We were casting in LA which must have the highest density of desperate actors of any place in the world. I was going to direct a short I wrote and I needed three actors. So the producer has his sub-producer put an ad in the casting paper and we rent an office. Casting in LA is a painfull process because even for a no budget short for two weeks with no pay, it seems like thousands show up. Of the thousands maybe a hundred can act, of that hundred maybe fifty are the right age/type etc…
So we buy cookies, we make coffee and we clear our calendars for two days. 7 am we go to our office and set up, ready for the stampede at 9 am.
At 9 am I’m pacing. Nobody has shown up. I think: “Well, your little film is already smelling like shit and you haven’t even made it yet!” The producer assures me we’ll get a big crowd, lots of talent to choose from. I sit down and wait patiently…
An hour later I ask the producer if it’s a holiday or something. Two hours later we’re tossing paper balls into the trash and kicking things around. I think we must really suck if we can’t even pull in a couple of out of work actors in the heart of Hollywood.
I ask him to find out why we can’t seem to attract any actors. He calls his sub-producer who has no idea. He brings up the casting call site and sees that our ad isn’t in there. There was no notice, hence, nobody showed up. We try again the next week and are duly inundated. We fire the sub-producer…
First find out what film you can get and how to get it processed. Some cameras take cartridges that aren’t made anymore… Here’s a place out in Burbank, California that deals in super 8… http://www.pro8mm.com/home.html
Bell is wrong and simplistic I would say, images imply a multitude of meanings regardless of the subject of that image. The female form is just one of many signifiers used and its traditionally privileded place is due to horny old men dreaming of their youth. That said, images only exist as signifiers, they can’t represent individuals, only parts, snapshots of an individual. Sorry, I’ve had too much coffee…
Amelie (I think it’s brilliant, if you think it’s shallow, well, that’s just you…)
Time Bandits (ok it’s for kids but still)
Strangelove isn’t bleak
Zelig
Delicatessen
Lawrence of Arabia
33 short films about Glenn Gould
The Vigo films as mentioned above
Renoir’s Rules of the Game
Masculin/Feminin (ok, maybe kind of a downer)
8 1/2
Ummmm… But doesn’t the idea of a science of aesthetics, a category of aesthetics, an aesthetics divorced from the specific subject in question (generalized rules drawn from specific examples) come from the idea of Plato’s forms? This (Plato’s forms) is probably the biggest mistake in Western philosophy… What’s a table? Well, let’s see there should be a perfect one somewhere that all tables are copies of (notice that this makes reality a copy of the “real”, the ideal). So using language you try to come up with what defines a table….Which is backwards.
You don’t have language first and then find the table, you find the table and say: Here’s a table. Just as you don’t need to define a painting, real art or anything else from the wrong side of the linguistic fence. What is art? Go find it, most good, new art is not nameable, not easily identified as such because it starts out as outside the language.
So, Bell represents a long tradition, one that (I think) is completely backwards. You can’t define art or beauty or anything like that and to do so is presumptious. It’s the equivalent of trying to define “blue” solely by language, it’s easier and more precise to simply point at it.
The lines of the human form (male or female, it doesn’t matter) can fill all kinds of emotions, more than one at a time. We probably have art because we are so good at inventing and we (humans) are good at inventing because we like to connect things and make stories and produce feelings. The abstract lines of a hip can just as well be a vase if the lighting’s right, that’s just warm fuzzy aesthetics in each and every one of us. The key being that those feelings are not the same at all times and not for different people.
Hmm…. A synapse clicked and I’ve got this intense feeling running through my brain/body. Could it be art? Beauty? No it’s nicotine! Where’s my tobacco…?
I didn’t like it as I felt it was this old style moralization story that I had seen a million times before. I like DD Lewis but in this case I thought he was over the top. It probably has to do with how “Oil!” is written but I didn’t come out of it thinking it was a masterpiece by any standards, it’s a very simple story where practically the entirety of Western civilization is put on the shoulders, represented by, DD Lewis’ character.
I did like certain parts the way certain scenes worked, some of the shooting, some of the sound, but it was a disappointment. It just didn’t move me, I felt it was all surface and that everybody was just trying too hard to be profound.
Exactly, it’s a cliche. Each of those characters is already a cliche. We know this stuff already, hell I know people just like the characters, only the people I know are more complicated. All I can say is I went in with great hopes but felt like it was an old style morality tale that I had really, really, already seen. Did like “Punch Drunk Love” though…
I’ve got such a short attention span that a tattoo of any kind would be a disaster, especially if I could see it myself! I did want to put the cinema countdown number somewhere though, you know, the old black and white radar like thing that they used to put on film leaders 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 beep.
@Kim Packard who said: “I think this also means that the film makers must, like Lady of Shallot, maintain a critical distance from reality in order to adhere to the aesthetic standard required for producing art.”
I think this happens automatically, a good artist will essentially reject 80% of reality as not worthy of consideration/reproduction/representation. It’s not even controllable. It’s just as much an obsession with certain things as it is a distance from reality. No human is in reality 100%. While I think Bell is probably wrong (as are Kant and Plato) because of a forced categorization of art based on appearences, I think it’s certainly worth discussing. Art is what you feel, no matter what it looks like, humans just happen to be very good at making stories (even if paintings, sculpture etc.) that hit other humans in the heart/brain like a lightening bolt from Zeus.
The female form, when reproduced makes its own story, different and outside of what was the original intention of the artist, just like any other image that is reproduced. It’s just that in the case of the female form (as this thread has demonstrated) that image, that reproduction, whatever it might look like, is loaded.
What’s fun and interesting is if that image betrays the makers’ cultural assumptions, making the image one part it’s own thing, one part the makers’ intention, one part cultural artifact and many parts of other things…
I think that filmmakers should take whatever they want from a book. They should just make the best film possible. Of course if they are not good filmmakers then it’s usually a disaster. The Shining was much better as a film than as a book and did not stick to the book. Conversely writers should feel free to crib off movies as they want to.
Personally I like the Hitchcock approach: Read the book once and anything you can’t remember isn’t worth putting into the script!
While I do go into films hoping for the all the parts I loved from a book to be there, my disappointment is my own. They should just do whatever they want, even if that means subverting the material. I loved Catch-22 but hated the film, but the film is just different and now I like it, possibly it tried to hard to stay with the book and that’s why it suffered. Of course it’s been years since I’ve seen it so I had better be careful about what I’m saying..
Has anybody read Contempt and The Conformist by Alberto Moravia? I love those two movies and I remember Godard describing the book as “a minor book by Moravia” or something like that. I guess it’s time to read them… Masculin/Feminin is another example of a fabulous film that is only very loosely based on a Maupassant story. It’s possible the strict filming of that story would be good but I doubt it would be as interesting.
I would probably have to see them all again but I think I would have to say that Godard’s films are about love and, mostly, and that this is represented (in the avant Mao period) through women. But not in a misogynistic way. Watching the marriage fall apart and Camille’s contempt for Paul is heartbreaking and also so true at the same time.
While there is tension on any set and probably Godard would not have chosen Bardot as his first choice for Camille to say he had contempt for her as an actress is going a bit far. She was great in the role in any case.
Godard identified with prostitutes because (I think) he felt that the loss of control over your own body is probably the worst loss of control imaginable that is still tolerated by the society (women are demonized for becoming prostitutes while their clients are considered as just cute frat boys or business men with ball busting wives).
Godard ’s treatment of Camille in Le Mepris shows her as the hero, the sufferer at the hands of her rather dim-witted husband. To focus on the producer induced first scene is overlooking both the context and the rest of the movie! What a waste of a good film! Good write up on the conference BTW…
I liked the book but I thought that the film was just badly done. I kept thinking: what? anal sex is a transgression? Since when? You want to fuck in cars? Ok… so what?
I did like the car crashes though and Vaugh’s almost religious attitude towards them, I wish there had been more of that and less of the not so interesting human interaction. Yes, the cars were more interesting than the characters. Maybe I’m exactly what Ballard was warning you about…
It wasn’t that it was too transgressive but that it took itself too seriously and I think that if it had been a bit more playful and not so self involved it would have been better. Ballard is interesting because his normal characters go through abnormal stories and keep their normality in a banal but interesting way. Something that I think was attempted by the casting of Spader, but in this case I couldn’t share is wide eyed innocence. It made it unintentionally funny. It’s too bad because it’s a great idea.
Look at it this way: All body parts are equal it doesn’t matter where you stick them, into whom or why. Nothin’ nauseating. High School Musical is nauseating…
Justin- I am not saying that we should become anything, only that IF some people want to become rutting machines then ok, they should. It’s not nauseating necessarily. Hurting other people is nauseating, not giving them pleasure.
If some people get off by car crashes I totally understand… I think I was bored with Crash because a: I read the book and was tainted and b: the interesting part, about how people, whether individuals or a group can come up with their own idea of pleasure and pain was kind of lost behind the attempt to shock.
Freeing ourselves from judgment does not mean that we descend to the lowest common denominator, it just means that we acknowledge that everybody has the ability/right/ to find pleasure where they want. I really wanted to like the film because I liked the book (along with Concrete Island, Highrise and others) but something went wrong in the translation. Ballard’s characters slide into their own world from ours, so that they leave ours and inhabit solely the one they made up and you go along and it feels natural, step by step (as I think you were mentioning above). In the film that because of the gloss of the cinema, because of the way the actors presented the story, things were shown as perversions where in the book they are shown as natural, not as perverse. It’s almost like it should have been directed by Billy Wilder or somebody, then it would have worked.
I think what was presented in the book as natural (which worked) was presented in the movie as an attempt at things foreign and shocking and that’s why it didn’t work for me. Maybe I’ve been hanging around the wrong side of the tracks too long…
“The Brown Bunny is the best American film of this decade.” Really? Then I must see.
Is he an auteur? Personally I don’t care either way but we’ll never know who’s responsible for that film as he’s listed as:
Produced by Vincent Gallo
Cinematography by Vincent Gallo,
Film Editing by Vincent Gallo,
Production Design by Vincent Gallo (uncredited),
Art Direction by Vincent Gallo (uncredited),
Set Decoration by Vincent Gallo (uncredited)
Costume Design by Vincent Gallo
Makeup Department Vincent Gallo (uncredited)
Art Department Vincent Gallo
I know a crew worked on this film but he won’t admit it so regardless of whether it’s good or bad the talent is hidden.
Too bad he had to credit Chloe Sevigny because he couldn’t give himself a bj…
But really, judge the movie for itself, Gallo might be an insecure schmuck but that’s no reason to dislike his movies.
I thought Harmony Korine’s Gummo was great and who knows Brown Bunny might be good too!
Walked out of Thelma and Louise but that was a long time ago so maybe I’d stick around to see them go off the cliff now.
There will be blood- Remake of a thousand morality tales that we’ve seen before. Nice landscapes though.
No country for old Men- I’m sure I’ve seen this film a couple times before…
Saving Private Ryan- The first 20 minutes are a wild spectacle as are the last 5 but in between? yuck.
Pulp Fiction- Will they just shut up please?
Three colors: Blue. Red and white weren’t as bad.
Singing in the Rain- I just don’t like musicals, I can appreciate the craft though.
Eyes wide shut- It just came off as the project of a lonely old man dreaming of hot young girls, really disliked it.
I reserve the right to change my mind if I see any of these again recently. Exceptt Lust, Caution which will always be terrible.
There are lots more where those came from.
While I don’t hate Citizen Kane it doesn’t really do anything for me. For me films have to do something on the emotional and the aesthetic front and Kane is empty emotionally. I much prefer Touch of Evil. Probably saw Kane too young and heard too much about it.
The Highs and Lows of Filmmaking about 3 years ago
Ok, here’s what happened to me on my last short:
We were casting in LA which must have the highest density of desperate actors of any place in the world. I was going to direct a short I wrote and I needed three actors. So the producer has his sub-producer put an ad in the casting paper and we rent an office. Casting in LA is a painfull process because even for a no budget short for two weeks with no pay, it seems like thousands show up. Of the thousands maybe a hundred can act, of that hundred maybe fifty are the right age/type etc…
So we buy cookies, we make coffee and we clear our calendars for two days. 7 am we go to our office and set up, ready for the stampede at 9 am.
At 9 am I’m pacing. Nobody has shown up. I think: “Well, your little film is already smelling like shit and you haven’t even made it yet!” The producer assures me we’ll get a big crowd, lots of talent to choose from. I sit down and wait patiently…
An hour later I ask the producer if it’s a holiday or something. Two hours later we’re tossing paper balls into the trash and kicking things around. I think we must really suck if we can’t even pull in a couple of out of work actors in the heart of Hollywood.
I ask him to find out why we can’t seem to attract any actors. He calls his sub-producer who has no idea. He brings up the casting call site and sees that our ad isn’t in there. There was no notice, hence, nobody showed up. We try again the next week and are duly inundated. We fire the sub-producer…
Go to Comment
Recommend me a Decent Super 8 Camera about 3 years ago
First find out what film you can get and how to get it processed. Some cameras take cartridges that aren’t made anymore… Here’s a place out in Burbank, California that deals in super 8… http://www.pro8mm.com/home.html
Go to Comment
The female form... about 3 years ago
Bell is wrong and simplistic I would say, images imply a multitude of meanings regardless of the subject of that image. The female form is just one of many signifiers used and its traditionally privileded place is due to horny old men dreaming of their youth. That said, images only exist as signifiers, they can’t represent individuals, only parts, snapshots of an individual. Sorry, I’ve had too much coffee…
Go to Comment
Superior concert DVDs about 3 years ago
David Bowie: Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars.
Go to Comment
Do great films have to be depressing and bleak to be great? about 3 years ago
Great unbleak films:
Amelie (I think it’s brilliant, if you think it’s shallow, well, that’s just you…)
Time Bandits (ok it’s for kids but still)
Strangelove isn’t bleak
Zelig
Delicatessen
Lawrence of Arabia
33 short films about Glenn Gould
The Vigo films as mentioned above
Renoir’s Rules of the Game
Masculin/Feminin (ok, maybe kind of a downer)
8 1/2
Real life is depressing… not art.
Go to Comment
Hit or Miss? about 3 years ago
The Fly was great, as was Dead Ringers
Videodrome was OK, History of violence was ok,
Naked Lunch was somewhere between ok and terrible?
crash and existenz were terrible
I don’t remember the rest well enough to comment. His movies never seem to be really consistently good even when they are good though.
Go to Comment
The female form... about 3 years ago
Ummmm… But doesn’t the idea of a science of aesthetics, a category of aesthetics, an aesthetics divorced from the specific subject in question (generalized rules drawn from specific examples) come from the idea of Plato’s forms? This (Plato’s forms) is probably the biggest mistake in Western philosophy… What’s a table? Well, let’s see there should be a perfect one somewhere that all tables are copies of (notice that this makes reality a copy of the “real”, the ideal). So using language you try to come up with what defines a table….Which is backwards.
You don’t have language first and then find the table, you find the table and say: Here’s a table. Just as you don’t need to define a painting, real art or anything else from the wrong side of the linguistic fence. What is art? Go find it, most good, new art is not nameable, not easily identified as such because it starts out as outside the language.
So, Bell represents a long tradition, one that (I think) is completely backwards. You can’t define art or beauty or anything like that and to do so is presumptious. It’s the equivalent of trying to define “blue” solely by language, it’s easier and more precise to simply point at it.
The lines of the human form (male or female, it doesn’t matter) can fill all kinds of emotions, more than one at a time. We probably have art because we are so good at inventing and we (humans) are good at inventing because we like to connect things and make stories and produce feelings. The abstract lines of a hip can just as well be a vase if the lighting’s right, that’s just warm fuzzy aesthetics in each and every one of us. The key being that those feelings are not the same at all times and not for different people.
Go to Comment
The female form... about 3 years ago
Hmm…. A synapse clicked and I’ve got this intense feeling running through my brain/body. Could it be art? Beauty? No it’s nicotine! Where’s my tobacco…?
Go to Comment
The female form... about 3 years ago
@Justin: Yes, his Human Soul/Ideal Forms/God trio form a circular argument, the repercussions of which are still being felt. Lucky us.
Aren’t the Bond girls named like that in the books as well? Anybody know?
Go to Comment
Best biographical movies about 3 years ago
Thirty Two Short Films About Glenn Gould by François Girard
Also “The Last Place on Earth” about the failed Scott expedition to the South Pole.
“Empodocles” by Straub
Plus a bunch already mentioned.
Go to Comment
What's so good about There Will B Blood? about 3 years ago
I didn’t like it as I felt it was this old style moralization story that I had seen a million times before. I like DD Lewis but in this case I thought he was over the top. It probably has to do with how “Oil!” is written but I didn’t come out of it thinking it was a masterpiece by any standards, it’s a very simple story where practically the entirety of Western civilization is put on the shoulders, represented by, DD Lewis’ character.
I did like certain parts the way certain scenes worked, some of the shooting, some of the sound, but it was a disappointment. It just didn’t move me, I felt it was all surface and that everybody was just trying too hard to be profound.
Go to Comment
What's so good about There Will B Blood? about 3 years ago
Exactly, it’s a cliche. Each of those characters is already a cliche. We know this stuff already, hell I know people just like the characters, only the people I know are more complicated. All I can say is I went in with great hopes but felt like it was an old style morality tale that I had really, really, already seen. Did like “Punch Drunk Love” though…
Go to Comment
film related tattoos about 3 years ago
I’ve got such a short attention span that a tattoo of any kind would be a disaster, especially if I could see it myself! I did want to put the cinema countdown number somewhere though, you know, the old black and white radar like thing that they used to put on film leaders 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 beep.
Go to Comment
The female form... about 3 years ago
@Kim Packard who said: “I think this also means that the film makers must, like Lady of Shallot, maintain a critical distance from reality in order to adhere to the aesthetic standard required for producing art.”
I think this happens automatically, a good artist will essentially reject 80% of reality as not worthy of consideration/reproduction/representation. It’s not even controllable. It’s just as much an obsession with certain things as it is a distance from reality. No human is in reality 100%. While I think Bell is probably wrong (as are Kant and Plato) because of a forced categorization of art based on appearences, I think it’s certainly worth discussing. Art is what you feel, no matter what it looks like, humans just happen to be very good at making stories (even if paintings, sculpture etc.) that hit other humans in the heart/brain like a lightening bolt from Zeus.
The female form, when reproduced makes its own story, different and outside of what was the original intention of the artist, just like any other image that is reproduced. It’s just that in the case of the female form (as this thread has demonstrated) that image, that reproduction, whatever it might look like, is loaded.
What’s fun and interesting is if that image betrays the makers’ cultural assumptions, making the image one part it’s own thing, one part the makers’ intention, one part cultural artifact and many parts of other things…
Go to Comment
The Difficulty with Adaptations about 3 years ago
I think that filmmakers should take whatever they want from a book. They should just make the best film possible. Of course if they are not good filmmakers then it’s usually a disaster. The Shining was much better as a film than as a book and did not stick to the book. Conversely writers should feel free to crib off movies as they want to.
Personally I like the Hitchcock approach: Read the book once and anything you can’t remember isn’t worth putting into the script!
Go to Comment
The Difficulty with Adaptations about 3 years ago
While I do go into films hoping for the all the parts I loved from a book to be there, my disappointment is my own. They should just do whatever they want, even if that means subverting the material. I loved Catch-22 but hated the film, but the film is just different and now I like it, possibly it tried to hard to stay with the book and that’s why it suffered. Of course it’s been years since I’ve seen it so I had better be careful about what I’m saying..
Go to Comment
The Difficulty with Adaptations about 3 years ago
Has anybody read Contempt and The Conformist by Alberto Moravia? I love those two movies and I remember Godard describing the book as “a minor book by Moravia” or something like that. I guess it’s time to read them… Masculin/Feminin is another example of a fabulous film that is only very loosely based on a Maupassant story. It’s possible the strict filming of that story would be good but I doubt it would be as interesting.
Go to Comment
Last movie you saw and rate it about 3 years ago
Bullitt- Peter Yates 7/10 McQueen is great and that late sixties look (filmstock) is scrumptious.
Imitation of Life- Douglas Sirk 10/10 The best schmaltz ever made
Das Boot- Wolfgang Petersen 6/10 Claustrophobes should watch on a very small screen…
The Draughtsmans’ Contract- Peter Greenaway 9/10 Clever, too clever at times.
Go to Comment
The female form... about 3 years ago
I would probably have to see them all again but I think I would have to say that Godard’s films are about love and, mostly, and that this is represented (in the avant Mao period) through women. But not in a misogynistic way. Watching the marriage fall apart and Camille’s contempt for Paul is heartbreaking and also so true at the same time.
While there is tension on any set and probably Godard would not have chosen Bardot as his first choice for Camille to say he had contempt for her as an actress is going a bit far. She was great in the role in any case.
Godard identified with prostitutes because (I think) he felt that the loss of control over your own body is probably the worst loss of control imaginable that is still tolerated by the society (women are demonized for becoming prostitutes while their clients are considered as just cute frat boys or business men with ball busting wives).Godard ’s treatment of Camille in Le Mepris shows her as the hero, the sufferer at the hands of her rather dim-witted husband. To focus on the producer induced first scene is overlooking both the context and the rest of the movie! What a waste of a good film! Good write up on the conference BTW…
Go to Comment
Crash (1996) about 3 years ago
I liked the book but I thought that the film was just badly done. I kept thinking: what? anal sex is a transgression? Since when? You want to fuck in cars? Ok… so what?
I did like the car crashes though and Vaugh’s almost religious attitude towards them, I wish there had been more of that and less of the not so interesting human interaction. Yes, the cars were more interesting than the characters. Maybe I’m exactly what Ballard was warning you about…
It wasn’t that it was too transgressive but that it took itself too seriously and I think that if it had been a bit more playful and not so self involved it would have been better. Ballard is interesting because his normal characters go through abnormal stories and keep their normality in a banal but interesting way. Something that I think was attempted by the casting of Spader, but in this case I couldn’t share is wide eyed innocence. It made it unintentionally funny. It’s too bad because it’s a great idea.
Go to Comment
MOVIES TO WATCH WHEN YOU'RE PISSED about 3 years ago
Mad Max, preferably in a language you don’t understand… Mary Poppins does do wonders though…as does Buster Keaton
Go to Comment
Crash (1996) about 3 years ago
Look at it this way: All body parts are equal it doesn’t matter where you stick them, into whom or why. Nothin’ nauseating. High School Musical is nauseating…
Go to Comment
Movies That Should Be In the Criterion Collection about 3 years ago
“Leolo” directed by Jean-Claude Lauzon 1992
Go to Comment
How can you have a "favorite director/actor collaboration" poll.... about 3 years ago
Waters/Divine?
Park/Wallace? (as in Wallace and Gromit)
Go to Comment
Best Films of the 80's? about 3 years ago
The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover, 1989, Peter Greenaway
Go to Comment
Crash (1996) about 3 years ago
Justin- I am not saying that we should become anything, only that IF some people want to become rutting machines then ok, they should. It’s not nauseating necessarily. Hurting other people is nauseating, not giving them pleasure.
If some people get off by car crashes I totally understand… I think I was bored with Crash because a: I read the book and was tainted and b: the interesting part, about how people, whether individuals or a group can come up with their own idea of pleasure and pain was kind of lost behind the attempt to shock.
Freeing ourselves from judgment does not mean that we descend to the lowest common denominator, it just means that we acknowledge that everybody has the ability/right/ to find pleasure where they want. I really wanted to like the film because I liked the book (along with Concrete Island, Highrise and others) but something went wrong in the translation. Ballard’s characters slide into their own world from ours, so that they leave ours and inhabit solely the one they made up and you go along and it feels natural, step by step (as I think you were mentioning above). In the film that because of the gloss of the cinema, because of the way the actors presented the story, things were shown as perversions where in the book they are shown as natural, not as perverse. It’s almost like it should have been directed by Billy Wilder or somebody, then it would have worked.
I think what was presented in the book as natural (which worked) was presented in the movie as an attempt at things foreign and shocking and that’s why it didn’t work for me. Maybe I’ve been hanging around the wrong side of the tracks too long…
Go to Comment
Vincent Gallo... Auteur? about 3 years ago
“The Brown Bunny is the best American film of this decade.” Really? Then I must see.
Is he an auteur? Personally I don’t care either way but we’ll never know who’s responsible for that film as he’s listed as:Produced by Vincent Gallo
Cinematography by Vincent Gallo,
Film Editing by Vincent Gallo,
Production Design by Vincent Gallo (uncredited),
Art Direction by Vincent Gallo (uncredited),
Set Decoration by Vincent Gallo (uncredited)
Costume Design by Vincent Gallo
Makeup Department Vincent Gallo (uncredited)
Art Department Vincent Gallo
I know a crew worked on this film but he won’t admit it so regardless of whether it’s good or bad the talent is hidden.
Too bad he had to credit Chloe Sevigny because he couldn’t give himself a bj…
But really, judge the movie for itself, Gallo might be an insecure schmuck but that’s no reason to dislike his movies.
I thought Harmony Korine’s Gummo was great and who knows Brown Bunny might be good too!
Go to Comment
If you could have lunch with one filmmaker, alive or dead, who would it be? about 3 years ago
Vincent Gallo of course.
Go to Comment
If you could have lunch with one filmmaker, alive or dead, who would it be? about 3 years ago
@Justin: !!!!!!!! yer right, gotta be careful!
Go to Comment
Movies you hated that everyone else loves about 3 years ago
OK, I’ll bite.
Lust, Caution- hated it
Adaptation- Really hated it
Walked out of Thelma and Louise but that was a long time ago so maybe I’d stick around to see them go off the cliff now.
There will be blood- Remake of a thousand morality tales that we’ve seen before. Nice landscapes though.
No country for old Men- I’m sure I’ve seen this film a couple times before…
Saving Private Ryan- The first 20 minutes are a wild spectacle as are the last 5 but in between? yuck.
Pulp Fiction- Will they just shut up please?
Three colors: Blue. Red and white weren’t as bad.
Singing in the Rain- I just don’t like musicals, I can appreciate the craft though.
Eyes wide shut- It just came off as the project of a lonely old man dreaming of hot young girls, really disliked it.
I reserve the right to change my mind if I see any of these again recently. Exceptt Lust, Caution which will always be terrible.
There are lots more where those came from.
While I don’t hate Citizen Kane it doesn’t really do anything for me. For me films have to do something on the emotional and the aesthetic front and Kane is empty emotionally. I much prefer Touch of Evil. Probably saw Kane too young and heard too much about it.
Go to Comment