Ok, SMD. This is the longest I've ever gone without posting in here, and for that, I apologize. I wasn't slacking on my movie/TV watching. If anything, I was more productive than I've been in a while. I just couldn't get my ass in here (because of that smelly girl problem
Ricky mentioned). But the wait is over. It's mega post time.
First off, I'll start with my Marvel marathon. I watched every Marvel movie (that I wanted to) from
Iron Man to
Civil War in chronological order. I can now officially state that my favorite Marvel movies are, in order,
Thor,
The Avengers, and
The Winter Soldier. Unfortunately, I have to agree with you,
Ricky, that, on the whole, these movies seem to be slipping a bit. Rewatching
The Avengers 2, I still feel exactly the same as I did after my first viewing. It's just...stupid. Their decision-making on both the story and character levels was just bad.
Civil War was encouraging insofar as it indicated to me that
The Avengers 2 was an uncharacteristic fumble, but I was still disappointed, given how awesome
The Winter Soldier was, that
Civil War wasn't better than it was. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't great, either. So far, the Thor movies are the only ones that have been consistently strong. The Iron Man movies have all been good to different degrees, but
Iron Man 3 was conspicuously superior. The Thor movies, by contrast, are just straight-up awesome. Hopefully
Thor 3 will keep that going and level Marvel out.
I'm quite adamant in any assessment of these Marvel things that they should stand on their own [...] It started occurring to me when I was listing the must-watch MCU films for Flem or Chickenluver, worried they wouldn't "get" Civil War if they didn't see certain ones. Then went to see Civil War again and literally covered my face through half of it in embarrassment for both it and myself, and how I'd been so over-the-top with my first review. Realised at that point that doing a movie marathon prior ruins any chance you'll enjoy the damn thing by virtue of it actually being any good functionally, because it isn't.
This was the post that initially got me revved up to do this Marvel marathon. I responded as follows:
Hmm. As I preface all of these remarks, I still haven't seen Civil War so I can't comment specifically with regard to that film. However, the general nature of your problem here strikes me as similar to saying stuff like, "If Semmy Schilt weren't so big, he wouldn't have done so well in K-1," or, "If De Niro wasn't in Raging Bull, then it would've have been such a good movie."
That kind of logic has always seemed weird to me inasmuch as it is reducible to "if things weren't the way they were, then they would've been different." You seem to be saying that, if the Marvel movies weren't there, then Civil War wouldn't work. Couldn't the same thing be said about Die Hard with a Vengeance, or Scream 3, or The Dark Knight Rises, or indeed any sequel/installment in a franchise (I just picked my favorites for examples; I'm sure you don't like any of them)?
Now having seen
Civil War, I stand by what I said. You're right that, if someone tried to watch
Civil War without ever having seen
The Avengers,
The Winter Soldier, or
The Avengers 2, they wouldn't "get" it. But I still don't see how that's a flaw. That's the point. It's like starting to watch a show at Season 3 or starting to read a book at Chapter 7. That shit don't fly.
You then followed up with a post that I couldn't respond to in detail. Now I can.
Good sequels effect change.
Collateral is part and parcel of an espionage film. Think of the inciting incidents of the Bourne movies - loss of memory, loss of a loved one (Marie). It drives the noir hero. But Cap's friend, Fury, survives Winter Soldier.
Psychologically damaged heroes either respond to their problems (hang the cape up/confront demons) or die. Tony simply recreates his bad idea.
Nobody truly lays anything on the line, or loses anything with lasting effect. Not since The Avengers anyway, where sacrifice early on (Coulson's death) drove sacrifice consequently (Tony holding on to the nuke). I don't mean to suggest characters need perish. Events simply must drive the choices of our heroes, and good writing makes you feel the gravity of the choice. If you have to explain it, you didn't feel it. You need to feel it in your bones. That's great drama.
I'm still wary of the "if you have to explain it, you didn't feel it" line (mind/body and what not) but I agree with you here. Not about Fury. Him surviving is fine. He's Fury. He should be able to survive a corporate takeover. But I agree as far as stakes go and the lack of consequences that seem to be, as you noted, a trend in these movies. I thought of it initially with
Iron Man 3, which, oddly, you exempt from these criticisms despite, based on what happens with Gwyneth Paltrow, it seeming to fit perfectly. I thought the same thing but even more so in
Civil War with Don Cheadle.
First off, I think Paltrow should've died in
Iron Man 3. And whatever reservations I may have had, whatever back-and-forth I may have been experiencing, they were wiped out in
Civil War with their whole Ross and Rachel "we're on a break" angle. Fuck that. They should've just killed her in
Iron Man 3, that could've fed into his "I didn't do enough" arc in
The Avengers 2, and then when his friend dies in
Civil War, he just goes ape shit and kills Bucky. And then, when the dust settled, you had Steve and Tony, two friends who now have to deal with the fact that they both lost friends.
At the very least,
somebody needed to die. Not anyone in the "inner circle" (which includes Fury, which is why I disagree with you) but Paltrow, Cheadle, Bucky, Falcon, someone in that next ring out from the inner circle. One of the only things they did right in
The Avengers 2 was make sure that not everyone made it out of Sokovia.
Thor 2 provided a kick in the ass when his mom gets killed. They're not afraid to shed some blood, and when they do it, it works. But considering the stakes and the level at which they're playing this game, I'm with you that shit needs to get realer more often. And I'm taking it a step further than you: I do think more bodies need to drop.
Especially, talking about
Civil War in particular now, considering what they did
instead of having Cheadle die. Nothing against the man, but he should be dead because that would've been infinitely superior to the random, out-of-left-field parent angle, which I thought was stupid as fuck. It would've really emphasized the theme of friendship and pushed Steve and Tony to face themselves and each other with how far they're willing to go and what they're willing to do for their friends. Instead, it just turned into "You killed my mommy." Give me a break.
In a lot of great sequels, shit happens to characters we establish deep ties with.
And that's what the Marvel movies are shying away from. They're dropping people, but not people we've gotten to know. In
Civil War, Black Panther's dad dies and that sets his story in motion. But a fucking bomb went off and of course Black Widow escapes without a scratch and her make-up still flawless.
It's a shitty way to put it, but the next person who dies needs to be someone who matters.
How can I be immersed in a fight between Cap and Bucky if I can't feel in my heart that Cap loves this guy?
I could feel that. The "end of the line" thing worked exactly as it should've.
The flatness is poor dramatic function. Phase 2 is built around Bucky, yet his character in The First Avenger is fleshed out the least. His camaraderie with Cap is pure texture. Their "remember the old days" conversation seems forced because it is. Tony's bit about the kid fails to inspire because in this film, where in the fuck did that come from?
Meh, I'm with
europe on this one as far as thinking the reason that failed was because the idea (collateral damage) failed. Her kid was one of what, 11 that died? 11 versus the entire human race? Sorry, lady, but we did our job.
Continuing with the Steve/Bucky angle, though, I disagree with this, too. I don't think that it's "pure texture." From my perspective, the "remember the old days" stuff is the natural mode of conversation between friends who have been separated for an extended period of time (and I'm saying this having hung out when I was back in Chicago for only the third time in ten years with my best friend growing up). However, I disagree that it feels like the writers were forcing it. Rather, I felt like Steve was forcing it. It felt organic to the character, so lost and out-of-touch with this new world and the new people in it but now with a chance to reach back (in time) and forward (in space) and (re)connect with his best friend. That it's so one-sided (at least initially) works really well. You can
feel Steve's desperation. That's not an accident or a mistake. That's characterization. And you know that's my jam. Function is crucial, but characterization is essential.
If anything, I'd be harder on the
Civil War storyline. It would've been better if the whole plot revolved around those frozen winter soldiers being woken up and used to kill people and bomb that UN thing. That would've been Bucky atoning for his sins and trying to close that chapter in his life, Steve trying to help his friend work through those demons, and then over the course of shutting down those winter soldiers the Tony parent shit could've come to light. Instead, they just hopped on to the Manchurian Candidate express and left Bucky in basically the same spot they left him in
The Winter Soldier.
So that's our Marvel conversation out of the way. Now let's go back to Sorkin:
Yeah for me it's the four guys. Probably Josh most often. I like him... he's got swag when the comedy isn't making a doofus out of him (I like that too).
And probably more so than any other Sorkin character I can think of. Jeff Daniels in
The Newsroom has
weight, he can be the motherfucking
boss, but he doesn't have
swag. Josh does.
I view an audience surrogate as either 1) telling us how to feel or 2) telling us what's going on, because the camera isn't able to do the job.
Either I'm way off or you're describing a
director surrogate. Isn't the director the one doing the
telling? To me, an audience surrogate is
seeing and/or feeling, and seeing and/or feeling
with us, seeing and/or feeling
as we see or feel (both seeing and feeling are usually there, but which one gets the lion's share of the emphasis varies). In
Cloverfield, Hud sees what we see (and feels what we feel). In
Inception, Ariadne feels what we feel (and sees what we see). Those are classic examples of an audience surrogate.
I think it's problematic for Ainsley to be saying all this, because Sorkin's a dude.
This is the problem. If male storytellers don't deal with women in their stories, they're sexist, but because they're male storytellers, even if they do deal with women in their stories, they're still sexist because they're male storytellers. Sorkin's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. And it's all because of that damned penis.
I'm hyperbolizing, of course, but this is always hovering in the background of these types of conversations. And I'm going to come back to it very shortly...
For instance, does he really know how women feel about sexual ribbing? Has he been a woman, or had to live with the expectations of being one in a corporate environment?
This is the logic that precludes men from being feminists. No man "really knows" what it's like to be a woman if "really knows" means "has experienced." Sorkin has obviously never been a woman, but that's a ludicrous standard to hold him (or anyone else) to and it's not a valid position from which to criticize him (or anyone else). The issue is whether Sorkin is pulling that shit out of his ass or if women around him had expressed those/similar sentiments. Sorkin is a diligent researcher, he doesn't talk about shit unless he's done his homework. He's not just some redneck who doesn't like it that his women don't stay home and make him sandwiches anymore. He's an intelligent guy reading the cultural terrain and giving voice to one of the popular sentiments amidst discourses on gender, and doing it in an intelligent and, dramatically, plausible fashion.
Is it true that women being annoyed about this stuff really does distract from legitimate instances of harassment - eg. how often do complaints really turn out to be about nothing?
One could argue it's art, and we should be able to say anything without having to worry about evidence. And that's true. But when it has the potential to make a young girl who is watching think that maybe she should just suck it up the next time someone talks about her legs at work, it's worth dissecting, I think.
But this is where context is key. Sorkin isn't abstractly saying that "it's nothing." He's using that specific example of what Sam said to indicate something specific that's nothing. At least to him (and Ainsley).
That is worth dissecting.
I actually think that Sorkin wishes things were the way they used to be in the classic era.
Whatever happened to Gary Cooper?
And now, to what will likely be your least favorite part of this post,
Ricky: I tried to watch
Gilmore Girls. Already, based on the "tried," I'm sure you're bracing yourself. Well, in the spirit of friendship, let me warn you at the outset: Brace harder.
What in the ungodly fuck from that miserable excuse for a sitcom did you possibly think I would ever in a million years respond to in any way other than violent rage? That's one of the worst things I've ever tried to watch. The only thing I enjoyed was how ironic it was that, at countless times throughout the Pilot, I’d think to myself, “No women sound like this,” something, incidentally, I’ve never thought while watching a Sorkin woman. On top of which, Sorkin has never created a character more insulting to the female gender than Melissa McCarthy’s character in
Gilmore Girls. Are you kidding me with this shit,
Ricky? I’m saying this both for the reference and because it’s necessary: You got some splainin to do.
Aaarrrghh. Was the only thing I was hoping you wouldn't ask me to watch. I'd rather watch that show Felicity you mentioned earlier.
Based on what I know of your sensibility, you'd definitely like
Felicity more, but your position on
The Newsroom will never cease to confound me.
One of you bastards should have warned me about His Girl Friday!!! [...] I used to think Hard Boiled was intense. I used to think Fury Road was intense. But half-an-hour into His Girl Friday I'm sitting there cross-eyed and quavering in my sofa at all the lines being burst-fired at me at! I was dazzled to the point of having all of my mental faculties burnt down... and it was like an hour of it left! How the hell do you even assess something like that? Pretty fucking unique viewing experience I must say.
What did you like better,
Bringing Up Baby or
His Girl Friday?
The penultimate movie for today is Marlon Brando's One-Eyed Jacks.
You know about the Kubrick connection with this one, right?
Through a Glass Darkly was really interesting, the first one in his 'faith trilogy' [...] or gods silence trilogy as I have also heard it called
I prefer calling it his "Silence of God" trilogy. "Faith trilogy" makes it sound nicer and happier than it really is. "Silence of God" captures Bergman's spirit better.
The thing that struck me was that in the past someone like Karin would probably have been considered some sort of religious mystic whereas in the modern day she's clinically insane...I thought there was some symbolism here [...] but given that the final conclusion that 'God is Love' it's not a hopelessly atheistic film either.
Bergman was never really hopeless. He'd get down in the dumps, but he was always searching, and that manifested in his films to where, no matter how bleak (like
The Seventh Seal or
The Virgin Spring), there was always that sense that they were still willing to go forward with (re)new(ed) spirit. I say this with a heavy qualification though as I don't remember
Winter Light very well except for the vague sense that it was one of his harshest meditations on religion. Am I recalling that right?
I also saw Steve Jobs, which I liked. Good wiring and dialogue, and good performances from all the major characters. What I really liked was that it was essentially 3 scenes that did a clever job of covering, I'd guess, about 20 years of history. As it is with most biographical films, it doesn't seem to serve a more poetic message apart from what simply happened (obviously this is what I focus on in movies right now)...maybe a precautionary tale of what you end up destroying when reverence is a priority. But I enjoyed the ride nonetheless.
Oh, dude, that movie
is poetry. Sorkin is one of the last writers to think would ever be a slave to biography/history. The hook for him as a writer - and the hook he wanted for viewers - was the father/daughter story. It wasn't so much a cautionary tale as it was a glimpse into the mind and heart of a very different type of human being for whom "normal" human emotions were difficult yet for whom those emotions were nonetheless present. That's why that ending is so powerful for me.
Easily one of the best films in the last decade or two for me.
Paterson was great. Liked it more than Jarmusch's last. Bad for my wallet; bought a bunch of poetry on Amazon after.
I just watched
Paterson the other day (Jarmusch is the gf's favorite). I dug it, too. The wife, not so much, but Adam Driver did a great job. The dog stole the show, though. Easily my favorite character. I lost it when I realized he was taking out his frustrations on the mailbox
Sully was better than I thought it would be. Just annoyingly Randian
Interestingly, someone wrote an article on Clint (on
American Sniper and
Sully in particular) expressing a similar sentiment. The author didn't make any specific references to Rand, but in the comments section, I did.
http://brightlightsfilm.com/cowboys...ood-trump-american-sniper-sully/#.WKXgcH9OiUk
Ha! Vainly trying to predict what I will like, are we?
Yeah, Marked Woman was nearly spectacular. One of my favorite gangster films from the 30's, as you predicted (although that's probably the decade that I've watched the least films from).
Well, if you're interested in cementing its status, its stiffest competition would come from the likes of
Little Caesar,
The Public Enemy,
Scarface,
'G' Men,
Bullets or Ballots,
Angels with Dirty Faces, and
The Roaring Twenties. Those are the heavy hitters from the '30s.
Also, I thought it was very interesting that this was one of those films where the protagonist was markedly portrayed as a part of a group.
Hepburn in
Stage Door is another interesting example of this.
Man Detour had some spazz!
I always feel like I missed the ride for this one. I love
noir and so many people love it. I never did.
D.O.A (or lets just call it 50's Cranked)
Honestly, the only reason I ever watched this one was because I thought of
Crank when I read the plot description on TCM. Definitely worth that curiosity/novelty viewing, though.
Strangers on the Third Floor [...] My layman catalogization of it would have been to call it some sort of unholy hybrid between Noir pictures and heavy German Expressionism, set in an overarching kafkaesque universe.
Very apt description.
But man, coolest of all was of course Peter Lorre in the illustrious villian-role. He's in it for like... less than 10 minutes but he gives such an off-the-rails performance. The naturalism to which he plays someone insane, how organic it feels when he goes through his mad thought-processes, it's a beauty to watch.
Lastly, on the Noir front, Decoy!
This is actually one I haven't seen. It's on my radar now, though.
I have some good news and some bad news on the Preminger front. The good news is that I saw another one of his movies, the bad news is that it was Skidoo...
Another one I haven't seen. Based on your reaction to it, I'd say stick to the list I gave you of Bullitt-approved Preminger films
There's something wrong whichu man.
Like, half of my shit about story can be credited to obsessively watching that film.
Though that probably explains why I'm frequently in epic debates with you.
I took so long with this fucking mega post that I don't remember the movie well enough now to talk about it, but I wasn't exaggerating when I said I thought it was "borderline shit." I remember being stunned as I was watching that it was (a) that bad and (b) not getting better. Pacino was the only part of the film worth a shit. And even his stuff was weak as fuck. And why was Ed Harris even there? I love Ed Harris and this movie made me not want to see him. Enough said.
So you guys probably know about this already but I still need to post it if only to ask why
@Bullitt68 hasn't sponsored us all for a free ride (or two) through it:
Ha, I first saw that as a "Suggested Post" on Facebook. I actually might take a ride on the Sorkin Screenwriting Express. I don't know about sponsoring you mooks, though
Silence: I might be the only guy that likes Scorsese's last two films more than most of his work.
When you say his "last two films," are you saying that as a preface to talking about
Silence - as in you liked
The Wolf of Wall Street and
Hugo better - or are you including
Silence - as in you liked
Silence and
The Wolf of Wall Street better?
I haven't seen
Silence, so I can't tell you that you're crazy (I'm thinking it, though), but I can tell you that, while I was back in Chicago for the holidays, my friend and I realized there was literally nothing we wanted to see in theaters. Then we thought of
Silence, and neither one of us, both Scorsese guys, had any desire to see it. I just can't get worked up for this movie. It seems like it's going to be a fine addition to the "Why did you bother?" folder alongside shit like
The Age of Innocence and
Kundun.
Will likely end up one of the best films about matters of faith ever made.
Fuck it: You're crazy
So after several months of faffing about I got back to some of that cinematic literature Bullitt recommended to me. I read Arnold Schwarzenegger and The Movies by David Saunders... and immediately wished that I'd started reading it sooner.
Firstly, this is the most awesomely written book of all time. Why can't every text contain such crafty prose?
There was just line-after-line that made me grin and grin again. I can't overstate how enjoyable Saunders type of evocative writing is.
Abso-motherfucking-lutely. I still flip through it from time-to-time with no intention of reading even a chapter but just to read a few random sentences and to intellectually sink into his linguistic groove.
But man, those were some excellent and hard-hitting analyses as well. He really had some deep-thoughts on Arnold's career and how it intersects with society at large [...] Saunders made some really good overarching points about Arnolds appeal as well. Like the fascist allure of perfect, "pure" bodies that underscores society and births the opinion that everything from virtue to intellect should steam from having healty muscles. Or how Arnold benefited from the mythic trope that a Hero is always for the People, but almost never "of" the People. How Arnold's almost superhuman "otherness" and his self-awareness of this fact made him a perfect fit to play of these age-old mytic structures.
So yeah... a thoroughly fascinating book!
Glad you enjoyed it. If you liked the style of criticism in the Arnold book, then I can also recommend (though neither one of these books are quite at that level in terms of Saunders' way with words, though they're both close and fantastic for their own reasons)
Directed by Clint Eastwood (1996) by Laurence F. Knapp (not only an old professor of mine and a brilliant critic but the professor of the class where I read the Arnold book; he's also
very close to Saunders with his linguistic deftness) and
The Films of Fritz Lang by Tom Gunning (also an old professor and one of the most renowned film scholars of all-time).
Though I am a bit suprised that Bullitt would recommend a movie that throws as much shade on Sylvester Stallone as this one.
My least favorite aspect of the book is the fact that Saunders held Arnold's work from
Jingle All The Way through
Collateral Damage in such low esteem. My next least favorite aspect was how much he bashed Stallone
Shamefully I have yet to see 2001
You haven't seen one of the GOATest of the GOAT - and the GOAT's GOAT - and yet you want me to sponsor you for Sorkin's masterclass?
It is bad to steal from the vulnerable because you want more than you need (Wolf). It is bad to kill, no matter how funny you are, or how much people "respect" that you're a deadly force (Goodfellas). It is bad to shoot up a building, even though it is filled with pimps and hookers, just because you think you're rescuing someone (Taxi Driver) [...] His movies are about individuals who seem to be in conflict about something, come to existential crossroads, and choose the path of doing the worst things in service of a specific idea at any cost, whether it's making money, or cleaning up the streets, or feeling powerful [...] Scorsese's Truth is simple. This life you live, it's not about you.
Hmm. I don't think I'd go so far as to identify "the life you live, it's not about you" as Scorsese's Truth. At least, not on the evidence you've provided here. I agree that his movies deal with people who either do the wrong thing(s) for the right reason(s) (
Mean Streets and
Taxi Driver just for two choice examples) or the wrong thing(s) for the wrong reason(s) (
Raging Bull and
Goodfellas just for two choice examples) but I don't see an altruistic message in his work.
Mean Streets, as the "start" of his career, all but zeroes in on the path of the individual. His is absolutely a moral cinema, but in the sense of trying and failing - or never trying - to live a "good" life and in the process highlighting/questioning what "good" means in different time periods, places, contexts, etc.
That said, I'd love it if you provided a more detailed explanation of why you see altruism as Scorsese's Truth.
Really enjoying the show Borgia [...] The first season, the first half of the season, I felt like the show was on the level of Hannibal
There's a show I've never heard of that's on the level of
Hannibal? Tell me more please.
I think I just found my new Black Swan, lol [...] I don't know why, but I decided I needed to see the old Ben-Hur and wow
Always loved this movie. It's on TCM every Christmas, and while I don't watch the whole thing every year, I
always watch that chariot sequence. William Wyler outdid himself - and most everyone else - with
Ben-Hur. An epic of truly epic proportions.
New but I LOVE Shannon. I'm SO happy he got a nod, he won't win but I love it.
I'm just responding to this post to compliment you on your AV. I just started rewatching
The Mentalist last week. Easily one of the best shows to premier in the last decade.