Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Film Critic Catch-All
I'm kind of still boggling over the notion that the teensy little house from the Raimi spiderfilms could be described as "massive." Unless that was a reference to the remakebootquel series?
Reply
I think Bart is talking about two different things:

1. In the Raimi-verse, roughly set in the same time period as ours, Parker lives on a block that is predominately Hispanic "in real life."

2. In the Garfield-verse, Parker/May live in a big house that would be completely out of their price range and inauthentic to Peter's character.

Both problems are "solved" to varying degrees by the MCU Spidey.
home taping is killing music
Reply
I'm probably conflating the two.

Either way, the implication in the Raimi films is that the Parker family have lived in that house for years. Which would be believable if they had any ethnic neighbors, but instead you've got Mary Jane next door and the kid taking piano lessons from May across the street. Then there's nary a minority in the student body at Peter's school (although a black teacher, so that's good).

The younger May and Ben get as these movies are updated, the less likely it is they've been living in their house since before...

THE BLACKS MOVED IN.
"I'd rather have hope...than nothing at all."
-Illyana Rasputin, X-Men: Omega #1

"But the public, knowing what it wanted, spinning happily, let the comic books survive."
-Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

Twitter: @BartLBishop
Reply
The dark secret of the Marvel universe is that Peter's mom and dad were block-busters.
home taping is killing music
Reply
(04-17-2018, 11:21 PM)Fat Elvis Wrote: Sean Burns:

https://twitter.com/SeanMBurns/status/98...6349924354

"Elgort’s front-seat dance in BABY DRIVER’s opening sequence remains the most douche-chill inducing screen moment of our time. I cringe just thinking about him bopping with the windshield wipers."

Accurate
Reply
I cringed big time during that moment as well, and was praying I wasn't in for two more hours of similar horrors.
Reply
Just finished an article about CHUD becoming Trouble City and Jeremy Smith's upcoming book "When It Was Cool". I got quotes from both Nick and Jeremy for the article, exciting! It goes up Tuesday, I'll post a link here.
"I'd rather have hope...than nothing at all."
-Illyana Rasputin, X-Men: Omega #1

"But the public, knowing what it wanted, spinning happily, let the comic books survive."
-Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

Twitter: @BartLBishop
Reply
When is that coming out?
home taping is killing music
Reply
He told me this summer, around Comic-Con, but no specific date yet.
"I'd rather have hope...than nothing at all."
-Illyana Rasputin, X-Men: Omega #1

"But the public, knowing what it wanted, spinning happily, let the comic books survive."
-Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

Twitter: @BartLBishop
Reply
Here it is! Part 3 of 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi7t_g5QObs

Although, against sequel multiplying trends, this is easily the best one.
Reply
Listening to it now. I had NO idea that this hullaballoo about labor law happened in NZ as a result.
"Nooj's true feelings on any given subject are unknown and unknowable. He is the butterfly flapping its wings in Peking. He is chaos and destruction and you shall never see his true form." - Merriweather

My Steam ID: yizashigreyspear
Reply
IT WAS ALL OUT THERE ALREADY!!!!

I EVEN LINKED A BMD PIECE ABOUT IT RECENTLY!!!
Reply
The author of the BMD piece is in the episode!!!

Your logic is flawed!!!

Also, the older actor is SO mad. When she asks him what happened and he just sort of grits his teeth...woof.
home taping is killing music
Reply
I rarely visit BMD for multiple reasons, Phil's exit not being the least of them.
"Nooj's true feelings on any given subject are unknown and unknowable. He is the butterfly flapping its wings in Peking. He is chaos and destruction and you shall never see his true form." - Merriweather

My Steam ID: yizashigreyspear
Reply
The last five minutes or so - the thesis statement, if you will - to the Hobbit series is pretty remarkable.
home taping is killing music
Reply
Dear lord, those grabs of Pete looking like Charles Manson on a bad day, reciting classic anti union rhetoric...
Reply
(04-20-2018, 09:34 AM)boone daniels Wrote: The author of the BMD piece is in the episode!!!

Your logic is flawed!!!

IT WAS ALL THERE BACK IN 2014!!!


THE PIECES WERE THERE FOR THE TAKING!!!

AND LINDSAAAAAAY COMPILED THEM!!!

(I actually figured the writer of that piece would be cited heavily)
Reply
Revisiting the Controversy Surrounding Scarface

By Jason Bailey

http://www.vulture.com/2018/04/revisitin...rebutton-b


"“This wasn’t the way it started,” Al Pacino chuckled, during the sold-out post-screening Q&A for the 35th anniversary screening of Scarface at the Tribeca Film Festival last night. “When Scarface first came out, it was extremely controversial, as you can imagine. But it stays in our lexicon, in a way. It’s part of our culture.”

It’s certainly a case of a motion picture’s half-life far exceeding its initial expectations — which were no doubt colored by a flurry of bad press and reports of a production veering wildly out of control. The resulting film, a baroque bacchanal of splattering blood, voluminous blow, and unapologetic scenery-chewing, was decidedly of its moment; its fashion, its synthesizer score, and its coked-dusted “everything to excess” aesthetic practically plaster “EARLY ’80s” into every frame. But its themes and preoccupations, the way it gets at the rot deep in the core of the American Dream, continue to reverberate."


"The origins of the project vary, depending on who you’re asking (and when). Reporting from around the time of Scarface’s 1983 release pegged it as a pet project of Martin Bregman, the talent agent who transitioned into producing with Serpico and Dog Day Afternoon, both developed for his client Al Pacino with director Sidney Lumet. A chance late-night TV viewing of the original 1932 Scarface — Howard Hawks’s tale of bootlegging Chicago gangsters, inspired by the exploits of Al Capone — got Bregman’s wheels turning. He instantly thought of Pacino for the leading role, the story goes, and engaged Lumet to again direct.


However, in recent interviews, Pacino has claimed he got the idea after a revival screening of the original movie at the Tiffany Theater in Los Angeles. “I went and saw that film and called Marty Bregman after,” he said at a Q&A in 2011. “I said, ‘I think we could do this thing. There’s a remake here.’” Whichever story is true, Bregman next reached out to Oliver Stone (then best known as the screenwriter of Midnight Express) about penning the script. Bregman had attempted to produce Stone’s Born on the Fourth of July screenplay for Pacino, so there was a relationship in place, but Stone was initially uninterested in Scarface.

“I didn’t want to do an Italian Mafia movie,” Stone tells Matt Zoller Seitz in the book The Oliver Stone Experience. “We’d had dozens of these things. But then Bregman came back to me and said, Sidney has a great idea — he wants to do it as a Marielito picture in Miami. I said, That’s interesting! Sidney’s idea was a good one.”"

"“Sidney’s idea,” which Stone adapted into the film’s opening crawl, went like this: In the spring of 1980, roughly 125,000 new Cuban exiles departed the Port of Mariel for the shores of Florida. A fifth of these Marielitos were rumored to be “undesirables,” petty thieves and worse, released from Cuban prisons and mental institutions and sent to the States as a middle finger from Castro.

Intrigued by the hook, Stone took the assignment and spent two months in South Florida doing research — and coke. “I started to hit the trail in ’79, and continued till ’82,” he told Seitz. “I don’t think my writing benefited from cocaine, but I did write Scarface completely sober.” He holed up in Paris to do so, away from the chemical temptations of Miami and L.A., and banged out a Stone special: big, boisterous, provocative, and operatic. Everyone was wild about it except Lumet, who departed the picture due to that old standby, “creative differences”; all Bregman would say at the time was, “Lumet wanted to make one kind of movie and I wanted to make another.”

Enter Brian De Palma. Asked why he stepped into the picture as a gun for hire in 1983 (he usually originated his own projects), the Carrie and Dressed to Kill director gave two reasons: “I’ve always wanted to make a gangster picture and I’ve always wanted to work with Al Pacino.” Pacino had mentioned the film when he met with De Palma about working together on Blow Out, though John Travolta ended up starring in that one; its commercial failure was a big motivator for De Palma taking on Scarface when Pacino and Bregman came calling. Both of the projects the filmmaker was developing to follow Blow Out — a dramatization of the 1969 murder of labor leader Joseph Yablonski and an adaptation, again with Travolta, of the nonfiction NYPD corruption exposé Prince of the City — fell apart. (He and Lumet ended up switching projects; after De Palma was dismissed from Prince of the City, Lumet made the picture with Treat Williams in the lead.) De Palma figured he’d knock out this highly commercial gangster movie and get back in the industry’s good graces. Should be an easy gig, right?"
Now I rock a house party at the drop of a hat
Reply
That very good write up neglects the other (gross) thing that happened during that screening. Funny, that:

http://www.vulture.com/2018/04/michelle-...ening.html
home taping is killing music
Reply
Yeah, I meant to link that, too.

Jordan Hoffman said lame moderator was a last minute replacement.

"Someone much more legit was originally listed, which leads me to think this was a last minute replacement, which makes me a *smidge* more sympathetic. But just a smidge."

Also:

[Image: DbMwnECWkAE0Bff.jpg:large]

#TeamKeegan
Now I rock a house party at the drop of a hat
Reply
Interesting:

https://twitter.com/paranoidliotta/statu...3061379072


"Thinking about Clint...similar to Woodman in that he was a celebrated performer who quickly used his cultural capital to move into incredibly prolific directing, at times knocked for a hands-off approach that some read as being lazy (Woody's delegation, Clint's 1-take filming).

It's not a novel observation but I want to focus on Clint's hands-off nature, because I think it's both his greatest strength and his most evident trait as a filmmaker. He refuses to underscore emotions and tropes to an unmatched degree in mainstream American cinema.

Has anyone taken notions of traditional heroism (in war & Westerns) and turned them upside down as effectively as Clint? A PERFECT WORLD is the best example. We follow Costner for 150 minutes and at no point is he clearly good, bad, safe, dangerous...

In some films, that sort of character would read as hazy, sloppy...but Clint's soft approach instead captures all the complications of an individual. That's one example in a career full of them.

His visual, sound and storytelling palettes often feel muted and yet this approach tends to make his dramas even MORE heartbreaking because they resemble real life. There's a place for heightened emotion but MADISON COUNTY wouldn't work without such a gentle approach.

It's not laziness; it's a dedication to the most accurate rhythms of life even in extreme scenarios like war and plane emergencies.

Just a thought that came to me that might explain why some of us champion Clint Eastwood even beyond his major works."
Now I rock a house party at the drop of a hat
Reply
That guy's question didn't seem that bad when all said and done. He framed it in a very odd way though. Maybe you have to hear it to get the full unease.
Reply
Belated Anniversary Shout Out:

https://mrpeelsardineliqueur.blogspot.co...-part.html

"One Saturday long ago, in May 1990 to be precise, I spent pretty much the entire day in a multiplex with various people I was going to college with and when it was done we had seen a full total of four movies. I won’t get into the specifics of it all but it’s safe to say that it was one of the more extreme examples of theater hopping that I’ve ever undertook and over the years I’ve done quite a few. Three of the four movies weren’t even all that good but part of me still wouldn’t mind going to see any of them if they were playing in theaters now. Anyway, in order they were TALES FROM THE DARKSIDE: THE MOVIE, CLASS OF 1999, Friedkin’s THE GUARDIAN and, to finish out the day, George Armitage’s MIAMI BLUES starring Fred Ward and Alec Baldwin, which was definitely the best of the bunch and it wasn’t even close. It’s funny how thinking about it now I remember that day and how miserable things were for me due to what had been going on in my life at the time and yet in retrospect the whole thing just seems so carefree, the sort of extreme kind of moviegoing I love that you only do when you’re young and I know that I wouldn’t have the patience to do it anymore even if I wanted to. But now all these years later on the final night of Edgar Wright’s amazing The Wright Stuff II series at the New Beverly Cinema I found myself once again closing out such a run of seeing various movies with MIAMI BLUES. The more things change, you know? It was the second on the double bill, following Michael Cimino’s eternally fantastic THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT with the two films maybe not having much in common beyond just not being as well known as they really deserve to be. MIAMI BLUES isn’t a great movie and I’d go so far as to say that I wasn’t as excited about it as some people at the theater that night were but it is a good movie, a nasty piece of darkly comic mayhem which at its best turns out to be genuinely disarming in all the right ways. Edgar Wright seemed particularly pleased by how it went over, saying that as far as he could remember he’s never seen it with another person let alone in a theater and, as was proven that night, it really is terrific to watch with a big crowd. "

"Based on the novel by Charles Willeford, who featured the character of Hoke Mosley in several other books, MIAMI BLUES establishes its own level of nastiness early on and never looks back, playing right up to the end as the ideal film version of the sort of darkly funny crime novel it’s based on. As pointed out by Edgar Wright in his introduction the mixture of nasty violence and arch comedy of the film which didn’t do so well when it was released (just under $10 million domestic) certainly anticipated what would become more prominent in just a few short years with the first films from Quentin Tarantino and others but of course we didn’t know that at the time and I suppose we just took it as an especially fierce, yet still very funny, crime tale with some terrific performances particularly by Baldwin and Leigh. Directed by George Armitage, who also wrote the screenplay and seven years later helmed GROSSE POINTE BLANK, it’s a nasty character piece with a genuine sense of danger to it all the way through, centered in its own odd way with the weirdly angelic presence of Leigh’s prostitute who dreams of owning a Burger World, someone who has to be one of the most innocent creatures ever put in the middle of this sort of thing even while having several nude scenes that still play a little surprising in terms of how willing the actress seems to be to just take off her clothes and simply do it.

Jonathan Demme was one of the producers and it certainly has the feel of his films of this period, no doubt helped by the presence of crew members like cinematographer Tak Fujimoto, and the somewhat freewheeling approach results in a tone that comes off a little like a version of MARRIED TO THE MOB where the violence was allowed to become truly nasty, where the jokes suddenly turn a little darker as the blood becomes real. It definitely has a certain vibe that the other Demme films from the period have and, no surprise considering Armitage began his career working for Roger Corman several decades before, in some ways it plays like a 70s film that was somehow allowed to be released in 1990. It’s not perfectly arranged and the pacing is a little lax but it’s effectively scrappy in its own way and seems willing to never tells us exactly how to take certain things, how much sympathy we should be feeling for Jennifer Jason Leigh’s character or even how much we should dislike Junior, saying he’s going to take care of her immediately after laughing in her face about wanting to own a Burger World franchise (presumably the same Burger World with the jingle that Dean Stockwell sings in MARRIED TO THE MOB). In spite of all this she sees “some good qualities” in him, no doubt from the earnest admission he makes when they first meet and she still wants to do everything possible to make him happy, even agreeing with him about the air conditioning when she probably doesn’t feel the same way. He’s a total sociopath, of course, but he is fun to watch and it’s never clear from one moment to the next if what he’ll say will make him sound like a polite child or if he’ll suddenly pick up a jar of spaghetti sauce to use as a weapon. "


"Armitage knows how to keep the frame busy and while the story moves fast all the way through it’s definitely more interested in the characters than anything—with Junior just going out and stumbling onto crimes that he takes advantage of with his new badge in various ways there’s no big heist to build to and he probably wouldn’t have the attention span to put something like that together anyway, so it never gets too bogged down in plot mechanics that George Armitage doesn’t seem too interested in anyway. It’s more about the question of if Junior can somehow recreate himself in a domestic life while still living outside of the law in the guise of a cop and how Susan is finally going to react to all this when she admits to herself what kind of person this guy really is. On occasion the funniest things in the movie just glide in and out of scenes like when Ward and fellow investigator Charles Napier are laughing over something while looking over the dead body of the Krishna or Baldwin’s Junior amusing himself as he counts out all the money he’s just stolen, with Armitage presumably just stopping everything for Baldwin to do an improv. I knew the movie was working with the New Beverly crowd when there seemed to be a collective intake of breath over a certain bit with an Uzi gun before the gag was revealed and that right there says a lot about MIAMI BLUES—a film that doesn’t always state right away whether it’s a joke or not but it keeps the nervous energy going as Junior becomes even more unhinged, more than just a regular crook and that sense of danger moves through the whole film. By a certain point Junior seems to decide that if he says he’s a cop then for all intents and purposes he really is one, a strategy maybe best displayed in a convenience store scene which plays like what would happen if Travis Bickle taking out the crook in the tiny grocery store in TAXI DRIVER went very, very wrong for him. Baldwin taking in the answer to his question, “Where is the whipping cream?” before he leaves might be my favorite moment in the whole film. "
Now I rock a house party at the drop of a hat
Reply
(04-20-2018, 10:45 AM)boone daniels Wrote: The last five minutes or so - the thesis statement, if you will - to the Hobbit series is pretty remarkable.

I feel like that whole end bit was her response to the whole Channel Awesome thing, as well.
"I'd rather have hope...than nothing at all."
-Illyana Rasputin, X-Men: Omega #1

"But the public, knowing what it wanted, spinning happily, let the comic books survive."
-Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

Twitter: @BartLBishop
Reply
She said on Twitter that she'd planned it out months in advance of the CA thing, but it was a coincidence, even quoting Tolkien. Having heard her talk about her plans even before the CA thing broke, I can tell you that is accurate:

"I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.” - JRR Tolkien
home taping is killing music
Reply
Ebertfest Day 2: Selena, with director Gregory Nava

Posted on April 21, 2018 by sheila

http://www.sheilaomalley.com/?p=136801

"What an emotional screening. Mitchell and I were wrecks. As we walked back to the hotel, he said, “We just made spectacles of ourselves.” We reached out and held hands during the breathtaking first closeup of Jennifer Lopez, when Selena – getting on the tour bus – catches a glimpse of a couple making out nearby. She stares. There’s something on her face. We don’t know the character yet. We don’t know all of the factors leading up to that longing glance … but Lopez pulls us in to her experience. That’s a star. (Mitchell whispered to me, “Star quality cannot be taught.”)

I saw Selena in its first release, but seeing it huge – with Gregory Nava’s own personal print, shipped in at the last minute because the one Warner Brothers sent was subpar – was overwhelming. Jennifer Lopez is overwhelming.

In the QA following the film, headed up by Monica Castillo and Claudia Puig, Nava was so forthcoming. So impassioned, and he answered all of our questions before we had even asked them. He shared one anecdote about the pressures on Jennifer Lopez during the filming of the scene in the Houston Astrodome. The place seats 30,000, and 30,000 people showed up – for free – to be in that audience. Selena fans, all, many of whom had been there for that original triumphant concert! So imagine the pressure on Jennifer Lopez: to not only have to re-create that concert, but to do so in front of 30,000 still-grieving passionate Selena fans. And it was a total triumph. Afterwards, Nava and Lopez stood together in her dressing room, hugging, and crying. The moment was pure triumph, tribute, validation.

Nava also spoke of the expectation of studio execs that he would shoot a scene in the motel room, the moment where Selena was murdered by her fan-club president. Nava never wanted to shoot that scene. (Mitchell said to me later: “The abruptness of the ending is almost exactly what it felt like when Selena died. It was almost unreal, like, ‘Wait, what just happened?'”) Nava’s whole purpose in making the film was to help contextualize and celebrate this gigantic star. He worked closely with the family on the script, interviewing all of them, using what he discovered in his screenplay. He felt very strongly about not showing the murder in all its detail. He said, “I refused to shed Selena’s blood for the studio.”

Mitchell said to me later, “I have been watching Selena on the small screen for years. I’ll watch it any time it comes on cable. But seeing it in a theatre is a totally different experience. Seeing closeups of Jennifer Lopez three-stories high is a totally different experience.” "
Now I rock a house party at the drop of a hat
Reply
CineSavant

Blaze

by Glenn Erickson Apr 21, 2018

https://trailersfromhell.com/blaze/


"It’s hard to know much exaggeration is used in movies about crazy Suth’un politics, when some of the serious movies resemble Julius Caesar with mint juleps. This true story is about an old-school populist Louisiana governor who falls for a nationally-known stripper, the famous Blaze Starr, and is told from the stripper’s POV. Paul Newman is at his late-career best, and Lolita Davidovich lights up the screen. The governor can get away with most anything except what he wants to do most — pass some color-blind laws about hiring and voting."


"That’s mother’s warning before Belle Fleming leaves her tiny rural home in the South. Not only is it good advice, but the girl is a fast learner. The future Blaze Starr has soon mastered the distinction between a nightclub stripper and a lady, even if circumstances make it better not to be too public about it. Blaze is an entertaining true (?) tale of love and politics in Louisiana circa 1960, written and directed by Ron Shelton of popular Bull Durham fame. It generates the appropriate overheated strip-club ambience when needed, but ends up as a funny, endearing love story about a pair of idealized Show People — she on her runway, he on his barnstorming political jags. The only nagging drawback is that the elder politico Earl Long can’t have looked this handsome, no matter how bedraggled Paul Newman tries to make himself. We can also wonder if the real Blaze Starr was quite the noble princess that this movie makes her out to be.

A young woman (Lolita Davidovich) with no real singing talent strikes out on her own and is discovered in a diner by promoter Red Snyder (Robert Wuhl). He gives her the name Blaze Starr and starts her off as a stripper of the tease & leave ’em happy variety. Migrating to New Orleans, she becomes the object of lust for the eccentric governor ‘Uncle’ Earl Long, brother of the assassinated Huey Long of the depression era. Although Long must hide Blaze from the press, she proves an emotional aid and eventually a staunch supporter of her political boyfriend. She stands by Huey even when his opponents try to have him committed to stem his progressive ideas about racial equality."

"Paul Newman continued to star in interesting movies as he got older. Although a liberal, he didn’t fall into the trap of making pictures with a consistent political slant. Newman stuck with Robert Altman through the director’s slump (Buffalo Bill and the Indians, Quintet) but maintained a healthy variety in his projects: Slap Shot, Absence of Malice, Fat Man and Little Boy. Still one very handsome man and arguably a better, more mellow actor after his years of experience. In Blaze he retains the swagger of Hud, now joined with enough gravity to carry a complex role without effort.

Ron Shelton hands Newman a part that requires a lot of Big Acting. Earl Long is a moderately progressive thinker in a notably backwards part of the country. To be effective, he uses plenty of old fashioned attention-getting behavior, and when he really gets rolling, plenty of people think he’s gone out of his head. With the Civil Rights Movement underway, Long’s good-old-boy cronies see his efforts to integrate hospitals as political suicide, not a start toward racial equality. Earl’s outrageous antics are rarely on the level. He’s not above storming the state legislature to protest, or punching out foes in the opposition. Newman’s screen authority is such that he can play this crude, rude man without giving offense. Earl Long is an infantile womanizer and as slippery a politician as ever was. The film’s key dialogue arrives when Blaze observes that politics is a lot like show biz. Earl is quick to agree."

"Long’s liberalism works in Shelton’s favor by giving Blaze a P.C. attitude in a setting where progressive ideas about racial equality were anything but popular. By showing Long as somewhat ineffectual and motivated more by personal intransigence than personal commitment, Shelton avoids the usual trap of movies that want to impose present-day ideals on less enlightened times. We instead see a vulgar man whose eye on the future is unappreciated. He can only be described as an Enlightened Bigot. In his fight for equal voting rights for blacks he uses the word ‘nigger’ as often as any of his peers. We definitely fall on Long’s side when his opposition has him committed to a state hospital. With Blaze Starr’s help, Long dodges this setback by firing the medical examiners, all of whom he appointed, and serve at his pleasure. That development seems particularly relevant in today’s politics in Washington.

Just the same, the best thing in the picture is Lolita Davidovich (Gods and Monsters), who matches Newman for spirit and strength. Although a Serbian raised in Canada and England Davidovich delivers a convincing Southern accent. Actresses that want to be taken seriously no longer do nude scenes, and she manages the ones here with dignity and aplomb. As the kind of stripper who dishes out dirty patter to ‘the boys’ instead of putting on a straight sex show, Blaze Starr maintains a certain dignity, the finer points of which are lost on the general public. She and Earl begin their torrid love affair, commencing with a hilarious scene where he wears boots to bed for traction. The affair provides the perfect ammunition for his political foes. Pro-integration, shacking up with a harlot, provoking controversy in public = crazy man."
Now I rock a house party at the drop of a hat
Reply
Abbey Bender: "This series looks great, but it really ought to include Joan Tewkesbury's OLD BOYFRIENDS (1979)!"

Film Series

A Different Picture: Women Filmmakers in the New Hollywood Era, 1967-1980

https://www.bam.org/film/2018/a-different-picture

"From Bonnie and Clyde to Heaven's Gate, the brief window of American director-driven cinema that flourished in the late 1960s through the 1970s has been framed as a triumph of a handful of male movie brat auteurs. But the true revolutionaries of the moment were the trailblazing women filmmakers who defied historic inequity to bring their stories to the screen. Emerging from the feminist and civil rights movements of the 1960s, this generation of women artists—working both inside and outside the Hollywood system—created a striking, brash, and empathetic counter-cinema that exists as a direct challenge to their male counterparts."
Now I rock a house party at the drop of a hat
Reply
The Columbine massacre still echoes through cinema

As a school shooting survivor, films like Elephant and Polytechnique have a special resonance for me.


Words

Justine Smith


http://lwlies.com/articles/columbine-hig...technique/


"It’s been over 10 years since I experienced being locked in a classroom as a shooting unfolded two floors below. The images of that day come in flashes: DW Griffith’s Broken Blossoms, the gunshots, people screaming in the hallway and a table was pushed against the door. The SWAT team eventually came to clear the school, they pointed guns at us. We were evacuated and a classmate turned to me once we reached safety, and asked, breathless, “Did you see all the blood?” I did not, but then again, I don’t remember the experience of that day. It was more like I was watching it from the outside and everything I saw or heard was filtered through another screen or someone else’s point of view.

Years later, reading Dave Cullen’s book ‘Columbine’, I was struck by the way he describes the immediate aftermath of the shooting, when parents and children were reunited. He observes that the parents were crying but, for the most part, the kids were not. He wrote about the students, “A vast number said they felt they were watching a movie.” That’s how I felt too.



Elephant became a very important film for me. In film school, screenings were preceded by warnings and discussions as to how it might relate to our experiences. We discussed the film in the context of independent American cinema but also the theories of Robert Bresson and his use of non-actors. Van Sant’s particular use of a third person shot, where the camera is positioned behind a character’s head was common in video games but also served to create a point of view that was vacant and non-human, an empty witness to trauma.

Bresson was also fond of these kinds of shots, using point of view to create meaning in the viewer, while his mannequins remained vacant and empty. For me, the final massacre in Elephant also seems connected to the little girl in Mouchette, who in the film’s final scene, keeps rolling down towards the river until she falls in: They are different stories of self-annihilation in reaction to a cruel and violent world."
Now I rock a house party at the drop of a hat
Reply
Having just covered ELEPHANT in class, what remains fascinating to me about Columbine in American cinema is that we HAVEN'T had a hyper-realist, tick-tock style depiction of it yet - when we've routinely gotten films over the years about similar difficult periods/days (the lack of an Oklahoma City film is also striking) Now, I think part of that is that when it comes to topics in depicting recent U.S. history, 9/11 casts a shadow - one might say it's a looming tower, heh - over everything in the 21st Century. But for older Millennials, I think Columbine was as important to our collective, specific psyche/trauma. And because when you get down into the facts of the case, as in Cullen's book, there's a blackness there that is hard to wrap your hands around - the sociopathology of Eric Harris is almost incomprehensible, and trying to understand why and how Kleibold got pulled into his orbit. And so all we have are ghosts, echoes, literally in the case of the first season of AMERICAN HORROR STORY.

Megan Abbott's essay on THE VIRGIN SUICIDES is up:

https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/...us-calling
home taping is killing music
Reply
I am very surprised we haven't gotten an OKC Bombing film. I just watched a documentary on Netflix about the FBI's search for clues in the aftermath, and how most of the FBI agents in the OKC field office were not allowed on the case because they had kids and spouses in the explosion. They were too affected to be allowed on the case. It was really interesting.
"Wilford Brimley can't be bothered to accept praise. He doesn't act because he thinks people will enjoy his work. He acts because it's his goddamned job." --Will Harris, AV Club
Reply
In a "you can't make this up" detail, I believe one of the lead or senior FBI agents on the OKC bombing case was so affected by his time there that he asked to be transferred a few years later...

...to the Denver, Colorado branch, 20 minutes from Columbine.
home taping is killing music
Reply
Hey guys, here’s an article I wrote about the last 20 years of online film criticism, with quotes from Nick and Jeremy Smith: http://litreactor.com/columns/analyzing-...-criticism
"I'd rather have hope...than nothing at all."
-Illyana Rasputin, X-Men: Omega #1

"But the public, knowing what it wanted, spinning happily, let the comic books survive."
-Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

Twitter: @BartLBishop
Reply
Nice article, Bart! Had no idea about the book, which I'm now interested in getting.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: totalpackage, 1 Guest(s)