Films you've seen recently and would unreservedly recommend:

[michael]

And more than that, the music drags you out of the experience which at times almost succeeds in being immersive and reminds you that you're just watching a film.

Yes, that's exactly it. Exacerbated, I admit, by writing stuff myself, so I get caught up in technicalities from time to time, but still... I reckon in almost any kind of drama it detracts from that immersive / suspension of disbelief experience.

Music can work really well if you're in for a melodrama, comedy, whatever... Where it's basically all about the fact it's a movie, right here, and we're all agreeing to get dragged along.

I thought the music in Children of Men was one of the best bits of that flick. The lack of a score was perfect at some points - big nods to the bank robbery in Rififi - and in other scenes helpful for setting out how things were working. Mainly thinking of the fact that aging hippy Michael Caine, 20 years in the future, is listening to Roots Manuva, not Crosby Stills & Nash. Makes perfect sense when you hear it, but an efficent, enjoyable way to establish things about the world and the character.

 

[nochexxx]

No, I should really get back into seeing ... some movies, actually.

Big impediment re: genuine realism, I reckon, is just music. God I'm a fucking snob about soundtracks!

me too. one of the reasons i rated The Wire so heavily was because of their situational use of music. i.e. all the tracks were coming out of the environments the scene was set in. upthread i mentioned how much i hated Requiem for a Dream because of this very issue. i think that has to be one of the worst case examples for me. i'm always thinking i'd like to direct a film, just so i can tackle many of these issues i have with cinema. hopefully it would be very therapeutic. it amazes me how so much of this stuff doesn't bother the vast majority of cinema viewing public.

 

[IdleRich]

"That's it, yeah (High Art). It's by Lisa Cholodenko, who also made the brilliant Laurel Canyon. It captures the lack of relation between fame/success and happiness, really well, as well as the fucked up nature of 'cool'. The actress who plays Syd (can't recall her name at the moment) is stellar, and Ally Sheedy - complete revelation. Patricia Clarkson delivers a masterclass in comic camp as an German ex-film star who can't quite get over the fact that her Fassbinder days are in the past."

Sorry man but this is terrible. Awful acting, heavy-handed storyline and embarrassing references thrown in to Fassbinder and Foucault as the hatefully caricatured characters stumble from one scene to the next. It's the references that bug me the most, putting in lines such as "as I was saying to Fassbinder last week" doesn't somehow make you a film maker like Fassbinder it makes you a cunt. When will directors (and authors) learn that having your pawns mouth a few heavyweight names is not a shortcut to respect?

 

[IdleRich]

And the music is inappropriately used as a substitute for emotion as above.

 

[IdleRich]

And the disc keeps jumping!

 

[baboon2004]

Sorry man but this is terrible. Awful acting, heavy-handed storyline and embarrassing references thrown in to Fassbinder and Foucault as the hatefully caricatured characters stumble from one scene to the next. It's the references that bug me the most, putting in lines such as "as I was saying to Fassbinder last week" doesn't somehow make you a film maker like Fassbinder it makes you a cunt. When will directors (and authors) learn that having your pawns mouth a few heavyweight names is not a shortcut to respect?

It's not, it's a great film. And don't call the director a 'cunt', it's neither nice nor true (from her work - she could be awful in real life obv).

Awful acting? Er....no. That's obviosuly just taste though.

The line about Fassbinder is critiquing people in the 'creative industries' who namedrop about people they've worked with, not namedropping itself! C'mon, that's fairly obvious. The character who says that (Greta) is presented as fairly pathetic, not someone you'd want to emulate.

More generally, would namedropping/referencing always be a bad thing, in whatever context you do it? You must hate a lot of directors and authors then...

Point about the music is worth consideration tho.

 

[baboon2004]

If you want to see a (v mainstream) film with the worst script ever, see the Adjustment Bureau. Laugh out loud funny. Funniest lines about hats ever.

 

[IdleRich]

"The line about Fassbinder is critiquing people in the 'creative industries' who namedrop about people they've worked with, not namedropping itself! C'mon, that's fairly obvious. The character who says that (Greta) is presented as fairly pathetic, not someone you'd want to emulate."

But it comes just after the main character who you are supposed to like mentioning Barthes, Derrida & Foucault to the receptionist. And then she does it again when she looks at the photos for the first time to show she is deep and appreciating them in a properly intellectual way. And once that's been properly and indubitably established ("look at the symmetry!") it all goes out of the window for the rest of the film.

I have a love issue and a drug problem, or maybe I have a drug issue and a love problem.

Oh dear.

And what about the skipping disc eh?

 

[IdleRich]

"More generally, would namedropping/referencing always be a bad thing, in whatever context you do it? You must hate a lot of directors and authors then..."

I think it's a bad thing when used in a "cheating" way. Often you read a book and a character is described as reading, I dunno, Dostoyevsky, and you are supposed to think "ah intellectual, sensitive" or something; that is a trick often used when the writer is incapable of rendering the character in such a way that you arrive at that understanding organically. This is the feeling I got from High Art I guess.
On the other hand I love references and stuff that make the audience feel smart when you spot 'em because I'm shallow like that although I recognise that this is also a cheap trick to get you on the director's side.

 

[baboon2004]

But it comes just after the main character who you are supposed to like mentioning Barthes, Derrida & Foucault to the receptionist. And then she does it again when she looks at the photos for the first time to show she is deep and appreciating them in a properly intellectual way. And once that's been properly and indubitably established ("look at the symmetry!") it all goes out of the window for the rest of the film.

Oh dear.

And what about the skipping disc eh?

Hmm, I think that's dumbing it down a little by suggesting you're meant to unequivocally like the Radha Mitchell, who cheats on her b/f etc. I dont' think she's painted allt hat sympatheticlaly in some ways.

gotta go, but lengthier answer later!

 

[IdleRich]

"Hmm, I think that's dumbing it down a little by suggesting you're meant to unequivocally like the Radha Mitchell, who cheats on her b/f etc. I dont' think she's painted allt hat sympatheticlaly in some ways."

Well, she's not perfect but I think you are supposed to like her. The scenes with her boyfriend represent him very badly even when he's clearly in the right. He's obviously supposed to be completely unlikable so that makes it ok when she cheats on him. She's one of those complex, ambiguous characters alright, but not too ambiguous obviously, that might confuse people.

 

[baboon2004]

I think it's a bad thing when used in a "cheating" way. Often you read a book and a character is described as reading, I dunno, Dostoyevsky, and you are supposed to think "ah intellectual, sensitive" or something; that is a trick often used when the writer is incapable of rendering the character in such a way that you arrive at that understanding organically. This is the feeling I got from High Art I guess.
On the other hand I love references and stuff that make the audience feel smart when you spot 'em because I'm shallow like that although I recognise that this is also a cheap trick to get you on the director's side.

OK, understand where you're coming from. In these cases, I think the references were used primarily to illustrate what the director perceives as the name-dropping culture of that art/art magazine world (inevitably there'll be some of the film world she knows in there, of course). A comparative example: the amount of times Foucault and Derrida are namedropped by academics and wannabe academics is, in my view, quite embarrassing - it is something people genuinely do, despite it making them appear as self-caricatures. And my experience of journalism has been similar. So, I'm inclined to believe that the characters in High Art, while obviously being slightly amped up for satirical reasons, are pretty close to how many people act in that 'world'.

i don't agree about the RM character, and this is probabyl our fundamentla disagreement about the film. To me, she comes across as a naive, somewhat unworldly girl who is in instant thrall to the 'cool' of the Ally Sheedy/Patricia Clarkson group, because she's never been accepted by that kind of 'cool group' before (of course, her acceptance comes gradaully etc etc). By selling out her boyfriend for Ally Sheedy, she's attracted to something illusory in her, and actually is acting like a bit of a bitch, the girl who jsut got accepted by the cool group. but, of course, coolness is something entirely fabricated and often used to hide (major) character flaws, in adult situations just as in high school.

That's roughly my reading of the film, anyways. If the director is suggesting 'depth' by the mentioning of Derrida etc (and I think that's left intentionally ambiguous), then she exposes it as a false depth by the waay she falls for the fake glamour of Sheedy'a hangers-on.

As an aside, I often don't understand the line about 'awful acting', because it suggests a common understanding of what 'good acting' might entail, without expounding on what good acting actually is. Is it meant to be naturalistic? Well, taking Fassbinder as an example, his stuff is often not naturalistic, rather high camp and very melodramatic (stuff I've seen), but I wouldn't say it's 'bad acting'.

 

[IdleRich]

"As an aside, I often don't understand the line about 'awful acting', because it suggests a common understanding of what 'good acting' might entail, without expounding on what good acting actually is. Is it meant to be naturalistic? Well, taking Fassbinder as an example, his stuff is often not naturalistic, rather high camp and very melodramatic (stuff I've seen), but I wouldn't say it's 'bad acting'."

Yeah, very true, what is required of a given actor in a given film to make it good can vary an incredible degree from realism to utterly stylised stuff forms such as mime. I guess that in this film I found the acting annoying in that all the characters were kinda hateful cliches and I found that the way that those cliches were created cliched in itself (long meaningful looks, the boyfriend always concentrating on something else to convey his indifference to her etc etc). Being guilty of the crime you're accusing others of is something that is sort of unforgivable. On the other hand, maybe you're right when you say that people really do act like that at times and perhaps there is no way to avoid cliche when describing cliche.

"i don't agree about the RM character, and this is probabyl our fundamentla disagreement about the film. To me, she comes across as a naive, somewhat unworldly girl who is in instant thrall to the 'cool' of the Ally Sheedy/Patricia Clarkson group, because she's never been accepted by that kind of 'cool group' before (of course, her acceptance comes gradaully etc etc). By selling out her boyfriend for Ally Sheedy, she's attracted to something illusory in her, and actually is acting like a bit of a bitch, the girl who jsut got accepted by the cool group. but, of course, coolness is something entirely fabricated and often used to hide (major) character flaws, in adult situations just as in high school."

Maybe that's the basis of the disagreement. I took it to be that the poetry in her soul is instantly able to recognise the lost genius in Lucy's photos and it is that that draws her into the group. That and Lucy herself obviously. The heroin and stuff are a bonus on top of that but it never seems that she is exactly overawed by the shallow guy who is always there and always says something idiotic (to show the viewer that he is an idiot) or the faded film star. She doesn't really join the group, she enjoys the photos (they make her understand what Barthes meant for the first time) and she enjoys going away with the photographer without the drugs and the wankers.
Again, I think the film opposes her sympathetically to her boyfriend - who doesn't like her when she's downtrodden, doesn't like her when she succeeds, doesn't listen to her at all anyway - and implies she's doing the right thing. There is the scene where she says "what are you into?" and he's unable to reply - hardly surprising because he is such a cipher that we never learn anything about him whatsoever and he's not been given a personality with which to create an answer. In no way does the film expect you to sympathise with him when she cheats on him - even when she as much as tells him she's going to do it before she does his anger is presented as unreasonable.
When Lucy dies it's because she is trying to be generous to her ex-lover, it's not a flaw exposed by her attempts to be cool. I think that the director is saying that it's a tragedy rather than any comment on her lifestyle and its shallowness.

 

[IdleRich]

Been reading a load of the reviews for the film on IMDB to try and figure out what, if anything, I'm missing and it definitely seems as though I'm in the minority. A very small minority in fact. My favourite review is this one - seems to be a slight digression to me....

The time has come for women to re-evaluate the societal concept of women's place for their own good, success and happiness. There are many areas women can perform significantly better than men including Art and Science. It is unfortunate that men has denied women to explore their potentials and opportunities all the way along until just recently. It is not nothing wrong for some women to totally ignore men and find their potential of their own amongst the exclusively own sex considering never-ending societal prejudice against them
It is not accurate to say that homosexuality has been forbidden in most of cultures amongst Eurasian continent. In the beginning of Etruscan and Chinese civilisation, women were often valued less than a household animal. Hence women never had their right of their own to love who they desired It was particularly true in ancient Chinese Empire. When a woman was found next to any man of high birth, She was immediately beheaded accused of being a parasite or vermin and replaced by a catamite. That inhuman mentality still seems to be intact with some Asian men's mind. Fortunately the replacing women with catamites did not occur in Japan, but all Japanese have committed similar crimes down the history during the mediaeval age discarding new born female infants in favour of male infants. Truth is that privileged men exercised homosexuality rather openly but women never had enough rights of exercising no matter what they preferred to do. Israel and China both have a long history of Phallocentric homosexuality goes back about to 2000BC and 1600BC respectively In fact they do have a long history of homosexuality following NearEast, Greece, Middle East, and India. I believe that the tradition spreadded via Silk Road from Etruria (ancient Tuscany) branched off to Israel and Egypt. then to Sparta, then Turk, then India and to China. However, those were Phallocentric homosexuality including most distasteful and bizarre catamites. In contrast to contiguous Eurasian continent, Japan has had long history of Parthenocentric homosexuality amongst noble born court attendants and they developed highly intellectual feminist scholar of their own. Contrarily to common beliefs, before the paternalistic authoritarianism ever had any chance to come in effect in Japan, there were four contiguous centuries, a long historic period called the Heï An Era (794 - 1185 A.D. meaning the time for peace and tranquility) where contemporary feminist scholars including art, poetry, and literature flourished in Japanese Imperial Court. It is often considered the peak of the Japanese civilization. I personally view societal harm from Phallocentric homosexuality is so disastrous beyond comparison with Parthenocentric homosexuality. Unfortunately Chinese men usually do not wish to give a same degree of freedom nor intellectual opportunities to women. In fact Parthenocentric homosexuality controls unnecessary growth of population hence it is beneficial in term of ecology. Pinecloud, Palo Alto, California.

Were there even any Japanese people in the movie?
Anyway, have you seen Arrebato Baboon? I think that's a much better exploration of what are, at least superficially, similar themes ie film/photography and heroin. OK, you would say that's not really the point of High Art (nor Arrebato I guess) but there is a sense in which they might make a good companion piece for a themed night. What is interesting about Arrebato is that the main characters' film obsession is much more central and much more believable than in High Art. I mean, in the latter film we never see the photographer discuss or think about photography at all, she just points and clicks a few times and we're supposed to think that she is a genius - is she some kind of idiot-savant who produces masterpieces without any kind of understanding of or interest in photography except for when she pushes the button? Fair enough the evil corporate world have no interest in photography either (yet they are still able to recognise her genius - how is that?) but it seems that it should be more central to the two main characters.

 

[nochexxx]

Coven! an ideal companion to the American Movie documentary.

 

[baboon2004]

Were there even any Japanese people in the movie?
Anyway, have you seen Arrebato Baboon? I think that's a much better exploration of what are, at least superficially, similar themes ie film/photography and heroin. OK, you would say that's not really the point of High Art (nor Arrebato I guess) but there is a sense in which they might make a good companion piece for a themed night. What is interesting about Arrebato is that the main characters' film obsession is much more central and much more believable than in High Art. I mean, in the latter film we never see the photographer discuss or think about photography at all, she just points and clicks a few times and we're supposed to think that she is a genius - is she some kind of idiot-savant who produces masterpieces without any kind of understanding of or interest in photography except for when she pushes the button? Fair enough the evil corporate world have no interest in photography either (yet they are still able to recognise her genius - how is that?) but it seems that it should be more central to the two main characters.

Would write more but pressed at work. Some interesting points coming out of this discussiono about what movies are/should be, I think.

But brief answer - not seen Arrebato, but will try to get hold of it. Sounds very interesting.

Trying to think back to High Art in that respect - I guess that's a fair criticism, but I suppose it didn't bother me that much as it wasn't waht I was 'looking for' from the film. But if it was, then I can understand being a bit negtive on that score.

Japanese characters - there was a woman who could have been Japanese-American, as I recall? But yeah, that reviewer is straight trippin'

 

[nochexxx]

thanks to whoever recommended Lemora. great film. what i thought was interesting is that i've no idea what the parental guidance rating would be,. one of these films that seems to blur the line between kid/adult entertainment. should be more of that imo.

 

[IdleRich]

That does look good.
By the way Dave, just realised I have seen Pickpocket actually and enjoyed it, though maybe not as much as you. Think I preferred L'Argent, can't remember if you've seen that yet. Got a kind of weird non-acting that in some ways is similar to what Baboon was saying about Fassbinder but in some ways it's totally different.

 

[nochexxx]

That does look good.
By the way Dave, just realised I have seen Pickpocket actually and enjoyed it, though maybe not as much as you. Think I preferred L'Argent, can't remember if you've seen that yet. Got a kind of weird non-acting that in some ways is similar to what Baboon was saying about Fassbinder but in some ways it's totally different.

the use of non-actors, or awkward actors as I see it, seems to be a running theme throughout the 2 1/2 Bresson films I’ve seen (Pickpocket, A Man Escaped (this is my fav so far) and Au Hasard Balthazar).

After reading varying views on his work it would seem his preferred choice of acting (is it the actors or his choice of direction?) does not always pull favour, especially with a French speaking audience. I asked a French mate whether she likes Bresson and she confirmed the same criticism I found on the net – she felt many of the actors seemed amateurish and therefore couldn't get into his work.

I have L'Argent cued up Rich!

 

[nochexxx]

Hellman's favourite criterion release The Spirit of the Beehive crackled and glowed like good heroin. i watched this after seeing Lemora, weirdly coincidental as both films show a childs-view perspective. the whole Frankenstein homage was wicked.
i love that scene, for me it's the most memorable in vintage horror cinema.