love

Author Topic: Top 100 Club: etdoesgood  (Read 18745 times)

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: Top 100 Club: etdoesgood
« Reply #80 on: March 04, 2021, 10:44:33 PM »
I will say, this experience has been super gratifying just by putting myself in another film lover's shoes to find the love in what they love.

Now to return the favor. Except, while I can see the type if cultural and social issues that make these films favorites of yours, my reaction is through how I usually see movies. In this case it’s a new piece of insight on the directors.


Offside (2006)
I’m THE minority opinion on Jafar Panahi. Offside is reminiscent of a particular type of Panahi film, one that takes a very simple, small focus and doesn’t so much cover all the angles as lets events play out, letting the angles cover themselves. (This is Not a Film wasn’t a dramatic stretch because it’s a type of film he makes.) This can be outlined into a handful of sequences – getting in, the pen outside the stadium, the bathroom, the 2nd half of the game, the ride home – and what happens during each sequence is the opposite of a Tarantino or Aaron Sorkin. There’s no visible blueprint, but by the end you feel Panahi has covered everything. Most impressive is the ending. We don’t see a moment of the game, but I understand the game guided the story. That means the final scene isn’t staged, and the emotion is so good and strong, I cringe at the possibility of filming an ending where the other team wins.


Sin Nombre (2009)
Cary Fukunaga is a skilled filmmaker, but I cannot get on his wavelength. How does he know when to go for documentary realism and when to try a brash long take or stylized sound mix? Why do his films look so difficult to make and dramatically not powerful enough to justify that difficulty? I kept thinking of City of God because I think that’s the difference between us. City of God looks like it was filmed in a place where crew would disappear during the night. The visual style is loud and brash, grabbing you by the shoulders and demanding your attention. This shares the dangerous location and the high level of difficulty, but there’s an invisible touch. You have to step back to marvel at the filmmaking, which I did mostly because I wasn’t a fan of the people. I wasn’t a fan because I’m sure I’d be the crew to say something wrong and perish in the night.

Offside is my favorite Jafar Panahi.
Sin Nombre is my least favorite Cary Fukunaga, though it’s not a bad movie. I just thought the main conflict was routine – though the world is unique – and was more interested in the kid being indoctrinated into the Mexican gang.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2021, 11:19:33 PM by 1SO »

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26795
Re: Top 100 Club: etdoesgood
« Reply #81 on: March 05, 2021, 09:00:04 AM »
I figured you would enjoy Offside even though you generally don't like Panahi. The high concept added with the strong storytelling makes it the easiest of his films to recommend to people.

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: Top 100 Club: etdoesgood
« Reply #82 on: March 05, 2021, 09:28:15 PM »
Won't You Be My Neighbor? - Like most Gen-Xers, I grew up on Mister Rogers. Children's television today seems to be far more manic, even the gentler shows like "Puffin Rock" and "Buddi" are sensory overload compared to Rogers. I want William to experience the Land of Make-Believe and hear all of Rogers's lessons of kindness, loving, and understanding. He's a little young for it yet. He's about to turn three, it's quite a difficult age. He takes delight in doing things his parents don't want him to do, he hits when he's angry. Bedtime has gone from a 20-30 minute process to 90 minutes or more. I've lost my temper at times and had to leave the room to regain my composure.

I feel like just having seen this movie will make me a better parent. Watching Rogers being kind and patient (though, to be fair, the kids he dealt with were never kicking him in the face) makes me want to emulate his kindness and patience. I teared up at least three times during the film, he was just such a touching and inspirational man. One of the most decent people we've ever seen, and almost certainly the most decent Republican of the past 60 years. Of course, I was disappointed in his treatment of François "Officer" Clemmons's homosexuality... though it was a practical and not a hateful response, he missed an opportunity to take a bold stance (something he was often inclined to do).

No one is perfect. Fred Rogers very nearly was (assuming this doc isn't glossing over a bunch of ugly stuff). The film itself is pretty standard documentary format, and I don't feel compelled to watch it again. But it did move me, and perhaps made me better at dealing with my own child. Rating: Very Good (85)

After a hectic end of the third quarter and pre-spring break week, where I simultaneously taught and prepared for the return of students across campus, I have returned to talk film! Thanks for all the thoughtful comments so far, so let's do this.

Dude, I was misty eyed through a lot of this, and I saw it in the theater with a pretty good-sized crowd. It made me reconsider the man a little, and this film has contributed a lot to my own evolving theories of film and art.

I think your reaction to his treatment of Clemmon's is the standard and reasoned response. I think the documentary was fair in that regard. It's probably hard to make a Mister Rogers/Fred Rogers doc and be highly critical. He doesn't lend himself to a hit piece (unless it's part of a Fox News segment, apparently). But I'm glad Clemmons got his say here. That's one of the most important parts of the film.

I like how you contextualized your response with your own personal domestic situation. I have a good background in child development and many years caring for and teaching other people's kids, but actually being that parent day in and day out is a role and an act that still impresses me so much. I will say, this film inspired me in a similar way, and helped me be more mindful of seeing young people for who they are and trying to love them - even if it is at times tough love - on their own terms. I actually do believe there's something special about everyone, and that we need to emphasize that everyday in any way we can. There is no downside to radiating that kind of warmth, at least that's how I see it.

I have gone back to it occasionally since I saw it in theaters. I need to have that system of beliefs reinforced, especially when things get frustrating at work. Both this and A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood do the trick.
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: Top 100 Club: etdoesgood
« Reply #83 on: March 05, 2021, 09:54:23 PM »
Offside (2006)
I’m THE minority opinion on Jafar Panahi. Offside is reminiscent of a particular type of Panahi film, one that takes a very simple, small focus and doesn’t so much cover all the angles as lets events play out, letting the angles cover themselves. (This is Not a Film wasn’t a dramatic stretch because it’s a type of film he makes.) This can be outlined into a handful of sequences – getting in, the pen outside the stadium, the bathroom, the 2nd half of the game, the ride home – and what happens during each sequence is the opposite of a Tarantino or Aaron Sorkin. There’s no visible blueprint, but by the end you feel Panahi has covered everything. Most impressive is the ending. We don’t see a moment of the game, but I understand the game guided the story. That means the final scene isn’t staged, and the emotion is so good and strong, I cringe at the possibility of filming an ending where the other team wins.

The part and blue, just because I love that. I like the analysis and contrast with Tarantino and Sorkin. In the sense of craft, I think you might understand why I like what I like better than I do, or are at least more able to articulate it than I can.

The final images of the women and soldiers exiting the bus with the sparklers clinched this thing for me.

Sin Nombre (2009)
Cary Fukunaga is a skilled filmmaker, but I cannot get on his wavelength. How does he know when to go for documentary realism and when to try a brash long take or stylized sound mix? Why do his films look so difficult to make and dramatically not powerful enough to justify that difficulty? I kept thinking of City of God because I think that’s the difference between us. City of God looks like it was filmed in a place where crew would disappear during the night. The visual style is loud and brash, grabbing you by the shoulders and demanding your attention. This shares the dangerous location and the high level of difficulty, but there’s an invisible touch. You have to step back to marvel at the filmmaking, which I did mostly because I wasn’t a fan of the people. I wasn’t a fan because I’m sure I’d be the crew to say something wrong and perish in the night.

Offside is my favorite Jafar Panahi.
Sin Nombre is my least favorite Cary Fukunaga, though it’s not a bad movie. I just thought the main conflict was routine – though the world is unique – and was more interested in the kid being indoctrinated into the Mexican gang.

I don't know that difference between City of God and Sin Nombre is a big difference between you and I, per se, because City of God is #12 on this list, and was perhaps my #1 at one point (before I ever really considered such a list). I saw both films for the first time around the same time. Sin Nombre is another one where the final shot clinched it for me. Sayra's reaction at finally getting through with the phone number she'd recited with her father so often and what seems like so long ago is one of the more profound images of any film I've seen. I care a lot about the Sayra-Casper relationship, and I love the attention to detail when it comes to recreating the immigrants' trail to America. All of the stops, the run-ins with a notably ruthless Mexican immigration authorities, the pit stops to bathe and eat, the tops of the train filled with literal huddled and yearning masses, Fukunaga really brings this world to life. To me, it's a more worthwhile world to bring to life than a lot of places film goes, even if that can mostly be boiled down to personal preference. I've lived in Arizona for nearly 15 years and lived within 10 miles of the Mexican-American border for 9, so that also plays a role. I had the privilege of being able to straddle the border and enjoy both sides without much care or concern, but I also appreciate things that tune me into the harsher reality of that place.

I'm wondering, do you have any other undocumented (or just marginalized) immigrant stories you find compelling? Dirty Pretty Things is one I haven't visited in a while, which goes to some seriously dark places, but I remember liking quite a bit. I used to be quite fond of In America, but not sure how it'd hold up now. Wondering if you got anything new for me to try.

Also wondering if you have much looked into MS-13 since Donald Trump made such a big deal of them. That's the gang in the film, La Mara Salvatrucha, and they are horrifying. It's a challenge to get a good account of the gang because of how tight-knit and close-lipped it can be. While we don't hold the film in the same esteem, I agree with you on the intrigue of this organization. It's just deeply unfortunate that people link all Central American and Mexican immigrants with them, especially since the gang was formed in L.A., when they are more like Sayra and her family, just trying to escape.

I've written more than you, but I am excited that you watched these two movies. I think you might get a great deal out of 3 Faces, as I think it fits the high concept Sam talks about with Offside, although it also has strong meta elements and docudrama feel of This Is Not a Film. I very much understand your reaction to that film, even if I don't necessarily share it, but I think you might find that it actually goes places with 3 Faces. Sometimes the camera points at Panahi, but it's when it points beyond him that the magic happens.
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: Top 100 Club: etdoesgood
« Reply #84 on: March 05, 2021, 09:59:04 PM »
Being John Malkovich

It's a home run for Malkovich, for sure! I haven't seen a ton of films with him, but I saw this one too early to understand just how crazy it was that such a "serious" actor would try something like this. In a very practical sense, this film reminds me not to take myself too seriously, and to try to see myself as others might, and even see myself as those that don't like me or think I'm ridiculous might see me. Besides that, it's just my favorite blend for a bananas film. It still has a humanist core, even with some of the human rot through which it drags you.
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: Top 100 Club: etdoesgood
« Reply #85 on: March 05, 2021, 11:16:33 PM »
I'm wondering, do you have any other undocumented (or just marginalized) immigrant stories you find compelling? Dirty Pretty Things is one I haven't visited in a while, which goes to some seriously dark places, but I remember liking quite a bit. I used to be quite fond of In America, but not sure how it'd hold up now. Wondering if you got anything new for me to try.
Have you seen the 1996 film Lone Star? Written and directed by John Sayles, it was the first film to give me some sympathy towards people crossing the border into Texas, and treat them as people instead of demonize or sanitize them. It's actually an underlying theme, the main story is a neo-noir murder mystery, but it's the first title I thought of because the illegal immigrants stuck with me.

El Norte (1983) is probably my favorite of this type of film. I believe MartinTeller is also a major fan.

I've seen Dirty Pretty Things 3 times. It's never lost its power.


MS-13 isn't as much a part of L.A. Culture as Republicans want you to think.

I was already considering watching 3 Faces later in the month.

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17864
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Top 100 Club: etdoesgood
« Reply #86 on: March 05, 2021, 11:33:29 PM »
El Norte (1983) is probably my favorite of this type of film. I believe MartinTeller is also a major fan.

Yep, I was just about to recommend it.

Also, The Visitor, Le Havre, La Promesse and Maria Full of Grace. And yes, Lone Star.

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: Top 100 Club: etdoesgood
« Reply #87 on: March 06, 2021, 01:43:28 PM »
El Norte (1983) is probably my favorite of this type of film. I believe MartinTeller is also a major fan.

MS-13 isn't as much a part of L.A. Culture as Republicans want you to think.

At a screening of Sin Nombre, the professor doing the series (So You Don’t Like Subtitles? - also including City of God) talked about El Norte. Time to make that happen.

I’ve never had the sense Republicans were linking MS-13 and LA culture; on the contrary, they were linking them with the caravan coming from Central America. The human rights activist’s response is that the gang started in America, thereby repudiating it as something foreigners are bringing here.

El Norte (1983) is probably my favorite of this type of film. I believe MartinTeller is also a major fan.

Yep, I was just about to recommend it.

Also, The Visitor, Le Havre, La Promesse and Maria Full of Grace. And yes, Lone Star.

I’ve seen Le Havre, wouldn’t mind going back. Maria Full of Grace, too. The other three plus El Norte...all on it.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2021, 01:45:28 PM by etdoesgood »
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Top 100 Club: etdoesgood
« Reply #88 on: March 06, 2021, 03:06:09 PM »
It's a home run for Malkovich, for sure! I haven't seen a ton of films with him, but I saw this one too early to understand just how crazy it was that such a "serious" actor would try something like this. In a very practical sense, this film reminds me not to take myself too seriously, and to try to see myself as others might, and even see myself as those that don't like me or think I'm ridiculous might see me. Besides that, it's just my favorite blend for a bananas film. It still has a humanist core, even with some of the human rot through which it drags you.

I like how you use the movie to create self reflection. :)

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Top 100 Club: etdoesgood
« Reply #89 on: March 12, 2021, 11:03:56 PM »
Blazing Saddles



Ludicrous! LOL!

Cleavon Little lackadaisically labors by laying rails, allowing klanslike laymen to lead out, until he luckily lands a livelihood larking about illiberal land, letting the hoi polloi loosen up to liking him, while he lacerates the lawless lackeys.

Lampoonery lets us laugh, while wanting to lament. I'm so flabbergasted, I'm blathering alliteration. Let me try and use other language...

I just read about the line that even Mel Brooks was afraid to put into the movie. Had he left it there, I would have choked on my popcorn. And I was already pretty stunned by all that he let in, so that's saying something. Nearly nothing is off limits when it comes to the criticism here. I'd wonder if it's too much, but the point needs to be brought home now, just as ever. Does satire change minds? I wish it would, but Blazing Saddles is almost 50 years old and we're still deeply mired in bigotry. So I guess I have one more L word. Liable. If strong social commentary doesn't do it, our laws should.