|
Author |
Message |
|
marantzo |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:09 am |
|
|
Guest
|
Marc wrote: Quote: Do you remember the flak I got when I didn't see a movie because it didn't interest me?
give me a fucking break Gary. . You rule out whole genres of films because you disagree with their moral values or won't watch any work by a director who has made one film you didn't like , i.e. films that involve married couples cheating on each other and films by David Fincher. Not to mention your aversion to films with gay themes. Your narrowmindedness is comically quaint. Please don't compare my resistance to one film to your wholesale rejection of films because of subject matter that you can't handle. There is a difference between taste and bias.
Yes there is. So what. I don't have any taste for Fincher or any other director who has subjected me to dreck. And I've seen two Fincher films. I have no taste for sympathetic views of unjustified adultery (unless it's a comedy). I have no taste for depictions of male homosexuality. I also have no taste for screaming psycho slasher films. I have no taste for a lot of things in the arts. I have no taste for Hemingway's writing except some of his short stories. I have no taste for Dali's paintings. I have no taste for almost all of the poetry in The New Yorker. This isn't a bias, it is just a matter of what I like and what I don't like. Sometimes it's a quality judgement and sometimes it's just what I like as opposed to what I don't. I've said many times that there are things in the arts that I don't like though I can see that they are good, just not my cup of tea. I want the arts to entertain me and move me. If it insults me or disgusts me or doesn't portray anything that interests me, I have no desire to waste my time on it. There is so much stuff around that I do like that it make no sense to bother with stuff that I won't like.
If you want to take the fascist stance that what you go to see should be the standard for everyone else, or else they are biased. So be it. That's a reflection on you not me.
And if you took my post as a criticism of your not going to see APHC, it wasn't See what you want. I'm a liberal. I haven't seen it myself.
You should see The Harp of Burma though. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
smoot |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:02 am |
|
|
Joined: 28 Jul 2006
Posts: 11
|
"Drop Dead Sexy"
Despite the horrible title, this unassuming straight-to-video release really sneaks up on you and proves to be a rare commodity: a silly diversion with some heart and even a little bit of brain.
It's essentially a buddy movie with Jason Lee as Frank Muzzy, a small-town loser who aspires to a life of glamour and luxury in Vegas, as if all one has to do is get there and the glamour and luxury take care of themselves. Crispin Glover is Eddie, Frank's loyal companion, who loves his job as a "subterranean architect" at the local graveyard, but goes along with Frank's Vegas aspirations, and anything else Frank says.
It's sort of a "Made" meets "The Ice Harvest", in that the protagonist and his buddy are bumbling idiots trying to do just one job for Spider (Pruitt Taylor-Vince), a sinister drug-dealing strip-club owner with shady political connections, in order to finance their move to Vegas. The "job" involves driving a truck with a cargo of cigarettes to Mexico for illicit sale, evading US sales and income taxes, etc. In the pre-hire interview, Spider asks Frank who he will be taking along with him on the ride to Mexico:
FRANK: Oh, Eddie's going with me.
SPIDER: Eddie, the idiot?
FRANK: No... Eddie, the gravedigger.
SPIDER: Yeah... Eddie, the idiot gravedigger.
Lee shines as a cursed loser who constantly marvels at how lucky he is at everything, even though everything he does backfires on him, and every decision he makes seems to be the worst one possible. Glover gives a restrained performance as Eddie, an boozing bumbling hayseed who, along the way, finds a sense of honor and decency that even rubs off on Frank a little bit. Pruitt Taylor-Vince makes good use of the few minutes he gets on screen, adding comedic value to the mix by using equal parts of sneering evil and incredulous amusement at the sight of Frank and Eddie persevering through their own bumbling-loser incompetence.
It goes without saying that the "job" goes horribly awry, and Frank and Eddie end up on the run from the bad guys. As the mayhem unfolds and moves toward resolution, Eddie learns, and eventually Frank does, too, the value of doing the right thing for the right reasons, like honor, decency and protection of the innocent, even if the cost is the opportunity for one's own personal gain.
The cover doesn't do a very good job of selling it, but after watching it, you can see why Lee, Glover and Vince signed on to do "Drop Dead Sexy". |
|
|
Back to top |
|
ehle64 |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:33 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 7149
Location: NYC; US&A
|
FWIW: I started a response to marantzo's post, but decided it really wasn't my argument. However, a lot of what marc posted in response were some of the issues that I was dealing with in this off-based comparison.
Obviously, stating that you have no interest in 1 film by a director that the person has no problem with, it's just the subject matter, is a lot more open-minded to me than dismissing whole genres and oeuvres because of disinterest. |
_________________ It truly disappoints me when people do something for you via no prompt of your own and then use it as some kind of weapon against you at a later time and place. It is what it is. |
|
Back to top |
|
Marc |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:40 am |
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
Gary,
within all the genres you mentioned you won't see (slasher, gay, adultery, etc.) there are wonderful films to be seen. Your loss. And some art is intended to disgust and insult. Sometimes we need to be insulted and disgusted. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
bart |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:07 pm |
|
|
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 2381
Location: Lincoln NE
|
"Sometimes we need to be insulted and disgusted."
That's where some, me incl., might disagree. I mean, I see what you're getting at about the good effects of getting outside your comfort level and all that. But I think it's a matter of what you look for in art, versus what you have to deal with in the everyday life. The news today, oh boy, and a lot of news recently, takes care of my need to know about the horrific, the disgusting, the vile, etc. If a film can help me process that, fine, but I'm pretty much an avoider of the more violent ends of the genres. |
_________________ Former 3rd Eye Member |
|
Back to top |
|
marantzo |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:22 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
Marc wrote: Gary,
within all the genres you mentioned you won't see (slasher, gay, adultery, etc.) there are wonderful films to be seen. Your loss. And some art is intended to disgust and insult. Sometimes we need to be insulted and disgusted.
Thank you, oh wise one. I assume that you know that I am not completely ignorant or unacquainted with things that have informed me with the knowlege of what I like and what I don't. 'Sometimes we need to be insulted and disgusted' ? Maybe you do but to quote a famous punchline, "What do you mean, 'we', paleface?"
And to clarify, when I said insult, I meant insult my intelligence. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Marc |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:28 pm |
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
Quote: Thank you, oh wise one.
Fuck you. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
marantzo |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:51 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
Geez. I didn't even have to go to a movie to get insulted. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Marc |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 pm |
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
Gary, some of my heroes have been disgusting and insulting:
LENNY BRUCE, JIM MORRISON, ARTHUR RIMBAUD, ANTONIN ARTAUD, LENNY BRUCE, CHARLES BUKOWSKI, JOHN WATERS, HUNTER THOMPSON, JOHN LYDON,
IGGY POP, BUNUEL, DAVID LYNCH, THE FUGS, PAUL KRASSNER, THE KUCHAR BROTHERS, ALEJANDRO JODOROWSKI, PATTI SMITH, GEORGE BATAILLE, LAUTREMONT, WILLIAM BURROUGHS....... |
|
|
Back to top |
|
marantzo |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:51 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
I don't find any of those (that I'm familiar with) disgusting or insulting. And you left off Don Rickles.
And I said, insulting my intelligence is what I was talking about. And what some find disgusting others don't and visa versa. This is a silly argument. As the fFrench say and you should certainly be familiar with 'chaqu'un a son gout'. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Ghulam |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:04 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 4742
Location: Upstate NY
|
Eric Rohmer's My Night at Maud's (1969) is one of the milestones of the French New Wave cinema. It continues to be very enjoyable and relevant. The erudite dialogue itself is worth the price of the ticket. It deals with conflicts and choices based on desire, material reality and one's belief and value systems. Both Jean-Louis Trintignant and Francois Fabian are excellent. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Marc |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:58 pm |
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
I saw MY NIGHT AT MAUD'S when I was 18 (1969). I was totally enthralled. Still am. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
yambu |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:40 pm |
|
|
Joined: 23 May 2004
Posts: 6441
Location: SF Bay Area
|
Finally caught up with Unforgiven. It is easily my favorite Gene Hackman film. I"m sure it has been talked to death here, but can someone tell me why this sicko sheriff was so obsessively protective of those two rapists? |
|
|
Back to top |
|
jeremy |
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:25 am |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6794
Location: Derby, England and Hamilton, New Zealand (yes they are about 12,000 miles apart)
|
A lot of Clint Eastwood's strengths came together in this ultimate deconstruction of the Western.
I think Gene Hackman was not particularly protective of the man who assualted the prostitute and his accomplice out of concern for them, rather he was just being a pragmatic. His motivation was not justice, but keeping the peace. The prostitutes had no status and no power (which in that environment may have amounted to the same thing). As such, to Hackman, they were not a consideration.
The bar owner and the assailants did a deal based on value of the loss of income to the bar owner and the staus quo was maintained, so Hackman was satisfied.
When a bounty was offered by the prostitutes for killing of the assailants, this threatened the peace of town and so incurred Hackman's ire. A proud man, he also saw the arrival of gunmen from outside as a challenge to his authority. |
_________________ I am angry, I am ill, and I'm as ugly as sin.
My irritability keeps me alive and kicking.
I know the meaning of life, it doesn't help me a bit.
I know beauty and I know a good thing when I see it. |
|
Back to top |
|
jeremy |
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 am |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6794
Location: Derby, England and Hamilton, New Zealand (yes they are about 12,000 miles apart)
|
Smoot,
I haven't seen the film you reviewed, and probably never will, but I'm always interested to read what people are watching. Keep your thoughts coming. |
_________________ I am angry, I am ill, and I'm as ugly as sin.
My irritability keeps me alive and kicking.
I know the meaning of life, it doesn't help me a bit.
I know beauty and I know a good thing when I see it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|