 
|
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 |
216.196.176.121
In Reply to: RE: Your "quibbles" are... posted by afilado on August 20, 2007 at 11:31:42
"Sorry to say it, but Cooper could not alone carry the movie to the box office."
Character actors generally do not carry anything to the box office - those are lead actors. Then again, lead actors generally do not carry cerebral, well written films to the box office - witness Clooney in "Solaris" and "Good Night, and Good Luck."
"And, magnetic is not a word I'd ever use to describe him."
Consider the role. He is playing a lifer in the F.B.I., not really a notable career. In other words, he is a company man, who lacks the desire, or "magnetism" to get climb up the food chain. He is a man who is able to get secrets and transfer them to his operatives without being detected for a long time. His lack of "magnetism" is that allows him to successfully steal secrets without detection. I would hope and expect the actor playing the character would play the role without magnetism. I think your next paragraph supplies the reason for Cooper's acting choices.
"The movie is so well done it's almost technical in it's storytelling. Not slick, just ultimately unengaging. It lacks sufficient soul, or maybe more aptly it is unable, paradoxically, to overcome the understated power of the lead performance on which the whole affair depends."
It was technical. Because Cooper's character was technical, and he operated within a techical existence. Even his family relationships seemed technical. Which, I think, explains the technical feel of the film. What nobody has discussed is the importance of religion in this man's technical life, as religion is anything but technical, to most people, and certainly not to him.
"My heart beats faster just thinking of "The Spy..." than at any time during my watching of Breach. If a film doesn't engage me on a visceral level, an emotional level, no matter how intelligent it is it falls short."
I think the film was made as a type of procedural. A dramatization as to what went down, and maybe why, and how the government closed the hands of justice. I am not sure where there is any room for "emotion", other than a desire to see the culprit executed. When I see "emotion" in such a film, I begin to wonder what facts are being fudged or concocted to generate the "emotion." Between the two, I'll take mine straight.
"Your comments about Phillipe and Linney are spot-on and, as I say, a part of the overall problem."
Phillipe: Consider that he is charged with finding the goods on a subject that is an expert in reading people, and guessing their ulterior motives. Sort of like an expert poker player. He must operate around Hanson daily, without telegraphing any cues as to what he is doing there. I thought Phillipe played the role well.
Linney: Not sure what else you wanted her to do. It is largely a thankless role. Her job is to simply bring Phillipe along, help him to understand that while he is misleading Hanson, he is doing so for the benefit of his country, even if it is not why he joined the F.B.I. She was asked to bring a food tray to the party, and some guests complain she did not bring steak. Or tofu, for some.
Follow Ups:
... you agree with me.
I agree with your comments, not the conclusions you draw from them.
..conclusions?
"This is a "failure" of storytelling. The director must bear that responsibility, his name notwithstanding.."
"The movie is so well done it's almost technical in it's storytelling. Not slick, just ultimately unengaging. It lacks sufficient soul, or maybe more aptly it is unable, paradoxically, to overcome the understated power of the lead performance on which the whole affair depends."
You'd appear a whole lot smarter if you'd address the original question with some original thought,
Looking down your nose and issuing a "Sigh" is hardly substantive.
Some people take great effort to "appear" smart. Maybe you are one. You ask me what were your conclusions, you apparently being unable to review your own post and find them for yourself. That deserves worse than a "sigh." I was being charitable.
Stiil, James, the fact remains you've shown nothing of your own regarding the original question. That says it all for you.
Are you only capable of combat? Yeah, that's real smart.
Stop hiding. Let's hear your thoughts on the original question. I want my chance at them.
Anyone who has spent any time on this forum knows that I not am not shy about expressing my opinions. The only question you asked was "what conclusions", to which I provided the conclusions you drew. If you would like me to address any other questions, no problem, but you need to specifically enunciate the question to which you are referring.
You are stupid and inattentive, James. You need to start at the beginning again.
We'll start at the beginning: (1) You respond to Tinear - the only question you posed was a query as to how the film did outside the U.S. I was not aware you were looking for a response to that question, since the answer is easily obtainable on IMBD.com.(2) You respond to Tinear again, and the only question in your second post is "what is this film about", which you then answer and which could only be described as gobblygook. In any event, the answer is readily available on the box of the D.V.D., so I presume that you were not expecting an answer to that question.
(3) Your third post, in response to my post, poses no questions, but merely makes a quip. Although my post responded to your post point by point - apparently, you either failed to read it, or comprehend it.
(4)In response to my comment that I agreed with some of your comments, but not your conclusions, you ask "what conclusions." This is the only question you asked me that could reasonably be directed toward me. So I responded by pasting the two conclusions you drew in response to Tinear.
And then you begin your infantile diatribe, asking me to answer the questions you posed. Well, for the learning impaired, you asked one question, and you got one answer. If there was another question lurking in there, point it out to me, I'll answer. I find it odd that you ask me to answer a question that you never asked, and after I point out that you never asked the question, you call me stupid. I'll avoid hurling the personal insults and give you an opportunity to prove I am stupid - point me, in your posts, which are here for all to see, the question that I did not answer.
Or are quips and insults your limit? [that is a question]
Question 1.
What is your analysis of the original question? Please be thorough; I expect several paragraphs. Please refrain from any reference to my earlier comments. You should strive to be original in thought and expression. Demonstrate the depth of your knowledge concerning the talent, careers and reputation of the lead players mentioned, including the director, and how that comes to bear on the relative (lack of) success of the movie at the boxoffice.
Further, will "Breach", an ADMITTED CRITICAL SUCCESS, have staying power in the pantheon of like films. Why? Use "The Spy Who Came In From The Cold" as a benchmark comparison in your discussion.
Question 2.
Why didn't you respond to the original question in the beginning, instead of picking my comments - out of context - to snipe at? What does this say about your general approach to participation in this forum. Are you interested in construction or destruction? Objective or personal?
Question 3.
Why can't you discern the multitude of questions - direct and implied - I've repeatedly directed toward you in this silly spat.
Question 4.
Which are you, stupid, afraid or inattentive? I know, that's a wiseass remark. I really don't care.
Question 5.
Do you want to kiss and make up? I'm tired of dealing with this silliness. If "no" then go to next question.
Question 6.
In future, will you please just ignore me and my comments? I'm hoping for a simple "yes" to this question.
"What is your analysis of the original question?"
I write, at length, that your posts did not contain any questions, with the exception of "what conclusions", for which I responded to your question by pasting the conclusions you asked me about, and then you, again, summarily write about "questions", all without writing the question you are referring to.
"Why didn't you respond to the original question in the beginning, instead of picking my comments - out of context - to snipe at?"
I specifically asked you to write the question, because, as I pointed out, you never did ask me (or anyone else) any questions.
"Why can't you discern the multitude of questions - direct and implied - I've repeatedly directed toward you in this silly spat."
Multitude? Should be easy to point them out. Try. "Implied?" You mean, you "implied" questions? You call me stupid?
"Which are you, stupid, afraid or inattentive? I know, that's a wiseass remark. I really don't care."
Let me try to join your educational and intellectual level. Ahem, um, "My daddy can beat up your daddy." Or. "Let's meet at the bicycle rack after school."
"In future, will you please just ignore me and my comments? I'm hoping for a simple "yes" to this question."
Um. no. Please re-read the posts. You go on the attack and then whine? Man, you are daft.
Pretty weak, James.
You have yet to address tinear's original question. Which I have continually pointed out and rephrased for your benefit.
I'm still waiting for your answer to my #1 (parts one and two), #4 and #5.
One thing I can compliment you on is an impressive ability for evasion.
Oh, well. "Sigh...." and so on. And your mama wears combat boots. LOL.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
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 ]
