Unimaginably rubbish films at the mo

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

Digging up an old topic, what about "Seabiscuit?" I don't think anyone mentioned that. As far as I'm concerned it was THE BEST movie last year cinematogaphic wise. And it was emotionaly moving too.

 

Looks like the ASC agrees with me. It really fit Schwartzman's style, I don't think he's at his best in the action genre.

 

I thought it was great all the way around, it had real nuance to it. In my screening the jaded American audience actually shut-up for a change and you could hear a pin drop during silent passages. That last 360 degree shot was really cool too, what a strong visual to end a movie with.

[Tony Brown]

Seabiscuit

 

I thought it was great all the way around, it had real nuance to it. In my screening the jaded American audience actually shut-up for a change and you could hear a pin drop during silent passages.

Maybe they were asleep? Truly dreadful movie (well shot though), It was, to UK audiences at least, the very epitome of a Hollywood gut wrencher. People laughed at it.

 

But awards can never be taken seriously. The Oscars, Globes, Bafta, the music awards?.. they are publicity machines driven by politics I?m afraid.

B)

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

Maybe they were asleep? Truly dreadful movie (well shot though), It was, to UK audiences at least, the very epitome of a Hollywood gut wrencher. People laughed at it.

With all respect to your viewpoints I offer the following constructive comments.

 

I've heard this complaint about the movie more than a few times. I could understand UK audiences not "getting it" because it does deal with some uniquely American ideals. The local film reviewer in my town even said that no one cares about the underdog anymore. I don't belive that for one second, I think rather people that are "in the know" are programed to automatically hate anything from "Hollywood." I don't know what it is, over marketing of movies or downright jealousy that makes people believe that nothing from "Hollywood" can possibly be good. The attitude is Hollywood=Drech.

 

Plus the movie was structured around a very advanced storytelling form. What is sometimes called a True Epic or European Epic form, though it doesn't adhere exactly to that principle. That is, there is only the most basic dramatic story line. The characters themselves don't choose what scene comes next based on the cause and effect of their actions, rather the film moves to a place in time and a new portion of the story is told at the will of the storyteller (the director). That's why the narration is there to set the scene off.

 

Quite frankly I believe some people do not grasp this concept (I'm not saying don't, in fact looking at your site I'm sure you do) and what an elegant way it is to tell a story. You're not watching the story unfold from inside, it is being told to you from the outiside like a verbal history. The film did have a bit of staying power in theatres in the U.S. which is rare theses days, so audiences do still believe in the underdog.

[Tony Brown]

Well I cant speak for your audiences but I can assure you UK people will ALWAYS go for the underdog. I think the criticism here was...

 

Bridges - just the worst character actor on the planet. In fact the casting in general was poor with the exception of William Macey

Narration - a sign of a poor technique not a sophisticated one I would suggest.

Realism - if the horse was 4 hands smaller than War Admiral, how come it was the same size in the race footage.

The scene where injured jockey meets injured horse....Oh please. They should have dumped it.

The style seemed to try and mimic a technique of the day ? good idea but it didn?t work.

 

 

I'd be interested in what you consider to be 'unique American ideals', it may help me understand why the film didn't go down well here. I worked with a crew two weeks ago in LA and they to man thought it embarrassing, I saw the film in Santa Monica because they said ?it?s so bad, you have too?. So its not just a Euro perspective (or as you suggest lack of)

 

But that?s why we all like different things I guess. My favourite film of last year was City of God. Many will say it was technically flawed, yet that was part of its charm.

 

Hollywood will NEVER be topped with the general quality and polish of the work that it generates, except for one glaring flaw that has opened it to ridicule for as long as I can remember. Scripts. And this is a great example. A true story should be just that. Historical fact seems to be of little importance. When its fiction, fine, but when you are conveying actual events, it?s immoral to exaggerate / add / delete in the name of entertainment. I can sum that up in one word. Braveheart. I rest my case.

 

Let me clarify by the way that I thought it technically 1st class, it was dreadful in its script / casting and so with that in mind I?d have to add direction.

[Mitch Gross]

Seabiscuit was told in a very arch, soap opera fashion. You knew from the start that it was going to be a three-hanky, nostalgia-pushing rhetoric film. They were happy to openly manipulate and play to base emotions. But hey, most people knew that going in and if one chose to embrace this type of storytelling then it can be quite enjoyable, even cathartic. I enjoyed the film, and I enjoyed City of God as well. Not everything may be your cup of tea. If you feel that Seabiscuit is utter dreck, then I shudder to think what you think of of E.T., perhaps the most openly, brazenly manipulative film of all time. I remember seeing this as a kid and after E.T. is left on Earth in the opening scene my brother turned to me and said, "I don't know if I'm going to be able to take this." He didn't mean that he thought it was silly and cornball false emotion, he meant that he was afraid he'd be a complete wreck by the end of the picture. Which he happily was by the way.

[Tony Brown]

But as I said....E.T. was fiction AND a kids film that bordered (and did well in) the adult market. The script was clever in that it aimed humour at the adults whilst retaing the 'wonder' aspect for the kids.

 

Hardly a fair comparison, but I know what you meant.

 

Rabbit Proof Fence was a true, emmotive tale that was told with sensitivity. It was a story of love, triumph, despair etc etc... but it was at no time guilty of falsifying (sp) or stretching the sunstance of the story.

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

Bridges - just the worst character actor on the planet. In fact the casting in general was poor with the exception of William Macey

Narration - a sign of a poor technique not a sophisticated one I would suggest.

Realism - if the horse was 4 hands smaller than War Admiral, how come it was the same size in the race footage.

The scene where injured jockey meets injured horse....Oh please. They should have dumped it.

The style seemed to try and mimic a technique of the day ? good idea but it didn?t work.

You make some good points but I have to say it sounds a little bit like splitting hairs to me. I guess it goes down to what Mitch says about being receptive to the story. I wonder if people laugh at it because they really think it funny or does it hit a little too close to home and they don't want to confront their emotions.

 

What's wrong with manipulating emotions?????? Isn't that the point of making a film? To make you FEEL it? The only way a work of art or any event will register in your permanent memory is if there is a significant emotional response experienced with it.

 

Sure, you shouldn't make this process an obvious one as in "Armeggedon" or "Pearl Harbor" where they suddenly jump out of the story and use these beauty shots to say "oh look at the horror, can't you feel the drama?"

 

Rabbit Proof Fence was much more subtle at this but I didn't feel they ever drove the point home clearly enough. I never FELT the hate and racism.

 

For some reason I'm reminded of the opening scene of Walkabout. It's a way over the top idea but it is emotionally arresting and leaves you with no doubt of the characters mind set. I've heard people say they thought it utterly rediculous and so they didn't enjoy the film. It's all about your prospective on things I guess.

 

As far as stretching the truth I don't think they went over the line. It's not a documentary and the essence of the truth was present. This horse was not a perfect specimen yet it beat the best. That's true, it really did happen and it was amazing. It is the very example of what competition is really about. I guess that's a universal ideal but I believe it runs deep in those Americans who haven't given up on existance yet.

[Tony Brown]

Well I didn't actually mention manipulating emotions, it was bending the truth I am concerned with, but maybe they are the same thing????

 

I think audiences are WAY too intelligent to stiffle tears with laughter.

 

If you didn't feel the racism in Rabbit Proof Fence then....well I'm lost for words. Some things don't need to be 'driven home', but the fact that you have that opinion just proves that we are all different and have different 'triggers'. That why we are such interesting (and hard to please) creatures.

 

I do think that the nationality of an audience determines the weight of a screenplay. Thats why I was suprised that 'Lost In Translation' has done so well in the US. I felt the total opposite to Seabiscuit on that one, Techically poor (sorry Lance), but very subtle and to a degree sensitive in its approach. I thought the whispered ending was also excellent - you paint in your own words (well....almost), very (sorry jlamarking) unhollywood B)

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

If you didn't feel the racism in Rabbit Proof Fence then....well I'm lost for words. Some things don't need to be 'driven home',

I hope you don't mean to imply that I'm some kind of Racist, it's just that I've seen the topic covered better IMHO in other movies.

[Mitch Gross]

While I enjoyed Rabbit-Proof Fence, I did find it a bit dry. This is actually a very telling example. Director Phillip Noyce's previous works include very dynamic, "Hollywoodized" thrillers such as Clear & Present Danger. Certainly he knew that he needed to drastically change his style of filmmaking for this film, which was a real labor of love for him. But I don't feel that this makes one style more valid than the other, simply perhaps more appropriate for a given subject or point of view. Could Hollywood make an entertaining film of value on the same or similar subject as Rabbit-Proof Fence? I think so, and I think it's a matter of personal taste to a given extent. I'm not a big fan of Bollywood musicals, but that doesn't invalidate them as legitimate entertainment.

[Matt Pacini]

I just saw Rabbit Proof Fence last week, and I really loved it.

The racial elements were obvious from the actions of the characters, and the context of the whole story.

I was actually relieved that they didn't exhaggerate this just to make "absolutely sure" that everyone definitely gets it, as so many films treating this type of subject matter do, especially US films.

Pretty freakin' obvious that there is a racial problem going on when you have characters saying the best thing is to steal kids from some group of people.

I don't need this to be any more obvious that it already was.

If someone is that stupid, that they can't get it with just the story being told, from the truth of what actually happened, without any false magnification, then they're probably too stupid to get it anyway.

 

I get tired of "preachy" feeling movies.

Just tell me the story.

I don't need you to hold my hand and make sure that I get the message.

 

Matt Pacini

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

Pretty freakin' obvious that there is a racial problem going on when you have characters saying the best thing is to steal kids from some group of people.

I don't need this to be any more obvious that it already was.

If someone is that stupid, that they can't get it with just the story being told, from the truth of what actually happened, without any false magnification, then they're probably too stupid to get it anyway.

The racial content of Rabbit Proof Fence is obvious to anyone watching it. I didn't feel there was any real menace behind it though like there was in Schindler's List. I guess I wasn't buying the acting or the Directing style.

 

Just because a film is about a PC subject like racism doesn't mean that it's automatically a good film.

 

That long walk home felt like it was a 5 mile hike. Just having one of the characters say "I'm hungry" every once in a while doesn't convey to me the true hardship of that journey. Why would I want to go to a film and not learn or feel anything more than I new when I came in.

 

In that particular film IMO it didn't go far enough to show me anything unique. But that is personal oppinion and I guess we are talking about something that is impossible to quantify. What point does a person become emotionaly engaged in the subject?

[Mitch Gross]

I don't think anyone's implying you're a racist or that you would be one if you didn't like the film. It's not your style, fine. To each their own. I think your points are entirely valid, and I find it intriguing that a little film like Rabbit-Proof Fence would become a touchstone for this. And I guess others are entitled to their negative opinions on Seabiscuit. That one is of a very straightforward, realistic style and the other is more of a storybook, mythological narrative does not qualify either as "better" than the other, only different. Tony's issues with Seabiscuit were not entirely of this, but again that is his opinion and he's entitled to it. But just because both films are based on true stories does not mean that the realistic style is the better way to treat the subject. I personally found that Seabiscuit's style was an interesting commentary on the subject matter itself, not a cheap pandering to sentiment or pathos. But that's how I shose to view it.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

The movies that I saw in the last few months that come to mind that I liked were:

- Frida. Great movie and educational too; I knew almost nothing before about Trotsky; Mexican Communists, etc.; some very unique and artistic special effects, great moving story.

- Heavenly Bruce. Really funny

- Good Bye Lenin. Funny, interesting, educational

- Once Upon a Time in Mexico. I went to see this one because it was shot with CineAlta. Rodriguez really knows how to get the most out of this format. It was very contrasty though. Because of the format's limited lattitude this is the only way to get decent picture out of it. Certainly a serious limiting factor. I am including this film here not because it is my favorite but because it showed what the new format allows.

[Tony Brown]

I hope you don't mean to imply that I'm some kind of Racist, it's just that I've seen the topic covered better IMHO in other movies.

Of course not...I'm a little perplexed as to how you came to that conclusion so let me clarify.

 

Sometimes less is more. A look is more powerful than a page of dialogue yada yada....

 

As was said it didn't need to be rammed home, sometimes I feel 'mainstream' films (in place of the 'hollywood' reference, as my criticism isn't direct at Hollywood, rather Hollywood type) push the point beyond the blindingly obvious and into the realms of boring repetition, or worse, patronising emphasis.

 

Seabiscuit to me drowned in its own dross, ?little guy sticks it up the big guy? fine, we get the message but does it have to resort to lines such as (from memory) ?You don?t throw a life away just because it?s a little beat up?. Is that supposed to be poignant, because it comes across as a self indulgent metaphorical life philosophy. ?Its not the speed it?s the heart?. Who did the screenplay ? a Hallmark card writer?

 

In my opinion narration is a sign of a failed film. There was NOTHING that I remember that the narration contributed that was in any way necessary. It seemed to be padding, an attempt to create a folklore style evolvement that may have suited ?Incredible Journey? when the stars had no dialogue, but in this case it was as superfluous as a title that reads ?Paris ? France? as if anyone is going to confuse it with Paris Texas or indeed any other city in the world.

 

I?m merely trying to counter your point that the style was in some way sophisticated; in my opinion it was classic Walt Disney.

 

But at least we agree ? each to his own. Life would indeed be mundane if we all liked the same things.

 

Just nobody start me off on ?Master and Commander? or ?Cold Mountain?!!!

 

 

:rolleyes: :D

 

Goodbye Lenin was very good I agree.

Watching Frida tonight

[Jason Maeda]

my two cents, in the always popular "list" style:

 

1. jeff bridges was awesome in 'the big lebowski'

2. 'seabiscuit' was corny because it was supposed to be. "austere" doesnt make 200 million dollars.

3. the narrated scenes in 'biscuit' were pretty good i thought. they overtly copy the cable television historical documentaries that have become part of our cultural language. with that style come expectations of honesty. but if the audience is convinced, the same scenes provoke trust and believability. not amazing but cool and functional. narration isn't wrong or bad as a tool, it is bad when it could have been replaced by something simpler or better. bresson used narration.

4. most filmmaking sucks the world over, the US produces some crap that tends to get seen by everyone, so its an easy target. but trust me, i saw some of the gems to come out of europe and the rest of the world last year and many of them make 'seabiscuit' look like 'the magnificent ambersons'. this goes for the scripts as well.

5. "Rabbit Proof Fence was a true, emmotive tale that was told with sensitivity. It was a story of love, triumph, despair etc etc... but it was at no time guilty of falsifying (sp) or stretching the sunstance of the story." - zeroseven. there are plenty of intelligent film critics, artists etc. who believe that films about "love, triumph, despair ETC ETC..." are inherently dishonest because their dramatic themes don't reflect the tedius nature of day to day reality. there is always going to be a section of the audience who doesn't buy what you're selling, but dont condemn a piece based on melodrama or pageantry unless you plan to enjoy only the most sober works of art yourself. does douglas sirk suck? don't you think hitchcock (british, did his best work in the US btw) seems a little contrived? thats cause it is.

jk :ph34r:

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

I?m merely trying to counter your point that the style was in some way sophisticated; in my opinion it was classic Walt Disney.

 

But at least we agree ? each to his own. Life would indeed be mundane if we all liked the same things.

 

Just nobody start me off on ?Master and Commander? or ?Cold Mountain?!!!

Narration is in no way indicative of a bad movie or failed screenplay. That's something you read in books and hear in film school but I have yet to have one person explain to me why it's bad. There are plenty of great films that have narration and most of them benefit from it. This idea that narration is somehow a fault probably stems from the notion that you shouldn't say what you can show.

 

In fact all films have a form of narrator. The director. Films function in two realities. Bob Foss wrote an excellent book about this "FIlmmaking, Narrative and Structural Techniques." All films have two realities; The Plane of Discourse and The Plane of Events. The Director manipulates the Plane of Discourse to tell the story while the charaters act out on The Plane of Events.

 

Voice narration is no different than the director having a camera pan off of the characters in the Plane of Events to examine some poingnant piece of the scene or group of characters that make a visual comment on what is happening in the Plane of Events. The camera has now become the Narrator via the Plane of Discourse.

 

Because of this duality voice narration can be used to great effect. Such as the ability to have two points of view from the same character. A person reflecting on events in the past, who may or may not have learned anything from it or a narrator that tells you one thing yet his on screen character is doing another. Both good uses of the narrator. In the second instance you couldn't even achieve that within the false reality on the plane of events.

 

The Narrator in Seabiscuit's case was there to relate factual information to you. And function as a way to move the story forward on the plane of discourse in real time then drop back in on the characters at another place in another Story time. If you had all of this happening on the plane of events you would have a huge amount of subplots and diversions away from the main point of the story. I offer the opening scene of Jules et Jim as an example. Instead of having the character do the usual exposition of themselves in story time, the Narrator introduces them with a little story which later turns out to be important. During this narration the film moves through time on the plane of discourse, there is no story time, it's just a montage that functions to relay information.

 

This is what I mean by an Epic form. Each scene is complete in itself. It is a conception of the world. We are invited to observe but ultimately we remain outside. Progress is made in leaps and montage. Human behavior is examined and we are brought to understanding. Mankind is changeable and can bring about change. It's mankind as a process.

 

So it is a pretty sophisticated way to tell a visual story rather than simple cause and effect. I guess some people feel manipulated by this but the Director is only trying to bring you to an understanding not a conclusion of the story.

 

I thought Master and Commander and Cold mountain were both good movies. Sure you don't have just a little sore spot about the "main stream" movies Tony?

 

BTW I don't care for most mainstrem movies myself. Just a selection of random DVD's within my sight are:

 

Winged Migration

Three Kings

Jules et Jim

Fiddler on The Roof

Hair

[Guest fstop]

I too get this feeling about cinema today- it all feels totally pretend, like the music industry, in which there are all these deluded pretend filmmakers who can't be much older than me directing movies- I'm talking about Michael Bay, McG and Steven Sommers, Baz Lurhman Simon West- everyone likes to make these informed form movies that are coffee-stain shallow in terms of story and content- there are a few bright spots with people like Gary Ross, Christopher Nolan and Gore Verbinski, but in a time when the likes of Tim Burton and Brain Singer are heralded as top draw contemporary auteurs, you know that it's all more than a joke right now.

 

Cinematographically we seem to have totally dropped our heritage; we use to have our Freddie Youngs, Unsworths, Watkins, Alan Humes, Alex Thomsons, Freddie Francis, Slocombes, etc.

[Tony Brown]

Sure you don't have just a little sore spot about the "main stream" movies Tony?

I'm not sure what you mean by sore spot, but generally speaking I find 'main stream' films to be simplistic and over told. The audience has to have things laid out in almost child like fashion. If I see a title that says "Paris - France" laid over a wide shot that includes the Eiffel tower or Notre Dame I tend to switch off, mentally if not literally. Sadly, good cinematography doesn't carry a film.

 

I disagree with fstop about the older generation of Cinematographers in the UK. I've worked with all bar one on that list and I believe some of the current crop (i.e. last 25 years) are far more exciting. Maybe because the shooting criteria is now so different, I suppose its impossible to compare then and now, but there are only two on that list I would consider world class, and not the two you would think either. :P

[Guest fstop]

Alan Hume and Alex Thomson, then? ;)

 

I consider those guys equal to the others btw- their work speaks volumes! Their choice of films is another issue however...

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

On the contrary, I find myself constantly dismayed by the lack of gleam and polish on the photography I seen in the UK, particularly on television drama. Once again it goes back to the tired old ex-BBC types whose idea of good photography comes out of the back of an EBU technical manual, proper exposure and a nice flat transfer. Euch. The only really interesting work being done in the UK is people just like Mr. Brown and Geoff Boyle who come up with fascinating look after fascinating look for TV ads. We make the finest TV ads in the world in this country - what an indictment...

 

Phil

[J. Anthony Gonzales]

I?m merely trying to counter your point that the style was in some way sophisticated; in my opinion it was classic Walt Disney.

 

But at least we agree ? each to his own. Life would indeed be mundane if we all liked the same things.

 

Just nobody start me off on ?Master and Commander? or ?Cold Mountain?!!!

Narration is in no way indicative of a bad movie or failed screenplay. That's something you read in books and hear in film school but I have yet to have one person explain to me why it's bad. There are plenty of great films that have narration and most of them benefit from it. This idea that narration is somehow a fault probably stems from the notion that you shouldn't say what you can show.

 

A good way to test to see if narration is being used as a crutch for a bad screenplay is this: if the story and screenplay still hold together WITHOUT the narration, then narration CAN be used effectively in the story. If you pull the narration and the story falls apart, then it's back to the drawing board with your script.

 

John G.