 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Now that the recent Golden Globes and last year's Oscars have snubbed the directors of the Best Picture winners, should they eliminate the Best Director award? Or replace it with a more apt Best Babysitter award? Is it really possible to make a Best Picture without a Best Director?
Follow Ups:
were made by committees and had most of their creative control in the hands of producers, actors, advertisers/product placement agencys. Directors may be responsible for the "look" and pacing of the film, but little more.
- contractual agreements about what brand of cigarettes the actor must smoke.
- that a can of coke must be in at least 4 shots (and the actor drinking it must be enjoying it).
- that actor so-and-so won't take the part unless they aren't portrayed as a hooker, eventhough it is a film about prostitution. But since the producers did a deal with the distributors that actor so-and-so had to be in it, the key plot lines must all be re-written to make key plotlines more acceptable for the actors.I'm not a cynic!
It's nearly all about where the money comes from and who gets it back.I think you are right!
Cheers
John K
If so, this leaves me even more incredulous than before. This means that it is like voting for Homecoming Queen and has little to do with merit. Mel Gibson's got one. So does Kevin Costner. Makes no sense to me.BTW, I am not saying that "Gladiator" and "A Beautiful Mind" were the best films of the last two years (far from it). But Ron Howard needs to join the Hair Club For Men before he'll win an Oscar.
Academy member peers cast a ballot to determine the 5 nominations, then the whole Academy votes for the winner. It seems to be the same for all "technical" categories.Cheers
John K
So the Director's award should go to the person who contributed to the financial gain of the largest number of Academy voters.
.
While living in the old world I used to associate film with its director. Stupid me. I foolishly connected 8 1/2 with Fellini and The Seventh Seal with Ingmar.Stupid people still associate paintings with artists. I know better know. I know that without the canvas merchant there would not be paintings. No film was ever produced without a producer.
All that Oscar thingy is revolting. It is degrading and no wonder fewer and fewer good folks even go there.
However, there ARE bright spots. Not putting that inept director of the the silly Gladiator on stage was after all a good deed. I shall never forget his face... guy apparently still believes he makes films.
I'll readily admit that Scott has lost his way in recent years (how the cartoon-epic Gladiator ever scored Best Picture is beyond me -- next thing WWF will be in the Olympics). Nevertheless, he has redeemed himself to a degree with Black Hawk Down. Why? Although visually he completely knocked of Spielberg's SPR he does manage to tell a plausible story almost completely using visuals -- in many director's hands it would have become complete chaos. And finally, he thankfully resisted including *most* flag-waving, rah-rah-shish-boom-bah-type speeches that take over films like this.Doug Schneider
I know the story (I read the chapters from the book) and would like to see a good rendition. However, I am completely insecure about trying it. American war movies generally disgust me. They tend to range from idiotic and silly to revolting, with the latest gems like SPR, U-571 and Pearl Harbor being prime example of just how low that genre has become here. So I am extremely reluctant to try another one.Since you are recommending it I might give it a try - when my wife is out of town - on a large screen with all channels going. I am not against giving credit when it is due. And I would not mind to be positively surprised.
It's graphic though not quite as graphic as SPR with out the preachiness and hollywood gumdrop wrapping that sandwiched SPR. It lacks the structural sense of stupidity of U571 wherin preposterousness is heaped upon ridiculousness. It lacks the specious subplots, brainless romantic storyline and downright silly rewriting of history to serve its purposes of Pearl Harbor.It is very much the story of the battle - with little personal character development pretext or poitical subtext. If you can get into the soldier's preparations and a fairly literal playing out of a battle against hopeless odds its quite interesting. But be warned - lots of people getting shot and blow up - but not in the pure shock value SPR manner or Schwarznegger good guys never get hit sort of way either. But it is bloody so in that regard it is quite Hollywood. In other words it is graphic rather than suggestive...
joejoe
***It is very much the story of the battle - with little personal character development pretext or poitical subtext. If you can get into the soldier's preparations and a fairly literal playing out of a battle against hopeless odds its quite interesting.I like this paragraph - this is the type of action that should allow a good director to REALLY open up, or bad one to fall onto his face. So I am now even more curious.
***But be warned - lots of people getting shot and blow up - but not in the pure shock value SPR manner or Schwarznegger good guys never get hit sort of way either. But it is bloody so in that regard it is quite Hollywood. In other words it is graphic rather than suggestive...That is another interesting point. A short time ago I had the discussion with someone regarding the shocking schenes in good films. Violence and gore can be done many different ways. In that particular example the question was whether my wife found a brutal scene intollerable.
The reality thought is that for an adult the violence, if it is closely integrated into the plot is not in itself too objectionable, within limits. It becomes objectionable if it is simply gratuitous - for instance like that in the Hannibal, which I thought was a complete trash so the violence there just made it ever trashier, and that was not easy.
It seems like there is big difference between for instance how the battle scenes are presented in Full Metal Jacket, and the SPR. It is horrifying in its almost static power in the FMJ, and idiotic in the Ryan. Why? The first one uses shades, the second - primitive colors and crude brushwork.
The true horror of war and battle is never in the endless barrels of red paint. The true horror is always in the faces of the participants. In their eyes. In the trembling of their bodies. If that spells "subtlety" then it is because that IS the key.
I love FMJ. This is certainly not its match, but it is far better than any recent Hollywood war pic.joe
What I liked about it is that Scott *seems* to have just documented the battle. There is a little bit of that melodramatic speechmaking, but only a wee bit. From what I read Scott was not interested in making a pro-American war movie, but producer Bruckheimer was. Seems Scott got it mainly his way.Doug Schneider
...do you find out the DVD release date?
Vic,I agree with DAS 100% on BHD. Yeah, the combat scenes are a knock-off of SPR (whose opening 30 minutes are still among the best), but the film could have been much more "rah rah, aren't we the best" than it was.
I read that the Somali people have been fighting to get tickets to watch a pirated version of the film in Mogadishu and that they cheer when the Americans get killed. They apparently don't like how they were portrayed.
Truth hurts I guess.
Tosh
... and his successes outweigh his lesser films two to one. If that's what you consider inept, you must have some pretty tough standards for an "accomplished" director. Check-out the linked URL; these folks gather and dissiminate a broad range of opinion rather than a few select reviews. BTW, the only thing I noticed missing from Ridley Scott's filmography was his first major directoral effort, The Duelists; Victor, even you should appreciate that minor masterpiece set in the Napoleonic Wars. If you haven't seen it, all I can do is offer my heartiest recommendation and suggest that you'ld probably enjoy it.
The Duellists is visually quite stunning but how much you like this film may depend on how convinced you are by Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel playing 19th century Napoleonic cavalry generals. I didn't quite buy it.......
Another matter of opinion, of course. I remember the Duelists quite well, except not well enough to rank the director. At the time I thought it was entertaining - Keitel was superb, as usual - but not more than that.You are right, I do have high standards for directors and these are not set by me, but by dozens if not hundreds of directors before Scott. To that standard his films don't measure up. We are supposed to be talking about someone making the Best Film, after all? I think Scott can only deserve any attention if those others are either not known or ignored. Like my sis playing violin might impress someone who has never heard Oistrakh.
His accomplishments? I have not seen his whole roster, but the Alien, Thelma, Bladerunner I would personally NEVER watch voluntarily. I find them all objectionable to high degree, demeaning as an attempt at art. As I usually say - why waste your time watching this stuff when I still have not seen all good films?
Perhaps inept is not the right word here. Perhaps he unfortunately is good at making bad films.
Personal taste.
Perspective.
Individual goals for movies in general.To one man, a movie may be wonderful, possibly even a seminal event, while to another person it may bring yawns or signs of disgust. And, a movie that may seem wonderful when one is 6, 12, or 18 yrs old may be laughable or highly avoidable at later ages. And vice versa.
Some peoples' goals change over time. Some folks' goals expand over time (ie branch into different goals for different moods and situations).
When I was a teenager, watching Conan The Barbarian was a great event at the theatre. I didn't expect art and was NOT looking for art...so the movie was everything I needed it to be. At even a younger age, seeing Destroy All Monsters on the balcony of an old movie theatre was a magnificent success...popcorn, Milk Duds, soda, and a multitude of monsters, what more did I want as a kid?
So, for some, not concerned about a demeaning lack of high art, Alien and Blade Runner (and other movies like Star Wars, The Terminator, etc) are pinnacle films for some folks with certain tastes and goals. So, while they may be 'bad' films to you and other folks with certain outlooks and expectations, they are considered good and even great films by others. And some of those other folks also like to watch movies that are good art when the time calls for it...
Personally, I consider The Duelists a minor classic period piece; Bladerunner is one of my favorite films, especially the Director's cut version, with it's masterful blending of the SF & film noir genres; Alien was a phenomenal movie that inspired four sequels, only the second worthy of comparison to the original; I've never seen Thelma & Louise, but it did break ground in it's depiction of women seeking independence in a male-dominated society; Legend was recut and released by Universal in a diminishing what may have been a minor masterpiece of fantasy (several years ago Video Watchdog did a shot for shot restructure of Mr. Scott's original movie; the Director's vision was indeed butchered); Gladiator, as much as you dislike it, is a wonderful film in it's own rite, superior to most sword and sandal epics done a generation before; I haven't seen White Squall or GI Jane, but both were popular; 1492, Conquest of Paradise may have lost it's compass and gone off coarse, but it also suffered from the unlikelyhood of two Columbus historicals being released the same year; Hannible yhe cannible was terrible, but considering what they had to work with, screenwriter David Mamet and Director Scott did an amazing job with Thomas Harris's appallingly grim joke of a book.So to make a long story a little shorter, I like most of Ridley Scott's movies and consider him to be one of the few Directors currently making films which are both entertaining and deal with complex and/or controversial subjects intelligently.
AuPh
Another opinion:"Gladiator" verging on the ridiculous, with poorly integrated digital graphics. Of the type, "Spartacus" is leagues ahead.
Every "Alien" movie is manipulative and overdone, in my opinion. The first is no better than the interminable sequels.
GI Jane -- a farce that I couldn't sit through without blowing my Coke and popcorn all over the TV screen
White Squall -- to a sailor, an incomprehensible movie, a good TV flick
"Thelma & Louise" the triumph of PC over all reason, art and taste. You want to see women asserting themselves like grownups instead of adolescents? Try Bette Davis in "All About Eve"
1492 -- I abandoned in the first 15 minutes. Gerard Depardieu's low point.
Bladerunner looks cool and futuristic and sci-fi. Nothing underneath, however.
I'll probably catch BHD just to see what all the talk is about.
Appearances to the contrary, I do have an open mind.
b
My 2 cents-I finally watched Hannibal over the weekend (my wife was out of town and she's never forgiven me for renting Silence of the Lambs). One of the worst movies I've seen in recent years, with a ridiculous plot-sure, the world's most notorious serial killer can ingratiate himself into the artistic community of a major European city and no one will notice. Truly awful-both Mamet and Scott should have realized that you can't polish a turd.
Bruce's comments about T & L were spot on, in my view-I recall both my wife and I commenting that if this were real life, it would be a positive to get 2 women that stupid out of the gene pool! Bruce mentioned Bette Davis, I totally agree-I'd add several Katherine Hepburn films to that list.
Alien-a truly great film, a masterful redo of the "and then there were none" plot. Terrific ensemble cast-Ian Holm, Harry Dean Stanton and Sigourney Weaver were particularly outstanding. The pacing of the film and the terror it generates for the 1st time viewer are amazing.
Gladiator was enjoyable, although admittedly cartoonish. Blade Runner is a visually stunning film that has not held up well for me on repeated viewings. I can't think of a single reason to watch GI Jane (well, maybe 2 :) 1492 was so pathetic I gave up halfway through (did'nt Pacino do a similar bomb on the same subject?)
(nt)
Seriously, I beg to differ with you on many of your views here, not that you aren't entitled to 'em! Gladiator is much better than you've indicated and truer to historical Rome than Sparticus, although admittedly I like Sparticus and we have it in our DVD collection as well!As for your comments about the first two Alien films, Bruce, please consider your mouth washed out with virtual soap.
As for your comment about Thelma & Louise, I would concur that taken specifically as role models for BEHAVIOR that isn't what society is seeking for assertiveness, but as a statement or a reaction against perceived gender abuses, I can understand it's appeal to women. How is a film like this any less acceptable than macho-male buddy pictures with their over-the-top improbabilities? Is it because women aren't "supposed" to act aggresively in these situations or what? If that's your view we should burn all copies of the unrealistic Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and run Burt Bachrach out of town on a rail [Hey, that last thought isn't such a bad idea anyway! ;^)]
Bladerunner, is indeed cool and a superb visionary tale with underlying ideas woven into it about isolation, the risks of cloning, the fleeting nature of love and the claustrophobic realities of life in an overcrowded society.
BTW, after seeing BHD you should rent the Duelists too!
Cheers,
AuPh
Gladiator is a piece of fiction.Emperor Commodus reigned for some 17 years after his father's death- he even shared the title and duties of Augustus (emperor) with his aging father Marcus Aurelius for some 3 years prior to that.
Therefore, there was no question he would become Emperor. He wasn't a bad general either- though he was a nut in the fine tradition of Roman Emperors.
In fact- he was the first emperor to inherit the title in Rome for 80 years- those that preceded him were appointed on merit.
He died after nearly being poisoned by his no.1 concubine Marcia (Marcia, Marcia, Marcia !)- he vomited and foiled the plot by purging himself of the poison. His wrestling partner finished the job and strangled him that same night.
There was no General Maximus- they may as well have called him Biggus Dickus.
Spartacus is a piece of historical fiction- the plot revolves around characters and events which actually occurred and were well documented. Sure- they took some latitude, but they stuck to the important facts- and even some minor ones such as Spartacus' body never being found.
... rather than that which was stated. If I had said "Roman history" or "the history of Rome" or anything pertaining to the caesars, your assessment would've been entirely correct. BTW, the same complaint might be made of Sparticus if absolute historical accuracy is any criteria, but after all we are talking about movies and they should be entertaining, right?Nevertheless, the exact quote is as you read or *ahem* misread it (i.e., in your mind). I stated "historical Rome" meaning the details of daily life (i.e., clothing, foods, behavior, and the city itself), including such fine attention to what might seem like unimportant minutiae. For instance, only those with a fairly advanced knowledge of ancient Rome would be aware that the retractable awnings depicted on the coliseum are in fact historically accurate. IMHO, the atmosphere of any fictional or historical dramatization is greatly enhanced by such attention to detail, it's what involves the viewer and promotes the suspension of disbelief. One of the most impressive aspects of Gladiator to me are those details, which anyone who has studied the lifestyles and culture of ancient Rome should appreciate, at least from a historical context.
BTW, Mr. dem, the "Latin" phrase most appropo for this comic scenario is: ickeringsnay ackbay atta ouyay! ;^)
Cheers,
AuPh
How can historical Rome differ from Roman history or the history of Rome ?"Historical" is the adjective form of HISTORY.
Your personal definition is sheer nonsense- you think Gladiator is more realistic but you cannot justify that opinion with a single fact.
"For instance, only those with a fairly advanced knowledge of ancient Rome would be aware that the retractable awnings depicted on the coliseum are in fact historically accurate."
This is a recent hypothesis- and you know that too. The actual mechanism is unknown- and there is only one fresco (in Pompeii I think) that depicts an awning. At the time Kubrick made Spartacus- this was not known.
Given that Gladiator fucks up on ALL MAJOR historical facts- all you are left with are the tiniest of details.
"One of the most impressive aspects of Gladiator to me are those details, which anyone who has studied the lifestyles and culture of ancient Rome should appreciate, at least from a historical context."
Name these details Auph- and how are they more accurate than in Spartacus ?
You can't- because they're not.
You like Gladiator- leave it at that instead of being silly about it.
... "based on or suggested by events of the past" as in a historical novel and "famous in history" as in occuring in a place such as HISTORICAL ROME (now often shortened to the word historic, but it applies the same emphasis). Furthermore, the word "historical" is an adjective used to limit or qualify the noun which follows it. Sheeeesh! It never occured to me that I'd be required to provide lessons in grammar in order to defend a good movie! My intent was simply to suggest why Gladiator is a fine, enjoyable film that's rich in detail in spite of the liberties it takes with the protrayal of historical and fictional characters. If you weren't entertained by it, that's not my problem.AuPh
I really ought to use smiley faces more often-8--> ~)D..bah.......humbug !
Anyway- I didn't say I didn't like the film- I did !
I really like Oliver Reed (the world has lost a truly dedicated drinker- and a fine actor)and Richard Harris and Russel Crowe. (As far as Spartacus goes- it was ok but Kirk just does not convince)
I don't mind seeing big- budget blockbusters- they are films to be enjoyed or not based on whatever criteria you choose.
It was colorful- had a hero and a villain- had some plot, the underdog triumphed even though he died in the end- good ol' Hollywood fare.
You don't have to give grammar lessons- but don't expect that a film like Gladiator should be judged on its accuracy- leave that out of it.
And your defense of your use of historical is hysterical.
nyuk nyuk nyuk
Yeah, at times it's hard to pick up on the virtual tongue-in-cheek, especially after feeling obliged to rain on Victor's tirade, but it was fun sparring with ya anyway. :o)Cheers,
AuPh
Gladiator is a fiction- a mere fantasy.The costumes were WRONG (Praetorians NEVER wore black- they wore red just like in all the other Hollywood films- also, the Romans did not upgrade uniforms en masse throughout the army- various styles were used )
The armor was WRONG. (There's a visored helmet from Saxony in one shot- popular in 1000 AD)
The weapons were WRONG.(The gladius was the main infantry weapon- and the personal multi- shot crossbow must have been a joke by one of the prop guys.)
The livery was WRONG.( Stirrups ? Breastplates ?)
The depiction of the Emperor Commodus was WRONG.
The "facts" in the film were WRONG- (Marcus Aurelius NEVER banned gladiatorial fights.)
As for the CGI Roman buildings- Foggedaboudid .
You can like the film for whatever reason you choose- but don't try and pass it off as anything but a VERY inaccurate portrayal of Rome.
It's a film- not a documentary.
> > > "It's a film- not a documentary." < < <Eureka! We have comity; I couldn't agree more!
AuPh
Wasn't in a theatre, AuPh. Was at home, watching teevee.Face it, AuPh, you're a sucker for sci-fi. So am I but not quite as much. All of the "Alien" movies relied too much on two operations: (1) "where is the monster now?!! and (2) "I thought the monster was dead!!!" That's why I got bored. Also the yucky, gooey stuff. Lots of yucky gooey stuff -- the eggs, the worm coming out of the guy's abdomen. Reminded me of the monkey's brains and eyes in the 2nd Indiana Jones flick (the really sick one, IMHO).
For me T&L just jumps the tracks. Butch Cassidy and The Sting are what I call "goof" movies. They're just a good-time goof. You watch 'em with a beer in hand and one eye open, with your arm on your honey's shoulder.
I could certainly accept the idea of a female goof movie. In fact, I would readily pay to see one that's as well-executed as "Butch" or especially "Sting."
But T&L isn't really a goof movie although at first you think its gonna be. Its bleeping serious. But these gals respond to their problems in a totally adolescent way (trust me, I know adolescents, I own two of em. Actually, one is 20+, so she's moved out of adolescent territory, bless her little heart.) See, AuPh, one of my big beefs with American movies generally is the skew towards the adolescent audience, even with non-adolescent actors (believe me, Susan Sarandon, who is my age, is way far from adolescence), non adolescent characters and non-adolescent stories and themes. One of the ways this skew manifests itself is that the characters respond to problems and situations like adolescents.
For that reason, I'm a sucker for contemporary movies where people actually behave like adults, regardless of their other merits or lack thereof. For example, the current "Shipping News" or the not-too-old "Horse Whisperer."
I mentioned "All about Eve" as a grown-up movie about a woman with similar problems. Another example that comes to mind is Ingrid Bergman in "Notorious." Women in a box, who refuse to stay there.
I have a vague recollection of Duellists -- I might take your suggestion and check it out.
BTW, you should definitely see "Gosford Park." Altman -- now there is a director -- doing what he does best, which is very, very good. Congruent with your politics, too; although I can't really disagree.
Your comment on Gladiator's digital effects is interesting. I think it got an award or something, but THEY WERE NOT VERY GOOD AT ALL! Not cartoons like the old days, but pretty poor.Doug Schneider
The effects were mostly attrocious. Especially in the scene when he fights lions and opponents.However... that too has nothing to do with the director's skill. Remember, we started with the discussion of Scott as director, not the effect person on his crew.
Technical means have nothing in common with director's vision. But in the culture where just purely visual effects play important role they start taking this extra significance. When the subtlety and emotions are removed from the work, what is left is the visual trash. In that area the US makers are above all the rest.
But for as long as we stay with the pure art of directing all that doesn't, or shouldn't, matter. Gladiator was not bad because its digital artifacts showed. I can think of great films where the effects were crude - but that didn't matter, like a frame on Rembrandt. OK, so it mattered a small bit.
So we are in process of losing our soul but gaining great looking body with biceps to die for. Gladiator lost its soul for sure (or rather never had it to begin with), so THIS is what's important in my view, not the proportion of its muscles.
I also don't have any problem with giving the awards for those effects - love them as much as you like - it is just not the part of the director's talent.
Agreed that the effects are not the director's responsibility, I guess. (Who's in charge of the overall picture?)But, these days, even in bad movies, the special effects are usually transparent. So, it seemed worthy of comment that the special effects in this film ("Gladiator") were not transparent.
I'm sure there are any number of classic films in which the special effects -- or even the foley effects or the fight scenes -- are not up to modern standards. And, as you say, that does not detract from the overall value of the film.
> > > > Gladiator, as much as you dislike it, is a wonderful film in it's own rite, superior to most sword and sandal epics done a generation before; I haven't seen White Squall or GI Jane, but both were popular; 1492, Conquest of Paradise may have lost it's compass and gone off coarse, but it also suffered from the unlikelyhood of two Columbus historicals being released the same year;Oh my...I have seen all these.
-- Gladiator was little more than a cartoon epic. Granted, when stuff like "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is considered top-notch TV it's no wonder it was so popular.
-- White Squall and GI Jane....typical lightweight entertainment that would have been just as suitable as a made-for-TV movie.
-- 1492....not much more needs to be said.
I admire Scott most for his style. In general, that overtakes his storytelling. I liked Alien a lot mainly because it was so well shot. It was made in 1979 I think and looks simply fantastic. Same goes for Blade Runner. Scott is a first-tier stylist (why he insists on ripping off Spielberg, now, is anyone's guess instead of just creating something new and unique), and generally a second-tier storyteller.
Doug Schneider
It's one of the best written programs on television and if you don't watch it regularly, well, you just haven't a clue.AuPh
Exactly my point.(BTW, I have seen it)
Hello Mr. Schneider," ..why he insists on
ripping off Spielberg, now, is anyone's guess instead of just creating something new and unique..."Not to be contentious, but just a bit of trivia. During a film workshop, he ( Spielberg) was glowingly praised by one of the members of the audience for his very original use of the sudden splash of colour in Schindler's List ( girl's coat),which he accepted. Unfortunately he failed to make mention of the fact that Kurosawa ( he is a self-proclaimed fan, I believe) used just such a device in 'High and Low' ( 1963 ).
Regards,
A.
Of course Spielberg didn't create that type of effect, but what I'm talking about is the newsreel-type footage and editing. It's exact and runs through the entire film.Take another example...ever see a Scorcese film? Well, every time someone makes one that looks identical it sticks out as a copy...that's what this feels like. I actually have respect for Scott, but I just wish he would have developed his own look and style for it.
Doug Schneider
Hello Mr. Schneider,Oh, don't misunderstand me..I wasn't defending Scott or anything. Jut wanted to share that little tidbit
about Spielberg.Regards,
A.
***Alien was a phenomenal movie that inspired four sequels,Surely you are not suggesting this is any criteria for evaluation, expecially in the American culture, are you?
***I've never seen Thelma & Louise, but it did break ground in it's depiction of women seeking independence in a male-dominated society;Well, that "criteria" is at the same level as the first, or even lower. What on Earth do your political feelings have to to with artistic merits of a film and with talent of the director? Haven't we had enough politically correct trash already to stop giving this aspect ANY attention?
Those two bimbos as role models? Give me a break...
> > > "Surely you are not suggesting this (i.e., inspiring four sequels) is any criteria for evaluation, expecially in the American culture, are you?" < < <No, I mentioned that as an indication of it's popularity as a theme and as an indication of which films I consider worth one's time (i.e., Alien & Aliens); Alien is worthy of evaluation on other levels within the context of it being a superior horror/SF genre film.
> > > "Well, that "criteria" (i.e., the depiction of women seeking independence in a male-dominated society) is at the same level as the first, or even lower." < < <
Oh really, how is that? You don't consider this a relevent social topic?
> > > "What on Earth do your political feelings have to to with artistic merits of a film and with talent of the director?" < < <
Quite a lot actually, but not necessarily just "my" feelings. The skillful weaving of messages has been an important part of film-maker's craft since early on in the history of cinema.
> > > "Haven't we had enough politically correct trash already to stop giving this aspect Any attention?" < < <
That depends on two things: what I consider "politically correct" and what you consider "trash" and I'm confident that we have differing perspectives of what constitutes both.
> > > "Those two bimbos as role models? Give me a break..." < < <
Is THAT your "intelligent appraisal" of the film Thelma & Louise? Move over Roger Ebert, big Vic's movin' in! ;^)
Cheers,
AuPh
> > > "Surely you are not suggesting this (i.e., inspiring four sequels) is any criteria for evaluation, expecially in the American culture, are you?" < < <
***No, I mentioned that as an indication of it's popularityI know... but... popularity is NOT what we were talking about. "Popularity" is purely the American trash culture phenomena, and I would rather have nothing to do with it.
We were talking about art of directing movies.
Art of directing movies has nothing to do with popularity. Poularity answers the need of the lowest denominator. Art attempts to pull people up, not down.
***as a theme and as an indication of which films I consider worth one's time (i.e., Alien & Aliens); Alien is worthy of evaluation on other levels within the context of it being a superior horror/SF genre film.Ah, OK... we have bigger fish to fry.
> > > "Well, that "criteria" (i.e., the depiction of women seeking independence in a male-dominated society) is at the same level as the first, or even lower." < < <
***Oh really, how is that? You don't consider this a relevent social topic?
What does being a "relevant social topic" have to do with the quality of directing? Are discussing the New York Times editorial or a movie? You said Scott was a good director... OK... but what on Earth does the nature of subject in his film has to do with his aptitude or lack thereoff? Except impressing the likely minded individuals who would flock at the theaters when "their" movie is shown?
> > > "What on Earth do your political feelings have to to with artistic merits of a film and with talent of the director?" < < <***Quite a lot actually, but not necessarily just "my" feelings. The skillful weaving of messages has been an important part of film-maker's craft since early on in the history of cinema.
Absolutely not. You just want to make us believe that so we would get used to that fairly new notion of social agenda driven lame works.
> > > "Haven't we had enough politically correct trash already to stop giving this aspect Any attention?" < < <
***That depends on two things: what I consider "politically correct" and what you consider "trash" and I'm confident that we have differing perspectives of what constitutes both.
To not see the simple fact that in today's American society political trash plays very important role is impossible. This country is being raped and movies like T&L are contributing to that.
> > > "Those two bimbos as role models? Give me a break..." < < <
***Is THAT your "intelligent appraisal" of the film Thelma & Louise? Move over Roger Ebert, big Vic's movin' in! ;^)
First thing first - I have zero respect for Ebert, who is one of the idiots responsible for creating dumb movie-going, popcorn munching masses.
However, you seem to be fixated on the idea of any anti-hero being good as long as he is against the establishment.
I have to tell you that parading those two dumb anti-social bimbos as some sort of heroes and role models is extremely demeaning to women. This displays the worst of the new militant sexism - something you apparently firmly believe in.
So we are leaving the paradigm of gentle and smart women - your Myrna Loy type (they were too dumb to you - they didn't drink, fight, steal - and are embracing the scum like T&L because they... they do something in the male-dominated society... swell... thanks AuPh for bringing us to that new low.
As I said - your position IS demeaning to women.
But then again = WHAT does all that have to do with the director's skills?
Your response regarding message movies from early cinema:> > > "Absolutely not. You just want to make us believe that so we would get used to that fairly new notion of social agenda driven lame works." < < <
Of all people I thought you would have a deep understanding of cinema and it's history based on your expressed passion for eclectic film. As a life-long student of the cinematic arts myself and an aficionado of most cinematic forms I'm cogniscent of the historical use of propaganda (i.e., messages) within movies. D. W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" is one of the most flagrantly obvious early examples of cinematic propaganda from Hollywood's golden era, but there are many many others, some subtle, many much less so. Griffith, who was born in Georgia and grew up deeply enamoured of southern aristocracy and the wounds suffered by the south during and after the Civil War, made Birth of a Nation in tribute to white southerners who he felt betrayed by the union. His intended title "The Klansmen" was probably considered too polarizing, but this film, in spite of being a classic of the first order, still stands as a revisionist's tribute to the racism of the old south. If that's a "new notion" then Victor you must be a lot older than I would've imagined! ;^)
> > > "To not see the simple fact that in today's American society political trash plays very important role is impossible. This country is being raped and movies like T&L are contributing to that." < < <
WOW! So you think movies with little or no social content (less filling; tastes great!) is what this country needs? Are you suggesting that politics should be avoided or treated lightly (fluff!)? How about contoversial religious views? FYI, we lived under a repressive system of film censorship for approximately three decades (1934-1966); it was called the Haye's Office. Yes, many brilliant films were produced during that period or in spite of it (i.e., if you take into account both the restrictive Hay'e office and the stiffling studio systems in place during that time), but just as many richly rewarding films came out before and since. The bottom line is that one man's trash may be another's revelation and every point of view deserves airing in the marketplace of ideas.
> > > "... you seem to be fixated on the idea of any anti-hero being good as long as he is against the establishment." < < <
That's a gross misrepresentation of my views. I'm only fixated on the freedom of ideas (i.e., to those of appropriate age and appreciation) without the intrusion of censorship. Since we are discussing T&L it's worth noting that you seem to have a fixation on only males anti-establishment heroes, ignoring the relevant gender issues reflected in the theme of that movie.
Obviously, you prefer viewing women in roles of the genteel variety, like Myrna Loy, who you mentioned. Yes, those icons of feminine decorum may appear smart and gentle, they may not have been drinkers, fighters or thieves (i.e., at least in front of the camera), but could Ms. Loy even hold a proverbial candle to someone the likes of Louise Brooks, for instance?
Ms. Brooks was an actress of infinite talent and beauty who refused to compromise either lifestyle or independence. In the late 20's she bucked the Hollywood system walking off of a set where she'd just contractually finished a silent movie when the producers decided they wanted the filmed dubbed to sound and requested her to do a voice-over for free. Without any prospects she had decided to go back into dancing or Broadway when learning of a role in Germany that a Director had wanted to cast with her as lead. In going to Germany Ms Brooks made her two finest films for G.W. Pabst, but paid a terrible price to those insufferable SOB's who ran the American studios by refusing to return for overdubs even after money was offered. Ah, but what a glorious talent; on those two films (Pandora's Box & Diary of a Lost Girl) her place in the pantheon of screen acting resides!
Of course you probably wouldn't appreciate her rebelliousness, shocking public demeanor and carefree "flapper" lifestyle, but she was smart, savvy and arguably the most beautiful woman who ever graced a film, silent or sound.
Which brings me back to the point of what probably seemed a totally unrelated digression: It took a director of Pabst's exquisite style to convey both the beauty and talent of Ms. Brooks in stories of social decadence that are still relevent and shocking today!
> > > "As I said - your position IS demeaning to women. But then again=What does all that have to do with the director's skills?" < < <
That's nonsense! Censorship or repression of adult prurient interests is just as demeaning as patting a woman on the head and dismissing her to a sewing circle while the men folk retire to the study, smoke cigars and discuss politics! Is that the kind of Conservative world-view you wish pandered to by the film community? I sure don't!
Liberal film lover & proud of it,
AuPh
First, propaganda in movies in not big news to me, as you yourself had suggested. But there are a couple of points here. First - we are definitely seeing the spread of agenda-driven trash presented to us here in the US like never before. Triumph of the Will and others in that genre were transparent works. Today we are seeing much smarter approach and it appears to be largely the American phenomenon.Second - it was YOU who used the social agenda of that weak work as a proof of its director's talent. That was the only prase of that film that you mentioned.
Regardless of how many words you dump on me, that point is still indefensible and is not getting any more solid. Your applauding a film where two - yes, bimbos - "challenge" the established society routines is quite typical and I thought by now was mostly forgotten. And your fine examples (Ms. Brooks) nothwithstanding I still see your enthusiasm for T&L as demeaning to women, as your admiration for the two low life characters shows what your vision of a "new free woman" is. It ain't pretty.
Your characterization of Ms. Loy is completely unjustified and yes, she could more than just hold the candle to the constant stream of female idiots that grace today's American screen. To you this is unacceptable because she didn't quite challenge the establishment, to me she simply presents the best there is in both men and women.
You seem to be under impression that wearing your agenda on your sleeve is good for this nation - I disagree. That film you like so much - the dreaded T&L - is quite representative of the fodder we feed our society. It is hard to say whether the general moral decay is the result of such movies or vise versa, but they are closely linked. I simply refuse to go with you in the direction where movies raise the worst in human beings. I have seen enough films that make me think and - I shall use that cliche here, pardon me - want me to become better, to not accept the T&L trash's right to exist.
***That's nonsense! Censorship or repression of adult prurient interests
What sensorship have you spotted anywhere here beside the good taste and refusal to watch trash?
***is just as demeaning as patting a woman on the head and dismissing her to a sewing circle while the men folk retire to the study, smoke cigars and discuss politics! Is that the kind of Conservative world-view you wish pandered to by the film community? I sure don't!Jeez, that explains most of your approach. This sentence is sooooooooooo dated and silly even my dog would see it for what it is. Are these the kind of stereotypes you live with? This is just pure liberal bunk and...... for the twentieth time....
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DIRECTOR'S TALENT!!!!!!!!
I find it interesting that you continue to spin a weak line knowing that the bait you're trying to hook me with is totally bogus. My defense of Thelma & Louise has nothing to do with any "agenda", political or otherwise. Your overly vitriolic remarks about the film while pointing an accusatory finger at both myself and the film's Director suggesting that we're part of some sort of grand scheme to corrupt society's values is pure bunk.You continue to bring up the Director's talent, usually in the negative sense, as if he hasn't proven himself many times over. Yet you've pointed to nothing which demonstrates a lack of talent on Mr Scott's part except through expressing disdain for the subject matter of specific films he's directed. The funny thing is, YOUR RESPONSE to my purely tongue-in-cheek sarcasm (i.e., about dismissing women "to their sewing circles while the men folk retire to the study, smoke cigars and discuss politics") says more about the stereotypes YOU may be harboring than anything I'd ever be associated with.
> > > "This sentence is sooooooooooo dated and silly even my dog would see it for what it is." < < <
Yes, the sentence you referenced was dated and silly by intent! BTW, in spite of the openning you've kindly provided, I'll avoid the obvious response to your *ahem* canine riposte out of a respect for women everywhere.
As for Ridley Scott's talent, besides having a roughly 2/1 ratio of hits over misses his track-record has more critical successes than many of his well known contemporaries and he's achieved those successes through a broad range of subjects which is a major accomplishment in itself. The fact that I see greatness in many of the director's films while you do not we can always chalk up to personal preferences, but the contempt you have for his work seems more deeply rooted to me. Perhaps you'ld care to explain the intense hatred you have of his films, if not to us then perhaps to someone ...professional?
AuPh
It is always fun to see how quickly the liberals fall apart and start being personal. No need for that, really, as this was supposed to be about fun, after all.But going back to your arguments. This is the second time you fall into your own trap. Now you are trying to get out by repeating that our likes or lack thereof is just the matter of pure taste. This is not what you stated originally in both threads, and this is not what started that argument. Instead you - again - tried to provide some "objective" justification, however lame, for film's and director's goodness. My counter was in both cases that there is no, and could be no such objective criteria.
If we go back to the start of this thread we will find that you considered Scott great director for two (among a couple others) reasons (I shall not hide from you that I think both are indefensible when applied to ANY art form):
1. His film had high number of sequels.... wow...
2. He showed two girls doing something against the male-dominated society... well, another wow...
And these "arguments" are exactly what I attacked, and I have not seen you put up any reasonable defence of these two.
Instead you kept digging yourself deeper in your last post by repeating this greatness kaka again: "As for Ridley Scott's talent, besides having a roughly 2/1 ratio of hits over misses his track-record has more critical successes than many of his well known contemporaries and he's achieved those successes through a broad range of subjects which is a major accomplishment in itself."
I certainly don't know nor care what "critical successes" you are talking about but presume that is along the Ebert lines, and I already told you I have no respect for that individual.
As we see again, there is no defense based on any artistic merits, just some alledged "success"... mass appeal, really... or the lowest denominator. Figures.
So according to you - popularity, agenda, "success" are what defines the director talent.
According to me it is the ability to touch the inner souls of its viewers, and that is where he, in my opinion, is lacking.
You seem to be so fixated on the woman's role that you just can't let it go. Have it if you want, but just as a very brief summary I would rather have my daughter grow up to be like Ms. Loy than one of the two of your hero brainless morons who's sole contribution to society was - according to you - in standing up against the male domination.
I would submit to you that one could certanly make more worthy contribution to mankind... but that thing touched you so much you just could not stop talking about it. OK, enough of that.
Are you a contributor to the "conspiracy of dumbing up of America"? Yes, I'd say so, with your insistance on agenda driven films. If not for the audience like you we would not see the explosion of "social issue" trash. It certainly was not ME who asked for marvels like T&L or Philadelphia. So accept that blame as just result of your labor.
Here is your last quote: "The fact that I see greatness in many of the director's films while you do not we can always chalk up to personal preferences,
I would not have any problems with that. If you look back some people always express their preferences and I usually don't argue with that. Your problem, just like the last time, was your attempt at providing the "objective proof".
***but the contempt you have for his work seems more deeply rooted to me.If you allow me, my "contempt" or whatever has grown tremendously since you started throwing items like "success" and "agenda" into this fish soup. Again, blame yourself. Before your argument I didn't see it that way, now I do understand what his works mean to some CERTAIN portion of population, so thank you for educating me. Perhaps not the way you wanted it, but that is outside of your control. This is what you get for getting up on your social soap box all too soon.
I shall pass on that silly mental health sub-attack - I would consider responding to that sort of statements below most individuals here.
You, Victor, turned this discussion into one about agendas, not I. Calling a movie "trash" that in the opinion of many has social relevence is as far off base as suggesting that it's two featured characters are supposed to be "heroes" in the literal sense (mine, as you casually insinuate or your daughters, as you apparantly fear) and "brainless morons" or whatever.Since you don't like Roger Ebert (are there any critics that you DO like or is it simply a matter of your believing that your own viewpoint ascends to a height superior to all others?) I'll link Peter Traver's impressions; perhaps his observations will persuade you since my opinions have failed so miserably in that effort.
FTR, I don't demounce actresses like Myrna Loy, et al., but they are from another time and representative of a system that abused women without remorse. Perhaps you, as a father, would prefer dressing your daughters in Victorian attire (okay, 1930's era), which isn't an uncommon thought among fathers of girls I'd wager, but one really should try to appreciate the complexities of life in the new milennium, IMHO. Films are, after all, movies and not reality, but they do reflect social change. If T&L offends you, perhaps it was intended to by drawing attention to FEELINGS women have about abusive relationships.
OTOH, by taking Callie Khouri's screenplay too literally, latching on to the films depiction of violent feminine outrage as an indication of moral decadence rather than a symbolic release of repressesd inhibitions, it's easy to see why issues like relationship abuse get shoved into the closet by well meaning folks like yourself.
AuPh
Hello Victor,If you have the time, you may wish to look for this Japanese film by a director named Miike called 'Audition'.
There isn't a region 1 DVD for it ( but doesn't every self-respecting film buff own a region-free player :)?) but there should
be region3 discs for it available on the 'net or your local/closest Chinatown. Also, may like 'Unagi' by ImamuraRegards,
A.
Thank you Andrew. I dutifully wrote down these and your previous recommendations and will take them to my store. Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't own a region-free player... ten lashes with VHS tape for me, I guess.
Hello Victor,Sorry, didn't mean to sound snotty..I watch films in whatever format I can get it on.
Unfortunately, a whole bunch of films are not available for domestic release in NAmerica,
thus the region-free player. I should have brought back a multisystem player the last time
I was in Asia...can't believe how many films are in PAL and not NTSC.Regards,
A.
***Sorry, didn't mean to sound snotty..I didn't take it that way, don't worry, I perfectly understand the reason.
***I watch films in whatever format I can get it on.
Unfortunately, a whole bunch of films are not available for domestic release in NAmerica,
thus the region-free player. I should have brought back a multisystem player the last time
I was in Asia...can't believe how many films are in PAL and not NTSC.And I am sure there are some great SECAM films too. I presume one can buy such player in NY City - no?
...if you wish to continue your conversation with Auph, there's always the thread with John Dem 'above'.A.
He is not the most shy guy here, he can always find me... he-he...
(nt)
Hello Victor,"And I am sure there are some great SECAM films too. I presume one can buy such player in NY City - no? "
No doubt one can find such machines in NYC...but over here in Canada, we're such law-abiding citizens that
we don't have them for sale ( 'cept maybe in chinatown ).Regards,
A.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
