Is the movie so dark and hopeless anyway? I didn’t find it so. Definitely several tones lighter than dark without being cheery, it fits in more with films termed bittersweet than dark I’d think.
Heh. Yeah, it reminded me a lot of an office job I had once, including the would be romance, which consumed much more of my attention than any of the “work” I was assigned to do.
Robert, yes, and that also speaks a little to what I was suggesting in the other thread about directors. Sometimes those sorts of details are what separates one director from another in terms of “style”, but it isn’t accounted for quite as readily.
Absolutely true, and it is through the prism of time that these directors were looked at as being or not being auteurs or shape-shifters or whatever. During the thirties, Ford could have been seen as more of a shapeshifter or sort of journeyman director with some good films as many seem to view Curtiz, whereas a director like, say, Lewis Milestone may have been considered the more promising “auteur” as his films during the thirties were certainly more notable and pushed the medium farther in many ways than did Ford’s, although Ford made more movies during that time, which in itself speaks to a certain lesser prestige in some ways. (Not that Milestone’s films were all alike during that period as he made comedies, dramas, a musical, and a war movie, but that wasn’t unusual in itself during that time before the studios fully settled on their production methods or goals.)
That we now are able to see more of Ford’s films is as much because of how Ford came to be viewed later than it was how he might have been viewed if his work in the thirties was all he had done, instead we might be seeing more of the work of other directors who might have taken something of Ford’s place, although perhaps in a somewhat lesser way, in film history. These sorts of categories aren’t naturally created, they are imposed as much as earned based on what is being looked at or valued from a context that is more of an indirect summary of the directors or films based on the desire to catalog rather than see things plainly. This is understandable of course as that sort of cataloging makes film history more comprehensible, it gives it shape and meaning that it didn’t have in the same way while it was playing out, but it also distorts, which should be kept in mind as well.
Ah, semantics, naturally in this context was set against imposed, so it referred to arising organically of their own accord as opposed to being created after the fact by people removed from the direct experience of the events of the time. I hope we don’t have to quote the Borges story about the categories created by the Emperor of China to drive the point home…
In “The Analytical Language of John Wilkins,” Borges describes ‘a certain Chinese Encyclopedia,’ the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge, in which it is written that animals are divided into:
those that belong to the Emperor,
embalmed ones,
those that are trained,
suckling pigs,
mermaids,
fabulous ones,
stray dogs,
those included in the present classification,
those that tremble as if they were mad,
innumerable ones,
those drawn with a very fine camelhair brush,
others,
those that have just broken a flower vase,
those that from a long way off look like flies.
This classification has been used by many writers. It “shattered all the familiar landmarks of his thought” for Michel Foucault. Anthropologists and ethnographers, German teachers, postmodern feminists, Australian museum curators, and artists quote it. From here
I agree, but being aware of the unnaturalness is in itself important otherwise you end up with all sort of arguments, like many of those here on Mubi, which could potentially be avoided, or mitigated anyway.
To my mind there is, basically, the potential effect of the raw image being shown to contend with, as in pornography or with violence, and beyond that the moral concerns or “lessons” tend to be brought in by the viewer rather than put into effect by the filmmaker, that is to say you can’t get anything out of a film that you aren’t bringing into it, at least in an embryonic form in terms of moral messages.
2 Demonlover
3 Movern Callar
4 Waiting for Happiness
5 Unknown Pleasures
6 The Name of the River
7 Pistol Opera
8 Blissfully Yours
9 Chihwaseon
10 Adaptation
11 Spider
12 The Skywalk is Gone
13 Confessions of a Dangerous Mind
14 The Quiet American
15 Devdas
16 Zemsta
17 The Ring
18 Chinese Odyssey 2002
19 Hero
20 Reign of Fire
I think Christofer is right on that last part as the slaves leaving adds to the heroine’s problems, which is our primary focus or is the significant figure with whom we identify. Given that Scarlett herself doesn’t act “racist” in exceptionally odious ways and the connection Mammy and Sissy have with her suggests the sort of bond that says Tara isn’t a horrible place as well as couching the terms of the film from the standpoint of the noble south against the corrupt and awful northerners makes it hard to argue that there isn’t a serious sort of implicit racism at play here. Once the south has fallen and Scarlett is threatened by those freed slaves, after being threatened by northerners earlier, and the solution given is for Rhett and Ashley to join the nightriders/Klan, then there is little doubt indeed that the film is dealing with race on a ignoble level.
Blue did bring up a good point about Butterfly McQueen and Hattie McDaniel, their performances do work against the implicit racism by bringing more fully human characters to the screen which we can empathize with to some not inconsiderable degree. In fact, I would suggest that the movie Gone with the Wind goes about as far as it can to mitigate some of the even more overt racism inherent in the story, but that alone doesn’t settle the point as the movie need not have been made in the first place. Hollywood has a long tradition of making movies about that time period from the view of the confederacy, where if the northerners aren’t explicitly worse than the southerners, they at least hold an equal place in terms of ideals. This was done for box office reasons much of the time as Hollywood didn’t want to alienate southern viewers, and those from the north weren’t as likely to get upset about glorifying the south as the other way around due to the tone of the times.
This doesn’t mean though that Hollywood should get a sort of free pass for simply reflecting the times as that era, like any, is much more complex than can be put down to a sort of “that’s how it was” attitude. Yes, for some, or even most, that may have been how it was, but Hollywood was a force to help keep it that way, they don’t stand outside history, they are a part of it as well.
For many people at that time, this sort of thing wasn’t how it was, or shouldn’t have been how it was anyway. Discussions of race and ideas about representation weren’t so primitive that the attitudes we are discussing were unknown, and many people were actively fighting against this sort of display, so by consciously choosing to accept certain attitudes out of a desire for money or out of deeper belief is worth noting, even if our “enlightened” attitudes today aren’t those of the time or have their own sets of problems. In a way it would be like attributing the ideals of torture or climate change or income disparity held by much of recent governments to us all and saying we didn’t know any better and that we all believed such things were okay. We do not all believe that way and people back in the late thirties didn’t all believe racist attitudes, implicit or explicit, were okay.
Trying to understand historical context is one thing, it’s complicated and requires a lot of contextualizing and knowledge about the era, but it does show the fallibility of people from all eras and can help put things into better perspective. Going too far in that manner though is to simply accept anything that happened, and therefore can happen, as being a product of its time so morality shouldn’t enter into it, at least not from outsiders. All sorts of awful things can be set aside or accepted in this manner and that clearly doesn’t make sense any more than expecting people from other times and places to behave or think exactly like we do. Again, it’s complicated and trying to smooth out the ruffles of the complicating factors isn’t the best answer to the question.
Yes, Scarlett’s character has a limited perspective to start with, she is spoiled and eogtistical, but charming and still sympathetic to a large degree, other than when she is married to Rhett, especially as she grows into knowledge throughout the film’s running time. That doesn’t alter her spot as the primary emotional force in the movie even if we can see that Rhett, the would-be klansman, is generally more knowledgeable about practical affairs.
One also has to keep in mind that we aren’t talking about a documentary or a movie that exists in some sort of era free background. Gone with the Wind, like all films reflects the time it was made more than the time it is set in. It’s a fantasy view of the south made in 1939, so that is what is at issue as much as anything else, and even if we were to set that aside as well as the attitudes it exhibits, one still has to account for it’s continued popularity and what that suggests as the film didn’t disappear from public view the moment it finished it’s initial run.
So, Robert, are you saying you didn’t appreciate either film very much and so don’t get the attraction to them or that they are both just somewhat unfamiliar in their sort of directness or lack of irony? I liked both films a good bit, but Men on the Mountain more than Insiang. I can’t agree with your statement about Men on the Mountain being very bucolic at the start given the first line of dialogue in the movie is “Is it dead?”. I thought the whole opening sequence was pretty astonishing, and the rest of movie flowed pretty directly from that.
It raises questions as to why we are attracted to films that are so down-beat, art vs entertainment – message vs aesthetic qualities etc.
Indeed, and I tried, via Jazz, to raise some questions about those things on the forum before, but didn’t get very far.
I wouldn’t say that it isn’t aesthetics in the case of Insiang, as there is something fitting about the look and feel of the film as it works with the story. That would only be a small part of what i liked about it though, as it was more the sort of relentless inevitability of the story unfolding that drew me in along with that direct emotionality which tends to accompany melodramas more often, but which tends to often be derided by many for its “excess”. I tend to value that very thing as a sort of narrative aesthetic as it brings a different mode of apprehension and meaning to the story than the more detached style so popular among many cineastes. If the camerawork can be expressive why not the characters? So often such things get labeled as camp.
There’s another topic for you, the borders between “camp” and “the real”, the boundaries of which tend to cause no ends of problems for people it seems.
There you go Robert, now we’re getting closer to being on the same page.
Which isn’t to say I had thought of the ending in precisely those terms, but it does fit with some of my feelings on it. It also goes a little towards explaining that somewhat common assertion about the movie being a political analogy, which I find overstated, particularly once people try to read too much direct correlation into the figures, but does make some sense when thought of as a more general allegory about power, decision making, and following or interpreting the actions of those in charge.
Jazz. while Robert’s reading of that final shoi wasn’t exactly the one I had, it fits in with the general premise of the argument I was making, so I think it is entirely valid as it would give further connection to the act of scrutinizing and the shift in power that has occured.
The indian doesn’t have any direct power over the group, just that with which they imbue him. So any power struggle that occurs isn’t between the indian and Meek per se, but a more internal struggle over whether to trust Meek or not, and if not, should they rely on their instincts about the indian guding them.
Emily doesn’t seem to trust Meek from the beginning, for reasons that aren’t necessarily all associated with his fitness as a guide, but also due to who he is, what he says, and how he conducts himself more generally. In the same way, she also seems to hold some conflicting or ranging feelings about the indian as she, at some points, seems to relate to him as a fellow human being and therefore with a sympathy that may override self-interest, but at other points she says things that suggest it is more a matter of her own welfare than any consideration for the indian directly.
The power struggle then comes from Meek’s claims of expertise or knowledge compared to what the rest of the group sees or thinks on their own. When Emily pulls a gun on Meek and gets him to back down from shooting the indian she assumes a more central role in deciding the direction the group will follow, but this doesn’t happen by her own single desire, it comes from no one else asserting a claim against her action or acting to alter the confrontation. So, the group gives Emily more power by not acting to support Meek, deferring their own judgements to her. This comes from no one knowing what the best choice might be so any action they take would create a new set of responsibilities for those who would act as it would help determine the path the group will follow. Emily’s actions involve a confrontation of control or power, but the men in the group add to this by not accepting Meek’s directions at the lake. Their actions undermine Meek’s authority, but Emily’s directly challenge his view in a way that goes more to the heart of his power of shaping the narrative, which is where much of the dynamic of the movie, or their story comes from.
As I mentioned before, the only indication that we have about the indian possibily leading them to harm comes from Meek’s stories or conjectures. There is nothing we can see that would suggest this would be the case as the indian’s actions are not hostile from what we can see, although they are hard or impossible to understand in some cases. This comes from his “otherness” which is the root of the problem as the very nature of being “other” can be seen as a threat due to the failure of communication. The struggle then is between trusting the other or the stories. Meek’s failings as a guide and leader make this decision more clear as it would be between trusting the irrational they known or their rational decision placed in the service of someone they can’t know in the same way, but may still be able to recognize as being “like” them in some terms.
The question of fate is entirely moot as it doesn’t serve any purpose or get you anywhere as the decisions have to be made and events will always shape the outcome. Saying something is the result of fate or in the hands of God can be considered as some sort of truth, but it is an empty one as everything can be put off to that sort of thinking encouraging a sort of passivity which is its own choice and will lead to its own fated path. Things like the rope breaking can just as easily be explained by the choice to pull the wagon up a hill in a manner that was unreliable or even to have decided to veer from the known path om the first place as that would increase the risk of things going wrong or the consequences if things went wrong. Saying it’s fate that did this is just a way to abidcate the repsonisbility for the judgment or to feel better about the outcome. In Meek’s case, it is the former as he relinguishes the responsibility for their situation by putting it in the hands of fate rather than his own failures and the choices made by himself and others. He gives over his authority to the Meeks and his responsibiltiy to the higher powers when it was his own actions that largely put them in the position they are in.
Oh, and also I think that the ending of the movie was not only good, but demanded by the story, so I don’t understand the idea that it may have come from Reichardt not being able to make a decision about it, in fact examining that idea should give further evidence as to the appropriateness of the ending as it itself fits the themes suggested, but puts it on a failing of the filmmaker rather than as a rather definite element of the film itself.
The Meeks? How did I make that mistake? I meant of course he gives his authority to Emily and her husband.
I find it interesting that everyone seems to want to rewrite the ending or wants something else from it. I thought it was dead on myself. Is this a common sort of feeling at the end of a movie? Maybe the feeling itself is indicative of something of its potential meaning in itself if it isn’t.
Sure we can say a filmmaker has failed if we want, or be unsatisfied by an ending or some other part of the movie, but before doing that I would think it would be a good idea to more fully examine why the film is the way it is rather than simply asserting a preference for it to be something other. As far as I’m concerned the ending to the film makes perfect sense for the film as a whole, and all the suggested changes tend to to some violence to the movie or distort the larger whole in fairly significant ways. Seeing the face of the indian is significant in its confrontational aspect and in his continued inscrutability, altering that shifts the meaning or the point of relation with the characters and thus the film, just has having a resolution where the group does or doesn’t find water or there goal or get scalped or whatever would also be a dramatic shift in how the film is understood. We could delineate what those changes might imply, but as I’m at work I can’t do that right now.
It took you until the ending on Inception to go “Oh please, fuck you.” Polaris? I would have thought the pinwheel moment would have been enough for that reaction. ;)
Oh, yeah, while I understand the hagiographic urge when it comes to the newly departed, it becomes somewhat ridiculous at times when the praise so outweighs reason that the artists works are no longer recognizable by the description. It often seems to be more about those writing getting a subject that writes itself rather than having to actually apply themselves to any sort of critical thinking. Judging by the obits for Blake Edwards, for example, someone unfamiliar with his work could be forgiven for thinking the world had lost a towering giant of the arts rather than the guy who made A Fine Mess and Switch.
A google search for SOPA should provide plenty of more information for anyone who isn’t already aware, as well as providing some sites for signing petitions for anyone who wants to try and stop the bill from passing.
Oh, of course, I wasn’t suggesting that SOPA necessarily had anything to do with the current outage, just that people should be aware of the possible future for the site. I don’t have any idea what is up with it right now, although regulatory/legal issues could always be a potential problem for a site of that nature, just as technical or financial concerns could be. It’s not exactly a service that lends itself to long term reliability for those and other reasons.
sigh…
The idea of a canon is valuable for transmitting knowledge as it provides a set of figures or works around which a body of information has been developed and a set of beliefs have been formed suggesting importance, however, if that body of knowledge is left unchallenged our culture can stagnate. Just as artists seek to challenge the past and provide new ways of looking at the world, so to must those interested in the arts seek to challenge accepted wisdom to keep their thought evolving rather than simply living in the past. Or, if one prefers vegetation analogies, an untended garden turns to weeds, looking too closely at any tree may obscure the forest, rotate the crops, or its better to cut down a tree for firewood than freeze.
Kenji isn’t suggesting erasing those directors from history but challenging their position. Thinking they somehow are immune to challenge is to suggest that we must accept the judgment of those who came before us no matter what the circumstances that caused those judgments to be formed. It also suggested that there is some sort of “proper” ranking of artists and artworks, which then becomes for all practical purposes an objective fact via intersubjective demand, which renders minority opinion challenging that belief untenable and unable to take root keeping us locked in to a set of beliefs which cannot be questioned. An attempt to overthrow the established hierarchy is how we gain knowledge. The attempt itself does no harm, in fact those able to withstand it find their position strengthened while those who can’t rightfully fall aside until or unless they can mount a new challenge of their own. The canon is illusory in itself, the fight is against stagnant thinking and unchallenged belief.
Overthrowing is not the same as throwing out either, the latter suggests complete removal the former suggests removing from their position. What Kenji is saying, from my reading and from what I’ve gathered from the years of reading his posts, would be closer to the notion when you meet the buddha on the road, kill him as much as anything. I can’t believe you actually think Kenji is suggesting Bergman, Fellini, and Kurosawa should be thrown out completely. This kinda seems like you two just don’t see eye to eye and are misreading each other a lot more often than you need to be doing, in other words, it’s more of a style difference with some political underpinnings which push towards causing miscommunication or assumptions being made that take the other at their most distant rather than their nearest points. But maybe that’s just me since I talk to both of you and can’t figure out the reason for frequent clamor.
Heh. Well you two do seem to find yourselves at loggerheads fairly frequently from what I can gather anyway. It’s a forum, so that stuff happens, it just seems to me that those, um, discussions aren’t as fruitful as they could be due to the initial assumptions, but, hey, that’s for y’all to figure out, I get my kicks from dropping in and doing the contrarian thing, so who am I to judge?
The attempt to overthrow is what is useful, the success or failure of that attempt merely sets up a new target or a new attempt on a reinforced position. My way of looking at it is to assume whatever knowledge is most comfortable is probably wrong, as well as that which challenges it, so I don’t even agree with my own thinking for very long. Which should also, um, speak to that same language thing I guess. Although I can’t deny that it would certainly be easier for me if everyone spoke mine, so if everyone else wants to get on board with that I couldn’t object too much, though I’m sure I’d find some way to grumble about it later on.
Anyway, this is all off topic, so I return you now to our thread already in progress…
I think you guys are all on the right path, but I would suggest the definition has changed over time from something purely reception related to having something like a distinguishing set of characteristics now. When cult movies were first being talked about, there were still repertoire theaters showing older movies, so a cult film was often referred to as pretty much any movie that had a devoted following, or at least had one that in some ways exceeded expectations which could be drawn from its initial reception . Duck Soup, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Bette Davis or Bogart movies might fit into that pattern. Once the term gained a foothold in more conventional viewing circles and the theaters showing older films started to disappear, the term morphed into holding a meaning closer to a film which was assumed to recognizably disregard current aesthetic standards by means of visual or narrative excess but which didn’t do so in an “artistic” way. The term cult movie would often be applied before any potential audience had developed for the movie based on those sorts of characteristics or traits, which makes some sense since judging audience reception isn’t as easy in the era of home viewing.
To be sure, there is still some notion of it being a reception based concept as the films that are referred to in this manner or usually those which are seen as not having a wide audience appeal, but could be imagined as being of interest to a niche market of generally younger people who appreciate movies using a different sort of standard than would hold for the community at large. That notion of standards, I think, works into what cult movies are as they nowadays seem to be movies at the margins for which enjoyment is not predicated on a standard notion of genuine appreciation as much as it is a affected or developed taste for what would otherwise be seen as a violation of aesthetic standards or taste norms, even as the commoditization of such films also normalize their relationship to the body of film as a whole, making it another niche market which can be directly appealed to. That’s just my gut feeling as I’ve watched the use of the term change over time.
Oh, and while what Matt says about genre is technically true, I think that term has also suffered some abuse over time in discussion of film as the meaning has been stretched so often by those seeking to expand it, both for marketing purposes and just in general use. A cult movie genre, if one wants to use the term, would be more or less as understandable as an “art” movie genre, which is another term often used with some comprehensible qualities to it but which is also too vague to fit the more concrete demands of a clear definitional purpose.
Right, and over time that can set in or somewhat formalize itself to remove the faux from the description as it becomes a more coherent genre based on production instead of reception, thus potentially creating a cult movie genre that could also arguably compete with the older reception based description for validity. That is if one can even say there is that sort of potential still available for having recognizable cult films given the changes in distribution and viewership. Now it seems there is less of a norm to which a cult could be compared and that most movies now are able to find a cult given the way they are discussed and shared via the internet. The term cult movie, in what I referred to as its older sense, might be largely unnecessary or so open as to have little value anymore.
I can’t help but think it’s simply the initial phase in creating another cash cow for the family, going this route could build some interest in her career potential without seeming too mercenary about it, allowing some room to maneuver against critics and us cynics. A sort of test run to see how things go basically. Which isn’t to suggest that there isn’t some genuine belief in the message as well, for Paris anyway, but these things can have more than one purpose too. Afterwards is when they can try to find a more sustainable vehicle for her to take on as she will then be a “proven” actress.
Hey now, let’s cut Tonya Harding some slack, she stumbled on to the pathway to reality success, but came upon it too early to make the best use of it. Her sex tape thing showed the way for Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian to become the celebrities they are, they should be giving Tonya royalties. Harding simply didn’t have the resources to back up her shot at fame and it happened a little too early on before the internet could really make something go viral. To be sure, it would have been much better for her to not have tried to kneecap Nancy Kerrigan as it made her seem low rent, but all the pieces were otherwise in place for Paris Hilton to capitalize on later. Tonya Harding is something like the patron saint of “reality” stars in that way and she should get more credit.
Do film directors understand normal jobs? over 1 year ago
Is the movie so dark and hopeless anyway? I didn’t find it so. Definitely several tones lighter than dark without being cheery, it fits in more with films termed bittersweet than dark I’d think.
Go to Comment
Do film directors understand normal jobs? over 1 year ago
Heh. Yeah, it reminded me a lot of an office job I had once, including the would be romance, which consumed much more of my attention than any of the “work” I was assigned to do.
Go to Comment
Do film directors understand normal jobs? over 1 year ago
Robert, yes, and that also speaks a little to what I was suggesting in the other thread about directors. Sometimes those sorts of details are what separates one director from another in terms of “style”, but it isn’t accounted for quite as readily.
Go to Comment
"Shape-Shifting" Directors over 1 year ago
Absolutely true, and it is through the prism of time that these directors were looked at as being or not being auteurs or shape-shifters or whatever. During the thirties, Ford could have been seen as more of a shapeshifter or sort of journeyman director with some good films as many seem to view Curtiz, whereas a director like, say, Lewis Milestone may have been considered the more promising “auteur” as his films during the thirties were certainly more notable and pushed the medium farther in many ways than did Ford’s, although Ford made more movies during that time, which in itself speaks to a certain lesser prestige in some ways. (Not that Milestone’s films were all alike during that period as he made comedies, dramas, a musical, and a war movie, but that wasn’t unusual in itself during that time before the studios fully settled on their production methods or goals.)
That we now are able to see more of Ford’s films is as much because of how Ford came to be viewed later than it was how he might have been viewed if his work in the thirties was all he had done, instead we might be seeing more of the work of other directors who might have taken something of Ford’s place, although perhaps in a somewhat lesser way, in film history. These sorts of categories aren’t naturally created, they are imposed as much as earned based on what is being looked at or valued from a context that is more of an indirect summary of the directors or films based on the desire to catalog rather than see things plainly. This is understandable of course as that sort of cataloging makes film history more comprehensible, it gives it shape and meaning that it didn’t have in the same way while it was playing out, but it also distorts, which should be kept in mind as well.
Go to Comment
"Shape-Shifting" Directors over 1 year ago
Ah, semantics, naturally in this context was set against imposed, so it referred to arising organically of their own accord as opposed to being created after the fact by people removed from the direct experience of the events of the time. I hope we don’t have to quote the Borges story about the categories created by the Emperor of China to drive the point home…
Go to Comment
"Shape-Shifting" Directors over 1 year ago
In “The Analytical Language of John Wilkins,” Borges describes ‘a certain Chinese Encyclopedia,’ the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge, in which it is written that animals are divided into:
those that belong to the Emperor,
embalmed ones,
those that are trained,
suckling pigs,
mermaids,
fabulous ones,
stray dogs,
those included in the present classification,
those that tremble as if they were mad,
innumerable ones,
those drawn with a very fine camelhair brush,
others,
those that have just broken a flower vase,
those that from a long way off look like flies.
This classification has been used by many writers. It “shattered all the familiar landmarks of his thought” for Michel Foucault. Anthropologists and ethnographers, German teachers, postmodern feminists, Australian museum curators, and artists quote it. From here
Wikipedia link
A longer and interesting article about the list and its influence can be found here for anyone interested.
Go to Comment
"Shape-Shifting" Directors over 1 year ago
I agree, but being aware of the unnaturalness is in itself important otherwise you end up with all sort of arguments, like many of those here on Mubi, which could potentially be avoided, or mitigated anyway.
Go to Comment
Movies and the Values of Society: the Responsibility of the State and the Responsibility of Filmmakers over 1 year ago
To my mind there is, basically, the potential effect of the raw image being shown to contend with, as in pornography or with violence, and beyond that the moral concerns or “lessons” tend to be brought in by the viewer rather than put into effect by the filmmaker, that is to say you can’t get anything out of a film that you aren’t bringing into it, at least in an embryonic form in terms of moral messages.
Go to Comment
2002 Poll over 1 year ago
1 A Peck on the Cheek
2 Demonlover
3 Movern Callar
4 Waiting for Happiness
5 Unknown Pleasures
6 The Name of the River
7 Pistol Opera
8 Blissfully Yours
9 Chihwaseon
10 Adaptation
11 Spider
12 The Skywalk is Gone
13 Confessions of a Dangerous Mind
14 The Quiet American
15 Devdas
16 Zemsta
17 The Ring
18 Chinese Odyssey 2002
19 Hero
20 Reign of Fire
Go to Comment
Is "Gone With the Wind" a racist film? over 1 year ago
I think Christofer is right on that last part as the slaves leaving adds to the heroine’s problems, which is our primary focus or is the significant figure with whom we identify. Given that Scarlett herself doesn’t act “racist” in exceptionally odious ways and the connection Mammy and Sissy have with her suggests the sort of bond that says Tara isn’t a horrible place as well as couching the terms of the film from the standpoint of the noble south against the corrupt and awful northerners makes it hard to argue that there isn’t a serious sort of implicit racism at play here. Once the south has fallen and Scarlett is threatened by those freed slaves, after being threatened by northerners earlier, and the solution given is for Rhett and Ashley to join the nightriders/Klan, then there is little doubt indeed that the film is dealing with race on a ignoble level.
Blue did bring up a good point about Butterfly McQueen and Hattie McDaniel, their performances do work against the implicit racism by bringing more fully human characters to the screen which we can empathize with to some not inconsiderable degree. In fact, I would suggest that the movie Gone with the Wind goes about as far as it can to mitigate some of the even more overt racism inherent in the story, but that alone doesn’t settle the point as the movie need not have been made in the first place. Hollywood has a long tradition of making movies about that time period from the view of the confederacy, where if the northerners aren’t explicitly worse than the southerners, they at least hold an equal place in terms of ideals. This was done for box office reasons much of the time as Hollywood didn’t want to alienate southern viewers, and those from the north weren’t as likely to get upset about glorifying the south as the other way around due to the tone of the times.
This doesn’t mean though that Hollywood should get a sort of free pass for simply reflecting the times as that era, like any, is much more complex than can be put down to a sort of “that’s how it was” attitude. Yes, for some, or even most, that may have been how it was, but Hollywood was a force to help keep it that way, they don’t stand outside history, they are a part of it as well.
For many people at that time, this sort of thing wasn’t how it was, or shouldn’t have been how it was anyway. Discussions of race and ideas about representation weren’t so primitive that the attitudes we are discussing were unknown, and many people were actively fighting against this sort of display, so by consciously choosing to accept certain attitudes out of a desire for money or out of deeper belief is worth noting, even if our “enlightened” attitudes today aren’t those of the time or have their own sets of problems. In a way it would be like attributing the ideals of torture or climate change or income disparity held by much of recent governments to us all and saying we didn’t know any better and that we all believed such things were okay. We do not all believe that way and people back in the late thirties didn’t all believe racist attitudes, implicit or explicit, were okay.
Trying to understand historical context is one thing, it’s complicated and requires a lot of contextualizing and knowledge about the era, but it does show the fallibility of people from all eras and can help put things into better perspective. Going too far in that manner though is to simply accept anything that happened, and therefore can happen, as being a product of its time so morality shouldn’t enter into it, at least not from outsiders. All sorts of awful things can be set aside or accepted in this manner and that clearly doesn’t make sense any more than expecting people from other times and places to behave or think exactly like we do. Again, it’s complicated and trying to smooth out the ruffles of the complicating factors isn’t the best answer to the question.
Go to Comment
Can't we all just agree that Ozu is the greatest director? over 1 year ago
Got a link to that Gosho by any chance Wu? I’d love to see it.
Go to Comment
Is "Gone With the Wind" a racist film? over 1 year ago
Yes, Scarlett’s character has a limited perspective to start with, she is spoiled and eogtistical, but charming and still sympathetic to a large degree, other than when she is married to Rhett, especially as she grows into knowledge throughout the film’s running time. That doesn’t alter her spot as the primary emotional force in the movie even if we can see that Rhett, the would-be klansman, is generally more knowledgeable about practical affairs.
One also has to keep in mind that we aren’t talking about a documentary or a movie that exists in some sort of era free background. Gone with the Wind, like all films reflects the time it was made more than the time it is set in. It’s a fantasy view of the south made in 1939, so that is what is at issue as much as anything else, and even if we were to set that aside as well as the attitudes it exhibits, one still has to account for it’s continued popularity and what that suggests as the film didn’t disappear from public view the moment it finished it’s initial run.
Go to Comment
Last movie you saw and rate it over 1 year ago
So, Robert, are you saying you didn’t appreciate either film very much and so don’t get the attraction to them or that they are both just somewhat unfamiliar in their sort of directness or lack of irony? I liked both films a good bit, but Men on the Mountain more than Insiang. I can’t agree with your statement about Men on the Mountain being very bucolic at the start given the first line of dialogue in the movie is “Is it dead?”. I thought the whole opening sequence was pretty astonishing, and the rest of movie flowed pretty directly from that.
Go to Comment
Last movie you saw and rate it over 1 year ago
It raises questions as to why we are attracted to films that are so down-beat, art vs entertainment – message vs aesthetic qualities etc.
Indeed, and I tried, via Jazz, to raise some questions about those things on the forum before, but didn’t get very far.
I wouldn’t say that it isn’t aesthetics in the case of Insiang, as there is something fitting about the look and feel of the film as it works with the story. That would only be a small part of what i liked about it though, as it was more the sort of relentless inevitability of the story unfolding that drew me in along with that direct emotionality which tends to accompany melodramas more often, but which tends to often be derided by many for its “excess”. I tend to value that very thing as a sort of narrative aesthetic as it brings a different mode of apprehension and meaning to the story than the more detached style so popular among many cineastes. If the camerawork can be expressive why not the characters? So often such things get labeled as camp.
There’s another topic for you, the borders between “camp” and “the real”, the boundaries of which tend to cause no ends of problems for people it seems.
Go to Comment
Meek's Cutoff over 1 year ago
There you go Robert, now we’re getting closer to being on the same page.
Which isn’t to say I had thought of the ending in precisely those terms, but it does fit with some of my feelings on it. It also goes a little towards explaining that somewhat common assertion about the movie being a political analogy, which I find overstated, particularly once people try to read too much direct correlation into the figures, but does make some sense when thought of as a more general allegory about power, decision making, and following or interpreting the actions of those in charge.
Go to Comment
Meek's Cutoff over 1 year ago
Jazz. while Robert’s reading of that final shoi wasn’t exactly the one I had, it fits in with the general premise of the argument I was making, so I think it is entirely valid as it would give further connection to the act of scrutinizing and the shift in power that has occured.
The indian doesn’t have any direct power over the group, just that with which they imbue him. So any power struggle that occurs isn’t between the indian and Meek per se, but a more internal struggle over whether to trust Meek or not, and if not, should they rely on their instincts about the indian guding them.
Emily doesn’t seem to trust Meek from the beginning, for reasons that aren’t necessarily all associated with his fitness as a guide, but also due to who he is, what he says, and how he conducts himself more generally. In the same way, she also seems to hold some conflicting or ranging feelings about the indian as she, at some points, seems to relate to him as a fellow human being and therefore with a sympathy that may override self-interest, but at other points she says things that suggest it is more a matter of her own welfare than any consideration for the indian directly.
The power struggle then comes from Meek’s claims of expertise or knowledge compared to what the rest of the group sees or thinks on their own. When Emily pulls a gun on Meek and gets him to back down from shooting the indian she assumes a more central role in deciding the direction the group will follow, but this doesn’t happen by her own single desire, it comes from no one else asserting a claim against her action or acting to alter the confrontation. So, the group gives Emily more power by not acting to support Meek, deferring their own judgements to her. This comes from no one knowing what the best choice might be so any action they take would create a new set of responsibilities for those who would act as it would help determine the path the group will follow. Emily’s actions involve a confrontation of control or power, but the men in the group add to this by not accepting Meek’s directions at the lake. Their actions undermine Meek’s authority, but Emily’s directly challenge his view in a way that goes more to the heart of his power of shaping the narrative, which is where much of the dynamic of the movie, or their story comes from.
As I mentioned before, the only indication that we have about the indian possibily leading them to harm comes from Meek’s stories or conjectures. There is nothing we can see that would suggest this would be the case as the indian’s actions are not hostile from what we can see, although they are hard or impossible to understand in some cases. This comes from his “otherness” which is the root of the problem as the very nature of being “other” can be seen as a threat due to the failure of communication. The struggle then is between trusting the other or the stories. Meek’s failings as a guide and leader make this decision more clear as it would be between trusting the irrational they known or their rational decision placed in the service of someone they can’t know in the same way, but may still be able to recognize as being “like” them in some terms.
The question of fate is entirely moot as it doesn’t serve any purpose or get you anywhere as the decisions have to be made and events will always shape the outcome. Saying something is the result of fate or in the hands of God can be considered as some sort of truth, but it is an empty one as everything can be put off to that sort of thinking encouraging a sort of passivity which is its own choice and will lead to its own fated path. Things like the rope breaking can just as easily be explained by the choice to pull the wagon up a hill in a manner that was unreliable or even to have decided to veer from the known path om the first place as that would increase the risk of things going wrong or the consequences if things went wrong. Saying it’s fate that did this is just a way to abidcate the repsonisbility for the judgment or to feel better about the outcome. In Meek’s case, it is the former as he relinguishes the responsibility for their situation by putting it in the hands of fate rather than his own failures and the choices made by himself and others. He gives over his authority to the Meeks and his responsibiltiy to the higher powers when it was his own actions that largely put them in the position they are in.
Go to Comment
Meek's Cutoff over 1 year ago
Oh, and also I think that the ending of the movie was not only good, but demanded by the story, so I don’t understand the idea that it may have come from Reichardt not being able to make a decision about it, in fact examining that idea should give further evidence as to the appropriateness of the ending as it itself fits the themes suggested, but puts it on a failing of the filmmaker rather than as a rather definite element of the film itself.
Go to Comment
Meek's Cutoff over 1 year ago
The Meeks? How did I make that mistake? I meant of course he gives his authority to Emily and her husband.
I find it interesting that everyone seems to want to rewrite the ending or wants something else from it. I thought it was dead on myself. Is this a common sort of feeling at the end of a movie? Maybe the feeling itself is indicative of something of its potential meaning in itself if it isn’t.
Go to Comment
Meek's Cutoff over 1 year ago
Sure we can say a filmmaker has failed if we want, or be unsatisfied by an ending or some other part of the movie, but before doing that I would think it would be a good idea to more fully examine why the film is the way it is rather than simply asserting a preference for it to be something other. As far as I’m concerned the ending to the film makes perfect sense for the film as a whole, and all the suggested changes tend to to some violence to the movie or distort the larger whole in fairly significant ways. Seeing the face of the indian is significant in its confrontational aspect and in his continued inscrutability, altering that shifts the meaning or the point of relation with the characters and thus the film, just has having a resolution where the group does or doesn’t find water or there goal or get scalped or whatever would also be a dramatic shift in how the film is understood. We could delineate what those changes might imply, but as I’m at work I can’t do that right now.
Go to Comment
Meek's Cutoff over 1 year ago
It took you until the ending on Inception to go “Oh please, fuck you.” Polaris? I would have thought the pinwheel moment would have been enough for that reaction. ;)
Go to Comment
Can't we all just agree that Ozu is the greatest director? over 1 year ago
Oh, yeah, while I understand the hagiographic urge when it comes to the newly departed, it becomes somewhat ridiculous at times when the praise so outweighs reason that the artists works are no longer recognizable by the description. It often seems to be more about those writing getting a subject that writes itself rather than having to actually apply themselves to any sort of critical thinking. Judging by the obits for Blake Edwards, for example, someone unfamiliar with his work could be forgiven for thinking the world had lost a towering giant of the arts rather than the guy who made A Fine Mess and Switch.
Go to Comment
Whats Happening with surreal moviez and Rapidshare? over 1 year ago
For those here in the US, you may as well get used to this ’cause if the Stop Online Piracy Act passes sites like Surreal are going to have a hard time operating, or even being able to be found through most IPs since they could be liable for any claims of content theft by the movie industry.
A google search for SOPA should provide plenty of more information for anyone who isn’t already aware, as well as providing some sites for signing petitions for anyone who wants to try and stop the bill from passing.
Go to Comment
Whats Happening with surreal moviez and Rapidshare? over 1 year ago
Oh, of course, I wasn’t suggesting that SOPA necessarily had anything to do with the current outage, just that people should be aware of the possible future for the site. I don’t have any idea what is up with it right now, although regulatory/legal issues could always be a potential problem for a site of that nature, just as technical or financial concerns could be. It’s not exactly a service that lends itself to long term reliability for those and other reasons.
Go to Comment
Can't we all just agree that Ozu is the greatest director? over 1 year ago
sigh…
The idea of a canon is valuable for transmitting knowledge as it provides a set of figures or works around which a body of information has been developed and a set of beliefs have been formed suggesting importance, however, if that body of knowledge is left unchallenged our culture can stagnate. Just as artists seek to challenge the past and provide new ways of looking at the world, so to must those interested in the arts seek to challenge accepted wisdom to keep their thought evolving rather than simply living in the past. Or, if one prefers vegetation analogies, an untended garden turns to weeds, looking too closely at any tree may obscure the forest, rotate the crops, or its better to cut down a tree for firewood than freeze.
Kenji isn’t suggesting erasing those directors from history but challenging their position. Thinking they somehow are immune to challenge is to suggest that we must accept the judgment of those who came before us no matter what the circumstances that caused those judgments to be formed. It also suggested that there is some sort of “proper” ranking of artists and artworks, which then becomes for all practical purposes an objective fact via intersubjective demand, which renders minority opinion challenging that belief untenable and unable to take root keeping us locked in to a set of beliefs which cannot be questioned. An attempt to overthrow the established hierarchy is how we gain knowledge. The attempt itself does no harm, in fact those able to withstand it find their position strengthened while those who can’t rightfully fall aside until or unless they can mount a new challenge of their own. The canon is illusory in itself, the fight is against stagnant thinking and unchallenged belief.
Go to Comment
Can't we all just agree that Ozu is the greatest director? over 1 year ago
Overthrowing is not the same as throwing out either, the latter suggests complete removal the former suggests removing from their position. What Kenji is saying, from my reading and from what I’ve gathered from the years of reading his posts, would be closer to the notion when you meet the buddha on the road, kill him as much as anything. I can’t believe you actually think Kenji is suggesting Bergman, Fellini, and Kurosawa should be thrown out completely. This kinda seems like you two just don’t see eye to eye and are misreading each other a lot more often than you need to be doing, in other words, it’s more of a style difference with some political underpinnings which push towards causing miscommunication or assumptions being made that take the other at their most distant rather than their nearest points. But maybe that’s just me since I talk to both of you and can’t figure out the reason for frequent clamor.
Go to Comment
Can't we all just agree that Ozu is the greatest director? over 1 year ago
Heh. Well you two do seem to find yourselves at loggerheads fairly frequently from what I can gather anyway. It’s a forum, so that stuff happens, it just seems to me that those, um, discussions aren’t as fruitful as they could be due to the initial assumptions, but, hey, that’s for y’all to figure out, I get my kicks from dropping in and doing the contrarian thing, so who am I to judge?
The attempt to overthrow is what is useful, the success or failure of that attempt merely sets up a new target or a new attempt on a reinforced position. My way of looking at it is to assume whatever knowledge is most comfortable is probably wrong, as well as that which challenges it, so I don’t even agree with my own thinking for very long. Which should also, um, speak to that same language thing I guess. Although I can’t deny that it would certainly be easier for me if everyone spoke mine, so if everyone else wants to get on board with that I couldn’t object too much, though I’m sure I’d find some way to grumble about it later on.
Anyway, this is all off topic, so I return you now to our thread already in progress…
Go to Comment
"A Cult Influence" over 1 year ago
I think you guys are all on the right path, but I would suggest the definition has changed over time from something purely reception related to having something like a distinguishing set of characteristics now. When cult movies were first being talked about, there were still repertoire theaters showing older movies, so a cult film was often referred to as pretty much any movie that had a devoted following, or at least had one that in some ways exceeded expectations which could be drawn from its initial reception . Duck Soup, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Bette Davis or Bogart movies might fit into that pattern. Once the term gained a foothold in more conventional viewing circles and the theaters showing older films started to disappear, the term morphed into holding a meaning closer to a film which was assumed to recognizably disregard current aesthetic standards by means of visual or narrative excess but which didn’t do so in an “artistic” way. The term cult movie would often be applied before any potential audience had developed for the movie based on those sorts of characteristics or traits, which makes some sense since judging audience reception isn’t as easy in the era of home viewing.
To be sure, there is still some notion of it being a reception based concept as the films that are referred to in this manner or usually those which are seen as not having a wide audience appeal, but could be imagined as being of interest to a niche market of generally younger people who appreciate movies using a different sort of standard than would hold for the community at large. That notion of standards, I think, works into what cult movies are as they nowadays seem to be movies at the margins for which enjoyment is not predicated on a standard notion of genuine appreciation as much as it is a affected or developed taste for what would otherwise be seen as a violation of aesthetic standards or taste norms, even as the commoditization of such films also normalize their relationship to the body of film as a whole, making it another niche market which can be directly appealed to. That’s just my gut feeling as I’ve watched the use of the term change over time.
Oh, and while what Matt says about genre is technically true, I think that term has also suffered some abuse over time in discussion of film as the meaning has been stretched so often by those seeking to expand it, both for marketing purposes and just in general use. A cult movie genre, if one wants to use the term, would be more or less as understandable as an “art” movie genre, which is another term often used with some comprehensible qualities to it but which is also too vague to fit the more concrete demands of a clear definitional purpose.
Go to Comment
"A Cult Influence" over 1 year ago
Right, and over time that can set in or somewhat formalize itself to remove the faux from the description as it becomes a more coherent genre based on production instead of reception, thus potentially creating a cult movie genre that could also arguably compete with the older reception based description for validity. That is if one can even say there is that sort of potential still available for having recognizable cult films given the changes in distribution and viewership. Now it seems there is less of a norm to which a cult could be compared and that most movies now are able to find a cult given the way they are discussed and shared via the internet. The term cult movie, in what I referred to as its older sense, might be largely unnecessary or so open as to have little value anymore.
Go to Comment
For the Non Cynical, Does Anyone Get the Motive Behind This Paris Jackson Film over 1 year ago
I can’t help but think it’s simply the initial phase in creating another cash cow for the family, going this route could build some interest in her career potential without seeming too mercenary about it, allowing some room to maneuver against critics and us cynics. A sort of test run to see how things go basically. Which isn’t to suggest that there isn’t some genuine belief in the message as well, for Paris anyway, but these things can have more than one purpose too. Afterwards is when they can try to find a more sustainable vehicle for her to take on as she will then be a “proven” actress.
Go to Comment
For the Non Cynical, Does Anyone Get the Motive Behind This Paris Jackson Film over 1 year ago
Hey now, let’s cut Tonya Harding some slack, she stumbled on to the pathway to reality success, but came upon it too early to make the best use of it. Her sex tape thing showed the way for Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian to become the celebrities they are, they should be giving Tonya royalties. Harding simply didn’t have the resources to back up her shot at fame and it happened a little too early on before the internet could really make something go viral. To be sure, it would have been much better for her to not have tried to kneecap Nancy Kerrigan as it made her seem low rent, but all the pieces were otherwise in place for Paris Hilton to capitalize on later. Tonya Harding is something like the patron saint of “reality” stars in that way and she should get more credit.
Go to Comment