Letters Page
Brave New World Review received: 03/21/06 You're review of the Brave (sic) New World was way too intellectual for me. Except I found the 'Fever' song and dance beginning quite imaginative and inspiring, a scene that should of pretty much been played out in the actual beginning of the movie. It would have been a feast to all the senses really. Anyhoo, let's get to the real meat of this movie. That's right! What's your view on that Farrell guy? It was never covered in your review, though I hear from your words the leading lady was quite 'stunning'. Ok. Done. - C. ---------------- in re: The New World C. - I don't personally like Colin Farrell as a human being (like I know him). I find his eyebrows a little too heavy (like I am one to talk). But I have to say that I thought that he was pretty good in this film. Or at least, he wasn't bad. - Ken re: The New World received: 02/26/06 I really liked your New World review. You didn't mention anything about the music though. I thought his use of the Wagner piece at the beginning and the end were incredible. It kind of saturated the experience for me. What did you think of it? With love and squalor, - H ---------------- in re: The New World H. - I didn't pick up on the music, but I am not that versed in classical, I am sorry to say. - Ken More on Y tu mamá también received: 09/11/02 Ken, a brief rejoinder: there is of course no crime in being a genre film. They can be magnificent, and the best American films very often emanate from generic language. There is however a huge problem with pastiche, and it is a disease that infects the film's politics that I must in turn urge you to consider more seriously. Pastiche is a historical and apolitical, as is the film. And if we assume that Cuaron is taking a critical view of the boys' apathy, he must then provide us with some kind of historical depth with which to judge them, which he does not. If the boys don't care, then we must; but we're never encouraged to. This kind of apoliticism is politics as its most pure. As it were, the film is a purely ideological vehicle that disguises its emptiness and moral, social and political vacuity with a veneer that exploits the cultural cache of art cinema and Landmark Theaters. You did not call it a classic, thankfully; but people who make a lot more money writing about movies have dared to mention "Godard" and Jules et Jim in the same breath. They must be considered accomplices and be indicted as such. g. Vacuity & Y tu mamá también received: 09/10/02 After watching Y tu mamá también yesterday, the film has only diminished in my mind with every hour. I must absolutely disagree with your evaluation. And of all our previous conflicts of opinion on films, this is one for which I'm willing to fight to the death. I found its narrative to be derivative. I thought its politics defeatist and occasionally offensive. And as for its status as something of a modern classic, I must call its carefully crafted construction as such, cynical and patronizing. Holy crap, where can I start? I can't help but imagine that the minds behind this film were absolutely consciously designing a product that would or could bear the Weinsteins' Miramax stamp of approval. I can picture a Mexican Tim Robbins lookalike- hell, maybe even an American Tim Robbins lookalike pitching this. Equal parts of Arau sentimentality and Almodovar realism, oodles of Latin sex, dash of American genres from road to buddy to genX to teen-sex movies, pinch of Kevin Smith, a Brechtish gimmick, a bovine allegory, postcard shots of the Mexican landscape, and even the slightest hint of politics like the way Emeril throws citrus zest on his lousy dishes so his minions can cheer for "gahlic." Films don't have to be overtly political to be political. But films that tack on politics like a fashion accessory are never so. What exactly is the connection between the general election and the group's dynamic? Zero. I could be kind and say that the film is actually a statement on the impossibility of politics itself, but I would be ignoring its utter contempt for any sort of social consciousness. It is gen X to make fun of activists, but never, never ridicule the cause. Never wax nostalgic for good ol' Colonialism by relying on the voice from Madrid for wisdom. Never kill the woman for the heck of killing her, unless you want to be Tarantino, which would by the way, explain everything. Never make the psychoanalytical reading the most available one, because it is in a word, useless. I don't want a utopia that I can call a travel agent for, I want a Utopia. But we can't have it. The collective has been fragmented at the start of the film, then is flung into the air and shot to pieces like a skeet by the end. We can't even enjoy Heaven's Mouth without da man telling us that it'll be crapped on in the next month or so. We can have sex but we can't come. There's nothing wrong with transposing the narrative onto sex, nothing at all. But if that is an allegory, what's the allegory of? The film should leave the beaches alone, or to someone like Takeshi who knows how to use them. It should leave politics to people who have a soul. And it should leave the ideology to the experts. Hollywood doesn't need help. p.s. RE: the film, Ken, didn't want to be offensive with it, but I was in a state of mind when I began writing that last night. Must be the anxiety of not working on my prospectus when i should be. I must add that I had a few good laughs in the film. Later, g. ---------------- in re: Y tu mamá también G. - Speaking of "where can I start?", you spin through so many things here that it's hard to get a foothold for a response, but I will do my best. I wouldn't disagree outright about its narrative being "derivative," though I would balk at the more negative connotations there. Being a "road movie", the film is essentially a genre film, though I suppose that the "road film" is already somewhat a pastiche of other truer genres itself. But I would say that that is not an inherent "problem" for a film. And as an amalgamation of the litany of references that you saw in it, I would also say that I don't see an inherent problem there either. As for the politics of the film and the overall attitude of Cuarón toward his characters, country, and story, I don't know what to say exactly. By pointing out what I thought that Cuarón was critiquing, I was not endorsing his opinions necessarily. I don't think that Cuarón demonstrates "contempt for any sort of social consciousness," but rather demonstrates the opposite. The critique is of the boys' lack of social consciousness. The sidelong views of the protestors seem less inflected negatively; rather, like much of the world that is depicted in Cuarón's "asides", he seems to be attempting to show the world that the boys do not perceive that is around them. I guess that this could be read as condescending, but I think it could be read more positively, as well. As for the death of the woman, I think that this is far less Tarantino (especially since it happens off screen) and far more a poetically melodramatic twist. And in saying that, I mean to imply the cliche aspects of that as well. She is a tragic character much more in tune with the melodrama genre, I would say. As to her colonial ties,...well, she is significantly Spanish. Even I can hear her accent. I don't really know what to say on this, but I don't necessarily disagree with you on this, though, again, I am less horrified by the politics of it than you are. Though I would agree that Kitano Takeshi uses the beach beautifully in Sonatine (1993), I would hardly say that he has cornered the market on it. While it may be a cliche to use a beautiful beach as a metaphor for paradise, I would hardly say it was not somewhat apt. Overall, I found the film to be entertaining, interesting, and well-crafted. That is what I liked about it. I think that it had a clear and a not uncomplicated notion of what it meant to depict and how it meant to depict it. And I think it is successful in communicating those ideas and images...the intent of the filmmaker, if you will. As for its politics, I didn't find them as offensive as you did. I would say that the film seems to be told from a more middle-class, if not a priveledged class perspective. I would be a little pressed to say why I think that. I do think that the film's attempt at omniscience might belie that somewhat, or maybe that exemplifies it? I also would like to say that I did not refer to it as a modern classic, though I do think that it is a very good film. I won't even get into what a classic is... Is that a decent rebuttal? - Ken Disappointment & Donnie Darko received: 08/02/02 Ken, I just saw Donnie Darko on a DVD that a student lent me. There were lots of things to like and hate about it. I loved its treatment of schizophrenia, thought it was loads better than A Beautiful Mind, and was astounded at the degree of literacy exhibited by a film that could weave schizophrenia, postmodernity, and Generation X into a competent narrative. I liked how it did not displace or misplace, I should say, the angst onto inept parenting or comical authority figures, and how it did not trivialize the role that education and religion have in controlling public spaces and propogating ideology. Through most of the movie I was wishing that I'd concluded my class with this film, and not River's Edge, considering Donnie's autonomy and lucidity in the face of schizophrenia, which I took to be both a symptom and allegory of consumer society. Then, I saw the ending, and the deleted scenes which revealed how the director had intended religion or divinity to play a much larger and more explicit role in the film. The ambiguity that the cuts imposed on the film is an example of Hollywood industrial conventions that unwittingly serve to improve the film. The messianic overtones and voice/vision/will of God that would have been included in the original cut confirmed some brewing suspicions, and undid so much of the film's political bite. When I realized what the film was about, the humanism and subjective autonomy that i had coveted all but disappeared. In its place lay this limp commentary on religion - a difference not unlike that between Happiness's unrelenting satire and American Beauty's confused, star-powered dud. Speaking of which, the contradictory relationship that the film has with the eighties was for me exemplary of Generation X's love-hate experience with pop culture: Drew has become the woman we wanted her to be, and Dirty Dancing (via Patrick Swayze) easily positioned as the putrid commodity it is. But as the film regressed from politics to religion, from autonomy to serfdom, the meaning of the decade shifted as as well. Suddenly, suburbia was this spiritual idyll, nostalgia for it was justified, and the sixties remains this unseen unheard problem, who through Katherine Ross, performs yet one more act of betrayal. g. Minority Report and more received: 07/31/02 Ken, on your evaluation of Minority Report: I suppose one can't blame Spielberg if the film isn't Blade Runner, but I thought that its strength was the vision of PK Dick (the film is perhaps more faithful to Dick than Blade Runner which adopted William Gibson's aesthetic in mise-en-scene), which was very much interrupted by the director's fetishes with technology, that was in turn more forgivable than the need at the end to cater to the dummies in the audience who can't piece a narrative together, and the sickening restoration of family ending - which made the movie like watching a fascinating assembly of factory technology moving with breathless precision, that ultimately produces a turd as its final product. David Fincher should have made this movie, if he ever develops the ambition. Right on with Star Wars. Lucas' ineptitude is made pathetically more apparent with every foot of film. Not many people can defuse Natalie Portman, but he did it. When he collaborated with Coppola in the seventies, he must have been the guy who went out for sandwiches. g. Final Fantasy & Donnie Darko received: 06/28/02 Hey, just thought I'd drop you a line as I've just watched Donnie Darko and Final Fantasy on DVD and I wanted to add a few thoughts on your reviews in your movie diary (which I swing by and read quite regularly). First Donnie Darko. I really enjoyed this movie. I remember being excited by what I heard before it was released, and then of course it never got into the cinemas because of 9/11. I'm glad I caught it on DVD, though. I disagree with you that the world is coming to the end in the movie, though it is clearly ambiguous on this point :-) I think this is a movie about personal redemption, not a global one and that everything post the crash is the dieing thoughts in Darko's mind. I do agree about the 80's period setting (ah, nostalgia, how I've missed you). I didn't find the direction amateurish, although I do think its very much of a style with Wes Anderson et al. and that can come off as rather pretentious. I don't think Kelly is (yet?) on the level of Anderson, but I didn't react against the directing in the same way you did. I found the film moving and thought provoking. Some of the visuals and the thoughts behind the film were quite chilling - damn that was one disturbing rabbit/demon/messenger from God. I suspect I don't agree the basic worldview the director was putting forward, but I do find the intersection between reality, film and madness to be one of the more fascintaing places to situate a movie. In many ways I think Memento is a better film playing in the same space, but Donnie Darko is definetly a more humanly engaging movie and in some ways I think that makes it more complete. Next Final Fantasy. I agree that some of the visuals were absolutely stunning, particularly the alien "ghosts". I wasn't completely convinced by the animation of the human characters and found myself constantly jarred out of the movie's world by an unnatural movement or by the fakeness of the skin. The characters were definetly more realistic in long shot than closeup, and in shadow rather than in light. One thing I found interesting, though on reflection not surprising. The computer animation worked really well for "enhanced" images like the view through the night vision goggles in "Old New York City". I see a future for the techniques of completely digital films. I think it will be a while, but it will be done again and done better. Which brings me to the weaknesses of FF. The plot, characterization and dialog stunk, stunk, stunk. I can't recall when I've last seen such a hackneyed storyline and such really terrible dialog. Just abysmal. I have to say I think you are being very generous in describing it as "a standard issue Hollywood Sci-fi movie from the early 2000's, it's pretty run of the mill, nothing to write home about". It doesn't even rise to that paltry level in my opinion. I was very dissapointed. I mean Gaia theory? I thought that died when we threw the hippies out? I found it ironic that such a technologically advanced film would put forward such a medieval world view (though, heaven help us, look at George "theocracy" Lucas). Anyway it was interesting because it points the way to new forms of visual moviemaking, which is always exciting. But as a film? Two thumbs down, way down :-) Dan ps I saw this quote in the Zoolander review and just had to answer it: "By the way, am I the only person in the world that thinks that Will Ferrell is one of the most dire comedic presences in the history of mankind?" No, no you are not the only person. Will Ferrell is just plain bad. Not since Chevvy Chase has such an unimaginative, bland and unfunny person been thrust upon us. His impersonations are so poor that every time he comes on I think he's doing Will Ferrell; sadly he is. He so completely misunderstands humor that he believes his overblown overacting can overcome his absolute lack of talent. Subtlety is lost on this guy; his idea of wit is to wear a really big shiny suit. Will Ferrell makes me weep for humanity. He is truly an abysmal excuse for a comic. God, I really hate Will Ferrell. ---------------- Dan - in re: Donnie Darko I didn't mean to imply that I thought that the film was utterly literal. I do however think that the confusion between the literal and the imagined is definitely intended to be confused. So, on that note, I don't think that it's meant to be taken as purely a delusion either. in re: Final Fantasy What I meant in calling the pretty unimaginitive plot "standard issue Hollywood Sci-fi" was not meant to be a compliment. I think that Science Fiction, like many genres, is largely made up of knock-off notions and junk and that this film's approach to narrative, character, etc. was pretty run-of-the-mill, not interesting or innovative. Though, I did kind of like the notion of being invaded by ghosts of aliens, though I don't think that that idea was explored at all by the film. As for the realism, I guess that I was also thinking less of the shots of faces and hair and more some of the shadowy, quickly cut actions that played out in some scenes. What I liked the most was really the first 10 minutes or so in the desolate NY city, when the figures were all masked and the story was almost entirely without words. I am not a Sci-Fi aficianado, so a lot of concepts that are probably common and old hat in Sci-Fi are still moderately new to me. - Ken |