Robert Lachenay

He may be a huge di ck, but he's also a fu-cking collaborator too, so that makes everything OK!

 

Sorry, that line just doesn't get old. I fell out of my chair laughing the first time I saw the main clip, then the scene in the car where Ms. Lily Tomlin is in the car and she's hysterical "Fu-ck you! Shut the fu-ck up!" is also fall-on-floor funny, although I can understand why she'd be upset with the guy's temper tantrum.

 

Boy, if this is what Hollywood is like, I am beginning to doubt my decision to enter this sort of work environment. If you guys are either a.) such big pricks that you think you're the only one that knows what's what on set, or b.) so sleep deprived that you act as if that is the case, I think I am going to go after a more healthylifestyle. That shown in these clips depicts something other than that, a way of living that is probably very prone to early deaths due to heart attacks, and drug abuse. Good God, I honestly couldn't take a working environment like that! And to be on the crew and have to put up with that bullshit! Unbelieveable.

 

I think someone on this thread speculated that these segments might have been acted. I can tell you, from what I have seen, and I've watched each segment several times, they're definitely NOT acting, although they are "acting spoiled". How can any creativity go on in a collaborative environment like a film set when everyone has such a hugh fuhking ego trip that they can't take the time to listen to one another's imput???

I would dismiss a working environment like that completely if I were an actress as established and utterly esteemed as Lily Tomlin. Regardless of the consequences, if my "director" called me a "c*nt," I would stand up, throw a newspaper in his face, and leave.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. He, like Altman, is able to articulate the form of a character through very subtle nuances and he is brilliant and the overarticulated crap you long for is precisely what has ruined so many films of the past 15 years.

I would ahve to agree. A move like this was VERY risky, however, I think he pulled it off.

 

Perhaps the symbolism is that anything can happen, which is one of the themes throughout the film (eg. the small text "but it did happen" on the picture in the cocaine addict's room and the suicidal son who is shot as he's falling by his own mother < that is just harsh... :o ). But I'm not sure.

 

What could it truly mean?

Look for youtube interviews of PTA and you will find all the answers you're looking for.

On top of all that creative pressure and intense focus for months and years at a time that the director deals with, comes all the responsibilites of the director, including all the handholding and coddling of the writers, producers, cast, crew, etc. The director is not a master on set - he's the ultimate servant. He works in service of everyone, trying to give them everything they need to do their best. Then on top of it all, he's expected to be the ultimate Fonzie - calm, cool, collected, and never wrong, at all times.

Not if he is immensely respected by those he works with. I can absolutely gauruntee you that Spielberg, Scorsese, Von Trier, the late Altman, PT Anderson, Lynch, The Dardennes, Bergman, the late Fellini (especially him...jeezzzz...him and von trier.."don't mess"), etc, etc did hold the position of MASTER once they had become established, which, by this time and by his ability to make a movie so utterly pretentious as "I <3 Huckabees," O. Russel must be. He's a crappy director and (after having watched this), apparently a huge d*ck.

Hey all,

 

I was jsut wondering what you all felt about that very itneresting climatic scene in Magnolia. It definitely took em off guard. Quite the scene yes, but does it take away from the rest of the movie? Or do you find it's symbolism intriguing and smart? What do YOU think?

 

Thanks!

Most people have no idea what its symbolism actually is, which is understandable, as it was derived from a somewhat, publicly unfamiliar source. They associate the event with Exodus, but that is not the frogs' representation...it was derived from Charles Hoy Fort, a writer who specialized in the study of anamalous phenomenology and its philosophical reflection on social trends. The Exodus references (ie the various hidden verses in scenes) were added later, but he concedes that it was Charles Fort whom he gained inspiration from, and if you were to read Fort, it makes much ore sense and takes the climax to a whole other level and makes it much more satisfying than associating it with Exodus.

And no....personally, I do not think it takes away from the film. In fact, I think it is one of the boldest moves by a director in history of cinema (one of many, but one nonetheless), given the budget and star power, and it transcends the film to a whole other level. It made me excited...very excited for film. Anderson, IMO, is one of the 10 greatest currently working directors...he is incredibly intelligent and talented and the brilliant, subtle, nuances composed into every one of his scenes heighten even the most mundane moments.

The sort of person that can successfully helm a modern studio movie.

 

J

Unlike Russel.

After watching that, it's no wonder why Russel's movies are such god-awful stink bombs. No clue who he thinks he is to call Lily Tomlin a "c*nt." She's Altman's friggen' girl...who is he?

If it where me, I'd shoot it like it was a feature with really quick cuts that show just a small portion of each scene with a different location for almost each cut and only 2 or 3 words of dialog for each cut. Make it something dframatic and high concept llike a sweeping ove story or action movie that would be some big film if it where a feature but the quick cuts and short sequences make it funny but because of the whole idea of the director and writer trying to squeeze a feature film into 100 seconds, spoofing the whole idea of doing a 3 act film in 100 seconds and be SURE to make it EXACTLY 100 seconds as though you COULD tell the story in any less time. But that's just what I would do. B)

So you're essentially suggesting he create a trailer?

Well your interpretation isn't mine, what can I say ?

I was no particular fan of JFK (don't know the other films)

 

I give up, you're infallible I'm sure.

 

-Sam

Naw, sorry, man. Sorry for being so confrontational. I was just fairly disappointed in the film is all.

As for nonchallance - well really I didn't get that. I mean these detectives have to have their coping mechanisms... even a kind of gallows humor did not seem out of place. If you want to address genre and fictional narrative presumptions critically, OK (gonna get a bit off-topic for here, maybe...)

As I said...don't want exploitation (ie NO irreversible, that movie stunk). You didn't think the victims at the lake stabbing were strangely nonchalant? That scene almost became comediac...it was almost cartoonish watching him stab her. The lines were there to show their nervous compliance...it wasn't the script. It was fincher's poor dramatic direction in those scenes and many others that made the characters almost completely unbelievable. As for the cinematography...I did not liek the faux backgrounds being interspliced with the actors...doing that in a film does nothing more than make the scene look static and theatrical, a definite detriment to a film that relies on a gritty pseudo-realism. Your assessment for the type of film fincher was trying to go for in zodiac is correct, but he failed to give much to pull us into that obsession. The problem that arises when going into this specific genre of film (obsessive, analytical, tru crime docudrama, etc...) is that the few that have come before (JFK, A Way With Words, Crime) have done such a mind blowing job of capturing that obsession (actually making the audience obsess WITH the characters) and analyzing past events in a deeply compelling way, that to cimmit to a project only half way as fincher did in zodiac makes it very pale and forgettable in comparison. This was a long, long involved film that didn't have enough pull to keep people involved. In JFK and A Way with Words, one could be fully content with the lack of catharsis, as it was the journey that was important, not the end. ZODIAC only half-commit, and for that, the opposite became true.

I own the DVD and those shorts to which you refer are included. All very beautiful and meaningful works. Morvern Collar wasn't my favorite...I didn't really understand what it might be trying to say or do, but I look forward to seeing any future works. The on camera kight she rocks here and there is great; shares a lot of the same vitality that existed in the fashion/art-scene photography of the time.

 

jk :ph34r:

I h ave that dvd too. Criterion Collection RULES!

I found the sterile fashion in which the killings were portrayed to be appropriate to the story and the character. In fact, I felt that the vacancy of any weight behind the killer's actions was exactly what made the film's approach to the killings unique and more importantly, believable. In my opinion, had Fincher treated those scenes and the killer's character with anything other than a sterile approach, it would have caused the moments and the film to become nothing special and probably overcooked.

I couldn't disagree more. I'm not calling for exploitatin, but those scenes ruined the film. It has nothing to do with the acts of killing, but moreso with the response of the victims. They treated it like it was to be taken lightly...like it was a joke. There was also a terrible lack of commitment on Fincher's part concerning what type of film he was actually trying to make....many of the comic aleviations were wholly unwelcome, and in the cases that his characters actually got serious about things, it was misplaced and irrelevant. In my opinion, from a stylistic and dramatic directorial stanpoint, it was one of the biggest misfires of the past year or so.

Also the directors in Hollywood have to deal with producers that might pressure them to not to give enough time for a scene to play out.

I thought the same thing until we began approaching the 3 hour mark.

Maybe that was the screenplay.

If a director expects to be truly commended for his abilities, that can never be an excuse. The killing scenes were so utterly nonchalant and desensitized, that it killed the film on impact. There was more emotionally crushing force in, "Before I kill you, I'm going to throw your baby out of the window," than there was in watching two young, high-school aged kids get brutally shot to death. The shooting of the taxi driver was executed with a horribly misplaced desensitized technique so that, after it happened, we were left feeling absolutely nothing--he wasn't a human, merely the taxi driver character who got his brains blown out and a "cool" sequence of frame increase. The film NEEDED us to feel those scenes DEEPLY, as Robert Graysmith's main drive was derived from his insistence that "These deaths DID matter, these people WERE real and will be missed." With the way it was presented, it would be quite easy for a person to disagree or to says, as many of the characters said, "They DON'T matter. They're just some of many deaths in the SF area each month." To be engrossed in the theories...the investigation...hell, to even be mildly creeped out, Fincher needed to show that there was weight behind the actions of this malicious and elusive killer...that for him to be on the street wasn't simply a period of cultural "WOW," but also a period of great suspense, paranoia and danger. To me, the film was just sort of "bleh..." It unfolded...things happened...and that was that. The characters were all one dimensional stencils of characters we've seen countless times in similar situations (regardless of whether this story is a true story, once it is committed to celluloid or word, "it all becomes fiction"), and fincher didnt have the pulsing ecstasy of say, Stone, or the quiet, intimate focus of Xiao to take these cut-outs to the next level. Fincher presented it as lifelessly and coldly as stainless steel or iced jasmine rice...it was there and I watched it for 2 3/4 hours and that was that.

I agree that without the music, Elephant would be a vapid film.

If you want to see an inviting or enjoyable film why not see Avenue Montaigne ?

Zodiac is about an investigation of a killer, obviously not very pleasant, but very absorbing.

You're not agreeing with me. I did not say that without the music, it would be nothing. I said that without that single scene in which the Frost character played fur elise with too much agression, trying hard to surpress it, but ultimately failing and flicking off the structure of the piece, the film would have been nothing. That scene defines the entire film: every collective, desperate emotion and motivation of the fairly mute characters. It was an incredible film but it would have been nothing and meant nothing without that scene. We've seen this before on many occasions...in Rivette's La Belle Noiseuse for example, the scene of quiet, observant artistry where we recognize the unspoken and unspeakable bond between the two main characters (that of the artist and that of the model...a shared ownership; the antithesis of bondage: collaboration), made the piece transcendent. People are far too worried about the actions, the words...but few are patient enough to absorb a piece, to sit feet from the screen and interact with it, to bask in the words not spoken, the actions and sounds that have not manifested, but crawl around just beneath the surface. Elephant was a great film, but owes its greatness to that scene and that scene alone.

ZODIAC was not good because Fincher, as a director, hit the wrong notes too many times to count. The characters exhibited nonchalance when it was FULLY INAPPROPRIATE TO DO SO (one of many, many examples would be the binding and stabbing of the couple at the lake...he fishes for a sort of uneasiness...a desperate attempt by the characters to not focus on the situation, but almost turns it into parody when the boyfriend corrects his girlfriend on what he majored in. The act itself is commited with a swiftnees that doesn't allow the audience to comprehend the true horror of a murder...and so it goes that we simply continue with the story in desensitized, mild fasciniation. One should know that there is something deeply wrong when he watches the accounts of the murders of real people by one of the most terrifying and viscious serial killers in american history, and feels only remotely affected by them, if affected at all.), and a coarse seriousness when nonchalance was desperately needed (this was usually only exhibited by the vile Robert Downey Jr character, who exploited the deaths of the victims for his own petty gain). Because we were never allowed to fully identify with any of the characters, or feel much for the victims (which is where Fincher's style, or consciously attempted detatchment from his style played to the film's detriment), it began to drag and drag and drag. The points that should have absorbed us into caring about the quest to find this elusive killer were underplayed until, finally, there was nothing for the audience to care about, aside from a catharsis (i.e. who did this??) that could never be delivered. I tried desperately to enjoy it, as when I was younger, I saw a CourtTV account of the zodiac and was absolutely mortified for a few weeks afterward....it just never panned out. There was so much to work with, but fincher underutilized every aspect of it. If he wanted tofocus on the cultural phenomenon as the backdrop to the lives of others (as we saw spike lee do in summer of sam), he should have done that.....but he committed to no specific type of film and, in this case, it failed miserably. The only thing I will remember about this movie a month from now is creaking floor boards in a basement (the ONE eerie scene). The killings were about as moving and sensitive to human life as the killings in Octopussy...the characters about as engaging as those in God's and Generals. THis was not a terrible film or even a bad film...just totally forgettable.

Sorry for any poor grammer, typos, misusage, etc... THis is the answer to your question though. This is how I personally felt.

He fooled me with Zodiac !

He did not fool me and it wasn't a very good film.

I think that's also called business...or science...or witchcraft...

 

That's the worst definition of art I've ever heard...I've never considered myself an artist...but I do now...

 

The bag-lady down my street is a great artist...because she materialized something in my alley the other day...sure it smelled really bad and lots of flies were hanging out...but sometimes WE artists have to suffer a little bit...

 

I apologize already...

Heidegger gives a pretty strong definition of what art is.

As for the kids in 'Elephant', there was a definite homoerotic feel to how they all looked, I agree on that.

There was a very specific reason for that and for the clothes many of them wore and for the very specific moments in which the music was qeued (total sp). I thought it was a brilliant film but, as I stated earlier, would not have been brilliant if not for the scene with alex frost playing fur elise. I did not like Zodiac. It was too nonchalant when it needed to be serious and too serious when it needed to be nonchalant. It was not, in my opinion, an inviting or enjoyable film, and those two variables worked against it's almost 2 3/4 hr running length. I did not enjoy it.

Has Lynn Ramsay produced anything recently??? I have seen both Ratcatcher and Morvern Callar, Ratcatcher is one of my favorite movies... I also saw it a long long time ago, I have to see it again...

I'm not sure...I've been wondering the same thing. DO watch it again though....for me it's one of those films that you learn new things about it and yourself, after returning to it years later.

And btw....please stop insinuating that because I'm young I'm some impressionable sponge. I know what films I enjoy watching and what books I enjoy reading. I can absolutely assure you that I've seen more of them and read more of them than you have in order gain that ability, and perhaps that's why I get so bored with what I see....it's very rare for me to go to a film or read a book now and just be wowed... It's not to say that they aren't quality works...it's just that I've gotten bored and can recognize so many of the origins and influences in them that it detracts from the actual experience. Perhaps it's sad, but it makes hte films that really do blow me away that much more to savor.

Your grossly pompous comments about Peter Greenaway (who is actually not one of my heroes, as I believe many of his films were masturbatory, egocentric pieces that alienated the audience and were far too pretentious and self-contained to help evolve the medium as was always his goal.....just as I believe many of his theories are based ont he assumption that areas of revolution are welcome among filmgoers when really they are not....however I do admire him for what work he has succeeded at and do agree with many of his views and can relate with much of his boredom in the regurgitated mess that consumes a lot of cineplexes today) sound pretty silly and I can assure you that it would be a 1 sided slaughter as soon as you start comparing Lucas to fellini, eisenstain, welles, hitchcock, goadard and lang.

You act as if someone else has formed my opinions, but not your own. Perhaps you should remember (if ever you've heard it) what Oscar Wilde said about Emerson saying that so many men are other men and our thoughts are merely quotations. Or what Krishnamurti said about second-hand people. You're jsut as manipulated as anyone else in the world, so don't give comments about greenaway imposing his views on teenagers, when most of the men you worship and yourself are all products of other men's thoughts and ideas. At least I'm trying not to be second-hand...at least I'm not complacent like you seem to be, and am hungry to see things I have not seen before. You can't fault me for that.

Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it no matter HOW mis-guided it might be. Speilberg's films have more heart than most people can ever hope to approach which is why they are so insanely popular. How many people can quote lines from E.T. and how many can even remember one from 8 1/2 women or Prospero's Books? Lucas' films create such universal themes and emontions that they are being emulated by thousands of ametuer filmmakers at great personal expense 30 years after the films were made, far and away the largest group of fanfilm enthusists in existance today, with several more fanfilms made than all others put together. How many The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover fanfilms are there? Scorsese is a film scholar, Bogdonovich is a film scholor, Tarantino is a film scholar, any good filmmaker is a film scholar, I consider myself one or at least in the process of becoming one. Just because you know a lot about film doesn't mean you have some God given insight as to what art is or should be. Some of the dumdest people I know are professors. Many became professors because they couldn't cut it working in the fields they teach, so they become bitter, disillusioned, spiteful little tin Neapolians that are more interested in being the center of attention and lording their pathetic power over some 18 year old than really exporing a subject which they don't have the skills to do in the first place. Now if ol' Petey want's to join our little band of gypses here and post on his comments, I'll be happy to cross swords with him at any time as well. It may be much less of a one sided dual than you might have concidered, OH and my comments are not petty, YOU just don't like anyone to cast dispersion on your heros....Which really AIN'T my problem, Ya sees, I calls 'em likes I sees 'em and when they's wrong, they's wrong, whether they happen to be your hero or not. B)

You're equating a film's quality to the number of fan sites and geek-boy followings it has. I've never said that I have any "greater insight" into what's "art" and what's not, those are simply reactionary conclusions you've made. You seriously jump over everything everyone says, challenging them even if they're in complete agreement with you. I simply, nudgingly said, "The tyranny of the actor," as a sort of joke and you wrote 10 ten-paragraph posts trying to couter...what?...something.

You have this strange sort of reproach for people who prefer different films than the ones you've deemed "great" (all of which have become regurgitations of past films, in my opinion)....a strange hostility toward people who prefer more personal films over cold, throwaway epics. If that's their preference...what then?

There are most certainly big-budget films that I deeply enjoy have among my top-100 favorites (favorite being a key word to all of us, mind you). Usually, I, unlike yourself, try not to consciously make a distinction AT ALL. A film is a film, when I'm arguing about a film that I believe to be great, I am HARDLY taking into consideration its budget or fricken mass appeal to account for its greatness. That is something you've entered into the discussion and is no reflection on my views whatsowever. I'm no elitist, friend, but I also most certainly am not the little, velveeta cheese boy who won't try his vegetables...and when he does, despises them on the basis of preconclusion. I suggest you stop with the accusations that simply because I enjoyed watching Ratcatcher and the draughtsman's contract far more than I did watching ET drink beer and shine a fake little light-bulb into drew barrymore's face, that I'm some cold, elitist snob. No one here has accused you of being a dopy, popcorn-munching studio lover, because we've had enough respect to be polite and consider your knowledge of other films...return the favor for once. No one has even come close to insinuating that studio films cannot be art and shouldn't be taken into consideration be movie goers....that was a statement you put into our mouths in an argument you've manufactured throughout films and isn't even part of the discussion, so drop please just drop it.

In otherwords Greenaway is pissed off a star might get credit for what he conciders his genius and that the public is praising the actor and not HIS art.....that is if you happen to be cynical as I often am about the motives behind director's comments who feel their art is underappreciated and read between the lines....theoretically speaking of course. As you may have guessed, I actually happen to totally disagree with Greenaway on this point. The reason that most people became stars is because they excelled in a film as an unknown and the reason most stars ARE stars is because they have to be very good actors in order to do that. Many stars do their damnedest to break type and be taken seriously AS actors. So when a great actor is involved with a great script, helmed by a great director, the film is greater than the sum of it's parts and much more interesting than if the material were handled by less talented people. In other words it actually increases in the magintute of art as the art of the script, the talent and the direction work in synergy to build apon each other, so I think Greenaway is missing the point of cinematic art. To catigorically state that there is no film that can be considered "real" art because a star is involved is pattenedly abserd. Chaplin's work IS art BECAUSE Chaplin was involved. His whole Cinema militans lecture toward a re-invention of cinema is basically an attempt to define what art is or more importantly what art is NOT and I don't believe there is such a thing as a definition of art. Art becomes art when an audiance SAYS it's art, not when it fits into the peramiters that some "expert" defines as art OR as what art should be. Definitions of cinematic art are about as useful to a filmmaker as a flashlight is to a blind man. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

As for my essays I played the tyrannical actor in the piece... well me and Bill Shatner. What I wrote was a monologe based on the premise in the line you threw out "The Tyranny of the Actor" . This assumes a tyrannical actor wouldn't have bothered reading Greenaway as he ALREADY has all the answers....someone TOTTALY unlike me....I don't REALLY like blue M&Ms :rolleyes:

Yeah, well...the Greenaway films that actually have worked (though I admit they are limited) truly are works of art and make anything spielberg or lucas has ever even imagined of making look like sitcoms, soap operas and bad sci-fi movies...beyond that, you can't really take any of the credibility away from Greenaway's comments, as he's probably the most knowledgeable film scholar alive today. You can say what you want, but you're not referring to one of my own comments, you're referring to one made by Peter Greenaway, who I'm sure could handle your petty comments.

REALLY??!! I had no idea! :rolleyes: Come on, dude, lighten up already. :lol:

I'm light and spunky! I'm like a diet pepsi or a fresca (oo-lala)! I was only saying...He meant that the celebrity of the actor detracts from the focus on cinema as an art form to the general public and thus reduces it and restrains it from being truly appreciated now or evolving later. He describes modern cinema as the "actor's playground and publicity manager." I imagined you knew that...I made that comment because you gave like three 5-paragraph essays in response to it that had to do with actors being tyrannical monsters or someting, and that was beside the actual point Greenaway was trying to make.

Man, you do love your Greenaway, don't you. Actors are never tyranical, their just constantly set apon and having they're art wrecked by idiotic, short sited, no talent directors who should leave the business and go into real estate......well of course with the exception of Shatner who actually IS tyranical, but fortunately he's not technically an actual actor! :D

Ypu, well...that's not at all what Greenaway is referring to with his phrase "The Tyrrany of the Actor."

I was never a big "Elephant" fan except for the continuity ( too commercial for me)

You'll have to explain to me how it was commercial in its intent, aside from the retrospective, post-Palm D'or assessment one could make. It used mostly unknown or non-actors and was rather unconventional (though certainly no artistic breakthrough or revolutionary deconstruction) in comparison to most films.

Having said that, however, the film would not have worked at all, if not for the quietly agressive style with which Alex Frost played Fur Elise in his bedroom. Aside from all that came before and after, that scene could have been a short film in itself (especially if they would have excluded the cheesy shoot-em-up video game shot), as it articulated all the tense, underlying aggression that the teenagers of the film struggle to restrain throughout it. Without that scene, IMO, the movie would have been nothing.

Meh.

"Heidegger"

"Origin of the Work of Art."

"Jux" = as well "A representation of my present state, irreplaceable and unforseeable in its nature."

I don't feel I need to "Sack up." I simply feel that there are other topics on this forum for me to be passionate about and I don't wish to have this turn into something as large scale and exhausting as the Academy Awards thread. So, "I surrender."