Peter
12Mar12
perhaps you slight yourself. Bujalski is a gifted observational filmaker and your comment is concise and germane. personally, I'd be tempted to give RW a noogie...
Wall
Displaying all 11 wall posts
FailedImitator likes this
Polyglot
24Sep10
@Rodney: I strongly disagree with you on Beeswax. I am not as smart as you (and most of the users here), so my counter-point will be the exact opposite of what you just said.
Peter and FailedImitator like this
Rodney Welch
13Aug10
The problem with Beeswax isn't that it focuses on everyday details. Many artists (Ozu, Leigh, Jarmusch) do just that, but they make it matter. Beeswax, by contrast, is boring as a dog's ass. It never takes off, and the people in it are annoying as hell. They're those types whose every statement sounds like a question. I sat wishing an asteroid would take out the whole twee, self-absorbed, preening lot.
bknight23
20Jun10
Shakespeare is great EXACTLY because of what you are criticizing. Namely, the unparalleled ability to elevate common language to unprecedented heights. If you want "pure" reality, attach cameras to the lapels of unknowing people and film their lives with them completely unaware. Art is distinguished from life even as it captures it. Your ideas for filmmaking immediately ostracize greats like Tarkovsky and Kurosawa.
bknight23
20Jun10
Mike, I appreciate where you are coming from, but underlying this film is a means of production and artistic intent that inherently undermines the ability to capture the exactitude of the everyday reality its characters inhabit. The fact that Bujalski has an intent behind filmmaking equates the reality of his film with the reality found in any formalist directors repertoire.
ar sh
5Jun10
the summer is approaching. and it is scorching hot. be that as it may, don't judge this movie in one sitting. rePeat. i was ambivalent about my emotions on first viewing. needless to say, it grew on repeat. you say the characters do not have any substance? no development? what? tell me you are not serious? i think this is bujalski's best. the movie does not take you in your arms the very first time you see it, like his other films, but it does it's best to develop a relationship. the color palette is awesome, though the ones during the end credit sequence were tacky maybe. the sounds incorporated is very subtle and delicious at various points. the acting is very methodical. it is a different kind of method acting. you do not go into the role. you relax and lo, the character is on display.
Mike Spence
9May10
Vahid, "capturing details of ordinary, everyday life" is one of the hardest and greatest things a filmmaker can do. I've got news for you, everyone, from a bum or fry cook, to Barack Obama and Bill Gates lives an ordinary, everyday life. Shakespeare's plays are about ordinary everyday life and it's only poor critics and horrible filmmakers who try to diminish this aspect of them so they can exalt high-minded themes and symbolism in their desperate attempt to escape life. It's less important what the bard's character's are talking about than the way they talk and that all they really do is talk. What's interesting in Beeswax is what's interesting in Checkov, James, Cassavetes, Leigh, Kiarostami, Nilsson, Jaime Hernandez and all the best artists of their medium, an overwhelming interest in the rhythms, melodies and occasional harmonies of ordinary, everyday life. An film in film history that is not at some level about the ordinary is a failure, regardless of how amazing the cinematography, performances, or effects are.
Vahid Mortazavi
20Feb10
Last night, I watched it and found it disappointing! I'm wondering what is the reason of all praises famous American critics offer for this so ordinary movie. Capturing details of ordinary, everyday life is not new thing in film history ... So what is all interesting about Beeswax?