Swanberg has a way to not make his characters distant with the viewers as in other films. But the more the characters confused (of what they really want) with themselves, the more he takes us--the viewer--to look inside ourselves. And I think while technically this film isnt polished, the way he edited and put sequence clearly shows he knows how to make drama out of small emotional occurences.
if you can stomach the american-apparel vibes, this easy breezy improv act gets twenty-something dating drama right. at least in my experience. there were a few wince-inducing scenes that reminded me of my own ugliest moments. swanberg's camera focuses on gerwig throughout, mostly keeping the POV confined to her perspective. this avoids conventional moral histronics, but can also feel a bit like leering in moments.
This isn't pretentious. It's meaningless. It's shameful that this is what our generation has to settle for as the vanguard of cinema, when our parents had Herzog and Rohmer and Bertolucci and Scorsese and Fellini and Jodorowsky and Malle and Akerman, just to name a few of the great directors of the 60s and 70s... although this lack of deep thought is more a product of the generation itself than the filmmaker alone.
Interesting postscript. I found Swanberg's Facebook profile and sent him a polite criticism of his film, mentioning that I'd written a feature length script and am a film buff. Instead of saying something like, "If you don't like it, don't see it", he wished me luck on making my film and hoped I'd show it to him. I aspire to be that polite when responding to my critics.
Actually, Joseph, this lack of "deep thought" is not only an intentional part of the project Swanberg's film has set for itself, it's an essential aspect of many great works of art. Yes, i know, people look at Leigh and see the class struggle, or Chekhov and see insight into the Russian class struggle or some such but in truth, those guys are avoiding deep thoughts as well. No I'm not saying Swanberg is on their level but what he lacks is not the kind of depth I think you want. Whatever the case, this film and Nights and Weekends is greater than Scorsese's whole career. Jodorowsky is a joke, and whatever you think is great in Akerman is probably the opposite of what actually makes her great. I think you've been duped by modern ideas of what constitutes depth in film and art. The ideas you're looking for are static. This film is about the movement of expressions, hearts and minds all at the same time. It is the poetry of the present moment.
Re: Judicial Joe's postscript: Just watched this. While I am not so much interested in Swanberg's content, I've seen him speak twice and find him to be a thoughtful, charming, hard-working guy and I'm very pleased that he's achieved all that he has. Incidentally, at this last talk he mentioned that he was growing a bit tired of stories that do not go anywhere and said "naturalism is a dead end." I was very happy to hear this confession :)
Haha, I'm sure you figured I'd say this but that's what makes me kind of nervous about his upcoming work. All joking aside, even if you think Swanberg sucks at it, how can you and practically everyone else be so dismissive of the idea of an artist trying to capture the complexities of real life, or to make them even more complex than they are to enrich their viewer lives? Why does everyone think moving away from life is a step forward in a filmmaker's development? WTF!!!
Better than Scorsese's whole career? ... If I could mail you jars of diarrhea, I would. But I don't have any jars.
"jars of diarrhea"? Is that code for Shutter Island and The Departed? No need to send me those, I've seen them:)
Wasn't a fan of "Shutter Island." "The Departed" was hugely entertaining. Doesn't matter though. Scorsese's still got "Raging Bull," "Taxi Driver," "GoodFellas," and I don't even need to keep on going. It's just false to suggest some guy like Swanberg is better than Scorsese. No one with half a brain thinks that. It's not even an interesting or well-considered contrary opinion.
Well, I will give you that my obviously unsubstantiated statement about Swanberg's superiority was not what anyone could say was well-stated. To say it was not interesting or well-considered you would kind of have to know how much I've considered it, which you don't. I'm not going to go film by film, but I have considered the entirety of Scorsese's filmography and found it wanting, based on my expectations for great art. As simple entertainment, it's fine. I don't expect you to take my word for it, of course. Scorsese's work falls in line with a certain kind of film so I don't think it's necessary to take each film on a case by case basis but you have inspired me to perhaps do an essay about what is clearly lacking, to me, about his work and similar work. Before I write it, here's a hint: it starts with what is present in Swanberg's work and missing from Scorsese's.
Hey, do the essay. Because I can't imagine it's possible to reasonably make the case you're trying to make.
I suggest you rewatch ALICE DOESN'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE before writing that essay. Joe Swanberg represents the 1%.
I own a copy of "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore." It's great. It's kind of like B-level Scorsese, but it's a uniquely directed film, and Kris Kristofferson is great in it. Some people dismiss it because of the over-emphasized happy ending, but I think it works in a strange way – probably because everything leading up to the ending doesn't suggest a resolution like that, narratively or tonally.
ALICE is Scorsese doing Cassavetes, the origin of mumblecore. Agreed that Scorsese is not for everyone, but his films are certainly more interesting and probably more realistic than Swanberg's, if you apply the working class/criminal class characters to all ethnicities, not just Italians.
Well, I'm looking forward to ALICE now. Thanks. Still, nothing else I've seen from him, which is practically everything, is as interesting as the 3 Swanberg films I've seen.
This film alone has more to say about life than anything Spielberg has been involved with. If Saving Private Ryan is your idea of profundity, you'll never be able to understand genuinely complex works of any nature.
Let's avoid needless, broad, sweeping statements like that, bro. "Saving Private Ryan" is a pretty kick-ass movie from any angle. You don't need to crap on it to like this.
This film definitely puts the mumble in mumblecore! Drove me insane. Clearly the dialog (such as it is) was all just improvised on the spot the moment they hit the *record* button. Which would be fine if the actors were actually good at it. But everyone here is very rambling, pretentious, and ultimately, have nothing to really say.
