Wes Anderson can learn a thing or two from BB. It is the kind of film Wes would have made if he kept the heart of Bottle Rocket. But somehow he lost it a little in exchange for some obsessive attention to detail and quirk for quirk’s sake.
Satantango, rarely screened, and A Woman under the Influence introduced by Gena Rowlands both playing at MOMA in NYC on Saturday the 24th. A happy endurance test.
Just curious if anyone else is taking the leap.
that’s so funny. we were annoyed by the laughter as well. so annoying.
as far as the dancing scene goes, i too had the same reaction to it, but my friend Jesse, who might chime back in here, said that that scene is more effective the second time you see it.
for me, i just can’t believe that i had the literally feeling that i did not want it to end. considering the length, and my ass’s influence on my brain, that is remarkable. this was a cinematic experience like no other. unforgettable.
I can see why you feel that way about Gertrude, but there is still something spellbinding about it. I need to see it again, and possibly on the big screen (which is really where all these films should be seen before i feel i can make any judgments).
Having an “Alain Resnais in the Eighties” festival tonight. “Love unto Death”, “Melo”, “I want to go Home”. Anyone have any thoughts on these or other late Resnais?
His writing in general set an unprecedented new bar. He wrote the movie of the decade and his directorial debut is an under-appreciated masterpiece that will be remembered well after the so-called great films at the beginning of this century are a distant memory. Charlie Kaufman – CineMAN of the Decade. Agreed? Yes? No? Who then?
@Bruce: But no one has done it to the subversive level that Kaufman has. As a result, right here in this thread, I am sure Dr. Frank is joking with his comment in his post about Donald Kaufman, but read Atkinson’s article that i linked to. Even critics didn’t completely get what he was doing in Adaptation. They thought it “fell apart in the third act”. Hell, maybe some of the people posting on this thread don’t even understand what i mean when i say “didn’t get it”. It is an art for it to exist on the one level as a piece of Hollywood and on another as a piece of self reflective, meta-art. We will see more of this in the rest of this century, as the audience (hopefully) grows more and more sophisticated. therefor, as this being the first decade of this century. Kaufman is our Cineman of the decade.
Everything goes to pot when he chooses to go to the McKee seminar. The film actually turns into a McKee influenced film after he talks to McKee. Oddly though, McKee warns him not to use a Deus ex machina (look it up if you don’t know what it is), but, the character of McKee himself is the Deus ex machina of the story.
at the beginning of the film, everything he tells the Tilda Swinton character that he doesn’t want to script to be, it eventually becomes.
I just watched it again the other night and there are other things that i never notices on the multiple times i had seen it before. (ex: Donald just starts singing “so happy together” for absolutely no reason in the hotel room. why? just so Charlie could sing it to him to keep him from dying 20 minutes later. it is my feeling that Kaufman is taping into the empty devices that we respond to as conditioned audience members.)
There are at least two ways of looking at this film – as a tragedy, because he couldn’t make “just a film about flowers” and therefor McKee “wins” and Donald’s influence (and the pressures of making a commercial script) takes over C. Kaufman, and the audience sees this in what is NOT on the screen.
or you can see it as a film about a writer overcoming his block, learning a very profound lesson from his brother before he dies, and bringing himself to do what he was never able to do with the girl. in this case, it has a (relatively) happy ending. The fact that this film can exist on these (at least) two levels so equally and consistently, makes it a great work.
Everything goes to pot when he chooses to go to the McKee seminar. The film actually turns into a McKee influenced film after he talks to McKee. Oddly though, McKee warns him not to use a Deus ex machina (look it up if you don’t know what it is), but, the character of McKee himself is the Deus ex machina of the story.
at the beginning of the film, everything he tells the Tilda Swinton character that he doesn’t want to script to be, it eventually becomes.
I just watched it again the other night and there are other things that i never notices on the multiple times i had seen it before. (ex: Donald just starts singing “so happy together” for absolutely no reason in the hotel room. why? just so Charlie could sing it to him to keep him from dying 20 minutes later. it is my feeling that Kaufman is taping into the empty devices that we respond to as conditioned audience members.)
There are at least two ways of looking at this film – as a tragedy, because he couldn’t make “just a film about flowers” and therefor McKee “wins” and Donald’s influence (and the pressures of making a commercial script) takes over C. Kaufman, and the audience sees this in what is NOT on the screen.
or you can see it as a film about a writer overcoming his block, learning a very profound lesson from his brother before he dies, and bringing himself to do what he was never able to do with the girl. in this case, it has a (relatively) happy ending. The fact that this film can exist on these (at least) two levels so equally and consistently, makes it a great work.
There would be actual highlights if Elvis Mitchell was a half-way decent interviewer. Tarantino was being very gracious about it, but, the guy was acting like a dimwit. Luckily QT is so gifted as a film-theorist and cinephile that he barely needs to be asked a question and he is off and running talking a (if you are paying attention) coherent circle around a topic. It just made me long for an interviewer who was on his level – then the night would have been even more fantastic.
I am not sure if I am just being a snob about Mitchell, that is why I was reaching out to hear what others thought.
When I say "A Perfect Film", What One Film Pops Into Your Head First? over 3 years ago
Sorry. It’s very near trite at this point. But it is “Citizen Kane”.
Go to Comment
The most beautiful films? over 3 years ago
“Buffalo 66”
Reversal film stock, baby. Gotta see it on the big screen.
Go to Comment
Criterion Coming Soon and Discussion about 3 years ago
i’m willing to bet that it is Rossillini’s War Trilogy.
Go to Comment
Russian Film about 3 years ago
“my friend ivan lapshin” is the best movie ever made, but it is hard to find on DVD,
Go to Comment
Most depressing film you have ever seen? almost 3 years ago
funny games
Go to Comment
Lola Montes almost 3 years ago
this is an incredible film in many many ways. It is the ultimate work of a true master.
Go to Comment
Watchmen Appreciation Thread almost 3 years ago
loved the movie. so glad i never read the GN and never will. i am baffled that this movie is being treated with anything but absolute enthusiasm.
Go to Comment
WHO IS / WAS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL FILM ACTRESS EVER? almost 3 years ago
Karina. Vitti.
Go to Comment
WHO IS / WAS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL FILM ACTRESS EVER? almost 3 years ago
Karina. Vitti.
Go to Comment
The Brothers Bloom over 2 years ago
Wes Anderson can learn a thing or two from BB. It is the kind of film Wes would have made if he kept the heart of Bottle Rocket. But somehow he lost it a little in exchange for some obsessive attention to detail and quirk for quirk’s sake.
Go to Comment
Any New Yorkers going to see Satantango and/or A Woman under the Influence at MOMA on Saturday? over 2 years ago
Satantango, rarely screened, and A Woman under the Influence introduced by Gena Rowlands both playing at MOMA in NYC on Saturday the 24th. A happy endurance test.
Just curious if anyone else is taking the leap.
Go to Comment
Any New Yorkers going to see Satantango and/or A Woman under the Influence at MOMA on Saturday? over 2 years ago
you’re just a quick flight away!
Go to Comment
Any New Yorkers going to see Satantango and/or A Woman under the Influence at MOMA on Saturday? over 2 years ago
that’s so funny. we were annoyed by the laughter as well. so annoying.
as far as the dancing scene goes, i too had the same reaction to it, but my friend Jesse, who might chime back in here, said that that scene is more effective the second time you see it.
for me, i just can’t believe that i had the literally feeling that i did not want it to end. considering the length, and my ass’s influence on my brain, that is remarkable. this was a cinematic experience like no other. unforgettable.
Go to Comment
HEADS UP- I Just heard ALL Criterion titles 50% off @ Barnes & Noble starting next week (11/10) till end of year! over 2 years ago
I hate B&N and normally go out of my way NOT to buy anything there, but this makes things hard.
Go to Comment
Thoughts on Dreyer over 2 years ago
I can see why you feel that way about Gertrude, but there is still something spellbinding about it. I need to see it again, and possibly on the big screen (which is really where all these films should be seen before i feel i can make any judgments).
Go to Comment
HEADS UP- I Just heard ALL Criterion titles 50% off @ Barnes & Noble starting next week (11/10) till end of year! over 2 years ago
A friend was told by an employee in a B&N in Connecticut. So i am getting this second hand. But he said TWICE that it was till the end of the year.
Go to Comment
HEADS UP- I Just heard ALL Criterion titles 50% off @ Barnes & Noble starting next week (11/10) till end of year! over 2 years ago
Shit, i didn’t even see the other post about this! And we both, coincidentally started it with “heads up” HA! I guess it’s old news.
Go to Comment
The Resnais-ties over 2 years ago
Having an “Alain Resnais in the Eighties” festival tonight. “Love unto Death”, “Melo”, “I want to go Home”. Anyone have any thoughts on these or other late Resnais?
Go to Comment
Kubrick's Best Film... over 2 years ago
Kubrick sucks!
http://www.mungbeing.com/issue_28.html?page=33&sub_id=1566#1566
Go to Comment
Charlie Kaufman - The cineMAN OF THE DECADE? over 2 years ago
His writing in general set an unprecedented new bar. He wrote the movie of the decade and his directorial debut is an under-appreciated masterpiece that will be remembered well after the so-called great films at the beginning of this century are a distant memory. Charlie Kaufman – CineMAN of the Decade. Agreed? Yes? No? Who then?
Go to Comment
Charlie Kaufman - The cineMAN OF THE DECADE? over 2 years ago
Yes, Absolutely.
Go to Comment
Charlie Kaufman - The cineMAN OF THE DECADE? over 2 years ago
Doesn’t anyone see that S. NY was a personal film? There are few of them around now.
Go to Comment
Charlie Kaufman - The cineMAN OF THE DECADE? over 2 years ago
Amend that – There are a lot of amazing personal films around. But none coming from the studios.
Go to Comment
THE AUTEURS BEST OF THE DECADE: IMAGES over 2 years ago
wonderful images, everyone.
Go to Comment
Charlie Kaufman - The cineMAN OF THE DECADE? over 2 years ago
Check out Michael Atkinson’s exceptional article calling Adaptation a “high-water mark”.
http://www.ifc.com/news/2009/12/naughts-film.php
Go to Comment
Charlie Kaufman - The cineMAN OF THE DECADE? over 2 years ago
@Bruce: But no one has done it to the subversive level that Kaufman has. As a result, right here in this thread, I am sure Dr. Frank is joking with his comment in his post about Donald Kaufman, but read Atkinson’s article that i linked to. Even critics didn’t completely get what he was doing in Adaptation. They thought it “fell apart in the third act”. Hell, maybe some of the people posting on this thread don’t even understand what i mean when i say “didn’t get it”. It is an art for it to exist on the one level as a piece of Hollywood and on another as a piece of self reflective, meta-art. We will see more of this in the rest of this century, as the audience (hopefully) grows more and more sophisticated. therefor, as this being the first decade of this century. Kaufman is our Cineman of the decade.
Go to Comment
Charlie Kaufman - The cineMAN OF THE DECADE? over 2 years ago
Everything goes to pot when he chooses to go to the McKee seminar. The film actually turns into a McKee influenced film after he talks to McKee. Oddly though, McKee warns him not to use a Deus ex machina (look it up if you don’t know what it is), but, the character of McKee himself is the Deus ex machina of the story.
at the beginning of the film, everything he tells the Tilda Swinton character that he doesn’t want to script to be, it eventually becomes.
I just watched it again the other night and there are other things that i never notices on the multiple times i had seen it before. (ex: Donald just starts singing “so happy together” for absolutely no reason in the hotel room. why? just so Charlie could sing it to him to keep him from dying 20 minutes later. it is my feeling that Kaufman is taping into the empty devices that we respond to as conditioned audience members.)
There are at least two ways of looking at this film – as a tragedy, because he couldn’t make “just a film about flowers” and therefor McKee “wins” and Donald’s influence (and the pressures of making a commercial script) takes over C. Kaufman, and the audience sees this in what is NOT on the screen.
or you can see it as a film about a writer overcoming his block, learning a very profound lesson from his brother before he dies, and bringing himself to do what he was never able to do with the girl. in this case, it has a (relatively) happy ending. The fact that this film can exist on these (at least) two levels so equally and consistently, makes it a great work.
Go to Comment
Charlie Kaufman - The cineMAN OF THE DECADE? over 2 years ago
Everything goes to pot when he chooses to go to the McKee seminar. The film actually turns into a McKee influenced film after he talks to McKee. Oddly though, McKee warns him not to use a Deus ex machina (look it up if you don’t know what it is), but, the character of McKee himself is the Deus ex machina of the story.
at the beginning of the film, everything he tells the Tilda Swinton character that he doesn’t want to script to be, it eventually becomes.
I just watched it again the other night and there are other things that i never notices on the multiple times i had seen it before. (ex: Donald just starts singing “so happy together” for absolutely no reason in the hotel room. why? just so Charlie could sing it to him to keep him from dying 20 minutes later. it is my feeling that Kaufman is taping into the empty devices that we respond to as conditioned audience members.)
There are at least two ways of looking at this film – as a tragedy, because he couldn’t make “just a film about flowers” and therefor McKee “wins” and Donald’s influence (and the pressures of making a commercial script) takes over C. Kaufman, and the audience sees this in what is NOT on the screen.
or you can see it as a film about a writer overcoming his block, learning a very profound lesson from his brother before he dies, and bringing himself to do what he was never able to do with the girl. in this case, it has a (relatively) happy ending. The fact that this film can exist on these (at least) two levels so equally and consistently, makes it a great work.
Go to Comment
Was anyone else at Tarantino @ MoMA in NYC 12/17/09? over 2 years ago
Just curious what people thought of the discussion between him and Elvis Mitchell.
Go to Comment
Was anyone else at Tarantino @ MoMA in NYC 12/17/09? over 2 years ago
There would be actual highlights if Elvis Mitchell was a half-way decent interviewer. Tarantino was being very gracious about it, but, the guy was acting like a dimwit. Luckily QT is so gifted as a film-theorist and cinephile that he barely needs to be asked a question and he is off and running talking a (if you are paying attention) coherent circle around a topic. It just made me long for an interviewer who was on his level – then the night would have been even more fantastic.
I am not sure if I am just being a snob about Mitchell, that is why I was reaching out to hear what others thought.
Go to Comment