Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

groovy-guy

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    34

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by groovy-guy

  3. Posted

    wrt ranking Coens: i'm still blown away by how gosh darn good Inside Llewyn Davis is, it immediately became my favorite Coen picture after something like a lifetime of watching and loving their films ... a masterpiece reflection on the world of the artist, struggling with themselves to see if they have ' what it takes ' .. artistic success as governed by almost as much luck as talent or authenticity. that dylan in the end comes from the same unassuming place as llewyn nails the whole thing home. it's like the Coens' trying to work out how they ever got so lucky to be directors for a living.

  6. Posted

    having recently rewatched harmony korine's TRASH HUMPERS i think there is an (indulgent) argument for its canonicity that goes something like [retro format], [guerrilla production], [gothic americana], [people humping trash]

  7. Posted

    had to be TWBB, though the discussion really got me riled up about Boogie Nights in the first half

     

    I have to sort of disagree with Devin on the core of TWBB though, I have never seen the film as a look at the exploitation of Capitalism and Religion of the little guys by the big dudes, that's too ... what? It's too broad, too obvious even. That TWBB's characters are exploiters is almost established by nature, glossed over, seldom returned to, Plainview skeezes people out of their money, Eli makes everything Church the highest priority behind the pretense of selflessness. This is all in the early Little Boston scenes.

     

    To me TWBB is about the futile pursuits of power, of the unending quest for resolution in The American Dream, whether it be by Daniel's through competition or Eli's through salvation. What is key in Plainview's character is how he deviates from the capitalist pig archetype - Plainview doesn't know indulgence. We never see him partying, gorging, fucking, drinking in any context of fun, relaxing, even revelling in his wealth Scrooge McDuck style. Plainview only knows the hunt and the promise of something better at the end. He drags himself out of the ground, from his animalistic past through the ranks of society, and for what? He fights with an almost supernatural rage against an abstract system and comes out alone and lost, he has expanded all his efforts and found no enlightenment. Somehow the part of the last act that always makes me feel the worst for Daniel is that stupid fucking dog he has in his house. You just cannot picture Daniel giving a shit about dogs, let alone a prissy rich people dog like that. He has tried it all. Not even fulfilling the caricature of a 1920's oil baron can save him. It's only Daniel's vengeance on Eli that gives him a sense of resolution, as if some kind of replacement for his broken family ties with his son, resolution with a brother.

     

    Who knows, maybe I am just won over by something in Daniel Day Lewis' performance, but I have always found Daniel Plainview immensely sympathetic - the scene with Henry in the brothel is maybe the most quietly heart rending in the whole film - despite the cruelty he does and the cruelty he is. TWBB is a film about the essential lack of core in the American rat race, and I can't help feeling like Daniel's just another victim of the empty pursuit.

    • Like 2

  8. Posted

    And I felt very obviously and annoyingly manipulated by the music. It was near perfect in conveying a permanent feel of dread - but I knew very well WHY I felt uncomfortable and I didn't feel the movie earned this, particularly in the first act.

     

    OK, now people can make fun of me...

     

     

     

    TWBB's opening act is genius, and I think that dread you feel would be present whether the soundtrack were or not. The setting of a stage, introducing us to Daniel Plainview as the primordial man, almost an ape man, the narrative tensions in this act are so immediate, so simplistic, the very opposite of the abstractions of business that follow, Daniel and his crew might be the hunter gatherers of our ancestors ... the dread comes not only from seeing humanity at its most basic, flesh and bone - the emphasis on the physical in the opening is unignorable - but also the displacement the viewer feels at being dropped into a movie so immediately, at having such visceral conflict at the start of what seemed to be a rise and fall of the industry film, at seeing this bizarre sun blasted desert, something almost extra-terrestrial about it ... it parallels 2001's Dawn of Man, and its a parallel that is bookened by Daniel's bowling pin beatdown at the end of the film resembling the ape's discovery of the bone as a weapon .. not sure i made a coherent point there...

    • Like 5

  9. Posted

    There Will Be Blood is hands down PTA's opus, the Great American Film if there ever was one. The myth of rugged individualism in the land of the free. Daniel Plainview has to be one of the most nuanced and sympathetic portrayals of the Mad Randian ever put to film, more Ahab than Gordon Gekko. Hoping Danny boy gets a fair trial and isn't written off solely as a face for the corrupting powers of Greed and the evils of Capitalism.

     

     

    w/r/t Boogie Nights: goddamn if that Jesse's Girl scene ain't amazing

    • Like 2

  12. Posted

    he's the only filmmaker i know of with his entire filmography on TSPDT's top 1000 films list, and deservedly so.

     

    if we're pitching only one to the canon i have to go with The Mirror. the most abstract, the most personal, (papa tarkovsky's poetry ties the film together) the most moving, the most Tarkovsky as both filmmaker and man, a loose autobiography, the story of a nation, and the universal story of man.

    the mirror captures the haziness of memory so well it has me more nostalgic for Alexei's youth than my own ... and it brings one to such a peaceful state of mind .. you open with the contrast of beauty and a sorrow - muted just beneath the surface as the mother gazes out into the field - you get the deep wounds of family and the frivolity of chance interaction with a stranger, and on Anatoli Solonitsyn the doctor's way back to the road, that wind that comes, the stop and wait for it, man that can't be planned, that's life unfolding in the moment, jsut like the doctor meeting the mother ... and them by the time the mirror finishes it feels like you've seen a life, some of the events might not make immediate sense, it's a melding of dream and memory and poetry, but it comes together to create a whole, a life, and by the end when life comes full circle in the field where the film began i have come to terms with death for the remainder of the night (the lebowski does this too) he really had to fight for that one, mosfilm thought he'd lost it. (the soviets sure didn't luck out with manageable filmmakers) i am curious how much tarkovsky's original cut differed from what we got today.

     

    stalker is dope though... that's my runner up tarkovsky nomination. such an obvious trick as the whole Wizard of Oz switch to color thing works such a fascinating effect in the film, paired with the unbearable anticipation for The Zone, the lush scenery, dead silences, and mystical properties- it creates something of a very real texture to The Zone, a tangible atmosphere, it feels lighter than air in there, you can finally breathe after all the muck and gloom of the police state, but there's no less tension than the city had -, meatgrinders and disembodied voices, much harder to see than rifles being trained on you - but some how it all seems like fate here, there is a noble spirituality to it all, nobody wants to be gunned down in a trainyard, but if the zone's traps claim me, so be it ... i love Stalker falling to his knees in the tall grass and feeling The Zone's earth, he gets crawled on by a bug, i always remember that, just giving himself to the zone, that kind of thing sticks with you ...

     

    anyways, i'm just rambling, i'm with you on the suggestion

    • Like 1

  13. Posted

    Andy Warhol's Chelsea Girls

     

    you can make the canon argument for its basically being a precursor to both reality TV and mumblecore, as example of the 60's underground film, as document of the 60's art culture, as an early attempt at interactive film in its projection of two different scenes simultaneously forcing the viewer to pick one or the other making for a unique viewing experience every time - and lastly as an Andy Warhol film that's actually pretty damn good

    • Like 1

  14. Posted

    great piece of cult cinema with its ghoul world both an elegant use of film language and an iconic and culturally significant metaphor.

     

    Amy raised an interesting point with the mass shooting angle though, and I wish they'd gone further into discussion with that. how effective is They Live's political commentary when 'the answer' equates to shooting a bunch of people who don't look like you because you and you alone have the insider knowledge THEY ARE AGAINST YOU? in today's landscape a film about a guy 'taking matters into his own hands' with a campaign of selective genocide - well it looks a little uglier

     

    anyways, They Live still gets my hell yes vote for the canon

    • Like 1

  15. Posted

     

    naw, I qualified this as being for a fun discussion. I'm just sparking discussion, and even specifically said that I understand that it was too early to tell. And sure, it's nothing new, but those "cinematic universes" are miles different than what I'm talking about. Jay and Silent Bob popping up in Mallrats isn't the same as the serialized storytelling Marvel is doing; and Vincent and Vic Vega having the same name isn't really the same thing either; and neither of those kicked off these major trends of studios scrambling to replicate it.

     

    i getchu man, sorry if i came across a little curt. Marvel is definetely doing more with its filmic 'universe' than Tarantino is with his oblique interconnections and references, but what that is seems to me mostly extratextual and more in the realm of marketing than filmmaking.

    the Toho daikaiju example is probably closest to what MCU is doing - that is, the loosely defined universe of Godzilla and co. movies by a number of different directors and movies that range from full cast brawls to movies focusing on individual monsters. these movies were as you probably know, majorly successful, majorly influential, and majorly sending studios scrambling to replicate them (ultraman?)

    thing is, i don't really see how this affects the filmmaking, in the case of any individual film, intertextual reference is like i said nothin new, even if MCU is doing it in a bolder way than folks have before - so the real significance of the MCU looks more to me like marketing than filmmaking.

    now if this expanded universe thing really takes off maybe the MCU will become to the trend what El Topo or The Rocky Horror Picture Show are to the midnight movie ... but for now ...?

    if my bias isn't showing i'm also not in love with superhero films or the MCU

    • Like 1

  16. Posted

    Do daikaju films count as a shared universe? Kevin Smith films?

    this is a good point. marvel is not doing anything namely new or unique. whattabout the quentin tarantino 'cinematic universe'? or peter greenaway's?

     

    i understand the argument for documenting blockbuster trends but this might be going a little overboard with the 'historical significance' argument, especially considering this isn't even 'history' yet

  18. Posted

    haaaaaaaaaaalllllllf in the baaaaaaaag-- mike stoklasa for next Canon guest?

     

    'The Cinephiliacs' and 'Illusionpodcast' are pretty good, also 'Welcome To The Basement' for a goofy youtube review series

    • Like 1

  21. Posted

    I still wonder about that one. I kind of get the feeling that it isn't leaving the mark that a lot of people thought it would. Still too early to call, probably, what its legacy will be.

     

    I personally think it's a solid, good movie, but I don't think I'd put it in the Canon. It's not "just a gimmick," but I felt like it only had some really powerful material for a few tiny scattered moments in the runtime.

    Agreed. Assuming its Canonicity would be based in the whole aging thing, there's the argument to be made that the whole schtick was already done by Paul Almond & Michael Apted in the 7up documentary series or François Truffaut in his Antoine Doinel films. The only thing that sets Boyhood aside is that it was conceived of as a document of aging instead of just sort of falling into that by means of circumstance, as well as it being compiled into one film with one film's runtime. But how much does that distinction matter?

     

    It will be interesting to see how Boyhood itself ages in the coming years, whether it remains kind of temporally floaty and timeless or becomes a more vivid document of American culture thru the 2000's and 10's

    • Like 1

  23. Posted

    easy no,

     

    cf. repost from last thread

     

    I didn't know the twist the first time I saw it, but I did know there was a twist - unsurprisingly the film was recc'd to me on that grounds alone. "the twist man, it'll blow your miiiiiiiiiind" I recall at the time being absolutely bored with the film and thinking I'd already figured the twist out in its last act only to be totally caught off guard with the ending.

     

    I'll admit there was a short period of some kinda masochistic admiration for the filmmakers' willingness to so blatantly FUCK their audience like that, I'd been played by the duke and king. but the thing is, yeah, the twist ending is cheap, to my mind it doesn't play off what came before any more than "it was all a dream" endings do. it sets up one film with its own tensions and narrative and cuts it short for another- BUT I can look past cheap tiwst if it caps off a great film, your example Les Diaboliques is perfect. I don't like the ending to that film, but it is a masterpiece of suspense, and even knowing the twist you can get into the characters' head just as easily and understand the film's narrative tensions and enjoy the ride. well written drama never wears thin, watch Star Wars a hundred times and you will (I will, anyway) still be worrying that Luke doesn't make the trench run.

     

    The Usual Suspects' problems is that sans-twist it isn't good anything. The narrative is so goofy and the characters are so empty it is impossible (for me) to care about anything that's going on as you watch the film flip thru dry police procedural, Michael Mann lite, and The Most Dangerous Game before coming to the agonizing finale of confused dudes running around a boat while you wait to be told who the guy in the shadows is, BLEGH

     

     

    ps: where can i see mike's animation?

  24. Posted

    I'm curious if any of the people in this thread that disliked it knew the reveal before watching?

     

    I only ask because this is definitely a film with just that one trick. I feel like the twist in Usual Suspects is especially cheap because it does not reward repeat viewings -- knowing the plot is essentially made up by one character doesn't add any meaningful layers or enrich the story in any way. Unlike, say, Memento or The Sixth Sense or Les Diabolique, which also hinge on late reveals, but the film is further colored by this information and can be enjoyed again as the viewer is now in on the secret. The Usual Suspects is an overly convoluted setup with a punchline that feels more like a prank, and isn't interested beyond that "gotcha!" moment.

     

    Pete Posthelwaite's character, makeup, and accent are stunningly awful, even if it's supposed to be a person Verbal made up. Terrible choice.

    I didn't know the twist the first time I saw it, but I did know there was a twist - unsurprisingly the film was recc'd to me on that grounds alone. "the twist man, it'll blow your miiiiiiiiiind" I recall at the time being absolutely bored with the film and thinking I'd already figured the twist out in its last act only to be totally caught off guard with the ending.

     

    I'll admit there was a short period of some kinda masochistic admiration for the filmmakers' willingness to so blatantly FUCK their audience like that, I'd been played by the duke and king. but the thing is, yeah, the twist ending is cheap, to my mind it doesn't play off what came before any more than "it was all a dream" endings do. it sets up one film with its own tensions and narrative and cuts it short for another- BUT I can look past cheap tiwst if it caps off a great film, your example Les Diaboliques is perfect. I don't like the ending to that film, but it is a masterpiece of suspense, and even knowing the twist you can get into the characters' head just as easily and understand the film's narrative tensions and enjoy the ride. well written drama never wears thin, watch Star Wars a hundred times and you will (I will, anyway) still be worrying that Luke doesn't make the trench run.

     

    The Usual Suspects' problems is that sans-twist it isn't good anything. The narrative is so goofy and the characters are so empty it is impossible (for me) to care about anything that's going on as you watch the film flip thru dry police procedural, Michael Mann lite, and The Most Dangerous Game before coming to the agonizing finale of confused dudes running around a boat while you wait to be told who the guy in the shadows is, BLEGH

×