Excuse me? A person’s personal opinion can not be wrong. You may disagree with it - but that doesn’t make the other person wrong. Doesn’t necessarily make them right either. It’s an opinion - right and wrong don’t enter in to it. Jeez.
Then some people here need to get over themselves.
Whenever I see arguments based on supposed authorial intent, I’m always reminded of an interview I read with Sherwood Schwartz, creator of “Gilligan’s Island” and “Brady Bunch.” He insisted that “Gilligan’s Island” was actually a metaphor for world politics … because the castaways could only survive on the island by working together, you see, just like the nations of the world can only survive by overcoming their disagreements and working toward a common goal.
To paraphrase Chris Penn in Reservoir Dogs: “Saying it don’t necessarily make it fuckin’ so!!”
Yes! This is why I have a hard time with Blade Runner fanboys who worship Ridley Scott and every idiotic thing he says. I don’t care how many times Scott says Deckard was a replicant without a doubt. To me it’s always been ambiguous and to me I think Deckard is obviously a human being.
Ridley can talk all he wants but that doesn’t change what’s on screen.
Have you seen the Director’s Cut? It’s entirely unambiguous that Deckard is a replicant in that cut of the movie - and I guess Ridley Scott did change what was on the screen, didn’t he?
That’s simply not true. It would have been entirely unambiguous had Deckard been told “You are a replicant, here’s the bill of sale” or had he pulled apart his chest cavity to reveal a bank of nine-volt batteries and a Speak 'N Spell. It was HINTED he might be a replicant through a couple of scenes; it was not unambiguously stated. You could interpret the dream sequence/origami bird thing any numebr of ways.
I think a smart director would want the issue to be ambiguous. The entire point of the movie, I thought, was exploring the definition of life. Aren’t replicants alive? If so, what could morally or ethically separate them from humans? And if not, well, how can you argue they’re not alive? They think, feel, love, fear. If Deckard MIGHT be a replicant, that creates a grey area in the audience’s eyes that perfectly illustrates the point; here is a man with whom you are asked to empathize. Is he real or Memorex? You don’t know - but since you empathize with him, does that not prove that it doesn’t matter? He serves as proof there is no moral difference.
If Deckard is definitely a replicant, I don’t think that works quite as well. It hits the audience over the head with a lesson that’s best reflected on rather than just swallowed. “Look, he’s a replicant! See, the hero is one of them! Not so different after all!” just doesn’t work as well for me. The ambiguity serves the purpose better than clarity.
Of course, I thought the original version was even more clever in a way, because it presents Deckard as a human - but a human who appears to be devoid of soul or emotion. He’s a hollowed out jerk with no family. He cares for no one. How is this man MORE human than the replicants he kills? What makes him better? Nothing - he’s a loner, a quitter, a loser. He cares for no one. Rutger Hauer and friends seem in so many ways to be more emotional, more human, than Deckard. Deckard’s being human illustrates the point even better than if he might be a replicant. The Hunter Shares A Trait With The Hunted is the oldest cliche in action movies today; these days it’s usually The Vampire Who Fights Vampires, like Blade and Angel.
I’m not sure which version I prefer. I like the approach better in the original, but the voice over is terrible and the sunny happy ending is silly.
But hey, changing the movie is valid. The Director’s Cut did make it quite possible Deckard was a replicant, though not certain as you claim. The original movie didn’t really hint at all that he was a replicant. Give Scott credit, at least he changed the movie to give it a new message; it’s better than just claiming you meant something that isn’t there.
I guess it is inevitable that these threads will devolve into arguments of critical taste and appreciation. But, ahem, to bring the focus back to the OP:
Lost in Translation: Prententious-check, unenjoyable-check. Excessively uninteresting juvenile filmmaking. I guess Sophia Coppola thinks she’s the bomb-diggity. Whatever.
Amelie:silly cartoon for adults who can’t grow up.
Zentropa: Lars von Trier recieved mention in this thread previously, and I can see why. Talk about style over substance. If ever there was a movie that shouted ‘Look at me! I’m cool and arty!’, this was it. I was 2/3rds through the movie and had no idea what was going on…which didn’t seem to be much.
Solaris: Maddeningly frustrating-the movie started off fantastically and promised some heavy shit, but it devolved into pure tedium for no discernible reason. Half the movie you just stare at some ugly guy, who oddly enough, is just staring at other ugly people.
2001: gives new meaing to the phrase ‘staring into space’.
Requiem for a Dream: oooh, it’s so ‘disturbing’. <cue cheesy Halloween music> Honestly, if you think this movie is disturbing or real, you haven’t experienced much. You live a sheltered, naive and most of all, gullible life. The movie is so silly and exaggerated I thought it was a comic satire at a few points. It’s like MTV made a 90 minute drug commercial.
Magnolia: Three hours of dogshit. The director thinks he’s blowing the lid off of society’s wild hypocisies and dirty habits. Ideas like this I expect from petulant tennagers who think they are very clever indeed by being able to point out adult flaws. But a grown man took this so seriously (insincerity would not create absurdity this calculated) as to spend millions of dollars creating his ‘vision’.
This is the reason I am highly reluctant to watch new movies at all. Any enjoyment I recieve from movies is almost always from older movies, when directors cared about their art and had exciting things to say, and exciting ways to say it.
It is my contention that almost every movie made after say, 1990, is going to be crap. When I spend my money on something, I demand the best for my money. And I have been getting burned way too many times at the theater to care at all about new movies. The number of insanely over-rated (have you ever seen an ad for an indie/art film that didn’t proclaim it a ‘masterpiece’?), unenjoyable and pretentious movies is vigorously on the rise.
I never thought the point of the movie was that “drugs are bad.” I’d be pretty disappointed in it if that’s what I got out of it, too.
It’s not a bird, it’s a unicorn - the specific thing Deckard has been having recurring dreams about. Also, when he picks it up he thinks back to Gaff’s comment - “It’s too bad she won’t live - but then again, who does?” - and nods in understanding. It’s pretty damned clear that this is Deckard realising that Gaff was hinting that he (Deckard) is also a replicant. Anything else would be too great a coincidence to countenance, especially given Deckard’s sharing the replicants fascination with photographs.
I don’t know about that. If you watch the movie closely, you’ll note that the Nexus 6 replicants grow more emotionally animated as the film progresses while Deckard becomes flatter and colder. That shifts the emphasis of villainy from the replicants - who really only want a chance to be human - to the organisations that use replicants as slave labour and will deny them the opportunity to achieve their potential even if that means curtailing their lifespan. Once they return to Earth, the replicants are free to grow into their potential; once Deckard returns to his job, it grinds him down into being a slave again.
And made of footage picked off the cutting room floor of The Shining, IIRC. Ye gods.
Why wouldn’t you listen to them? Kubrick is one of my all time faves, but I’m always interested in opposing viewpoints. Some of the best insights I’ve had on films have been spawned by arguing with people who disagree with me. Obviously, this varies depending on the quality of the opposing argument, but I’d never dismiss a viewpoint out of hand without giving the other side a chance to support it.
Except there are no “wrong” answers in film discussion. There’s no way to objectively prove the quality of any work. The best you could ever hope to do is prove the popularity of a work, and I’m sure you can appreciate the difference.
I’d say, speak your mind, just don’t take it personally when people disagree with you. Cafe Society would be boring as hell if we all liked the same movies.
What on Earth is stupid about changing your mind? The first time I saw The Big Lebowski, I thought it sucked, and said so. I saw it again a few years later, and loved it. It’s one of the best movies I’ve ever seen. I don’t feel the slightest bit embarassed about my previous attitude to the film: it was an honest assessment of my initial reaction to the film, and remains an important part of my overall experience with it. I’ve never even considered that there was something wrong with me for not liking it right away. What a bizarre concept. No one is “supposed” to like anything. Disliking a popular or critically praised film isn’t evidence of some defect in the observor, it’s simply a matter of taste.
Those people need to grow the hell up.
I’m not sure what you’re refering to. You mean my earlier posts where I called lissener pretentious? You might want to note that I calling the person, not the movies, pretentious. It had nothing to do with what he likes, and everything to do with his attitude towards people who don’t agree with him. A pretentious person can like non-pretentious movies, just as a non-pretentious person can like a pretentious film. Comments on a film are not comments on a person, and vice-versa.
Hee.
“Every morning she said, ‘I despise you, Mr. Trier,’ and spit on the ground. That is unpleasant. She could have quit. I don’t know why she didn’t.”
– Director LARS VON TRIER, on working with singer BJORK, the star of his film “Dancer in the Dark,” in Newsweek.
Big gap between what I communicate and what I mean to communicate.
If I roll my eyes at people calling me pretentious, then, what, it’s the eyerolling that seems pretentious?
Keep in mind that “pretentious” is very explicitly an accusation of dishonesty. I don’t understand why you’ve turned this so viciously personal, Miller, but I really hope you can find some quotes of me being pretentious, or even elitist. Show me, and I’ll try to understand, and I’ll apologize if necessary.
Again, I feel like you’re reacting to something I’ve never, ever written. Please cite examples of things I’ve said that have given the above-emphasized impressions.
I mean, re: ***ignorant, lazy, or stupid.***I keep emphasizing that the way an individual audience member approaches a movie–looking strictly for entertainment or for diggable puzzles and subtext–is a personal choice. Where have I suggested that it has anything to do with ignorance, laziness, or stupidity?
re: not as smart as me: Whaa?a?a? I have emphasized over and over that it’s about the effort one chooses to make, not about any inherent intelligence.
re: ***Just because a movie has subtext doesn’t automatically make it a good movie.***And where have I suggested otherwise? Many times it’s the subtext in a movie that I specifically react against. The subtext has ruined such movies, for me, as Schindler’s List; The Life of David Gale; The Passion of the Christ; etc. etc. etc.
From previous post. Editing and emphasis mine. Choosing to make less effort at something and laziness… well, they may not be identical, but I can’t tell much difference.
That’s bullshit projection. For me the key word there is choice; you wanna make it effort, that’s your Rorschach.
I choose to make no effort to get into baseball or cars. If someone pointed that out to me, I wouldn’t see that as an accusation of laziness, but as an acknowledgment that each of chooses what we expend effort on.
I have a friend who collects stamps. Am I lazy because I don’t? no. I like to dig through complicated movies; I have many friends who do not. In fact, I only have, like, three friends–out of a lot of friends–who do enjoy such digging. Do I consider all my other friends–and you and Miller–lazy, because you go to movies for another reason? that’s absurd.
You’re pulling an insult out of thin air.
The analogy lacks. In this case, we all partake of the same hobby (“movie-watching”) and you prefer to “Give extra effort” in the service of said hobby.
Now, I never said what you said was an insult… I was just pointing out that it was very easy to interpret your words as self-contradictory.
Seriously, now, if you and a friend are having a pleasant discussion on, say, John Woo’s ability to stage an effective action scene, and some guy comes up to you, having overheard you mention ‘Face/Off’, and pipes in with “Yeah, that movie rocked!” … and proceeds in a friendly fashion to attempt to discuss the high points of the movie with you from his perspective… do you welcome the somewhat intrusive and less-than-insightful input? Do you bite back the bilious disdain that wells up in your heart? (Okay, now I’m just being silly.) Or perhaps patiently wait for him to finish his praise of the movie and move on, before resuming your conversations about the ‘higher’ levels of the art form?
I’m avoiding turning this into a discussion of subtext directly, because I personally relate more to cinematography and direction, but I’m sure you enjoy cinematography and direction as well.
Personally, I don’t believe in a ‘high’ or ‘low’ art. I have a friend who insists on making the distinction … and all the attitude does for me is make me remember never to discuss comic books with him, because while he reads certain titles, he disdains them as ‘low art’… it’s snobbery on his part. And I don’t like to confront that side of someone who is otherwise a pretty good friend.
Now you may not be like this, but some folk are. And those are the ones that irk the rest of us. Maybe some here are confusing you unjustly with that sort of person.
I keep emphasizing (and I will not do so again) that we each choose to make a DIFFERENT effort in our approach to movie watching; I have never said that I “give extra effort.” I have said over and over again that I get one thing out of movies, you get another. Any judgment value on that has been projected, defensively, by you and Miller: I have never made a value judgment on the individual approaches to moviewatching.
You’ll have to explain this further; I don’t see the contradiction you’re referring to.
I’ve read this paragraph 3 times and I can’t fathom your point. What’s the parallel here? Is this about intrusiveness, or different approaches? I discuss movies on as many different levels as I have friends who’ve seen the movie. I don’t refuse to discuss a movie from any but one perspective. Is that what you’re suggesting? Your image of a stranger coming up to me and interrupting a conversation kinda makes it hard for me to see what your parallel is.
Um, the reason I keep saying that I like both “high” and “low” art is to suggest that I, too, fail to see a distinction. I have not labeled any particular thing as high or low; I’ve only meant to suggest that things that are considered low art by some people are just as important to me as things considered high art; that, again, I personally do not make a distinction.
So, comment on this, from Roger Eber:
The mistake with this observation and even you have made the same mistake in this thread (with your Little Nicky jab) is that symptoms don’t always capture the cause. I can dislike Lost in Translation, understand what the film is about, find it mildly pretentious, uninspired, uninteresting, funny in parts, and overall pretty ordinary (which I did) but not be a Roger Ebert’s version of a regular movie-goer. I am an avid cineaste and my favorite film-makers are Kubrick, Kurosawa, Satyajit Ray and Mike Leigh. Am I a passive receptor of mindless sensation?
The difference here (I will not address the Little Nicky jab, because I already have) is that you give a reasoned “defense” of your position; most of the posts in this thread have stopped at calling a movie pretentious, without any intelligent discussion of such a judgment was made.
To label a movie pretentious, and suggest that anyone who “claims” to like it is also being pretentious, is nothing by namecalling, and is just as stupid and thoughtless and insulting as saying that anyone who doesn’t like the movies I like, for the reasons I like them, is stupid and lazy (which, again, I have never said, nor yet even implied, Miller’s frothing to the contrary).