love

Author Topic: November 2009 MDC Write-ups  (Read 39950 times)

UberGeekyGirl

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1169
Re: November 2009 MDC Write-ups
« Reply #150 on: December 01, 2009, 02:48:03 PM »

... It was more about this utterly demented romance between the two chracters,

... have very strange ideas of romance and sexual invitations

There are many people who dont find their romance odd at all, but in fact live it everyday.

Glad you found it interesting though.

Hey Noke,

Glad you found the movie interesting. I really enjoy this movie and thought that they did a really good job of showing and telling the story of a dom/sub relationship in a more realistic light. I have had enough of the dominant man or woman taking it too far and becoming a killer or bdsm being used as comic relief. I don't live the type of lifestyle that Mr. Grey and Lee do but know people who have and it feels much more realistic then any other portrayal I have seen.
"Sometimes it's only madness that makes us what we are." - Batman

FifthCityMuse

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3375
  • Good work, sycophants!
Re: November 2009 MDC Write-ups
« Reply #151 on: December 01, 2009, 09:53:49 PM »
This month I was dictated to by one Dr. Kimble. He sent me a fine list of five films, none of which I has seen. I was greedy, and chose the following two:

Dog Days (Hundstage) - Ulrich Seidl, 2001

Dog Days is a curious proposition. I think the easiest place to understand it from may be the final line - “People are cruel.” It’s a bizarre way to end the film, and perhaps a let down for the audience. We’ve worked that out some time ago. If that’s all Seidl was going for, it’s a little disappointing.

That said, it is a relatively interesting path we take to get to that opinion. Seidl presents us with two days in the height of Austrian summer. The people are sweltering in 34 degree heat (34 degrees celsius, that is). We’re introduced to a woman at a sex club that seems to exist in the shadows of a shopping center. On her way home, she stops by a roadside shrine. A man is there as well. She waits until he is finished to place her flowers, and then goes home. The man soon arrives. They are divorced after the death of their child, but still live together. We never really learn much more about her. He is possibly the most obnoxious, annoying person in existence.

There’s a young woman who has fallen in with an abusive boyfriend. He doesn’t realise how abusive he is, she is trapped.

An elderly man is stocking up on supplies whilst employing his cleaner to stand in for his dead wife.

A security salesman goes door to door trying to sell alarm systems, and tries to catch a car vandal.

A young woman asks for rides from people. Once she is in the car, she talks incessantly, reeling off lists of supermarkets, sex positions, songs, singing, asking to play her tape, goes through their bags and usually being thrown out.

Finally, in the most disturbing, and probably longest story, a woman waits for her man friend. When he does, he brings an unexpected friend. What follows that night is some pretty heinous abuse, and the next day is perhaps worse. It’s visceral stuff.

As you’d expect, these threads do cross on occasion, although not often, and usually in pretty disturbing ways. It’s a film that attempts, not to show people at their worst, I don’t think, but just to say, these are people. These are the awful things they do. This is how they are. It’s like an incredibly misanthropic Me and You and Everyone We Know.

Is it a good film? No. Not really. It’s not bad, but it’s just nothing that special. Maybe if I had seen this before Shortbus or Battle in Heaven I would find the sex and nudity shocking, but compared to those, it’s not really shocking at all. Not that the sex in Shortbus is shocking, but it definitely says more and achieves more than the sex here.

The content is visceral at times, but I don’t know that it’s enough, because there doesn’t seem to be enough meaning behind it. At the end of the day, it’s two hours that amount to a single statement - “Life is cruel” - and I didn’t need that much convincing.

C-

Time of the Wolf - Michael Haneke, 2003

I don’t know that I’m a massive fan of Haneke. I wasn’t a fan of Funny Games. I need to see Cache again. The White Ribbon is good, very good, but I doubt it’ll be on my end of year top 10. He’s an interesting filmmaker, and I admire what he’s trying to achieve. But I don’t think he always does it.

I think he does achieve something really interesting here. Right from the get go you know it’s Haneke. There’s something in the first five minutes that straight away sets the tone for what’s to follow. The story is told in typical Haneke fashion, with very little backstory and even less of a third act. (Has Haneke even heard of Act III?)

The themes are there if you’re prepared to look hard enough for them. And I think it is really rewarding, with the characters, and what there is of the plot. It’s gorgeously shot (although I struggled to see it at times due to the light outside and the terribly dark screen) and the occasionally visceral imagery has far more of an impact than the equivalent in Dog Days.

Beyond that, I don’t know why I liked it as much as I did. Maybe it’s because it’s more subtle than a lot of what Haneke does. Or maybe it’s just because it works. Whatever the case, I would recommend this far more than I would ever recommend Dog Days.

B

(For a brief note of comparison, I’d put Funny Games somewhere around a D+ maybe, whilst The White Ribbon would be up around a B+. Cache is probably a B+, but may be an A-. I need to watch is again.)

In any case, I’d like to thank Dr Kimble for dictating these. I’m glad I’ve seen them, and Dog Days is one especially that I wouldn’t have seen without the push, and I probably wouldn’t have seen Time of the Wolf for some time. So again, thanks. And sorry for the lateness. I been having some issues with getting internet access lately.

skjerva

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9448
  • I'm your audience.
Re: November 2009 MDC Write-ups
« Reply #152 on: December 01, 2009, 10:25:12 PM »
Fitzcarraldo dictated me Dogville, which i just finished last night, i'll do a proper write-up soon.  some quick first thoughts:

- was fairly bored with it until Chapter 9, where it probably redeemed itself.
- the photos at film's close reminded me of Night of the Living Dead, where much of the power/statement comes in
- still don't get why von trier has latched onto shakey cam (and yes, i call it shakey and not hand-held, because hand-held doesn't need to be shakey).  i thought it didnt' work here
- mostly did not like the film on stage aspect, though it worked well for the first rape and the general idea of the transparency of small town life writ large unto global communities
- the acting was pretty solid across the board, though didn't care for Sevigny in this one, she felt like the same character she plays in Big Love, for whatever that is worth

this one does make me want to give another look at some of von trier's stuff.  kinda interested in reading up on his america trilogy.  i'm open to thinking this film worthy of a list's Top 100 for the decade, though not my list at this time.  thanks for the dictation, there is probably very little chance i would have checked this on my own any time soon :)
« Last Edit: December 02, 2009, 10:44:47 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)

chardy999

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3550
Re: November 2009 MDC Write-ups
« Reply #153 on: December 01, 2009, 10:31:00 PM »
- was fairly bored with it until Chapter 9, where it probably redeemed itself.

I think that was when I started laughing.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
- Groucho Marx

DrKimble

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1690
Re: November 2009 MDC Write-ups
« Reply #154 on: December 03, 2009, 03:01:30 PM »
SHORTBUS (2006)
by John Cameron Mitchell


What do you make of a movie that starts with a collage of a couple going through the Kamasutra, a guy ejaculating in his own mouth and a domina getting his John to shoot across the room on a painting where his semen blends in perfectly with the art?

John Cameron Mitchell’s Shortbus follows James and Jamie, a gay couple consisting of a depressive and a happy-go-lucky jock. There is Severin, the domina. She is completely unable to communicate with anyone and then there is the Kamasutra-couple. The wife is a pre-orgasmic sex therapist and her husband is a story/character device in service of his wife’s development. Wait, what does “pre-orgasmic” mean? That’s when you can play Blackjack for as long as you want but you never get 21. It’s through this poor woman we are introduced to New York’s sinful youth/sex underground and with it to a place called Shortbus. It’s a place for “the special and the challenged” as the Mistress describes her establishment. It’s basically a sex club / failed artists gathering place. It’s colorful, vivid and heavily focused on sex.

Let’s get what you might have heard about this movie out of the way. Shortbus has been called a lot of things: Provocative, perverse, thought provoking, game-changing, pornographic etc but Shortbus is simply an ensemble film playing in the scene of NY … with real sex. The sex isn’t hinted at here. There is no object in the foreground covering what’s below the waist. When gay men are having a threesome you will see penises, all three. These scenes are handled in a very casual manner which is very effective in keeping them from feeling cinematic.

The drama works well and as the story unfolds you start to understand the magnitude of the therapist’s frustration. You pity the depressive Jamie and chances are you feel bad for his helpless boyfriend. The intimate relationship moments and emotional outbursts are all interesting but unfortunately Shortbus lacks focus. Too many scenes come out of nowhere and fade back into the background: There’s a gay ex major holding a (granted, pretty neat) monologue but nothing follows. The therapist’s husband is as bland a character as it gets and then there is Severin. Her story is criminally ignored and left by the side just when she starts getting interesting. It’s a true shame as some portions of Shortbus are extremely intelligent and intense. When one of the characters is caught crying naked and reacts as if he was walked in masturbating you can’t help but raise an eyebrow, nod and go “clever”. It is a real shame these scenes are often followed by unnecessary provocative scenes which stick out like a sore thumb in this otherwise good drama. The movie shoots its own leg with these lurid tangents. Holding a penis like a microphone and singing the national anthem is creating a distraction. It’s not shocking, it’s an annoying intermezzo and thickens a layer this movie doesn’t need. The fate and personal development of the characters is far more interesting then any of the countless 9/11 references.

I give it 2 1/2 out of 5 power outages BUT …

… this doesn’t mean I don’t recommend this movie. Much like Dog Days (reviewd by FifthCityMuse) Shortbus got me thinking. The movie was a mere trigger for a much more interesting experience: I thought about sex in non-porn movies. I asked myself whether it’s downright hypocritical to make a movie about sexual identity without any explicit imagery. Isn’t refraining from that simply prude and defying the purpose of openly talking about sex in mainstream media? Eventually I changed my mind. I spare you the process and boil it down to this:

I remembered the question Laurence Olivier asked Dustin Hoffmann at the set of Marathon Man. Hoffmann and Olivier were about to film a scene in which Hoffmann enters out-of-breath. To prepare for this, he ran about the street/block/studio to get suitably puffed-out. Olivier looks at him and says: why don't you just act, dear boy?

You don’t need real dinosaurs in Jurassic Park and you don't need Anthony Quinn and Giulietta Masina to join a real circus in La Strada. I don't think Shortbus needs real sex. In fact does any movie gain from real sex? Would explicit imaginary make Brokeback Mountain, Boogie Nights, Closer, Sex and Lucia, Wild Things or (dare I say it) Happiness a better movie?
"Do you remember what I told you in the tunnel?"

flieger

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 0
Re: November 2009 MDC Write-ups
« Reply #155 on: December 03, 2009, 04:38:59 PM »
Excellent reviews, FifthCity and Kimble.

Tim

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Be excellent to each other
Re: November 2009 MDC Write-ups
« Reply #156 on: December 05, 2009, 04:44:46 AM »
                                     Synecdoche, New York



This is such a beautifully poetic movie.

Love, dreams, sickness, remorse, misery, sadness, life, living, moving, speculating, thinking, cleaning, dying.

The interesting thing about this movie is that it gives the entire plot away in the first few minutes. It tells you what is going to happen, and then we watch as the movie follows through on that from start to end. There are multiple threads leading towards their own destinations, and more often than not you have a notion of what the outcome will be. The actual structure of the film is very solid and mostly linear, although the way that is portrayed is just so amazing. Certain situations including some surreal ideas pull this linear structure into a multidimensional mass of creativity, but the motives and destinations never falter, even when the actor changes.



Charlie Kaufman is a fantastic writer, I hope he will continue to direct more of his screenplays, so that he can continue bringing them to life in their entirety, rather than through the lens of another director.

After barely watching this movie, I feel I need to watch it again. Kaufman seems to have an obsession with consequences. There are definite choices made (or sometimes not made) by the characters in this film which lead them to their final state. Even if the choice was made in a surreal state, the consequences are actualized within a real state, from beginning to end. Kind of like another writer/director I quote here a lot. Perhaps I share the obsession as well, although as a viewer I guess it is coming from a voyeuristic perspective, but it is fascinating to see how choices are made and where they lead.



I will be adding Synecdoche, New York to my all time top 100 list.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2009, 04:50:19 AM by Tim »
"Only cinema narrows its concern down to its content, that is to its story. It should, instead, concern itself with its form, its structure." Peter Greenaway

skjerva

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9448
  • I'm your audience.
Re: November 2009 MDC Write-ups
« Reply #157 on: December 05, 2009, 10:07:49 AM »

… this doesn’t mean I don’t recommend this movie. Much like Dog Days (reviewd by FifthCityMuse) Shortbus got me thinking. The movie was a mere trigger for a much more interesting experience: I thought about sex in non-porn movies. I asked myself whether it’s downright hypocritical to make a movie about sexual identity without any explicit imagery. Isn’t refraining from that simply prude and defying the purpose of openly talking about sex in mainstream media? Eventually I changed my mind. I spare you the process and boil it down to this:

I remembered the question Laurence Olivier asked Dustin Hoffmann at the set of Marathon Man. Hoffmann and Olivier were about to film a scene in which Hoffmann enters out-of-breath. To prepare for this, he ran about the street/block/studio to get suitably puffed-out. Olivier looks at him and says: why don't you just act, dear boy?

You don’t need real dinosaurs in Jurassic Park and you don't need Anthony Quinn and Giulietta Masina to join a real circus in La Strada. I don't think Shortbus needs real sex. In fact does any movie gain from real sex? Would explicit imaginary make Brokeback Mountain, Boogie Nights, Closer, Sex and Lucia, Wild Things or (dare I say it) Happiness a better movie?

i don't get the Olivier analogy - so, "why don't you act real sex"?  if you are talking about not needing the actual sex and just being able to discuss sex to fill in what sex does for the film then you wouldn't seem to need the Olivier analogy. 

other than that, i disagree with your suggestion that this doesn't need the sex - the film is about sex.  the film isn't about any of these characters, but about sex.  these characters are only devices for sex.  sex is many things to many people and in whatever capacity it is that, it needn't be hidden away, it is an essential part of who we are.  setting is important here, too - NYC post 9/11.  the permeability of New Yorkers is suggested as an answer to the otherwise restrictive law and ideological rhetoric post-9/11 - a sexual revolution is the response against this constrictive tide of hate and conservativism.

take another look.  easily one of the decade's best
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)

Clovis8

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11719
Re: November 2009 MDC Write-ups
« Reply #158 on: December 05, 2009, 10:11:12 AM »

… this doesn’t mean I don’t recommend this movie. Much like Dog Days (reviewd by FifthCityMuse) Shortbus got me thinking. The movie was a mere trigger for a much more interesting experience: I thought about sex in non-porn movies. I asked myself whether it’s downright hypocritical to make a movie about sexual identity without any explicit imagery. Isn’t refraining from that simply prude and defying the purpose of openly talking about sex in mainstream media? Eventually I changed my mind. I spare you the process and boil it down to this:

I remembered the question Laurence Olivier asked Dustin Hoffmann at the set of Marathon Man. Hoffmann and Olivier were about to film a scene in which Hoffmann enters out-of-breath. To prepare for this, he ran about the street/block/studio to get suitably puffed-out. Olivier looks at him and says: why don't you just act, dear boy?

You don’t need real dinosaurs in Jurassic Park and you don't need Anthony Quinn and Giulietta Masina to join a real circus in La Strada. I don't think Shortbus needs real sex. In fact does any movie gain from real sex? Would explicit imaginary make Brokeback Mountain, Boogie Nights, Closer, Sex and Lucia, Wild Things or (dare I say it) Happiness a better movie?

i don't get the Olivier analogy - so, "why don't you act real sex"?  if you are talking about not needing the actual sex and just being able to discuss sex to fill in what sex does for the film then you wouldn't seem to need the Olivier analogy. 

other than that, i disagree with your suggestion that this doesn't need the sex - the film is about sex.  the film isn't about any of these characters, but about sex.  these characters are only devices for sex.  sex is many things to many people and in whatever capacity it is that, it needn't be hidden away, it is an essential part of who we are.  setting is important here, too - NYC post 9/11.  the permeability of New Yorkers is suggested as an answer to the otherwise restrictive law and ideological rhetoric post-9/11 - a sexual revolution is the response against this constrictive tide of hate and conservativism.

take another look.  easily one of the decade's best

I didnt like it as much as you did Skjerva (which is odd since I should have) but I agree the whole point of the film is sex and the fact that it has real sex heightens it. If Jurassic Park could have real dinosaurs then it would have.

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 19044
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: November 2009 MDC Write-ups
« Reply #159 on: December 05, 2009, 12:06:23 PM »
Although I don't care for the idea of actors being paid for sex, I have to agree with the main point.

Olivier was asking Hoffman why he doesn't just act it-- well you can't "act" sweat, breathlessness and all the various non-verbal cues a person has after having gone for a hard run.  Sure, you can resemble it, and we, as an audience, might accept the half-measure that comes from "acting" as the real thing.  But we know it's not the real thing.  And we are much more impressed and more involved when we see all of a person do the act. 

However, I don't think Shortbus did that.  Because however much you can put people in the place for a real act of sex, you can't direct their real feelings.  Real sex can't be imitated and real sex is more complicated than can be directed.  If a person took acts of real sex and then tried to make a story out of it, you might have something other than fakey sex.  But you can't say, "Have real sex, but feel this way."  It's not real then.

"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky