Author Topic: November 2009 MDC Write-ups  (Read 25345 times)

FifthCityMuse

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3375
  • Good work, sycophants!
Re: November 2009 MDC Write-ups
« Reply #170 on: December 16, 2009, 10:12:20 PM »
I'd totally disagree. Regardless of the lyrical content, the sound is totally different to the emo sound. And seeing as the emo movement really started to develop in the early aughts (03-04), I'd say those albums are previous to the movement.

The Black Parade is the ultimate emo album. Which doesn't make it bad.

Colleen

  • Hot Fuzz
  • Godfather
  • *
  • Posts: 5907
  • Let's be careful out there!
Re: November 2009 MDC Write-ups
« Reply #171 on: December 16, 2009, 10:19:20 PM »
And now for a second ride on the Shortbus...

Colleen, glad I could push you to finally watch it. You made some great points! It is a pity they didn't spend more time with the happy sextras. They were totally sex-positive and comfortable in their skin.



Yes.  And I forgot to mention that I liked seeing the inclusion of all kinds of bodies--fat, skinny, older, butch women, fey men.  Although the ones front and center among the extras still always seemed to be the more stereotypically attractive, it was good to see different shapes and sizes in the room at all.  Maybe one day we'll have a main female character who is comfortable with her non-Hollywood body (where that's not the "issue" of the movie).  One can hope.

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 18414
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: November 2009 MDC Write-ups
« Reply #172 on: December 17, 2009, 02:05:22 AM »

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.



that is a very narrow conception of what sex is.  "real" sex is also casual, paid, fun...whatever.  that is the point.  sex is different things for different people. 

Actually, I'm not limiting the idea of sex.  It's just that it deals with real emotions-- happiness, joy, serious, fun.  When the emotion is faked, then the sex is fake.  It's real intercourse, but you might as well watch machines go at it as humans.
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

chardy999

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3551
Re: November 2009 MDC Write-ups
« Reply #173 on: December 17, 2009, 03:01:28 AM »
And now for a second ride on the Shortbus...

Colleen, glad I could push you to finally watch it. You made some great points! It is a pity they didn't spend more time with the happy sextras. They were totally sex-positive and comfortable in their skin.



Yes.  And I forgot to mention that I liked seeing the inclusion of all kinds of bodies--fat, skinny, older, butch women, fey men.  Although the ones front and center among the extras still always seemed to be the more stereotypically attractive, it was good to see different shapes and sizes in the room at all.  Maybe one day we'll have a main female character who is comfortable with her non-Hollywood body (where that's not the "issue" of the movie).  One can hope.

That's being overly impartial. It's quite simply better to watch naked attractive people than naked ugly people.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
- Groucho Marx

Tim

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2400
  • Be excellent to each other
Re: November 2009 MDC Write-ups
« Reply #174 on: December 17, 2009, 04:19:44 AM »
better for who? The viewer? Certainly not all viewers. Sure it's good to see good looking people, but if that's all you ever see in Hollywood, then there can never be any true grounding in reality. Society is made up of all shapes and sizes. If Hollywood selects only very specific shapes and sizes it discriminates and alienates all other types. This can lead to discontentment, anger, frustration, shame, and self-revulsion. No matter what someone looks like, if they are comfortable and happy with who they are, and how they appear both visually and emotionally, it totally shows. I'd prefer to watch naked people who are genuinely happy than a couple of models pouting and waiting for their pay. Genuine happiness is infectious.

"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

chardy999

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3551
Re: November 2009 MDC Write-ups
« Reply #175 on: December 17, 2009, 04:56:26 AM »
While I agree with you on the happiness aspect, that is another issue. Attractive+happy is still better than ugly+happy. Keep in mind I said ugly, normal looking people are fine for almost anything. I just don't want to be repulsed, and that is the case if you are naked and either ugly, old or both.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
- Groucho Marx

jbissell

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 10885
  • What's up, hot dog?
Re: November 2009 MDC Write-ups
« Reply #176 on: December 24, 2009, 04:11:30 PM »

Kings And Queen 8.5/10

My second Desplechin film, after last year's wonderful A Christmas Tale, I'd been looking forward to this one ever since roujin posted this clip of Mathieu Amalric dancing


The film opens with two separate threads - Emmanuelle Devos learns that her father is dying of cancer, while Amalric is forced into a mental hospital by a third party request.  The storylines eventually converge.  The film is split into two chapters and jumps around in its narrative.  It's long and messy but is a breeze to watch, like settling in with a great novel with rich, detailed characters.  sdedalus said in his recent review that "Desplechin actually succeeds in making unlikeable characters sympathetic and sympathetic characters unlikeable, all without any of the characters actually changing throughout the film" and I think that's dead on.  There is a scene that is still haunting me - Devos reads a section of the book that her father had finished before he died where he talks about how much he hates her because of her pride, that it's unfair that he should die while she lives.  Watching Maurice Garrel deliver those lines, looking right at me was an absolute gut punch of a scene.

It was great to see a lot of familiar faces from A Christmas Tale.  Amalric has become one of my favorite working actors and there's something about his twitchy, bug-eyed performances that I love.  He's more than a little unhinged yet remains so damn charming.  He's also a gifted physical comedy performer.  The scene of him working out with his father after an unexpected event in the family's convenience store had me on the floor.

Devos gives a performance every bit as great as Amalric's.  Herís is a role that could have easily slipped into overacting but she manages to play it just right, approaching the line but almost never going over it (thereís a lot of crying, but it works).  Even though she only has a bit role, I'm in love with Catherine Deneuve, no matter what her age.  This is definitely a film elevated by the quality of the performances.

I really wish this were available as a higher quality (getting a decent screenshot was tough), Criterion-type release because it deserves it.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 07:33:41 PM by jbissell »

roujin

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 15481
  • it's all research
Re: November 2009 MDC Write-ups
« Reply #177 on: December 26, 2009, 03:09:26 PM »
Glad you liked it. I need to rewatch it myself in order to articulate why I think it's so great. But, oh well, awesome!

BlueVoid

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1801
    • Movie Fodder
Re: November 2009 MDC Write-ups
« Reply #178 on: December 26, 2009, 11:09:41 PM »
Ok, so a little late to the party.  But better late than never.


Dogville[2003]
Stark. Barren.  Cold.  These are just a few of the adjectives that jump to mind when describing "Dogville", a film that explores the depths of human depravity.  A city girl gets chased by the mob into a small rural town, and seeks refuge.  What follows is one of the most unpleasant and bleak examinations of humanity that I've seen on film.  Director Lars von Trier seems to revel in stripping away any visual pleasure from the viewer.  This is a movie about suffering and misfortune and he doesn't want you to be comfortable while watching it.

From the beautiful opening overhead shot looking down into Dogville, you know this is not going to be an ordinary film.  The entire world that is shown is this town called Dogville.  The 'town' is simply a stage with primitive lines and sparse props as a rudimentary mockup of what resembles a town.  Every person in Dogville is known, plays a part in the story and can usually be seen at all times during the entire film.  No one can hide.  Everything is open. A theme which von Trier repeatedly comes back to.    This is a visually stagnant film.  There is no reprieve for the viewer from the hell in which Grace(Nicole Kidman) can't escape.  We are forced to focus on the acting, the suffering, the characters, rather than any visual eye candy.  It is an effective technique.  When stripped right down we can see the characters for who they are without distractions from clever camera techniques and dynamic lighting.

This is not an uplifting film.  It shows humanity in the worse possible light.  Evil and debauchery can arise anywhere, and no person is above stooping to incredible lows.  The film takes its time with this theme.  It does eventually pay off, with an incredibly affecting climax, but it doesn't make the journey any more pleasant.  In fact, I hated this movie while I was watching it.  It took all I had in me not to shut it off.  I hated all the characters.  I couldn't understand why they made the choices they did.  I was frustrated, angry and impatient.  However by the time it ended, I couldn't help but let a smile creep on my face, I had been reeled in.  It had worked.  This movie has a message, and it is delivered effectively, even if it is by means of an unconventional mechanism.  I have a hard time recommending this movie as it is so unpleasant to watch.  And yet, having had time to reflect upon it, I look at it more fondly since it has stuck with me.  The acting is great.  The actors rely on nothing but their acting and it carries the film.  I have no interest in ever revisiting the film, but I am glad that I have watched it. Sometimes the harder the pill is to swallow the more effective it is.
Rating: 4/5

Thanks Ned for dictating this to me.  Not going to lie.  I was kind of hating you while watching it, but I ended up being thankful.  I took a lot away from the experience and couldn't stop talking about it for awhile after seeing it.  I actually had to retell the entire movie, scene by scene to a friend to help me digest it.  Immediately after viewing this I still didn't like it.  It took a lot of reflection to appreciate what I saw.  So thanks for forcing this one on me.  I would have never have watched it otherwise.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2009, 11:13:14 PM by BlueVoid »
Former blog on FlickChart: The Depths of Obscurity
Letterboxd 
iCM
Twitter

chardy999

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3551
Re: November 2009 MDC Write-ups
« Reply #179 on: December 27, 2009, 08:14:48 PM »
You're a better man than me, BV. This is a very fair write-up of a film which is anything but fair on the viewer. Only difference is I never stopped hating it - the moment the smile crept onto your face, I started laughing.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
- Groucho Marx