Author Topic: 1990s US Bracket: Verdicts  (Read 712585 times)

St. Martin the Bald

  • Lurker
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11205
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #900 on: August 06, 2008, 03:02:04 PM »
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.

  What I found so interesting (and not just from this film) was that this is an epicenter of fashion and style.
  As far as the film goes - I think there is a poignancy to a lot of the observations (whether they are intentionally ironic or not) on display in this film...these girls fight and scratch for every bit of pride and self repsect they have (especially coming from the notoriously homophobic black community) and there is a lot of pain and vulnerability here. I came away with an even greater respect for how they choose to live their lives and the courage it takes.
Hey, nice marmot!

oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 13746
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #901 on: August 06, 2008, 03:13:30 PM »
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. 

Noted! Thanks, skjerva. If I'm still able to play god once this round is finished and I get to decide which losing films get to be resurrected, your comments are really useful. I have seen The Truman Show and like it a lot, but I'm sure I will not have seen a number of the losing films in upcoming match-ups (as my film knowledge is not as wonderfully encyclopedic as sdedalus's) - thus, I'd love for any of you to make a case for resurrection after future match-up results if you think one needs to be made.


m_rturnage

  • FAB
  • Elite Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1834
  • Beauty hurts.
    • Too Much Time on My Hands
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #902 on: August 06, 2008, 03:30:08 PM »
I don't really like solely sticking to my opinion and idea of a film. Rather, I think understanding a movie from other peoples points of view is just as exciting. 

I used to be content with checking out the written reviews of movies on the net, but now there are shows, such as Filmspotting, as well as message boards, just like this one, which basically rely on the 'human interaction' created by film (two hosts discussing, not just one talking endlessly). That's entertainment!

To add to this train of thought, I become very passionate about films that win me over after a good conversation and a second viewing. I remember being bored with the first halves of both Vertigo and Out of Sight, both films I have grown more passionate about with each repeated conversation and viewing.

As far as the documentary on a specific topic is concerned - what turns me off is the trend of documentary directors who somehow become their documentary subjects. The one called out by Spout was The Business of Being Born. Sometime during filming a documentary about pregnancy the director... becomes pregnant and gets to make a documentary about herself.
http://www.26screenplays.com - Short screenplays for independent filmmakers.

You light a man a fire, and he's warm for a night. You light a man ON fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

edgar00

  • 00 Agent
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *
  • Posts: 12131
  • corndogs are better than Die Another Day
    • Between The Seats
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #903 on: August 07, 2008, 12:52:35 AM »
It might also be interesting just to see where Madonna got one of her most iconic dances from.

Now there's a reason to watch a movie!

I've been having trouble with documentaries lately.  So much of our reactions to them seems based on whether or not we're interested in the subject, and less in the unique ways the story is told.  It seems the way we think about (and rank them in lists or contests like this) has less to do with film than it should.  I don't mean to pick on skjerva, but he provided an excellent example of this phenomenon.
I absolutely agree, as I've been complaining about this to no end. I'm really sick of it being enough to create a rote mimic of the popular documentary style just because the topic is intriguing. What bothers me more is that people are often so reticent to deal with documentaries that are adventurous in their style. When I was still at the film festival, we'd get 2 or 3 interestingly experimental documentaries every year, and (despite my best efforts) they'd get shot down in the preliminary judging every time. Now, a poorly put together film about a bunch of drunks at the Jersey shore, that gets multiple supporters without dying. It's really getting to me.

I completely agree with these comments. A documentary's primary focus should indeed be to inform us on a particular subject. However, it is a type of film and can be evaluated as such using much of the same criteria we use when discussing other kinds of movies. It is possible to respect and have a certain appreciation for a documentary even though you may dislike the given topic.
-Le Chiffre: You changed your shirt, Mr Bond. I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire.

-James Bond: A little. But I won't consider myself to be in trouble until I start weeping blood.

https://twitter.com/Betweentheseats
http://crabkeyheadquarters.wordpress.com/

sdedalus

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 16585
  • I have a prestigious blog, sir!
    • The End of Cinema
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #904 on: August 07, 2008, 12:53:16 AM »
And vice versa?
The End of Cinema

Seattle Screen Scene

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

edgar00

  • 00 Agent
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *
  • Posts: 12131
  • corndogs are better than Die Another Day
    • Between The Seats
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #905 on: August 07, 2008, 01:07:57 AM »
And vice versa?

Absolutely. Why not?
-Le Chiffre: You changed your shirt, Mr Bond. I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire.

-James Bond: A little. But I won't consider myself to be in trouble until I start weeping blood.

https://twitter.com/Betweentheseats
http://crabkeyheadquarters.wordpress.com/

Pacze Moj

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
    • Critical Culture
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #906 on: August 07, 2008, 09:21:32 AM »
Quote
A documentary's primary focus should indeed be to inform us on a particular subject.

I think the focus of a documentary should be to document an unscripted event—one that would be happening whether the camera was there or not. Hence, footage of some guy on a tightrope in New York is documentary footage; an interview with that guy and any dramatizations based on his life are not. It would also help if there wasn't a lot of editing involved, no outside music, etc.
Critical Culture: cinema, literature, history.

m_rturnage

  • FAB
  • Elite Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1834
  • Beauty hurts.
    • Too Much Time on My Hands
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #907 on: August 07, 2008, 09:23:57 AM »
Quote
A documentary's primary focus should indeed be to inform us on a particular subject.

I think the focus of a documentary should be to document an unscripted event—one that would be happening whether the camera was there or not. Hence, footage of some guy on a tightrope in New York is documentary footage; an interview with that guy and any dramatizations based on his life are not. It would also help if there wasn't a lot of editing involved, no outside music, etc.

Welcome to the board, Albert Maysles! I love your films.
http://www.26screenplays.com - Short screenplays for independent filmmakers.

You light a man a fire, and he's warm for a night. You light a man ON fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

ˇKeith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26774
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #908 on: August 07, 2008, 10:50:10 AM »
Quote
A documentary's primary focus should indeed be to inform us on a particular subject.

I think the focus of a documentary should be to document an unscripted event—one that would be happening whether the camera was there or not. Hence, footage of some guy on a tightrope in New York is documentary footage; an interview with that guy and any dramatizations based on his life are not. It would also help if there wasn't a lot of editing involved, no outside music, etc.

now that sounds like a dogme95 style rule game for doumentary filmmaking.  Von Trier would love it.

skjerva

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9448
  • I'm your audience.
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #909 on: August 07, 2008, 01:16:54 PM »
I've been having trouble with documentaries lately.  So much of our reactions to them seems based on whether or not we're interested in the subject, and less in the unique ways the story is told. 

but sometimes that a story is told at all is unique.  that said, i don't find the need to fetishize the new and assume that there is something better about a unique style or technology being utilized.  if the objective of documentary is to teach/share new information (whether that be content or form (not that i want to press the case that there is much of a difference there)), then what matters is the reception of the text and whether or not it is understood by the audience. 

sean, question for you.  that you have trouble with an interest in subject matter, is this to say that you judge documentaries only on form?  to get a better idea where you are coming from, which documentaries do you like (and why)? 


Quote
A documentary's primary focus should indeed be to inform us on a particular subject.

I think the focus of a documentary should be to document an unscripted event—one that would be happening whether the camera was there or not. Hence, footage of some guy on a tightrope in New York is documentary footage; an interview with that guy and any dramatizations based on his life are not. It would also help if there wasn't a lot of editing involved, no outside music, etc.

why do you think this is what a documentary should be?

to me that sounds horrible.  a very stagnant idea of what a document is, or can be.  of course, there is always outside-the-camera editing, which "purist" positions, like you take here, ignore. 


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)