Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by AlmostAGhost

  1. That was my favorite part which stood out on this watch - the scary fear vibes that kept creeping in throughout. I really enjoyed how much of that there was in this.

    • Like 1

  2. I never understood the attachment to Tom Bombadil! He's not that big of a deal, is he?

    I am still torn though on Mockingbird, not on how much I love it because I do, but on how much it really adds/changes from the book. Most of the positives I heard Paul and Amy mention are straight up from the book. Paul said the direction was sort of 'avant garde' and I'm not so sure I agree, it feels fairly straightforward and simple to me. I mean, obviously, not screwing up a very popular book is not an easy thing to do, so credit there. But as a top-100 film of all-time? What does this film do cinematically that's all so special?

    For example, I think the Lord of the Rings should be on there as an adaption, because it adapts such a complicated work of fantasy history and it pushed computer effects much further than just about anything before it. But I'm a little less sure about Mockingbird, which I'm having a hard time seeing on its own separate from the book. I'm leaning to the acting (by Peck and the kids and everyone!) as being enough to push it there, but I'm still a tiny bit torn.

    • Like 1

  3. 5 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    Huh, I would have thought they would have done another “State of the Podcast” episode after 50 movies...

    i believe Vertigo is #50. i have 47 films on my Letterboxd list as of last week

  4. 1 minute ago, taylorannephoto said:


    I just check to see if The Bechdel Cast has covered it but alas they have not. I think it would be very fascinating to here a specific take on this movie. (That podcast has covered Mrs. Doubtfire and She's The Man in terms of other cross-dressing movies.)

    Yea definitely. It's not like there isn't some feminist messages in there, but as I said in my Letterboxd, it's basic. Almost too basic, if you ask me. So basic that it might even hamper the film's points entirely.

  5. 27 minutes ago, taylorannephoto said:

    I decided not to rewatch it but I'm wondering if I should to see if this even passes the Bechdel Test (Dorothy doesn't count since the person in the dress does not actually identify as a woman).

    I don't think it does pass, come to think of it. No two (real) women talk to each other that I can recall.

    • Like 1

  6. 10 hours ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    Just checked, weirdly, Kenneth Brannaugh really likes it.



    Brannaugh's description is wild:

    "Tootsie is a superb comedy of deceptive simplicity. It at once parodies satirises and glorifies art, acting, cinema, TV and modernity at large. Hoffman is magnificent, Murray is sublime, and Jessica Lange's radiance is heart-stopping."

    It's like the feminist parts of it don't exist. He loves it for spoofing television! Out of all of Tootsie's points, "look how crazy soap operas are" is pretty far down the list.

    • Like 1

  7. 3 minutes ago, bleary said:

     think you're pushing aside Paul's point in his comparison to Bosom Buddies: not that the plot points were vastly more refined, but that the laughs are directed in different places.  

    No I get it, and that's true. The point to me though isn't "is this funny enough?", it's "is it quality enough?" It's definitely sharper comedy than Bosom Buddies. It doesn't necessarily do anything better to get its points across though, except having a bunch of actors act as if it were a drama I guess. (That's the part I like about this.) Though looking at this through a lens of film genres, it's using screwball comedy situations, but I dunno, I still question these plot points as not being the best choices they could have made.

    I definitely agree that it's good that his drag-ness isn't a punchline, but like Roz said on the pod, he's in drag for the purpose of work/conniving a job/stealing a role from a real woman; not a lifestyle choice. I find that limits its effectiveness.

    Yea maybe Les is just more an awkward thing. But still, the end result is 'omg he actually fell for a guy' and whether that's for laughs or pity, it's still there. Also when Les finds out, his first reaction is to want to punch him. Doesn't he say something like "you're only alive because we never kissed"?

    • Like 2

  8. One thing I've been thinking about lately and really noticing is the sort of cinematic language that these films use. It's why I defended Chinatown in the face of a general indifference: I think it really has its own language in how it tells its story. 

    Paul kept saying Tootsie was more than just Bosom Buddies, and that's sort of true in some regard: but also not so much. Take all the actions of the story: now he has to take care of a baby, oh now he is in some vaguely homophobic misunderstanding because a man is in love with him (his love interest's dad no less!), etc. These plot points are not any different than what you'd see on Bosom Buddies. So even if they're making a valid statement, or being funny!, it's just not done in a quality way with any sort of originality or creativity.

    Oh and how about the numerous music montages? Great films don't get to use that shortcut so many times in one movie. By my count, there were five. That's ridiculous.

    All the decisions they made to tell this story are not at all elevated from any old '80s drag comedy, even if maybe the acting is better. There's just not enough here for me to think it should be a classic to any level, and I'm totally baffled that it is.

    I have it last on my list of the 47 movies we've seen. I may enjoy it a little more than some of the others down near the bottom, but that's not all we're looking at here. I can sort of accept the pioneering nature of it, but even there, I'm not sure it's enough. One thing I think would improve this is though Hoffman's character dresses as a woman, he never truly identifies as one, so the perspective offered seems very narrow to me. 

    I think what Bill Murray said about Hoffman and Pollack was illuminating: they had no idea what they were making. They should have let Bill direct it and turn it into what he was seeing could be.


    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  9. NOthing was more antagonistic in anything I said than you going "But if you tell me it’s significantly different, then I’ll just take your word for it."

    There's no other way to read that.

    You started with "Taking the conversation back to the film itself..." and I apologize for following the conversation.

    Since when did I imply ANYWHERE that you were an idiot? Do not put those words in my mouth. If this is how discussions are taken on this board, I'm out.

  10. 9 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    Dude, I’m not sure what’s going on with you today. I just gave my opinion and was using an analogy. I’m sorry I don’t see it at the same level as you. I’ve said repeatedly I like the movie, I just don’t love it. What you’re reading as snark, is just apathy. I was literally deferring to your expertise. You seem to be coming at this much hotter than I am.

    And all I was doing was offering the counter-opinion to analogizing it to just another noir with nothing new to say. Is that not what we do here? I was hashing out the definition of noir and the quality of the film, I thought. What else is this forum for? I liked the movie and didn't want the only opinion on here to be "it's like Daredevil". How is this any different from any other thread? 

    Apathy?  OK, that was not coming across in your post either. I'd love to know if anyone here reads you as even remotely apathetic.

  11. 16 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:



    I mean, cool man. If you want to go “deeper”, that’s totally fine. I don’t see it. Nor do I really care to argue the point. Most things I’ve seen seem to classify it as noir (or neo-noir). But if you tell me it’s significantly different, then I’ll just take your word for it. Like I said, it’s a fine movie, but I don’t care that much. I’m not going to argue over not liking it as much as you think that maybe I should.

    Uh putting the words "cinematographic film" in there doesn't tell anyone anything. What does that phrase mean to you? It definition just says 'marked by pessimism, fatalism, and menace.' It totally ignores and dismisses all the stuff you conveniently want to ignore and dismiss: the shadows, angles, voiceovers, black & white, but that's the cinematic language that needs to be included, as I think Chinatown subverts it to go somewhere new.


    ut if you tell me it’s significantly different, then I’ll just take your word for it.

    Don't be rude. I'm not gonna take your word for it being a lame Daredevil movie either.

    • Like 1

  12. 37 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    The things that you’re describing as being typical noir are what I mean by it being cosmetically different.

    I could go deeper?  There's a vast difference in showing one man being tempted by crime, and say, showing a whole corrupt society hidden in plain sight. To me, the main point is that society is fucked up; not one man being corrupt(ed). That's a huge difference to me, that classic noirs don't usually do. (I'm sure someone will 'well actually' that with some example, but in general.)

    By that vague definition you found though, almost anything could be noir (i'd argue Treasure of the Sierra Madre fits it).  It totally ignores the cinematic conventions of a typical noir. We're talking about cinema. You have to include some cinema in the definition; and that is what Chinatown subverts and establishes its own self. What is the similarity here between this and Double Indemnity?  There's very little besides the time period and a story centered on crime. I just don't see how it's the same key. Maybe you don't find it interesting, but it's not that similar.

    I would say it is Hendrix's "All Along The Watchtower", easy. Dylan's original is the best, but the cover goes places the original never imagined.

  13. Chinatown totally deserves to be on the list, and it would wild for it to not be on a list of top-100.

    Maybe it doesn't break new ground, and no offense, but calling all the noirs the 'same dish' seems to be missing a lot about Chinatown, imo. I don't see it as the same as those other noir at all, and I'm not even sure it is one either. Regardless, I gather it may have started as one, but it dropped a lot of the main characteristics (voiceover, black & white, etc.) and it became its own individual film. That's why the filmmaking is impressive, imo; all those decisions that turned it into a masterpiece. (Not to mention the writing and acting which are all perfect too.)

    I think because of this, it's an even bleaker commentary on humanity than even the darkest noirs. Everyone liked the bleakness of man revealed in Sierra Madre; why not here? It's easy to distance yourself from Double Indemnity and be like, I wouldn't fall for this, it's just a character, etc. Here, you can't avoid it. *shudders*

    I loved the film before I listened to the pod, and interestingly, hearing Amy & Paul talk about it - even though they didn't love it, it seems - made me like it more! They did a great job bringing up all the details and layers I hadn't considered in first watch -- similarly to what they did that increased my enjoyment of All About Eve.

    • Thanks 1

  14. 15 minutes ago, grudlian. said:

    Lennon did write Run For Your Life which is about as open a song as he could write about abusing his wife.

    He stole that lyric from an Elvis song, but yea if I'm not being hypocrite here, maybe my test needs some reworking. Don't want to defend Lennon, he's not my favorite at all.

    But it does lead to a wider question though - do artists get to create characters? Is everything they write supposed to be heard or seen as autobiography? What if like George Harrison wrote a "Run For Your Life"? Can someone write a song about angry jealousy, or is it just verboten?