love

Author Topic: 1990s US Bracket: Verdicts  (Read 712561 times)

sdedalus

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 16585
  • I have a prestigious blog, sir!
    • The End of Cinema
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #870 on: August 06, 2008, 03:18:58 AM »
Art is entertainment.  It's what humans do to pass the time.  Different people like different things.  Skjerva enjoys films that reinforce his political ideologies, junior enjoys CGI dinosaurs.  Most of us like all kinds of different movies.

Criticism is the examination of the objects of entertainment.  It's not anti-entertainment, it's an investigation into, and often a rationalization for, entertainment.

Some people think Spielberg is fun and Tsai Ming-liang boring.  Some think Tsai is fun and Spielberg boring.  Both are right.  Aesthetic explanations come after the initial experience of fun/boredom.

In other words, junior, we all watch the movies we think are fun.  Whether or not you think they are boring, other people might think differently.  Entertainment value is never overlooked around here.  None of us watch the movies we watch without thinking they'll be entertaining.
The End of Cinema

Seattle Screen Scene

"He was some kind of a man. What does it matter what you say about people?"

roujin

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 15508
  • it's all research

skjerva

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9448
  • I'm your audience.
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #872 on: August 06, 2008, 04:24:20 AM »
[to get this thread back on track ;) ]

The Truman Show
Peter Weir, 1998

vs.

Paris is Burning
Jennie Livingston, 19901


I had never experienced The Truman Show, though I've always wanted to - I'm not sure if I didn't because I assumed it would put the interesting idea to waste, but I was enthralled early on.  What does it mean that Truman (True Man) acts authentically and everyone else in "his universe" is scripted?  As Christof (nicely played by Ed Harris.  are we to invoke Christo?)) states (from IMDb):  "We accept the reality of the world with which we are presented. "  This, apparently, is a problem.  I(/we/the audience) am(are/is) seemingly sharing the reaction with the audience of the television program, The Truman Show, who at film's end, are portrayed as sympathizing with Truman's burden of confinement.  However, they, like us, have accepted the reality of the world presented.  For 30 years, the millions of viewers have been content with Truman The Guinea Pig - they/we have been complicit.  This film is about how we are spoon-fed into complacency; how ideology works.

Likewise, Paris is Burning illustrates ideological tensions.  In duder's first-round write-up he notes

Quote
Later on, there seems to be an attempt on her part to widen the canvas by placing this community in contrast with the Outside World, even drawing some parallels, but I'm not sure she's quite as successful there, or even what it is she's trying to say exactly.

but really, the entire film is nothing but a contrast in constant dialogue with "the outside world".  in fact, one weakness of the film is that the narrative is so heavily constructed around reductive quotes from the family members, e.g. (again from IMDb),

Quote
In real life, you can't get a job as an executive unless you have the educational background and the opportunity. Now the fact that you are not an executive is merely because of the social standing of life... Black people have a hard time getting anywhere. And those that do, are usually straight. In a ballroom, you can be anything you want.

The film is punctuated with title pages that describe terms used.  One of them, resonating with the above quote, as well as The Truman Show, is "REALNESS".  This film is utterly about how "the real world" - really, the wealthy, straight, white world - does not accept gay people.  Moreso, resonating off the final sentence of the above quote, early in the film a person describes the ball culture as a place to "feel 100% right being gay...and that's not what it's like in the world".  This is a common theme in the film, "the world", "society", "being real", are all "their" attributes.  Despite that, there is a place that these "outcasts" are 100% Right, and that is in drag culture, an important component of this is the "Houses".  The houses are organized around matriarchs who have proven their worth to the Ball establishment by not only being recognized performers, but as successful "mothers".  These mothers, and their houses, care for the gay youth when their blood family - the "they" society - would not. Mothers give them places to stay when they are kicked out, they feed them, and advise them on navigating that society that will likely meet them with violence.  The film raises the question of which world is the more desirable real.  Wonderfully, the constant desire to belong to "their real" resonates with most every subject the film spends time with while it also makes it abundantly evident how 100%-right their "false real" really is.

So, while the film does lean heavily on a dozen or so seemingly simple statements, they are so profound and somehow Livingston has made such obvious fodder so real.  So Beautiful.  Such an amazing film.

Without going much more deeply into either film, I want to emphasize that it is difficult ruling out The Truman Show.  Not knowing which other films will be ruled out by Round 2's end (and heart-breakers will certainly abound), a cautionary case for resurrection should be made taking into account a solid set of performances by Carrey, Harris, Linney, and that that-guy Noah Emmerich.  The script is fantastic, gliding easily over the 50s-esque satire, media/advertising/pop-culture criticism, and existential themes.  Though the film's tone shifts awkwardly about half-in as the reveal occurs, it leads to such a nice payoff that it is easy to overlook.  Wier does an amazing job of suturing the show's audience onto "we"-audience, asking us what we are complicit in being entertained by, and whether or not we will simply jump to the next show once our attention drops from a perceived wrong. 

Though it is easy to rule-in Paris is Burning - a profoundly humane and complex film - it is still difficult to rule out The Truman Show, though I can only muster that it is smart and a fair bit better than average (I might feel comfortable calling it Top 100 of US 90s films).

-----
1 Or 1991, as current version reflects changes made after initial festival release for '91 Sundance.
But I wish the public could, in the midst of its pleasures, see how blatantly it is being spoon-fed, and ask for slightly better dreams. 
                        - Iris Barry from "The Public's Pleasure" (1926)

sdedalus

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 16585
  • I have a prestigious blog, sir!
    • The End of Cinema
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #873 on: August 06, 2008, 04:43:31 AM »
So, if I read that right, you think Paris Is Burning is a great film because it depicts a subworld in which a group of people get to act more like themselves when they can't act that way in the larger world.

Is there anything cinematically interesting about it?  I've never seen the film, but based on my understanding of your description, I have zero desire to.  I know it sucks that gay and/or drag people are oppressed and I think it's great they've managed to create a culture wherein they don't have to behave in compliance with the society that oppresses them.  So what can this film tell me I don't already know?
The End of Cinema

Seattle Screen Scene

"He was some kind of a man. What does it matter what you say about people?"

skjerva

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9448
  • I'm your audience.
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #874 on: August 06, 2008, 05:46:30 AM »
[written way too late/early; can't believe i haven't bedded yet :( ]

So, if I read that right, you think Paris Is Burning is a great film because it depicts a subworld in which a group of people get to act more like themselves when they can't act that way in the larger world.

Is there anything cinematically interesting about it?  I've never seen the film, but based on my understanding of your description, I have zero desire to.  I know it sucks that gay and/or drag people are oppressed and I think it's great they've managed to create a culture wherein they don't have to behave in compliance with the society that oppresses them.  So what can this film tell me I don't already know?

worthwhile point, but it should be clear that my take is that Livingston takes obvious material, seemingly presented in obvious ways (e.g., black title screen with white lettering, anthropological representation of a hidden sub-culture), and imbues it with something that really resonates.  i reckon part of this is attributable to the two-ish years she (apparently) spent filming.  she was able to construct a great social commentary by hanging it on a few primary characters and a few key ideas.  while the social commentary is obvious, and there are many clear and diluted statements made by subjects, it somehow evades being preachy or seeming obvious - and this seems like quite a bit of craft to me.  these black screen intertitles - HOUSE; MOTHER; REALNESS; READING - punctuate the film every few minutes introducing characters and concepts, they are almost annoying, seemingly unnecessary, but somehow make complete sense.  there is something so stark and obvious about the construction and presentation of the film  so much so in that it brilliantly suggests an equivalence to the obvious presence of these social outcasts, so why must there be a difference?  these basic terms utterly redefine the logic of rich, straight, white culture - or question the assumptions of this logic.  there are also a couple of strange and great segments of Wall Streetish white folks, basically representations of the characters the ballers seem to invoke, in this pairing there is something so obvious yet powerful happening.  there is seemingly something so simple and reductive in that which is real, the film and the representation of it's subjects unmasks such easy thinking as a lie, the real, while simple, is never easy, or easily understood.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2008, 05:48:39 AM by skjerva »
But I wish the public could, in the midst of its pleasures, see how blatantly it is being spoon-fed, and ask for slightly better dreams. 
                        - Iris Barry from "The Public's Pleasure" (1926)

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #875 on: August 06, 2008, 06:38:59 AM »
In other words, junior, we all watch the movies we think are fun.  Whether or not you think they are boring, other people might think differently.  Entertainment value is never overlooked around here.  None of us watch the movies we watch without thinking they'll be entertaining.

Obviously. However, I feel like what I get entertainment from is (sometimes) looked down upon as a lower form of entertainment. Why watch CGI dinosaurs when you can watch a movie about abortion? Just because you don't have to use you mind much doesn't mean it isn't interesting or exciting.

In short. I am always right and whatever movie I watch is the best movie ever. And I am awesome. Awesome. Awesome.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

facedad

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10983
  • World Phucking Champions.
    • Be my netflix friend
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #876 on: August 06, 2008, 10:55:00 AM »
In other words, junior, we all watch the movies we think are fun.  Whether or not you think they are boring, other people might think differently.  Entertainment value is never overlooked around here.  None of us watch the movies we watch without thinking they'll be entertaining.

Obviously. However, I feel like what I get entertainment from is (sometimes) looked down upon as a lower form of entertainment. Why watch CGI dinosaurs when you can watch a movie about abortion? Just because you don't have to use you mind much doesn't mean it isn't interesting or exciting.

In short. I am always right and whatever movie I watch is the best movie ever. And I am awesome. Awesome. Awesome.
See, I look down on Jurassic Park because I find the action and plot really predictable and not very exhilarating in its staging. Therefore, despite an entire argument raging without me for a night, I have won the argument. We all like entertaining films (like sean said), your choice is just not that fun. Now, you want to come quote Futurama somewhere, I'll be right there with you.
You're just jealous! Nobody loves you because you're tiny and made of meat!

https://twitter.com/thefaceboy

http://www.thereelists.com

alexarch

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 6995
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #877 on: August 06, 2008, 11:05:41 AM »
So, if I read that right, you think Paris Is Burning is a great film because it depicts a subworld in which a group of people get to act more like themselves when they can't act that way in the larger world.

Is there anything cinematically interesting about it?  I've never seen the film, but based on my understanding of your description, I have zero desire to.  I know it sucks that gay and/or drag people are oppressed and I think it's great they've managed to create a culture wherein they don't have to behave in compliance with the society that oppresses them.  So what can this film tell me I don't already know?
You may not be interested in the movie for all those reasons - cinematically or as a study of a subgroup or whatever.  You may not want to take away a message.

You may find it enjoyable just to see the particulars, to learn what a house is and how it is structured.  And how each house has its own personality, and the specific personalities of each of the houses shown.  And how the personalities of each house play against each other.  If you think that's too much like fishbowl gazing, then don't see it.  If, on the other hand, you like looking into fishbowls, go for it.

It might also be interesting to see how this particular movie is still influencing today's New York gay scene.  How the concept of houses is still playing out - in ironic terms or sincere terms.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2008, 11:12:38 AM by pixote »

alexarch

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 6995
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #878 on: August 06, 2008, 11:10:49 AM »
It might also be interesting just to see where Madonna got one of her most iconic dances from.

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #879 on: August 06, 2008, 11:34:31 AM »
This will be my final word on this debate (unless I say more). I don't care if you don't enjoy JP as long as you can accept that it is just as valid a movie as 8 1/2 or any other movie. It may be just a fun film, but that doesn't detract from its movie-dom. 
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”