sycasey 2.0

I think you make a fair point that Amy is being inconsistent in her treatment of Scarlett vs. Alex (and I guess Travis Bickle too, though she mentions that in the episode), but I will also say here that in the long run you'll probably be better off if you let go of any expectation that artistic criticism is ever going to be "objective." Everyone has their biases.

Someone posted this piece to the Facebook group, by a black woman writer. I thought it was very perceptive about the film's virtues and faults. It speaks to a lot of what PureSly is getting at above. https://www.vulture.com/2017/09/gone-with-the-wind-and-cinematic-monuments-to-the-confederacy.html

My feeling on this is that the movie both glorifies the old South and acknowledges the folly in thinking it could continue. It is both/and, and neither/nor. By today's standards it is unacceptably racist and white-centric. By the standards of the time it probably represented a progressive advance over stuff like Birth of a Nation or The General, in that it actually contained black characters with real speaking roles and had its leading man oppose the war effort in the first place. I can see the argument for keeping it on as a necessary historical document, and because there is a lot of greatness in it. I also think the complexity of Scarlett the character DOES represent the conflicted way this film depicts the Confederacy: kind of respecting the way she perseveres, but also showing how it leaves her unfulfilled and unhappy. She doesn't get a happy ending here. I don't think Paul quite gives the film enough credit for presenting this character as multifaceted and interesting. Re: placement, I basically agree with Paul: keep it on the list, but it's too high. The problematic stuff can't be entirely excused, though some is also standard "product of its time" stuff.

So I guess the question is, does the movie want you to think he's the hero? To me it kind of seems like it does.

I mean, plot-wise it makes sense that an illegal gambling house in Asia would be run by Asian gangsters. It's more that as a whole the movie definitely engages in some classic Orientalism, in a kind of unthinking way. That's not all on The Deer Hunter, as there are PLENTY of American movies before and after this one that did much the same thing.

Lawrence of Arabia (WW1) and Bridge on the River Kwai (WW2) have to count, I think. Then you could argue for stuff like Casablanca or Schindler's List as being wartime movies, though not directly about the war. EDIT: And I'm forgetting the Civil War, aren't I? The General definitely qualifies, and Gone with the Wind probably as a "wartime movie" as described above.

The gambling house near the end of the movie is actually being run by the Chinese, I believe. That may not actually be better, if it's now extending this brutality to East Asian people in general.

Hmm, well I don't know that I was arguing that aesthetic interpretation is always clear-cut, just laying out how I read the film's language from the beginning and why that causes some problems as the story goes along. Then I use some other examples where I see a different kind of cinematic language that allows me to more readily accept the questionable elements of the story. It's true that historical accuracy isn't necessarily important, but in this case it's more about the established tone (as I see it) starting to jar with the narrative as it indulges in more flights of fancy. I don't think the film goes completely off the rails or anything, but it's enough to knock it down the list for me.

I think some of it is the fault of the film, because the style of filmmaking in the early scenes seems to promise a kind of unfiltered naturalism. The camera is not subjective, it is usually quite objective, taking the laid-back "God's eye" view of a scene. I think this is in clear contrast to other films covered on this podcast, like Apocalypse Now, Taxi Driver, A Clockwork Orange, etc., highly stylized works with a lot of first-person narration. That's a subjective presentation. Whatever racism or other horrible viewpoints might be demonstrated through that lens can be justified as the subjective view of an unreliable mind. I'd argue The Deer Hunter is not subjective in presentation; it sets the expectation that it is objective. So then when the Vietnam scenes seem to be presented as complete fantasy-land, with Russian Roulette games that never happened, that might seem a bit incongruous. Or if the intention was to make America seem like a "real" place and Vietnam like a "fantasy hell," then I suppose that does help get across a director's intention, but IMO it also buttresses the claims of racism against Asians ("Orientalism" being the primary way this is expressed in popular Western media, the idea that such cultures are inherently exotic and unknowable). This is where I get the sense that the film is a bit confused, and not in a clearly purposeful way. I still agree that it's a good film, but upon this latest viewing these problems bugged me more than before.

Both leads won Oscars: Jon Voight and Jane Fonda.

That's true, the PTSD thing is unique. Though if I were to pick a movie about that subject, I'd rather pick another movie from the same year: Coming Home. I think I'd also rather have Hal Ashby on the list than Michael Cimino anyway.

I think it's a good film, but I voted no. I don't think we need this on the list with Apocalypse Now and Platoon already there. It seems like there are kind of two ways you can go with a Vietnam War movie: (1) forget about realism and do a kind of abstract fantasy version that comments on the nature of war itself, or (2) try to deliver something close to the real experience a person might have had there. It seems to me that Apocalypse Now does the former better and Platoon does the latter better. The Deer Hunter seems like it's trying to do both, which maybe contributes to the extreme length and getting criticized for including things like Russian Roulette scenes that have no real-world truth to them. I still find it a compelling story: it's very well-acted and beautifully filmed. But do I NEED it on the Top 100? Nah.

Didn't know about that one!

Would be interesting if Shyamalan ever wanted to make a movie about the Indian-American experience, but it doesn't seem to be his kind of thing.

Yeah, I've thought about this, and the sad truth is that a lot of these movies just don't exist because black directors weren't given many opportunities until relatively recently. I would support 12 Years a Slave and Moonlight for inclusion next time around. Another filmmaker they could look at is Charles Burnett. Killer of Sheep is highly regarded by a lot of film historians and critics.

Anyway, this is one of the easiest "yes" votes. A kaleidoscopic masterpiece that only gained relevance over time. Also, holy hell, Giancarlo Esposito is one of the most chameleonic actors ever. Compare Buggin' Out to his roles on Homicide and Breaking Bad -- you can hardly believe it's the same person.

(That last one is just a fan-made thing, not actually from the show.)

Ugh! We GET it, Cameron, you listen to that other podcast Unspooled where they watch GOOD movies.

I just get zero emotional or intellectual investment out of it. It's technically well-made and amusing, but it doesn't leave me with much to chew on.

I have to say that I don't get the enthusiasm for Who Framed Roger Rabbit? as an AFI list candidate. It's an enjoyable movie and all, but I've never considered it anything close to an all-time great. I'd pick Toy Story over that every day and twice on Sunday.

I don't. I like that the original is a true standalone movie, and to me some of the cheesier moments are charming. But I get the point. I voted Yes on Toy Story remaining on the list, but if it were to be replaced with another Pixar entry I would be okay with that too. I think it's the representative mostly because of when the poll was taken. So a question to the board: which Pixar would you pick? Mine is WALL-E. I think that's a flat masterpiece.

It's been a long time since I originally saw this movie, but at the time I remember being amused that Kris Kristofferson seemed to have gone straight from a fishing trip to a dance competition, fully dressed in a tuxedo -- something he had definitely not planned on doing when he originally went fishing. So was he carrying a tux in his tackle box?