My issue is that the film’s “logic” was completely illogical and made absolutely no sense at all if you thought about it. The message was constantly undercut by the sloppy thinking on the part of the creators.
The ending was particularly nonsensical by any logical standard: if you have a society that’s so invested in protecting itself from the in-valids, then why does everyone shrug their shoulders when someone is found to be faking his identity?
As I pointed out, what would have happened in the South (or in South Africa under Apartheid) if it were discovered someone was passing for white?
So, ultimately, you had a society that didn’t believe in its own rules, yet worked insanely hard at enforcing them. This makes sense to you?
I wouldn’t want to throttle the director (as I would with Ridley Scott), but I really wished he had actually thought out the concept. If so, it could have been a fine film.
I heard about this place in the real world called “the United States” that has this huge War on Drugs thing going where they imprison people for taking certain drugs, but whole huge segments of the population think that’s bullshit, but other whole huge segments of the population work insanely hard at putting people in jail for taking those drugs. That might be an example of a society that doesn’t believe in its own rules.
The Killers sound nothing like punk rock. Not that they’re great (although several songs on their first album are a whole lot of fun), but cliche punk? No way.
Wallace Stevens: Poetry by an insurance executive, and sounds like it. He seems to have problems with god, and with the nature of imagination and reality, and with the role of poetry, but the writing is so opaque that, who knows?
On the Road by Jack Kerouac. A few guys go west and hang out. Dean Moriarty parks cars really fast. [In a later, much better, book, he’ll throw and catch a hammer really well.] It’s all very mad.
Huckleberry Finn: A kid and a runaway slave raft down the Mississippi. Twain makes astoundingly obvious observations, which are put forth by Huck in an I’m-really-naive sort of ironic way. This is apparently supposed to be humorous. Then Huck and Tom Sawyer treat Jim like shit. I like Twain, but this book blows. On the other hand, the supposedly lightweight Connecticut Yankee is a pretty good book.
And another vote for Nathaniel Hawthorne.
In contemporary culture, I’d like to put forth “Modern Times,” by Bob Dylan. It’s remarkable in that the backup band is so mechanical and bloodless that is sucks the life out of even the good songs.
I agree. This is one of a handful of recent “hey, let’s make a wacky character and train a camera on 'im for two hours” movies. Verbs in the script? Who needs em?!
I hate admitting to liking a popular band, but I thought it was finally safe to admit to liking Radiohead. Their B-side catalog alone is better than the full catalogs of most bands, and their live performance is the best I’ve ever seen (closely followed by Nick Cave).
Same with Nirvana. In Utero is one of the top 5 albums of all time, so their acclaim makes sense. The Wipers, Sonic Youth, The Vaselines, and the Pixies are all fantastic as well, but none of their albums quite reach the level of In Utero IMO.
Personally, I have never liked Broken Social Scene, Modest Mouse, or The White Stripes (except a couple songs for the White Stripes). People that like them are stupid. sticks out tongue
If you haven’t, try Hawthorne’s short stories, rather than his novels. Both Scarlett Letter and House of Seven Gables I found extremely tedious and, indeed, too lengthily descriptive. But I adored his Twice-Told Tales. In fact, I’m trying to emulate him a little in the background stories for my amateurish fantasy novel-plans.
Andy Warhol. While I think some of his work has merit, I don’t feel on the whole its critical adulation should have transported him into becoming more iconic than, say, Posh Spice.
Now that’s one I can get behind, which is why I was so surprised that Match Point was so good. (Of course, it helps when he doesn’t appear the film, as with The Sweet and Lowdown.)
The Departed–sure, it’s better than the Oscar-bait that Scorsese has been pumping out ever since the Academy totally abandoned him on The Age of Innocence (and Goodfellas, and The King of Comedy, and Raging Bull, and Taxi Driver, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore), but it’s not an exceptional film by any standard, and about as weak and unfocused as Casino; in other words, a workable film burdened by extraneous, unresolved subplots, and marred by scenery-chewing performances (in the case of The Departed, Jack Nicholson’s turn at playing…Jack Nicholson). It deserved neither the critical acclaim nor the awards, although Scorsese was manifestly overdue for recognition.
Donnie Darko can’t be taken seriously as a metaphysical treatise on the nature of time travel or God or anysuch, but it’s an interesting exercise in style and mood with a pretty clever jigsaw puzzle of a plot. Plus, Patrick Swayze as a pederast motivational speaker and the comments of the father are well worth it.
Alright, I’m just gonna start tuning you out on any thread from now on. You might as we ll have denied the Holocaust in my book. Nirvana is unequivocally the biggest overrated piece of crap since U2.
I understand where you’re coming from, and agree with you completely except for The White Stripes. But I really, really recommend you try the newest Modest Mouse record. I dislike the rest of their albums, but the new one brings in a great new jangly punk brit-rock feel with feel-it-in-your-bones hooks. Just try to find the single “Dashboard”, if you don’t like it, you won’t like the rest of the album.
Modest Mouse is a strange band. They’re kind of bipolar, actually. On one hand you have songs like “Ocean Breathes Salty” and “Float On” which are incredibly laid back. Then on the other hand, a hand very far away you have songs like “Bury Me With It” and “Invisible” that actually display a lot of emotion. I don’t even know where you’d put “The Cold Part”…
I also have a big bug up my butt about Gattaca. The problem to me was twofold:
(1) The fundamental premise made absolutely no sense. They have these genetic tests which tell you a lot about people (in particular, IQ, maybe general tendencies towards what you’d be talented at, and health issues). So the main character is obviously incredibly brilliant, but also has a heart condition. Now, he either does or does not have the heart condition. If he does, then his desire to be an astronaut (one of very very few professions where if you die, you put the lives of all of your colleagues at risk) is incredibly selfish, and not something we should be praising. But there’s no reason why he shouldn’t be a professor, scientist, doctor, author, or any of a number of other professions where intelligence and drive are good, but a tendency to drop dead at any moment is NOT such a huge deal. On the other hand, if he does NOT in fact have a heart condition, then all of their genetic testing is just wrong, which does not in any way seem to be the point the movie is making. (Or is the point some new agey thing like “well, yes, he does have a heart condition, but as long as he REALLY REALLY HAS A DREAM then the power of his will will be stronger than the weakened walls of his heart”?)
(2) The fact that this is presented as the future of the US in a fairly short time period. If this were just some alternate dystopia, well, then it would be fair to analyze it by its own rules. But it claims to be the US circa 2020 or so. Societies don’t change fast enough for us to be able to throw out all the rules with which we evaluate and view US society as it is today, which is why so much in it seems dumb. (They wouldn’t let him into a good preschool because of the insurance risk? Hello, it’s called a release form!)
(3) Also, the too-cool-for-school fashions struck me as pretentious twaddle.
Although you’ll probably have to take a number, because my own unaccountably overrated suggestion is The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Seriously, folks, this is not a good novel. There’re no characters to speak of, just names with humorous quirks attached, and the plot is all set-up and no development. And it’s not really all that funny: at best, you get a wry smirk every couple of pages. I’m convinced that the lion’s share of this book’s success can be attributed to the amusing little planet with arms that used to adorn the cover. You know, the one that Adams famously despised? Probably because it was more interesting than anything inside the book.
I never understood the critical acclaim for Krzysztof Kieslowski’s “Three Colors” trilogy.
The first, Blue, had a character so filled with depression after her family’s death that she couldn’t make any human contact, and then, with a cliched meeting, suddenly was completely well again.
White was the best of the three, since it told a story, but the final motivation of the characters (especiall the wife) is nonsensical.
Red, supposedly the best, was completely forgettable.
I’m reminded of Art Buchwald’s comments about avant garde plays.
Although I’m a big proponent of the “if it’s a statement about a work of art, it’s a personal opinion, don’t get your grundies in a bunch” rule, I’d like to take this opportunity to point out my one exception to that rule.
Stating a dislike of an artist should in no way be taken as an insult to the fans who disagree with you. However, the point of the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” is that the people who pretended to like his clothes were lying, because they were afraid to appear to be fools. So the “Emperor’s New Clothes” metaphor is, in fact, implicitly insulting to the people who disagree with you: you’re suggesting that they are lying, rather than simply that *you *don’t like the work. It’s a criticism of the people who do like it, rather than a simple straightforward statement about your own opinion.
Just a plea to avoid “fightin’ words” where it’s easy enough to do so.
I’ll disagree with Radiohead. I’m not a huge fan of theirs, but when I first heard OK Computer, it stopped me dead in my tracks. I never really got into Kid A (which, I know, is supposed to be their “best” album) or Amnesiac beyond, but OK Computer and its predecessor, The Bends, I thought were great records. And I’m also one of those people who dislike Floyd. I could see the comparisons between Radiohead and Pink Floyd, but they’re quite different bands to me.
Other bands I don’t quite get, but I will withhold judgment on, include Husker Du and Bob Dylan. I really hate the fact that I can’t get into either of these. Given the bands I love, the former seems like it should completely be up my alley. But, for some reason, I’ve never been able to get into them. Same with Bob Dylan. I can’t quite get into him.
However, I am convinced they have a legitimate place in the pantheon of modern music, but it just doesn’t speak to me.
Is it? I’ve always interpreted it more as “they were fooling themselves”. The point is not that people will lie when they don’t want to offend someone powerful. It’s that some truths are glaringly obvious once pointed out, but people have an incredible ability to deceive themselves, particularly when going along with a crowd.
Just imho, and not at all apropos to any other comments in this thread.
The Killers sound nothing like punk rock. Not that they’re great (although several songs on their first album are a whole lot of fun), but cliche punk? No way.