A
>to B in its final minutes.
I'm sorry but if you believe the film made some tremendous character leap you
would describe that as a leap from A to C. A to B is normal, but I suspect you
weren't thinking to clearly when you scribbled.
> I imagine Penn or anyone looking at the >sorry box office and
>D to F Cinemascores would have to rationalize it that way too.
>
So you are or are not resorting to money and general public reactions to
strengthen your point? If not then don't bother bringing them up
Jeremy Heilman
>Please feel free once again explain these "contrivances" you write of.
The most serious flaws I had were:
A.) How does he decide to go to that town? It's really a huge freaking
coincidence that going to that town works out... Why on earth does he
settle there?
I have more of a problem here in light of the other coincidences (he
finds a woman with a blonde daughter who's the right age who is
willing to let him take care of her daughter, the daughter is
pestered by a red herring, the car crash, the retarded Native American
who happened to be at the killing, the boy who happened to witness it,
the cop who gives him the photo, the victim who happens to have just
drawn a picture of the killer who her friends knows about, the teacher
who posted said drawing, the retarded mother of the killer, the
abundance of porcupine artisans, the fact that the pledge is proposed
at all, etc... etc...)
I don't mind a few things like this, but this plot relied on nothing
BUT these, and since we don't really see things through Nicholson's
eyes, but rather through the omnipotent "narrator's" they seem to be
seams holding together a loose plot...
B.) How is he able to maintain a healthy relationship for like a year
when the shrink can tell he's nuts after he visits for 2 minutes?
I'm sure there's more, but the point's made...
Jeremy
Norman Wilner
news:553n7tse8lh2qlr48...@4ax.com...
> On 03 Feb 2001 03:38:54 GMT, sjr...@aol.com (SJRaff) wrote:
>
>> Please feel free once again explain these "contrivances"
>> you write of.
>
> The most serious flaws I had were:
>
> A.) How does he decide to go to that town? It's really a
> huge freaking coincidence that going to that town works
> out... Why on earth does he settle there?
The service station is just below the fork in the highway that leads to the
two small towns where girls have disappeared in similar circumstances to the
Reno murder; Black is gambling that sooner or later, the killer will stop at
his service station, or at the diner down the way -- that's why he spends
all his time in those places, watching and listening.
> I have more of a problem here in light of the other coincidences
> (he finds a woman with a blonde daughter who's the right age
> who is willing to let him take care of her daughter, the daughter
> is pestered by a red herring, the car crash, the retarded Native
> American who happened to be at the killing, the boy who
> happened to witness it, the cop who gives him the photo, the
> victim who happens to have just drawn a picture of the killer
> who her friends knows about, the teacher who posted said
> drawing, the retarded mother of the killer, the abundance of
> porcupine artisans, the fact that the pledge is proposed at all,
> etc... etc...)
>
> I don't mind a few things like this, but this plot relied on nothing
> BUT these, and since we don't really see things through
> Nicholson's eyes, but rather through the omnipotent "narrator's"
> they seem to be seams holding together a loose plot...
>
> B.) How is he able to maintain a healthy relationship for like a year
> when the shrink can tell he's nuts after he visits for 2 minutes?
I'm not so sure it's a healthy relationship, since Robin Wright Penn's
character just seems to be desperate for any male authority figure to
protect her and her daughter, but the question isn't "how", but "why" -- and
if he's intent on using the child as bait, then of course he'd be willing to
do whatever her mother wanted to keep them in his life.
Jeremy Heilman
<xnwi...@xhome.xcom> wrote:
>"Jeremy Heilman" <ct...@gate.net> wrote in message
>news:553n7tse8lh2qlr48...@4ax.com...
>> B.) How is he able to maintain a healthy relationship for like a year
>> when the shrink can tell he's nuts after he visits for 2 minutes?
>
>I'm not so sure it's a healthy relationship, since Robin Wright Penn's
>character just seems to be desperate for any male authority figure to
>protect her and her daughter, but the question isn't "how", but "why" -- and
>if he's intent on using the child as bait, then of course he'd be willing to
>do whatever her mother wanted to keep them in his life.
No, the question is how... I mean crazy people aren't generally only
crazy when it comes to one obsession in their lives... The fact that
the movie doesn't really show him being nuts overtly ever during the
time he's with RWP's character is a sticking point with me... again, I
don't' think the performance by Nicholson's strong enough to convey
the insanity or the strength of conviction to the pledge... again, the
shrink sees he's nuts after spending 2 minutes with him...
Hitchcock's Vertigo or DePalma's Obsession do this same scenario
infinitely better...
In any case, I know most of the points can be explained away, I just
think that the fact that there are so many niggling points that
require explanation (which is usually a coincidence) is a problem. I
mean The Pledge is a lot like Unbreakable in my book in this
respect... I have a decent amount of suspension in my disbelief, but
when I feel I'm doing more of my thinking about the film's taping up
of plot holes than I am about the actual themes of the film, I have a
problem...
Jeremy
KalElFan
writes:
>First of all, many of the so-called "ambiguities", at least as it
>pertains to the Nicholson character's mental illness, have already
>been pointed out not to be ambiguities at all...
No, they were pointed out to be at best ambiguous. Then in your
last post you took refuge in that Fortress of Denial of yours, and
rationalized that since you and your friend and unnamed others
didn't think it was ambiguous, that settled the matter.
I actually wrote a short, derisive response to that, i.e. "Well,
that settles it then. You've got your own private Cinemascore
there. LOL." I decided not to waste my time, and lo and behold
you come back with this beautiful gem:
>There you go again with the box office numbers and Cinemascores,
>as if that had anything to do with how good a movie is.
Which of course is the *only* comeback you had in your last
post... well, except for the fact your private Cinemascore is
about as unreliable a rationalization as it gets.
KalElFan
sjr...@aol.com (SJRaff) writes:
>Please feel free once again explain these "contrivances" you write of.
Please feel free to read the friggin' thread. But for starters, if you don't
see that the ending is entirely dependent on the incredible contrivance
of that killer-burned-beyond recognition-on-his-way-to-the-stakeout car
accident, you're as dense as they come.
>Well I obviously did not find the film absurd. Black begins his mental
>descent at the farewell party by going out on the investigation.
This is the same rationalization we've seen, except taken to even
more ridiculous extremes. He went out on the case his last day
on the job! This shows he's headed for insanity! Not only that,
it's unambiguous! The piss-poor psychiatrist told us! LOL.
>I'm sorry but if you believe the film made some tremendous
>character leap you would describe that as a leap from A to C.
>A to B is normal...
No, actually just plain old A is normal under the law of inertia.
No matter how you cut it, some force has to get you from A to B,
then B to C and so on. If A is the first 90% of the movie, where
Jack's character gets wrapped up in a case and looks to be
right (if a bit overzealous and suffering of the fools around him),
and B is the implosion we saw in the last 10%, that's a leap.
If the A marker is the decision to involve himself in the case,
B is that sorry excuse for a detective patronizing him, C is
the crazy psychiatrist leaping :-) to conclusions, D is the rest
of the film to the 90% point, and E is the last 10%, then the
film walked from A to D and then leaped from D to E. If any
other arbitrary lettering scheme works better for you, knock
yourself out. The key point is the film leaps at the end.
>So you are or are not resorting to money and general public
>reactions to strengthen your point?
Lemme think... YES! LOL. The fact almost everyone who saw
this opening day hated it even more than I did does reinforce
my point just a wee bit. But maybe we're all crazy, and you
and Mike and the unnamed others are as right as Jack's
character was. After all the movie isn't formulaic and doesn't
play it by the numbers! Ergo, the criticisms must be the
product of insufficient thinking!
Look, I think you and ootw have shown an incredible capacity
to argue against the obvious, and do so in a way that does
even less justice to the movie. The reason the whole first
part of the movie works is that it's an ambiguous character
study with the world's greatest actor playing the lead role.
We tend to think he's right based on the evidence, but we
do wonder how far he's going to push it in using the kid to
catch the killer. We also see a few characters suggesting
he's pushing it too much, but they have dubious credibility.
So we aren't sure about anything here. We don't know where
this is going to end up, which along with Nicholson is what
makes the friggin' thing reasonably good and interesting
through the first 90%.
SJRaff
>Please feel free to read the friggin' thread. But for starters, if you don't
>see that the ending is entirely dependent on the incredible contrivance
>of that killer-burned-beyond recognition-on-his-way-to-the-stakeout car
>accident, you're as dense as they come.
Resorting to insults? Now that is one wonderful mark of intelligence! Bravo!
Your assesment of contrivancy *relies* on your *assumption* Black would
confront, know and arrest the killer but cannot. Seems to me you are making a
pretty big leap yourself pal.
>
>>Well I obviously did not find the film absurd. Black begins his mental
>>descent at the farewell party by going out on the investigation.
>
>This is the same rationalization we've seen, except taken to even
>more ridiculous extremes. He went out on the case his last day
>on the job! This shows he's headed for insanity! Not only that,
>it's unambiguous! The piss-poor psychiatrist told us! LOL.
If you cannot discern the start of questionable decision making by a character
maybe you should hang up your critical boots. Oh, and by the way Black WAS not
on the job. His farewell party was at the end of his shift. But hey, why let
details derail your rambling.
>
>No, actually just plain old A is normal under the law of inertia.
>No matter how you cut it, some force has to get you from A to B,
Yes, and since B comes after A then it is the *only* next step possible in a
coherent linear sequence. Ttherefore your initial point was incorrect.>
>Lemme think... YES! LOL. The fact almost everyone who saw
>this opening day hated it even more than I did does reinforce
>my point just a wee bit. But maybe we're all crazy,
Blade Runner was hated by many when first released, yep, awful film! I mean
it's totaly ambiguous at the end, it must suck! I'm just going to look up box
office results from now on to pick my films. Seems to work for you! Hopefully
they will come with a new rating " nicely tied up at the end with a lovely
bow".
Jeremy Heilman
>
>Lemme think... YES! LOL. The fact almost everyone who saw
>this opening day hated it even more than I did does reinforce
>my point just a wee bit. But maybe we're all crazy, and you
>and Mike and the unnamed others are as right as Jack's
>character was. After all the movie isn't formulaic and doesn't
>play it by the numbers! Ergo, the criticisms must be the
>product of insufficient thinking!
90% of critics who saw Bonnie & Clyde on opening day hated it with a
passion... Now it's seen as an absolute milestone in cinema.
I'm not saying The Pledge is anywhere near the same quality, but the
point is that initial or mass reaction to a film does not necessarily
mean anything at all... I don't know why you even bother bringing this
up time & again.
I don't understand this logic at all & it's tiresome.
Jeremy
KalElFan
sjr...@aol.com (SJRaff) writes:
>I'm just going to look up box office results from now on to pick
>my films.
Don't forget the Cinemascore! And the rate of box office decline
and other indicators as a measure of word of mouth. And studio
decisions to dump films into January.
>Hopefully they will come with a new rating " nicely tied up at
>the end with a lovely bow".
That would be pretty useless. But based on your insistence,
and a few others here, and no doubt a few critics, I think there
may be a market for a "Non-Formulaic" or NF label. Whenever
studio execs, perhaps in conjunction with vanity film outfits
like Franchise, get together with talent like Penn, they can
label it "Rated NF". Then everyone will know this gives them
a license to do any damn fool thing they want, and criticism
can be safely ignored. It's comforting for anyone involved to
know that any NF film is bound to be viewed as a start-to-finish
classic years from now, no matter how much moviegoers crap
on any part of it today, and no matter if there's red ink.
Execs can simply ask "Since this doesn't have Cage in it
or smell like a blockbuster, and we could lose our shirts,
can you tell me if this project is rated NF for non-formulaic...
you know, on the Penn Superior Film Art scale?" If the
answer comes back in the affirmative, then they sign the
check and enter non-interference mode until maybe they
have to dump the thing into posterity one fine January.
Very useful rating that NF!
KalElFan
>Resorting to insults?
It was an if-the-shoe fits comment, and your argument indicates it may.
The movie resorts to a virtual deus-ex-machina device. Other
contrivances before and after make it more ridicuous, but the biggest
is the accident and it exists independent of what might have happened.
>If you cannot discern the start of questionable decision making by a
>character maybe you should hang up your critical boots.
Aside from the fact that questionable decision making does not make
a character insane, the decision to work the case is not particularly
questionable. It's rare that a murder would happen in this jurisdiction,
he's got a lot of experience and wants to assist, and there aren't a lot
of other genius detectives around (his replacement's a bit of a moron).
Besides, if you must continue this movie-bashing argument that
earlier questionable decisions are unambiguous indicators of
insanity, then it's fair to point out those indicators and other things
are also incredibly contrived. What are the chances a murder would
occur on his last day? What are the chances no other officer
or detective would be willing to break the news to the parents?
What are the chances he would happen to meet someone
with a daughter who fits the victim profile? What are the chances
that the ideal garage would be there and the buyer would sell
despite a higher-than-market price? What are the chances
the mother would ask his advice on red dresses? What are the
chances he would happen to go to a loony specialist for specific
advice on child psychology, and instead get a 60-second
diagnosis on himself?
>Yes, and since B comes after A then it is the *only* next
>step possible in a coherent linear sequence.
Yep, by convention B follows A -- duh! -- but whether it inches or
leaps to B is the issue. Think of it in geographic terms.
>Therefore your initial point was incorrect.
No, it was simply challenged unsuccessfully.
>Blade Runner was hated by many when first released, yep,
>awful film!
B on Cinemascore, B+ from male under 21 and A- from male
over 35, so it was actually a thumbs up (B+ or better) from the
male demographic. I agree it's come to be viewed even better
over time, but relatively few people hated it even then, and it's
incomparable to the D to F scores The Pledge got.
>I mean it's totaly ambiguous at the end, it must suck!
Now you're just bastardizing my position. I think it might have
been fine if The Pledge had remained ambiguous. I have no
problem at all with its ambiguity. To try to put it in terms you
might understand or appreciate better, the movie descends
into the worst kind of Hollywood formula by insisting that it
provide us answers: he's right AND crazy as you few defenders
of the ending have repeatedly pointed out. It would have been
better artistically, IMO, to know only one or neither of these
answers than to contrive and leap to those answers as they
did in the last 10% of the movie. Why do crappy Hollywood
movies always have to give us answers, no matter how stupid
and contrived they are in getting there? :-)
Mike
kale...@aol.com (KalElFan) wrote:
> Which of course is the *only* comeback you had in your last
> post... well, except for the fact your private Cinemascore is
> about as unreliable a rationalization as it gets.
>
At least I try to argue a movie on its own merits, based on my own
interpretation of the pros and cons of the film, rather than resorting
to a totally nonsensical approach to defining the worth of a film in
terms of what OTHER people think of it. Your repeated blubberings about
Cinemascores are truly amazing. You actually believe that this is an
argument in favor of the worth of a film, and you have even stated as
such.
All I can say is, if you don't currently work in Hollywood, you should
consider a career there, because your mass-market philosophy towards
what makes a good film suits the Hollywood mentality just fine. In
Hollywood, after all, films are not an art form but a mass market
commodity. So good luck in your career endeavors there.
KalElFan
Jeremy Heilman <ct...@gate.net> writes:
>90% of critics who saw Bonnie & Clyde on opening day hated it
>with a passion...
It was before my moviegoing time (I'd have been 9 or 10), but I've
never heard the claim that 90% of critics hated Bonnie & Clyde
and I highly doubt it. It happens sometimes though, that films
get critically lukewarm receptions and become viewed as
classics. It's A Wonderful Life and 2001 come to mind more than
Bonnie & Clyde, but I can believe the latter's reception was
lukewarm.
>but the point is that initial or mass reaction to a film does not
>necessarily mean anything at all...
Not necessarily, but almost always it does. I'm not even sure
Bonnie & Clyde is an example, but even if it is it happens with
very few films. It's also the flip side of what we're talking about
here, because The Pledge had decent reviews, it's opening night
moviegoers who almost all panned it.
The two or three people I've been discussing this with seem to
be saying almost everyone else didn't like it, and/or is wrong,
because The Pledge is non-formulaic and doesn't have a by-
the-numbers plot. I've found this particularly interesting, that
this has been their main defense.
Non-Formulaic is the whole point here. For some critics and
pundits on movie groups, and wannabe directors who think
Cage makes popular crap for the masses, Non-Formulaic is
the goal. I think they consciously or subconsciously begin
to associate Non-Formulaic as having to be unpopular. And
sometimes they can be *so* obsessed with that that they'll
make (or give a high rating to) an unpopular movie that's just
as crappy (at least in its last part) as the other stuff they
criticize.
KalElFan
<oo...@my-deja.com> writes:
>At least I try to argue a movie on its own merits, based on my own
>interpretation of the pros and cons of the film, rather than resorting
>to a totally nonsensical approach to defining the worth of a film in
>terms of what OTHER people think of it.
I've had substantive discussions about this movie at length. It's
you who've been reduced to proclamations that there is no ambiguity
(you and your friend agree on that after all!), when it's crystal-clear
there is -- it's the whole basis of the good first part of the movie.
Or that the movie is non-formulaic and that rationalizes everything.
Where is the substance to such arguments? I've pointed out
many specific scenes and examples of the contrivances and
leaps, and gave many examples of the ambiguities. The fact
almost everyone hated the movie opening night, and that the
movie has done awful box office, and that it was dumped into
January, have simply been additional facts that I've pointed out.
>All I can say is, if you don't currently work in Hollywood, you should
>consider a career there, because your mass-market philosophy towards
>what makes a good film suits the Hollywood mentality just fine. In
>Hollywood, after all, films are not an art form but a mass market
>commodity. So good luck in your career endeavors there.
See, this is critical but I actually love it, because my philosophy
is that movies can and should be great entertainment that make
lots of money, and also have artistic merit and get received well
critically. I admire a good marketing campaign, or trailer, or
hype job that leads to a huge blockbuster, in addition to the
artistic merit of it. Ideally I want both, like we got with American
Beauty and Titanic and Saving Private Ryan in recent years.
These are movies that got critical acclaim, won awards, had
good Cinemascores, entertained lots of people, made lots of
money... everybody's happy. The Sixth Sense was the same,
and this past year Erin Brockovich and Gladiator even though
I don't personally rate them as highly as others do. Traffic is
already up to $60M+ and could be the same. Cast Away is
another example.
These were are all very different movies, many non-formulaic
to varying degrees, some with distinctly "unhappy" endings.
The Pledge just craps out at the end. It tried too hard to be
non-formulaic, which it (and Penn) seem to equate too much
with non-commercial or non-Hollywood endings. That was
too much its objective, to the point it didn't realize how stupid
it became getting there at the end.
Jeremy Heilman
>In article <ocgo7t4t2peb3oaq9...@4ax.com>,
>Jeremy Heilman <ct...@gate.net> writes:
>
>>90% of critics who saw Bonnie & Clyde on opening day hated it
>>with a passion...
>
>It was before my moviegoing time (I'd have been 9 or 10), but I've
>never heard the claim that 90% of critics hated Bonnie & Clyde
>and I highly doubt it. It happens sometimes though, that films
>get critically lukewarm receptions and become viewed as
>classics. It's A Wonderful Life and 2001 come to mind more than
>Bonnie & Clyde, but I can believe the latter's reception was
>lukewarm.
I brought it up because it's probably the most extreme example of a
film being absolutely bashed & then reappraised. Also Bonnie & Clyde,
like The Pledge has a shocking ending. Films with shocking (not
surprise) endings probably fare worse in exit polls since they really
might take some time to settle before they can be accepted by the
audience.
But about Bonnie & Clyde (which opened 11 years before I was born) let
me educate you a bit...
The film, universally attacked by critics in August, became the top
grosser of the year by November... It was named best film of the year
by many of the same critics who initially slammed it. It was the
first, and only, film to cause a retraction of a review by a Time
magazine reviewer.
Let me quote Roger Ebert --
"``Bonnie and Clyde,'' made in 1967, was called ``the first modern
American film'' by critic Patrick Goldstein, in an essay on its 30th
anniversary. Certainly it felt like that at the time. The movie opened
like a slap in the face. American filmgoers had never seen anything
like it. In tone and freedom it descended from the French new wave,
particularly Francois Truffaut's own film about doomed lovers, ``Jules
and Jim.'' Indeed, it was Truffaut who first embraced the original
screenplay by David Newman and Robert Benton, and called it to the
attention of Warren Beatty, who was determined to produce it.
How it opened and quickly closed in the autumn of 1967, panned by the
critics, receiving only one ecstatic opening-day newspaper review.
(Modesty be damned: It was my own, calling it ``a milestone in the
history of American movies, a work of truth and brilliance'' and
predicting ``years from now it is quite possible that `Bonnie and
Clyde' will be seen as the definitive film of the 1960s.'')
The movie closed, but would not go away. The soundtrack, bluegrass by
Flatt and Scruggs, went to the top of the charts. Theodora Van
Runkle's berets and maxiskirts for Dunaway started a global fashion
craze. Newsweek critic Joseph Morgenstern famously wrote that his
original negative review had been mistaken. The movie reopened, went
on to become one of Warner Bros.' biggest hits and won 10 nominations
(with Oscars for supporting actress Estelle Parsons and
cinematographer Burnett Guffey). "
Basically it's seen nowadays as the start of the golden age of the
70's... it's hugely influential. The film was generally seen as a
by-the-numbers, overly gratuitous crime drama originally, but it was
reappraised and is now seen as a masterpiece.
>>but the point is that initial or mass reaction to a film does not
>>necessarily mean anything at all...
>
>Not necessarily, but almost always it does. I'm not even sure
>Bonnie & Clyde is an example, but even if it is it happens with
>very few films. It's also the flip side of what we're talking about
>here, because The Pledge had decent reviews, it's opening night
>moviegoers who almost all panned it.
This is a very ignorant point of view though... it ignores anything
that isn't distributed as a blockbuster. There are many, many
brilliant films that just don't find footing in the marketplace.
Others are that are sold as something they aren't by poor marketing
campaigns. Still more are great departures from a cast member's or
director's past work, and are rejected until they are reappraised.
What you're saying is that films need to be hyperaccessible... They
need to be easy enough to digest so that people can give an arbitrary
ranking to them by the time they hit the lobby. The fact is that most
great films aren't so easily appraised (e.g. any Kubrick film, all of
which have dealt with poor initial reaction.).
>The two or three people I've been discussing this with seem to
>be saying almost everyone else didn't like it, and/or is wrong,
>because The Pledge is non-formulaic and doesn't have a by-
>the-numbers plot. I've found this particularly interesting, that
>this has been their main defense.
Well, I think the film is a failure, but I don't think it's a failure
because a random sampling of opening night moviegoers think so...
Statistics like this are so arbitrary & useless that I can't believe
you think quoting them means anything to anyone but yourself. If it's
the reactions of critics (like @ RottenTomatoes.com) where we can
actually go read the opinions of the people who are being counted in
the average, then I think a consensus can be a useful number... But
the opinions of a group with wildly different standards & wildly
different expectations & wildly different members for each film graded
is pretty useless.
>Non-Formulaic is the whole point here. For some critics and
>pundits on movie groups, and wannabe directors who think
>Cage makes popular crap for the masses, Non-Formulaic is
>the goal. I think they consciously or subconsciously begin
>to associate Non-Formulaic as having to be unpopular. And
>sometimes they can be *so* obsessed with that that they'll
>make (or give a high rating to) an unpopular movie that's just
>as crappy (at least in its last part) as the other stuff they
>criticize.
But I highly doubt Sean Penn set out to make an unpopular film, or
that most people who enjoyed The Pledge enjoy it just to be
subversive... I don't think most people have an agenda like that...
It's pretty silly & condescending to think so...
Jeremy
SJRaff
>another example.
>
Except that the movie is pretty crap! :))
KalElFan
Jeremy Heilman <ct...@gate.net> writes:
[My education on Bonnie & Clyde snipped]
The only point in your lecture that was relevant, professor, was
this quote from Ebert:
>... panned by the critics, receiving only one ecstatic opening-
>day newspaper review. (Modesty be damned: It was my own...
And unfortunately for you it doesn't prove that 90% of the critics
hated it as you'd contended. If Ebert was ecstatic, perhaps he
read other 2/4 star reviews and considered those pans. I've
seen Rotten Tomatoes consider 2.5/4 stars a negative review,
but that hardly indicates the critic hated it. We've also seen
people around here repeatedly mischaracterize movies as
being universally panned based on only a few or handful of
reviews, when things like the Variety summary prove otherwise.
Do you have any evidence of your extraordinary claim that 90%
of critics hated it? Those are Battlefield Earth-like percentages.
I'd be astonished if even 50% of critics hated it.
>>... It's also the flip side of what we're talking about
>>here, because The Pledge had decent reviews, it's opening night
>>moviegoers who almost all panned it.
>
>This is a very ignorant point of view though...
Well, no, it's a cold statistical fact. Unlike your 90% claim which
is apparently based on nothing, mine was based on a statistically
significant survey done of opening night moviegoers who saw The
Pledge (at least 1,000 total moviegoers, in 12 cities, based on
inferences drawn from their web page where they actually use
the term "thousands" -- plural -- so it could be 200 per city or
2,400 in total, but even 1,000 randomly selected is statistically
pretty reliable).
>it ignores anything that isn't distributed as a blockbuster...
You're making things up again to argue with. I like all kinds
of movies that aren't blockbusters. Cinemascore rates all
kinds of movies that aren't blockbusters. All kinds of movies
that aren't blockbusters get rated highly by opening night
moviegoers. Movies with downer endings like Pay It Forward
have received good Cinemascores.
If you're going to make up arguments, at least make up ones
that don't illustrate you're full of it.
>What you're saying is that films need to be hyperaccessible...
No, that's just you making up what I'm saying, yet again. You
should stop doing that. It conjures up unpleasant labels when
people misrepresent again and again and again.
>But I highly doubt Sean Penn set out to make an unpopular film
Normally, I wouldn't think that of someone in the absence of
any evidence, but those quotes of his about Cage did seem to
illustrate a disdain for popular, crowdpleasing movies. This was
around the time of Con Air, which was great entertainment IMO
and that of the Cinemascore moviegoers, and which was fairly
well received critically as Summer action movies go. And now
we have The Pledge, which is either a curious choice of a book
to adapt, or goes out of its way to be "non-formulaic" (really a
euphemism for the contrived ending where he goes nuts).
So I think it's fair to speculate that maybe Penn's determination
to do an anti-Hollywood type ending caused the problems this
movie has. When you go into it with that as an objective, maybe
you don't pay enough attention to how you're getting there. Or
you think that ambiguous-at-best tidbits give you a license to
contrive and leap there any way you can.
Jeremy Heilman
>And unfortunately for you it doesn't prove that 90% of the critics
>hated it as you'd contended.
The read David A. Cook's "A History of Narrative Film" which has a
chapter devoted to Bonnie & Clyde & explains the initial critical
reaction in detail... I'm not here to make this stuff up... it was
slammed by probably beyond 90% of critics. There's no denying it.
Anyone who has a bit of film knowledge knows about this...
It's also significant of late because it's an example of a studio's
relaunch of a film to get Oscar noms & another chance of success that
actually worked (unlike Wonder Boys).
>If Ebert was ecstatic, perhaps he
>read other 2/4 star reviews and considered those pans. I've
>seen Rotten Tomatoes consider 2.5/4 stars a negative review,
>but that hardly indicates the critic hated it. We've also seen
>people around here repeatedly mischaracterize movies as
>being universally panned based on only a few or handful of
>reviews, when things like the Variety summary prove otherwise.
Again, I'm not making this stuff up... It's pretty well-documented,
and a really well-known story. If you don't believe me, fine, but I'm
just telling it like it is...
Don't assume I'm wrong just because you didn't know what I'm saying to
be true... It's pretty insulting.
>Do you have any evidence of your extraordinary claim that 90%
>of critics hated it? Those are Battlefield Earth-like percentages.
>I'd be astonished if even 50% of critics hated it.
Well, be astonished... Obviously there weren't sites like
rottentomatoes.com back then, but I have read this from SEVERAL
sources... It's hardly obscure.
Here's a few quotes from the NY times review of the film:
"A raw & unmitigated campaign of sheer press-agentry has been trying
to put across the notion that B&C is a faithful representation of the
desperado careers of B&C....
It is nothing of the sort! It is a cheap piece of bald-faced slapstick
comedy that treats the hideous depredations of that sleazy, moronic
pair as though they were full of fun and frolic!...
Such ridiculous, camp-tinctured travesties of the kind of people these
desperados were and of the way people lived in the dusty Southwest
back in those barren years might be passed off as a candidly
commercial movie comedy, nothing more, if the film weren't redeemed
with blotches of violence of a more grisly sort.
The blending of farce with brutal killings is as pointless as it is
lacking in taste, since it makes no valid commentary upon the already
travestied truth. And it leaves an astonished critic wondering what
purpose they think they serve with this strangely antique, sentimental
claptrap.... "
Even Pauline Kael, famous for only watching a film once to decide her
stance on it, recanted her opinion...
The film was a definite phenomenon (grossing $23 million it was Warner
Bros. 2nd biggest hit ever to that point)... just not during its first
release...
>>>... It's also the flip side of what we're talking about
>>>here, because The Pledge had decent reviews, it's opening night
>>>moviegoers who almost all panned it.
>>
>>This is a very ignorant point of view though...
>
>Well, no, it's a cold statistical fact. Unlike your 90% claim which
>is apparently based on nothing, mine was based on a statistically
>significant survey done of opening night moviegoers who saw The
>Pledge (at least 1,000 total moviegoers, in 12 cities, based on
>inferences drawn from their web page where they actually use
>the term "thousands" -- plural -- so it could be 200 per city or
>2,400 in total, but even 1,000 randomly selected is statistically
>pretty reliable).
But my point of view about Bonnie & Clyde isn't based on nothing...
And I'm not saying the Cinemascore ratings aren't mathematically
accurate... I'm saying they're not a particularly useful number... How
is a film made better just because some people liked it who saw it
opening night?!?!
Basically, I don't trust anyone's opinion on a film but my own... I
wouldn't expect anyone else to do anything more... It's fine for
marketing research, but the problem is every casual fan who gets
cinemascore results & box office statistics thinks they're a
genius.... It ends up being less about the actual film than some
arbitrary definitions of success...
I mean, look at the IMDB rating for The Pledge... it's earned a 7.0...
obviously, over time people's views of it have been improving if it
got a D- or whatever Cinemascore... (but even this poll is subject to
suspicion, since only people who feel compelled to vote one way or
another vote on IMDB...) ... but the point stands... people tend to
have simplified kneejerk reactions to films that change after some
discussion or thought... Cinemascore ignores that...
>>it ignores anything that isn't distributed as a blockbuster...
>
>You're making things up again to argue with. I like all kinds
>of movies that aren't blockbusters. Cinemascore rates all
>kinds of movies that aren't blockbusters. All kinds of movies
>that aren't blockbusters get rated highly by opening night
>moviegoers. Movies with downer endings like Pay It Forward
>have received good Cinemascores.
I didn't say you didn't like films that aren't blockbusters... I said
a lot of films that aren't distributed as blockbusters (i.e. don't get
a wide enough release to receive polling by Cinemascore) are
completely ignored...
>So I think it's fair to speculate that maybe Penn's determination
>to do an anti-Hollywood type ending caused the problems this
>movie has. When you go into it with that as an objective, maybe
>you don't pay enough attention to how you're getting there. Or
>you think that ambiguous-at-best tidbits give you a license to
>contrive and leap there any way you can.
But The Pledge is pretty damn similar in tone to Penn's other two
films... I don't think they were created to be unpopular either...
Obviously there are genres that are far more anti-Hollywood than the
serial killer film... He's not trying to abuse the audience during the
film, obviously... There are people who have responded favorably to it
(and, again, to suggest they did so just to be anti-establishment is a
bit insulting...)
I mean, you're just speculating here without any facts... Just because
he doesn't like Con-Air or Nic Cage's career choices doesn't mean he
hates Hollywood (I think the fact that he's made several studio films
since renders your point moot...).
Jeremy
KalElFan
Heilman <ct...@gate.net> writes:
>The read David A. Cook's "A History of Narrative Film" which has a
>chapter devoted to Bonnie & Clyde & explains the initial critical
>reaction in detail... I'm not here to make this stuff up... it was
>slammed by probably beyond 90% of critics.
So now it's slammed not hated, probably. And if the book had
the 90% support, I suspect we'd be seeing you post it. It's
not my number and changing characterization of it, it's yours.
>Again, I'm not making this stuff up... It's pretty well-documented,
>and a really well-known story. If you don't believe me, fine, but I'm
>just telling it like it is...
What preceded that passage above was not the issue. I don't
doubt Bonnie & Clyde has been better received over time. I
don't doubt it got re-released. I doubt your extraordinary claim
that 90% of critics hated it, and asked for proof.
>Don't assume I'm wrong just because you didn't know what
>I'm saying to be true... It's pretty insulting.
Don't assume flopping around and making things up will change
the problem you have. It would have taken a line or two to say
"Of course I was being rhetorical when I said 90% of critics hated
it. I meant few if any critics praised it, in fact here's Ebert saying
he was the only one who gave it a glowing review...".
>I have read this from SEVERAL sources... It's hardly obscure.
Again, even one quote that says 90% of critics hated it might at
least absolve you of the suspicion, now presumption, that you
just pulled the number and the characterization (90%, hated)
out of your ass. You were making it up, exaggerating what
those several sources may in turn have exaggerated. If there
had been a Variety summary in those days, it may actually
have been more like 5 Positive, 5 Negative, and 20 Mixed.
>Here's a few quotes from the NY times review of the film:
The New York critics are always the tough ones in the Variety
summary! :-)
>Even Pauline Kael, famous for only watching a film once to decide
>her stance on it, recanted her opinion...
She hated it then? And the Times guy recanted too? I mean the
anecdotes of individual reviews prove nothing, but let's at least
get the full anecdote.
>Basically, I don't trust anyone's opinion on a film but my own...
Well, that's bizarre because you've spent a lot of time arguing
in this and previous threads, making arguments up sometimes
and tracking down anecdotal support for what other people
thought about Bonnie and Clyde, which was irrelevant anyway.
You fought tooth and nail against indisputable facts when I
was illustrating the correlation between Cinemascore and
the Academy Awards. Why not just trust your opinion? Why
do you care that it's so different than the mainstream? Just
ignore these discussions. Killfile the term "box office", or
the word Cinemascore.
>I mean, look at the IMDB rating for The Pledge... it's earned a 7.0...
>obviously, over time people's views of it have been improving if it
>got a D- or whatever Cinemascore...
LOL! There you go again. It's not that you're *SO* incredibly
clueless when it comes to surveys and statistics -- no big deal,
most people are. It's that you're not supposed to be caring, and
yet you're running to the IMBD to try to get ammunition to refute
the Cinemascore survey.
IMDB is much less reliable. We had a post here about the
Scientologists trying to pump up the BE rating there by having
people vote. It's entirely self-selecting, and there's a tremendous
incentive for anyone even remotely associated with a movie, or
who even likes a particular star or what have you, and who
happens to be online (these days that's a huge number) to pop
over and give something a good vote. They may not even have
seen the movie at that point. Cinemascore selects the people
they ask randomly, as people come out of the movie.
>people tend to have simplified kneejerk reactions to films that
>change after some discussion or thought...
Yes, any survey is only a snapshot, but there's a fundamental
difference between what Cinemascore and IMDB do (the random
survey vs. the self-selecting one).
>... Just because
>he doesn't like Con-Air or Nic Cage's career choices doesn't
>mean he hates Hollywood...
Again you're making that up. I never said he hates Hollywood.
Helen & Bob
SJRaff wrote:
IYHO. Most people, including most reviewers, disagree with
your estimation of the film. Yes, I have seen it. No, it
is not crap.
Bob
Mike
kale...@aol.com (KalElFan) wrote:
> I've had substantive discussions about this movie at length. It's
> you who've been reduced to proclamations that there is no ambiguity
> (you and your friend agree on that after all!), when it's
crystal-clear
> there is -- it's the whole basis of the good first part of the movie.
>
> Or that the movie is non-formulaic and that rationalizes everything.
> Where is the substance to such arguments? I've pointed out
> many specific scenes and examples of the contrivances and
> leaps, and gave many examples of the ambiguities. The fact
> almost everyone hated the movie opening night, and that the
> movie has done awful box office, and that it was dumped into
> January, have simply been additional facts that I've pointed out.
I've pointed to the many of the same scenes and argued that they are not
in every case ambiguous. We disagree on whether they are ambiguous or
not, and, as you pointed out some time ago in this thread, there isn't
any real point in hashing the same points over and over again (although
my experience in internet discussions has been that those who say "there
is no point in saying anything further on the subject" are willing to
drop the discussion as long as they get in the last word). I am no more
"reduced" to saying that they not ambiguous than you are in saying that
they are, and it was I, after all, who first brought up several specific
examples of those very scenes in the first place. So now you accuse me
of not using specific examples when I was the one who first brought them
up! The fact that I then didn't see it your way after you responded to
my initial mention of those examples seems to frustrate you, but that's
the way it is in the art world. Two people often don't see movies the
same way. I happen to think that you completely missed the boat in your
perception of those scenes. You think otherwise. C'est la vie.
>
> >All I can say is, if you don't currently work in Hollywood, you
should
> >consider a career there, because your mass-market philosophy towards
> >what makes a good film suits the Hollywood mentality just fine. In
> >Hollywood, after all, films are not an art form but a mass market
> >commodity. So good luck in your career endeavors there.
>
> See, this is critical but I actually love it, because my philosophy
> is that movies can and should be great entertainment that make
> lots of money, and also have artistic merit and get received well
> critically. I admire a good marketing campaign, or trailer, or
> hype job that leads to a huge blockbuster, in addition to the
> artistic merit of it. Ideally I want both, like we got with American
> Beauty and Titanic and Saving Private Ryan in recent years.
> These are movies that got critical acclaim, won awards, had
> good Cinemascores, entertained lots of people, made lots of
> money... everybody's happy. The Sixth Sense was the same,
> and this past year Erin Brockovich and Gladiator even though
> I don't personally rate them as highly as others do. Traffic is
> already up to $60M+ and could be the same. Cast Away is
> another example.
I did engage in a little hyperbole there--I think it is true that
Hollywood does care about film as an art form to some extent--otherwise
the occasional gem would never come out of there. Be that as it may,
the existence of all the mindless commercial crap that comes out of
Hollywood (can you say "Adam Sandler"?), the bad remakes of European
movies, the endless film adaptations of old TV shows, and so forth,
illustrate the important point that Hollywood produces good movies
despite itself, and its mass marketing mentality works against rather
than for the making of good art--including, I might, that gem known as
"The Pledge".
However, that is really a rathole that distracts from the main my point,
which still stands--when debating the merits of a film, it is absolutely
NOT a valid argument for or against a film to cite Cinemascores or any
other measure of what OTHER people think about the movie, despite your
earlier assertion in this thread to the contrary. It makes absolutely
no difference as to whether a film is good or bad that other people
liked it or didn't like it.
Mike
kale...@aol.com (KalElFan) wrote:
> >What you're saying is that films need to be hyperaccessible...
>
> No, that's just you making up what I'm saying, yet again. You
> should stop doing that. It conjures up unpleasant labels when
> people misrepresent again and again and again.
I actually like the word "hyperaccessible". If a movie is not
particuarly accessible, audiences are likely hate the movie. Does that
make it a bad film? But if you make the assertion that popular
sentiment correlates with quality, then any movie that is less
accessible is by definition not as good.
free.int...@gmail.com
> Did Jack Nicholson have the intention of useing the little girl for bait
> from the outset and fake his whole relationship with them or did it just
> evolve that way ???????
>
> Also it seems it would have been a good bet to an experienced cop that
> the guy toasted in the accident was the "Wizard" on the way to meet the
> girl. ?????
>
> Any thoughts on these weighty issues ?????
I saw this movie yesterday and was thinking about this today. Fate brought them all together but he did choose to get the red dress for the little girl and she did wear it alot when playing outside. He did care about her and love her but I think he made the decision (convenient as fate would have it) to use her as bait. Mum was right. Even if the Wizard wasnt killed in the car accident, how far would the police have allowed him to go in order to get the evidence. Yep, bait...mum was right. Remember, the life they had together happened because he bought the gas station to stake out the town and everyone who drove. He was driven by his promise.
srolli...@gmail.com
msgid...@yahoo.com
But after he saw the REAL KILLER, he started saying Jerry was crazy, you should've seen him 20 yrs ago.
He wreck Jerry's life TOO before admitting ANOTHER ERROR on HIS part....
They just didn't do a good job in bringing the storyline ending to the audience.
And what a shame being they had so MANY SUPERSTARS appearing in it. Bad job on Penn's part.
