I was wondering what everyone’s reactions are to the new subtitles on the latest Criterion version? It seems like they switched a lot of it to colloquial English, and I’m not sure what to make of that.
What I really love is that it seems to be teasing both of them in a very affectionate way. (I don’t why, but when the clerk says “flawed people” as part of the plot description of Climates, it gets me every time).
But then the two sides are brought together (sort of) in a happy ending to the mass culture-art film divide.
This one immediately comes to mind (since I saw it recently). It’s some of the best photography I’ve seen, but I also can’t think of any other movie to compare it to…the way they’re lit and composed, almost each shot feels like a moving 18th century painting. (There was some critic who said that the movie seems to pre-date the invention of the camera).
The page for Ghosts Can’t Do It is now up and active for voting/discussing/vigorous debating pleasure of the community, and many apologies for the delay!
Sadly, the only still I could locate was from an old home video trailer (with an unapologetically 80s color scheme). If anyone has one with a sharper image, I’d be too happy to replace it.
“Self-indulgent” (and its cousin, “pretentious”) are two critical buzzwords that I’ve never been able to fully get a grip on. I agree with Jazzaloha that the term is, in some cases, a legitimate criticism, which is part of the problem, because it seems to me that it’s often used as a catch-all term for a bad reaction to an arthouse film—even though the literal definition could just as easily go the other way. I think Transformers 2 is a self-indulgent movie. It’s just that Michael Bay likes to indulge in explosions, cheap jokes, and Megan Fox, which strike home with a broader audience than, say, deconstructionist Brechtian dialectics about modern consumerism (which I wouldn’t begrudge anyone for disliking, so long as they gave it a shot).
Part of my problem with it is that “self-indulgent” is only a problem if the movie is bad. I mean, 8 1/2 is high in the running for the title of most self-indulgent movie ever made. And I don’t think many people love it because they walked in particularly caring about Fellini as a person, but because he filmed his own personal issues in a way that was beautiful, vivid, emotionally immediate, and largely relatable.
So it seems like “self-indulgent” is a problem only when the movie doesn’t work, or when, to go with what Matt said, when there isn’t that degree of relatability.
But then again, relatability varies from person to person, and why should movies be for everybody? (One man’s self-indulgence…). So for all those reason, it’s a word I try to avoid, and wouldn’t mind seeing elaborated upon. Though I admit, it is easy to use…
Regarding languages, it’s actually an issue we hear about fairly often. At the moment, movies are titled by their territory, so from Spain, a movie will indeed automatically be listed under its Spanish title (if it has one listed). Sadly, we don’t have a customizable language setting at the moment, where the user can choose their language of choice. But it’s prominent on our list of fixes, and hopefully it will be available in the near future!
However, for cases where a movie was released in Germany with its English title, but we still list it in German, that’s something we should look into. (Our editors have discussed making sure we have the commonly used title for each country…for instance, in America, La Dolce Vita is still La Dolce Vita and not The Sweet Life).
I’d like them to explain how Walt appeared to Locke if Walt wasn’t dead, or what the rules between Ben and Widmore are all about.
I’m kind of curious to see what happens with the alternate timeline. Though I admit, it hasn’t been fully working for me, since we’ve been following it for a long time without finding what the stakes for any of this are. (I wouldn’t put it passed the writers of Lost to reveal that the ACTUAL alternate timeline was the one we’d been following for 5 seasons, and this new one is what really happened and needs to be resolved).
I remember seeing a little while ago that one possible definition of good art is that it tells you something new, that it changes the way you look at the world. And it occurred to me that, by that definition, art might be a tall order (not to mention that it would have as much to do with when, in life, you saw the film as it would the film itself). Most great films I can think of are beautiful, or they tell a good story, or they have powerful thematic or emotional resonance. But in most cases, can we truly say that they taught us something we didn’t already know?
An old screenwriting professor I had once said that almost all movies simply play to the way you already see the world, and if you want to challenge the way you see the world, go see something by Kubrick (he then called Francis Ford Coppola an “untrustworthy hack” and launched into a speech about the many levels of bourgeois repression involved in bringing pencils to American colleges…cool guy).
Granted, I wouldn’t necessarily call this a bad thing. Movies are movies, and the fact that absolutely nothing about life can be learned from Pulp Fiction doesn’t make it any less of a great film.
So with that in mind, I submit as a discussion question…
What films, beyond being great, made you see the world differently?
For me (to steal an obvious answer), I would have to go back to my professor and say Kubrick. (In particular, Barry Lyndon and its view of a civilized world have stayed with me.)
For profound symbolism, for me, the best example is probably something La Dolce Vita, as it’s much more a series of thematic symbols than a narrative (anyone looking for a conflict-resolution arc will find the movie’s path seemingly random, when on reflection it’s actually very well structured). So it’s basically a good litmus test for whether you can hop on board with symbol-powered profundity. Regarding Greg’s statement about the symbolism being there and not there, I agree that that’s one of its virtues. A symbol can have an impact without you knowing why, even if you can’t determine the exact meaning (in fact, I believe Kubrick said that for 2001, he wanted to pick symbols that, even if they wouldn’t “make sense” to the viewer, could strike a chord in the collective unconscious). La Dolce Vita is a bit like that—the dreamlike tone should be able to haunt any viewer, even without understanding all of the symbolism. What makes it work, beyond dissertation material, is that it does have a visceral impact. But it is only when you look at it as symbols that La Dolce Vita has its full meaning: if you know, for instance, that fish are a traditional symbol for Jesus, the film’s last scene mirrors the first and takes on much more weight (as any lit-major will tell you, everything is either sex or Jesus or both).
A bigger question would be: should movies have to be decoded? Is 1-to-1 allegory fashionable? I’ve noticed, actually, that a lot of art films from circa 1960 have a philosophical earnestness that sometimes doesn’t play well for modern audiences, as if it’s over-the-top for a critically aware viewer. Something with such allegorical symbolism as, say, Ingmar Bergman’s Persona, can seem like academic camp in a culture where the reflex reaction is irony. But that’s another post for another time.
But as for fim’s insight of putting you in someone else’s place, I agree completely, Kate. A friend of mine once said that the written word is a far better medium for conveying academic ideas, and film does better with emotion. It hadn’t occurred to me, but I think it’s true (doesn’t explain Godard though).
Yeah, I think so to, and I’m glad it was…we got to watch Annie Hall in high school because it fit the rules, even though it had cocaine-related slapstick.
An easy (and like anything easy, oversimplified) way I like to think of it is that Godard made movies about ideas, and Truffaut made movies about people.
Whichever you prefer depends on whether you ultimately prefer film as an academic or visceral medium (it’s telling that in Godard’s Pierrot le Fou, a character has a blase reaction when Sam Fuller describes cinema as being about emotions). I love ideas, but I prefer movies about people.
I can’t think of a director that I have more of a love-hate relationship with than Godard. I have plenty critical to say about him, but list him as one of my favorites.
I third Make Way For Tomorrow. And it’s all the more tragic because it doesn’t try to force any cheap melodramatic staples…it just lets a melancholy situation play out to its subtle, earthy conclusion.
It wouldn’t surprise me if it ended with something along the lines of Jack being the new Jacob and Widmore being the new MIB, and thus all is revealed to be cyclical.
I actually, now that I’ve been delving into the art cinema canon, often enjoy re-watching movies even more than watching them.
The movies I watched growing up (MOVIE movies, like Die Hard and Austin Powers) are experiences where all subsequent times are less effective than the first. Like it has the biggest impact the first time, and every time after that is a slightly pale (if lovably comfortable) imitation of that initial kick. (In fact, I think a wise, and presumably stoned, man once said the same thing about drugs).
But for truly great arthouse movies, subsequent viewings give you a chance to better absorb them. I think Jazzaloha hit it dead on: since you no longer have to focus on what’s going to happen next, and since you already know who everyone is and where the story is ending, you can appreciate the nuances along the way. Since a movie like, say, La Dolce Vita doesn’t translate fast, that initial impact (rather than comedy or suspense) is almost disorientation, and it’s only after you get used to a completely different method that you can enjoy it.
What won me over is that the name change does not change our service. I understand the fear that the demographic will shift…for me, our site has always been a nice alternative to IMDb, where any great film like L’Avventura has a forum thread about how “boring” it is. But quality cinema is still our stock and trade, and I’m confident that by sticking with that, we can invite new people without watering down what we do. I know plenty of people I’d recommend Harakiri or Mon Oncle to who have never heard the term “auteur.” And who knows…maybe some of them will even stay for L’Avventura.
Provided that we stick to our mission, not just with the films we show, but with the features we run and the events we promote (Adam is dead on), we won’t become an all-purpose movie site like IMDb. I’m confident that Mubi can become not just your online cinema, anytime, anywhere, but also a multi-platform gateway drug.
Thank you Greg for such an amazing post! You really hit the nail on the head on so many issues.
I understand the apprehension. I’ve been a fan and member of this site for a lot longer than I’ve been affiliated with the team, and “the auteurs” was the service that excited me. But I’ve actually, beyond the initial surprise, learned to stop worrying and love (or at least optimistically accept) the new MUBI. From what I can tell, the two main concerns are that MUBI is not a good name, and that it will lead to our site being watered-down (I’ve caught the phrase “wrong sort of people” being thrown around).
As for whether or not it’s a good name, I think the fact that it doesn’t exactly mean anything does make it seem like a harsh transition from a name like the Auteurs, which carries all sorts of meaning (some of which, as Greg points out, are high contentious). It is about internationality—the Auteurs is a global site in an increasing number of languages. And it may seem meaningless now, but as Salem pointed out, that shouldn’t necessarily stop us from branding it to become synonymous with our own niche.
The fear of a watering-down effect is less cosmetic, but I can say that I see absolutely reason to think this is the case. I understand the apprehension, particularly since on a broader site like IMDb, old-school cinephilia has to find its own private corner. If it’s about looking to grow the audience, I’m personally fine with inviting people who aren’t already hardcore cinephiles to take a look at quality arthouse cinema. There are plenty of people who I’d recommend Harakiri and Divorce Italian-Style to who have no idea what an auteur is. As long as that stays our mission, I can’t imagine that many “wrong sort of people” will stick around too long in large numbers for a site whose current main feature is an Agnes Varda retrospective. From what I can tell, the purpose of MUBI, the Auteurs, and whatever name it goes by is to fill the need to watching/discussing quality arthouse cinema. And I see no reason to believe that this is changing.
I actually am very excited about this news as well. Keep in mind, it’s also, to the best of my knowledge, the first/best/easiest official way to watch films from the site on your living room TV. So I see not solely as trying to find the overlap between Metal Gear Solid fanatics and potential Varda fans, but a way to bring the service to any household with a PS3, even for viewers who aren’t so keen on watching feature-length content on their computer. My parents, for instance, use my brother’s Xbox to watch Netflix streaming films…not to mention that trying to watch an internet film as a group, with multiple people crowded around your laptop, can be a drag. The potential to leap from personal computers to TVs is, in my mind, a big step towards the optimal user experience.
I actually wasn’t pissed off by the finale, even though they went The Full Wachowski. I mean, I see some major problems, namely that they set up a fantasy world with no clear rules, and a battle with no clear stakes. It could have been a lot stronger, but at the end of the day, I’m more or less willing to just go with it.
SPOILER
It’s actually very similar to the ending of the Chronicles of Narnia, which they namedropped earlier in the series. The ending of C.S. Lewis’s The Last Battle seems to me to be kind of what they were going for: a fantasy adventure seguing into abstract spirituality about finding a peace beyond this world.
And as far as completely opaque, enigmatic endings go, Lost still has nothing on the series finale of The Prisoner.
“Shouldn’t we assess actors based on their best work and mostly ignore their worst work?”
To cop out, I actually agree but disagree. There are some actors who, in the right role or with the right director, can give usually excellent performances, and then make merely decent movies the rest of the time (for instance, P.T. Anderson has the remarkable ability to get Oscar-worthy performances from pretty much everyone in a huge cast, including someone like Mark Wahlberg, who I don’t think I’ve seen give a particularly good performance outside Boogie Nights). So I think it’s very possible for actors to be cast well and shine in the right role.
Basically, I suppose I believe in giving actors credit for what they do and don’t do well. I controversially maintain that Nicolas Cage is talented based on his performance in Adaptation, but that doesn’t mean I can get behind the last 10 years of Nicolas Cage blockbusters/thrillers.
As for Brad Pitt, I admire him they way I admire (to a greater extent) Leonardo DiCaprio, for making the leap from heartthrobs to more serious roles. I think Brad Pitt (like Will Smith) can be both an actor and a movie star. Actors disappear into roles, and movie stars lend their personae to otherwise ordinary genre flicks. In my mind, Brad Pitt can do both, and is of course far more interesting in the former, when he has a role that doesn’t fit his persona (like, say, the energetic dimwit in Burn After Reading, or the total nutzoid psycho of Twelve Monkeys). I’ll defend the guy.
Subtitles almost 3 years ago
I was wondering what everyone’s reactions are to the new subtitles on the latest Criterion version? It seems like they switched a lot of it to colloquial English, and I’m not sure what to make of that.
Go to Comment
Subtitles almost 3 years ago
No, sadly, I don’t believe so.
Go to Comment
What films were shot in or near your hometown? over 2 years ago
My hometown has served as the shooting location for lots of suburban alienation, including:
The Stepford Wives (original and remake)
The Ice Storm
Revolutionary Road
Go to Comment
What is fashionable alienation? about 2 years ago
And Radiohead circa 2000.
Or maybe that’s anhedonic cool.
Go to Comment
A Pertinent and Funny Short, For Those Who Haven't Seen It about 2 years ago
Here’s a pertinent and funny short from the Coen brothers, which played at Cannes a few years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMYAtgapMro
A comic tribute to arthouse cinema, complete with a painfully earnest movie buff (and some weird Coen humor)
Go to Comment
A Pertinent and Funny Short, For Those Who Haven't Seen It about 2 years ago
What I really love is that it seems to be teasing both of them in a very affectionate way. (I don’t why, but when the clerk says “flawed people” as part of the plot description of Climates, it gets me every time).
But then the two sides are brought together (sort of) in a happy ending to the mass culture-art film divide.
Go to Comment
Most infamous product placement about 2 years ago
Regarding David Lynch, I was half expecting someone to say “Pabst Blue Ribbon!”
But then again, maybe having your product associated with Blue Velvet doesn’t really count as an endorsement…
Go to Comment
One Cinematograper, One Film about 2 years ago
John Alcott – Barry Lyndon
This one immediately comes to mind (since I saw it recently). It’s some of the best photography I’ve seen, but I also can’t think of any other movie to compare it to…the way they’re lit and composed, almost each shot feels like a moving 18th century painting. (There was some critic who said that the movie seems to pre-date the invention of the camera).
Go to Comment
Film Database Submission April 2010 about 2 years ago
The page for Ghosts Can’t Do It is now up and active for voting/discussing/vigorous debating pleasure of the community, and many apologies for the delay!
Sadly, the only still I could locate was from an old home video trailer (with an unapologetically 80s color scheme). If anyone has one with a sharper image, I’d be too happy to replace it.
Go to Comment
Film Database Submission April 2010 about 2 years ago
The page for King Kong versus Godzilla has gone live in all its glory!
And thanks for such a fantastic still! Gaze in wonder, and may god have mercy on our souls.
Go to Comment
self-indulgence and film about 2 years ago
“Self-indulgent” (and its cousin, “pretentious”) are two critical buzzwords that I’ve never been able to fully get a grip on. I agree with Jazzaloha that the term is, in some cases, a legitimate criticism, which is part of the problem, because it seems to me that it’s often used as a catch-all term for a bad reaction to an arthouse film—even though the literal definition could just as easily go the other way. I think Transformers 2 is a self-indulgent movie. It’s just that Michael Bay likes to indulge in explosions, cheap jokes, and Megan Fox, which strike home with a broader audience than, say, deconstructionist Brechtian dialectics about modern consumerism (which I wouldn’t begrudge anyone for disliking, so long as they gave it a shot).
Part of my problem with it is that “self-indulgent” is only a problem if the movie is bad. I mean, 8 1/2 is high in the running for the title of most self-indulgent movie ever made. And I don’t think many people love it because they walked in particularly caring about Fellini as a person, but because he filmed his own personal issues in a way that was beautiful, vivid, emotionally immediate, and largely relatable.
So it seems like “self-indulgent” is a problem only when the movie doesn’t work, or when, to go with what Matt said, when there isn’t that degree of relatability.
But then again, relatability varies from person to person, and why should movies be for everybody? (One man’s self-indulgence…). So for all those reason, it’s a word I try to avoid, and wouldn’t mind seeing elaborated upon. Though I admit, it is easy to use…
Go to Comment
Submission to the auteurs about 2 years ago
The submission form is back up!
Thank you guys for your patience, and for all the great work you’ve been doing helping us grow our database.
Go to Comment
Film Database Submission April 2010 about 2 years ago
Reposted from another thread…
The submission form is back up!
Thanks again, and let us know if there are any more problems!
Go to Comment
TOP 10 FILMS FROM YOUR "BIRTH YEAR" about 2 years ago
1987
I second Phil’s and Dimitris’ lists, and add to them The Princess Bride (one of my favorites)
Go to Comment
Help make The Auteurs totally awesome about 2 years ago
Regarding languages, it’s actually an issue we hear about fairly often. At the moment, movies are titled by their territory, so from Spain, a movie will indeed automatically be listed under its Spanish title (if it has one listed). Sadly, we don’t have a customizable language setting at the moment, where the user can choose their language of choice. But it’s prominent on our list of fixes, and hopefully it will be available in the near future!
However, for cases where a movie was released in Germany with its English title, but we still list it in German, that’s something we should look into. (Our editors have discussed making sure we have the commonly used title for each country…for instance, in America, La Dolce Vita is still La Dolce Vita and not The Sweet Life).
Go to Comment
mubi about 2 years ago
Does MUBI like jump cuts, long takes, and ambiguous endings?
Go to Comment
Lost about 2 years ago
I’d like them to explain how Walt appeared to Locke if Walt wasn’t dead, or what the rules between Ben and Widmore are all about.
I’m kind of curious to see what happens with the alternate timeline. Though I admit, it hasn’t been fully working for me, since we’ve been following it for a long time without finding what the stakes for any of this are. (I wouldn’t put it passed the writers of Lost to reveal that the ACTUAL alternate timeline was the one we’d been following for 5 seasons, and this new one is what really happened and needs to be resolved).
Go to Comment
Films That Changed The Way You Look at Things about 2 years ago
I remember seeing a little while ago that one possible definition of good art is that it tells you something new, that it changes the way you look at the world. And it occurred to me that, by that definition, art might be a tall order (not to mention that it would have as much to do with when, in life, you saw the film as it would the film itself). Most great films I can think of are beautiful, or they tell a good story, or they have powerful thematic or emotional resonance. But in most cases, can we truly say that they taught us something we didn’t already know?
An old screenwriting professor I had once said that almost all movies simply play to the way you already see the world, and if you want to challenge the way you see the world, go see something by Kubrick (he then called Francis Ford Coppola an “untrustworthy hack” and launched into a speech about the many levels of bourgeois repression involved in bringing pencils to American colleges…cool guy).
Granted, I wouldn’t necessarily call this a bad thing. Movies are movies, and the fact that absolutely nothing about life can be learned from Pulp Fiction doesn’t make it any less of a great film.
So with that in mind, I submit as a discussion question…
What films, beyond being great, made you see the world differently?
For me (to steal an obvious answer), I would have to go back to my professor and say Kubrick. (In particular, Barry Lyndon and its view of a civilized world have stayed with me.)
Go to Comment
Confused about symbolism about 2 years ago
Great post, Greg, and thank you for that!
For profound symbolism, for me, the best example is probably something La Dolce Vita, as it’s much more a series of thematic symbols than a narrative (anyone looking for a conflict-resolution arc will find the movie’s path seemingly random, when on reflection it’s actually very well structured). So it’s basically a good litmus test for whether you can hop on board with symbol-powered profundity. Regarding Greg’s statement about the symbolism being there and not there, I agree that that’s one of its virtues. A symbol can have an impact without you knowing why, even if you can’t determine the exact meaning (in fact, I believe Kubrick said that for 2001, he wanted to pick symbols that, even if they wouldn’t “make sense” to the viewer, could strike a chord in the collective unconscious). La Dolce Vita is a bit like that—the dreamlike tone should be able to haunt any viewer, even without understanding all of the symbolism. What makes it work, beyond dissertation material, is that it does have a visceral impact. But it is only when you look at it as symbols that La Dolce Vita has its full meaning: if you know, for instance, that fish are a traditional symbol for Jesus, the film’s last scene mirrors the first and takes on much more weight (as any lit-major will tell you, everything is either sex or Jesus or both).
A bigger question would be: should movies have to be decoded? Is 1-to-1 allegory fashionable? I’ve noticed, actually, that a lot of art films from circa 1960 have a philosophical earnestness that sometimes doesn’t play well for modern audiences, as if it’s over-the-top for a critically aware viewer. Something with such allegorical symbolism as, say, Ingmar Bergman’s Persona, can seem like academic camp in a culture where the reflex reaction is irony. But that’s another post for another time.
But as for fim’s insight of putting you in someone else’s place, I agree completely, Kate. A friend of mine once said that the written word is a far better medium for conveying academic ideas, and film does better with emotion. It hadn’t occurred to me, but I think it’s true (doesn’t explain Godard though).
Go to Comment
is it just me or was the PG rating assigned much more leniently 30 to 40 years ago about 2 years ago
Yeah, I think so to, and I’m glad it was…we got to watch Annie Hall in high school because it fit the rules, even though it had cocaine-related slapstick.
Go to Comment
Godard vs Truffaut; personal opinions? about 2 years ago
An easy (and like anything easy, oversimplified) way I like to think of it is that Godard made movies about ideas, and Truffaut made movies about people.
Whichever you prefer depends on whether you ultimately prefer film as an academic or visceral medium (it’s telling that in Godard’s Pierrot le Fou, a character has a blase reaction when Sam Fuller describes cinema as being about emotions). I love ideas, but I prefer movies about people.
I can’t think of a director that I have more of a love-hate relationship with than Godard. I have plenty critical to say about him, but list him as one of my favorites.
Go to Comment
Recommend me some tearjerker about 2 years ago
I third Make Way For Tomorrow. And it’s all the more tragic because it doesn’t try to force any cheap melodramatic staples…it just lets a melancholy situation play out to its subtle, earthy conclusion.
Go to Comment
Lost about 2 years ago
It wouldn’t surprise me if it ended with something along the lines of Jack being the new Jacob and Widmore being the new MIB, and thus all is revealed to be cyclical.
Go to Comment
The importance of revisiting/re-watching films? about 2 years ago
I’m really glad you started this topic.
I actually, now that I’ve been delving into the art cinema canon, often enjoy re-watching movies even more than watching them.
The movies I watched growing up (MOVIE movies, like Die Hard and Austin Powers) are experiences where all subsequent times are less effective than the first. Like it has the biggest impact the first time, and every time after that is a slightly pale (if lovably comfortable) imitation of that initial kick. (In fact, I think a wise, and presumably stoned, man once said the same thing about drugs).
But for truly great arthouse movies, subsequent viewings give you a chance to better absorb them. I think Jazzaloha hit it dead on: since you no longer have to focus on what’s going to happen next, and since you already know who everyone is and where the story is ending, you can appreciate the nuances along the way. Since a movie like, say, La Dolce Vita doesn’t translate fast, that initial impact (rather than comedy or suspense) is almost disorientation, and it’s only after you get used to a completely different method that you can enjoy it.
Go to Comment
mubi about 2 years ago
@Salem
Right on.
Go to Comment
Why did we change our name to MUBI? about 2 years ago
What won me over is that the name change does not change our service. I understand the fear that the demographic will shift…for me, our site has always been a nice alternative to IMDb, where any great film like L’Avventura has a forum thread about how “boring” it is. But quality cinema is still our stock and trade, and I’m confident that by sticking with that, we can invite new people without watering down what we do. I know plenty of people I’d recommend Harakiri or Mon Oncle to who have never heard the term “auteur.” And who knows…maybe some of them will even stay for L’Avventura.
Provided that we stick to our mission, not just with the films we show, but with the features we run and the events we promote (Adam is dead on), we won’t become an all-purpose movie site like IMDb. I’m confident that Mubi can become not just your online cinema, anytime, anywhere, but also a multi-platform gateway drug.
Go to Comment
Why did we change our name to MUBI? about 2 years ago
Thank you Greg for such an amazing post! You really hit the nail on the head on so many issues.
I understand the apprehension. I’ve been a fan and member of this site for a lot longer than I’ve been affiliated with the team, and “the auteurs” was the service that excited me. But I’ve actually, beyond the initial surprise, learned to stop worrying and love (or at least optimistically accept) the new MUBI. From what I can tell, the two main concerns are that MUBI is not a good name, and that it will lead to our site being watered-down (I’ve caught the phrase “wrong sort of people” being thrown around).
As for whether or not it’s a good name, I think the fact that it doesn’t exactly mean anything does make it seem like a harsh transition from a name like the Auteurs, which carries all sorts of meaning (some of which, as Greg points out, are high contentious). It is about internationality—the Auteurs is a global site in an increasing number of languages. And it may seem meaningless now, but as Salem pointed out, that shouldn’t necessarily stop us from branding it to become synonymous with our own niche.
The fear of a watering-down effect is less cosmetic, but I can say that I see absolutely reason to think this is the case. I understand the apprehension, particularly since on a broader site like IMDb, old-school cinephilia has to find its own private corner. If it’s about looking to grow the audience, I’m personally fine with inviting people who aren’t already hardcore cinephiles to take a look at quality arthouse cinema. There are plenty of people who I’d recommend Harakiri and Divorce Italian-Style to who have no idea what an auteur is. As long as that stays our mission, I can’t imagine that many “wrong sort of people” will stick around too long in large numbers for a site whose current main feature is an Agnes Varda retrospective. From what I can tell, the purpose of MUBI, the Auteurs, and whatever name it goes by is to fill the need to watching/discussing quality arthouse cinema. And I see no reason to believe that this is changing.
Go to Comment
MUBI NEWS about 2 years ago
I actually am very excited about this news as well. Keep in mind, it’s also, to the best of my knowledge, the first/best/easiest official way to watch films from the site on your living room TV. So I see not solely as trying to find the overlap between Metal Gear Solid fanatics and potential Varda fans, but a way to bring the service to any household with a PS3, even for viewers who aren’t so keen on watching feature-length content on their computer. My parents, for instance, use my brother’s Xbox to watch Netflix streaming films…not to mention that trying to watch an internet film as a group, with multiple people crowded around your laptop, can be a drag. The potential to leap from personal computers to TVs is, in my mind, a big step towards the optimal user experience.
Go to Comment
Lost about 2 years ago
I actually wasn’t pissed off by the finale, even though they went The Full Wachowski. I mean, I see some major problems, namely that they set up a fantasy world with no clear rules, and a battle with no clear stakes. It could have been a lot stronger, but at the end of the day, I’m more or less willing to just go with it.
SPOILER
It’s actually very similar to the ending of the Chronicles of Narnia, which they namedropped earlier in the series. The ending of C.S. Lewis’s The Last Battle seems to me to be kind of what they were going for: a fantasy adventure seguing into abstract spirituality about finding a peace beyond this world.
And as far as completely opaque, enigmatic endings go, Lost still has nothing on the series finale of The Prisoner.
Go to Comment
Is Brad Pitt a good actor? about 2 years ago
“Shouldn’t we assess actors based on their best work and mostly ignore their worst work?”
To cop out, I actually agree but disagree. There are some actors who, in the right role or with the right director, can give usually excellent performances, and then make merely decent movies the rest of the time (for instance, P.T. Anderson has the remarkable ability to get Oscar-worthy performances from pretty much everyone in a huge cast, including someone like Mark Wahlberg, who I don’t think I’ve seen give a particularly good performance outside Boogie Nights). So I think it’s very possible for actors to be cast well and shine in the right role.
Basically, I suppose I believe in giving actors credit for what they do and don’t do well. I controversially maintain that Nicolas Cage is talented based on his performance in Adaptation, but that doesn’t mean I can get behind the last 10 years of Nicolas Cage blockbusters/thrillers.
As for Brad Pitt, I admire him they way I admire (to a greater extent) Leonardo DiCaprio, for making the leap from heartthrobs to more serious roles. I think Brad Pitt (like Will Smith) can be both an actor and a movie star. Actors disappear into roles, and movie stars lend their personae to otherwise ordinary genre flicks. In my mind, Brad Pitt can do both, and is of course far more interesting in the former, when he has a role that doesn’t fit his persona (like, say, the energetic dimwit in Burn After Reading, or the total nutzoid psycho of Twelve Monkeys). I’ll defend the guy.
Go to Comment