sycasey 2.0

I'll just repost my Letterboxd comments to get the discussion going: I understand that the casting of the leads isn't that great and that the use of white actors in the Puerto Rican roles looks bad to modern eyes and that not every scene is perfectly exectuted, but whatever . . . as soon as one of the many brilliant dance numbers kicks into high gear it brings tears to my eyes, every time. Has group choreography ever been shot and edited this well? I was also struck this time by how relevant the themes about American race relations have remained, which suggests an evergreen quality to the material. At times, West Side Story still feels trenchant and caustic in its commentary: witness the cops treating the white hoodlums more kindly than the brown ones (though still not that kindly), the poor white folks complaining about how the immigrants are "taking over" . . . are we sure this was written 60 years ago? I guess they do also say things like "Daddy-O."

I'm also not sure if this really counts, but I've always loved this bit:

I did not find this episode any louder than the usual live episode and remain baffled that the first comments are about that. As for the movie: aside from the confusing plot and character motivations, I was also constantly disoriented by how the camera just kept drifting aimlessly around the actors, even in scenes where they're just delivering exposition at each other. It was like Alfredson decided he wanted to try directing a CSI episode or something. Why is the camera always moving?!

The Marx Brothers' socio-political satire I don't think is as pointed or focused as Monty Python's, but yeah, that is also a point in favor of Duck Soup.

It was a close vote! I personally find Life of Brian just as funny and also better as a story, so I voted for that. But it's hard to argue that Holy Grail isn't really their most iconic work.

There's zero indication in the movie that Ryan is Jewish, and I don't think it's Spielberg's way to be circumspect about this kind of thing: he'd already made one movie that is very explicitly about the Holocaust (Schindler's List) and then later another explicit take on the contradictions of modern Judaism (Munich). Saving Private Ryan already has a character (played by Adam Goldberg) who is openly and vocally Jewish. I don't really buy that Ryan himself is some kind of stealthy stand-in for a segment of the Jewish population. With Spielberg, a cigar is usually just a cigar.

I have seen The Patriot, and you are correct sir.

Same. I would also vote Airplane! on there first.

This gets tricky with foreign movies because of release dates. I think After Life and Run Lola Run were not released in the U.S. until 1999, so they would not have been in Oscar contention in 1998. (And yes, those two movies add to the argument of 1999 being the great movie year of the 90s.)

Though I would say there's a big difference between people being nostalgic for something that was contemporary media in their youth and falling for something made 40-50 years before they were born. The latter tends to be more legit.

It was okay, but then 1999 was phenomenal (yet the Oscar nominations were somehow worse).

The Truman Show probably was a legit contender, given that it got three other nominations. Rushmore was too small a release at the time and Big Lebowski was considered a flop.

I have a vague sense here that A Night at the Opera works better on first viewing, but Duck Soup works better after multiple viewings. The lack of story in the latter doesn't matter so much when you're not expecting it anymore, while the "dead spots" in the former become more magnified when you're waiting for the next comedy bit.

It's not a clear, direct reference, but this Simpsons scene seemed kind of inspired by the State Room scene in A Night at the Opera

I was also annoyed that people kept saying that Spike Lee got his "first Oscar" for BlacKkKlansman, even though he had already received an honorary Oscar (which is kind of intended to rectify situations like the above). First "competitive Oscar" is the right phrase.

Hah, yeah that's another one. The Facebook group has actually improved lately as the mods have started cracking down on multiple topics for every episode and started redirecting people to one official thread to discuss the current movie. By Facebook standards, it's practically the Algonquin Round Table. But it's a large group and there are still going to be some yahoos.

I did go on a bit of a rant there, so I should say that my comments are not aimed at this board -- in general, people here tend to do a good job explaining themselves. It's more about general trends I see in online film discussion (Facebook, Letterboxd, etc.), where a word like "manipulative" (or "overrated") is treated as an end unto itself.

I think about this. In general, I feel like calling a film "manipulative" as a criticism is not that helpful, unless it's backed up by some deeper analysis (at which point you may as well just forego the pithy term and just present the actual analysis). To me it's along the lines of calling a film "overrated," a meaningless descriptor unless backed up by further elaboration on exactly who is overrating it and how. I think when people complain about "manipulation," it can actually mean one of a few things: 1. The manipulation is too noticeable and the film did not conform to my personal preferences of how obvious it should be. Some people don't respond to the big-hearted Spielberg style but love a Scorsese movie where there are loud Italian gangsters screaming at each other. Is the latter less obvious? It depends on your taste. 2. The manipulation is working in the wrong direction, against the purposes of story or theme. (I find this the most relevant kind of criticism and generally try to steer a film discussion down this road.) This can also be a CAUSE of the filmmaker's manipulation becoming too obvious to most viewers. 3. A little bit of "toxic masculinity," in that the critic is proceeding under the assumption that open emotion is bad in all forms. Stuff your feelings down like a real man! (Also: see the Spielberg/Scorsese example above.) My advice is for people to just scrub the word "manipulative" out of their criticism of dramatic storytelling and just talk about one of the above! And also maybe take time to examine your own perceptions and how they impact your reception of the work.

At least the Schindler scene (and the flash-forward to the real Schindler Jews) works better because the whole movie is actually about Schindler trying to save people. Trying to transfer that kind of earned emotional climax over to a character who was absent for most of Saving Private Ryan just wasn't going to work. Maybe if the old man had been revealed as Ed Burns (as Goldman thought it would be) or Jeremy Davies the scene still would not have been great, but at least it would have made sense. On the characters commenting on the stupidity of the plot: I think that can work too, if the point of the movie was to be cynical about the war and how soldiers were treated. But again the sentimentality of the bookends basically destroys that reading. I also have Platoon and Apocalypse Now above this on my list.

Spielberg's technique papers over a lot of problems, always has.

Yeah, I think the biggest reason it doesn't work as well as it should is that it doesn't have the right focus within the narrative. If this were the actual climax of the story then maybe it would have more impact, but at the same time the movie is busy giving similar focus to Ed Burns and Matt Damon because . . . reasons.

It’s a good film, but with five Spielberg movies on the list I feel like one could be cut, and this is the one. The battle sequences are brilliant short films into themselves and certainly unimpeachable on a technical level, but the whole thing is hurt by that framing device with Old Man Ryan, which seems to come from a different movie and confuses the film’s message about war. In interviews, Spielberg once said he saw Jeremy Davies as the audience surrogate and the character he most identified with. Now, that's an interesting idea and makes for an interesting conclusion to that guy's story: he argues for saving the German soldier early in the film, then is too scared to try saving his comrades in the final battle, then comes face-to-face with the same soldier at the end and shoots him. That's an interesting, complex, slightly cynical take on the war. But then after that we have to return to Old Man Ryan for the final sequence. Ryan was never the audience surrogate! He was the MacGuffin! What is this framing device doing here? I think Paul is right about Schindler's List feeling like a much more personal story for Spielberg and this feeling more like he just wanted to work within a genre. He does some amazing things with that genre, but as an "all time great" I think it's hurt by the muddled story focus.

https://simpsonswiki.com/wiki/Saving_Irene_Ryan

What was interesting for me is that I kind of expected to have this reaction (the movie was great in its time, doesn't hold up as well), but after watching it again this week, instead I thought: "Holy crap, this is great!" I'm not sure if you revisited it again recently, but I'd be curious of your take. I found myself liking the movie more than expected, because this time I could also see how the film was being critical of Benjamin as much as anyone, and actually WAS fairly conscious of the societal issues that still plague us. This time I left with more of a feeling that The Graduate is evergreen. Individual people might fall in and out of favor with it, but it won't stop being picked up and appreciated by new generations.

I might also have to soften a little on saying Viggo "should" have won for Eastern Promises, because that was the year Daniel Day-Lewis won for There Will Be Blood. That's a tough year to be up for Best Actor. (I still woulda voted for Viggo though.)