My, it's a revelation how two people can watch the same movie but see something completely different.
To start with, I have no love for Scorsese in general. I agree with OSC's sentiments regarding Gangs of New York. I feel that the Aviator represents everything wrong with auteur film making (don't get me wrong, there's a few auteurs that I adore). But, ultimately, I think that OSC is giving him a bad rap in this instance, getting on a soapbox of caricature versus character, when this is the wrong movie to characterize this way.
Case in point -- the scenes with Sacha Baron Cohen chasing Hugo through the station. OSC saw these as failed attempts at comedy. I am astonished. Not only did I see no comedy (at all) in the film, but I thought these scenes were WONDERFUL. First, they gave a believable excuse for fantastic cinematography. Second, they showed the character's devotion to his duty, to his job, and to his world-view. Yes, he is crippled, and it causes him physical pain to chase the children. Furthermore, by following his duty he is flagrantly (and regrettable) telegraphing his weakness, of which he is very ashamed, to the woman he loves. Far from being humorous, I felt that the scenes were both very endearing character portraits (from Cohen's perspective) and very lively 3D set pieces (from Hugo and the audience's). I felt tension, wondering if Hugo would escape. The scenes hit every note correctly -- I cannot conceive how one would believe that they were meant to be humorous.
And the movie was a love letter to old films. And I feel it won on this account as well as well. My children were fascinated with the old movies portrayed. The recreations of these old films WERE wondrous, and they were certainly worth the slow pace (even my six year old thinks so). Why? Because Ben Kingsley sold it, the directing sold it, and the 3D sold it.
Which brings me to my other point. Ebert has been one of the harshest critics of the current push for 3D. I understand his points. But he loved the 3D in this film. I'd have to say, even though I am an enthusiast (for 3D), I would only recommend that 3D is mandatory for this two films: Hugo and Avatar. Avatar pushed the medium to its technical limit. Hugo, on the other hand, shows what 3D can really accomplish from an artistic standpoint. The film makes a point to show what an imaginative breakthrough the earliest films were -- I feel that it also serves to make a case for what an imaginative breakthrough 3D can provide. Can I explain what was done? No. I can say that many scenes used heavy use of carefully laid out composition in perspective and motion (foreground, main shot, and background). I can say that the CGI is flawless, that the particulate effects (dust, fog, snow) are amazing. But the sum cannot be explained. It can only be appreciated by experience. And the laymen will be astounded, even if they don't understand why.
There is definitely a time and a place to criticize Scorsese for the overuse of caricature. This isn't it. This movie is slow, yes, but it is wondrous. There's a reason why Scorsese is considered a "great" filmmaker, and after watching this film it's easy to understand why. He understands the art form in a way that few others do; enough so that in a world over-saturated with 3D, one film can use it so uniquely. There's also a reason why this simple children's movie is on many critic's short-lists for the Best Picture Oscar.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Ok, I'll go see it. I saw the trailer and wanted to watch the film, but I'll admit after reading OSC's review I was a little hesitant to go watch it. I'm a fan of Chloe Moretz and I heard she was brilliant in this film (like every other film she is in).
Posted by BBegley (Member # 12638) on :
quote:I'd have to say, even though I am an enthusiast (for 3D), I would only recommend that 3D is mandatory for this two films: Hugo and Avatar.
I liked the 3D in Coraline a lot. When I watched it at home with my kids (in 2D) it felt bland.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
She was . . . though her performance sparked an argument between myself and my wife. Her performance is fantastic (that is to say, on par with the rest of the cast), but her accent seemed a little off. My wife didn't notice and insisted that she must be British. At least Chloe did a good enough job that I had to resort to Wikipedia.
No, she's American. I may be an unrepentant Anglo-phile, but I swear that her accent does a little bit of meandering.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by BBegley:
quote:I'd have to say, even though I am an enthusiast (for 3D), I would only recommend that 3D is mandatory for this two films: Hugo and Avatar.
I liked the 3D in Coraline a lot. When I watched it at home with my kids (in 2D) it felt bland.
I think in some films (Coraline, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Alice in Wonderland) it adds a "layer" that CAN make it more enjoyable, depending on your predilection for 3D. My point is that in both Hugo and Avatar, I feel that 3D fundamentally changes the movie experience. Avatar without the 3D really isn't much more than a cliched Dances with Wolves in space.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I haven't seen this movie yet, but Scorsese rocks!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I liked Taxi Driver. Gangs of New York wasn't nearly as good as it could have been, especially with that cast. Goodfellas was good for its time, but it's a story that's been done to death. The Departed was OK, I think the Academy gave him an Oscar for it out of sympathy.
But now I'm kinda interested to see Hugo, whereas before I wasn't.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: Avatar without the 3D really isn't much more than a cliched Dances with Wolves in space.
The story of Dances With Wolves has not been retold successfully since Dances With Wolves.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I liked Taxi Driver. Gangs of New York wasn't nearly as good as it could have been, especially with that cast. Goodfellas was good for its time, but it's a story that's been done to death. The Departed was OK, I think the Academy gave him an Oscar for it out of sympathy.
Come on. The Oscar was for best picture- that takes into account the whole production. The acting, the cinematography, music, the writing, the directing, everything. On that score, can you tell me a film that deserved it more in 2006? The competition was Little Miss Sunshine, Letters From Iwo Jima, Babel, and the Queen. It was only between those films. I'm comfortable saying that in that company, The Departed was the strongest- I have seen all of them.
As for OSC savaging yet another "elitist," I'm not surprised. My main impression is not a new one- that OSC does not like or much understand any character that is written as a truly flawed individual, who may not ever be deserving of redemption, but are still the protagonists. OSC, for his part, doesn't ever seem to be able to bring himself to write a truly flawed character who actual has an earnest wish for redemption. His characters "flaws," are often the unfortunate results of being *too* good, or *too* earnest, or *too* special to fit in.
His characters that have undesirable traits have them as feints against the audience's perception of them, so that they can surprise the audience with their actual goodness. Physical deformities are the result of selflessness in some way or another, in the protagonists, and a sign of purely irredeemable badness in the antagonists. And his antagonists often seem to be completely evil, and die without a chance at redemption at all. In sum, I think OSC gravitates toward a solidly Calvinist view of his characters, even as he deconstructs Calvinism in some of his works, such as his dealing with the buggers, and the hierarchy of strangeness. Still, even as he seems to deconstruct the Calvinist views of a walk-on character through Ender in Speaker, he actually just comes down on the other side of the coin- the buggers are not evil, and so their killings were not murder, but closer to merely accidental- he doesn't actually deal with the buggers as morally ambiguous- he basically shows that they're fundamentally good.
So given that, which is merely my own opinion, I don't find it at all surprising that OSC chaffes at Scorcese in general, since Scorcese likes presenting characters that are deeply flawed, and then denying them their chance at redemption to make a greater point about the nature of life as we live it. That looks to OSC like the writer stepping in front of the camera- which it is. It's OSC's mistake, in my opinion, to automatically take that as a mark *against* a director or a film. I think it's gospel to OSC that heroism is embodied in some sort of inborn goodness- he often goes to great lengths to paint the picture of natural goodness among his heroic characters. So for a director to take an interest in characters who are not, perhaps "good," in a fundamental way, looks to OSC like "elitist" snobbery and arbitrariness. You can set a watch to that reaction, as far as I have seen.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro:
quote:Come on. The Oscar was for best picture- that takes into account the whole production. The acting, the cinematography, music, the writing, the directing, everything. On that score, can you tell me a film that deserved it more in 2006? The competition was Little Miss Sunshine, Letters From Iwo Jima, Babel, and the Queen. It was only between those films. I'm comfortable saying that in that company, The Departed was the strongest- I have seen all of them.
I'd forgotten who the competition was. Silly mistake. I retract the "sympathy" criticism.
quote:As for OSC savaging yet another "elitist," I'm not surprised. My main impression is not a new one- that OSC does not like or much understand any character that is written as a truly flawed individual, who may not ever be deserving of redemption, but are still the protagonists. OSC, for his part, doesn't ever seem to be able to bring himself to write a truly flawed character who actual has an earnest wish for redemption. His characters "flaws," are often the unfortunate results of being *too* good, or *too* earnest, or *too* special to fit in.
I think you are mistaken on this. Mr. Card lauds Taxi Driver in the same essay.
As for your critiques of Mr. Card's protagonists and their undesirable traits being "feints against the audience's perception of them" that's an interesting POV. I need to think on it before I respond to it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Man, there's a reason why Hugo is getting excellent reviews and press: it's an excellent movie. Why is that being written off by anyone as "it's just the hollywood elites in their elite club giving each other passes for their actually bad movies"
Tobias got to the heart of why Hugo is an A-grade movie quite succinctly; and I would really like to see what happens when someone tries to coherently argue that Rainer, Morgenstern, Edelstein, Tobias, et. al., are all just part of this "a complete pass from the critics" cabal.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I can get behind Departed. I just hope something entertaining can win this year. Though they have their strengths in characters, acting, etc, many flicks that win arguably aren't that entertaining (King's Speech, English Patient, etc). It's an especial accomplishment when a "kids" movie can hit it out of the park.
An Oscar for pure entertainment value, however, would be absurd. Can you imagine Jason Segel accepting the Oscar for The Muppets?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Avatar without the 3D really isn't much more than a cliched Dances with Wolves in space.
Whereas with 3D it's a clich้d Dances with Wolves that gives you a headache.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: I think you are mistaken on this. Mr. Card lauds Taxi Driver in the same essay.
True, but Travis Bickle is inherently good. His conflict is resolving his personal engagement and commerce with corruption. His problem is his deep earnestness, and a nature that is so trusting, that it leads him to believe that the evil around him must somehow be redemptive, and that it is only his own fault for being unable to fathom it. OSC can get behind that- that's a central trope of his fiction.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro: Inherently good? I suppose so, but he is also clearly broken and misguided. What's the connection between the evils he decides to fight and say Senator Palentine who
SPOILERS*
He tries to kill for no discernible reason.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I can get behind Departed. I just hope something entertaining can win this year. Though they have their strengths in characters, acting, etc, many flicks that win arguably aren't that entertaining (King's Speech, English Patient, etc). It's an especial accomplishment when a "kids" movie can hit it out of the park.
An Oscar for pure entertainment value, however, would be absurd. Can you imagine Jason Segel accepting the Oscar for The Muppets?
I think it's an unfortunate trap that many populist critics fall into, to insist that "entertainment," is a quantity composed of the parts of a work, rather than a quality of the work as a whole.
Mike Stoklasa (he of Red Letter Media) did an excellent piece on this not long ago (I think it was part of his Star Trek 2009 review) where he postulated that great science fiction is found at the opposing boundaries of "Fun" and "Boring." That is, a great work of science fiction is either slow and ponderous, or very fast and engaging. "Entertaining," though, as a quantity, rather than a quality, is often found in the works that balance and contrast excitement with ponderousness- attempting to appeal to both awe at breadth and scale, and visceral enjoyment of action and consequence. So, he says, the most "entertaining" of science fiction is typically also the most mediocre and compromised, at least in the way that "entertaining" is popularly defined. It's nothing too stressful and tense, and nothing too boring.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro: Inherently good? I suppose so, but he is also clearly broken and misguided. What's the connection between the evils he decides to fight and say Senator Palentine who
SPOILERS*
He tries to kill for no discernible reason.
Well, I'm not an expert on the film, but my impression was that he gets the idea to kill the Senator in order to right the cognitive dissonance he suffers from loving and idealizing the campaign staffer, and her obvious admiration for a politician who is defined by moral compromise.
Because she supports the senator, he assumes that her judgement of the senator is perfect, because he sees her as perfect. But when the senator brushes him off as a wacko, and doesn't recognize him as a kindred spirit, this presents an inherent conflict in his worldview. The senator's security escort shows that the Senator distrusts the world around him, and has contempt for it. Bickle is still sure that there is something he is missing in all the badness that he sees- and that all he has to do is find everything good in the world- he still hopes the world makes sense, ultimately. He had hoped to put all of his trust in the senator, but seeing that he is an empty vessel, he feels the need to destroy him, because he sees him as the epitome of the unfathomably compromised world. Bickle's goodness is reflected in his inability to accept moral compromises, in himself or in other people. That makes him flawed, but it also means he's good.
ETA: OSC also has a strong affinity for the Savior Complex, usually allowing that the protagonist is flawed in his approach, but not in his aims.
[ December 05, 2011, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Is Avatar one of those films that people just like to hate because it was the most successful film of all time? I thought it was awesome, personally.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, by virtue of being the most successful film of all time, it will attract haters. Also it was made by the maker of a previous holder of the same title, which had a similar hatedom. I liked both of them- excellent movies.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Is Avatar one of those films that people just like to hate because it was the most successful film of all time? I thought it was awesome, personally.
I thought it was entertaining, but I didn't think it was necessarily Best Picture material despite its financial domination. Though the art direction and visual effects were positively mind-blowing, the acting (particularly of lead actor Sam Worthington) and writing were both relatively bland in my opinion. Calling the mineral at the root of the conflict unobtainium or whatever it was called was damn near laughable.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The writing was cringe inducing, and the acting bland at best. Still an excellent movie. Not a best picture though.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
I thought Avatar was entertaining and beautiful. The story surprised me, however. It was a tad preachy and a little weak.
quote:I can get behind Departed. I just hope something entertaining can win this year. Though they have their strengths in characters, acting, etc, many flicks that win arguably aren't that entertaining (King's Speech, English Patient, etc). It's an especial accomplishment when a "kids" movie can hit it out of the park.
*Gasp* I thought The King's Speech was highly entertaining, and I've watched it thrice.
I'm trying to think of an entertaining movie that was released in 2011 that might be considered for an Oscar. I can't think of any, unless they go crazy and nominate Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
Was this a really lame year for movies, or am I missing something?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Orincoro (Why do I read your name as Orinoco, this could be because I'm on an Enya kick) you make good points about what BUGS me about Orson Scott Card's books. His good characters are too good and his evil characters are too evil. It's rather boring to me, really, to have characters that are too good or too evil when people are so complicated. That's why I love a movie like Goodfellas, where the "heroes" aren't perfect hyper moralistic goody-goodies, but they are complicated, cruel one second, kind the next. The rise and fall of a criminal is a fascinating story to me.
Also, Kundun is a dang good movie.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: I'm trying to think of an entertaining movie that was released in 2011 that might be considered for an Oscar.
I thought The Help and Midnight In Paris were both entertaining, and they're both getting preliminary Oscar buzz.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: I thought Avatar was entertaining and beautiful. The story surprised me, however. It was a tad preachy and a little weak.
quote:I can get behind Departed. I just hope something entertaining can win this year. Though they have their strengths in characters, acting, etc, many flicks that win arguably aren't that entertaining (King's Speech, English Patient, etc). It's an especial accomplishment when a "kids" movie can hit it out of the park.
*Gasp* I thought The King's Speech was highly entertaining, and I've watched it thrice.
I'm trying to think of an entertaining movie that was released in 2011 that might be considered for an Oscar. I can't think of any, unless they go crazy and nominate Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
Was this a really lame year for movies, or am I missing something?
Most contenders are saved for the holidays. I'd be all onboard for a darker / offbeat film like Super. But it ain't going to happen.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: I thought The King's Speech was highly entertaining
Totally, totally agree.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'm in the camp in favor of The King's Speech as well. I found it to be an entertaining movie filled with masterful performances. Not a single frame of the movie struck me as being "elitist fodder" or what have you.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Ok, enough, I get it and I concur. The King's Speech was a good movie. But in the running with Black Swan, Inception, The Social Network, and The Kids are all right? I can't see how it won.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, Inception was a cool idea, but aside from being a cool idea it lacked a little something. The Social Network I found was dull at the beginning and didn't leave me with anything that I didn't expect.
I loved the King's Speech. For me, it was more impressive than a normal good film because it was such a slow gentle film that managed to rope you in utterly and completely without any 'action'. It appealed to all different kinds of people. It told a brilliant and thrilling story through conversation only.
I expected the King's Speech to be good but ultimately just a quiet film. I came out of it really excited. That's a good film!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I could make a pretty persuasive essay as to why I think inception and the kids are all right are definitely non-starters for winning against king's speech, and a pretty persuasive essay as to why I think black swan and social network are very arguably but much much more subjectively non-starters vs. king's speech.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
When Black Swan came out I immediately recommended it to a dozen or so people. They all went together and watched it, and I naturally assumed they would also enjoy it. But then on Monday I was bombarded with complaints about how horrible the film was. I was really surprised.
I think different people like different movies. The King's Speech was a great film, but I can totally see some people not liking it. The same goes for just about every other film out there. Avatar didn't appeal to certain types of people, but it did to plenty of others. It's the same with all those Tyler Perry films. There's an audience for just about everything.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I agree, Jeff. My only point is pretty much the same that Orincoro made (imagine me, agreeing with him!). IMO, the King's Speech won because it was a period piece, had smaller distribution, had fantastic acting, and told an emotional story that many people could connect to. It also won despite weak cinematography, a one-note script, pacing problems, and an overall unimaginative production. For what it was, it was a strong film.
From a multidimensional perspective, most of the other films I named had problems -- but not as many as Speech had. The Academy, however, will generally favor smaller shows, period pieces, and historical character studies.
Ultimately, what should they ignore? A movie can win with (merely) functional cinematography, but poor / mediocre acting will kill it (Inception). Black Swan was unlikely just because fantasy / sci-fi start the game as a long shot and it wasn't particularly mainstream. Social Network was fairly well acted, but the script was a mess. The Kids are All Right would be fairly controversial, but it was a little deep for the mainstream viewer (though I'd say that the acting was on par with Speech).
Intellectually, I understand the decision. But it isn't the selection I would have made. I would've picked Shutter Island or Scott Pilgrim.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Ok, enough, I get it and I concur. The King's Speech was a good movie. But in the running with Black Swan, Inception, The Social Network, and The Kids are all right? I can't see how it won.
I think of all of those movies the one with the most lasting power will prove to be The King's Speech. People will argue over the screenplay of Inception for years. Editing purists will embrace Black Swan. The Kids Are All Right will be praised for it's timely depiction of a loving and just normal non-traditional family. And though I love David Fincher, I feel like The Social Network could arguably be a flash in the pan for everything except for the score, the direction, and Jesse Eisenberg's performance. As technology continues to progress, The Social Network will become less shocking and timely and most likely be viewed as an entertaining fictionalization of some vaguely historical events.
Which leaves The King's Speech. Though it too is history, it's subtlety and thematic content make it a movie applicable to a much wider audience and one more likely to be valued upon repeat viewings for more than just novelty. It's a great film because it just does GREAT things with a down-to-earth story.
In my opinion, of course.
EDIT:
The lasting power of The King's Speech will be derived from its themes and the power of the story. As it is history, there's a reason that it, amongst thousands of historical events, was adapted to the screen by such talent with such a deft hand. Unlike many historical films which tend to be go for broke epics ( I'm looking at you Kingdom of Heaven, Alexander, Troy, etc.), The King's Speech chooses to focus instead on the human relationships and the very tangible events in our history as a people. It's precisely its alleged lack of "flair" or what have you which makes it such an undeniable film for such a varied audience.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
So, I certainly shouldn't have thrown a jab at King's Speech, as it seems to have derailed my intended point.
My point is, Hugo DOES have superior acting, a strong script, outstanding cinematography, editing, directing. It is a period peace. It has a broader message. It has some serious artistic and technical merit. It touches all of these bases while still being extremely accessible, even to children. In my humble opinion, it is a stronger contender than the King's Speech was.
As to which movies will be remembered thirty years from now, I cannot guess. Maybe it depends on how ubiquitous 3D is.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I'd have to say, even though I am an enthusiast (for 3D), I would only recommend that 3D is mandatory for this two films: Hugo and Avatar.
Have you seen Cave of Forgotten Dreams? It's one that I think goes in this class.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: My point is, Hugo DOES have superior acting, a strong script, outstanding cinematography, editing, directing. It is a period peace. It has a broader message. It has some serious artistic and technical merit. It touches all of these bases while still being extremely accessible, even to children. In my humble opinion, it is a stronger contender than the King's Speech was.
This is especially promising news considering Asa Butterfield's casting as Ender in the Ender's Game movie. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro: Inherently good? I suppose so, but he is also clearly broken and misguided. What's the connection between the evils he decides to fight and say Senator Palentine who
SPOILERS*
He tries to kill for no discernible reason.
Well, I'm not an expert on the film, but my impression was that he gets the idea to kill the Senator in order to right the cognitive dissonance he suffers from loving and idealizing the campaign staffer, and her obvious admiration for a politician who is defined by moral compromise.
Because she supports the senator, he assumes that her judgement of the senator is perfect, because he sees her as perfect. But when the senator brushes him off as a wacko, and doesn't recognize him as a kindred spirit, this presents an inherent conflict in his worldview. The senator's security escort shows that the Senator distrusts the world around him, and has contempt for it. Bickle is still sure that there is something he is missing in all the badness that he sees- and that all he has to do is find everything good in the world- he still hopes the world makes sense, ultimately. He had hoped to put all of his trust in the senator, but seeing that he is an empty vessel, he feels the need to destroy him, because he sees him as the epitome of the unfathomably compromised world. Bickle's goodness is reflected in his inability to accept moral compromises, in himself or in other people. That makes him flawed, but it also means he's good.
Hmmm I must have missed that when I watched it. I'll have to watch it again and see if I see what you are describing. It's an interesting approach to Bickle.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I agree, Jeff. My only point is pretty much the same that Orincoro made (imagine me, agreeing with him!). IMO, the King's Speech won because it was a period piece, had smaller distribution, had fantastic acting, and told an emotional story that many people could connect to. It also won despite weak cinematography, a one-note script, pacing problems, and an overall unimaginative production. For what it was, it was a strong film.
Where you saw weak cinematography, I saw *understated* cinematography. The entire film was understated- that was inherent to the charm. As we follow the King through his struggles with his duties, we see the world as he does, and likely as Lionel comes to see it- as a drab reality that has no allure, because it is all the king knows. Ever notice how, when the king sits down in Logue's office, the place looks like a filthy hovel, even though when you actually look at the surroundings closely, you see that it's quite clean and tidy? How the paint splotched on the wall makes it look mottled and drab? Well, the king has *never* been in an office like this one- and even for it being clean and tidy and quite well appointed, this is how it appears to him, as a filthy little cave. Brilliant. The limitation of sets and the lack of sweeping "Backstory am" radio chatter over civilization montages was refreshing, and it was necessary so that when we *do* see the king speaking out to the world, we get a sense of what's going through his head in those moments.
It was a period piece that very deliberately refused to play to broad expectations about period dramas. The understated cinematography and production values gave a sense of the audience peaking in on the lives of the characters, once in a while, over a period of many years. Where most period dramas, particularly about politicians, lose out is in their *having* to deal with the broader world in some way, and doing it perfunctorily and without interest. In short, it's a film and a story that *beg* to be done badly.
I also loved the pacing. There's nothing I despise more in a buddy film than the nadir of the relationship being some arbitrary misunderstanding that any idiot could avoid. This was a a real conflict, that had built between the characters and their worlds for a long time, and the film doesn't get all melodramatic about the reconciliation. Everything makes sense. For that reason, I found the pacing to be entirely refreshing- again, as if we are just peaking into the complex lives of people over many years as they grow and change.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I agree, Jeff. My only point is pretty much the same that Orincoro made (imagine me, agreeing with him!). IMO, the King's Speech won because it was a period piece, had smaller distribution, had fantastic acting, and told an emotional story that many people could connect to. It also won despite weak cinematography, a one-note script, pacing problems, and an overall unimaginative production. For what it was, it was a strong film.
Where you saw weak cinematography, I saw *understated* cinematography. The entire film was understated- that was inherent to the charm. As we follow the King through his struggles with his duties, we see the world as he does, and likely as Lionel comes to see it- as a drab reality that has no allure, because it is all the king knows. Ever notice how, when the king sits down in Logue's office, the place looks like a filthy hovel, even though when you actually look at the surroundings closely, you see that it's quite clean and tidy? How the paint splotched on the wall makes it look mottled and drab? Well, the king has *never* been in an office like this one- and even for it being clean and tidy and quite well appointed, this is how it appears to him, as a filthy little cave. Brilliant. The limitation of sets and the lack of sweeping "Backstory am" radio chatter over civilization montages was refreshing, and it was necessary so that when we *do* see the king speaking out to the world, we get a sense of what's going through his head in those moments.
It was a period piece that very deliberately refused to play to broad expectations about period dramas. The understated cinematography and production values gave a sense of the audience peaking in on the lives of the characters, once in a while, over a period of many years. Where most period dramas, particularly about politicians, lose out is in their *having* to deal with the broader world in some way, and doing it perfunctorily and without interest. In short, it's a film and a story that *beg* to be done badly.
I also loved the pacing. There's nothing I despise more in a buddy film than the nadir of the relationship being some arbitrary misunderstanding that any idiot could avoid. This was a a real conflict, that had built between the characters and their worlds for a long time, and the film doesn't get all melodramatic about the reconciliation. Everything makes sense. For that reason, I found the pacing to be entirely refreshing- again, as if we are just peaking into the complex lives of people over many years as they grow and change.
Note it on your calendar: I agree 100% with this post of Orincoro's.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I agree, Jeff. My only point is pretty much the same that Orincoro made (imagine me, agreeing with him!). IMO, the King's Speech won because it was a period piece, had smaller distribution, had fantastic acting, and told an emotional story that many people could connect to. It also won despite weak cinematography, a one-note script, pacing problems, and an overall unimaginative production. For what it was, it was a strong film.
Where you saw weak cinematography, I saw *understated* cinematography. The entire film was understated- that was inherent to the charm. As we follow the King through his struggles with his duties, we see the world as he does, and likely as Lionel comes to see it- as a drab reality that has no allure, because it is all the king knows. Ever notice how, when the king sits down in Logue's office, the place looks like a filthy hovel, even though when you actually look at the surroundings closely, you see that it's quite clean and tidy? How the paint splotched on the wall makes it look mottled and drab? Well, the king has *never* been in an office like this one- and even for it being clean and tidy and quite well appointed, this is how it appears to him, as a filthy little cave. Brilliant. The limitation of sets and the lack of sweeping "Backstory am" radio chatter over civilization montages was refreshing, and it was necessary so that when we *do* see the king speaking out to the world, we get a sense of what's going through his head in those moments.
It was a period piece that very deliberately refused to play to broad expectations about period dramas. The understated cinematography and production values gave a sense of the audience peaking in on the lives of the characters, once in a while, over a period of many years. Where most period dramas, particularly about politicians, lose out is in their *having* to deal with the broader world in some way, and doing it perfunctorily and without interest. In short, it's a film and a story that *beg* to be done badly.
I also loved the pacing. There's nothing I despise more in a buddy film than the nadir of the relationship being some arbitrary misunderstanding that any idiot could avoid. This was a a real conflict, that had built between the characters and their worlds for a long time, and the film doesn't get all melodramatic about the reconciliation. Everything makes sense. For that reason, I found the pacing to be entirely refreshing- again, as if we are just peaking into the complex lives of people over many years as they grow and change.
That really was an excellent description of the movie. I enjoyed every minute of it.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
The film being "understated" isn't necessarily a credit. Maybe I've just watched too much British programming. I felt more like I was watching an exceedingly good episode of Masterpiece Theater. Honestly, I think that some of their television is in the same league (if not the same ballpark). It's a good thing, yes, but I think that it distorts the manner in which I compare it to American films.
Many things about that movie were "understated". But the film succeeds despite them, not because of them. There certainly weren't any achievements in cinematography. Costume design was outstanding, yes, but not anything I haven't seen on BBC.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Understated is DEFINITELY a credit. The climactic scene of the movie is a testament to the culmination of starkness and simplicity of the production design and the consciousness of the piece. A simple, unadorned room with a microphone looming as the Foe Greater. Just the flawless capture of firth and rush as one now must speak and the other must remain silent, to capture diction and acting with commanding cinematograpic resolve. The idea that it is succeeding despite this 'understatedness' is something that needs to be profoundly argued against, and I guess I can benefit from knowing that orincoro's post on this won't be topped.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
What does it mean when Orin, Samp, BlackBlade, and I all agree? Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
So the argument is that if a movie is framed correctly, elicits both powerful performances and an emotional response, this trumps any other Oscar considerations?
Well, I'm glad that Spike Jonze, Tarsem Singh, Edgar Wright, JJ Abrams, and Zack Snyder make beautiful movies for the plebes like me.
Anyone else see The Fall?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The argument is that the pacing, cinematography and scope of The King's Speech are not drawbacks, or limiting factors in its ultimate success as a film. The argument is that this film is very nearly perfect in how it was made, and could not have been made much better; certainly not by having been made bigger, brighter, or more bombastic.
Incidentally, I watched the film in Czech the other week, and it translated wonderfully, which surprised me. But it is a testament to the earnest simplicity of the writing- no ominous background narrations, no non-diagetic interpositions of radio, or period music, no arbitrary shout outs to period events or people- just none of the things you usually see and hear that consist of a film desperately trying to convince you that it is authentic and has the "flavor" of the era. Its a film that knows its timeless, and all that other stuff is just filler that gets in the way of the story.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: So the argument is that if a movie is framed correctly, elicits both powerful performances and an emotional response, this trumps any other Oscar considerations?
Well, I'm glad that Spike Jonze, Tarsem Singh, Edgar Wright, JJ Abrams, and Zack Snyder make beautiful movies for the plebes like me.
Man, no, that's not the argument.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: What does it mean when Orin, Samp, BlackBlade, and I all agree?
That we have issues with being consistent.
[ December 06, 2011, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: What does it mean when Orin, Samp, BlackBlade, and I all agree?
That Orin, Samp, and Blackblade are all finally getting a glimmer of wisdom. Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Well, I thought I was crazy, but a there are a few critics that agree with me. So, good game? I thought Speech was a snoozer, but I've liked some boring flicks too.
I think I just intentionally choose the difficult side in any debate.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
afr, Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
American Family Radio?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
According to Wikipedia: AFR may stand for: AFR, a fictional documentary depicting the death of the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen Africa, UNESCO region The ICAO code for Air France Air Fuel Ratio Alternate Frame Rendering American Family Radio Annualized failure rate Australian Financial Review, the leading business newspaper in Australia ISO 639-2 code of Afrikaans language Advanced Filesize Regulation Accidental Faecal Release
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Try looking at the name of the poster two posts before mine.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
That takes all the fun out of it. Maybe Annualized Failure Rate?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Well, I thought I was crazy, but a there are a few critics that agree with me. So, good game? I thought Speech was a snoozer, but I've liked some boring flicks too.
I think I just intentionally choose the difficult side in any debate.
Perhaps you should try and choose the side that best fits your understanding of the topic, and which speaks truth to you. Because this excuse, while interesting, is not very flattering to you.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
It's a good thing that I'm not online seeking flattery, then, isn't it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Ok, be petulant.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Perhaps you should look up the definition of petulance? I'm in a good humor. It's not that I necessarily enjoy egging you on. . . .
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I know what it means. It was a petulant comment- and an intentional (I surmise) misreading of "flattering." Such misreadings, I often associate with petulance, but if not, then do know that flattering, as I used it means something like: "making one appear to best advantage," as in: "his suit is unflattering in this light." So a comment that reads as: "I'm just arguing out of an innate desire to be contrary," was, I thought, unflattering of the person who said it- especially considering that the comment also attempts to establish an ex-post-facto high ground by implying: "well, I was arguing the harder position, so you may have won on merit, but it's only because my side was a steeper climb." That's just not playing nice.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Ummm. . . So. How about those 3D graphics in Hugo, eh?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I was criticizing a movie, not a person. That would be in poor taste.
Perhaps I misspoke. I didn't intentionally try to lampoon a critically acclaimed movie to try to show how awesome I was at debating. I don't post on this website because of a psychological need to boost me ego. I should have said that I found myself on the losing side, as I often do, due to my contrary opinions. It was a little late to change my post after the flaming dog turd of posts that followed.
It's a good thing I didn't mention how stupid I find Forrest Gump and Pink Floyd. For some reason people really take those criticisms personally.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: It's a good thing I didn't mention how stupid I find Forrest Gump and Pink Floyd. For some reason people really take those criticisms personally.
The film and arts instructor at my college is with you in regards to Forrest Gump. He can't stand it and views it as maudlin pandering to a less artistically astute American audience than viewed films in earlier generations. Considering the popularity of Michael Bay's Transformers films, I lean towards agreeing with his notion in that regard. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Well, I thought I was crazy, but a there are a few critics that agree with me. So, good game?
uh, ok?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: He can't stand it and views it as maudlin pandering to a less artistically astute American audience than viewed films in earlier generations.
He sounds like a real peach.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
PS: So I don't really watch TV (outside of Hulu/netflix), and therefore I miss most movie trailers. So I hadn't heard of Hugo till you guys started talking about it, at which point I watched a trailer.
I have to say, it looks really, really unimpressive. So to those of you that saw it and liked it: Why? Anything in particular that you really liked? Any movies it reminds you of in style/stubstance/whatever?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I was criticizing a movie, not a person. That would be in poor taste.
I see what you did there.
Of course, you could have dropped the discussion entirely instead of, you know, implying that it was beneath you, or all just some diverting exercise that didn't actually matter. That's personal, as well.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Well, I thought I was crazy, but a there are a few critics that agree with me. So, good game?
uh, ok?
I don't have to win guys... you know... I'm just saying... I don't have that kind of pride! No siree bob... I don't... I didn't lose though... okay?
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I'd just like to say that Children of Men got robbed in 2006.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
A good point. I hadn't even thought of it. It did deserve a nomination, at least.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Rrr. I thought Children of Men was ephemeral, self-congratulation tripe that was way prettier and better acted than the script and director deserved.
But then, I loved the original book, and the film kind of just dumps any sense that it's based on the book in the trash can at the conceptual stage. Like Starship Troopers, with more swearing and older leads.
But then, I thought Tangled was robbed of a nom for best animated feature last year.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: PS: So I don't really watch TV (outside of Hulu/netflix), and therefore I miss most movie trailers. So I hadn't heard of Hugo till you guys started talking about it, at which point I watched a trailer.
I have to say, it looks really, really unimpressive. So to those of you that saw it and liked it: Why? Anything in particular that you really liked? Any movies it reminds you of in style/stubstance/whatever?
So . . . from a cinematography perspective it was gorgeous, a master class really. If you're a graphics nut, it's a must see.
The plot was somewhat slow. It's a period film, and it takes itself rather seriously. The first half is mostly from a young boy's perspective as he makes a new friend and unravels a mystery. The second half becomes heavily involved in a plot that is very "pro" old movies and movie preservation. It is at times morose and at times delightful.
The acting is outstanding, especially -- well, everyone.
That being said, I'm not sure that many mainstream viewers will be satisfied. It's hard to tell. It's a bit of a slow moving, thinking piece. It's kind of a kids movie, and it kind of isn't. If children are challenged by anything deeper than Diary of a Wimpy Kid, they may not enjoy it. Grown ups that don't enjoy slightly challenging movies also may not enjoy it. Where the Wild Things Are (though a completely different type of movie) is an example of a challenging movie that really isn't suited for mainstream audiences. If it left you scratching your head, Hugo might too (though Hugo isn't nearly as challenging as Wild Things).
If I were to compare it to something, maybe a mix of The City of Ember and The Prestige with the pacing of a (Michel)Gondry movie.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Why is Source Code being omitted from critics' early pics? I'd say it was stronger than Inception, one of last year's nominees.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: He can't stand it and views it as maudlin pandering to a less artistically astute American audience than viewed films in earlier generations.
He sounds like a real peach.
He's actually been teaching here since the 70s. He's exactly the sort of nutcase you hope would be teaching an art course at a college.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Why is Source Code being omitted from critics' early pics? I'd say it was stronger than Inception, one of last year's nominees.
Sorry for the double post, but I just saw this comment. I think Source Code was pretty neutrally received by those whose opinions matter during award season.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Guess you're right. It got a 73 on Metacritic. Doesn't even beat out the Muppets. At least Hugo's at the top of the list in theaters (at least among wide-release movies).
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
My opinion of Forrest Gump dropped significantly after I saw The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. The two movies are very similar, and the latter was so terrible that it kind of dragged Gump down with it.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Well, that makes me not want to see Benjamin Button. I liked Forrest Gump too much! Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Guess you're right. It got a 73 on Metacritic. Doesn't even beat out the Muppets. At least Hugo's at the top of the list in theaters (at least among wide-release movies).
For what it counts, I really enjoyed Source Code personally, but I think some people took the openness of the screenplay as a negative while some interpreted it as being a necessary and enjoyable element of the narrative. The science is kinda gibberish, but I felt the story was the more important element. I think some critics had a harder time suspending disbelief.
I haven't watched the director Duncan Jones's other movie Moon yet, but the majority of the coverage of his two films paint him as a filmmaker to keep an eye on for the future.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
That's a real bummer about Source Code. Definitely one of my favorite films of the year - smart, stylish, and in tone, setting, and scoring reminiscent of a sci-fi version of a Hitchcock thriller.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: Well, that makes me not want to see Benjamin Button. I liked Forrest Gump too much!
Agreed. I had already decided Button was low on the priority list; now it's just off it. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I've watched the three of Inception, Source Code, and Moon. While all three have shades of pre-existing stories*, I actually enjoyed Inception the most.
$ $ $$$$ on the three movies $$$$$ $ $
Inception: Holodeck within a holodeck adventures with Moriarty, although I'm sure there are other stories where a character "wakes up" as a fake-out and then wakes up again. Source Code: Quantum Leap, Assassin's Creed Moon: The "oh noes, I'm a clone" that I enjoy the most would probably be the O'Brien episode on DS9 along those lines. (Done poorly on Voyager, think there was a Stargate)
$ $ $
I don't really fault the stories for re-mixing existing science fiction elements, but I did feel that Inception explored the consequences and ramifications of it's premise the best while still being entertaining.
That said, I'm glad to have watched at least the first two. I guessed the "reveal" in Moon way way too early and I liked previous takes on the idea too much I think.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: Well, that makes me not want to see Benjamin Button. I liked Forrest Gump too much!
Agreed. I had already decided Button was low on the priority list; now it's just off it.
Oh, it's not so bad. Nice visuals, and Brad Pitt looks like a greek god for some of it, if you like that kind of thing.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: My opinion of Forrest Gump dropped significantly after I saw The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. The two movies are very similar, and the latter was so terrible that it kind of dragged Gump down with it.
I'm sorry, but Shawshank Redemption should have won. It was a better movie and it didn't manipulate emotions.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: Well, that makes me not want to see Benjamin Button. I liked Forrest Gump too much!
Agreed. I had already decided Button was low on the priority list; now it's just off it.
Oh, it's not so bad. Nice visuals, and Brad Pitt looks like a greek god for some of it, if you like that kind of thing.
So like Troy then? Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: My opinion of Forrest Gump dropped significantly after I saw The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. The two movies are very similar, and the latter was so terrible that it kind of dragged Gump down with it.
I'm sorry, but Shawshank Redemption should have won. It was a better movie and it didn't manipulate emotions.
I think I probably agree that Shawshank is a better flick (that's my gut reaction, it's been a long time since I've seen either, so a more measured and critical analysis might reach a different result). However, I think it's patently absurd to say Shawshank did not manipulate the viewer's emotions. It most certainly did.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Well, it wasn't as OBVIOUS. Like Forrest Gump was just full of things designed to make people go "awwwww" but it didn't have quite the substance of Shawshank in my opinion.
Though Shawshank did have that opera scene. But I love opera. I should watch that movie since my cable box seems to have exploded.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Tangledwas robbed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Wonderful, though, that we have some arcane ruleset about number of allowed nominations that lets us see exactly what they're going to put over tangled.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I saw Hugo on Tuesday. I thought it was fair to good. Not Excellent, not solidly good, but fair to good.
The biggest problem with it was that it didn't fully hang together. Someone mentioned that it did have a "first half" and a "second half" and while they were tied just about enough to work as a whole film there was a definite divide and sense of disjointedness between these dual stories.
The way the movie was designed was quite pleasing, although quite stylized colourfully-- the old blue and yellow was back with red, white and the occaisional pale green thrown in to make you think it wasn't a blue and yellow movie.
The script was tight; it didn't show us unnecessary scenes and instead asked us to fill in the gaps and make assumptions, which is good.
I also liked that it was in some ways a love letter to old film; in the first half, I wondered why Scorsese had taken on the film, but it became very clear as the movie developed into this more film-centric plotline. I liked that connections were made between life and the films and once we got into that early film based section the movie came alive.
*
This will contain some mild spoilers:
As I said above, the major problem with the film is the disjointedness. I got the sense watching it that there were several quite separate stories tucked into one.
First thing you have to know is that the more important story of the film (not the story of the boy but the story of the man) is a true story. Going in knowing this would actually definitely have affected the way I perceived the story. True Stories are never as well tied up as ones that have little to no requirement to match up with reality.
This real story is actually a really lovely one and I know why Scorsese chose it. What the problem is (and this may be a problem with the book as well) is that the titular boy Hugo actually is largely a conduit through which we can get to this other character's story. Yes, the boy has a story of his own, but it's very much as a supporting role.
Now, this is fine as a concept. I actually really like it. The trouble is that the film actually doesn't really fully realise it. One of my favourite quotes from a film maker is from Sidney Lumet who talked about a good film being the product of people who were all making the same movie. This means that everyone is onboard with a single vision. All the parts work together perfectly to tell a single, or set of matching, stories. Hugo doesn't quite pull this off.
The movie is centered on the train station, partly because of the True Story, but this is used to make it a convergence of stories. There is a line in it somewhere along the lines of, "This is a train station. People are either getting on trains or off them. Nothing else goes on here." Clearly, the movie says, it does. To an extent, the stories pulled together but maybe an inch more cohesion, a tiny bit more woven together at any point in the movie, would have really pulled this story together.
As it stands there were a few loose threads that I thought were a little too loose.
First, Sasha Baron Cohen. Cast for humour and within his own story, he was quite good, but as part of a cohesive whole he was in a different film. Part of this is the fact it was Sasha Baron Cohen, and there is something a little too satirical about him. The rest of it was simply that I'm not sure Scorsese really knew what to do with him. He was also the only villain in the film but lacked any real convincing villainy. He was simply there to get in the way when the film was getting a little too easy for the characters. It would have maybe been good to have him connect more with the early film plot through some more obvious device and also connect with Hugo through something slightly less simple.
Secondly, the tug of war between Hugo as the main character and Georges was a bit unstable and unbalanced. I would have liked to see more of the early-on story lines converge on or (perhaps more subtley) circle arond Georges. The use of a montage to establish the relationship between Hugo and Georges was especially weak. A single strong scene probably would have done a better job. Perhaps Georges should have been more visually and philosophically part of the train station, even if it wasn't immediately obvious that this was the case.
Thirdly, the girl was I felt a decidedly weak point. She was a tool with character traits, not a full character. I nearly guffawed at some of her more cliched lines and actions. I suspect that this is a flaw of the book rather than simply of the film or the actress. She could have been more key to the story (if you've seen the film, pun intended). Given she was at the station frequently, she could have provided the central character between Georges and the disparate station characters, and clearly did interact with them (teaching all the children to dance), but never became the rounded and full character she could have been.
I may be showing my feminism a little, but I fear part of her problem is not simply that she is a bit of a tool between Hugo and Georges and nothing more, but also that she's a female character in a book about two male characters, by a male writer, made into a movie by a male director. Very little about her rang true for me and I feel this was a significant loss of what could have been a crucial glue that would hold the story together. In fact, as I write this I am becoming more and more convinced that more than anyone she is the most important character in the story and as such should have been much more fully developed and this is a huge problem for the story that she isn't. After all, it's her who creates the mystery by uttering the fateful paraphrased line, "Pere Georges won't let me watch movies, and I don't know why."
!
Lastly, where the girl should have been the literal and central person linking Georges and Hugo, Hugo's invention should have been the philosophical/emotional link. These two people share something very important that is represented by the invention, and we never really got that sense. Partly, I think, because Scorsese was playing his Georges cards very close to the chest, but also because the focus became on early film. The original title suggests that there was also this other key part of Georges-- encapsulated in the invention-- that actually represented him as a person so much so that it was the object chosen to cause [/i]the whole plot to happen[/i]. And yet, it was the film that got centre stage and all the glory. It should have been the invention!
This last problem is possibly/probably an artifact of the movie being filmed by Scorsese, who is clearly and perhaps inevitably more interested in the early film aspect of the story.
What a shame! This was one of these films/stories that was so close. However, I think it used to people and objects as just tools, rather than full developing them. It needed a woman's eye looking at that girl and punching the male writers before pushing her further into the plot to provide more glue between the different parts. It needed someone to remind Scorsese that the story is first about the invention, not about the films.
I'm actually really annoyed about that girl, now. Dammit! Screwed up there, Scorsese.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I just read OSC's review. Aside from the crusty, high and mighty condemning of Scorsese as a person, turns out I kind of agree with him.
It's just a shame OSC now sees the world in political terms, because I don't think is review was overal so absurd. However I don't think the direction of the actors was the main problem, I think there was a whole conceptual problem with the story and the characters first. Any problem with direction of the actors was far secondary.
Also, I don't have a personal vendetta against Scorsese.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Teshi,
Some thoughts:
Obviously you've thought quite a bit about this. I find it a bit odd that you feel a movie that came "so close" was only "fair to good".
Something that annoys you about a movie can ruin the whole experience. It seems that Chloe did that for you. I didn't get that.
I thought the disjointedness worked and fit in with the train station motif. If you look at it, there were other stories being told -- the man woman and their dogs, the inspector, etc. It was a tapestry of sorts, almost a series of vignettes that were twisted together.
And it speaks to my original point: both you and Mr. Card saw humor in Cohen's performance. I didn't. I saw a sad yearning and melancholy. I thought his was actually one of the better performances, along with Mr. Kingsley's.
Even with some of the arguing that has gone on in this post, I guess that's been my point all along (with this movie, King's Speech, Forest Gump). Two people can see the same movie and yet see entirely different movies.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Of course, but the world of criticism doesn't value that which is not well supported. So you are entitled to your opinion, but the value of that opinion is nevertheless based on how appealing it is to other people.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:the world of criticism doesn't value that which is not well supported
Well, that's not quite true. The world of criticism also values that criticism which is written in an amusingly quirky way and produced by someone with the right sort of reputation. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I thought the disjointedness worked and fit in with the train station motif. If you look at it, there were other stories being told -- the man woman and their dogs, the inspector, etc. It was a tapestry of sorts, almost a series of vignettes that were twisted together.
I recognise the vignette/tapestry element of the movie. In fact, I talked about it a bit. However, the fact that there were other storeis being told does not necessarily make those stories useful, relevant or important to the main story-- that clearly existed.
Yes, Sasha Baron Cohen was playing a slightly tragic role, but he was also intended to be slightly funny. Maybe as an adult you found it more tragic--I find Mr. Bean apallingly tragic-- but I still recognised that Sasha Baron Cohen was intended to be slightly amusing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:the world of criticism doesn't value that which is not well supported
Well, that's not quite true. The world of criticism also values that criticism which is written in an amusingly quirky way and produced by someone with the right sort of reputation.
Touche.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Of course, but the world of criticism doesn't value that which is not well supported. So you are entitled to your opinion, but the value of that opinion is nevertheless based on how appealing it is to other people.
I'm not certain that the value is the level at which it's well supported. I'm more inclined to believe that it's the level at which you find consensus. But it's all relative, isn't it?
I find that I tend to agree with professional reviews somewhere along the spectrum between Ebert and the Christian Science Monitor. But I might recommend a movie that someone else feels is rubbish. My relative value toward that person loses value . . . but that is all. My sister, as an example, only watches super-mainstream movies (she'll probably see that new Jack and Jill movie). If I recommended Party Monster, Where the Wild Things Are, The Fall, The Beginners, or any number of other slightly challenging movies, she'd likely not listen to me again. I'd be hit or miss with edgy movies like Scott Pilgrim or Inglorious Basterds. Along those lines, I'm not going to listen when she recommends a Micheal Bay, Jason Stratham, or M Night Shyamalan flick.
People are going to listen to other people when they like the same movies. Period. No matter how well you try to "support" the fact that the King's Speech is a good movie -- even if every professional critic agrees -- your argument is going to fall on (my) deaf ears and have no value. But if we both loved Igby Goes Down, Shaun of the Dead, Charlie Bartlett, and What Dreams May Come . . . I might rethink your argument.
[ December 09, 2011, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Aros ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I have occaisionally been made to see that my reviews are flawed by people. I hated Star Trek, for example, but people made a good case for them liking it and I can understand that.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I have occaisionally been made to see that my reviews are flawed by people. I hated Star Trek, for example, but people made a good case for them liking it and I can understand that.
Blasphemy! Now I shall verbally assault you for no reason other than the fact that I disagree with you!
You, sir, smell of dingleberries. That is all.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Guess you're right. It got a 73 on Metacritic. Doesn't even beat out the Muppets. At least Hugo's at the top of the list in theaters (at least among wide-release movies).
I haven't watched the director Duncan Jones's other movie Moon yet, but the majority of the coverage of his two films paint him as a filmmaker to keep an eye on for the future.
I thought Moon was outstanding, but it moved slow as well. I watched it late at night after reading about it here on Hatrack, and I think that was the perfect way to get into it.
I also loved The Man From Earth, which was a fascinating character study, but basically was a bunch of people talking the whole time.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
The Man From Earth was pretty awesome indeed. When my brother told me about it I thought he was kidding, no way he'd sit through such a movie no matter how fascinating the subject was to him. I was wrong.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: Well, that makes me not want to see Benjamin Button. I liked Forrest Gump too much!
Agreed. I had already decided Button was low on the priority list; now it's just off it.
Oh, it's not so bad. Nice visuals, and Brad Pitt looks like a greek god for some of it, if you like that kind of thing.
So like Troy then?
Less disturbing in accidental homoeroticism than Troy. Overall, really a less uncomfortable experience than Troy was. That was a strange movie, there are so many scenes in it that are just so wrong, and so many missed notes, it's like listening to someone play a piano concerto with a broken middle finger.
There are too many to mention, but I was squircked out by the costumes, the dialogue, the music, facial expressions, the accents. There was a lot in that movie that just felt *off* in a really weird way.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I hated Troy. It was the biggest "missed opportunity" movie I have ever seen.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I made my student workers listen to me explain everything they got wrong about the story.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, sure. That's what workstudies are FOR (captive audiences), neh?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I hated Troy. It was the biggest "missed opportunity" movie I have ever seen.
In terms of talent and money? Yes. In terms of execution of a script? Well, it was mostly as good as it possibly could have been considering the writing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Well, sure. That's what workstudies are FOR (captive audiences), neh?
That and listening to me explain how Aragorn and Arwen are actually cousins 39 times removed.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
All I remember of Troy is that I could scarcely recall it -- even after having just watched it. It didn't affect me at all.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Orinoco: Considering the writing!
Writing is always what I pay attention to the most, followed by other storytelling methods like colours, design, lighting, editing and setting, followed by directing, followed by casting and acting, followed by music, followed by CGI/Special Effects.
The opportunity was in the turning the Iliad into a beautiful story on film. I don't care about how accurate it was to the Iliad, I wanted the myth executed properly (mythically). It wasn't. I was mad.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I went and saw troy the day before release with the theater staff, in an otherwise empty theater, with lots of alcohol. We were laughing so hard through that entire movie!
So, I had fun.
Under any other circumstances wherein I would be unable to drink or laugh all the time or openly riff, I probably would have just shuffled about in my chair restlessly and left about halfway in.
I use Troy as a central example of when filmmakers don't know how to deal with spears in this one, it was so blatant you could practically feel the discomfort of the screenwriters, having to deal with spears, languishing openly with badly choreographed moves, dying to reach the point where the combatants break each other's spears like they were made of balsa wood and pull out their swords and finish the fight in a "much more exciting" way urdurrrurur
It's not noteworthy in any other way to me, tbh just another movie curbstomped three feet into the ground by terrible writing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I use Troy as a central example of when filmmakers don't know how to deal with spears...
Do you find yourself having to make this point often? Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It came out in 2005, after the Return of the King and I remember comparing the motivational speech from Troy to the motivational speech from Return of the King.
quote: Aragorn: Sons of Gondor! Of Rohan! My brothers. I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when the courage of Men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the Age of Men comes crashing down, but it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!(the men prepare)
Hector: All my life I've lived by a code, and the code is simple. Honor the gods. Love your woman. And defend your country. (the men roar) Troy is mother to us all. Fight for her!
Writing: The language is precise and distinctively unique, referencing both the speaker and the listeners and using effective rhetorical devices like alliteration. This fully convinces me that the men are going to be convinced by Aragorn to fight in what we know are appalling odds.
Cinematography/Editing: The camera takes in the foreground, catching the heads and weapons of the listening warriors. We see the faces of the warriors while Aragorn speaks. We understand there is a connection between Aragorn and his listeners.
Acting: Aragorn's voice is pretty ragged, and he's screaming at the top of his lungs and riding back and forth to be heard and you can hear his desperation. This lends credibility and realism to the scene. You see the faces of the listeners looking intently, terribly afraid, up at Aragorn as he goes back and forth, suggesting they are in fact in the same scene. You see them shuffling their feet.
Design: The deseperation in Aragorn's voice is reflected in the desperation in his face and the way his clothes and makeup are done.
Direction/Cinematography: The constant movement of the camera ties in with the high pace and energy of the speech and the pace of the scene/film as a greater whole.
Compare with Hector's speech:
Writing: The writing is simple (much like the code) and doesn't use precise language. The only rhetorical devices employed is repetition of the word code and the metaphor of Troy as mother, which is used but not developed, and then thrown away in 'fight for her'. The use of the word country is weird, since Hector has only ever known the city-state system and isn't fighting really to preserve a generic country but Troy in particular; a city-- that is clear in the next line. He wouldn't say, "defend your country", because he doesn't think intercityly, as it were. Troy is the only place he has known and it is the same for all his listeners. These aren't mercenaries, these are Trojans. They will fight for Troy, not some generic land. This doesn't come off as as credible and inspiring as Aragorn's speech at all. I laughed out loud when I heard it and the kind of dumb simplicity and was wholly unconvinced at the roar following, "defend your country".
Cinematography/Editing: The camera is static and isolates Hector from his warriors, the people he is supposed to be talking to. We get the wide shot, the medium shot, and the closeup and when we're in latter two there's no sense of context at all. We never see Hector facing the men and you get the distinct impression as he is talking and then at the shot of the men roaring that they aren't actually talking to each other. This exacerbates a sense of complete isolation on Hector's part, rather than a connection with his audience. We don't even get to see everyone cheer until the end, only a small section of the horsemen. There's no sense that they're engaging with one another at all.
Acting: Hector clearly isn't addressing anyone except for the crew, because he's looking only to his left and straight on. He is sitting on his horse and absolute worst, his voice is barely raised at all talking which is then men with an enormous roar. How can all those people hear him in the open air on a wide battlefield full of armour and the shuffling of horses and men? He doesn't physically demonstrate effort or committment by standing in his stirrups, and he doesn't put energy into this, the most important speech Hector will make. Of course, part of this is the dry writing, but the actor could have put significantly more effort into this speech and we would have got the sense he actually wanted to save Troy a bit.
Design: Hector's situation isn't quite as desperate as Aragorn's and he's practically a perfectly coiffed Greek, so we'll forgive him a little bit of improvement, but it's still a battle, and it's hot and he was wearing a metal helmet. Come on, he's not even a little bit sweaty and bedraggled? It just subtracts further from the sense of being actually committed.
Direction: Oh dear. Who kept the camera static? Who decided they were going to keep Hector and the horsemen separate? Who decided that in the background men were going to keep walking while not keeping a consistant sound? Who told the actor not to shout his lines? Who okayed supermodel Hector? Director.
In all, Hector's speech does not rally the troops, does not rally the audience, is delivered dully and in front of a sitting camera. There is no sense that he is speaking to anyone or that they are listening to him. The editing is basic, the sound editing is shoddy. The whole thing lacks the level of thought and intelligence and imagination that was poured into the Aragorn speech.
*
Weirdly, I found two different versions of this Hector speech. In the one I linked above, the soliders are quite close and you see five or six in the cut to them cheering. In this one, apparently taken from the big screen, they are much further away and you see twenty or thirty.
Hmmm. I have two theories. One, the further away is the original theatre release, and the weird angle was fixed for a cheaply done head on shot. Two, the closer one is the original theatre release and the more impressive line up of horses in the further away one was the fix, because Hector's looking left (as discussed).
It's not the same men; the horses, at least, are different.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Teshi: You ended up triple posting your last so I removed the duplicate posts.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I use Troy as a central example of when filmmakers don't know how to deal with spears
How did you feel about 'Hero?'
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Teshi: You ended up triple posting your last so I removed the duplicate posts.
Thank you! I have terribly shaky internet and I had to go out before I could actually load a page to check whether it had posted once or three times!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I use Troy as a central example of when filmmakers don't know how to deal with spears
How did you feel about 'Hero?'
I think Hero is the prettiest promotion of the triumph of security via autocratic rule over liberty and human rights WAIT we were talking about spears, right?
The spear fight was the best in the movie because it comes before the sludge of 'surprise, that fight didn't actually happen, here's the next fight that didn't actually happen'
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I use Troy as a central example of when filmmakers don't know how to deal with spears...
Do you find yourself having to make this point often?
About as often as I will again witness and participate against the delusion that japanese swords were the best swords in the world, yes
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I went into Troy just knowing the story would be super off. Way too super-Hollywood a deal to keep close.
The thing that jarred me more than anything, though, was when Briseis in the film not only bonds with Achilles, but actually seems to emotionally love him, mourn his death, and respect him-not to mention having what was presented as passionate, emotional, intimate sex with him. This was the guy who came to her home and said, "I'm gonna do my best to kill as many of your people-including your male family-as skillfully as I can, because I really love warfare."
quote:About as often as I will again witness and participate against the delusion that japanese swords were the best swords in the world, yes
Not only were they the best in the world, they're also the best in all conceivable situations against all conceivable opponents!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I use Troy as a central example of when filmmakers don't know how to deal with spears
How did you feel about 'Hero?'
Not really a fair comparison, I think. Donnie Yen and Jet Li are martial artists who have branched out into film. The actors in Troy, well, aren't.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Not only were they the best in the world, they're also the best in all conceivable situations against all conceivable opponents!
They're basically lightsabers.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, if you get a Japanese sword that has some sort of mystical properties, the soul of a samurai (or even better, a ninja!) in it, it would totally and in all cases trump a lightsaber.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Well, if you get a Japanese sword that has some sort of mystical properties
So, if you get a Japanese sword...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The spear fight was the best in the movie because it comes before the sludge of 'surprise, that fight didn't actually happen, here's the next fight that didn't actually happen'
:nod:
I agree.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, if you get a Japanese sword that has some sort of mystical properties, the soul of a samurai (or even better, a ninja!) in it, it would totally and in all cases trump a lightsaber.
Sadly, lightsabers also effectively have mystical properties, so I'm afraid this theory is rubbish, utter rubbish ::pushes glasses up nose::
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Teshi, it's interesting you mention Aragorn's speech at the Black Gates, because that speech has always struck me in how he spends 80% of the speech talking about how Men are doomed to failure in the long run. Virtually all of the pretty imagery is describing in loving detail that future day when Men get wiped out. It was really disconcerting to me, and didn't seem very inspiring.
Better than Hector, sure. But there are many inspiring battle speeches out there that put Aragorn's to shame. Including some in LotR!
PS: Even though I know you're all being facetious, this talk of Japanese swords and Japanese swords in space is kind of making me want to stab you. And not with an ineffective sub-par steel Japanese sword, either.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think "a day may come" is saying anything about doomed to failure. I think it is acknowledging the real fears that people face and then giving them a way to set them aside.
It isn't St. Crispin's Day, but it was pretty darn good.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm with kmbboots (obviously, I suppose). You have to remember the context: the situation is basically inevitable failure and insurmountable odds. The enemy is vast, magical and intrinsically evil that threatens to destroy the entire world. Perhaps nowadays people think that not mentioning what is bad is a good political strategy but these people believe that not only their deaths are inevitable, but the deaths of every who is good is inevitable. Aragorn assures them, in no uncertain terms, that while there will be a day when the end will come for an entire species, their job today will not be one that is undertaken in vain.
I find that far more inspiring and realistic than a rose-tinted vision that things will wholly be okay. Remember, they are not fighting to save something tangible, they are simply trying to act as a diversion (as Legolas observes). It's Aragorn's job to attempt to steel nearly completely destroyed nerves enough to get them to fight, if necessary, to the death-- long enough for Frodo and Sam to get to Mount Doom.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Excellent points!
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Better than Hector, sure. But there are many inspiring battle speeches out there that put Aragorn's to shame. Including some in LotR!
"..I am William Wallace. And I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny! You have come to fight as free men. And free man you are! What will you do without freedom? Will you fight? Two thousand against ten?
the veteran shouted: "No! We will run and live!"
"Yes!" Wallace shouted back. "Fight and you may die. Run and you will live at least awhile. And dying in your bed many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance, to come back here as young men and tell our enemies that they may take our lives but they will never take our freedom!
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Swords are awesome. But perpetually outdated and outclassed as killing devices.
Also, I think there's no better battle speech than "The enemy's gate is down." :-)
The best thing about that article (and it's a really good article) is that it hits on all the primary points that will drive the largest quantity of fantasy-prone sword (and japanese sword) fetishists to apoplexy problems with steel, problems with armor, problems with weight, blatant inferiority to the spear, blatant inferiority of katanas to other swords, the existence of almost completely lost frankish swordfighting arts that would murder samurai without hesitation, swordcrafting's perfection at the point of obsolescence with the smallsword, the fact that you can make a sword these days with scrap steel from a car chassis that is better than katanas, everything! It's got it all!
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
I love it. Thought it was relevant. And annoying :-)
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Swords are awesome. But perpetually outdated and outclassed as killing devices.
Oh, wow, how'd I miss that one? Parker is always worth reading. Thanks!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Fun article. There was a documentary on Netflix about East Vs West swordcraft and Europeans scouring archives in medieval libraries found sword manuals for various types of swords that certainly incorporated everything you see in an Asian martial arts discipline. Not with as much flourish of course, but grim efficiency nonetheless.
I wish I knew what it was called.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Which reminds me (not sure if I've said this before), make sure to give http://preview.tinyurl.com/3znp9zn a watch when you have a chance, it's a great movie, and supposedly it's a special treat if you understand Mandarin (or appreciate the Sichuan accent).
(Don't watch it with young ones around though)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Fun article. There was a documentary on Netflix about East Vs West swordcraft and Europeans scouring archives in medieval libraries found sword manuals for various types of swords that certainly incorporated everything you see in an Asian martial arts discipline. Not with as much flourish of course, but grim efficiency nonetheless.
I wish I knew what it was called.
It's *almost* as if-and bear with me, this might be crazy-various European cultures had centuries, scores of generations, of frequent or even almost constant warfare, ingenuity, craftsmanship, skill at fighting, will to live...the kinds of things that would lead them to innovate and become extremely skilled at melee combat as well.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Fun article. There was a documentary on Netflix about East Vs West swordcraft and Europeans scouring archives in medieval libraries found sword manuals for various types of swords that certainly incorporated everything you see in an Asian martial arts discipline. Not with as much flourish of course, but grim efficiency nonetheless.
I wish I knew what it was called.
It's *almost* as if-and bear with me, this might be crazy-various European cultures had centuries, scores of generations, of frequent or even almost constant warfare, ingenuity, craftsmanship, skill at fighting, will to live...the kinds of things that would lead them to innovate and become extremely skilled at melee combat as well.
Also, yeah, I loved the article.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Fun article. There was a documentary on Netflix about East Vs West swordcraft and Europeans scouring archives in medieval libraries found sword manuals for various types of swords that certainly incorporated everything you see in an Asian martial arts discipline. Not with as much flourish of course, but grim efficiency nonetheless.
I wish I knew what it was called.
It's *almost* as if-and bear with me, this might be crazy-various European cultures had centuries, scores of generations, of frequent or even almost constant warfare, ingenuity, craftsmanship, skill at fighting, will to live...the kinds of things that would lead them to innovate and become extremely skilled at melee combat as well.
That's just crazy. Everybody knows the only reason Japan didn't just take over the known universe is because their incredible power was all self directed with in fighting. I mean look at WWII! They totally should have won but we cheated!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There was no other way we could have destroyed their sturdy and amazingly well-designed naval fleets, of course.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: . . . blatant inferiority to the spear, blatant inferiority of katanas to other swords, the existence of almost completely lost frankish swordfighting arts that would murder samurai without hesitation, swordcrafting's perfection at the point of obsolescence with the smallsword, the fact that you can make a sword these days with scrap steel from a car chassis that is better than katanas, everything! It's got it all!
Not sure I see how a blade is inferior to the spear. After reading the article, I'd assume that a spear is pretty useless once armor is in the equation. Or in any other circumstance when slashing is superior to piercing. Or in any situation when the tensile strength of a sword is superior to that of a spear (read wooden shaft).
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Teshi, it's interesting you mention Aragorn's speech at the Black Gates, because that speech has always struck me in how he spends 80% of the speech talking about how Men are doomed to failure in the long run. Virtually all of the pretty imagery is describing in loving detail that future day when Men get wiped out. It was really disconcerting to me, and didn't seem very inspiring.
At this point this borders on dogpiling, but I also found it inspiring. I find speeches/songs most inspiring when they proclaim success AGAINST insurmountable odds, instead of inevitable victory. I'm actually writing a (vaguely) similar speech for a Solstice party.
[ December 15, 2011, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: There was no other way we could have destroyed their sturdy and amazingly well-designed naval fleets, of course.
I see what you did there.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Not sure I see how a blade is inferior to the spear. After reading the article, I'd assume that a spear is pretty useless once armor is in the equation. Or in any other circumstance when slashing is superior to piercing. Or in any situation when the tensile strength of a sword is superior to that of a spear (read wooden shaft).
Well, I think I can answer pretty much all of this. To start: how practical do you think it is to try to exploit the 'tensile weakness' of a spear's shaft in combat? What vulnerabilities do you think this poses? Do you think that if you were fighting a person with a spear, you could cut the spear with the sword?
Secondly: what part of the article makes you think that spears are worthless once armor enters the equation?
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I'm kind of late to this discussion. I wanted to reserve judgement until I'd seen the film.
As for Scorsese, I thought "Departed" was wonderful. I thought "Gangs of New York" was atrociously bad. If I've seen any of his other films, they did stick in my memory. Personally, without being told, I'd have a hard time believing that those films and "Hugo" were created by the same individual.
As for "Hugo," though I was still excited to see the movie as I've intended on doing for awhile, a few reviews had me concerned. I could easily imagine Cohen's character going overboard. I could imagine how the shifting storyline could appear disjointed.
But I thought the movie was INCREDIBLE. Alittle slow and wandering in parts, but otherwise completely enchanting. I loved the progression and plot resolution. I thought everything came together in a way that was heartfelt without the typical Hollywood cliches. The 3D in this film did what 3D should. It really added to the experience without being distracting. It gave everything this slightly otherworldly effect that enhanced the fantastical elements of a story that includes automatons and magicians.
And the performances were lovely. I could not be more excited to see Asa as Ender. The part where he's struggling to get away from the Inspector...I got all misty. Chloe was also very believable and endearing. I remember thinking several times that those were the sorts of performances I wanted in the early Harry Potter films. I don't know if it was the actors or the incredible direction, but the two of them were skilled beyond their years.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Sam: - Doesn't the article say as much? That thrusting weapons are pretty much pointless (get it?) when armor is introduced? I'd assume that a wooden shafted spear becomes even more so, prone to shattering against armor or damage during prolonged combat.
Shanna et al.: - Did you see Ebert's top 5 movies of 2011? Hugo was number 4 (and the only wide release movie on the list).
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)