First off, thanks
europe and
Beardo for the info and the recommendations. I don't know when I'll go on my next martial arts binge, but when I do, your picks will be at the top of the list.
As for what's been going on...
it's so rare to see a martial arts film which is also an intriguing mystery tale.
Based on this post, I have to recommend Yuen Chor's
The Lizard. The plotting is pure Hitchcock, like a martial arts
To Catch a Thief.
I don't mind spoilers. So don't sweat it.
If you believe they're equally propulsive, despite their subordinate roles, does this result in equal impact (for you); all this fighting with men, lobbying, show-running? On a macroscopic, dramatic level: what does it do for you? Are you tuning in to see C.J. at a press briefing, or for one of the guys to make a speech or take a stand of import? Or is that you are at peace with the fact that that's not what the women are around for?
For this particular question, there are a couple of different levels of answer. Big picture answer: When I watch
The West Wing, I'm there for Martin Sheen. When I watch
The Newsroom, I'm there for Jeff Daniels. When I watch
Steve Jobs, I'm there for Michael Fassbender. At the end of the day, I'm there for the person I think is the best of the bunch. They're not the
only reason I tune in. Not by a long shot. But they're absolutely the
main reason. They're the
main characters, so they're the ones I'm tuning in to see (the corollary is: They're the ones for whom Sorkin pulls out all the stops).
Down a level, when I'm looking at the ensemble in
The West Wing, no, I can't say I'm ever tuning in for C.J. But then, to be fair, I'm not tuning in for Josh, either. In
The Newsroom, I can't say I'm tuning in for Mac, but then I'm not tuning in for Charlie, either.
Another level down, when I'm looking at episodes of
The West Wing, sometimes the arc I'm the most into is a C.J. arc. Other times it's a Josh arc. Other times I want them all to get the fuck out of the way so I can just focus on Toby. In
The Newsroom, Will is gold, but sometimes I just want to be with Mac and Sloan. Other times, Charlie is holding court. Other times I want everyone to shut up so I can watch the Jane Fonda show.
If someone wants to mine the stats, I'm sure the numbers can be put up to show what a horrible misogynist Sorkin is, but I'm not bullshitting when I say that I literally don't think of this shit when I'm watching Sorkin. Everybody clicks regardless of who's packing a dick and who isn't, everyone has moments to shine, everyone has their scene/episode/arc where they get the chance to hit it out of the park. At the end of the day, the main character is always a dude. Then again, Sorkin's currently at work on what's to be his directorial debut, and it's called
Molly's Game and the main character is a woman.
Story and character rule in Sorkinland. Gender is for the peanut gallery.
T.J. Miller isn't an audience surrogate. Different discussion anyway.
Well, if we ever come back around to
Cloverfield, this is a discussion that I think is worth having, because I can't guess for the life of me where you'd go with it.
I don't know shit about Executive Decision.
This is for the best.
It's hard to work out what this is about exactly. From what I can tell she is arguing that someone teasing women verbally in a way that involves her sexuality doesn't have to mean the same thing for her, yes? And that in fact, in her case, it empowers her?
Sorkin's speaking for how women could/should feel about verbal sexual teasing?
And he's putting those words in the mouth of a character who wasn't allowed to defend herself from harassment without a man coming to her aid?
What it's about: Man A told Woman A she looked good. Woman B took offense, and even though Woman A wasn't offended, Man A now feels guilty and confused.
What he's saying: Woman A thinks Woman B should mind her business and chill the fuck out and Man A shouldn't walk around on eggshells for fear of all the Woman B's of the world.
He's actually casting a pretty wide net in that scene. Ainsley is arguing that ribbing works across genders, and that if it's part of her becoming "part of the team," then that means the intent is very different than the stereotype of the construction site hollering at women walking by and she's cool with it. She's also arguing that blowing your top every time a guy says anything remotely sexual (or even just gender-specific) distracts from legit instances of sexual harassment. And she's arguing that nobody, male or female, gets to dictate what any individual is comfortable with, that a person's sexuality is his/her own and they don't need constant white-knighting.
Sorkin's point is that Sam is noble for doing so. It's why, dramatically, Sam is righteous when he passionately insists on continuing to help Laurie (to CJ). It's why the issue, as far as "they all" are concerned, doesn't end with Sam laughing about his silly ways and admitting he was an idiot. It ends, if I recall correctly, with a vibrant defence of Sam by C.J. to Danny, because his behaviour is "commendable": he's the one who is right, while everyone else is worried about the optics.
This applies better to
The Newsroom and the mission to civilize. I think you think Sorkin is a lot more on Sam's side than he really is. He's on Will's side all the way. Sam, on the other hand, is being used to indicate a very specific (and, as Sorkin seems to be suggesting, perhaps outmoded) form of nobility, and one that importantly gets rejected.
What I also know is that I'm taking your specific arguments, understanding them, and providing individual rebuttals as much as I can. There are things that people are too bothered about and things that don't bother enough people. If I see something I don't like, I talk about it as the individual issue it is. I'm not sure lumping it in with a movement is useful. I mean, go ahead and do it, but it trivialises a decent debate. It's why I haven't generalised by suggesting your having certain opinions implies you're part of a gaggle of un-woke men that have decided not to open your eyes to a genuine issue. I simply challenge your ideas. It works better that way.
We're both definitely working from the specific rather than the general, and you're right that that's what's pertinent here given that these issues are contextual while what we're really talking about is art. I do think it's indisputable, though, that, between the two of us, you're closer to the feminazis and I'm closer to the MRA
I'm like teh Flem with that shit - can't remember classic Hollywood from it being a blur. I can watch them again if you're genuinely curious.
I don't want to be assigning you homework or anything, but I'm not going to lie and say that I wouldn't be interested to hear your thoughts on
The Philadelphia Story,
His Girl Friday, and
Adam's Rib in light of this conversation. However, I can't stress enough that, more than anything, I want you to watch the first two seasons of
The Newsroom.
If you really want to know what I mean, I'm going to open myself up to much ridicule and suggest you watch Gilmore Girls to know how a woman would write Sorkin-esque dialogue. And why one rings so true for women and the other doesn't. I'll watch anything you want me to if you watch it, because you actually bother to debate me.
I'm watching
The Mindy Project right now, then after that I'm going to be shifting from TV to movies for a while. I'm filing
Gilmore Girls away in the memory bank, though, and if, after the holidays, I've lost track of it, start bugging me about it and I'll watch it.
All his characters tend not to take shit lying down. A woman is as likely to talk about gangster shit and guns as a man is.
In Sorkin terms, I'd say that the reason I'm cool with the way he writes men and women is because all his characters are fueled by passion and care about what they're doing, but they're also flawed and capable of looking stupid. A woman is as likely to go on a rant or land themselves in hot water or fall flat on their face doing what they believe is right as a man is.
Pretty interested to hear what Bullitt has to say about Snowpiercer and Blue is the Warmest Colour
People in here seemed to dig
Snowpiercer. And I love Ed Harris. So who knows? As for
Blue is the Warmest Color, I don't recall ever hearing anything about it, but it seemed to be a critical darling, so I'll be surprised if I walk away empty-handed.
@Bullitt68 if you want to recommend me any movies during this stretch, I'm down to watch some of whatever you come up with.
I'm not going to recommend anything at the moment, but once I start watching your picks, with the way my brain works, I'm not going to be able to help pointing out movies that are about and/or do similar things, so I'm sure I'll end up indirectly recommending you plenty
Never seen Stay Hungry though.
Arnold lifts weights in a mask and a cape in one scene and plays the violin in another. And those aren't even the craziest scenes in the movie.
"More frustrating"? I can't recall you calling Angel Face frustrating.
Describing my experience as one of frustration isn't in this context a negative. I don't mean that I would've liked the film more if it wasn't so frustrating. On the contrary, part of the reason I like it as much as I do is because it's a frustrating experience, because Mitchum shouldn't have gotten wrapped up in this shit. Hell, most
films noir have frustrating elements to them.
The Third Man is one of the GOAT but it's unspeakably frustrating watching Alida Valli torture herself and knowing that Joseph Cotten has no chance.
Just to be clear, do you think that Jean Simmons succeding despite not being able to snare Mitchum is a good thing, or do you see it as a weakness in the narrative?
I wish the post-trial time would've been stretched out and we could've gotten more from Simmons, but at the end of the day, I love the bonkers ending and I don't think Simmons'
Thelma & Louise move is a weakness at all. It's perfectly in keeping with the character and it's perfectly in line with the logic of
film noir. I just would've liked more insights into her mind similar to the way Preminger approached his subjects in
Whirlpool and
Bunny Lake is Missing.
Something I was going to add -- in the trivia section on
Angel Face imdb page, it says that Mitchum slapped Preminger when Preminger told him to slap Jean Simmons for real while filming. Preminger apperently got so outraged that he tried to fire Mitchum... so why in the hell is he writting a freaking rape scene in this film?
Is it some sort of elaborate, twisted, revenge on Preminger's part or does he just really want to see Mitchum abuse women?
There are various stories about that incident. I've heard it that Preminger was doing what producer Howard Hughes wanted (who was busy relentlessly pursuing the then-married Simmons and not appreciating being turned away), I've heard it that Mitchum threatened Preminger with no more takes or else he'd slap him, and I've heard it that Mitchum legit slapped Preminger. Whatever the case, I think, given Preminger's reputation, that he was a lot like Kubrick, and in the case of the Preminger/Simmons relationship for
Angel Face, I think it was a lot like the Kubrick/Shelley Duvall relationship for
The Shining. Preminger wasn't an "actor's director" in the conventional sense, but he nevertheless tended to get some damn good performances out of his actors. In this case, it's important for Simmons' character to be at her wit's end and even broken down. Maybe that's what Preminger was going for. Or maybe he was just a nutjob.
As for
River of No Return, that story is most often told as Preminger hating Monroe's diva behavior, getting fed up with her having her acting coach basically re-direct her during takes, and getting a form of revenge on her, not Mitchum. Funny enough, from what I know of that shoot, it sounds like the kid was the only adult on the set and deserves the credit for holding the production together
Completely blindsighted by your Mitchum love though, I don't think it was bad or anything but mostly I just got the impression that it was that workmanlike performance you get when contractual obligations are in play.
I'm not saying he's on the level of Cagney in
White Heat or anything crazy, but I definitely think he was better than just a paycheck.
am i the only person that doesnt absolutely love pulp fiction?
and
am i the only person that finds many tarantino movies derivative and formulaic?
I've never seen Pulp Fiction. I've seen it on tv many times and flipped right past it. It's on Netflix but it doesn't interest me in the slightest. Haven't seen Kill Bill either, and didn't like Reservoir dogs.
The only two that have interested me and that I liked were Django and Inglorious.
I'm going to need to see some evidence of what you guys like in order to judge whether you just haven't seen the light yet or whether you're crazy people
Forgot to ask, speaking of dated, have you ever seen
Bewitched from 1945? It has a hilariously take on schizophrenia. Instead of being a split-personality disorder the heroine basically has an cantankerous old lady stuck in her head that is constantly nagging her through the story.
Never saw that one, but it sounds like one of Phoebe's storylines in
Friends.
