Robert Lachenay

PM me....

...And sorry my grammar and word choice aren't that great...and sorry for sort of poorly expressing some of my thoughts. I'm def not super smart or good at writing essays, and I don't really feel like reading back over what I've written to pick out/fix what mistakes I've made. That's really not true about Nicholson. Perhaps now in his older age, but he certainly has been able to vary his performances throughout his career. I mean Chinatown, the shining, about schmidt...many of his earlier films...they are completely different performances. It depends on what role you want him to play...he does have his patented over-the-top villain performance (which must have developed during the first burton batman film) that many directors order-in for thier own purposes. In the departed, this role was needed...it was the sort of careless, visceral, bostonian accent that balanced out the divide between the characters played by Damon and DiCaprio...it also conveyed a constant sense of unease that seeped into the other scenes and helped give them the atmosphere they needed to enhance the filmgoer's experience.

I really hope you guys read my last posts. This has nothing to do with art films or...I don't know what. The discussion got sidetracked and went into a debate about film influence and artistic integrity and blah, blah, blah. All this came from the simple fact that I had an opinion that there were 4 other films that had direction that blew me away and led me to believe that they deserved being up there, but would never be afforded that opportunity, due to thier limited American release...nor would they have won, due to the almost inevitable, reserved Oscar for Scorsese (and don't get me wrong...he did a brilliant, almost Hitchcockian job in the Departed...I just felt it was nowhere near the quality of the films he got shafted for and that the directors I named were much moreinnovative and noticeably invested much more of themselves into thier work). That was the part I was referring to as being "the joke." If you didn't know they were absolutely going to give him the oscar, then I don't know what to tell you. Like I said: "Appeal, appeal, appeal and audience interaction." It had become fully aware to people who had never even heard of scorsese before, that he "has been shafted countless times and has it a'comin'. " Days of Glory...Sideache...both fit into the normal narrative structure, they were just so deeply moving, well performed and detailed (as moving and detailed as the wind that shook the barley, volver--which inexplicably got no foreign film nod--and inland empire) that I felt they trumped the directing efforts of the academy's noms and transcended any possible predictability that one might expect from the genre's the belong. I don't think labels are important...and, to me, what is "entertaining" is seeing something new...something refreshing...something that makes me breathe and get all tensed up with excitement. I want visceral and intellectual...I've seen too much to simply be pleased with retreads. The films I mentioned were not retreads and thier directors excercised such care in making them that they'll last in my memory (as this whole thing was my own, personal opinion, no?) for far longer than United 93...The Departed...Babel...etc. This isn't elitist stuff....it's my opinion about a few films. I've had trouble articulating some of the things I feel and have had to re-word them for people to better understand, but we all make mistakes and I won't ever claim to be some intellectual or talented debater. I'm sorry if I've come off as being confrontational or have given a poor impression...that was not my intention. I havent given any condescending remarks (elitist, average movie goer, etc....) toward those who disagree with me and have taken a lot of heat from a poster who, instead of simply stating his own opinion on the oscars, has retreated into bad mouthing me and side tracking this entire thread into the irrelevant. I imagine this thread was created to promote discussion and as a forum for our opinions of the awards ceremony, sunday night....let's not continue using it for tense, irrelevant arguments. I don't want to leave anymore of a bad impression (if I have), nor do I want to get any bad impression of others. I respect your opinions as long as they aren't used to start personal confrontation with other posters...please respect mine too, as that's all my original post was.

And I'm sorry for the bad grammar...it won't let me edit and I have a problem proof reading. I'm not an elitist...that's simply the impression James is trying to give others through his remarks. I'm gladd Million Dollar Baby got the Oscar...hey...I'm glad the English Patient got it. I don't believe in terms like "the average movie goer," and I despise hostility toward foreign cinema as if it were simply "pretentious arthouse dribble." All I did, in my origianl post that got blown way out of proportion, was give my opinion that there were 4 other directors who deserved the award/nom much more than those nominated for thier work in 06. I wasn't saying they were better directors than Scorsese or Greengrass or Eastwood or etc...just that the work they did in thier '06 films had more merit in my eyes. The reason I said it was "a joke" is because it really seemed to me like they were patronizing scorsese, as if this award was inevitable, regardless of tthe other directors and thier work, because they failed to give it to him for Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Age of Innocence, Taxi Driver and LToC, on and on (films that were so far beyond anything else running that year that it was a cinematic SIN not to give him the statue...and no oscar for the friggen' departed--a great film, but peanuts in comparison to his other work--could make up for it). And if that were to be so, I would have just as soon seen Lynch, Almodovar, Loach, and others up there, as they really made an attempt to transcend and take thier work to the next, very personal level. I really don't understand how this argument came about...I felt justified in giving that opinion, but apparently I wasn't.

Okay...perhaps I'm just expressing my feelings incorrectly because that is not at all what I meant ot insinuate. It really isn't. The initial point that this quote was derived from was that way, way back, James said something along the lines of, "There's a reason the academy picked those films and not your stupid, european art films." (referring to sideache, days of glory, and the wind that shook the barley). What I'm trying to say is that there IS a reason they picked the film they picked: They were all good films (excluding babel, imo, but that's just my opinion), but were films that were all fully available to the general public. The reason the films I mentioned and thier directors were not entered was because it would disclude the audience from interacting with the show itself: the oscars. I mean look at it this way...in 1996, breaking the waves was probably about as strong of a film as you could get, however (at the time) it wasn't recieved by enough people to gain a spot among the best pic/best director noms, where it most certainly deserved. I'm not saying ANYTHING about the "average filmgoer"...that is not my statement. My commenst are directed 100% toward the academy and how they for thier choices. It IS rating based (however I am not at all insinuating they lack merit), and the films, actors and directors they select are those that a large number of people will be able to say, "Hey, I've seen those films," and in turn interact with the program. So it was not at all about the "Average" movie goer....more about how they formed thier choices. IMO, little miss sunshine was great, but lost it in its final scenes...I feel that, if they were going to go that route, perhaps children of men or a few other films deserved a spot in the best pic place, instead of LMSS.

And my comment about the Oscars isn't the "height of cynicism," I feel that it's a fair assessment (as does scorsese himself in his discussion with Ebert post-age of innocence about the impact of the oscars). I didn't say they simply projected blockbuster crap, just that they picked films forthe best picture and director nod (and often actor and actress) that a HUGE population of American filmgoers have seen. That way the audience can relate more with the production and actually feel something when a person or piece loses or wins. I mean Little Miss Sunshine was a good, fun film...but it was up there because it's gained an unforseen, domestic cult following (especially upon its DVD release)...and it sort of snuffed out films I think any serious filmgoer would agree were MUCH more qualified to be up for best pic. True it's more difficult to make a good comedy than tragedy, but there were plenty of better films that worked better as tragedis than LMS did as a comedy. The point is: they pick films that the public can relate with. It's a multi-multi MILLION dollar production and they aren't going to squandered it on zero audience...otherwise it'd just be in a tent like the spirit awards. But I'm sorry...I keep adding stuff. I don't mean to keep going around in circles. Respond how you will: I'm seriously finished posting on this thread.

Like I said: for me, this discussion is over. I really don't want to add or respond to anything. Scorsese is a genius, but doesn't belong up there for every outing (I mean Kundun, Cape Fear, The Color of Money?). I simply named the directors I felt were far more qualified to get nods from the academy. Case closed...nothing more to be said. I don't want to discuss this anymore, because it's frustrating. Taking from my other thread, I asked if anyone wanted to meet for coffee because I'll be moving to Minneapolis and don't know much about the area. It's nice to meet new people and make new acquaintances upon moving to a new area. You're rather mean-spirited in using something like that as a condescending remark toward me. I didn't ask for it and I've hardly treated you with the cruel patronization that you've been treating me with (did I ever undermine you with bitter, sarcasstic remarks, or did Isimply discuss?) I mean in all honesty...as you've shown...you know a lot less about the older filmmakers than you seem to think you know. I'm no film student and it's not that important, but if you're going to start some stupid argument, you better fricken' know how important Chaplin, Eisenstein and Lang were and not compare them in the same sentence as Spielberg, Kubrick and Lucas (Citizen Kane was basically a compilation of thier best technical and narrative principles...countless eisenstein inspired montages...without eisenstein, chaplin and lang, there would be no 2001, Apocolypse Now, or The Godfather, as kubrick excercises thier patented techniques and the entire ending of Apocolypse and the Godfather is just a giant utilization of the "intellectual montage." I mean look at the countless filmmakers who make the exact same films in nrrative style and stylistic technique as Griffis did at the dawn of cinema...Ford, Hawks...none of those guys are complete originals like th ebig three were, and absolutely none of them are responsible for "the summer blockbuster." I think you're confused on how much of an impact American Cinema actually had on the way we see things today. It was a cumulative, international effort, and by no means was America at the forefront of contributions. Also, for the record, Lucas and Spielberg...as far as how they "Revolutionized" the film industry...are but specks in comparison to at least 30 auteurs to have come before them...but as I said, I really don't want to go any deeper into this discussion, your low blow comment about the coffee just really rubbed me the wrong way. Usually, when someone uses such a thing to back up his point--as well as a fricken IMDB quote--it shows that they don't havemuch to contribute to the discussion). And it's La Strada...and Days of Glory and the Wind that Shook the Barley WERE epics.

Please don't ruin this one, Cesar. Seriously...don't ruin it, please. You obviously have no interest in the actual debate/argument/discussion/whatever. Your only objective (as it was in the previous thread) is to put people down and troll. This thread's already in enough trouble and no one can understand what you're writing. I made a simple opinionated statement, that I didn't expect to get taken as far or as personally as it did, but I'm still going to appologize: I'm sorry to everyone that James and I took this thread way off track...let's move on.

Ew. You're such a troll, Cesar.

Dang... Yeah, dude...I'm sorry. I didn't intend on it turning into this.

What's with me never being able to edit these dang things more than once? Why after one edit do I "no longer have permission." Now my thing sounds all hostile...it's lame that I can't edit. What I was going to add (as well as removing some things) is that your almost xenophobic hostility toward non-american films (or people who enjoyed them) makes you seem rather close-minded. I like the films for what they were, not who made them.

Yeah, I'm done posting about this. After reading James' last post, I don't feel I have anything more to say: this has become a dumb argument. I'm just going to reinforce two things (that are really irrelevant, given the original subject of this thread): Without Chaplin and Eisenstein, there would have been nothing. That's not a matter of opinion, it is fact. They were so far ahead of thier time in practicing genuine auteurship, mise-en-scène, and trying to articulate visceral, untangible, unfilmable things, that it wasn't until Welles, then post-time french-new wave (ie Godard and Truffaut) that this idea was seen again. Eisenstein's montage theory helped breathe life into film, just as Chaplins removal of the sterile theatricality of earlier films did. They are essentially the backbone of everything that came after...they are what gave directors the okay to direct. The fact that you mention Lucas in the same sentence as Eisenstein kills your argument right there. Regardless of the differences in thier influences over cinema, Eisensteins was invariably greater. As far as the oscars: yes, it is about ratings (that doesn't detract from anything, but it's a fact). They pick films that a large portion of the public have seen so that the public can interact and relate with the show itself. No one would sit watching for 5 or so hours if they hadn't seen any of the material presented...there would be no way for them to relate and , as a result, no reason to watch. Didn't anyone else think it a bit funny that Eddie Murphy and Will Smith got a nom? They certainly played thier parts well, but I can think of at least 10 other people who belonged up there instead of them. From the perspective of a serious filmgoer: Yes, it is a bit of a joke how watered down the awards ceremony is. I can also garuntee you that Scorsese cares less about winning an oscar than most of the people in favor of him winning one did....in fact, he's probably more content with having won a palm d'or when Antonioni, Bergman, Truffaut, Godard, Coppola, Aiazaka, Tarkovsky, Kubrick and Bresson were in their peak form (and probably that he's arguably directed 2 of the top 100 films ever made). But this is an argument I don't want to have. All I did was state my opinion (and I felt it was in a pretty level-headed way), and I get jumped on. Do some better things with your time, because your arguments are quite weak (eisenstein also dabbled in hollywood production, does that make him an American filmmaker too?) and actually just...there's no need for them...I didn't do anything to warrant them, merely stated how I felt about the Oscar director awards. There was no need for you to respond with a direct attack (and a quite uninformed one I might add). Also...I do not at all feel that, "Everything in America is crap." Who are you? Cesar Rubio's midwestern Twin? I simply felt that, this year, the better directing efforts were from non-american filmmakers (Ummm...except for DAVID LYNCH, you know...because he'd be VERY American). I also really don't like associating one's nationality with his work....in this day and age (unlike 70 years before), that is completely irrelevent. I think Scorsese, Lynch and Paul Thomas Anderson are some of the best currently working directors, and I felt Altman was probably top 3 in the world prior to his death. Don't make such assumptions you can't back up. And they aren't European "Art Films." Sorry. They were films with perfectly normal narrative storylines (minus Inland Empire, the only American film I mentioned), that had much raw and affecting impacts on the audience. Fricken' Greenaway=an "art film." Grow up and learn to appreciate different styles and ways of telling a story, because european films are hardly made up of "art films." (btw...have you not seen Altman's 3 women or Scorsese's After Hours?) I never said anything about these directors being ahead of the curve...and I can garuntee you that in sideache, days of glory, volver and the wind that shook the barley, you know EXACTLY what they are saying through thier work and they are a pleasure to watch. Get off your soap box...it has nothing to do with America vs Europe or "Art Films" vs Commercial Successes. These were the films directors I felt (as is my right, is it not?) gave far superior efforts. That's it...that's all there is.

Look at what you quoted me saying. For the work they did THIS YEAR (not in 2000...all about my mother has nothing to do with anything), they would never have been nominated because thier films ( "Days of Glory," "Volver," "Sideache" "The Wind that Shook the Barley" and "Inland Empire") generated so few views and widespread American attention in comparison to "Babel," "The Departed," "united 93" and "Letters." The Academy seriously is not going to nominate someone who directed a film that only a very select group of Americans saw because it's counting on relating with the widespread public for ratings. The oscars are without a doubt, in large part about ratings...don't fool yourself to think they aren't. "All About my Mother," and Almodovar's other film "Talk to Her" both ended up being incredible surprises as far as the amount of publicity and wide-spread attention they generated. Once again...as I've stated over and over: it's just my opinion. Best film and best direction are apples and oranges. Welp, you certainly are wrong. I'm no foreign fil exprert, as you say, but I do know which way is up. Fellini said that h "greatly admired the masculinity and lack of pretense in Ford's work." He was in no way influenced by him, nor did he ever claim to be (in fact, at the height of Ford's influence, Fellini was a part of the Avanguardista and didn't even watch films.) He gained his film influece in part from the great neorealists such as Lang...and also a tenderness from Renoir and the man who played a large part in his mentorship: De Sica. There was also a lot of collaboration, which was the backbone in Fellini's sylistic development, though he really wasn't too greatly influenced by film or filmmakers, but rather literature and music. Much of his perspective, inspiration, and later stylistic psychological impressionism (which coined the term "felliniesque") was gained from reading the works of Jung, Dostoyevksy, Altermov, Hagis and Proust....and listening to Rachmononof (sp). I have a feeling you haven't seen Inland Empire yet. First of all, do you really think that giving me a brief biography of Charlie Chaplin (all things most of us already know) will help enforce your point? Charlie Chaplin was english...just because he was funded through hollywood (as were most european directors all the way up into the mid 60s, Hitchcock included) HARDLY makes him an American director. It only makes him a Hollywood funded director. Also, you can't be serious in saying that friggen' Griffith and DeMille were (hahaha) "far more influential" than Sergei Eisenstein. There are only seven other directors who are in the same league as Eisenstein's influence, those being Welles, Kurosawa, Lang, Chaplin, Hitchcock, Renoir, and Godard. Oh, my.... First off: IMDB isn't the final word. It's merely the generalized interpretation of whoever added him. What "sometimes lost" Eisenstein's audience was censorship because his films were so powerful at the time that they could cause massive riots. I dare you to find a film with since that has had the raw impact to its audience upon its opening as Oktober and Potempkin. Eisenstein is someone who can, without embarressment, be compared to artists like Bahc, Beethovan, Michaelangelo, Dostoyevsky, Hegal, and Da Vinci. His impact upon the medium was THAT significant. Sorry for all the typos, btw.

To each his own. Morvern Callar was very good. It was an adaptation...not that it takes anything away from the film or its daring...just giving a fyi. I really liked Morvern Callar, I just feel that her Ratcatcher, Small deaths Short Series and Gasman short were better. I can't wait to see what else she can put out. When she does come out with a new one, I really hope she takes things to the next level...sort of reinvents the way she makes her films because, though it's worked great so far, I could see it becoming redundant if her entire body of work consisted of an incredibly similar style and approach.

I thought it was a fun and lovely film...I liked Days of Glory better, but not by too much. I am very surprised that Pan's Labyrinth didn't win, given the momentum it had coming in. The Lives of Others was a very good movie though...I would have been torn (as I imagine the judges were), for there were 3 very, very good foreign films in competition this year. What's up with no nomination for VOLVER though?

Morvern Callar wasn't here finest moment, but I still respect it for what it was. Ratcatcher is very minimalist, but it's glorious (IMO).

Dude...I just said that, in my opinion, the people the academy nominated did not give the best direction of the year. The Departed was one of the 5 best films I saw last year...Scorsese is one of my favorite currently-working directors (he was also the revolutionary who introduced contemporary DeM music into film scores), however Loach's direction in The Wind that Shook the Barley, Rachid Bouchareb's in Days of Glory and Almodovar's direction in Volver (none of these two directors are AT ALL "OBSCURE" as you say) were far better efforts than any of the academy's nominees last night. These films actually WEREN'T made on a "shoestring budget" either...and I'm not "simply appreciating them because they are european cinema." I felt that they were MUCH better directing efforts and that's my right. And actually...though I forgot it was an '06 film because I didn't see it until 07, David Lynch probably gave the best direction of the year (far above what the academy nominated IMO) with his great Inland Empire (especially giventhe improvisation of the production and his debut on DV). Amazing movie...Lynch in top form (all the good in him and none of the bad). As I said: my opinion. Also...Fellini was in no way influenced by Hawks, Ford, Huston or De Mille. Nor was Bergman. I think you're thinking of people from the french new wave and the italian movement that prompted it (a movement that included Antonioni, NOT Fellini as far as where they derived thier influence). ThoseAmerican greats you named were influenced by Chaplin and Eisenstein and others (those dang "obscure european directors"). Get off my case...just because I disagree with the Academy doesn't mean I'm some pretentious, socialist wind bag. I would also say that none of the people nominated for best supporting actress and best screenplay truly were the best in those categories either. But it is what it is and it's no big deal...the oscars are a celebration...they're for fun and I had fun watching them. And P.S., Who said I have to be humble? I'm not smart...I'm not intellectual...but that doesn't mean I'm going to hidemy opinions on film in a film discussion forum.

Eh....none of the directors nominated were the best directors of the year. The whole thing was kind of a joke and, in all honesty, I'm glad Scorsese won. Had Ken Loach been up there, it would've been a different story, but we all know that would never have happened. Scorsese has arguably put out at 2 of the top 100 films ever made and has given an incredibly strong piece nearly every time around for the past 38 years (nearly). Greengrass did well, but it didn't blow me away given the subject matter he had to work with and the enormously collaborative nature with which he approached the project. Personally, while I admire Untied 93, I didn't feel he set himself apart from the others at all. Ken Loach, Rachid Bouchareb, Avon Asizu and Almodovar all could have filled in those spots last night (and should have), having completely overshadowed the nominated directors. None of those guys were up there, nor would they have been in a million years for thier work last year, so I'm diggin' that Marty got his Oscar. He did just as well as the rest of his competition and--as we see on every good morning talk show and newspaper head line--"it was a long time a'comin'." Just IMO though.

The scene where the mother dances with her children to Jukebox boogie reminds me of stuff my family used to sometimes do when I was little. It's a warm feeling to watch that and recall those memories so tangibly, while still appreciating that these characters are feeling the exact same thing doing it. I liked how the film was completely open-ended and character driven...how it had a story, but not one of great signifcance...how it celebrated the life of its men, women, and children. There's something sort of romantic about that kind of appreciation for the people someone creates in thier films and it really appealed to me at the time, as it does now. I also enjoyed how well the cinematography expressed unspoken, internalized emotions. In regards to other very contemporary filmmakers--David Gordon Green, Mike Leigh, and Jim Jarmusch also love thier characters so deeply that it's a joy in itself to watch.

I'm 17. Lynn Ramsay, I believe, was in her early 30s, though I may be wrong...I know she had a daughter of about 9 or 10 years old at the point she made it, however, because she had used her daughter in her award winning short films...the ones that ultimately gave her the ability to gain funding for RATCATCHER. I was disappointed with Movern Collar, however I respected it because it was still something depely personal to her.

How many people here have seen this movie? I saw it back in 7th grade and have kept a special place for it in my heart (tacky, I know) ever since. It is so beautifully shot and has such natural, existential poetry that I just feel totally alive when watching it. Every time I see it, I learn something new not just about the characters, but also about myself (it grows as I grow). I feel that this enduring quality is the mark of a truly great film and I feel RATCATCHER to be a near flawless masterpiece, even surpassing the best of Ken Loach (a filmmaker who explores similar themes). It's funny how these things affect you for different reasons...how the nostalgia gained from rewatching something that touched you deeply in your youth can enhance your appreciation for a film. For those of you who have seen it...how did you feel about it? Let's DISCUSS the film. I felt it was great and, to me, it is a deeply personal experience each time around...however I realize that others may not share this opinion.

This is insane. It was a very patient, kind post for you to respond with such cruelty to, Cesar. Is this really how people act? It's sort of disenchanting.

More to express themselves. Compromising that self-expression in the aim to appeal to others is what makes (in my opinion) a "commercial movie."

To me...commercial doesn't have as much to do witht he money aspect as it does to the filmmaker not making a film to please himself, but simply to appeal to others (obviously money comes with that, but it's more dictated by that act of sort of personally sacrificing one's work just to get a possitive reaction out of other people). I don't mean to sound pompous...I don't mean to sound pretentious. I know that i really do and I am really sorry (and you guys have been pretty forgiving toward me in looking pas that, at my ideas). I know that in saying: "Posing as art" it sounds sort of arrogant, but that's what it is to me. Art is something personal...it's an extension of yourself. I like movies that are big at the box office, as long as there is still genuine auteurship left in the piece. To me, BABEL was Inaritu's great big, conformist comedy. He actually turned his aggressive, eccentric style into a cliche in making this film and it is sad. However I respect that this wasn't so for others. Jeez, I hope that made sense, haha.... :rolleyes: :( :)

You're doing a lot of fighting now. In fact, before you...there wasn't any fighting. We were (gasp!) having a discussion. I really wish you would just leave so that we could continue that discussion, because I was enjoying it. I really was.