Because they’re all “in” different “genres” (comedy, romance, tragedy / some kind of subversion of each of those categories) it’s really tough for me to stack them and rate them and assign numbers to = their worth. I only saw White once and didn’t really connect, though I admired a lot of the ways Kieslowski told his story.
So that aside. My answer’s: Red. (1) It gave me the most emotional chills and (2) it felt like the most expansive of the three, the one that has the most to say about the world in as broad a way as possible but especially (3) because it most explicitly ties all three films together (ie. SPOILER: the ending) it raises the audience’s (ie. my) point-of-view of the films from Cinematic Experience to Profound Statement Re Kieslowski’s Life&Times.
What really makes the trilogy so special to me, though, is some of the recurring elements in it that are technically impressive and still allow for good storytelling. One example: the crazy tracking shots at high speeds in Red (the telephone wires) and Blue (the rear wheel:
‘so foreboding’); it’s amazing that such similar things can work so differently. Like the old-person-w/-bottle-putting-bottle-in-bin recurrence, things like those shots stick out and show how creative Kieslowski could be (which isn’t news to anyone here) and how different but intrarelated his messages were. Another example: the extreme point-of-view shots like the blurry score paper (Blue) and the pantomimed last scene (White) that in each case place us “in the character” (like so many, well, pretty much all other, films) but then is repeated across the trilogy for a different purpose (ie. to remind us of Blue’s heroine’s loss & the bittersweet distance b/w the lovers/‘lovers’).
Now.
Totally unrelated: did yous guys all [sic] know that Quentin Tarantino watched Red at Cannes and predicted it would win Palme? I wasn’t very conscious of movies or France or even the world beyond the Atlantic (and so on) when this happened, but I’m curious for those who were: was it a shock that Kieslowski’s announced-last film was ‘upset’ by the bold patchquilting newcomer? (btw: I love QT) Just a-wonderin’. Do you think, flat-out, straight-talking objectively the two would still match up as they did in ’94?
I’ve never been crazy about it; which I guess puts me in the minority.
It does have some really interesting aspects that make it worth rewatching – and something always is worth buying if it’s rewatchable – like the dream sequence & the actresses’ characters.
And though it’s not from the same decade (or genre) Thieves’ Highway is dark and suspenseful (like Manchurian) but isn’t as overblown. I think Jules Dassin directed this latter.
Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead
Synecdoche, New York
Me and You and Everyone We Know
Man Push Cart (the only Bahrani I’ve seen)
Kill Bill (I know I know but I don’t care: it’s ravishing and intelligent and I’m in my 20s so give me a break)
Oh, and The New World, which just makes me so damned excited for Tree of Life
Because “favourite” is such a tricky word, I’m gonna call these movies the ones-I-most-like-watching-and-could-easily-watching-an-infinite-number-of-times.
By the alphabet:
Breaking the Waves
Bride of Frankenstein
Floating Weeds
The General
Inland Empire
Night of the Hunter
Persona
Psycho
The Shining
Ran
3-way tie for 11th place: Taxi Driver, The New World, Sunset Boulevard
I also wish I could include Seven Samurai somehow.
Give me two months, mind you, and I’ll probably have a completely different list. This is just how it feels to me, right now.
It may just be the most QT-ian of all his films. As in: given his aesthetics – an entertainment-first, wicked dialogue-filled, film-making-about-film-making auteur/author/visual poet – it of all his movies fulfills that role the best.
People complain that it’s clumpy and stupid and full of boring dialogue and imbecilic acting (among other much less happy criticisms); and they’re right. Which is what makes it magnificent.
See. I love his other movies and have seen them all at least three times; KB I&II at least six. And they’re all obviously strong and engaging and brilliant in their own ways. But they’ve all struck me as a little exclusive – as in, you have to be willing to accept a few things before you watch his movies. And that’s probably why those who love him, love him; and those who hate him, do.
What’s more brilliant about DP is also an aspect of North by Northwest – arguably one of Hitchcock’s finest. The movie is all about what’s happening onscreen; there is never a moment when it tries to pretend to be greater or lesser than it is.
The plot is kind of idiotic, and that’s okay. It’s supposed to be. Characters seem superficial or unmotivated, but it’s okay, because nobody promised us anything else. It shifts gears and styles and plots, jerking us around until the credits have rolled; that’s fine, too, because that’s what the process of watching a movie (particularly other movies like DP) is like: you in the audience never feel the same way about a film as you do at the beginning and as you do in the middle and as you do at the end. His choices (B&W, red herrings, cameo by him & sheriff, music, &c &c &c) are all based on instinct, not any kind of manipulative artistic credo. That QT is honest and brave enough to make a movie like this makes me admire it even more. All this is intentional and exactly the way it’s supposed to be.
Pulp Fiction always felt a little “there’s no reason why you can’t like this movie”-ish to me. The dialogue is amazing and genius and memorable but I can’t understand where any of it’s coming from: I mean, unless I agree that these characters are just that witty and aphoristic. Same with RD. Jackie Brown is obviously really rich and clever; and I love it too; but that doesn’t mean there aren’t moments when I feel a little manipulated into reacting a certain way. And that’s a thing I never enjoy in a movie – when the director or actors or somebody sets up expectations for how someone like me might respond to their work.
And unlike some many other genre-expanding films, it sticks right within its boundaries and does it better than anyone else has. Something like Jackie Brown (which overcomes, not just amplifies, its genre’s limitations) always strikes me as cheating or cutting corners. “Oh, surprise: this movie, which you may have thought was about blaxploitation or criminal underbellies or film noiric characters in trouble, is really just a deep character study with beautiful human connexions at its heart. Surprise.” So many movies (see Eastwood, Clint) pick an arena of movies (film noir, cars driving fast, westerns, &c &c &c) and try to bend all the rules to make a “richer” or “more serious” film. That DP doesn’t do these things is enough to make me love it.
Death Proof isn’t my favourite (or the one I think is his best) b/c of what it isn’t; the movie itself is subtle and understated in many ways, and the responses it provokes are the opposite – hyperbolic & maximal to the movie’s seeming simplicity. It’s effectiveness isn’t always clear until the picture ends, and you realize what you just witnessed. It’s a film I know I’ll always be surprised by, even after a dozen viewings. That’s enough to qualify it as my favourite QT.
So I guess that if you haven’t seen it, my recommendation is: you should try to.
Interesting reaction. I like it when opposites come of things like this.
Okay. 1. The whole “North by Northwest” connexion is probably more tenuous than I let on: I simply meant that both films don’t attempt to accomplish more than what their plots set out to do. Nobody really cares what is making these men chase Cary Grant – it’s just good fun and makes for a good reason for the plot to progress. Similarly, nobody knows or probably cares why Stuntman Mike is out to kill or why these girls are such action fanatics (the second group) or who Christian Simonson is. And nobody definitely cares whether either movie makes a statement about life or experience or philosophy or art or pretty much anything else. It’s just a bunch of stuff that happens which we watch and we watch people react to. Something like Kill Bill is, maybe, about family or respect or maybe a lot of things, but you know it’s about more than just watching people get cut. Same with Rear Window: if it was just the story of a guy with a broken leg, a lot less would seem “at stake.”
2. I agree: DP does seem to have been calculated very purposefully to seem not at all calculated. I can see why you might not like it for that reason. For me: to contrast that “calculation” against PF’s level-of-calculation is to pit DP’s shallowness against PF’s maddeningly vague overreaching. I keep feeling like PF is “more” than what’s on screen, but I feel like nearly anything could fill that place. With DP, it’s the opposite: whether or not he shot it in 8 days or whether it took a big bite out of Miramax (I think I did …), it doesn’t promise us more and doesn’t make us hope that the movie is any better or any more serious than what it is. It’s a straight-talkin’ picture. I appreciate that QT can be honest enough with us to create a movie so basic and “raw” (even though it’s a kind of artificial rawness) and leave it at that.
Another thing I didn’t really talk about in my post above is that the ending comes at the absolute perfect time. Any other movie would show us what happened to the 4th girl or show some kind of aftermath or conclusion. QT just says, OK. Time to put this puppy to sleep. And flashes his name and some fun music. Again, to go to PF: if he ended the diner scene this way, people would say he’s a wreck. That’s because it requires something “more” than just the mechanics of plot and has to, in the least, suggest them – and they may be there, but they’re definitely hard to pin down.
So. Hey: Bobby Wise! Questions for you:
1. How do you know you’ll never be surprised by DP? Expand on that a little – I’m curious.
2. Could you talk a little about Reservoir Dogs? – what draws you to it (I noticed your avatar) and what’s so salient about it. It’s hard for me to find reviews of it that go beyond the wunderkind praise it draws.
My boyfriend: “I know there are some movies we can talk through and giggle and cuddle in, and others we can’t. I guess this is another one of those ‘silent’ movies.”
My roommate: “Michael Haneke is a fool; the only conception in his output that comes close to matching his own vision and not one of his predecessors’ is the inequality between ….” Etc.
My sister on watching A.I.: “Well. It was strange. So I didn’t like that. But the ending was happy. So I did like that. And don’t try to make me watch that Japanese movie again. Gah. Subtitles.”
Any two guys who can make a movie with THP’s kind of ambition should have known better not to make it so awful. Better that, though, than not getting a chance to film and never getting better and making Fargo & The Man… & No Country et al.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button put me in a bad mood for nearly a week. When it was over I nearly cried out of fury. My little fists wanted to beat up David Fincher and anyone who green-lighted the idea. Also that fucking Gump-writing author. Re all the particulars and rules of this thread, I have to say: nothing brings out the seething rage in me like this movie. And during its “celebrated run” as everyone (well, some but not all critics & bloggers) were gushing, I felt like the little kid in Emperor Who Has No Clothes tale – “Am I the only one who recognizes how shallow and flimsy and stereotyping and boring and silly and not engaging and funny-but-not-ha-ha-funny this movie was?”
I didn’t read every single post — not even 50%. So I may be retreading stuff that’s already been treaded.
But re the original conundrum of TWBB.
1. Eli is obviously not a very good person. Neither is Daniel but there you are. When HW goes deaf, Eli is less concerned with HW’s ears than his $ which he expects. Then again, Daniel obviously doesn’t care very deeply. The fact the Eli is a healer and can do nothing for Daniel or HW makes very clear, I think, that Eli isn’t what he claims to be, ie. a strong Christian leader.
2. Oil tycoons would never take offense to Daniel’s character — although I’m not sure what exactly oil tycoons would take offense to, so I may be on a limb here. My point is that “Christianity” is an aspect of Eli’s character and Eli is a horrible person in the same way that “capitalism” or “entrepreneurship” is a part of Daniel’s, and he’s equally flawed. The movie isn’t setting out to blackball either “profession” or “pov” but simply tell a story about people who are dishonest and disconnected from those around them. Eli & his calling, Daniel & his family.
And as for decent Christian characters in film … well. What would that look like, exactly. Anytime a director chooses to insert a Christian character, or an actor chooses to focus on that aspect of their role, SOMEbody SOMEplace is gonna take issue w/ it. Christians in California probably don’t agree with all the other Christians in California, never mind those in Austria. How could all people of a single religion decide altogether that one representation of Christianity is best?
There are however I think many many good examples of Christian principles and values and traits in movie characters that are a better advertisement for the Church (whichever one you subscribe to) than all the tracts and sermons one could muster. Think of Dreyer’s, Tarkovsky’s films, or Bergman’s. What about Beth in Breaking the Waves or Clint Eastwood in Million Dollar Baby: in addition to being courageous and good people, these performances embody a lot of aspects any honest Christian would have to admire. (Patience, forbearance, devotion, faith, love of fellow men/women.) Maybe not in terms of specifics, but in terms of values.
As a non-religious person, maybe I’m not qualified to “know” what is really what in this kind of discussion. But it seems to me that if anyone is worried about non-religious and only non-religious values (whatever those would be like; not really the opposite of all Christian ones but possibly different) being promoted in film, then they may not be looking deep enough into the hearts of some films.
A much more interesting question for me is: what films accurately capture a non-religious experience genuinely and thoroughly?
For years and years, I loved Fargo more than any other movie. I still do.
Watching it for the nth time last week, I realized the Frances McDormand is both the “heart” of the film (ie. that final scene in the squad car: “and it’s a beautiful day”) and also extremely annoying – as in, her accent is way way over the top and her performance is 100% too self-conscious.
Like Meryl Streep at her campiest, FMcD does a lot of capital-A acting in this otherwise perfect movie. Which just takes moments that should be candid and sweet and lovely and makes them a little bit mechanical and a joke. Maybe it’s all supposed to be in jest, but the plangent nasal rings of her ‘oh-yeahs?’ and her fierce ain’t-I-such-a-decent-cop-and-wife bit means it’s harder and harder for me to love the entire performance; instead I just enjoy its goofiness which balances Steve Buscemi-and friends’ sinister crook act very well.
One thing I love her in is Almost Famous. And I STILL have never seen Blood Simple (darn library doesn’t have a copy, and neither does our Blockbuster).
The Minnesota Nice stuff is totally over-the-top. I agree with you. :)
The question I’ve been wondering about has more to do with whether or not this helps the film.
Margie is – from my pov – the centre of the film. The only main character who’s grounded in reality and the gladly accepted confinements of her own life. Everyone else is dissatisfied and ambitious in all the wrong ways and not at all good at judging their own perception vs. their actual place in the world. Jerry’s schemes are idiotic and make little sense; Mike Yanagita tries to hit on M. after not seeing her for 20 something years, even expecting his plan to work and for them to end up in bed or whatever. Carl thinks his scrapper-in-the-snow will work as a marker for his hidden money.
Marge – again from my pov – is completely different. She’s logical and contented and self-reliant. By playing her ‘oh-yeahs?’ et al up to the degree that FMcD does, it distracts from, for me, the most crucial part of the story: that of all the Coen brothers films, this is a character who is not only more plausible than the screwball (although well-loved screwballs) and stereotypes in their earlier films.
Coming from a small town, I know people who would be the real-life equivalent of Marge. And watching FMcD on the screen as she hams things up (again: to the nth degree) I’m constantly reminded by how much it’s a capital-P Performance and not just a well-developed character who offers us a way-out of all the mischief and scheming by the rest of the characters.
…
The Coens are (obviously obviously) smart guys: they know what they want and what they’re doing. I’m just wondering if anyone else felt the same way about her loopyness in a film that isn’t necessarily about that.
Okay. So-called Midwestern types speak like that. I live on the Ontario border: I get it.
Who here has seen “Pollock” and Marcia Gay Harden’s Brooklynese squawk?
There are totally totally people who talk like her – in Brooklyn. Not everyone (duh) but some.
I didn’t hear anyone laughing in the theatre at “Pollock”. Why? Not because people are more used to her accent but because it was a ‘straight’ movie about serious, dark people. It wasn’t a farce. Her accent was part of the character as much as her hairstyle was. It wasn’t an end to an end; it was the means.
In Fargo, Marge is the only ‘nice’ person we (really) see anything of. Having her accent as so excessively regional (but totally accurate for whatever % of the population just like MGH’s Brooklynese) makes her as much a joke, only a kinder joke, as the lowlifes she chases. And I wonder (if she were to tone it down a bit and not just imitate but come out and act) what the movie would be like otherwise. (And I love Frances McDormand, and totally know she can act.)
What’s the point of having the most sweet and touching performance in Fargo (ie. McDormand’s) littered with wink-wink-nudge-nudge jokes (ie. her accent and perky and godlike benevolence) which gets to the point of being just too darn-tooting distracting? Does it really help the movie to make the sensible, honest, un-sinister characters like Marge be as goofy as the ones they’re supposed to be opposites of?
I love Fargo, but wonder why the Coens can’t just cut the gags. Ironic zany postmodern &c &c sensibilities can be as bad as the forms they oppose.
@Shotzi Imagine how I feel: for years, Fargo was my hands-down favourite movie. Watching it a few weeks ago (in the third time of this year; probably the 20th time of my life), I began to wonder what felt different from my usual unquestioning-awe at it.
It isn’t that I don’t believe her accent is ‘spot-on’ – people in Brainerd talk like this. Okay. It isn’t that a performance like hers doesn’t take a lot of skill – it obviously does. Okay.
I think my uneasiness has something to do with how it’s increasingly hard for me to notice Only Marge instead of Frances McDormand Playing Marge. If that makes sense. Maybe precisely because I’ve memorized her dialogue, spent time in her head, analyzed her and Norm’s relationship on end, that I’m beginning to notice its mechanics more closely.
The impetus on my starting this thread was this: to find out if anyone had any thoughts on her performance that went beyond the usual accolades it justly receives. Just because something is brilliant or wonderful or spot-on doesn’t make it impossible to talk about. Hitchcock made ‘perfect’ movies – not always, but a lot of the time. Just because he made masterpieces, doesn’t mean we can’t question why they’re brilliant or rather if they’re brilliant in the ways we always assume them to be.
Shotzi: you say that “it’s arguabl[y] the best American movie made since the 70s” which is a really interesting thing to say. It’s really fine that you feel that way; and a lot of people would probably agree with you.
I think what this forum is about – and what the entire The Auteurs is about – is something to do with discussing beyond ‘talking-points’. It’s fine that we all hold these observations or opinions, but how did we arrive at that thought, or why do we think the things we do about movies.
If the question in this forum is “do people talk like that in Minnesota?” or “can Frances McDormand act?” then the answer is yes and we’re done and can go (or just stay) home. But if the question is “why do we think this performance works so well?” or maybe “how does her acting contribute positively and negatively (or just contribute) to the movie?” then I wouldn’t mind reading more discussion.
Anyway. I’m glad you guys wanted to respond. Cheers.
I agree. It’s like the difference between liking someone and respecting them (viz. Elle’s speech re Bea in Kill Bill II); judgement (“‘Vertigo’ is a great movie.”) works differently than taste ("I liked ‘Clue’ and ‘Rocky Horror’).
@Drew
Having never been to film school, it’s real tough to say. I’m gonna guess and imagine that I’d be puzzled. Mainly because what makes ‘Iron Man’ and ‘Old School’ so successful and effective at what they do is their mastery within a genre; and I’d imagine that my tuition should be going for learning principles of film-making, not just specifics of one kind of film. Mind you: if I took a film school course and something like ‘Iron Man’ or even ‘Airplane!’ wasn’t on its syllabus (or any other syllabi), I’d be a bit worried. Studying everything is a lot better than studying only what’s been judged to be best.
Didn’t it take directors something like fifty years until they all realized that film-making could be a personal thing (see Bergman, Ingmar) and that they didn’t just have to toe some studio or actor’s line? Part of that approach to personal film-making involves, I’d say, valuing movies that succeed best at the level of taste, not just judgement.
Someone a long time ago in this thread mentioned The Shining and I’d agree:
a lot of people like it because Jack Nicholson does his Ol’-Crazy-Jack impression and it’s fun and creepy and easy to put in a genre. But the really brilliant things about it aren’t talked about among many die-hards or the entire thing is totally ignored by critics. Like anything, though, there are scores of exceptions (see Ebert, Roger).
Also: 1. Jack Nicholson is incredible in this, just btw. I really think it’s his best; and it’s so much more than just Jack-Going-Crazy. 2. This site is real cool for analyzing the visual look of the film, for those into that kind of thing: http://www.mstrmnd.com/log/802
Which is the best of Kieslowski's Three Colors almost 3 years ago
Because they’re all “in” different “genres” (comedy, romance, tragedy / some kind of subversion of each of those categories) it’s really tough for me to stack them and rate them and assign numbers to = their worth. I only saw White once and didn’t really connect, though I admired a lot of the ways Kieslowski told his story.
So that aside. My answer’s: Red. (1) It gave me the most emotional chills and (2) it felt like the most expansive of the three, the one that has the most to say about the world in as broad a way as possible but especially (3) because it most explicitly ties all three films together (ie. SPOILER: the ending) it raises the audience’s (ie. my) point-of-view of the films from Cinematic Experience to Profound Statement Re Kieslowski’s Life&Times.
What really makes the trilogy so special to me, though, is some of the recurring elements in it that are technically impressive and still allow for good storytelling. One example: the crazy tracking shots at high speeds in Red (the telephone wires) and Blue (the rear wheel:
‘so foreboding’); it’s amazing that such similar things can work so differently. Like the old-person-w/-bottle-putting-bottle-in-bin recurrence, things like those shots stick out and show how creative Kieslowski could be (which isn’t news to anyone here) and how different but intrarelated his messages were. Another example: the extreme point-of-view shots like the blurry score paper (Blue) and the pantomimed last scene (White) that in each case place us “in the character” (like so many, well, pretty much all other, films) but then is repeated across the trilogy for a different purpose (ie. to remind us of Blue’s heroine’s loss & the bittersweet distance b/w the lovers/‘lovers’).
Now.
Totally unrelated: did yous guys all [sic] know that Quentin Tarantino watched Red at Cannes and predicted it would win Palme? I wasn’t very conscious of movies or France or even the world beyond the Atlantic (and so on) when this happened, but I’m curious for those who were: was it a shock that Kieslowski’s announced-last film was ‘upset’ by the bold patchquilting newcomer? (btw: I love QT) Just a-wonderin’. Do you think, flat-out, straight-talking objectively the two would still match up as they did in ’94?
Go to Comment
favorite funniest movie almost 3 years ago
City Lights. Especially its boxing match.
Go to Comment
what did you watch today? almost 3 years ago
Fargo. Twice.
Go to Comment
What's to like about The Manchurian Candidate? almost 3 years ago
I’ve never been crazy about it; which I guess puts me in the minority.
It does have some really interesting aspects that make it worth rewatching – and something always is worth buying if it’s rewatchable – like the dream sequence & the actresses’ characters.
And though it’s not from the same decade (or genre) Thieves’ Highway is dark and suspenseful (like Manchurian) but isn’t as overblown. I think Jules Dassin directed this latter.
Go to Comment
can you name a truly great american film in the last 5 years... almost 3 years ago
Agreed w/ many of you:
Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead
Synecdoche, New York
Me and You and Everyone We Know
Man Push Cart (the only Bahrani I’ve seen)
Kill Bill (I know I know but I don’t care: it’s ravishing and intelligent and I’m in my 20s so give me a break)
Oh, and The New World, which just makes me so damned excited for Tree of Life
Go to Comment
TOP 10! over 2 years ago
Because “favourite” is such a tricky word, I’m gonna call these movies the ones-I-most-like-watching-and-could-easily-watching-an-infinite-number-of-times.
By the alphabet:
Breaking the Waves
Bride of Frankenstein
Floating Weeds
The General
Inland Empire
Night of the Hunter
Persona
Psycho
The Shining
Ran
3-way tie for 11th place: Taxi Driver, The New World, Sunset Boulevard
I also wish I could include Seven Samurai somehow.
Give me two months, mind you, and I’ll probably have a completely different list. This is just how it feels to me, right now.
Go to Comment
So what is your favorite QT? (please don't turn this into a fanboy thing, it's not) over 2 years ago
Okay. Don’t yell too loudly at me:
Death Proof.
It may just be the most QT-ian of all his films. As in: given his aesthetics – an entertainment-first, wicked dialogue-filled, film-making-about-film-making auteur/author/visual poet – it of all his movies fulfills that role the best.
People complain that it’s clumpy and stupid and full of boring dialogue and imbecilic acting (among other much less happy criticisms); and they’re right. Which is what makes it magnificent.
See. I love his other movies and have seen them all at least three times; KB I&II at least six. And they’re all obviously strong and engaging and brilliant in their own ways. But they’ve all struck me as a little exclusive – as in, you have to be willing to accept a few things before you watch his movies. And that’s probably why those who love him, love him; and those who hate him, do.
What’s more brilliant about DP is also an aspect of North by Northwest – arguably one of Hitchcock’s finest. The movie is all about what’s happening onscreen; there is never a moment when it tries to pretend to be greater or lesser than it is.
The plot is kind of idiotic, and that’s okay. It’s supposed to be. Characters seem superficial or unmotivated, but it’s okay, because nobody promised us anything else. It shifts gears and styles and plots, jerking us around until the credits have rolled; that’s fine, too, because that’s what the process of watching a movie (particularly other movies like DP) is like: you in the audience never feel the same way about a film as you do at the beginning and as you do in the middle and as you do at the end. His choices (B&W, red herrings, cameo by him & sheriff, music, &c &c &c) are all based on instinct, not any kind of manipulative artistic credo. That QT is honest and brave enough to make a movie like this makes me admire it even more. All this is intentional and exactly the way it’s supposed to be.
Pulp Fiction always felt a little “there’s no reason why you can’t like this movie”-ish to me. The dialogue is amazing and genius and memorable but I can’t understand where any of it’s coming from: I mean, unless I agree that these characters are just that witty and aphoristic. Same with RD. Jackie Brown is obviously really rich and clever; and I love it too; but that doesn’t mean there aren’t moments when I feel a little manipulated into reacting a certain way. And that’s a thing I never enjoy in a movie – when the director or actors or somebody sets up expectations for how someone like me might respond to their work.
And unlike some many other genre-expanding films, it sticks right within its boundaries and does it better than anyone else has. Something like Jackie Brown (which overcomes, not just amplifies, its genre’s limitations) always strikes me as cheating or cutting corners. “Oh, surprise: this movie, which you may have thought was about blaxploitation or criminal underbellies or film noiric characters in trouble, is really just a deep character study with beautiful human connexions at its heart. Surprise.” So many movies (see Eastwood, Clint) pick an arena of movies (film noir, cars driving fast, westerns, &c &c &c) and try to bend all the rules to make a “richer” or “more serious” film. That DP doesn’t do these things is enough to make me love it.
Death Proof isn’t my favourite (or the one I think is his best) b/c of what it isn’t; the movie itself is subtle and understated in many ways, and the responses it provokes are the opposite – hyperbolic & maximal to the movie’s seeming simplicity. It’s effectiveness isn’t always clear until the picture ends, and you realize what you just witnessed. It’s a film I know I’ll always be surprised by, even after a dozen viewings. That’s enough to qualify it as my favourite QT.
So I guess that if you haven’t seen it, my recommendation is: you should try to.
Go to Comment
So what is your favorite QT? (please don't turn this into a fanboy thing, it's not) over 2 years ago
@Bobby Wise
Interesting reaction. I like it when opposites come of things like this.
Okay. 1. The whole “North by Northwest” connexion is probably more tenuous than I let on: I simply meant that both films don’t attempt to accomplish more than what their plots set out to do. Nobody really cares what is making these men chase Cary Grant – it’s just good fun and makes for a good reason for the plot to progress. Similarly, nobody knows or probably cares why Stuntman Mike is out to kill or why these girls are such action fanatics (the second group) or who Christian Simonson is. And nobody definitely cares whether either movie makes a statement about life or experience or philosophy or art or pretty much anything else. It’s just a bunch of stuff that happens which we watch and we watch people react to. Something like Kill Bill is, maybe, about family or respect or maybe a lot of things, but you know it’s about more than just watching people get cut. Same with Rear Window: if it was just the story of a guy with a broken leg, a lot less would seem “at stake.”
2. I agree: DP does seem to have been calculated very purposefully to seem not at all calculated. I can see why you might not like it for that reason. For me: to contrast that “calculation” against PF’s level-of-calculation is to pit DP’s shallowness against PF’s maddeningly vague overreaching. I keep feeling like PF is “more” than what’s on screen, but I feel like nearly anything could fill that place. With DP, it’s the opposite: whether or not he shot it in 8 days or whether it took a big bite out of Miramax (I think I did …), it doesn’t promise us more and doesn’t make us hope that the movie is any better or any more serious than what it is. It’s a straight-talkin’ picture. I appreciate that QT can be honest enough with us to create a movie so basic and “raw” (even though it’s a kind of artificial rawness) and leave it at that.
Another thing I didn’t really talk about in my post above is that the ending comes at the absolute perfect time. Any other movie would show us what happened to the 4th girl or show some kind of aftermath or conclusion. QT just says, OK. Time to put this puppy to sleep. And flashes his name and some fun music. Again, to go to PF: if he ended the diner scene this way, people would say he’s a wreck. That’s because it requires something “more” than just the mechanics of plot and has to, in the least, suggest them – and they may be there, but they’re definitely hard to pin down.
So. Hey: Bobby Wise! Questions for you:
1. How do you know you’ll never be surprised by DP? Expand on that a little – I’m curious.
2. Could you talk a little about Reservoir Dogs? – what draws you to it (I noticed your avatar) and what’s so salient about it. It’s hard for me to find reviews of it that go beyond the wunderkind praise it draws.
Cheers.
Go to Comment
What Does Your Family Think Of Your Love of Cinema? over 2 years ago
My boyfriend: “I know there are some movies we can talk through and giggle and cuddle in, and others we can’t. I guess this is another one of those ‘silent’ movies.”
My roommate: “Michael Haneke is a fool; the only conception in his output that comes close to matching his own vision and not one of his predecessors’ is the inequality between ….” Etc.
My sister on watching A.I.: “Well. It was strange. So I didn’t like that. But the ending was happy. So I did like that. And don’t try to make me watch that Japanese movie again. Gah. Subtitles.”
Me: :O
Go to Comment
What Is The Worst Movie Made in the Past 20 Years? (THERE ARE RULES TO FOLLOW!) over 2 years ago
The Hudsucker Proxy.
(Man. The Coens are getting BEATUP here.)
Any two guys who can make a movie with THP’s kind of ambition should have known better not to make it so awful. Better that, though, than not getting a chance to film and never getting better and making Fargo & The Man… & No Country et al.
Go to Comment
What Is The Worst Movie Made in the Past 20 Years? (THERE ARE RULES TO FOLLOW!) over 2 years ago
Thanks for reminding me, Blue K.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button put me in a bad mood for nearly a week. When it was over I nearly cried out of fury. My little fists wanted to beat up David Fincher and anyone who green-lighted the idea. Also that fucking Gump-writing author. Re all the particulars and rules of this thread, I have to say: nothing brings out the seething rage in me like this movie. And during its “celebrated run” as everyone (well, some but not all critics & bloggers) were gushing, I felt like the little kid in Emperor Who Has No Clothes tale – “Am I the only one who recognizes how shallow and flimsy and stereotyping and boring and silly and not engaging and funny-but-not-ha-ha-funny this movie was?”
Go to Comment
best film about an unattainable women? over 2 years ago
I feel like “Solaris” fits here. So … “Solaris”.
Go to Comment
Movies Have No Love for Christians over 2 years ago
I didn’t read every single post — not even 50%. So I may be retreading stuff that’s already been treaded.
But re the original conundrum of TWBB.
1. Eli is obviously not a very good person. Neither is Daniel but there you are. When HW goes deaf, Eli is less concerned with HW’s ears than his $ which he expects. Then again, Daniel obviously doesn’t care very deeply. The fact the Eli is a healer and can do nothing for Daniel or HW makes very clear, I think, that Eli isn’t what he claims to be, ie. a strong Christian leader.
2. Oil tycoons would never take offense to Daniel’s character — although I’m not sure what exactly oil tycoons would take offense to, so I may be on a limb here. My point is that “Christianity” is an aspect of Eli’s character and Eli is a horrible person in the same way that “capitalism” or “entrepreneurship” is a part of Daniel’s, and he’s equally flawed. The movie isn’t setting out to blackball either “profession” or “pov” but simply tell a story about people who are dishonest and disconnected from those around them. Eli & his calling, Daniel & his family.
And as for decent Christian characters in film … well. What would that look like, exactly. Anytime a director chooses to insert a Christian character, or an actor chooses to focus on that aspect of their role, SOMEbody SOMEplace is gonna take issue w/ it. Christians in California probably don’t agree with all the other Christians in California, never mind those in Austria. How could all people of a single religion decide altogether that one representation of Christianity is best?
There are however I think many many good examples of Christian principles and values and traits in movie characters that are a better advertisement for the Church (whichever one you subscribe to) than all the tracts and sermons one could muster. Think of Dreyer’s, Tarkovsky’s films, or Bergman’s. What about Beth in Breaking the Waves or Clint Eastwood in Million Dollar Baby: in addition to being courageous and good people, these performances embody a lot of aspects any honest Christian would have to admire. (Patience, forbearance, devotion, faith, love of fellow men/women.) Maybe not in terms of specifics, but in terms of values.
As a non-religious person, maybe I’m not qualified to “know” what is really what in this kind of discussion. But it seems to me that if anyone is worried about non-religious and only non-religious values (whatever those would be like; not really the opposite of all Christian ones but possibly different) being promoted in film, then they may not be looking deep enough into the hearts of some films.
A much more interesting question for me is: what films accurately capture a non-religious experience genuinely and thoroughly?
Go to Comment
Movies Have No Love for Christians over 2 years ago
Oh. And to answer my question: I’d say something like “Ran” would be perfect.
Go to Comment
fun facts about quentin tarantino over 2 years ago
I heard QT sleeps nude in an oxygen tank which he believes gives him sexual powers.
…
This is fun and all, but any idiot knows QT’s a Kate-man.
Go to Comment
Honorary Oscars Announced over 2 years ago
BTW: Does anyone know if Lauren Bacall’s twitter feed is real? If so, that’s real cool.
Go to Comment
Frances McDormand - pros and cons over 2 years ago
For years and years, I loved Fargo more than any other movie. I still do.
Watching it for the nth time last week, I realized the Frances McDormand is both the “heart” of the film (ie. that final scene in the squad car: “and it’s a beautiful day”) and also extremely annoying – as in, her accent is way way over the top and her performance is 100% too self-conscious.
Like Meryl Streep at her campiest, FMcD does a lot of capital-A acting in this otherwise perfect movie. Which just takes moments that should be candid and sweet and lovely and makes them a little bit mechanical and a joke. Maybe it’s all supposed to be in jest, but the plangent nasal rings of her ‘oh-yeahs?’ and her fierce ain’t-I-such-a-decent-cop-and-wife bit means it’s harder and harder for me to love the entire performance; instead I just enjoy its goofiness which balances Steve Buscemi-and friends’ sinister crook act very well.
Thoughts?
Go to Comment
Frances McDormand - pros and cons over 2 years ago
Good point re BAR
Go to Comment
Frances McDormand - pros and cons over 2 years ago
@Mike
What do you think of her in The Man Who Wasn’t There?
Go to Comment
Frances McDormand - pros and cons over 2 years ago
Haha. Good deal.
One thing I love her in is Almost Famous. And I STILL have never seen Blood Simple (darn library doesn’t have a copy, and neither does our Blockbuster).
Go to Comment
Frances McDormand - pros and cons over 2 years ago
@Frank
The Minnesota Nice stuff is totally over-the-top. I agree with you. :)
The question I’ve been wondering about has more to do with whether or not this helps the film.
Margie is – from my pov – the centre of the film. The only main character who’s grounded in reality and the gladly accepted confinements of her own life. Everyone else is dissatisfied and ambitious in all the wrong ways and not at all good at judging their own perception vs. their actual place in the world. Jerry’s schemes are idiotic and make little sense; Mike Yanagita tries to hit on M. after not seeing her for 20 something years, even expecting his plan to work and for them to end up in bed or whatever. Carl thinks his scrapper-in-the-snow will work as a marker for his hidden money.
Marge – again from my pov – is completely different. She’s logical and contented and self-reliant. By playing her ‘oh-yeahs?’ et al up to the degree that FMcD does, it distracts from, for me, the most crucial part of the story: that of all the Coen brothers films, this is a character who is not only more plausible than the screwball (although well-loved screwballs) and stereotypes in their earlier films.
Coming from a small town, I know people who would be the real-life equivalent of Marge. And watching FMcD on the screen as she hams things up (again: to the nth degree) I’m constantly reminded by how much it’s a capital-P Performance and not just a well-developed character who offers us a way-out of all the mischief and scheming by the rest of the characters.
…
The Coens are (obviously obviously) smart guys: they know what they want and what they’re doing. I’m just wondering if anyone else felt the same way about her loopyness in a film that isn’t necessarily about that.
Go to Comment
Frances McDormand - pros and cons over 2 years ago
Good stuff, Greg and Nathan.
Go to Comment
Frances McDormand - pros and cons over 2 years ago
Okay. So-called Midwestern types speak like that. I live on the Ontario border: I get it.
Who here has seen “Pollock” and Marcia Gay Harden’s Brooklynese squawk?
There are totally totally people who talk like her – in Brooklyn. Not everyone (duh) but some.
I didn’t hear anyone laughing in the theatre at “Pollock”. Why? Not because people are more used to her accent but because it was a ‘straight’ movie about serious, dark people. It wasn’t a farce. Her accent was part of the character as much as her hairstyle was. It wasn’t an end to an end; it was the means.
In Fargo, Marge is the only ‘nice’ person we (really) see anything of. Having her accent as so excessively regional (but totally accurate for whatever % of the population just like MGH’s Brooklynese) makes her as much a joke, only a kinder joke, as the lowlifes she chases. And I wonder (if she were to tone it down a bit and not just imitate but come out and act) what the movie would be like otherwise. (And I love Frances McDormand, and totally know she can act.)
What’s the point of having the most sweet and touching performance in Fargo (ie. McDormand’s) littered with wink-wink-nudge-nudge jokes (ie. her accent and perky and godlike benevolence) which gets to the point of being just too darn-tooting distracting? Does it really help the movie to make the sensible, honest, un-sinister characters like Marge be as goofy as the ones they’re supposed to be opposites of?
I love Fargo, but wonder why the Coens can’t just cut the gags. Ironic zany postmodern &c &c sensibilities can be as bad as the forms they oppose.
Go to Comment
Frances McDormand - pros and cons over 2 years ago
@Shotzi Imagine how I feel: for years, Fargo was my hands-down favourite movie. Watching it a few weeks ago (in the third time of this year; probably the 20th time of my life), I began to wonder what felt different from my usual unquestioning-awe at it.
It isn’t that I don’t believe her accent is ‘spot-on’ – people in Brainerd talk like this. Okay. It isn’t that a performance like hers doesn’t take a lot of skill – it obviously does. Okay.
I think my uneasiness has something to do with how it’s increasingly hard for me to notice Only Marge instead of Frances McDormand Playing Marge. If that makes sense. Maybe precisely because I’ve memorized her dialogue, spent time in her head, analyzed her and Norm’s relationship on end, that I’m beginning to notice its mechanics more closely.
The impetus on my starting this thread was this: to find out if anyone had any thoughts on her performance that went beyond the usual accolades it justly receives. Just because something is brilliant or wonderful or spot-on doesn’t make it impossible to talk about. Hitchcock made ‘perfect’ movies – not always, but a lot of the time. Just because he made masterpieces, doesn’t mean we can’t question why they’re brilliant or rather if they’re brilliant in the ways we always assume them to be.
Shotzi: you say that “it’s arguabl[y] the best American movie made since the 70s” which is a really interesting thing to say. It’s really fine that you feel that way; and a lot of people would probably agree with you.
I think what this forum is about – and what the entire The Auteurs is about – is something to do with discussing beyond ‘talking-points’. It’s fine that we all hold these observations or opinions, but how did we arrive at that thought, or why do we think the things we do about movies.
If the question in this forum is “do people talk like that in Minnesota?” or “can Frances McDormand act?” then the answer is yes and we’re done and can go (or just stay) home. But if the question is “why do we think this performance works so well?” or maybe “how does her acting contribute positively and negatively (or just contribute) to the movie?” then I wouldn’t mind reading more discussion.
Anyway. I’m glad you guys wanted to respond. Cheers.
Go to Comment
what did you watch today? over 2 years ago
Man Without a Past
Go to Comment
Is there a point where an opinion is no longer an opinion? over 2 years ago
@Jesse M
I agree. It’s like the difference between liking someone and respecting them (viz. Elle’s speech re Bea in Kill Bill II); judgement (“‘Vertigo’ is a great movie.”) works differently than taste ("I liked ‘Clue’ and ‘Rocky Horror’).
@Drew
Having never been to film school, it’s real tough to say. I’m gonna guess and imagine that I’d be puzzled. Mainly because what makes ‘Iron Man’ and ‘Old School’ so successful and effective at what they do is their mastery within a genre; and I’d imagine that my tuition should be going for learning principles of film-making, not just specifics of one kind of film. Mind you: if I took a film school course and something like ‘Iron Man’ or even ‘Airplane!’ wasn’t on its syllabus (or any other syllabi), I’d be a bit worried. Studying everything is a lot better than studying only what’s been judged to be best.
Didn’t it take directors something like fifty years until they all realized that film-making could be a personal thing (see Bergman, Ingmar) and that they didn’t just have to toe some studio or actor’s line? Part of that approach to personal film-making involves, I’d say, valuing movies that succeed best at the level of taste, not just judgement.
Cheers.
Go to Comment
What is Kubrick's Most Under-Appreciated Film? over 2 years ago
Someone a long time ago in this thread mentioned The Shining and I’d agree:
a lot of people like it because Jack Nicholson does his Ol’-Crazy-Jack impression and it’s fun and creepy and easy to put in a genre. But the really brilliant things about it aren’t talked about among many die-hards or the entire thing is totally ignored by critics. Like anything, though, there are scores of exceptions (see Ebert, Roger).
Also: 1. Jack Nicholson is incredible in this, just btw. I really think it’s his best; and it’s so much more than just Jack-Going-Crazy. 2. This site is real cool for analyzing the visual look of the film, for those into that kind of thing: http://www.mstrmnd.com/log/802
Go to Comment
Favorite Books over 2 years ago
Beckett’s Trilogy: Molloy, Malone Dies, The Unnamable.
Stuff, but profound. And rich. And good fun.
Go to Comment
you fav lines from the mouth of villians ? over 2 years ago
SHUT UP!!
- Ann Savage in “Detour”
Go to Comment
Your favorite title sequence over 2 years ago
Marie Antoinette.
(yes!)
1 The fonts.
2 The fonts’ spacings.
3 The mood the music makes
4 The nudge-nudge 4th-wall-be-damned look to the audience: totally sufficient intro.
(And I have to say: I usually dislike [very strongly] italic or any slanted effect.)
Go to Comment