You do it. I do it. Critics do it. The Academy does it. Everyone's doing it.

When Michael Jordan came back to play for the Washington Wizards, outside of a late-game block on Ron Mercer, no one was fooling themselves by thinking this was the number 23 of Chicago Bulls days. Yet, unlike in sports, where a good player has a bad game and it's clear to all, perhaps because there are less concrete numbers to be compared, in movies, the reputations of reportedly great directors often is enough to hustle good reviews and favor for not-good films.

THE SYMPTOMS

Deception and four stars. Hype and two thumbs-up. Oscars. Speaking sideways about ass-backwards productions. Over-zealousness confuses the present with the past. Name obsession. Selective memory. Recommending watered-down, tepid retreads of once-vital themes from years prior. Believing a great director always produces at the same level as was made his reputation. Telling people to watch Day for Night.

REPORTED OUTBREAKS

Kubrick's Clockwork Orange (America's foremost bloated director dumbs down violence in a tedious 2 hour exercise of superficiality); Hitchcock's Rebecca (Melodrama and distilled characters replace Hitch's usual suspense); Coppola's Apocalypse Now (A ludicrous and vain third act actually manages to outdo all the pretentiousness that came before it); Bergman's The Seventh Seal (How do you say "heavy-handed" in Swedish?), etc.

THE DIAGNOSIS

When I was younger, my parents decided to do the California thing and one night served my sister and I gardenburgers. Not being told what we were eating, and thus instinctively thinking it came from the meat of some gracious cow, we ate with the usual spirit. Half-way through dinner, my mother broke the silence and revealed that what we really were eating was more veggie than bovine. Too-hungry to really react one way or the other, I kept on, but my sister sensed something was up. Whereas previously she had been enjoying her meal, now being told it wasn't what she believed it to be, she rejected it quite immediately.

This is a similar response--if opposite in direction--that follows the line of thinking as those who would wish to rationalize a great director's bad movie(s). Not knowing the full identity of the product before her but liking it, upon being told that it was of a characteristic running against her usual sensibilities, she protested. Likewise, not knowing the full of identity of the product before them but disliking it, upon being told that it is of a characteristic aligned with their usual sensibilities, critics and audiences often accept--perhaps it doesn't work always at quite so blatant a level, but it works. No one wants to have their artistic idols, those heroes of the cinema, disappoint them, so we justify Gangs of New York because we like Mean Streets, and we justify Brazil because we like Monty Python. Then it goes deeper. We justify Thin Red Line or Gosford Park because we like the idea of comebacks, or we justify Juliet of the Spirits because we like the idea of surreal foreign films. Next we justify Mulholland Dr. because we like David Lynch's name, same as we justify Shrek because we like Speilberg's legacy. Then we justify The Graduate because we like nostalgia and justify Leaving Las Vegas because we like the nearby independent movie theater. That is to say that certain well-received films attain their status not based on the film's actual merit but rather thanks to a handful of names and reputations, genres and subtitles, smoke and mirrors. You don't really like it, you just like the notion of it. And on that off chance that there is a negative reaction, there's a tendency to ignore it within the context of the director's more favorable career. How many people talk about Popeye?

Once a film is evaluated in the framework of a director's career or some other sinister influence, unfiltered opinions are few and far between. Open and candid is replaced by guarded and self-conscious. If ignorance isn't bliss, it sure is honest.

Cuthbert's bringn that knowledge.

V.

> Coppola's
>Apocalypse Now (A ludicrous and vain third act actually
>manages to outdo all the pretentiousness that came before it);

wrong.

I followed the post somewhat until there.

So I'm gonna heed the wise words of Ms. Hanson and remember that no one's opinion is wrong. And I can see through a slanted sort of way why people like Apocalypse Now, but please try harder to refute my apparent idiocy.

Deny that it's pretentious. "Making or marked by an extravagant outward show; ostentatious." Tell me that I was just imagining a drunken Martin Sheen bashing in glass, all BVD upped, for five minutes. Tell me that the narration wasn't as pompous as I perceived it. Tell me that it didn't seem like Coppola was directing with the camera on one side and a stack of poetry books on the other, flaunting each. Tell me that you treasure the Redux version and value the self-indulgent mediocrity of the French Plantation scene especially. Tell me that every idea is realized. Tell me that everything after Dennis Hopper's hallucinogenic-inspired rant isn't a terrible mess. Tell me that Brando and that whole section wasn't a trite disappointment . Please. Then tell me how it's not just a movie about Vietnam, but that it is Vietnam--I love that little tagline too. Excuse its faults and every limp literary allusion, every banal over-wrought moment. I dare ya.

b) Brando is great.

c) It's not about Vietnam, it isn't Vietnam, Vietnam merely takes the place of Africa as the darkest place in the world. It is about going into oneself.

d) Yes, there is lots of narration, and it does seem very prose like, but if you have ever read "Heart of Darkness" you know that Apocalypse Now has much much much less narration and annoying prose.


Basically I disagree with you.

>b) Brando is great.

Brando is wasted.

>c) It's not about Vietnam, it isn't Vietnam, Vietnam merely
>takes the place of Africa as the darkest place in the world.
>It is about going into oneself.

But that doesn't translate into a great movie for me.

>d) Yes, there is lots of narration, and it does seem very
>prose like, but if you have ever read "Heart of Darkness" you
>know that Apocalypse Now has much much much less narration and
>annoying prose.

I. 97/100 times I hate narration.

II. I'm watching the movie, not reading the book. So saying the former cleans up the latter's mistakes is kinda irrelavant to me.

>Basically I disagree with you.

Understood.

>I. 97/100 times I hate narration.

Cause basically this movie is narration. Me, I dig it, but if you don't like narration I can understand hating this movie.

>II. I'm watching the movie, not reading the book. So saying
>the former cleans up the latter's mistakes is kinda irrelavant
>to me.

I am aware of that but it is a very cerebral point, and while I agree that they prolly could have found a way to show what the narration does visually instead of outloud I don't mind that they just have Martin Sheen thinking.





Though I still don't think Brando was wasted.

He absolutely dominates the screen.

>So I'm gonna heed the wise words of Ms. Hanson and remember
>that no one's opinion is wrong.

Because your spiel seems like a justification for you to believe people are fooling themselves into liking the films you list.

>>So I'm gonna heed the wise words of Ms. Hanson and remember
>>that no one's opinion is wrong.
>
>Because your spiel seems like a justification for you to
>believe people are fooling themselves into liking the films
>you list.

People are entitled to their opinions. Check.

No one's opinion is wrong in the usual sense. Check.

I just think some people are basing their opinions on deceiving factors--still doesn't make it wrong or errored, just theirs and not mine. Now I did say that there is always gonna be the person who likes Gangs of New York, for instance, without knowing square one about Scorsese ("unfiltered opinions are few and far between").

The films I listed are just examples of movies that are over-praised in my estimation, due in large part to the director of said movies. That's all.

>So I'm gonna heed the wise words of Ms. Hanson and remember
>that no one's opinion is wrong.

you seem to be new here so i'll let you in on a little okp secret:
unless you are down with the majority of opinions, to alot of people here your opinions ARE wrong. and there is no amount of logic or rational discussion that can change their minds. why? because they are right and you are wrong.

and secret number two:
NEVER. i repeat NEVER brand a movie pretentious for one critical reason; that is, people on here will argue for days with you over the meaning of the word and its application in whatever debate you may be having.

now, put these two together...if you have an opinion on a movie, artist or whatever else that goes against the majority and within that opinion you use the word 'pretentious' you will be condemned for quite some time

there is a very immature undercurrent to these boards you need to be wary of


saying that however, don't let that put you off. i agree with what ur saying
;)

I can't believe how long it's taking some of y'all to figure out who he is.

>you seem to be new here so i'll let you in on a little okp
>secret:


~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

The fruits of my DVD binges: http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&id=kurlyswirl

I be Scrobblin': http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/TasteeTreat/

Not that I was mad, but I dunno, the idea of coming back with a new username (and frankly, a straight gay one no less) seems somewhat strange to me.

But if it means good discussions here, which it probably does, then I'm all for it. As long as he lays off on Kubrick. Then it's on.

http://www.angelfire.com/super2/animorphs/calculus.html

>Not that I was mad, but I dunno, the idea of coming back with
>a new username (and frankly, a straight gay one no less) seems
>somewhat strange to me.
>
>But if it means good discussions here, which it probably does,
>then I'm all for it. As long as he lays off on Kubrick. Then
>it's on.

>I can't believe how long it's taking some of y'all to figure
>out who he is.
>

i know who

oops!
i just took the actual discussion as a sign it was a new person. not the person i now know it is

eh
forget my mentoring then

what now?

I do agree on great directors getting a pass for their miscues and on the lack of a more objective standard like the one that exists in sports though.

And all praise is due to the stunning Laura Elena Harring (goddamn you digital blurring).

Outside of this one, Twin Peaks, and that Lumiere short he did, I don't think I've really been too caught up by any of his work. But I think if I lived in a bubble and hadn't heard about any of the reaction to Mulholland Dr., then I woulda guessed it to be the type of movie that critics hate and sweep under the rug, while it becomes a personal favorite of many, a video find. As it turns out, it wasn't a film that every critic loved, but those who did, defended it feverishly. And it wasn't without its handful of awards and nominations. This is because a) you can't ignore it, David Lynch did it. b) you can't pass it off as confusing nonsense, David Lynch did it.

I mentioned this little idea of mine before and someone responded that Donnie Darko did favorably enough. While I have yet to see that, it was not treated as high and mighty as Lynch's film. Plus, at least from people on this message board, there's been noticeable hate towards Darko. If a respected and established director had made it, I'd figure people to be more likely to approve of it, if only slightly.

It's kinda like if the local wino jumped off the town's largest bridge, people would scoff and call it a selfish moment. But if Jesus had a second coming and took the same dive, it suddenly becomes justified and praised.

but from what I've picked up from criticism of it, even the director doesn't know what it "means". Mulholland Drive actually does make sense, even if there is a loose end or two.

>Kubrick's Clockwork Orange (America's foremost bloated
>director dumbs down violence in a tedious 2 hour exercise of
>superficiality)

0=the amount of weight you hold.

Not only is your dislike of Kubrick misguided, but hating on one of his best, most powerful films is silly.

I'd put Stanley Kubrick against every director ever. Who you got?

"2001"
"Barry Lyndon"
"Dr. Strangelove"
"Paths Of Glory"
"The Killing"
"A Clockwork Orange"
"The Shining"

Name an American director with a filmography that's fucking with that as far as crossing genres. He's done dark comedies, war movies, anti-war movies, horror movies, science fiction movies, ultraviolent dramas, and in each case, a case could be made his venture into that genre is among the best anyone has attempted.

Now, if you want to say "Eyes Wide Shut", I'll bite, because as a diehard Kubrick fan, I'm probably guilty of rationalizing it. I still contend it's a good, though obviously not flawless, film.

But "A Clockwork Orange"? Nope.

>>Kubrick's Clockwork Orange (America's foremost bloated
>>director dumbs down violence in a tedious 2 hour exercise of
>>superficiality)
>
>0=the amount of weight you hold.

Beyond the fact that you like using little cute rap slogans, what does that actually mean?

>Not only is your dislike of Kubrick misguided, but hating on
>one of his best, most powerful films is silly.

If you exchange the placement of "powerful" and "silly," I'd agree.

>I'd put Stanley Kubrick against every director ever. Who you
>got?

Reviews still hasn't killed the "Stanley Kubrick is a meticulous genius" idea?

>"2001"
>"Barry Lyndon"
>"Dr. Strangelove"
>"Paths Of Glory"
>"The Killing"
>"A Clockwork Orange"
>"The Shining"

You're one Hale-Bopp comet away from being laughable.

Calling The Shining and 2001 brilliant is just the type of sickness I mean. Don't let tracking shots and a hint of uniqueness have you believe his mechanics are anything but hollow and superficial. Much respect to Dr. Strangelove (his best and only complete work), the plot sequence of The Killing, the photography of Barry Lyndon, the story of Paths of Glory, the movie poster for Clockwork Orange. But the man was such a consistent perfectionist, right? And yet beyond the pseduo-intellectual, showy nature of his films, the only thing consistent is that the good is outweighed by the heavily ladened attempts at "high art."

And are you ignoring the remainder of his filmography on purpose?

>Name an American director with a filmography that's fucking
>with that as far as crossing genres. He's done dark comedies,
>war movies, anti-war movies, horror movies, science fiction
>movies, ultraviolent dramas, and in each case, a case could be
>made his venture into that genre is among the best anyone has
>attempted.

But making movies that cross genres is worth what when the movies are rather flimsy throughout.

And if I say Robert Altman, does he hold no weight?

>Now, if you want to say "Eyes Wide Shut", I'll bite, because
>as a diehard Kubrick fan, I'm probably guilty of rationalizing
>it. I still contend it's a good, though obviously not
>flawless, film.
>
>But "A Clockwork Orange"? Nope.

Eye Wide Shut >>>>> A Clockwork Orange

>>0=the amount of weight you hold.
>
>Beyond the fact that you like using little cute rap slogans,
>what does that actually mean?

It means your opinion is shit.

>If you exchange the placement of "powerful" and "silly," I'd
>agree.

How is it silly?

>Reviews still hasn't killed the "Stanley Kubrick is a
>meticulous genius" idea?

Unlike you, I suppose, I don't let others stop me from liking someone?

>>"2001"
>>"Barry Lyndon"
>>"Dr. Strangelove"
>>"Paths Of Glory"
>>"The Killing"
>>"A Clockwork Orange"
>>"The Shining"
>
>You're one Hale-Bopp comet away from being laughable.

>Calling The Shining and 2001 brilliant is just the type of
>sickness I mean.

I guess Professor something er other (nice alias, by the way) thinks I'm sick. Whatever will I do?

> Don't let tracking shots and a hint of
>uniqueness have you believe his mechanics are anything but
>hollow and superficial.

Someone's been reading Pauline Kael.

>But the man
>was such a consistent perfectionist, right?

Apparently so.

> And yet beyond
>the pseduo-intellectual, showy nature of his films, the only
>thing consistent is that the good is outweighed by the heavily
>ladened attempts at "high art."

You think that's the only constant throughout his films?

>And are you ignoring the remainder of his filmography on
>purpose?

Which films? "Full Metal Jacket"? It was alright. I mentioned "Eyes Wide Shut".

>But making movies that cross genres is worth what when the
>movies are rather flimsy throughout.

Again, this is your opinion. Personally, I think it's so heaped in dogshit, I have a hard time even believing it's not baiting, but I'll play along.

>And if I say Robert Altman, does he hold no weight?

I like Altman. A strong argument could probably be made for him, sure.

>Eye Wide Shut >>>>> A Clockwork Orange

Wow.

>>>0=the amount of weight you hold.
>>
>>Beyond the fact that you like using little cute rap slogans,
>>what does that actually mean?
>
>It means your opinion is shit.

You're aware this is a message board, right?

>>If you exchange the placement of "powerful" and "silly," I'd
>>agree.
>
>How is it silly?

It's not silly in a zany sort of way, but it's childish and absurd in the "this is a serious subject, take me serious, i have something important to say" sort of way.

>>Reviews still hasn't killed the "Stanley Kubrick is a
>>meticulous genius" idea?
>
>Unlike you, I suppose, I don't let others stop me from liking
>someone?

You're aware this is a message board, right?

>>>"2001"
>>>"Barry Lyndon"
>>>"Dr. Strangelove"
>>>"Paths Of Glory"
>>>"The Killing"
>>>"A Clockwork Orange"
>>>"The Shining"
>>
>>You're one Hale-Bopp comet away from being laughable.
>
>>Calling The Shining and 2001 brilliant is just the type of
>>sickness I mean.
>
>I guess Professor something er other (nice alias, by the way)
>thinks I'm sick. Whatever will I do?

You're aware this is a message board, right?

>> Don't let tracking shots and a hint of
>>uniqueness have you believe his mechanics are anything but
>>hollow and superficial.
>
>Someone's been reading Pauline Kael.

I know her reputation and have only ever read her review of Network. But if she said something like what I'm trying to say, then her reputation is well deserved.

>> And yet beyond
>>the pseduo-intellectual, showy nature of his films, the only
>>thing consistent is that the good is outweighed by the
>heavily
>>ladened attempts at "high art."
>
>You think that's the only constant throughout his films?

Nice tracking shots.

>>And are you ignoring the remainder of his filmography on
>>purpose?
>
>Which films? "Full Metal Jacket"? It was alright. I mentioned
>"Eyes Wide Shut".

I was thinking Lolita and Killer's Kiss.

>>But making movies that cross genres is worth what when the
>>movies are rather flimsy throughout.
>
>Again, this is your opinion. Personally, I think it's so
>heaped in dogshit, I have a hard time even believing it's not
>baiting, but I'll play along.

Of course it's my opinion. Of course you have an opinion too. Ours don't intersect, but I'm not maintaining that they have to.

Baiting? I'm not far from being that man living in a van down by the river, but even I have better things than to bait people by just randomly talking shit about people's heroes. If I see a person walking down the street, I'll say hello. If I'm on a Internet forum with a movie slant that's full of movie fans, I'll say Kubrick is overrated.

>>And if I say Robert Altman, does he hold no weight?
>
>I like Altman. A strong argument could probably be made for
>him, sure.
>
>>Eye Wide Shut >>>>> A Clockwork Orange
>
>Wow.

since he's certainly not my favorite filmmaker of all time.

But Eyes Wide Shut has nothing on A Clockwork Orange, which isn't a perfect picture itself.

Eyes Wide Shut I think is really bad. One of Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman's worst performances (Tom Cruise in Cocktail >>>>> TC in Eyes Wide Shut, Nicole Kidman in Bewitched >>>>> NK in Eyes Wide Shut...the only possible counterargument is Nicole is naked in Eyes Wide Shut, but you can name some of the worst performances of both of those actors and Eyes Wide Shut will be there with them).

Good job if you can get it, I guess.

>But Eyes Wide Shut has nothing on A Clockwork Orange, which
>isn't a perfect picture itself.

Well, yes, Eyes Wide Shut isn't a great film either, but I like it more. And what I like outweighs the flaws I see in it, whereas the opposite is the case for Clockwork. EWS has a perfect mood fitting for its subject, some of Kubrick's best cinematography (that's the one aspect of his career I can't deny), an effective score, beautiful women, and plot that's haunting enough to entice the able viewer. It's bad in some sections, but what's left is intriguing to me.

>Eyes Wide Shut I think is really bad. One of Tom Cruise and
>Nicole Kidman's worst performances (Tom Cruise in Cocktail
>>>>>> TC in Eyes Wide Shut, Nicole Kidman in Bewitched >>>>>
>NK in Eyes Wide Shut...the only possible counterargument is
>Nicole is naked in Eyes Wide Shut, but you can name some of
>the worst performances of both of those actors and Eyes Wide
>Shut will be there with them).

See, and my whole theory on acting, as per a previous post, kinda got its start in discussion of Tom Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut. It's a pretty wooden, stiff and dense performance, but IMO it's what exactly the role needed (and the theory goes that he's shown some of the same attributes intentionally or not elsewhere, but here it finally is turned into something notable--but that was last week's mess).

And Cocktail, beyond being not good, was one of the worst movie experiences I've ever had (watched it in the middle of Midwest humidity, on a soiled couch owned by two overweight, dirty, pot-smoking parapalegics.) But that's not the point.

>You're aware this is a message board, right?

Very much so. Thanks for inquiring though.

>It's not silly in a zany sort of way, but it's childish and
>absurd in the "this is a serious subject, take me serious, i
>have something important to say" sort of way.

Elaborate if you could. What scenes.

>You're aware this is a message board, right?

Again, yes. Unless I misinterpreted what you said, you implied that you're surprised I, someone who enjoys his films, still does so even after all those threads from people who hate them.

>I know her reputation and have only ever read her review of
>Network. But if she said something like what I'm trying to
>say, then her reputation is well deserved.

I find that hard to believe, considering you're basically repeating her criticicms of Kubrick verbatim, but alright.

>Nice tracking shots.

If that's the only constant, both narratively and technically, you see throughout his filmography, then either you're not paying attention or are lying about having seen them. Pick your poison.

>Baiting? I'm not far from being that man living in a van down
>by the river, but even I have better things than to bait
>people by just randomly talking shit about people's heroes.
>If I see a person walking down the street, I'll say hello. If
>I'm on a Internet forum with a movie slant that's full of
>movie fans, I'll say Kubrick is overrated.

Ok. It reeked of baiting to me (as in, having seen how many replies and vigor the previous anti-Kubrick posts got, you wanted in on the action to up the post count for your latest alias incarnation), but if you contend it's not, ok.

>>You're aware this is a message board, right?
>
>Very much so. Thanks for inquiring though.
>
>>It's not silly in a zany sort of way, but it's childish and
>>absurd in the "this is a serious subject, take me serious, i
>>have something important to say" sort of way.
>
>Elaborate if you could. What scenes.

The whole notion of the movie of "violence isn't good, society is out of control." Everything he says about free will and the like comes off like it's being written by the kid who wears a "stop hate" iron-on on his backpack. Very shallow and doesn't explore its subject in anyway that is meant to go beyond the surface. So every time the narrative and action goes over-the-top, intentionally or not, it's kinda pointless and absurd but paraded around as meaningful or important, which is kinda silly to me.

>>I know her reputation and have only ever read her review of
>>Network. But if she said something like what I'm trying to
>>say, then her reputation is well deserved.
>
>I find that hard to believe, considering you're basically
>repeating her criticicms of Kubrick verbatim, but alright.

a. That's all I read about her, disagreed with the review, and got a different book. I know more Andrew Sarris than Kael.

b. If it's a criticsm that's held by more than one person, something something six million Elvis fans can't be wrong.

>>Nice tracking shots.
>
>If that's the only constant, both narratively and technically,
>you see throughout his filmography, then either you're not
>paying attention or are lying about having seen them. Pick
>your poison.

Why would I lie about seeing a movie? This isn't the 5th grade.

The photography is the only positive attribute I find in each of his films.

>>Baiting? I'm not far from being that man living in a van
>down
>>by the river, but even I have better things than to bait
>>people by just randomly talking shit about people's heroes.
>>If I see a person walking down the street, I'll say hello.
>If
>>I'm on a Internet forum with a movie slant that's full of
>>movie fans, I'll say Kubrick is overrated.
>
>Ok. It reeked of baiting to me (as in, having seen how many
>replies and vigor the previous anti-Kubrick posts got, you
>wanted in on the action to up the post count for your latest
>alias incarnation), but if you contend it's not, ok.

I think I've only referenced Kubrick on this board twice and neither references were the focus of the particular post: "filmsnob: if-then" (talking about The Shining), the post about classic films that disappointed (talking about Clockwork Orange). And again, my posts can get no responses and my life won't be any worse for it, please understand.

>The whole notion of the movie of "violence isn't good, society
>is out of control." Everything he says about free will and
>the like comes off like it's being written by the kid who
>wears a "stop hate" iron-on on his backpack. Very shallow and
>doesn't explore its subject in anyway that is meant to go
>beyond the surface. So every time the narrative and action
>goes over-the-top, intentionally or not, it's kinda pointless
>and absurd but paraded around as meaningful or important,
>which is kinda silly to me.

I love "A Clockwork Orange" and everytime I watch it the violence and nihilism excites me, and this reaction in turn frightens me. This is a profound experience and I can't help but think Kubrick deserves the praise for creating a movie which can bring it out of me. There are deeper layers, too, viewed in this context; for instance how Alex's forced trauma over cinematic violence is debilitating, and how this might mirror our own more-conventional experience of emasculated violent fantasies, in contrast with the glorious kind found in Clockwork itself.

Basically, I don't agree with your summation of the movie's main themes at all, but I am not very surprised since it seems you think a movie is supposed to tell you what to make of it instead of showing you (hence your comment about great overwrought spectacle meaning nothing, when to me the orgasmic collage of mayhem and Beethoven for example tells me all I need to know about my humanity in the context of this film, namely that I could see myself in Alex's shoes. How much more sophisticated, and so very far away from your projection, "Violence is bad", is the perspective I see the creator of such mournful odes to man's obsolete primal nature coming from!

(However I do agree with your larger point that there are better films than Kubrick's. No better cinematography though.)

>Reviews still hasn't killed the "Stanley Kubrick is a
>meticulous genius" idea?
>

>
>Calling The Shining and 2001 brilliant is just the type of
>sickness I mean. Don't let tracking shots and a hint of
>uniqueness have you believe his mechanics are anything but
>hollow and superficial.

bullshit

Much respect to Dr. Strangelove (his
>best and only complete work),

bullshit




............................

i'm not good at making decisions...or am i?

>I'd put Stanley Kubrick against every director ever. Who you
>got?

And he's also one of the most outspoken fans of Kubrick's work.

>And he's also one of the most outspoken fans of Kubrick's
>work.

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~yahnk001/filmlist/90-s.top.htm

4th greatest film of the 1990s

you're just more likely to approach something new (or haven't seen) much differently. so if I love every Kurosawa movie I've seen, to the point that I feel he's a genius, then I see a highly regarded film of his, and my immediate reaction is that I don't like it, or I simply think it's bad, I'll be more likely to first turn inward and wonder if there was something that *I* missed, rather than something wrong with the film. but if the same film was directed by some director I know nothing about, I'll just trust my gut without a second thought.

as for all this Kubrick stuff, reaction to Kubrick is very similar to reaction to Tarantino (god vs fraud). so while I get annoyed by film students who act as if he's the only important filmmaker who ever existed, at the same time, I can't help but believe much of the Kubrick hate is more of a response to his groupies, than to his actual films. I think he was a very good filmmaker, but he probably wouldn't be in my top 10. and A Clockwork Orange is one of those movies where half the people who claim to love it couldn't tell you what it's about....the same could also be said for half the people who hate it.

and as for your gardenburger story, my mom once did that too me with liver (she told me it was steak). and I didn't like it, but at the same time I didn't want to hurt my mom's feelings so I lied and told her it was good. then when she dropped the bomb on me halfway through, and I found out I was eating liver instead of shitty steak, I hated it twice as much.

>you're just more likely to approach something new (or haven't
>seen) much differently. so if I love every Kurosawa movie I've
>seen, to the point that I feel he's a genius, then I see a
>highly regarded film of his, and my immediate reaction is that
>I don't like it, or I simply think it's bad, I'll be more
>likely to first turn inward and wonder if there was something
>that *I* missed, rather than something wrong with the film.
>but if the same film was directed by some director I know
>nothing about, I'll just trust my gut without a second
>thought.

Yeah, I still blame myself for not liking Mean Streets and Band of Outsiders. And then I've seen them again, each time trying my best to get into the movies, which must be great since each came from a genius, but that still hasn't worked.

What Kurosawa film?

>as for all this Kubrick stuff, reaction to Kubrick is very
>similar to reaction to Tarantino (god vs fraud). so while I
>get annoyed by film students who act as if he's the only
>important filmmaker who ever existed, at the same time, I
>can't help but believe much of the Kubrick hate is more of a
>response to his groupies, than to his actual films. I think he
>was a very good filmmaker, but he probably wouldn't be in my
>top 10. and A Clockwork Orange is one of those movies where
>half the people who claim to love it couldn't tell you what
>it's about....the same could also be said for half the people
>who hate it.

I thought the Bergman-hating was gonna piss SOME people more.

I'd say Kubrick is a great director in some aspects and a flawed director in other regards, but with a career that I don't find containing anything consistently substanial enough to excuse the flaws. But yeah, he's one of those directors that has loyal fans and passionate detractors.

>and as for your gardenburger story, my mom once did that too
>me with liver (she told me it was steak). and I didn't like
>it, but at the same time I didn't want to hurt my mom's
>feelings so I lied and told her it was good. then when she
>dropped the bomb on me halfway through, and I found out I was
>eating liver instead of shitty steak, I hated it twice as
>much.

I've never had liver.

>Yeah, I still blame myself for not liking Mean Streets and
>Band of Outsiders. And then I've seen them again, each time
>trying my best to get into the movies, which must be great
>since each came from a genius, but that still hasn't worked.

I watched Who's Knocking at My Door for the first time a few months back. If it wasn't Scorsese I probably wouldn't have even finished it, but instead I (sort of) enjoyed it from a historical standpoint. Mean Streets is fucking great.

>What Kurosawa film?

that was just hypothetical. I'm not sure if I've seen a Kurosawa film I haven't liked yet. Sanjuro wasn't all that impressive but that's not really one of his most acclaimed movies. I wasn't very into Rashomon the second time around though.

>I thought the Bergman-hating was gonna piss SOME people more.

Seventh Seal is boring as shit.

>I've never had liver.

consider yourself blessed

You would have to have been alive in the late 70's-early 80's. That's when nutritionists were all pro-liver because of all the iron. When they decided that the high levels of cholesterol in it outweighed the benefits of the iron, children all over America (and beyond, probably) rejoiced.

My mom is an excellent cook and even she couldn't make that shit palatable.

>I've never had liver.
>


~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

The fruits of my DVD binges: http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&id=kurlyswirl

I be Scrobblin': http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/TasteeTreat/

but yeah, so glad when it went out of vogue

>You would have to have been alive in the late 70's-early
>80's. That's when nutritionists were all pro-liver because of
>all the iron. When they decided that the high levels of
>cholesterol in it outweighed the benefits of the iron,
>children all over America (and beyond, probably) rejoiced.

I have hella spinach.

it didn't help.

>My mom is an excellent cook and even she couldn't make that
>shit palatable.
>
>>I've never had liver.

I haven't had cooked liver in more than a decade but I do enjoy the occasionaly liverwurst sandwich.

Also, this is Butler drumming up all this controversy right?

Mech

and its okay that we have different opinions on some directors and movies. Out of curiosity ...

> we
>justify Brazil because we like Monty Python.


I could see if you said Jabberwoky (I tried justifying it for the longest time) ... what's your particular issue(s) with Brazil, Professor?

>and its okay that we have different opinions on some
>directors and movies. Out of curiosity ...
>
>> we
>>justify Brazil because we like Monty Python.
>
>
>I could see if you said Jabberwoky (I tried justifying it for
>the longest time) ... what's your particular issue(s) with
>Brazil, Professor?


Back under a different username a long, long time ago, I think Brazil was the first movie I ever made a post about (it was a reply, really). I had just seen it for the first time and was left incredibly disappointed. What followed was a lengthy discussion of everything that I found poor with the film. Now, unfortunately I have neither the memory or time to get in quite so detail.

Basically my displeasure with Brazil boils down to this idea of having all the elements on hand for a good movie, but squandering them and making it all into a long-winded confusing mistake. You got De Niro and his character is basically the impetus for all the action, but he's so poorly used and written. Then you got these mammoth and spectacular sets, but they never really transcend their physical size. They're kind just big sets for the purpose of big sets. The budget, the Orwellian ideas on hand, all are squandered for a dank and boring look at would could have potentially been enthralling.

>Back under a different username a long, long time ago, I think
>Brazil was the first movie I ever made a post about (it was a
>reply, really).

nice. what was your previous alias?


>Basically my displeasure with Brazil boils down to this idea
>of having all the elements on hand for a good movie, but
>squandering them and making it all into a long-winded
>confusing mistake.

I could possibly co-sign on long-winded (it DID go on for a while with all of the endings ...) and even confuzing (especially if you've only seen it once. The first time I saw it I must admit I was left scratching my head a few times and struggling to follow the script, but it is truly one of those movies that, for me, gets better with every viewing. I'm still seeing new things that I missed and I've seen it dozens of times)


>You got De Niro and his character is
>basically the impetus for all the action,

This is debatable. For me, he was a minor character, and utilized well for what Gilliam wanted the character's purpose in the movie to be.


>Then you got these mammoth and spectacular
>sets, but they never really transcend their physical size.

not sure what you mean by this. Care to elaborate?

>The
>budget, the Orwellian ideas on hand, all are squandered for a
>dank and boring look at would could have potentially been
>enthralling.

but the if the feel of the movie was "enthralling" we would have missed the point of Gilliam's vision of the future being an overbearingly "dank and boring" one. This was precicely the effect he was going for. That we (or at least those living in the British world paradigm) had become slaves to bureaucracy, mediocracy, and had basically become like machines in a vast grey wasteland of inefficiancy and psychic pollution.

>
>>Back under a different username a long, long time ago, I
>think
>>Brazil was the first movie I ever made a post about (it was
>a
>>reply, really).
>
>nice. what was your previous alias?

at the time: ricky_BUTLER

>>You got De Niro and his character is
>>basically the impetus for all the action,
>
>This is debatable. For me, he was a minor character, and
>utilized well for what Gilliam wanted the character's purpose
>in the movie to be.

If I can remember correctly, isn't there a mix-up with names, where they were looking for De Niro, confused identities, and ended up elsewhere. That makes him responsible for the action in a sorta way, and beyond that, why they were looking for him (terrorism, right?) is reason enough to give his character more screen time.

>>Then you got these mammoth and spectacular
>>sets, but they never really transcend their physical size.
>
>not sure what you mean by this. Care to elaborate?

All the set designs and art direction portray this visually interesting and even large world, but I don't think they transcend just being interesting set deign, i.e. If I have an assignment to build a gingerbread house and decide to put a strobe light in the front window, I'm left with a gingerbread house and a strobe light. I haven't utilized either to mesh or become their own powerful entity; same as when they were physically separate, they're still just a strobe light and an gingerbread house. In Brazil, you got this story and these wonderful sets. But I never felt as though the latter was especially utilized in enhancing the former. They don't transcend their individual identities, don't become completely synthesized, and go wasted because of it.

>>The
>>budget, the Orwellian ideas on hand, all are squandered for
>a
>>dank and boring look at would could have potentially been
>>enthralling.
>
>but the if the feel of the movie was "enthralling" we would
>have missed the point of Gilliam's vision of the future being
>an overbearingly "dank and boring" one. This was precicely
>the effect he was going for. That we (or at least those
>living in the British world paradigm) had become slaves to
>bureaucracy, mediocracy, and had basically become like
>machines in a vast grey wasteland of inefficiancy and psychic
>pollution.

But isn't there a difference between portraying a boring world and boringly portraying a similar world?

I think for great directors who have done great films, you don't really rationalize a bad film and think it's great just because of the director.. On the contrary, your expectations are higher than a normal director's work and also you have something to compare it to.. The director has already set a bar for himself so others may be more critical of every release..

I don't think I rationalize too much, I call it how I see it most of the time..

Like Bringing out the dead by Scorsese.. I'm a huge fan of his catalogue, but I still rate this as one of the worst movies i've seen..

(John Leguizamo in Dreads wasn't a good sign)

>I think for great directors who have done great films, you
>don't really rationalize a bad film and think it's great just
>because of the director.. On the contrary, your expectations
>are higher than a normal director's work and also you have
>something to compare it to.. The director has already set a
>bar for himself so others may be more critical of every
>release..

Yes, one expects more from a Scorsese than from a Brett Ratner. So when you see a Scorsese picture that's not on pace with Raging Bull, you can be disappointed. But my idea is that people will manipulate their disappointment into satisifaction, because they don't want to feel let down. So because it is a great director, whereas you would say we expect more, I agree, but maintain that the higher expectations only make some justify to a greater degree.

Sure, there are always exceptions, and some movies are beyond irrational rationalizing.


(I apologize if that was more confusing)

>Like Bringing out the dead by Scorsese.. I'm a huge fan of his
>catalogue, but I still rate this as one of the worst movies
>i've seen..
>
>(John Leguizamo in Dreads wasn't a good sign)

a. Maybe I'm fooling myself too, but I actually like Bringing out the Dead. However, when I rented it the first time, the lady at Hollywood Video asked me if I wanted to rethink the rental.

b. That's Marc Anthony not John Leguizamo.

>>I think for great directors who have done great films, you
>>don't really rationalize a bad film and think it's great
>just
>>because of the director.. On the contrary, your expectations
>>are higher than a normal director's work and also you have
>>something to compare it to.. The director has already set a
>>bar for himself so others may be more critical of every
>>release..
>
>Yes, one expects more from a Scorsese than from a Brett
>Ratner. So when you see a Scorsese picture that's not on pace
>with Raging Bull, you can be disappointed. But my idea is
>that people will manipulate their disappointment into
>satisifaction, because they don't want to feel let down. So
>because it is a great director, whereas you would say we
>expect more, I agree, but maintain that the higher
>expectations only make some justify to a greater degree.
>
>Sure, there are always exceptions, and some movies are beyond
>irrational rationalizing.
>
>
>(I apologize if that was more confusing)

No apology needed, I probably just misinterpreted what you were saying.. yea, I agree to an extent.. but I think it varies a lot at the same time.. I'd say more people give the benefit of the doubt.. but personally, I view each movie as a separate entity in and of itself.
>>Like Bringing out the dead by Scorsese.. I'm a huge fan of
>his
>>catalogue, but I still rate this as one of the worst movies
>>i've seen..
>>
>>(John Leguizamo in Dreads wasn't a good sign)
>
>a. Maybe I'm fooling myself too, but I actually like Bringing
>out the Dead. However, when I rented it the first time, the
>lady at Hollywood Video asked me if I wanted to rethink the
>rental.
>
>b. That's Marc Anthony not John Leguizamo.

oh snap you're right.. been a while since i've seen it.. while we're on the subject, what did you like about it? It seemed so over the top.

>>>Like Bringing out the dead by Scorsese.. I'm a huge fan of
>>his
>>>catalogue, but I still rate this as one of the worst movies
>>>i've seen..
>>>
>>>(John Leguizamo in Dreads wasn't a good sign)
>>
>>a. Maybe I'm fooling myself too, but I actually like
>Bringing
>>out the Dead. However, when I rented it the first time, the
>>lady at Hollywood Video asked me if I wanted to rethink the
>>rental.
>>
>>b. That's Marc Anthony not John Leguizamo.
>
>oh snap you're right.. been a while since i've seen it.. while
>we're on the subject, what did you like about it? It seemed so
>over the top.

It's not a top tier Scorsese movie (Raging Bull, Goodfellas, etc.) or second tier (After Hours, Kings of Comedy, etc.) but it's better than other stuff he's done, e.g. The Color of Money or Cape Fear.

I like:

a. How he used frequent-Oliver Stone collaborator Robert Richardson for the cinematography. But whereas sometimes Stone has a tendency to let the image overpower the story, for me, the energetic and lively photography here enhanced the story.

b. The use of "TB Sheets" by Van Morrison. It's probably one of the best ways Scorsese has utilized a single song throughout his career, which is of course high praise.

c. The supporting cast. Tom Sizemore, John Goodman, and Ving Rhames all were good-to-great. The same can't be said about Nicolas Cage or Arquette, but they weren't awful.

d. The look into the hectic world of the EMS. I had read the book upon which it's based before seeing the movie, written by a guy who was an actual EMS, and thought that the transition from book-to-film seemed like a decently respectable version of that life.

Plus, the geek in me liked that Scorsese was the voice of the dispatcher.

It it perfect? Absolutely not. It's a little scattered and then suddenly slow at times, some of the characters are too one-dimensional, the use of voice-overs disappointed me, but I like it enough.

when one sees the latest Scorcese film (i use him for no other reason than him being mentioned in previous posts) that they are comparing it to what is arguably his best directed film, or that this moviewatcher or these moviewatchers are privy to all films directed by the said director(s)? I honestly did not enjoy Gangs of New York and it had nothing to do with my liking of Taxi Driver. Of course, my liking and disliking of these movies by this director is my opinion but I think just as one might rationalize liking the taste of a new burger (whether they knew it was different or not), one may be fully aware that the taste is new and embrace it just as they did the old, not necessarily deriving or comparing this new affinity with the old one.

in the end, most of this liking/disliking by the average moviewatcher is all about expectation, be it expectation within a certain genre or from a given director's track record.

just a thought i had.




***********************************
"I loved those poems that seemed so small on the page but that swelled in the mind; I didn’t like the windy, dwindling kind." -Louise Gluck

>when one sees the latest Scorcese film (i use him for no
>other reason than him being mentioned in previous posts) that
>they are comparing it to what is arguably his best directed
>film, or that this moviewatcher or these moviewatchers are
>privy to all films directed by the said director(s)? I
>honestly did not enjoy Gangs of New York and it had nothing to
>do with my liking of Taxi Driver. Of course, my liking and
>disliking of these movies by this director is my opinion but I
>think just as one might rationalize liking the taste of a new
>burger (whether they knew it was different or not), one may be
>fully aware that the taste is new and embrace it just as they
>did the old, not necessarily deriving or comparing this new
>affinity with the old one.
>
>in the end, most of this liking/disliking by the average
>moviewatcher is all about expectation, be it expectation
>within a certain genre or from a given director's track
>record.
>
>just a thought i had.

my idea of the process:

a. see Scorsese has a new movie coming out.

b. the name "Scorsese" brings forward these positive ideas based on the greatness which he has delivered previously and despite whatever mediocrity too has been mixed in.

c. set expectations for new Scorsese movie based on he being the same dude who did Taxi Driver and Raging Bull.

d. see new Scorsese film.

e. during the movie begin to realize he missed his mark this time around.

f. not wanting to be so let down, rationalize the film's weaknesses, giving errors a positive spin in light of the fact that such a genius like Scorsese must have intended them to be that way.

g. justify this lesser effort because Scorsese made it, (like if your little niece made you this messy and poorly done flower pot, you'd normally think it to be crap, but because of who did it, you justify its condition and put it in your good graces).

h. exit theater having numbed your disappointment.

so yes, you have expectations, but you manipulate your reaction so that you don't depress said expectations.

I loved that movie...Well I liked the way color was used...Hmmm but maybe the plot wasn't great, so I guess I could see how one could not care for the film...I think that's that Political Science major in me that likes a movie with politics in it though.

And I agree with your points.

overrated I can see... but 'bad'?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Your nerd jokes mean nothing to me. I gotta go keep it real."

- Riley Escobar

Shows its age. Emotionally overwrought and beyond excessive and bizarre in the latter third. The relationship with the daughter is poorly portrayed. Just goes from being great the first act or so to spinning out of control later on.

Sorry if you like it, of course everyone is entitled to their opinions, but it was one of the biggest let-down I've ever had with a film.

And I call its modern-day praise, e.g. AFI Top 100 list, based solely on nostalgia, a good soundtrack, a couple memorable lines of dialogue.

>Shows its age. Emotionally overwrought and beyond excessive
>and bizarre in the latter third.

I don't see that at all, but OK.

>The relationship with the
>daughter is poorly portrayed.

They barely have a relationship, which is kinda the point.

>Sorry if you like it, of course everyone is entitled to their
>opinions, but it was one of the biggest let-down I've ever had
>with a film.

It's not like one of my favorites or anything, I just didn't see why you would think it's a bad movie. Now as for 2001 and Apocalypse Now I think you're crazy, but 1) I can understand why people wouldn't like them, and 2) people already brought those up.

>And I call its modern-day praise, e.g. AFI Top 100 list, based
>solely on nostalgia, a good soundtrack, a couple memorable
>lines of dialogue.

Overrated? Sure. 'Bad'? I still don't see it, but OK.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Your nerd jokes mean nothing to me. I gotta go keep it real."

- Riley Escobar

>>Shows its age. Emotionally overwrought and beyond
>excessive
>>and bizarre in the latter third.
>
>I don't see that at all, but OK.

But don't Hoffman and the daughter Robinson fend of a church crowd using a cross and some melodrama?

It's uneven.

I'm sure that would cause a scuffle to break out in alot of instances, although swinging at them with a cross was probably overdone.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Your nerd jokes mean nothing to me. I gotta go keep it real."

- Riley Escobar

As in they had to use something and there was a cross right there, so fuck it, they had to use a cross. And by they I mean the film makers and not the characters. Still though, easily read into and yes a bit silly, but I still love the movie.

the only feeling I got from seeing it for the first time last year was that I wished I could've been around to experience seeing it at the time of its original release. I probably would have been blown away. instead I don't have much of an opinion of it either way.

>the only feeling I got from seeing it for the first time last
>year was that I wished I could've been around to experience
>seeing it at the time of its original release. I probably
>would have been blown away. instead I don't have much of an
>opinion of it either way.


~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

The fruits of my DVD binges: http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&id=kurlyswirl

I be Scrobblin': http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/TasteeTreat/

that's all I'm saying.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Your nerd jokes mean nothing to me. I gotta go keep it real."

- Riley Escobar

Just one that probably needed to be seen back in the late 60's -70's to fully appreciate.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

The fruits of my DVD binges: http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&id=kurlyswirl

I be Scrobblin': http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/TasteeTreat/

it doesn't need to be devalued for being that

i'd say the same for Easy Rider

just commenting on it in general

"I don't believe in good and bad films, I believe in good and bad directors. It's possible that a mediocre or a very average filmmaker might from time to time make a succesful film, but such success doesn't count. It matters less than a Renoir failure, insofar as Jean Renoir is even capable of making a film that fails."

"A director possesses a style that one will find in all his films, and this is true of the worst filmmakers and their worst films. Differences from one film to the next--a more ingenious script, superior photography, or whatever else--fon't matter, because these differences are precisely the product of exterior forces, more or less money, a greater or shorter shooting schedule. What's essential is that an intelligent and gifted filmmaker remain intelligent and gifted no matter what film he is shooting. I am therefore and advocate of judging, when there is judging to be done, not films but filmmakers."

I took excerpts and the title from Francois Truffaut's most famous article. I believe this, maybe not as dogmatic, but with the overall concept. I believe people pick directors that they feel they relate too more than any aesthetic reason involved in a picture. Our friends in life are the ones who we relate to, enjoy sharing stories, experiences, jokes, etc. I sort of feel the same way about directors. The directors I most admire are ones that want(ed) to explore the same things that I think are interesting and use their craft to relate to the world the same way I relate to them. I just feel that the great directors were the ones that when something caught their interest they wanted to make a film because the audience would want to share that same interest. This is one reason why I can't stand Kubrick, and more and more I'm starting to feel the same way about Bergman. I feel that where someone like Hitchcock who never acted like he was better than the audience, Kubrick always did. All his films feel like he thinks this is what the people want so I'll give it to them. Nothing ever feels personal in his films, just shallow, polarizing, and contraversial just for the sake of it subjects. Now if I continue with Hitchcock, I can easily justify his bad movies. I don't particularly like Rope for example. I can very much appreciate how experimental of a film it is though. There are so many things in this film that make it interesting, for instance, the concept of having a feature length film be one take, to have his first color film and use color very boldly, and to be able to examine hypocrisy and justice. Even though I don't care for it there are still Hitchcock elements in it that make it redeeming. The reason I actually think the film isn't great is because he goes away from his principles, (he admits this himself). I don't offer any of this as an argument point to anybody, just thought I'd add my two cents to the mix.

that's goddamn horrible...

nopeace
liveiLL

Mech