Robert Lachenay

And I don't dislike "commercial" movies. I dislike commercial movies posing as art...pretending to have something to say through directorial slight-of-hand. Movies CAN be artful and entertaining...I just dislike masked intentions and profound style becoming confused with profound content. As I said in an earlier post and as Bergman observed upon completing CRIES and WHISPERS: The universal struggles are much better articulated through focus on individual struggle. I can't say that I believe Inaritu cared one bit for his characters and, in turn, failed to completely deliver his message. And forgive me, Emmanuel...this discussion-turned-argument has become way too confusing for me to know which way is up anymore. :) I'm a "Dekalog" man myself. Ehhh...you never know. He did call the wives of many filmmakers, whores...and the filmmakers themselves "homosexual conformists..." just to be mean, haha. He could be quite brutal at times...especiallyy in his beginning stages at the ARTS.

This is ridiculous and I am tired of it. Let me tell you a little story about my grandmother: My grandmother was born in Armenia in 1909. Less than a decade would pass before her entire immediate family (discluding one sister) would be murdered during a genocide that goes underappreciated today. She was placed in brutal, unloving, low-end American Foster care until she was adopted by a strict catholic family in her teens. As an adult woman of Armenian heritage, she worked her way into a secretary job at DOW chemical company (a outlet that had a policy of not hiring jews or african americans at the time, so you coul dimagine how tricky it was to fill that spot given her complexion) and raised a family with my Irish born grandfather (who fought for America and the safety of the world in the second world war). After her children had grown, my grandmother made great personal sacrifices to protest, donate money (a lot of money that, for her, a working class woman, could have meant a lot for her personal well being) and extended her voice during the civil rights movement. Her sacrifices are a small piece of the whole that now ensures men and woman of all colors and ethnic origins equal treatment in this country. Today, she has to sit and watch television and listen to lazy, ungrateful people whine about their woes, but never act or sacrifice anything to create change. She has to listen to people talk about how they are viewed as "sub-human," when her entire ethnic origin was nearly wiped out and goes fairly unrecognized. She has to listen to every single thing any one says get warped into an accusation of racism or practiced inequality, when housed protestors and donated money from her savings and home to ensure that racism would no longer be perpetuated (which is exactly what rubio is doing through his baseless accusation). Film stopped being about nationalism just about around the same time my grandmother got a job at DOW. Critics have helped change the world of film....they have reinvented the art for through thier critiques. I feel terrible for people who base the quality of a film on thier own national pride. BABEL was a film...not an essay or homage to INARITU'S nationality (in fact, arriaga is the one behind all of inaritu's films). I just...I don't know... I feel sorry for you that you think that his being mexican is more important than him being a good filmmaker. I wish people could look past such things in film...I wish they could see its true beauty and not have their appreciation for a piece be completely dictated by the nationality of the person who made it. I wrote a critical assessment of how I percieved the film. That is mine...and that is my right. In my assessment, I never once put down the views of others...I never once imposed my cinematic taste ove rthem as the correct one, nor did I insinuate that. YOu have no right to judge how I felt about this film, just as I have no right to judge the reaction you, personally, gained from it. I feel sorry for the people here who are doing that because it is wrong.

I give up.

I totally respect your opinion and the opinions of all who have posted here (except for Rubio, because he has not yet stated his opinion of the film and has simply, ignorantly accused us all of being jealous racists who dislike babel because Inaritu is Mexican and we have "never won an award in our lives). I'm glad you liked Babel...I'm glad someone foud a film they liked. I just didn't and think people would be better off watching a Kieslowski film. I would never be as bold as Truffaut or Bazin to say that: "It is a difference of cinematic opinion...mine being the correct one, of course." In fact, I made a point of finishing my first post with the sentence, "What is so great about film and art is that it's all subjective." I know what I look for in a movie and I know what I didn't see in Babel. That's that as far as I'm concerned, for I was under the impression that his thread was created to discuss how each of us individually perceived the film, rather than simply voicing blind adoration

The bible also has a bit to about the assumption of superiority over one's fellow man. Listen, Rubio: No one knows what you're talking about. You're typing nonsense. Pascal said that through infinity, there is infinitely more to learn...therefore your age and assumed "experience" means nothing to me (especially as you've taught me nothing new through your posts). I may not know ****, and the same to you, but one thing that I do know and that is mine, is how I feel about films after seeing them. I made it quite clear in my first post, in saying that "the great thing about film and art is that it's all subjective." It's my opinion and my right to have it. I have a father almost twice your age and a brother 2 years older than you...the time you inhabit on this earth has nothing to do with how much you've lived. I knew that as soon as I revealed my age, there were going to be condescending remarks...but from you, I could care less. You've posted nothing but confused, disjointed dribble: a thing or two about racism (or...pssh...i don't know...something)...a thing or two about the importance of awards...a thing or two about our jealousy and incompetance...a thing or two about all the blah, blah, blah that never really even stated how YOU FELT about the film. You're addition to the discussion is weak: I wouldn't give two cents to hear how Samuel L. Jackson feels about a film. To form my own opinion, I listen to my gut, and that's that. That's how it should be. For a 36 year old man, you have a lot of living and growing up to do....your ideas are all over the place and (if I'm reading what you're writing correctly, which I'm not sure that I am) you seem very ignorant and close minded. Forgive me for using such a condescending word as "ignorant," but with the grossly over-generalized statements you've made, it is the best choice. I find it sad that your opinion for a film is formed on the basis of how many awards it has won and the ethnicity of its director. Hopefully one day you'll actually understand the beauty of this art form and be able to look past all of that. Check up on Cuaron (or if you want one of their great directors, Gazase). He blows Inaritu AWAY.

Relaxed as far as it's location and the commaradery of the students, in comparison to cut-throat places like LA or NYC. I believe he was referring more to the fact that it's west salem where it's easier to make allies and acquaintances than NYC or LA.

I have a friend who went there when the school was just starting up its film program. Apparently, if you're looking for a more relaxed environment, it's the place to be. I obviously can't go into detail, because it's his experience, not mine...but that's as much as I understood.

Haha...my brother's 38....he doesn't know ****. And Max Jacoby is from Europe...he hasn't won an utterly meaningless golden globe, but he is an award winning director. The awards don't make the man....how many awards did Altman get in comparison to friggen' Paul Haggis? How many actual AWARDS has Scorsese recieved for his direction over Baz Luhrman? In the year 2000, Chocolat was up for best picture...did the 1988 Claire Denis masterpiece "Chocolat" ever recieve any sort of recognition in the united states? When was the last time Lars Von Trier got a Golden Globe or Oscar nod? When was the last time it happened to Loach or Jorgen Leth or Godard or David Gordon Green or Richel or the Dardenne Brothers or Kieslowski or etc, etc, et... ?? Means "nada." Haha...hey... Does everyone remember when freakin' CHICAGO won best picture? Curious how RAGING BULL didn't win best picture in 1980.... Case closed.

Oh well. I'm not even too sure what he was trying to say/prove in the Babel thread. It turned into some strange incoherent mess that had the word "minority" come up an awful lot without really ever being tied to anything relevent to either minorities or the film Babel. I thought the movie and the filmmaker Inaritu has become=busts...nothing personal.

I'd throw Kieslowski into that mix.

I'm not really sure I know what you are talking about. The word minority is just the antonym of the word majority. I think a person would have to be pretty stupid to feel that they are the ethnic majority of the WORLD being a caucasian male. I also think someone would have to be pretty stupid to make such a broad, generalized statement as to say, "White people think that the rest of the world are minorities." And what's your definition of "white people?" I think it's all irrelevant. I don't really get what kind of point you're trying to make...I just don't understand what you're writing. It's too disjointed and incoherent. I...I don't know, haha! I'm at a loss of words. I have a feeling, however, that it has nothing to do with whether or not Babel or Inaritu are any good. And the reason I'm probably not respected internationally for filmmaking is because I'm 17. I did win $2K for a short film I made a year and a half ago though...that was pretty "ballz" for me (not a big deal to most of you guys, I'm sure...but I was happy at the time. It made me smile and I don't smile a lot). Of course now that you know my age, feel free to tell me how naive and inexperienced and shamelessly idealistic I am (which is often what people tell me upon learning this, even though they forget that Dostoyevsky was reinventing lit when he was my age, bret easton ellis was writing less than zero, truffaut was reinventing film critique). To me (in viewing film and in hopefully soon creating it) being "internationally renowned and recognized" isn't all that important...certainly not as improtant as making something that is a very good, honest piece of work. Ken Loach gets a lot of respect, but people worldwide aren't really flocking to see his films. Lynn Ramsay is one of the greatest directors of her generation, but how many of you have actually seen Ratcatcher? David Gordon Green (who is probably one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet and is VERY independent as a filmmaker) is hardly bringing in the box office dough that "Reno 911" is...or the oscar nods that "Babel" is...even though his films feel much more organic and ALIVE. If I made something, I could honestly say that I'd be much happier having made something that people walk out of dizzy...having experienced something new and life affirming...rather than simply getting box of dollars or an oscar nod. As far as critiquing is concerned...Truffaut and Godard (hardly comparing myself to them) were not recognized filmmakers when they were critiquing (and they said some NASTY, NASTY things about the filmmakers), however they had the right to be critics (and look at who they became). The two are completely seperate. "Wise up." Sorry that last post was so lame and all over the place. It is what it is, I guess.

Actually, grandmother is Armenian, born there in 1909. Her parents were murdered and she fled with her sister, then was put into foster care until she was adopted. I'd rather you not go off on a rant about the hardships of minorities in America and the hatred in this country. It gets old. Also, Max Jacoby is European...his film "butterflies" won a european cinema award. If it weren't for critics, or critiquing, cinema wouldn't be what it is today. Send your regards to Andre Bazin, Francois Truffaut, and the rest of Cahiers du cinema. Learn your stuff. Was it not Helen Scott who compared filmgoing to developing a wine pallette? I've seen too much and far better to have appreciated this pompous, recycled film. I personally believe Inaritu to have become one of the most shameless conformists in cinema today. His films completely lack auteurship because through them, he is only trying to appeal to others. They are, as a result, impersonal, overblown messes...done in a now cliche editing style and mixing profundity with pretense, simply to translate into a public who hasn't seen the BETTER versions of his films. As I said, that is only MY opinion...if it is not your own, don't be malicious toward me, but rather state how YOU FELT about the film/filmmaker. Also, your feeble, incoherent attempt to manipulate very serious social tensions, simply to enforce a point on a film message board, shows how little your argument is actually worth. If you had anything to contribute, you would have been able to have done so without retreating into rabble, rabbles about race and discrimination and all that blah, blah, blah. Sadly, you picked the wrong person to present this to, as my heritage is far more of a minority and has suffered more hatred and discrimination and hardship (ultimately under-appreciated, I might add) than just about any that is currently inhabiting this planet. I, however, would not be so disrespectful as to use that to create guilt in someone for not liking a movie (I would, however, use it to humble some one like yourself). Personally, I find your willingness to USE the pain and suffering that others have endured as a tool in a discussion as trivial as film critique, sickening. It is something that, if I were an adult like you, I would be deeply ashamed of. So, shucks to that....now, do you have anything important (or coherent) to say? In answer to this question, I suggest you become acquainted with the Auteur Theory.

Bah!

Hi. I'm going to be moving to Minneapolis in September. I was born there, but have lived in a small Wisconsin town most of my life, so I don't know the city as inside and out as many of its residents. I'm going to be visiting it March 8-12...does anyone having any suggestion of places to go in regards to film and art and cafes? Would anyone like to meet ofr a cup of coffee somewhere? As I said, it'll be a completely new place for me.

I'm afraid I found the film to be incredibly contrived, pretentious and just generally off-putting. I must say, however, that I deeply respect Rian Johnson for pursuing his vision without compromise. Audiences will have vastly different reactions (as we've seen on this very thread), however I'm sure Johnson will always be quite happy to have made this. The filmmakers I look down upon with disgust and contempt are the ones who work for the satisfaction of others before their own...I can't say that about Johnson.

Most people would hate me for saying so, but I believe that this is also the case with Michel Gondry. I don't like him at all and can see right through his faux pas mise en scène. My blood curdles when I hear him being praised by filmgoers with developing pallettes as one of, "the greatest directors of his generation." All he's ever done outside of Eternal Sunshine is a terrible vision of Human Nature, a vapid mechanical film in the Science of Sleep, and a short of Jim Carrey riding on a bed-car, singing Elvis Presley. I feel that the only reason he ever even succeeded with Eternal Sunshine was due to Charlie Kaufman's great writing and a great cast (however Kaufman's original script was much better and much more heartbreaking). We see many ex-music video directors and commercial directors enter into filmmaking, without ever being able to supplement their sleek, predictible style for character development. Mind you, I am not condemning ex-music video/commercial directors, for there have been many who have successfully converted and gone on to become extremely accomplished filmmakers. I supposed I'm just making an observation.

After writing my last post yesterday, I began thinking about it and I?ve come to the conclusion that I should pay reference to the evaluations of Truffaut in his early Cahiers du cinema articles, in which he condemned French Cinema at the time for having writers and directors who simply manipulated their characters, feeling superior to them and their struggles. He wrote of directors, "These 'superior' artists claim to be superior to their creations; this presumption explains, but fails to excuse, the bankruptcy of the arts since the invention of motion pictures." And of screenwriters, "For them, psychological realism inevitably requires that men be base, infamous and vile...the films the write are even more base, vile and spineless..." Now this quote is taken a bit out of context, for he was evaluating the state of French Cinema during the mid-1940s to mid-1950s, however the principle rings true in all film. This is why Babel, Crash and 21 Grams left me feeling cheated. The characters and their actions/emotional drives were merely products of their abusive creators. The end revelation of each film either snuffs catharsis, or simply fakes it to hide that the journey of the characters has only ever been one of literary manipulation (which should never be evident in the type of film Inarritu and Arriaga were attempting to make...and which was, to me, offensive and shameless in Paul Haggis's picture ). The reason the humanitarian efforts of Altman, the Dardenne Brothers, Green, De Sica, Loach, Ramsay, and P.T. Anderson (just a few examples of ensemble-cast, humanitarian filmmaker that come to mind) are so successful and ring so true, is because they are executed to bring the characters and their struggles to a human level. We relate with these people...we can see a bit of what we've gone through in our own lives through their ordeals. It allows us deeper application in the film. It would seem that the minds behind films like Babel, Crash, and 21 Grams enter the creative process with specific analytical intentions, then simply form their characters around the goal of expressing those intentions. I think it would serve Haggis, Arriaga and Inarritu much better to return to examining and feeling close to their characters, instead of using them as oversimplified objects, whose function is only push the filmmakers agenda down our throat. I hope this doesn?t sound like nonsense?I was trying to express how I felt about it, but sometimes I get a few too many ideas going on at once in my head. Forgive me.

Forgive me for posting this twice...I tried to edit, but failed. This was the result. THIS SI THE ONE I WOULD LIKE YOU TO READ. Also, please forgive me for writing so much or for seeming confrontational, if at all I do, throughout this piece. On a first, most irrelevant not, I would just like to say that no, Quentin Tarantino is most certainly not responsible for the omnipotently observed, disjointed style expressed in his films or those expressed in Inarritu's (I mean it was perfected in Kurosawa's Rashomon and had been done in many films prior to that, not to mention in many works of literature, including Dostoyevsky). Max Jacoby, I too felt that this was an overrated, lackluster, and almost embryonic (as far as the characters were concerned) film. It's narrative structure was something that has been done so many times before and so much more effectively that I grew bored with it almost immediately. I feel that it is alright to do something that has been done before, but only if you can do it better...only if you can enhance its effect...if you can reinvent it. Otherwise, I don't want to see some second-rate version of any type of narrative, and sadly that is what I saw in Babel. In my opinion, Amores Perros has been Inarritu's only success. That film felt organic and his unapologetically eccentric style of editing felt fresh and lively with THAT material. It now seems that this sort of editing style has become more of Inarritu's crutch than a vehicle to enhance our viewing experience or aid in our understanding of Arriaga's characters ( I also felt this way about Nolan's Memento, but I'm sure I am in the minority on that). The moments he built tension from also seemed quite shallow: hand-picked, predictable scenarios that were guaranteed to taunt the emotions of the common viewer. The two children across the globe...the problems with the guards: I personally felt manipulated. The entire film attempted to assure me that it was organic...unforced...realistic... However it relied far too heavily on contrivance to garner my emotional affection. I didn't fall for it, for I prefer subtle, tangible emotion to that which is forseen and as an earlier poster coined: "operatic." (Does no one remember the ease with which Altman could derive feeling from an audience...with such small, intimate tragedies? With Cries and Whispers and Fanny och Alexander, even Bergman found that focusing on individual struggle is the far superior form of expressing universal struggle.) Whoever said that it seemed forced, I concur with you. And many films today seemed forced...like manufactured, formulaic pieces of faux-art (as this one was), pumped out efficiently enough to wet the palettes of competition judges and unripe filmgoers just in time for Oscar Fever. Inarritu, in my mind, has become a conformist to the Hollywood expectation He claims to be an artist, but with money has begun to play it safe (would he now dare to let frogs fall from the sky, or God crawl out of a closet door, or lend an entire film to dream sequence? It is not that he needs to take such risks as Anderson, Bergman, or Lynch, but his voice seems to have become a vapid murmur, where it once was an explosion). He has lost that daring originality and experimental fervor expressed in his debut effort, Amores Perros (which, as I have said, is the only one that truly affected me). He has become acquiescent to the sort of reliable Big Studio balance of pretense, profundity and underdevelopment (as we saw last year in Crash and again this year in Babel). I grow tired of hearing such work being called “daring"..."a true artistic achievement of transcendent power"..."blah, blah, blah." Couldn't it be equally observed that Arriaga and Inarritu are shamelessly manipulating the current tensions in our society to draw a sort of nostalgic, invested reaction from the audience? Again, I use an Altman example: In Nashville, he fully articulated the wound of national deception...the paranoia and mistrust of post-Kennedy, post-Watergate America, without ever laying a heavy hand on the material...by simply creating a microcosm from believable, soulful characters. Films like Crash and Babel rely on overt gestures--sometimes even written out for us--to express their intentions. This was not a bad film...but I did not at all feel it was a great film. It seemed eternally feigned--from start to finish--which would not have mattered much if it hadn't also been so utterly pretentious at times. But that's just my opinion...perhaps it sounds silly?.maybe over articulated and pretentious. Don?t blame me though?I?m just a silly high-schooler who doesn?t know much of anything (besides what strikes me and what rubs me the wrong way). Take it as you will?the cool thing about film as an art form is that it?s all subjective. --Robert Lachenay

Quentin Tarantino is most certainly not responsible for the omnipotently observed, disjointed style expressed in his films or those expressed in Inarritu's (I mean it was perfected in Kurosawa's Rashomon and had been done in many films prior to that, not to mention in many works of literature, including Dostoyevsky). Max Jacoby, I also felt that this was an overrated, lackluster, and almost embryonic (as far as the characters are concerned) film. It?s narrative structure was something that has been done so many times before and so much more effectively that I grew bored with it almost immediately. I feel that it is alright to do something that has been done before, but only if you can do it better...only if you can enhance its effect?.reinvent it. I don't want to see the second-rate version of any type of narrative, and sadly that is what I was seeing in Babel. In my opinion, Amores Perros has been Inarritu's only success. That film felt organic and his unapologetically eccentric style of editing felt fresh and lively with that material. In the rest of his films, this style of editing has seemed more like a crutch than a vehicle to enhance our viewing experience or aid in our understanding of Arriaga's characters ( I also felt this way about Memento, but I'm sure I am in the minority on that). The moments he built tension from also seemed quite shallow--hand-picked, predictable scenarios that were guaranteed to taunt our emotions The two children across the globe...the problems with the guards: I felt manipulated. The entire film attempted to assure me that it was organic, unforced and realistic, however it relied far too heavily on contrivance to garner my emotional affection. I didn't fall for it. (Does no one remember the ease with what Altman could derive such feeling from an audience...with such small, intimate tragedies?) Whoever said that it seemed forced, I concur. And many films today seemed forced...like manufactured, formulaic pieces of faux-art (as this one was), pumped out efficiently enough to wet the palettes of competition judges and unripe filmgoers just in time for Oscar Fever. Inarritu, in my mind, has become a conformist to the Hollywood expectation He claims to be an artist, but with money has begun to play it safe (would he now dare to let frogs fall from the sky, or God crawl out of a closet door, or lend an entire film to dream sequence? It is not that he needs to take such risks as Anderson, Bergman or Lynch, but his voice seems to have become a vapid murmur, where it was once an explosion). He has lost that daring originality and experimental fervor expressed in his debut effort, Amores Perros (which, as I have said, is the only one that truly affected me). He has become acquiescent to the sort of reliable Big Studio balance of pretense, profundity and underdevelopment (as we saw last year in Crash and again this year in Babel). I grow tired of hearing such work being called ?daring"..."a true artistic achievement of transcendent power"..."blah, blah, blah." Couldn't it be equally observed that Arriaga and Inarritu are shamelessly manipulating the current tensions in our society to draw a sort of nostalgic, invested reaction from the audience? Again, I use an Altman example: In Nashville, he fully articulated the wound of national deception...the paranoia and mistrust of post-Kennedy, post-Watergate America, without ever laying a heavy hand on the material...by simply creating a microcosm from believable, soulful characters. Films like Crash and Babel rely on overt gestures--sometimes even written out for us--to express their intentions. This was not a bad film...but I did not at all feel it was a great film. It seemed eternally feigned--from start to finish--which would not have mattered much if it hadn't also been so utterly pretentious at times. But that's just my opinion...perhaps it sounds silly?.maybe over articulated and pretentious. Don?t blame me though?I?m just a silly high-schooler who doesn?t know much of anything (besides what strikes me and what rubs me the wrong way). Take it as you will?the cool thing about film as an art form is that it?s all subjective.

"Here. I'll show you a steam engine."

I know this is quite old and I don't mean to dig up old threads, but if you really want to get the most extensive feel for Truffaut (which enhances another viewing of his work when put into perspective), read TRUFFAUT: A BIOGRAPHY, by Antoine DeBaecque and Serge Toubiana. It's surely the most detailed and inspiring film biography I've ever read.

Any wisconsin filmmakers? ....or minnesota.

I hope you guys didn't really get suckered into this. I mean I know what the articles claims and such....but this is hardly what you think.

Eastwood is maturing finely.

Ya. That depalma quote is simply untrue. IMO, depalma's a bigger hack than he is a great filmmaker...he's had far more miserable failures than successes. I mean the guy makes exploitative pseudo-noirs...of course he's going ot want actors. I'd really like to see what Bresson, Truffaut, Godard, Ramsay, Kieslowski, Bergman, Ken Loach, Altman, David Gordon Green and Renoir would say to such a comment. They are all infamous for using non-actors (especially bresson, green, truffaut, loach, ramsaty and kieslowski)...and Depalma couldn't hope to shine thier shoes. I think...as far as dramatic directing is concerned (I'm no experienced filmmaker yet, but I do know a thing or two about directing actors)...but I think the biggest thing is to put a HUGE emphasis on reherrsal and controlled collaboration. Let your actors interpret their characters...if it is an independent production, be open to thier thoughts on certain lines (sounding natural...sounding organic and sincere, is what gives power to your work). Bergman rehearsed scenes from Winter Light and Fanny och Alexander up to 15 times before shooting...David Gordon Green held abnormally extensive reherrsals to prepare for George Washington, as they only had a limited amount of film. Trust in your material, but also allow your actors and actresses to trust in you...allow them to dig beneath the skin of thier characters...allow them room to breath so you can see what works. Don't be afraid of improv (which doesn't mean simply "winging it." It's a very controlled reinterpretation of certain situations to create a more energized, organic feel). I'm young like you, dude...you can do it!