I saw “Blow Out” so many times when it was at the theater. That was before VCRs hit the mass market, and I just hit one showing after the next. I loved everything about it: it’s tricky opening, its jokey self-reflexiveness — the subtle way it makes you aware of how De Palma himself is using sound, for example — and it’s crazy ending, which is a downer, I guess, but it obviously never kept me from wanting to sit through it again. I never really thought of it as a comment on Kennedy or assassinations or all the other conspiratorial stuff that was involved, although that was obviously part of it — I loved it because it was so cinematic. It’s a bit of a mess in ways, and a lot of the critics I read at the time ripped it pretty hard. Dennis Franz is pretty terrible, De Palma’s dialogue can be lame, and that whole ridiculous final act with Travolta and the parade and the earphones and Nancy Allen and so forth just defies credibility — you could imagine De Palma just desperately writing and rewriting to make the damn thing work. But it’s such a masterfully directed and deeply cinematic film — it’s De Palma at his most assured, his most confident, his most ambitious. You could say the same of Carrie, The Fury and Dressed to Kill. To me those are his four classics. He kinda lost me with Body Double, and his work ever since has been interesting but erratic.
I watched it because of Rivette’s comments, and wound up hating him for it, that washed-up, brainless French fuck. It was a loathsome, mean-spirited, ugly movie of no value — and by no value, I’m including Verhoeven’s artful compositions and garish palette, as well as the embarrassing spectacle of watching the talentless Elizabeth Berkeley humiliate herself repeatedly. It’s hilariously revealing on Rivette’s part that he claims Verhoeven actually wrote the script, as if anyone would want credit for such shit. This was trash without pleasure. It wasted two hours of my life. I’m sorry I fell victim to the temptation. Why do I persist in thinking great directors are great viewers? It’s so demonstrably untrue, over and over…
If this thread continues, it’s not going to be too long before someone offers a fresh critique on “Smokey and the Bandit: Part 2,” arguing that it insidiously subverts Hollywood’s usual law and order paradigm, that director Hal Needham isn’t just employing stereotypes, but deconstructing them, as well as paying a kind of backhanded homage to Susan Sontag, Ozu and Bresson, etc., etc…
“…intellectual justifications do not automatically validate a film, contrary to what many think on here and elsewhere…”
True. And keep in mind, it’s not at all unusual for a director to say “It’s satire!” after straight, serious marketing fails. It’s like when someone makes an inappropriate comment at a party and then tries to recover by saying “I’m kidding.”
Or like when Pee Wee Herman falls off his bike and says “I meant to do that.”
Whether it was intended as a satire (or, more likely, a quick buck) doesn’t matter if the film’s no good, especially one like “Showgirls” where the subject matter satirizes itself. You can’t satirize something no one takes seriously to begin with.
Obviously, Jack, I’m not approaching this silly movie from the point of view that it is in any way deserving of an “argument.” It’s lousiness is self-evident.
Obviously, Jack, I’m not approaching this silly movie from the point of view that it is in any way deserving of an “argument.” It’s lousiness is self-evident.
“So, why exactly are you posting in this thread again, Rodney? Posting statements like this is self-contradictory. If you don’t think the film is worth talking about, stop talking about it.”
Or you’ll do what, Adolf?
It’s completely valid to point out that “Showgirls” doesn’t merit discussion. If you want to continue, fine, do it. But that doesn’t mean I have to sit on the sidelines and say nothing.
Nathan, I thought the same thing — it tends to be the skin fare that drives the traffic, rather than, say, Ugetsu or Tokyo Story. Glad to see the new additions, like all Three Colors and Weekend, but I’m still crossing my fingers for Berlin Alexanderplatz.
As a huge fan of this film, I totally disagree the last scene is in any way a letdown. I think it’s one of the most powerful scenes in American cinema, and I wouldn’t change a think about it. It fulfills the struggle that’s been going on with Mikey from the beginning — that in order to shed himself shed of Nicky’s presence, he has to kill him. If he doesn’t, well, they’re back to square one: Nicky will always take, Mikey will always give in. In order for Mikey to stay in good with the mob he has to backstab this friend who has, actually, never been much of a friend at all. I’m not trying to say it was the right thing to do; besides being murder, it also underscores Mikey’s weakness. He can’t defeat Nicky any other way.
“I think the reason the ending (specifically Nicky pounding on the door and getting shot) feels like a letdown after the conversation with his wife, you sort of know everything you need to know.”
But you don’t know how far Mikey will finally go. The conversation with the wife colors in some details, but the power of that ending — and it baffles me why you would find it a letdown — is that it forces this night-long angst-ridden personality-clashing conflicted relationship to its final crisis. Would you have preferred to have Mikey just sit there in the chair and mope? That’s no ending at all.
As for “The Heartbreak Kid,” I think it holds up superbly, due to a lot of things, and not just May. Neil Simon’s script was very funny, and the four major parts were all very well-cast.
If you’re wondering whatever happened to May’s daughter, Jeannie Berlin, who played the ill-fated Lila Kolodny, check out Kenneth Lonergan’s great film “Margaret.”
Blow Out over 1 year ago
I saw “Blow Out” so many times when it was at the theater. That was before VCRs hit the mass market, and I just hit one showing after the next. I loved everything about it: it’s tricky opening, its jokey self-reflexiveness — the subtle way it makes you aware of how De Palma himself is using sound, for example — and it’s crazy ending, which is a downer, I guess, but it obviously never kept me from wanting to sit through it again. I never really thought of it as a comment on Kennedy or assassinations or all the other conspiratorial stuff that was involved, although that was obviously part of it — I loved it because it was so cinematic. It’s a bit of a mess in ways, and a lot of the critics I read at the time ripped it pretty hard. Dennis Franz is pretty terrible, De Palma’s dialogue can be lame, and that whole ridiculous final act with Travolta and the parade and the earphones and Nancy Allen and so forth just defies credibility — you could imagine De Palma just desperately writing and rewriting to make the damn thing work. But it’s such a masterfully directed and deeply cinematic film — it’s De Palma at his most assured, his most confident, his most ambitious. You could say the same of Carrie, The Fury and Dressed to Kill. To me those are his four classics. He kinda lost me with Body Double, and his work ever since has been interesting but erratic.
Go to Comment
Mikey and Nicky over 1 year ago
No, Muriel, you’re catching on. Now go make me a sandwich and remember, go easy on the mayo.
Go to Comment
"Showgirls" is seriously one misunderstood film... over 1 year ago
I watched it because of Rivette’s comments, and wound up hating him for it, that washed-up, brainless French fuck. It was a loathsome, mean-spirited, ugly movie of no value — and by no value, I’m including Verhoeven’s artful compositions and garish palette, as well as the embarrassing spectacle of watching the talentless Elizabeth Berkeley humiliate herself repeatedly. It’s hilariously revealing on Rivette’s part that he claims Verhoeven actually wrote the script, as if anyone would want credit for such shit. This was trash without pleasure. It wasted two hours of my life. I’m sorry I fell victim to the temptation. Why do I persist in thinking great directors are great viewers? It’s so demonstrably untrue, over and over…
Go to Comment
"Showgirls" is seriously one misunderstood film... over 1 year ago
If this thread continues, it’s not going to be too long before someone offers a fresh critique on “Smokey and the Bandit: Part 2,” arguing that it insidiously subverts Hollywood’s usual law and order paradigm, that director Hal Needham isn’t just employing stereotypes, but deconstructing them, as well as paying a kind of backhanded homage to Susan Sontag, Ozu and Bresson, etc., etc…
Go to Comment
"Showgirls" is seriously one misunderstood film... over 1 year ago
“…intellectual justifications do not automatically validate a film, contrary to what many think on here and elsewhere…”
True. And keep in mind, it’s not at all unusual for a director to say “It’s satire!” after straight, serious marketing fails. It’s like when someone makes an inappropriate comment at a party and then tries to recover by saying “I’m kidding.”
Or like when Pee Wee Herman falls off his bike and says “I meant to do that.”
Whether it was intended as a satire (or, more likely, a quick buck) doesn’t matter if the film’s no good, especially one like “Showgirls” where the subject matter satirizes itself. You can’t satirize something no one takes seriously to begin with.
Go to Comment
"Showgirls" is seriously one misunderstood film... over 1 year ago
Or maybe it’s satirizing people who read too much into crap.
Go to Comment
"Showgirls" is seriously one misunderstood film... over 1 year ago
Obviously, Jack, I’m not approaching this silly movie from the point of view that it is in any way deserving of an “argument.” It’s lousiness is self-evident.
Go to Comment
"Showgirls" is seriously one misunderstood film... over 1 year ago
Obviously, Jack, I’m not approaching this silly movie from the point of view that it is in any way deserving of an “argument.” It’s lousiness is self-evident.
Go to Comment
"Showgirls" is seriously one misunderstood film... over 1 year ago
“So, why exactly are you posting in this thread again, Rodney? Posting statements like this is self-contradictory. If you don’t think the film is worth talking about, stop talking about it.”
Or you’ll do what, Adolf?
It’s completely valid to point out that “Showgirls” doesn’t merit discussion. If you want to continue, fine, do it. But that doesn’t mean I have to sit on the sidelines and say nothing.
Go to Comment
"Showgirls" is seriously one misunderstood film... over 1 year ago
Did I stutter?
… be-be-because it’s badly acted, badly written, and just horribly mean-spirited all the way through. What you might call “hatefully directed.”
Go to Comment
The Official Hulu Thread over 1 year ago
Nathan, I thought the same thing — it tends to be the skin fare that drives the traffic, rather than, say, Ugetsu or Tokyo Story. Glad to see the new additions, like all Three Colors and Weekend, but I’m still crossing my fingers for Berlin Alexanderplatz.
Go to Comment
The Official Hulu Thread over 1 year ago
A disappointment? Compared to what? “Interracial Hole-Stretchers, Volume 3”?
Go to Comment
The Official Hulu Thread over 1 year ago
The ending’s a bit of a downer, to say the least…
Go to Comment
DC Film Intro: Nashville over 1 year ago
Barnett cared about Barbara Jean mainly because she was his meal ticket. “Short Cuts” is a great film, but it lacks the spontaneity of “Nashville.”
Go to Comment
The Official Hulu Thread over 1 year ago
Yeah, it’s a pile. For me it’s just a matter of finding the time.
Go to Comment
Mikey and Nicky 4 months ago
As a huge fan of this film, I totally disagree the last scene is in any way a letdown. I think it’s one of the most powerful scenes in American cinema, and I wouldn’t change a think about it. It fulfills the struggle that’s been going on with Mikey from the beginning — that in order to shed himself shed of Nicky’s presence, he has to kill him. If he doesn’t, well, they’re back to square one: Nicky will always take, Mikey will always give in. In order for Mikey to stay in good with the mob he has to backstab this friend who has, actually, never been much of a friend at all. I’m not trying to say it was the right thing to do; besides being murder, it also underscores Mikey’s weakness. He can’t defeat Nicky any other way.
Go to Comment
Mikey and Nicky 4 months ago
Jazzaloha:
“I think the reason the ending (specifically Nicky pounding on the door and getting shot) feels like a letdown after the conversation with his wife, you sort of know everything you need to know.”
But you don’t know how far Mikey will finally go. The conversation with the wife colors in some details, but the power of that ending — and it baffles me why you would find it a letdown — is that it forces this night-long angst-ridden personality-clashing conflicted relationship to its final crisis. Would you have preferred to have Mikey just sit there in the chair and mope? That’s no ending at all.
As for “The Heartbreak Kid,” I think it holds up superbly, due to a lot of things, and not just May. Neil Simon’s script was very funny, and the four major parts were all very well-cast.
If you’re wondering whatever happened to May’s daughter, Jeannie Berlin, who played the ill-fated Lila Kolodny, check out Kenneth Lonergan’s great film “Margaret.”
Go to Comment