Ken Cangi

At least a few of the aforementioned directors, who are alive and reading this forum, must be getting woodies from all of the adulation.

Feel free to pounce, as I suspect you might, but I can't resist. You have readily admitted that you were initially just as skeptical, at which point I would imagine that "your" criticisms were perfectly acceptable. So now that you've had some sort of Red epiphany, any criticisms by people like Phil are all of the sudden derisive. Classic. I am all for supporting the entrepreneurial spirit. I even champion the idea that a sunglass mogul is attempting to revolutionize the movie-making industry. It's all good, but what bewilders me is that a person with such lofty goals would be so myopic in his awareness of how the reduser site is representing him. That site borders on cultish, with members disdaining anyone who questions the validity of the Red project. That in conjunction with Jannard's personal attack on Phil in the RED production schedule, How is it going? forum not only made him look unprofessional, but also amateurish. Jannard became unraveled in that forum, which didn't portray him as the type of person who has all but avowed to pull off what would be a major technical coup. I suggested to Jannard that a more effective way to go about this would be to say less, keep his head down, and focus on the task at hand. He agreed with that, and I haven't heard a word from him since on this sight. So why are you all of the sudden on a crusade to protect his honor? There is no need to answer; it was a rhetorical question.

Glad to oblige. ;)

I just read some of the posts in that forum. They sounded like the rabid rantings of a cult. Could the poster have taken Holland's comment any more out of context? Crow will definitely be le repas de jour if this camera falls on its face.

I agree with you in that LMS wouldn't be classified as an art film "in the generally accepted sense". It is, however, and more related to my earlier point, an indie film as opposed to a commercial or studio film. Although it does basically follow a classical narrative structure, it could still technically be considered in the art film genre by virtue of the fact that it is an indie film rather than a studio film. I think a better distinction is that LMS would never be considered an experimental or avant-garde film. I completely disagree that LMS is as conventional as any Hollywood film. That is not to say that certain indies aren't just studio wannabes incognito. I just don't feel that LMS is one of them.

I have a problem with this comment, because it assumes that films like LMS are made for public consumption. This movie falls squarely in the genre of indie filmmaking, and the maker was clear about why he made it and what inspired him - that having little to do with selling box-office tickets to teens and tweens. Its popularity was a result of his having told a story that related to and moved human beings. I dare say that he did it in a very artful way. "To have a good time" can mean different things to different people. Being emotionally moved - even in a traumatic way - by a film can create a feeling of satisfaction for a particular movie patron. Being moved by the sheer beauty of cinematography can for another, as can an avant-garde plot, for yet another. I would agree that it shouldn't be requisite to seek to "entertain" people with every film, although one should strive to move the film patron in a way that satisfies his and her senses. I disagree with the idea that critics are necessarily more open-minded about films. My experience with many so-called professional critics? reviews is that quite a few of those folks seem to want to paint themselves as more intellectually enlightened than the average movie patron. Consequently, they pan any flick that has even the slightest hint of mass appeal attached to it. I have also noticed that many critics immediately fall in line will the opinions of their more popular or powerful brethren rather than to take an independent position that might make them look clueless among those more influential critics. That type of attitude, IMO, could hardly be classified as open-minded.

I was referring to Robert Lachenay. Look at the quote in my last post. I wrote John, but I meant Robert. My mistake. You see? Human imperfections.

John, This is just an observation, and not meant as a dig, but I believe that the above is the same type of comment that got you the title of elitist by another forum member. The statement refers to the average moviegoer as if his or her opinion of a film's real quality or merit were only formed viscerally, and based in ignorance. That type of message also suggests that only industry and film savvy experts are able to actually determine what makes a movie worthy of critical praise and/or an award like an Oscar. Please bare with me while I give you an example of what I mean. I recently had a conversation with a young man, who is in his senior year at University of Utah. His major is city planning, and we were discussing what I believe to be some of the most unintelligent highway design that I have experienced anywhere in the country. I am referring specifically to the I-15 renovations that were done prior to and to facilitate the 2002 Olympics traffic. Many of the new on and off ramps are quite literally death traps. Anyway, he and I went back and forth on the issue of competence and design-understanding among the so-called professionals who design such projects, until he finally looked me in the eye and told me that people like him - in his future roll as city planner - are needed to figure out what is good for the average person, because that person doesn't understand the real difference between good and bad design (roads and such). My response was immediate and in the form of a question. I asked him if he actually believed that the average, blue-collar joe, who navigated the same roads, day in and out for decades, didn't know the difference between a well or poorly designed road? Better yet, would that same joe likely not have an intelligent idea regarding to how to better route a particular road, on/off ramp, etc.? The student was taken off guard by my question, although he did eventually acknowledge that he got the message. He (the future city planner) and we (the film industry professionals) would be wise to realize that our job is to first look at our project designs from the POV of the people who will actually use them. Only after that understanding has been achieved, should we turn to our technical expertise for the purpose of creating a product that will satisfy our customer, audience, what have you. Within those criteria is, I believe, where one is free to express his or her creative abilities, and not in a way that technically and intellectually flys over the heads of the people for whom those projects were created. That is poor design. Movies are made for the general public. They (we) are the "serious filmgoer". Ask any Blockbuster manager how many films the average customer watches per month, and you might be surprised. Industry folks, e.g., film students, critics, DP's, etc., are not necessarily the "serious filmgoers". Critics, IMO, are generally no better qualified to evaluate the merits of a given film than is the average joe on the street. Critics just gift-wrap their opinions in pseudo-intellectual hyperbole, in order to make themselves sound more qualified than they actually are. The point is that dismissing or underestimating the average joe's ability to understand what makes a good road, movie, something which that joe uses on a daily basis, is condescending, which is why it comes off as elitist. Moreover, such a POV is shortsighted. As for Little Miss Sunshine, it is not a success because the average moviegoer doesn't know better. Rather, it is successful because its story is one to which most human beings can relate on a very personal level. It exposes the imperfect - almost absurd - nature of the human condition in the most compassionate way - making one feel that, in spite of our incurable imperfections and immense differences, we can still have faith in humanity. It was, IMO, a brilliant film. My two cents. Ken

It's true that the Oscars broadcast reaches far and wide, although I am not convinced that it is an effective way to promote environmental activism. We have already tried mixing news journalism with entertainment, and look where it got us. I site Fox News as a specific example.

Great post, Luke. I find it ironic that so much national pride hinges on an "entertainment" award, where more emphasis is placed on Botox enhancement and the designer garments worn by actors. It is especially ironic when compared to the fact that Mexico's and the USA's efforts to resolve border issues have been incompetent at best. My head is still spinning from the idea that an environmental activist film was awarded for its soundtrack. Talk about skewed priorities. I don't even think that An Inconvenient Truth should have been included in such an event. What is the message, that it was an entertainment film?

This is an interesting comment to me, because I am originally from Boston. I've been out west for almost seventeen years, and I still occasionally struggle with the political correctness dichotomy. Although I have come to appreciate the so-called laid-back attitude, I still ultimately prefer blunt honesty. I find it more productive in the sense that it enables me to better understand where I actually stand in a given situation. I also find the alternative style to be patronizing and an insult to my intelligence when applied to professional criticism. My life pursuits are generally very important to me, and achieving the best from myself has always been less complicated when I have had a clear understanding of my actual progress and, more importantly, shortcomings. Cold, hard, honest input from professional peers is one of the best ways to achieve such an understanding about one's progress. As for film awards, they are what they are, and most of the process is based on personal taste. If I understood you correctly, I agree that comparing dissimilar films is like comparing apples to oranges. It is a dead-end exercise. They are both fruit, just as cars and spaceships are both transportation vehicles, although the similarities basically end there.

He's probably a just troll, Rob. It's too bad that I can't find an ignore button, or I would just turn him off. I just found it. Problem solved.

Cesar, Your disrespectful comments has made it painfully apparent that you are either trolling, tying to offend people, or are simply ignorant of your bad behavior. I am sorry to say this, but your contributions to this thread are neither productive nor are they appreciated by several of the members who have explicitly expressed that to you. If you are unable to behave in a considerate manner toward the members of this group, then maybe this forum isn't the best fit for you, in which case you might think about bowing out of the conversation. You are making no friends here.

Diversity of opinion is a beautiful thing. It is one of the fundamental attributes of our culture that I cherish. The Departed, unlike Babel, at least maintained a rational storyline. I agree with you in that it is not quite Oscar material - IMHO. Scorsese is certainly a master craftsman and more than capable of holding his own in the industry, so I hope that the Academy doesn't patronize him by awarding this film just to recognize his accomplisments. I would rather see him get one for his lifetime achievements. Always appreciated, my friend. Cheers, Ken

Cesar, What you are doing know is called Argumentum ad Hominem. A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings are meant to distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate. Although it might not be your intention, by attacking the member's youth, you are diverting the focus away from the topic of this movie. You, unfortunately, are also condescending some of the younger members. If I heard you correctly, you are thirty-five, which would make you almost thirteen years younger than me. By your logic, I should assume that you are wet behind the ears and won't understand how life works until you are my age. Of course I would be shortsighted in taking that position, as you are in assuming that these younger members aren't intelligent enough to form a valid opinion about this film. With regard to Cannes, I will paraphrase what I said earlier. A film festival award is an acknowledgement of the judge's opinions of a film - no more, no less. It is not a measure of the quality of that film.

Cesar, I don't know you, and I certainly don't want to offend you, but I am sort of curious as to why you are turning some critiques by members of this forum, about the quality of a movie, into a racial issue. It is hard not to think that you are defending this film so diligently because both the writer and the director are Mexican. Please forgive me if I am mistaken, although that is the vibe that you are giving off. You are erroneously assuming that a person's qualifications for having a valid opinion about this film hinge on his or her filmmaking and/or writing credentials. Films are a form of storytelling, and stories have been intelligently evaluated for thousands of years by any number of people not directly connected to the creative medium from which that story was conceived and produced. Also, basing a film's quality on awards that have been attached to it is a weak measure of that given film's worth. For one, the simple fact that the Academy gives out only a limited number of awards to a limited number of films means that many top quality films get passed over. These awards are allocated to a given film based on the opinions of a limited group of people. Any one of these films could win in one awards contest and then lose in another.

I just saw it, and I was unimpressed. It failed in several ways for me. For starters, Pit's and Blanchett's characters seemed grossly underdeveloped, and the acting, what there was of it, forced. I also felt that the Asian story was so tenuously interwoven into the main story that it felt as though I were juggling two completely different films. To ultimately find out that their only connection was the passing down of a hunting rifle was less than intriguing, to say the least. Finally, there were some serious plot holes. For example, the news of Susan's shooting had obviously already reached the local authorities, because police were traipsing around the countryside - brutaly interrogating suspects - while Susan lay bleeding to death and lying in her own urine, waiting with uncertainty for a transport to a hospital. The drive would had been approximately four hours in any one of the police vehicles, yet she ended up stranded on a dirt floor for at least that long while the police went around kicking the crap out of some old people and threatening to cut children's balls off. "Quite a stretch." There were other gaping plot holes, although I prefer not to rehash them at this point. Once was enough.

Thanks for the info, Hans.

Do you have any specs on your homemade kinos?

I realize that this isn't a direct answer to your question, but wouldn't most if not all films fit, by definition, into the category of art? Here is Webster's definition: Main Entry: 2art Pronunciation: 'ärt Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars -- more at ARM 1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends> 2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : LIBERAL ARTS b archaic : LEARNING, SCHOLARSHIP 3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building> 4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : FINE ARTS (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art. Here is Wikipedia's: Art is that which is made with the primary intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind or spirit. An artwork is assessed by means of the amount of stimulation it brings about. The impact it has on people, the amount of people that can relate, the degree of their appreciation, and the effect or influence it has or has had in the past, all accumulate to the 'degree of art'. Timeless masterpieces in art all possess these aspects to a great extent. Something is not considered 'art' when it stimulates only the senses, or only the mind, or when it has a different primary purpose than doing so. Some of Lynch's works, IMO, can be classified as mainstream - for instance, Mulholland Drive. Films like Eraserhead and Inland Empire, IMO, would not. Consequently, a more appropriate category for the latter two would be "indies". The term "art", by its definition, really has little or nothing to do with it.

Careful reading has apparently become a lost art.

That was quite the diatribe, Martin. I'm glad that you got that off of your chest, but you missed my entire point. Any fool would realize that we all are entitled to like and dislike whomever and whatever we choose. My questions to John were specifically directed at two of his comments - saying that Lynch's films suck, and then insinuating that writers and film professors who, in John's opinion, don't understand shitty work when they see it, call that work art. I considered those to be pretty bold statements, so I asked him to elaborate, and then I offered the Picasso analogy to clarify my point. It is one thing to dislike a work because of personal differences in taste. Saying that a works sucks, without offering a valid reason why, is quite another. Of course John is not obligated to elaborate on his reasons, although not doing so renders his opinion worthless, IMO. As for his assumption that film teachers and writers don't know the difference between art and poop, that is his opinion and nothing more. Now, before everyone gets their panties in a wad, understand that I really am not affected by John's opinion, either way. I am not interested in a pissing contest. I simply felt compelled to call John on his shallow statements.

Not at all, John. Your statement makes it sound as though every person in the theatre is suffering from Numb Bum. There are more than a few of us out there who happily endure Lynch's films from opening shot to closing credits. BTW, the size of his following does not diminish the validity of his films for those of us who appreciate them. The amount of Toyotas on the road, as compared to Bentley Azures, is staggering, although, given a choice, I'd take the Azure any day of the week. As for the Mullet Wrapper journalists, they get paid to wax poetic about things about which they generally have little or no understanding. All I can say about that is: Better them than me.

Picasso's first cubist piece (Les Demoiselles de Avignon) attempts to interrelate Parisian hookers with African and Oceanic tribal art. From which part of Picasso's psyche he made such a connection is beyond me, although I still thoroughly enjoy looking at the piece. "Art, in its broadest meaning, is the expression of creativity or imagination, or both." It requires no explanation.

Don't hold back, John. Please elaborate.