Movies #6

[nacho]

they cut the part where QT says the guy's wife tastes like Honey Nut Cheerios.

[FridayNightHasKilledMe]

I agree with QT about shutting that guy's butt down. He's being a bit precious though with all this "opening a dialog about slavery" crap though. Perhaps he's getting rattled by the realisation that racist violence even tentatively linked to Django, like those kids getting stabbed outside a theater, will be laid at his door. Don't think he's had that kind of pressure before.

QT doesn't strike me as the kinda guy to care much about such potential backlash.

He did come off as high strung, overly defensive, and egomanical, but I think he has a fair point. The slavery discussion in present day America is kinda crappy. There's a sad amount of slavery apologism. Something as visceral as "Django" does have the power to shock people into some kind of real discussion. Unlike QT, I don't really think it will amount to much. It reminded me of "Blazing Saddles" in that it actually depicted the overbearing racism of the past. The natural tendency in doing historical films is to give the characters too much of our modern sensibilities. In something like "Lincoln" for instance, the president's own racism was hardly present, because Spielberg needed to unambigiously make him the hero of the film. Whether "Django" actually accomplishes anything artistically can be debated, but at least it tries and that's more than 95% of its ilk tend to do.

[Ansbacher Bremen]

Anyone going to see "Gangster Squad"? I want to see it because I once had a gang I called "the gangster squad" that consisted of me and several stuffed animals.

I read the book. Didn't inspire me to go see the movie.

I wanted to see this movie last night, but after reading bad review after bad review on Thursday, I now have no desire to see it in a theatre. I will wait for it to be released on Netflix.

[FridayNightHasKilledMe]

My weekend morning entertainment today was "Bridge On the River Kwai". I know we've talked about "Lawrence of Arabia" here before. That's a great film. IMHO, "River Kwai" is only a pretty good film in comparison. Normally, I hate POW movies. I loathed "The Great Escape" and "Stalag 17" didn't hold up for me on second viewing. This is an exception, maybe because it was only a POW movie for the first hour and then it smartly transitioned into a secret mission movie. The performances were all pretty great, especially Alec Guinness. William Holden has done better (the aforementioned "Stalag 17" for instance), but he gets by here on mere presence. This is the second time I've seen the film and this time I caught more of the black comedy moments (almost "Dr.Strangelove" esque in that regard, in terms of rationalizing absurdity).

In terms of historical accuracy, this is a notoriously crappy movie. But, by that standard, Richard III and Macbeth were notoriously crappy plays. So I throw that out the window here.

A few beefs though:

-The portrayal of the POW camp was too sunny. I understand choosing not to depict the full horror of a Japanese POW camp circa 1943, but to show the men messing around, blatantly not working, jumping in the water like summer camp, etc...stretches the point of credibility too much. The Japanese would've just shot them rather than put up with that.

-Similarly, the Japanese were portrayed as being too stupid, but that's par for your average WWII adventure flick.

-A few cheesy moments. Holden popping out of the bushes like a ninja, etc...


Overall, good stuff. Must make a bunch of seeing more David Lean.

[Bowood]

How great was Alec Guiness ? Like in everything. When Lucas wrote "these are not the droids you are looking for" did he have Guiness in his head ?

[Rick V]

Anyone see Zero Dark Thirty yet?

[Hap]

I saw Les Miserables last night. It was a very good production. Not great. But very good. I didn't know going into it that it was 98% musical. I thought it would be a mix of spoken dialogue and song. I generally don't think a straight musical works onscreen. But this worked, and the dialogue was cleverly - not quite brilliantly, but cleverly - written. You have to be an active viewer b/c the story arc won't flow smoothly if you're not. They rely on short character interactions to set up big themes, so you just have to accept that the dialogue isn't supposed to be a literal depiction of two people having a conversation. In that sense it's more like stage production.

Lots of great supporting performances. Hugh Jackman was great. Johnny Redmayne had a fantastic performance. I'm attracted to Helena Bonham-Carter even when she's made up to be unattractive.

Russell Crowe was a disappointment. He couldn't carry the musical format. If you think of Crowe's strength as an actor, it has a lot to do with his silence. The Insider, Gladiator, etc...those were roles where his screen presence was only intensified by his subtle treatment of the dialogue. In a non-musical version of Les Mis, Crowe would have been well cast. In this version he wasn't.

[Beldo]

Russell Crowe is so good in Master and Commander. Just wanted to point that out. Wish they'd made more of those Patrick O'Brian books into films cause that one was outstanding.

[TANEYTOWN]

Looking forward to Zero Dark 30.

[BirdBrain]

Yeah, 'Master & Commander' is a really good lil movie, they managed to make that tactical seafaring stuff really exciting

Spied "Seven Psychopaths" on Friday and thought it was excellent and a really good primer for the new Tarantino. His influence runs through the film pretty hard. Christopher Walken is really superb in it, he should have gotten a supporting actor nominaton but then the Academy has always had a problem with awarding to violent films.

'Zero Dark Thirty' looks interesting ..Katherine Bigelow is really getting it in the neck for being so unapologetic about torture in it

[FridayNightHasKilledMe]

'Zero Dark Thirty' looks interesting ..Katherine Bigelow is really getting it in the neck for being so unapologetic about torture in it

My understanding is that 'Zero Dark Thirty' is being criticized not because it unapologetically depicts torture, but because it depicts torture as working that way its proponents say that it does.

This review/analysis dissaudes me from seeing it:

http://atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/OA12Aa01.html

[BirdBrain]

Thats what I meant, sorry. That article is pretty damning..leaving the morality aside this bit isn't encouraging me to want to see it:

Torture is displayed on screen in what can only be called pornographic detail for nearly the film's first hour. ... In black site after black site, on victim after victim, the movie shows acts of torture in detail, Bigelow's camera seeming to relish its gruesomeness: waterboarding, stress positions, beatings, sleep deprivation resulting in memory loss and severe disorientation, sexual humiliation, containment in a small box, and more. Whenever she gets the chance, Bigelow seems to take the opportunity to suggest that this mangling of human flesh and immersion in brutality on the part of Americans is at least understandable and probably worthwhile.

[TANEYTOWN]

Hate to tell you we torture people. In trying to depict reality it was going to be in this film.

[Macho]

I just downloaded Zero Dark Thirty in HD. I'll let you know how it is.

[FridayNightHasKilledMe]

Hate to tell you we torture people. In trying to depict reality it was going to be in this film.

Yeah, but the issue is with justification of torture, not depiction of torture.