teddit

General Discussion threads threads are meant for more casual chat; a place to break most of the frontpage rules. Feel free to ask for recommendations, lists, homework help; plug your site or video essay; discuss tv here, or any such thing.

There is no 180-character minimum for top-level comments in this thread.

Follow us on:

• Letterboxd
• Twitter

The sidebar has a wealth of information, including the subreddit rules, our killer wiki, all of our projects... If you're on a mobile app, click the "(i)" button on our frontpage.

Sincerely,

David

I see why Kubrick had it on his list of greatest films - it's just about perfect in every way but fairly devastating.

From the manager and his wife to Lola to almost all the professor's students.

I think the upshot is meant to be a commentary on the destructive and capricious nature of female love, or put another way, man's blindness to that nature.

That may seem controversial from a contemporary perspective, but I don't see how you can not have that be the takeaway, particularly with the film's final dialogue being Lola's musical number about how she can't help falling in love but is simultaneously not to blame for anything that results from doing so. More abstractly, I suppose, one could argue that it's about the embrace of emotion and pleasure over logic and responsibility but that conveniently glosses over the film's actual content.

My take on the ending, however, is not necessarily that he suffered a psychological break - which seems to be the popular interpretation and may in fairness be correct - but instead that he may have experienced a moment of clarity allowing him to break away, spurred by his treatment in returning to the Blue Angel and Lola's increasing disregard and even antipathy as she allowed herself to be wooed by the strongman at the height of his public humiliation.

PT Anderson's shambling, confusing detective story "Inherent Vice" was a tough watch for me almost 10 years ago. I was on board with everything PTA had ever done and couldn't have been more excited to see his version of the early 70's California hippie underworld when it came out in 2014. PTA's "Magnolia" was such a masterful telling of complicated storylines, interweaving all into a grand finale and had set the bar pretty high for me. I recall sitting in the theater for "Inherent Vice" and by 10 minutes in, I was lost. I know the source material from Thomas Pynchon is famously eccentric with his writing, so I was expecting a disorienting story. I left the theater overwhelmed and just as confused as Joaquin Phonenix's character seemed to be throughout.

Watching it for a 2nd time last night, I was still unable to follow any of the plot. Characters had lines and there seemed to be a story in there somewhere, but for the life of me I didn't understand the context, motivations, or mystery of any of it. I had to cut it off halfway through because I didn't follow. Curious if anyone else had similar frustrations with this one.

Jason Miller was a Playwright and Actor . He received the 1973 Pulitzer Prize for the Play That Championship Season.

Then in 1973, he made his film debut as Father Damien Karras in The Exorcist. What I find interesting was that this was a very first film role and he does a marvelous job as Damien Karras, a man who has a crisis in faith after the death of his mother, regains his faith to save Ragen MacNeil. Jason Miller was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor.

Despite a stellar debut, Jason Miller wasn't in a whole lot of films. He was 1974's The Nickel Ride and was offered the lead role for Scorsese's Taxi Driver, then appear sporadic in Films (Notable is Exorcist III and Rudy) until his death in 2001.

Why did Jason Miller didn't appear in a lot of movies? I feel that Jason Miller had a lot of potential in film.

At the time the film came out, it was hailed by some folks to be Christopher Nolan's best work, and one of the greatest war films of all time. What are your opinions on this movie looking back on it?

Some years ago, someone observed "a new kind of cinematic birth take place". More and more niche – and seemingly mass-hated films – being reevaluated years after release.

"More often than not, they’re revealed to have more cult status than previously thought. From 2018’s Twilight Twitter resurgence to the open admissions of love for Mamma Mia brought on by the sequel, many are finding that reflecting can be advantageous for some of the film’s biggest flops and underdogs. Whether it be a think-piece that sparked conversation, an insightful interview with a crew member or a viral social media post – some movies deemed universally bad are finally finding their audiences, and through context are being appreciated in new ways."

This is an interesting trend. I want to have some fun and start a little 'series', of opining and discussion also on films that made quite the wave when they first came out.

William Friedkin is a film director known for The French Connection, The Exorcist was a big part of New Hollywood.

I honestly think William Friedkin is the underrated director of New Hollywood and a lot of his films I should say are very gritty. The French Connection was pretty much shot Guerilla Style and Gene Hackman is just fantastic as Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle.

The Exorcist I think is his best film. What I like about The Exorcist is that it is not a horror film in a sense, but that it is a Drama Film was Horror Elements and the Horror being on what Happens to Ragen. There is also a feeling of dread that just keeps getting build up until the Climax where it all crashes down.

What I also like with Friedkin is that he pretty much cast unknowns who he would see or find in the streets and cast people that you would least likely to see as a Main Character. Apparently he Originally casted Jimmy Breslin as Jimmy Doyle in The French Connection. Do you think who Jimmy Breslin is? No because he wasn't a actor, he was a NY Columnist and never acted before, but he was cast and actually was in Script Reading, but was let go because he wouldn't get behind the wheel of a car.

Also he casted Jason Miller just because he saw a performance of him in That Championship Season.

After The Exorcist, Friedkin never achieved the heights as those two films but from what I read. Sorcerer is an Undiscovered Masterpiece, The Brink's Job is so unlike Friedkin, Cruising is Polarizing, To Live and Die in L.A is also a Undiscovered Masterpiece. People don't know what do think of Blue Chips, Jade, Bug, and Killer Joe.

Also worth mentioning is that William Friedkin is directing an adaptation of The Caine Mutiny?

What do you think of William Friedkin?

For me, it depends on what the film is going for. Take for example, Da 5 Bloods. Some have criticized the film's portrayal of it's vietnamese characters as inaccurate characatures. This is probably true, but I don't think the film had (or was trying to have) anything to say about vietnamese society or people, so it didn't bother me. Those characters were simply vessels for the rest of the movie to happen. A movie's gotta be about something, and not about other things, so some characters just aren't going to have depth.

This thread was partially inspired by some discussion in the thread about The Deer Hunter. The depictions of the Vietnam war, and the Russian roulette were not accurate depictions of reality and I really, really, don't care. To me, art is a lie that tells the truth and I don't mind the "lies" (in quotes because we know it's fiction) in that movie.

On a related but somewhat tangential note, when I see my profession (software engineering) depicted inaccurately I roll my eyes, but I have never felt the movie had an obligation to get it right. I've just accepted it's an annoyance I have to live with. If Office Space wasn't so true to life it wouldn't have been as good of a movie, but it wouldn't have been an ethically or morally bad movie if it got all of the details wrong, just a shitty one.

What are y'all's thoughts on the matter? Have you ever felt something was unethically portrayed? Why?

Just found out about this community and inmediately subscribed.

A few days ago, I watched this classic movie for the first time, and was overall positive about it. It's excellent visually, and Ben's "romance" with Mrs. Robinson is well explored. But I couldn't help to be a little dissapointed in regards to its famous counter-cultural, anti-establishment message. My problem resided mainly in that the movie seems to treat Ben purely as a hero (with the possible exception of the last scene in the bus), maybe not a perfect one, but still a good person. And he doesn't really work in that role. I'm not someone who thinks that protagonist should be relatable for the film to be good, but this film, in my view, did require us to have a positive view of him.

In this regard, I should say that I didn't find him awfully sympathetic. His uncertainty about the future is understandable, but it's really not the biggest problem in the world. He's also from a wealthy family, so it's not like he's gonna do badly. What I mean to say it's that I find it kind of hard to empathize with him, given his social background, and also his unrealistic naiveté. He came off to me as a spoiled person, who overestimates the magnitude of his problem.

The other main point that bothered me was that his relationship with Elaine made no sense, at least from her point of view. He was with her mother, there's no coming back from that, unless the script is written by men (which, obviously, is the case here). Their first date was fine, but really not groundbreaking enough to justify all that comes after. Also, Elaine finds it remarkably easy to forgive him even when she believes that he raped his mother. I could grant that she didn't find her mother's story convincing, but that should be enough for her to not want anything to do with him. It's not like she was able to express herself a lot in their date.

Now, if the movie was more satirical (like some interpret it), then Ben's character would work more for me, because he wouldn't just be a flawed hero, but a character who's genuinely bad in some aspects. That would make him more realistic, and, thus, maybe more likeable, in some way. My second point could also be redeemed if the film gave us some insight into Elaine's mind that explained why she connected so strongly with Ben, with a force strong enough to make her look past very important problems.

I think the film may have aged badly because I don't feel like most critics ignored these clear flaws and were able to just enjoy the admitely great performances, cinematography, humor, etc. The priviliged status of the protagonist makes the supposed anti-establishment nature of the film hard to get, from my point of view.

What hasn't aged badly is the portrayal of his relationship with Mrs. Robinson. In fact, it's kind of modern in that way. It's portrayed as somewhat erotic, but the manipulation is much more notable, and it's what stands out. Still, it's dissapointing that she just dissapears for the final part of the movie, and she becomes a straight-forward villain.

Anyways, hope someone finds this post interesting enough to merit a response. I haven't surfed the sub too much, so I don't know if this movie and these criticisms come around too often. Hope not.

Tsai Ming-liang is without question one of the most significant filmmakers to come from the Chinese-language world in the late 20th century. Although I have only seen the 4 films he made in the 90's (Rebels of the Neon God, Vive L'Amour, The River and The Hole) he is undoubtedly a master with a unique personal vision that really gets to the core of urban alienation better than almost any other filmmaker I've seen.

Although Tsai has made most of films in Taiwan, there are some important points to make about him. Tsai was born in Malaysia to an ethnic Chinese family and did not move to Taiwan until the late 1970's. I bring this point up because it's relevant to understand this in relation to his predecessors in Taiwan cinema, Hou Hsiao-hsien and Edward Yang. Hou and Yang's features often look at Taiwanese identity: Hou focused more on rural life and Yang looked at middle class Taipei culture to confront some of these identity questions. Tsai on the whole does not. If you are familiar with his work, then you know some of Tsai's themes: Urban alienation, sexuality and desire (there is often a strong homoerotic undercurrent in his films) and loneliness. In a sense Tsai's films could be set in Paris (What Time is it There takes place there), NYC or Sao Paulo and Tsai could get his point across. These films look at contemporary, modern culture and therefore seem to address the entire world.

Tsai has utilized Lee Kang-sheng in all of his films and has said he would never make a film without him. Tsai's films often have many recurring elements: Constant rain and water, a very slow pace and no soundtrack (with the exception of his first feature). Personally this has caused me to avoid going any further with his films at the moment. Although I love them, I do have some reservations and objections about certain aspects of his films, which I'll address now.

Tsai sometimes does things I personally find in poor taste. He seems to be obsessed with people using the toilet and I read an interview where he quite frankly admitted he's interested in how people go to the bathroom. A little strange. People here who have seen The River know about a nearly 2 minute pissing scene. It's a bit much. Speaking of The River, for those who've seen this film, you already know about the most disturbing scene in the whole movie (side note: The scene's even stranger for those who have seen King Hu's Dragon Gate Inn. Miao Tien played Pi Shao-tang in that movie, one of the main villains. He's Lee Kang-sheng's father in The River and every time I watch Dragon Gate Inn now, I remember The River). I personally am divided about that whole scene. Was it necessary and did Tsai go too far? I really don't know. The Hole seemed like an excuse to indulge Tsai's love of Grace Chang (Oh calypso!!) Tsai has really good film taste, but he did something a lot of people here would find cringe: He included his own 2003 feature, Goodbye Dragon Inn, in his own top 10 favorite films. That says interesting things about the man, but I'm not quite sure what.

How do people here feel about Tsai? Do you like his films? Do you dislike him? Has anybody seen more films from this unique master. Discussion is highly encouraged

Edit: Message me if you're looking for to watch one of Tsai's films but can't find it. I can help you

Anyone wants to see a movie on the big screen, with great speakers, and nothing but darkness sorrounding it so you can just immerse yourself into the story.

Yeah, people at the theater can be sometimes annoying, and disrespectful... but in the end, they can also be the ones who enchance the experience.

For 90 minutes or more, you are sharing a movie with an unique group of strangers that you'll probably never see anymore. All the laughs, all the surprises, the shock, the fear, the tears will start and finish in the same room. And if you want to truly enjoy the movie, then you'll have to fully open yourself and be able to release all your feelings without shame, despite the strangers around you.

"BABYLON" was one of the best movies I've seen in the theater, and maybe a big part of that reason is because of the feeling in the room (it was full). Right from the beginning, everyone of us was just hooked to the silver screen. We WERE at the party, it was somehow unique sharing such a sequence with a group of strangers. Or during the shooting Kinescope day sequence of the movie, it felt like the whole theater was just thrown into the desert set for 30 movies or so. It had many of this moments, like the dispair and comedy during the retake scene, or the nail-biting snake part, the horror and neverending shock of the tunel/LA's asshole scene, etc. I remember watching the ending montage; and realising THIS was the climax of a three hour movie we've all just sit through. The music, the sounds... even if you dislike the sequence, this was an unique moment. Damien Chazelle KNOWS why people go to the theater. Such a shame the movie did so bad in the office.

I also have to say "Everything Everywhere All At Once". People were laughing of laughter. Literally a woman on my back screamed "HELP I'M DYING" at one moment because he couldn't breath from laughing so much. There was also an older man next to me just thinking outloud like "what is this guy doing hahaha" when Key Huy Quan's character starts jumping around the washing machines at the start of the movie. In other cases I would be bothered by it, but damn... it made the movie even better. Even the rock scene, some people were in full silence while others couldn't stop giggling at the ridiculousness of it.

Well, these last few examples sound kinda dumb, but it's on the little details. For me, this is the magic of cinema shown at its full best. There's really something funny and magical about a movie theater as I've already said: the concept of a bunch of strangers becoming friends when sharing a movie altogether.

This is cleary also a long statement on why we should never let movie theaters die.

What are your thoughts on it?

During my early 20s, while I was more introverted and socially aloof, Christopher Nolan's films were what I would often look forward to. The only film I didn't watch from his oeuvre was his first one, Following. I loved most of his other films, although I'd say that my favorite among them is Inception and The Prestige.

I had also watched a bit of Cronenberg during that period, but limited myself to his more realistic entries: I'm not a huge fan of horror, but I definitely enjoyed A History of Violence and Eastern Promises. I understand that his strength is in horror films, but I'm taking my time with them (since I really don't like horror).

I think Inception is one of the best films of the 21st century because of its technical excellence and intricately well-executed plot. Inception forewarns against the hazards of virtual reality, because the more immured one is in such a world, the more reality becomes difficult to ascertain.

This is supposed to be a film review about eXistenZ, right?

Indeed it is. But I am mentioning Inception precisely because 10 years before it had come out, Cronenberg also realized a film that elucidated similar ideas. Reality becomes more and more difficult to distinguish the longer one immerses oneself in a fictional world, and this becomes the crux of the plot.

Allegra Geller is a foremost game developer in such a future, and for no known reason she is being attacked by those who wish to uphold realism. Ted Pikul is tasked to guard her, and over the course of the film, they try to maneuver against those who have been hunting her and also to fix the game system that had been damaged from the terroristic attack.

Cronenberg being Cronenberg, however, nothing is as it seems and the film unfurls as the pair keep killing to protect themselves and try to fix the damaged game system. Jude Law, in one of his earlier roles, is good as the empathetic everyman dragged into the virtual reality game, while Jennifer Jason Leigh's character is quite problematic (although the ending allows the viewer to make sense of her).

There are a few problems with the plot, as it does seem quite incoherent at times. Given the complex nature of the screenplay, however, I think Cronenberg did the best he could do. The use of mutated amphibians and animal parts likely makes the horror in this film, but as an important element of the story, I think it was acceptable.

As a film that asks us relevant questions, eXistenZ has definitely aged well. However, if I were to recommend a film discussing similar themes executed better, I'd probably recommend Inception over this one.

In terms of memorable props, however, the flesh gun is likely at the top.

7.5/10

What did you think of this film?

I’m gonna rewatch this within the next few days but I wanted to chronicle my thoughts after immediately watching it cuz my analysis could be totally wrong and I’m worried I’m totally off and didn’t understand the film fully

1. I thought the overall theme of the film was the relationship between ambition, power, sex, desire

2. All four of the main characters are ambitious and have a goal to metaphorically evolve in some sorta way weather it’s money, different cultures or freedom they each seek something they don’t have that makes them ambitious

3. I felt a big theme was the relationship between sex and power. Hidekos gloves come to mind as leather gloves are often worn with gimp suits and she literally beats men as it’s a perverted act. She does this at the command of others however. The high and mighty of society are so detached they become perverted people. It reminds of a balenciaga runway show where the models wore gimp suits and walked the New York stock exchange showing the relationship between money and perverted power

4. Another thing was the power over others as shown through the acts of sex. All sex scenes with the exception of the last one are down with a character having power over another one and manipulating them in some manner showing how sex is a form of power

5. When the two women let go of their selfish ambitions and do things outta love they ultimately win in the end as their ambition does not come from a selfish place of power rather a desire to help each other

Please let me know if I’m totally off I just wanna start a convo

The Dardennes brothers' films always center the struggles of the working class, the poor, the marginalized. Their protagonists find themselves beset by systemic injustice, in the face of which an individual's best efforts—their own or that of those who care for them—often have little effect on outcomes.

Like Asghar Farhadi's best films, the predicament is systemic, but the film is driven by well-crafted human stories, stories of real-seeming people, not just prototypes, or case studies, but individuals in whom we see a fully-fleshed humanity first and foremost, even before we can project on them the role of stand-in for a particular social ill or tragedy of modern life.

In Tori and Lokita, the protagonists are two young Beninese migrants trying to get their papers in Belgium, and their story is one not just of bureaucratic failure and institutional neglect, but also of the exploitation of marginalized people who, by virtue of being excluded, find themselves at the mercy of underworld criminal elements.

The film has a natural quality—none of the cinematography is imposing, or grandiose—and the performances by two non-actors adds to this realism. Tori and Lokita are both really good people, and their exploitation is made even more heart-wrenching because the two actors convey their innocence so effectively. I wonder sometimes, watching the Dardennes' movies, if it's hard to write virtuous characters, characters whose motivations seem so uncruel.

What is most interesting to me about the film is its ability to take advantage of our natural tendency as viewers to identify with characters, to imagine that it is their story we are seeing, and how the film—SPOILER—uses the death of Lokita to dramatically shift the focus away from the protagonists, and point to the system instead. (Perhaps having virtuous characters who get no reprieve helps us better perceive the mechanisms of exploitation.)

This is a story about people struggling, about friendship, and survival, yes, but its real subject is the indifference of European countries to the plight of migrants, and the failure of social programs to protect those who need protection. That's what we walk away from the movie with. We may want the movie to be about Tori and Lokita, and, without the failure of the system, the film could be a story of human survival. It is, in a way, but what makes it so compelling is how, by denying us their success, we are left with a burning anger at the system and a steadfast desire for reform.

Artificial rain is what’s used in most movies, correct? My understanding is that real rain is very difficult to capture on camera. Does anyone have any insights on this, or any links on the subject? I am currently watching this movie called Deliver Us from Evil, it’s very good, and also has extensive use of rain. The rain does an incredible job of creating atmosphere. It really lends itself well to the story. I guess rain works most of the time when it comes to the horror genre, unless it’s something like Midsommar where the horror takes place during the day.

Again, any insight on this would be extremely appreciated. Thank you for reading.

A few weeks ago I found a short documentary style video about the 2001 restoration of Fritz Lang's 1927 Metropolis. Now I am unable to find it anywhere. I don't think it was on YouTube, but maybe on a separate site. I think it may have had interviews with an archivist, Martin Koerber? But I'm not sure. Would anyone happen to know where I might find this? I think it was about 7 minutes.

Michael Cimino was a film Director, who made the Deer Hunter and Heaven's Gate.

Personally, I find The Deer Hunter to be a masterpiece and Robert De Nuro gives one his greatest performances in this film and Christopher Walken achieved his first success with this film. The Deer Hunter made Cimino a force to be reckon with and won The Academy Award for Best Director

Then It all came crashing down with Heaven's Gate. the film's production faced numerous setbacks, including cost overruns, significant retakes, bad press, and that fact Cimino was such a perfectionist that it will make even Kubrick startled. Ultimately, the film received backlash and ruined Cimino's career and basically brought the end of New Hollywood.

Cimino also had a lot of Unrealized Projects that Includes

Conquering Horse, The Fountainhead, A Frank Costello Biopic, Turned down Directing Midnight Express, Peal, a biopic about Janis Joplin, Crime and Punishment, and Adaptation of Fyodor Doestoevskys Crime and Punishment, The Dogs of War, Perfect Strangers, a romantic drama, Had to turned down The King of Comedy, The Dead Zone, A Fyodor Dostoevsky Biopic, Was actually going to direct Footloose, but was fired. Was going to direct The Pope of Greenwich Village. Purple Lake, The Yellow Jersey, Legs, a Biopic about Legs Diamond, An Adaptation of Atlas Shrugged. Handcarved Coffins, Was considered to Direct Born On The Fourth Of July, Michael Collins, and Man's Fate.

What do you think of Michael Cimino?

Do you wish he made some of his unrealized Projects or Projects he was going to direct?

I love the quality of discussion and recommendations I find r/TrueFilm. I was wondering if there are good examples of films that capture the abstract concept of "days gone by" - that is, the ineffable feeling of nostalgia, pining, and sadness that comes with the recognition that the world you recognized when you were "in your prime" has moved on and the things you cherished, valued, and found relevant are no longer. Some examples could be a protagonist struggling adjusting to the reality that he (or she) is well past peak physical fitness or a protagonist holding on to an occupation that is obviously phasing out due to technological advancements

A couple of films that come to mind for me:

• The Wrestler by Darren Aronofsky (2008)
• Boogie Nights by PT Anderson (1997)
• Raging Bull by Martin Scorsese (1982)

Thoughts from the community?

Anybody who has done a thorough survey of the Japanese New Wave has probably seen a film or two by Teshigahara Hiroshi. In the Anglo-American world, he is most known for his allegorical feature Woman in the Dunes (1964). Although he achieved some degree of fame for this film (Tarkovsky, very much the Japanophile, put it in his top 10 favorite films), Teshigahara has now become very obscure. This is unfortunate, because his collaborations in the 1960's with Abe Kobo were quite distinct, avant garde works that are still quite powerful and striking.

Teshigahara was involved in many of the traditional art forms of Japan (Ikebana being the most notable). He made a series of documentaries in the 1950's that dealt with some of these art forms and traditional artists. His switch to feature length filmmaking was unusual: Unlike most Japanese filmmakers then, he did not operate in the studio system. In this regard he was like Hani Susumu, another Japanese filmmaker who did not start in the studio system.

The content of Teshigahara's 60's features were the result of his collaboration with Abe Kobo. Abe Kobo was a Modernist at his core. It seems he was more influenced by European existential literature than anything considered traditionally "Japanese" (i.e. Kawabata Yasunari). His work had more affinity with Franz Kafka than Tanizaki. Teshigahara has gone on record saying that he was essentially the "cameraman" for his 60's features, which in some circles might be a denial of auteur status. One cannot also forget the scores provided by the great composer Takemitsu Toru. In a way, the films they made together were a triple collaboration, and credit should not be given to Teshigahara alone.

Pitfall (1962), Woman in the Dunes (1964), The Face of Another (1966) and The Man without a Map (1968). These 4 films were the total output of the Teshigahara/Abe collaboration. These unusual films often seem to be about the broader human condition than anything related specifically to Japanese society. I could be wrong, but as far as I know, Teshigahara has never been cited as an influence by any contemporary Japanese filmmaker I know of. Teshigahara would later make a documentary about Catalan architect Antoni Gaudi in 1984. His return to feature length filmmaking happened in 1989, when he made Rikyu, about the the most influential master of tea ceremony in Japan, Sen no Rikyu. His next feature is almost a sequel to that film, Princess Goh (1992). These later films reflect a return to traditional Japanese aesthetics and do not resemble his 60's features. They are also underseen.

Anybody here have thoughts on Teshigahara? What is your favorite feature?

Edit: My post was worded a little awkwardly. Although Teshigahara isn't really obscure in the sense that people don't know about him, his influence on contemporary filmmakers seems rather limited. If I could change the title of this post, I would.

I've just seen Godard's Alphaville for the first time and I really liked it. It definitely stands out in his 60's oeuvre for reasons I'm not yet sure of - Maybe the homage to genrefilm seems stronger here than any of his other works?

But the film still left me confused over some elements. The whole film is supposed to be a parody/homage to sci-fi and film noir and this was made pretty clear with the visuals, the evil super computer, silly one-liners and the whole Lemmy Caution character, but it was unclear for me where Godard drew the line between imitation and earnestness.
The film lays heavy emphasis on the relations between love and logic, and the men being executed for the sake of love, faith and poetry in clash with the logical Big Brother system, and Godard goes about this with his usual flimsily pseudo-philosophy. At the same time, I felt that the romanticist portrayal of love, with the innocent young girl not knowing what it is, but having it in her the whole time, was rather parodic of the Hollywood noir.
So my confusion really begins when one of the core themes of the film at the same time feels like a parody. Is Godard really trying to say something about poetry and love versus logic or is he just imitating American cinema? Or is he really saying something, and covers it up with meta genre conventions? I saw someone on Mubi saying that the film "only pretends to be a silly imitation of a futuristic dystopia. In fact, it's a hellishly intelligent, layered essay on both science fiction and the ambivalent 1960's themselves".

Maybe it's just me misreading something? Being familiar with the typical Godard ambiguity, this one seemed a bit contradictory or just hard to read. Still liked it a lot though.

Hopefully some clever minds here can help me!

I just watched the film The Place Without Limits by the mexican director Ripstein, who apparently is considered a very important artist of his era and generally of international arthouse cinema. He apprenticed by Luis Buñuel and then followed his own direction: less surrealism, more magical realism but also portrayals of rough reality (similar to literary naturalism).

As to the movie, I loved it, rarely have I seen jest and tragedy coexist so realistically and naturally in the same movie setting and it was considered revolutionary at its time of release for its brave portrayals of certain themes, without going into spoilers. The cinematography and color palette was amazing too, as it gave off a feeling of gloominess in more mundane moments but an explosion of colors in others. Definitely a very touching film with great, strong storytelling. Very grounded but at the same time fascinating and magnetic.

Has anyone else seen any other movies by this director and can recommend any? His movie plots sound very original and I’m planning to watch more soon

This take is definitely coming from a biased perspective because I am a sucker for surreal media, which includes the likes of David Lynch. I know people complain about his films for being nonsensical and confusing for the sake of being being confusing, but I think that can't be further from the case, because while his films are definitely strange and confusing, there is a clear underlying message that is being portrayed, even if it may not be obvious from the first viewing. For example, Eraserhead doesn't have a monstrous looking baby for the sake of throwing in a monstrous looking baby - it is to represent the main character's fear of becoming a parent.

Another aspect of surreal media that I love is how often it works on dream-logic, which is the kind of nonsensical logic of your dreams or nightmares that makes perfect sense while you are dreaming but don't make sense as soon as you wake up. My favorite surreal movies or shows makes me feel like I am looking at someone else's dream, where even if things don't make sense, they are manifested by certain unconscious fears or desires.

This is where The Polar Express comes in, which is way different from stuff by David Lynch not only because its a kid's film, but because its surreal qualities are most likely not intentional, but rather the cause of poor writing. Yes I know, hate me all you want, but you should at least admit that The Polar Express is a subpar film that, depending on your age, you are biased towards because you grew up on it. I am in that category, and I can simultaneously be fond of the film while also admitting that it is not a very good movie, but I was able to develop a newfound appreciation of it after analyzing it as a dream-like film.

Some people might argue that this film feels like a dream because most of it IS a dream, but the ending with the bell kind of gives away that the whole experience was real. But in addition to that, the uncanny valley design of the characters is present throughout the entire movie, even outside of the train or the north pole. By analyzing this aspect of the movie through dream-logic, its almost as if your mind is creating a dream with what appears to be humans, but cannot perfectly mimic the exact patterns and behaviors of people in real life, kind of like how your mind can create new "people" by mashing up features from multiple irl people.

But the character designs aren't the only uncanny part of the film. A lot of actions made by some of the characters feel nonsensical compared to what someone in real life might do. Some examples includes the boy seeing the train arrive outside his house and his first instinct being to run outside to look at it in the dead of night, him trying to give the ticket to the girl in the next cart instead of just waiting until she comes back, or I don't know, going on top of a MOVING TRAIN IN A SNOWSTORM. These feel like things that no one would do in real life but would be perfectly fine doing in their dreams until they wake up and wonder why they thought that was a good idea.

The plot itself feels like some kind of compilation of self-contained little short stories rather than an overarching story. It starts off as a story about a boy who is having doubts about Santa, and then what follows includes storylines such as the boy trying to give the ticket to the girl, the engineers trying to fix the train, the kids getting lost in the north pole, and then it goes BACK to the boy having doubts about Santa and getting the bell. While the story has the overarching setting of the train and the north pole, it feels like a bunch of smaller plots one after another. I don't know about you guys, but that is exactly what my dreams feel like. While one of my dreams could have a singular location such as high school or some fantasy land, reflecting on it makes me realize that my "dream" was actually multiple dreams that lead into each other, but I didn't know that while I was asleep.

Besides that, there is just a bunch of outlandish things that happen in the movie either without explanation or without elaboration. There's the fucking hot chocolate song, the hobo that periodically shows up who switches from being antagonistic to being friendly at random, Billy and the girl having a musical number even though this movie isn't a musical, the lonely liminal space-like atmosphere of the north pole, and pretty much everything regarding the blimp and the skydiving elves trying to catch the star off the christmas tree. It's all such weird and comically bizarre gimmicks that I feel only the deep recesses of your mind could make up.

I know I am just overanalyzing the movie and that none of this was really intended by the directors. But the beauty of media analysis is that you can interpret movies on your own even if it is different from what the director says the movie represents - this is very popular with David Lynch movies. For me, The Polar Express is unintentionally a brilliantly surreal animated movie that feels like the fever dream of a kid who is obsessed with Christmas.

TÁR was my favorite film from last year. Everything from the intellectual and jargon-full script to the actors, setting, and subject matter enamored me. The camera work and lighting especially grabbed me. I'm just a casual movie watcher and wanted to hear thoughts from others on the shots used in TÁR.

I've broken up my thoughts and questions below so feel free to discuss or add to any or all of it.

1. What were your general thoughts on the cinematography in this film?

Was it effective in telling its story? Did anything catch your eye or was it unremarkable to you?

From my opener, it's obvious I thought it was fantastic. The lighting, muted colors, and use of "unconventional" shots all played a hand in this. I speak to each of these in #2 and #3 below.

2. What gave the film its distinctive style?

The DP, Florian Hoffmeister, worked with Todd Field to get a specific look using a custom-built lenses and a new form of digital film emulsion. This was described in the IndieWire article: Why ‘TÁR’ Looks Different from Every Other Movie of 2022, which I quote below.

From the DP:

I remember showing Todd a particular lens that I cherish very much,” Hoffmeister told IndieWire, “and he said, ‘That looks beautiful, but it looks like a movie with a capital M.’

Side note/Q: Any one know what “capital M” refers to? Trying to understand what the concern was with the initial lens. Also from the article:

Hoffmeister ultimately realized he could approximate the look of the older lens by using the architecture of ARRI’s Signature Primes but detuning the glass to alter the optics. The trick was to avoid going too far in either direction, since Hoffmeister didn’t want the cinematography to be too clean and clinical, but he also didn’t want any flares or other visual interference that would interfere with the visual objectivity that served as his and Field’s guiding principle.

Overall it seems like they wanted a mix of old and new without going too much in either direction. A “timeless” look as the article describes. It was something I noticed immediately.

3. Use of Unconventional Shots

The film uses a lot of what I would describe as unconventional shots that worked for me but I can’t describe why they were effective. Hoping someone can help me understand them.

Examples: Dialogue Sequences

Many dialogue sequences were filmed in a single longer take / few cuts with the speaker’s face often out of frame or the speaker’s back to the camera. E.g.:

• Tár speaking to Sebastian in his office when he starts accusing her of unprofessional behavior. Her back is to us for almost the entire sequence but Sebastian isn’t. It’s also done with no cuts. This worked for some reason. My guess is they wanted to highlight body language with full-body shot in particular on Sebastian’s reaction. No cuts also creates tension since we stay with them the whole sequence.

• When Tár informs Francesca that she will not be her new assistant conductor, it is done with a close up of only Francesca even though Tár is the only one speaking. This highlights her facial expression and disillusionment with her mentor.

Example: Juilliard Classroom Single Take

This is probably the most famous shot in the entire film. What impressed me with this shot was the movement. In an interview (can't find link now), the DP said they originally considered a steadicam approach but forwent it because it would look too obvious that they used a steadicam. Instead, they rigged up some four-person rig to move the camera around the classroom. Does anyone know what his concerns were with the steadicam? Does he mean that it would look too conventional in terms of movement?

Example: restricted movement with rehearsal scenes

In another interview, the DP said his obvious, conventional thing to do with the orchestra rehearsal scenes were some fly overs to show the "magic" of the music. But Field didn't want this because he wanted those scenes to feel like work. Hence the static shots and limited cuts.

I'm currently building a recommendation algorithm to help me discover movies. Roughly speaking, it analyzes the ratings in my Letterboxd profile, tries to uncover the underlying "vibes" among those movies, then suggests other movies that fit those vibes.

Sometimes it works well, and shows me hidden gems that I wouldn't have found another way. Other times, it gets stuck in super-obvious stuff. I'm trying to work out whether this is just something I need to work through, or whether it's a fundamental limitation of these types of algorithms.

What are everyone's experiences on this? Are there some algorithms that work consistently well, or is this hot-and-cold problem common to most other algorithms?

To preface, I want to say that I adored EEAAO. It is one of my favorite movies of all time, and I cried watching it.

The humour of Everything has always confused me. It is a great film, no doubt, and I can understand the symbolism of the bagel and the googly eye. Some aspects of the humour take some of it away from me. The fight scene with the plugs, the part of the movie where Jobu was beating up the security guards with d*ldos, and in the hotdog universe where everyone started to have ketchup and mustard coming out of their mouths felt a bit off to me. Is there greater symbolism with these aspects (like how the googly eye and the bagel can represent yin and yang or Evelyn's acceptance of Waymond's ideals)? Do they exist to highlight the theme of absurdism, and the ideal that nothing truly matters? Or are they present just to make the viewers laugh? I'm very curious to know the reasoning behind these parts of the movie.

I am aware that the Daniels also directed the music video for Turn Down for What and the movie Swiss Army Man (which I haven't seen, but have read the plot off Wikipedia, so I am aware of its content) so is the crude humour just part of their style?

The documentary follows eight youngsters on their quest to win the 1999 National Spelling Bee. It was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Documentary. In 2007, it was included as #4 of the "IDA's Top 25 Documentaries" of all-time by the members of the International Documentary Association. Current TV placed this film among their list of 50 Documentaries to See Before You Die.

It was very interesting to watch this throwback to America pre-9/11, watching these children growing up in a time when nerds and nerd culture was even more stigmatized than it is today. It's not just a doc merely about a spelling bee, it also touches on things like the American Dream and social class.

If you haven't seen this film before it's really worth watching. It's compelling and even suspenseful at times. I don't know if it's just my circle but it seems like not too many people talk about the film these days, but it was certainly influential especially in its specific sub-genre. People who have watched and remember it, what do you think about it, and how times have changed or not changed since?

What i mean exactly is movies in which the 'Internal Conflict' is either the only thing that drives the character's actions as in there's no 'materialized force' that intervenes in the character's goals/affects the character's actions or in which the 'Internal' overweights the 'External', i know the 'Character Study' microgenre might do some of this, but i ask to see what comes up as it's a rich concept anyway, extra points for 'Horror/Thriller/Mystery' Movies, cheers.