ysbreker

Movie/TV recommendations

Recommended Posts

Hmm, I saw TWBB a bit differently.

 

I'd take a quibble with your take on him as a soulless man, though. He's fully given himself to ambition and regards other men as driven by the same, but he still wants someone he can trust, someone who's family. His adopted son fills this role at first, but the accident renders him surly and incapable of that role. He thinks he finds a second chance in his long-lost brother, but when that's proven to be a lie, he accepts what he's become.

In the end, his money and his power were towards a single goal: not having to depend on anyone, and not even having to communicate with them. (Remember his admission to his "brother" that he can't stand other people.) So he wanders an empty mansion, drinking to suppress what's left of his humanity, only rousing to drive away those closest ot him and lord over a defeated foe.

 

Such a great movie, and I really need to see it again soon. The ambiguity comes not from the characters so much as the themes; so many different slices you can take away from what it says about ambition, Capitalism, the oil boom, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting take! I should really watch it again. I think our views aren't completely incompatible, either. Although I saw him as a husk, I could be persuaded that there's some humanity in there -- even if it's just a drop. An interesting character, for sure!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean that his characters drive the story, and not the other way around. The Master is only a character study, without much plot, and it works as that, for me.

 

As for TWBB...

 

I don't think there's much ambiguity in the film. I think David Lynch's movies are the epitome of "ambiguous", and PTA's are much more straightforward by comparison.

 

It sounds like everyone agrees on the main point: Plainview is a soulless man. I would argue that the film shows him as always being this way (at least as we see him -- who knows what his childhood was like). I think a lot of people miss the point that, when he falls and breaks him leg(?) prospecting, the movie goes out of its way to show that he's more concerned with the value of his find, than his own health. His health is just an inconvenience in the way of his drive -- and his drive is to make money. (It's no coincidence that he's shown as a solitary figure, either, IMO -- he has no friends, because he sees no value in relationships.)

 

Everything he does in the film, with one exception, can be seen as taking steps towards his goal.

 

The ending fitted perfectly with his character, and his final line says it all: "I'm done." He has no more reason to live, he's accomplished everything he wanted to in life -- the only thing he had left was to prove himself the "winner" to his weak rival. (Not that he's about to commit suicide now, just that his drive is now completely sated. If he gets away with murder -- and I imagine that he might just -- I think he'll spend the rest of his life living in the empty cavernous mansion alone.)

 

The only ambiguity, IMO, is how he felt towards his adopted son. I guess that's left up to the viewer to decide where the lines were drawn. I have no idea.

 

So as a whole, we see the consequences of the actions of a man driven solely by a psychotic desire for wealth and status. The movie seems to ask the audience: Is this something really worth looking up to? But it also stays true to the characters, and never makes them do anything contrived to make this point. In that way, to me it's just about a perfect film.

 

That's my take on it, anyway.

 

Now, Mulholland Dr...! :)

 

While watching TWBB I definitely find points where I agree with you (the silent opening couldn't be more pointed in establishing Daniel as a very specific kind of man, and I love what Tarantino said about the elliptical cut that is made after he crawls out of the well), but him being empty from the word go makes several scenes in the film (the way he's concerned about HW when he goes deaf, the whole sub-plot with the brother, the "I've abandoned my boy" moment) not really make much sense. He feels like a single minded character who rides his only desire to his grave, but moments like that tend to complicate things quite a bit, which is what makes it such an interesting film that people are still debating 5 years later. Ambiguity.

 

And again, for me, TWBB and (especially) The Master are just too evocative and rife with symbolic imagery that reading them as straight character studies seems to miss a lot of what PTA is setting out to do.

 

 

Back to the thread topic (and a wildly different kind of film), Jackass Number Two is on Netflix and is still a masterpiece and I am not even kidding. One of the best comedies ever made, easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. I'm not convinced PTA is attempting anything deeper than astonishing character studies, which is not something to be dismissed or looked down upon. Quite the contrary, I don't know of another modern filmmaker who's as good at as him!

I'll watch it again, though.

What symbology is it, and The Master, "rife" with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For There Will Be Blood I'd have to watch it again as it's been at least a year, but off the top of my head there's HW being annointed with oil and there's the way the oil fire is played for maximum Hades imagery. Things that mix around the religious with capitalism. And the way he utilizes Johnny Greenwood's score to create a sense of dread bubbling just under the surface of the whole thing imbues the entire film with an eerie quality that I feel is separate from the character work at hand. I feel if PTA was only concerned with Daniel the man, the film as a whole would feel entirely different. Which is maybe not a great answer because I think a lot of it has to do with intangible qualities of PTA's direction, but as I said it's been at least a year since I watched it.

 

As for the Master, the film doesn't even make sense taken literally. People's eyes change color and two men regularly drink poison. If PTA is only attempting to make character study, he chooses the least efficient way to do it. His films definitely work as that, but I think what keeps people debating films like TWBB and The Master are their other less tangible qualities. PTA chooses to obfuscate a LOT in The Master, from the opaqueness of Pheonix's character to even basic things like plot and story. If you watch and love his films purely as character studies that's totally valid, but I have to disagree that that is all that is at work there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. I remain unconvinced. You say that The Master is especially rife with symbolism, but you haven't given any examples. To me PTA's process is clearly very organic and fluid, which is what helps his characters become so incredibly realised. I don't he's got a crystal clear idea of where he's going, I think he's brave enough to let two actors go at it and see where it takes them -- copying the structure of his script, but not to the letter. For that reason I don't think there's any real intellectual feats going on behind the scenes, and therefore no planned symbolism. He wants to capture these characters. He's not concerned with plot or arcs, or even a message, he just wants to capture characters being who they are.

 

To me this is evident in all his best work: Boogie Nights, TWBB, The Master, and some parts of Magnolia. When he tries to be controlling, imbuing his films with a message or purpose, he seems to lose his way (the most of Magnolia, parts of Punch Drunk Love). TWBB definitely had a clear arc, but as you've quite rightly pointed out, there's still plenty of ambiguity over the inner-workings of Plainview.

 

Again, this is no criticism of his work. I'm absolutely flabbergasted by his talent as a director, but I do think he builds a lot of his films in the editing room, rather than planning things with an eye for specific dialogue or controlling fine details. I think he's much more fluid and organic in his filmmaking than that.

 

Actually, thinking about it, I'm not sure we're really at that much of an odds: I absolutely agree that his work as a director is masterful. It's surprising and hypnotic. I love it. I also agree that he's not overly concerned with answering everyone's questions. Happily letting characters be real: full of contradictions and complications.

 

Edit:

 

Also: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw Cujo in a theatre the other night. I think I watched a family drama where a killer dog was tacked on near the end. What the shit?

I haven't seen the movie, but Cujo's my favourite of the dozen or so Stephen King books I've read. There's a precise dissection of the nature of evil, both as a separate, animistic entity, as well as an element in human nature. It's not the kind of thing the Idle Thumbs podcast would go out of their way to read, but I recommend it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Thunderpeel, I realize I'm not explaining it a well as I could, because for me it's as much in the intangibles of his direction that make characters feel more like symbols to me. There is no doubt in my mind that Freddie represents the Id and Dodd the Ego but like I said, if you just want to read it as a straight-ahead character study, that's valid too. It's just that there are too many scenes that feel abstracted and counter-intuitive to exploring the characters (the final scene between the two, the motorcycle in the desert scene, etc.) for me to read it as the film's primary mode of operation. It's just too impressionistic for me to read literally. 

 

That said, I only saw the film once and I'm sure my understanding of the film would benefit from multiple viewings, even if the conclusion I come to is that there isn't actually a working thesis at it's center (which is how I feel about TWBB).

 

 

As for Cujo, so much of the story that isn't the dog attacking the car doesn't really translate cinematically (it's been a while since I read the book, but I recall the backstory of the serial killer from The Dead Zone and the dog's inner monologue being very prominent), but all the actual meat of the film is actually really well made. Jan de Bont's cinematography is excellent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you that's it's impressionistic in that sense. Interesting theory about the Ego and Id, but I personally don't buy that PTA would do something as literal or planned as that.

Both the scenes you mention make perfect sense to me from a character study point of view. (And again, I think that's no small feat! Making characters that are both compelling and relatable is, for me, one of the highest praises I can think of.)

But thanks for engaging in this discussion, I'll certainly be looking at the films with slightly different eyes next time I watch them! :tup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...but I recall the backstory of the serial killer from The Dead Zone and the dog's inner monologue being very prominent), but all the actual meat of the film is actually really well made.

Yeah a guy in the theatre was explaining how none of that was in the film. To be honest sounds hokey, but I could also see it as making it more interesting than dog attack movie with adultery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah a guy in the theatre was explaining how none of that was in the film. To be honest sounds hokey, but I could also see it as making it more interesting than dog attack movie with adultery.

 

A guy presenting the film or just some cunt showing off to his mate during the film?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh haha, I should say after the film was finished he was talking to my friend in the lobby about it.

 

I like the scenario where he's loudly explaining it in his seat during the film better though. If only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no doubt in my mind that Freddie represents the Id and Dodd the Ego but like I said, if you just want to read it as a straight-ahead character study, that's valid too. It's just that there are too many scenes that feel abstracted and counter-intuitive to exploring the characters (the final scene between the two, the motorcycle in the desert scene, etc.) for me to read it as the film's primary mode of operation. It's just too impressionistic for me to read literally. 

 

I also thought that the Master was fundamentally a Freudian morality play, with Freddie, Dodd, and Amy Adams' characters representing different aspects of the psyche (id, ego, super-ego). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be/is probably old news, but I haven't been following The Great Gatsby at all, mostly because I assumed I would not like it.  But I just saw that the soundtrack and it looks terrible (in the context of being the soundtrack for The Great Gatsby).

 

http://consequenceofsound.net/2013/04/the-great-gatsby-soundtrack-features-new-jay-z-the-xx-florence-the-machine/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be/is probably old news, but I haven't been following The Great Gatsby at all, mostly because I assumed I would not like it.  But I just saw that the soundtrack and it looks terrible (in the context of being the soundtrack for The Great Gatsby).

 

http://consequenceofsound.net/2013/04/the-great-gatsby-soundtrack-features-new-jay-z-the-xx-florence-the-machine/

 

There has not been a single bit of news about that film that hasn't made me more excited for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw Trance last night and boy was that disappointing. I usually like Danny Boyle films a lot (even the ones most people dislike), with only a few misses from the guy, but Trance was straight garbage cinema. I wanted to walk out because I was so annoyed and uncomfortable by the time the plot twist came around. The film wasn't actually convoluted but seemed to want to be by presenting a bunch of false leads and explaining nothing until a ridiculously long and cringing exposition scene near the end. The first 30-40 minutes were engaging and it looked really pretty but what a crappy clunky story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw Samurai Cop and it actually beats out The Room for best bad movie ever. Just watch any clip on YouTube. Here, see this one. Language is

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually sort of enjoying Defiance, but I think a big part of that is how much I loved the Rifts RPG, I have a theory that Palladium talked to SyFy about makes a proper Rifts TV series but got turned down and then SyFy made something just like it to avoid having to deal with Kevin Siembieda. Trion, makers of the Rift MMO even just happens to be making the (by all accounts) shitty tie in Defiance MMO. Coincidence?  Well, yes, because nobody actually knows about Rifts and I doubt Palladium would even get called back if they really did try to. 

 

The show is like 80% blue screen backgrounds and CG, but they do a pretty good job of at least keeping the quality of the image on screen consistent (even if that quality is low) which, to me anyways, makes it less distracting. It seems like its going to be pretty seriously character driven, so I'm happy to give it at least a half dozen episodes before I really pass judgement on it (so far, the character motivations are pretty one note and in some cases schizophrenic). Farscape and Deep Space Nine (two of my favorite series) started out pretty terrible as well and ended up getting better once the characters started getting settled in.

 

However: dat SyFy fake swear word... bleh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hurray, King of Monster's the movie.

 

There are a few things I don't get:

1) why two people controlling 1 robot by synchronized moves?

2) why kinect like controls and not a simple fightstick? People have been practicing fighting with fightsticks for years now.

3) why those colors?

4) why not make a robot 2 times the size of those aliens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5) Why giant robot men, when giant robot tarantella's are so much better. Have they learnt nothing from Wild Wild West

6) The distinct lack of laser beams

7) B2urlbX.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CGI means that modern Kaiju will always be inferior to classic dude in costume Kaiju. You'll never have amazing stories like this.

 

Kenpachiro Satsuma, the actor who played Hedorah, was struck with appendicitis during the production. Doctors were forced to perform theappendectomy while he was still wearing the Hedorah suit, due to the length of time it took to take off. During the operation, Satsuma learned thatpainkillers have no effect on him.

 

Just imagine intense screams of agony coming from this...

 

hedorah.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have they learnt nothing from Wild Wild West

YES.

 

I have an unabashed love for that movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hurray, King of Monster's the movie.

 

There are a few things I don't get:

1) why two people controlling 1 robot by synchronized moves?

 

Eva reference / lifted concept? Also, notice helmets full of juice, reliance on memories, monsters in the ocean, etc.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patrick, that story about Satsuma is amazing and horrifying. A special kind of hell, having an appendectomy while wearing a Cthulhu-like suit, oh, and you can feel everything. What the hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now