Cameron H.

Oh my God, the thing that bothered me was the “soap in my eyes” excuse. I couldn’t tell if it was supposed to be a runner or if it was just lazy writing. Either way, it wasn’t funny enough to be used more than once.

Yes he does and I had a real problem with that! It annoyed me that the movie was constantly telling us, “OMG guys! Women are human too! Who’d a thunk? ...But not homosexuals. That’s too far” The threat of violence - even as a joke - is certainly a far cry from Some Like it Hot’s “Well nobody’s perfect.” Yeah, I think I’m going to have to drop it on my list. As I said before, I’m wrestling with the light, frothy, 80’s-comedy watchability of the movie. It’s the first time I’ve really questioned what my personal AFI list is trying to do. Am I ranking the movies on personal enjoyment or overall worthiness? Up until Tootsie, for me anyway, they were pretty much one in the same, but now I have to rethink it (and maybe some other films) ETA: Tootsie just took a massive tumble on my list. Not quite last, but close.

Julie: I miss Dorothy. Michael Dorsey: You don't have to. She's right here. And she misses you. Look, you don't know me from Adam. But I was a better man with you, as a woman... than I ever was with a woman, as a man. You know what I mean? I just gotta learn to do it without the dress. At this point, there might be an advantage to my wearing pants. The hard part's over, you know? We were already... good friends. One thing I really did appreciate about Tootsie was how the movie doesn’t pretend Michael is perfect at the end. I think most movies would have just had him learn his lesson and tell us that he’s been completely changed by his experience. I find Michael’s admission that he still has more to learn to be refreshing. It implies that progress often comes in degrees and not through sweeping, miraculous change. As long as we’re always moving forward, even if it doesn’t always feel like we’re getting very far, we’re still doing okay.

I totally agree with them about Tootsie. It's totally screwed up my personal AFI ranking. I definitely don't think it belongs for the reasons they stated (i.e. pretty typical 80's comedy), but I probably enjoyed it more than some of the movies I think should absolutely be on the list. It kind of falls in with that category of films that I personally enjoy, but recognize aren't necessarily "the best" movies ever. So while I think I'd be more likely to rewatch Tootsie over, say, Taxi Driver, I feel like Taxi Driver deserves to be on the list more. Also, as I said in my Letterboxd review, for thematic similarities, I prefer 9 to 5 (w/ Dabney Coleman). As far as any other movie I might choice to replace it? I have no idea where to start. Just mentioned on the show, I would take League of Their Own, Roger Rabbit, and Back to the Future over Tootsie. Movies with Bill Murray? Groundhog Day. Movies with Teri Garr? Young Frankenstein. Hoffman's doing fine with The Graduate and Midnight Cowboy. He doesn't need anymore. Jessica Lange? Big Fish. Charles Durning? Dog Day Afternoon, The Sting, The Muppet Movie... I mean, there are just so many other options.

Or they could roll the die and round up or down to whatever the next movie is they haven't done.

He was maybe calling on this happy fellow:

I actually had a suspicion that the “real” reason they were losing the die was so they could plan live shows. This pretty much confirms that. Which I get. You need to cater to an audience, book a guest, etc. I don’t know why they couldn’t just say that, though. If they had just wanted a strong finale, they could have picked 10 or so “untouchable” movies and left the other 40 to chance. Whatever they feel is best is fine, but I did enjoy the randomness of the die.

I.....had no idea there was that much singing in this. We watched:

Based on geography, I have a feeling it might take a little bit for Max to tell us his pick. So...settle in everybody.

I 100% approve

Ha ha! I found it on Amazon and I came back and thought you were really picking the Goofy one - lol. Cool pick! I’ve never heard of this. I’m looking forward to it

I wouldn’t mind either of those

Thank you! You’re absolutely right!

I’m really trying to smooth this over. I don’t really know what else to say, man. I just meant that you seem to know a lot more than I do about noir - or care to know. If you tell me it’s not the same as Double Indemnity, then I believe you, because I’m not particularly interested in doing an in-depth compare and contrast. You don’t need to convince me further. If it came across as antagonistic, I’m sorry. The “I could go deeper?” struck me as extremely condescending and it’s possible that my annoyance with that affected the “tone” of my response. But I was actually being sincere.

Apathy at the movie. Seriously, if you like the movie, that’s awesome. I haven’t attacked, belittled, or flat out disagreed with any single one of your points. I just gave my take, you gave a counterpoint, I responded to clarify (politely I thought), and then you started in with the condescending stuff. (“I could go deeper?”) At that point I tried to bow out of the conversation, because I honestly think it’s dumb to get uptight over a conversation that is essentially “I like this movie” vs “You don’t like it enough.” I’m totally willing to accept you know more about noir than I do. If you tell me I’m not getting it, you’re probably right. I thought that was the end of it. Then you replied with “Uh putting the words ‘cinematographic film’ in there doesn't tell anyone anything.” I didn’t “put” it there. That was the joke. You said any “definition that doesn’t include ‘cinema,’ but the definition I took from Dictionary.com (Not even Wikipedia. That’s how lazy I was being ) included the word. (Ha ha ha?) I thought it was a funny dumb joke. What I didn’t expect was to have was a stupid joke rammed down my throat like I thought that was a set in stone definition. I explained it was a joke, and again, tried to bow out. Then you edited your post to accuse me of being rude and added, “I’m not going to take your word for it being a lame Daredevil movie.” First of all, it was a lame Daredevil comic, not a lame Daredevil movie And my point in that post was to say that those comics generally ARE good (i.e. Chinatown is good). That they use the best writers and the best artists (i.e. screenplay writer, cinematographer), but ultimately that pedigree doesn’t automatically make it any different than a normal, non-mature rated, Daredevil comic. It’s just a bit “more” if you will. You don’t agree and that’s fine. But perhaps, more importantly, I wasn’t trying to get anyone to “take [my] word.” I was simply giving my opinion not trying to attract converts. If I were actually trying to convince anyone of anything, I certainly wouldn’t include a Frank’s Red Hot joke at the end. Feel free to agree with my nerdy, comic book analogy or not. You’ve made a lot of good, non-lame points. I just don’t care enough to really engage with your points because I don’t really care that much about the movie. I get you want to discuss this movie and that’s totally cool. And I’m sorry no one is really commenting on it so you can really get into the nitty-gritty. I did my best to intentionally direct the conversation toward the movie and not just the “art vs artist” debate. That was the point of my post. I wish I cared more about Chinatown so we could discuss it, but I don’t. Even more so, what I really don’t feel like doing is having an antagonistic conversation with someone who seems to think I’m an idiot because I don’t like a movie even more than I do.

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.

It was a joke. That’s why I put a smiley face there. I’m glad you enjoyed the film.

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.

The things that you’re describing as being typical noir are what I mean by it being cosmetically different. Also, I don’t feel like something being in “black and white” or having a “voiceover” defines something as being distinctly noir. Being black and white certainly isn’t unique to noir, and not all noirs have voiceover (I want to say The Big Sleep doesn’t, nor The Third Man - although I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong ) Just looking at the definition online it says film noir is “a style or genre of cinematographic film marked by a mood of pessimism, fatalism, and menace” all of which are present in Chinatown. I would also add to that most noir features a morally gray protagonist - also featured in Chinatown. By saying “the same dish,” I wasn’t saying that they are the same movie. That would be like saying High Noon and Young Guns are the “same dish” because they’re both Westerns. I’m saying that aside from more explicit sex and violence, there isn’t anything so original about Chinatown that it couldn’t have been done in the 30’s or 40’s - perhaps even better. Hell, it’s even set during that time period. There didn’t feel like any attempt to put any kind of distinctive spin on it. In my opinion, I feel like Blade Runner is far more successful at taking the noir template, modernizing it, and applying it in a new and interesting way. As I said above, I like Chinatown. I have no problem with it being on the list. And based on the poll, only one person here has said it shouldn’t be on the list. That being said, it’s not going to be the hill I die on. I feel like Chinatown is like a pretty decent cover song. It hits all the right notes, but it doesn’t feel personalized or really try to redefine itself in any meaningful way . It never even tries to change the key. It’s the Fine Young Cannibals’ cover of “Suspicious Minds” when it could have been Jimi Hendrix’s cover of “All Along the Watchtower” or Johnny Cash’s cover of “Hurt.”

Taking the conversation back to the film itself, ultimately, I have to agree with Amy and Paul. I don’t mind that Chinatown is on the list, it’s a really good movie, but I wouldn’t exactly shed any tears to see it go. My primary issue with Chinatown is that I don’t really see it breaking any new ground. Or, at least, not in any meaningful way. It kind of reminded me of when comic books take a pre-established superhero and try to make them “edgier” or “more realistic,” but when it really comes down to it, the difference is mostly cosmetic. (I was especially reminded of this when Paul brought up the movie code that said bad guys must always be punished, which sounds an awful lot like the Comics Code.) For me, Chinatown was like Marvel’s MAX line. Like, if Marvel were to do a MAX limited series of Daredevil, they might bring in a top writer and artist, they might make it bloodier, more violent, replace the grawlixes with actual curse words, and show full frontal nudity, but when you get right down to it, it’s still about a blind man with superpowers beating up bad guys. It’s not that the quality would be bad, but it wouldn’t really be doing anything that hasn’t already been done. It’s just kind of “extra” - in the pejorative sense. It’s pretty much bringing the same dish to the table as Double Indemnity, The Maltese Falcon, or The Big Sleep, just slathered in Frank’s Hot Sauce (because Chinatown puts that shit on everything)

I’m in the middle of watching the movie now, and I have to assume the entire episode is just them gushing over how fantastic it is. It seems pretty flawless to me.

Especially since the rest of the lyric is, “Man, I was mean, but I’m changing my scene, I’m doing the best that I can.”

I think personal accountability and how the behavior is brought to light counts for a lot as well. For instance, take John Lennon. People like to bring up the quote, “I was a hitter” when they talk about his abuse, but the full quote and its context means a lot. The full quote is: “It is a diary form of writing. All that “I used to be cruel to my woman, I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved” was me. I used to be cruel to my woman, and physically — any woman. I was a hitter. I couldn’t express myself and I hit. I fought men and I hit women. That is why I am always on about peace, you see. It is the most violent people who go for love and peace...I am not a violent man, who has learned not to be violent and regrets his violence. I will have to be a lot older before I can face in public how I treated women as a youngster.” That interview, one of his last, was him and the interviewer going through every song The Beatles wrote and what they “mean.” What’s important to me is that he wasn’t exposed, he revealed. The reviewer wasn’t bringing it up because he was confronting Lennon with some dark rumor, Lennon volunteered the information. There’s a good chance, had he not said anything, the public would never have known anything about it. This is very unlike most of these stories where you have accusers and some level of cover up. In effect, Lennon was his own accuser, which for me, makes his contrition feel more sincere. No, it doesn’t excuse things he did when he was younger, but it does show some self-awareness and personal growth. He even acknowledges that people will hate him when they learn the truth, and he’s honest enough to admit, “I’m scared about that.” That feels more human to me. Much more than, say, The Rolling Stones that “pretend” raped a woman as a “joke” for a documentary to appear “edgy” and then sued the filmmaker to prevent its release.

Also the Bridge in “Getting Better.” (“I used to be cruel to my woman, I beat her and kept her from things that she loved.”) I will have more to say about Lennon though in a minute.

Jessie Maltin brought up the whole “art vs artist” thing on Twitter awhile ago and my take was essentially if I’ve already made a personal connection with the piece of art *before* learning anything untoward regarding the artist, then I can generally continue to appreciate the art on its own merits. At that point, the piece of art is, in effect, “mine” and I can kind of compartmentalize my feelings. However, like you said, I probably wouldn’t buy any “new” media from the person.