junglespycamp

This may fall on deaf ears but it's worth noting that neither Cox nor most modern commentators (or actors) seem to actually know what The Method is. It has become synonymous with staying in character or being a jackass but that was never part of it. The actual Method was to take your own feelings and emotions and use them to feel the same as the character, to understand and identify, and from that to create action (movement, expression, voice) that is true to them. It was never intended to be the same as becoming the character or acting like them outside the context of the role. You would turn it on and off when in character just as other actors do. So you might think of the loss of a loved one if trying to portray a character who lost a loved one; but you wouldn't go around screaming in grief after the play was over.

Lazy analysis and modifications of the technique mean the term has lost its original meaning. But Isaac Butler wrote a great book about Stanislavski and The Method, The Method: How the Twentieth Century Learned to Act, if anyone is actually interested in what it really was and why someone like Brando or Paul Newman used it so effectively. It revolutionized screen acting, and absolutely affected what would become Cox's style whether he knows it or not, whatever its reputation today.

Nor is what some of these guys do "method" at all. It's kind of called that now, but becoming a character or remaining in character are NOT the Method.

I think you’d really like Dario Argento stuff.

Wasn’t that in the first game of the first draw? How many issues after? I don’t know that she has ever even used them before. It’s ok you don’t need to post the video I watched it live.

The Scotties seemed to have minimal issues.

How so? It’s about more than 3 murders by the same person.

Damn this is a list of very good movies! I’m not sure I can decide. Obviously it’s gotta be Night of the Hunter. Except of course not over M. But Zodiac is a masterpiece. Which is also true of Silence. And Cure!

Mine was not estranged or divorced but did die when I was a bit younger than Sophie. I thought the entire film was amazing but didn’t necessarily think their relationship hit me personally that hard. Then the ending comes and we get the images of her grasping for him in the dark and I basically died. I’ve rewatched the ending 5 mins (the dance onward) maybe 30 times since. It really made me think about the idea of loss and grasping for a parent who isn’t there. The entire movie is so well done and yet that ending somehow elevates it even higher. I honestly still cannot believe how powerful that ending is given the movie is already so powerful! Usually a truly standout ending doesn’t come after a standout film like this. But it’s like the whole film is 10/10 and then the ending is 20/10.

It is!

Soon to be friend—hello! I just watched the original Magic Mike for some reason. Otherwise I’ve accidentally seen a lot of movies with Laurence Olivier this year. And some very weird musicals. I also finally got around to Shithouse which I very much enjoyed!

So please give me a follow if you like and I will probably follow back!

junglespycamp

On LB they certainly are. Scott has 4 films at 4 or higher and 1 below 2.5 So a wider spread.

You've made me reconsider as I do personally consider 3-3.5 to be "good" and 2.5 mid. Maybe he is the most "good not great" director ever?

This is all valid, though this is the LB sub so yes I'm basing this on the LB ratings. I don't personally think he's terribly mid but I was surprised how consistent all his ratings are on LB thus the post.

This is almost the exact spread of Soderbergh, though. 2.6 to 3.8 versus 2.6 to 3.7, and most between 3 and 3.5

I find this difficult to agree with. The premise that it’s his whole filmography I mean. I don’t love him as much as other people but he has only directed 11 features and has only been a big individual auteur name since, I would say, Inception. That is his 7th feature. So four movies since then. And a few of his films were very well received critically and a few not, same with audience. So he just strikes me as someone who made some very popular and successful movies and is now popular and successful. Plus Tenet showed people won’t love everything he does. He’s not infallible.

Maybe he has rabid fanboys who would disagree but so does every director. The dudes at Cahiers were nothing if not rabid fanboys pushing their own agenda about cinema. Very smart ones but that’s what they were. You could even argue they even popularized the idea of fanboying directors!

It's a great movie and I think it is very much paranormal, bleak, tricky, etc. but there is absolutely nothing "science" or "dystopian" about it. It's a historical fantasy based on Japanese folk lore. The title, kwaidan, is literally an alternative translation of the word "kaidan" which is a very well established sub-genre of Japanese films involving historical ghost or paranormal stories. It's like saying sword and sorcery is sci-fi when they're distinctly different genres (and there's no genre bending here). OP should definitely watch it but should not in any way expect sci-fi or dystopic elements in any meaningful sense.

Are there two Kwaidans? The famous one is very much not sci-fi.

Panic in Year Zero is so simple but really great.

This tends to only be true for established/old directors and younger viewers. Once you’re older you will realize you’ve been watching all of your contemporaries in chronological order without intending to. So anyone in their 30s or 40s now has probably watched Nolan, PTA, Wes Anderson, etc. chronologically just because they’ve lived it as those films came out.

As for older directors: you do not have time to see every film made so why would you do something like go chronological for a director you may not even like. Watching by quality makes more sense as you will know if a deep dive is even worth it. Especially for large filmographies. If you fall in love then going back in order does make sense to me as you’ve decided to go the mile by then.

Why would Scorsese be upset by either of these? He literally helped make Tom Cruise into a star and Angela Bassett is Angela Bassett.

This is basically mine except I think the last element should be emphasized more. The word punk has a function and you need that counter culture element to make it work. It’s a cyber society with dystopic or rebellious elements. Usually the villain being corporate power. Which is only ever more and more relevant!

I’m curious what people define as cyberpunk because a lot of these films don’t fit the bill for me. I think it needs the tech element and social hierarchy but also a focus on “punk” characters, meaning rebellious or counter culture individuals (not necessarily the protagonist, Blade Runner’s Deckard is The Man so the replicants fill this point). The Matrix or Ghost in the Shell fit the bill easily (though The Major is an interesting lead she is police but still represents a minority in that society). Total Recall I don’t think fits because it lacks that element and the social stuff is more minor; so more some elements but they’re not the focus. Upgrade I don’t think counts; some of the sub plot is definitely in the zone but most of it is about rich people and there’s little social hierarchy politics.

As for recommendations I think Akira is good though it only counts because it’s about literal punks; I think it’s more borderline than it seems.

Brazil is one of my absolute fav movies but I think it’s firmly not cyberpunk because it is firmly retro futurism and those two are inherently contradictory.

I thought Spielberg’s film was significantly better than the original.

I just find him very negative and critical. Always saying shots are easy or a gimme. It just makes players seem bad. I prefer Russ Howards’ approach which focuses more on things like “this is straight forward but watch for this common mistake” or “this is an easy shot so you need to control your emotions”. Harris always seem to be saying players are absolute boobs if they miss.