RoR: Forum

John,
Thanks for the note on David Mamet. I guess I never paid much attention to the screen writers. I haven't seen either "Edge" or "Spartan". I looked up David Mamet at IMDB, his writting credits are indeed very impressive. I've only seen "Untouchables" and "The Winslow boy", love them both. "Untouchables" is one of my all time favorite. Everything about that movie is perfect.

Hong

Post 21

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 7:27pm

Roger: "I also like very much the quirky little romantic/dramatic/comedy from Australia entitled "Strictly Ballroom."

It's strange, but most Australian film is oddly wonderful while their TV is almost always execrable. I suspect it's because their TV usually follows formula, whereas the films eschew it.

A list of special Australian films would include:
Malcolm, Strictly Ballroom, The Castle, Breaker Morant, Gallipoli, Walkabout, Shine, The Adventures of Priscilla-Queen of the Desert, The Dish, Muriel's Wedding, The Year Of Living Dangerously, The Man who Sued God etc.

Even the least of Australian films will usually be charmingly quirky, have a lusty sense of life -- and will almost always be sharp. With the exception of anything with Russell Crowe, an Australian film will very rarely insult your intelligence.

Post 22

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 7:36pm

Talking about Australian films, I am reminded of (oh, the horror) "Flirting". It is a coming-of-age sort of movie and has Nicole Kidman in it, though she was not the main star! I liked it quite a bit!

Post 23

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 8:23pm

Hong, Peter is correct.

Australian films (sans Nicole Kidman and Russell Crowe) are often brilliant. Malcolm & The Castle can be hard to get hold of (in the US) but are both worth the effort. Shine stars Oscar winner Geoffrey Rush in probably his finest (and funniest) performance ever.

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 6/17, 8:26pm)

Post 24

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 9:07pm

Aaron writes:
>You have got to explain this to me then! I place AI among the worst films I've seen in recent years...
>Through the bulk of the film, I thought the sci-fi world unconvincing and the plot uninteresting and slow.

Look, yours is not an uncommon reaction at all. My various filmboy friends, Spielberg-haters all, unanimously gave me the same read on it.

Of course, I remember the days when I was a Spielberg hater too, but nonetheless was prepared for the worst. But if I was expecting the worst, I was to be disappointed....;-) Sure, in the current cinematic environment of flatline cynicism, infantilisation of adult experiences, formulaic plotting and every-6-seconds-or-less MTV editing, A.I.'s combination of open emotion, mature engagement with the world of a child, fearless imagination and thoughtful craft was bound to make it look like a gauche oddity, a uncool misfire in slickly programmed world of blood and explosions where only the weekend gross matters. If ever there was an anti-blockbuster, this is it.

The first issue is the realism. It's fairly obvious that if Spielberg wanted realism for this story, he could easily have got it. You think he can't afford it?...;-) But it's clear right from the outset this movie is a *fairy story*, and one fairy story in particular - Pinnochio - so realism is entirely unnecessary. I guess those who don't think fairy stories are cool can check out at this point and move to more mature discussions - like, say, the alleged moral complexities of Star Wars 3...;-). In fact, Spielberg reverses the typical late Hollywood formula (ie: Lucas) of making adult realities childish, and addresses children's experiences in a serious, grown up way. This radical approach is liberating; once he's made this decision, he can let his imagination roam, and put the usual adult self censorship on hold. So if he wants to turn the moon into a giant ballon pursuing a screaming robot child so as to toss him into a horrific junkyard Dachau - who's going to stop him? If he wants to hurl his imagination not just 10, 50, 100 but *thousands of years* into the future - like the last section of Shaw's 'Back To Methuselah', which he subtitled 'As Far As Thought Can Reach' - who's going to deny his reckless ambition? Me, I'm going with him.

>I got up to walk out of the theater when he was slowly dying underwater while chanting hopefully, as I thought the movie was over. If it had, it would not be on my favorite movie list, but I'd have at least respected it for effectively delivering such a bleak fatalistic theme.

>Then ... surprise! You get another 15 minutes of drug-trip/2001-deja-vu with a gangly Teletubby!! I hoped I just missed something that tied it all together and made it make sense in some profound way, but couldn't come up with anything. If you know the secret and how the ending belongs, please share.

Well, obviously I don't want to do a spoiler for anyone that hasn't seen it - so stop reading now. But if you start from the right premise -that it is a *fable*, a fabulous myth about what makes us human, good and bad - it doesn't have a bleak, fatalistic theme at all. The whole 'is-A.I.-really-human?' debate is wisely sidestepped. The point is: the advanced robot civilisation, with all the technology in the universe, thousands of years into the future - can only reproduce a simple human experience like the love between a mother and a child *for a single day*. It is the rarest commodity in all the vast, frozen universe.

*Just like it is right now*. In other words, every day of our lives we waste, every relationship we take for granted, every potentially wonderful moment we discard without a second thought is *impossible to reclaim* - not in all the world, as far as thought can reach. With A.I., Spielberg is sending us a message not for the distant future, but for right now.

That message is:*wake the hell up*.

- Daniel.

Post 25

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 9:47pm

Daniel said, "Sure, in the current cinematic environment of flatline cynicism, infantilisation of adult experiences, formulaic plotting and every-6-seconds-or-less MTV editing, A.I.'s combination of open emotion, mature engagement with the world of a child, fearless imagination and thoughtful craft was bound to make it look like a gauche oddity, a uncool misfire in slickly programmed world of blood and explosions where only the weekend gross matters. If ever there was an anti-blockbuster, this is it."

Hey, Daniel, you've just persuaded me to give this film the ten-minute test, and perhaps to give Speielberg the Rule Nine exception.

And I see you've also paraphrased the thrust of my article better in one half-sentence than I did in several hundred words. Well done. :-)

Post 26

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 4:20am

Robert, I think I didn't make myself clear. I like Aussie movies very much! I think I watched "Gallipoli" when I was still in China! I watched "Flirting" some years ago and liked it. The horror is that this movie is even a double or triple offender of Peter's Rules! Thank you (and Peter) for the recommendation. I know about most of the movies on your list and will take a look whenever I got a chance.

(btw, my movie buff years (the 90s) effectively ended with the birth of my son. And have missed out most of the newer things in the past eight years!)

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 6/18, 4:25am)

Post 27

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 4:36am

I don't particularly like Australian films. They are usually depressing or violent or melancholy or cliché or all of these. Someone always has to go into the outback in an Australian film or make friends with the Aborigines. How predictable.

I actually thought that "the Fountainhead" was a very good film.
I haen't seen "We the living" yet, but I hope to see it one day soon.

Also very good films in recent times are "the Aviator" and "Pearl Harbour".

Another good film is "Momento". What I liked about it is that you have to concentrate and pay attention to follow the story in reverse. A bit of an enjoyable mind game. Even though there may be no great sense of life or deeper meaning to the film, one has to admit that it has a most ingenious plot.

Post 28

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 8:47am

Hong,

PC plays favorites just like the rest of us. Diana Rigg, Patrick McGoohan and Sidney Poitier are favourite actors of his. And excellent actors they all are, their presence alone can rescue an otherwise dull movie, but it would hurt Peter's machismo to admit it. For instance the Avengers bores me to tears, if it wasn't for Diana Rigg it would probably bore Peter too (ask him what he thinks of the later versions sans Diana Rigg).

PC's rules would instantly dismiss excellent movies such as "Bend it like Beckham" (violates the no "coming of age" rule. It also violates the unwritten, but implied, "no soccer" rule) - sight unseen. I tried to point out to Peter the folly in this (and I wasn't alone) but he also has an additional, unwritten, anti-chick flick rule which he invoked to counter any arguments. His loss not mine. Similarly Julia Roberts has starred in one or two movies worth watching: "Notting Hill" is a delightful & hilarious romantic comedy in my opinion, and "Pretty Woman" isn't as popular as it is without good reason. But you would be wasting your breath arguing this with Peter.

Strict application of the no gratuitous violence rule and the grab you in 10 minutes rule would eliminate "Lock stock and two smoking barrels" from the running - but I'm sure Peter will have a ready made exception for this one because I know he likes that movie. Peter also avoids Steven Spielburg movies, without exception, on principle. Unfortunately Steven has one good movie in him and "Amistad" is it. Though in true Spielburg style, it takes longer than 10 minutes to get going (another black mark against it).

Basically Peter is an hoary old cuss who will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to any movie that violates his cherished rules.

He has a laudable obsession: he values his time on the planet highly so he only wants to spend it enjoying only the cream of what movies, film and books have to offer. When Peter recommends a book, film or piece of music (with the possible exception of Wagner) you can be sure it is top-shelf. (This is why I wrote the reply to you, to include the links to retail stores where you can buy the more obscure Aussie films in Peter's list.) However, while his rules will totally screen out the avalanche of nihilistic dross emanating from Hollywood, you will find that you will miss an occasional diamond if you apply PC's rules (both the written and unwritten) as strictly as he does.

Post 29

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 8:53am

Marcus wrote:

"I don't particularly like Australian films. They are usually depressing or violent or melancholy or cliché or all of these"

It would be impossible for you to be more wrong about Malcolm, Shine, and The Castle (see previous post for links). See them, they are niether melancholy, nor cliché nor depressing nor any combination of these.

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 6/18, 8:53am)

Post 30

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 9:48am

The only film I have seen out of those three is "Shine".

The film was indeed well acted, but based upon a true story I believe. This film would be in similar in category to "the Aviator". However, the Aviator had the theme of sticking firm to one's principles.

Overall, "Shine" is somewhat sad and depressing - but is still a good movie. A great movie? I am not sure.

Post 31

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 10:09am

Peter,

The no high-school rule would eliminate 3 of the best American dramas of recent decades, "Stand and Deliver", "Lean on Me", and "Coach Carter". Those are all based on historic incidents and deserve to be more widely seen.

-Bill

Post 32

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 10:12am

Daniel-

Thanks for the ideas. I'm not a Spielberg hater (I liked 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' series), and actually hadn't known til you mentioned it that he did A.I.

I got the Pinnochio metaphor by the time he was looking for the statue. I can accept fairy tale worlds such as Edward Scissorhands, Big Fish or Leminy Snickett (I'm not a fan of any of those movies, but the unreal aspects of them are actually ok), but I don't think Spielberg did a good job of making the movie come across as fantasy instead of failed sci-fi.

BTW, thanks for the following: "So if he wants to turn the moon into a giant ballon pursuing a screaming robot child so as to toss him into a horrific junkyard Dachau - who's going to stop him?" Had me in stitches!

"But if you start from the right premise -that it is a *fable*, a fabulous myth about what makes us human, good and bad - it doesn't have a bleak, fatalistic theme at all."

True, I meant that at the point I prematurely thought it was over it would have been fatalistic - ie. if the movie ended with him dying under the ocean while wasting his life futilely praying to a statue.

In addition to the suddenly surreal ending, I had been put off by the 'relive one day' scene. It had seemed just an imitation of the Thorton Wilder play 'Our Town'. Interesting point though on the idea that the computer technology could only simulate human experience for a day and the 'carpe diem' theme.

Post 33

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 10:47am

Peter,

While I don't agree with a strict "no good/bad" rule, it is an interesting one that most critics would not have thought of.

For example, when the Bollywood musical "Hum Aapke Hain Koun...!" ("Who am I to you...?!", 1994) was prescreened for the entertainment press, it was universally predicted to be a flop. It contained none of the elements that successful Indian films of that era focused on: no villain, no violence, no conventional action scenes, no gritty realism, no cynical working-class tough guys, no bad guys at all. It dealt with a wealthy young man falling in love with a young lady against a backdrop of elaborate costumed ceremonies as their older siblings prepared for marriage. Critics derided it as a "wedding video." And it was 195 minutes long.

"Hum Aapke Hain Koun...!" went on to earn over 2 billion rupees in worldwide distribution, toppling a record set 19 years previously as the highest-grossing Hindi-language film in history. Its success changed the face of the Bombay movie industry.

Every Objectivist should see the gorgeous Madhuri Dixit's performance to the song "Chocolate, Lime Juice." It is hard to surpass that for a projection of pure benevolent universe premise.

-Bill
(Edited by William A. Nevin III
on 6/18, 10:49am)

Post 34

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 1:04pm

I must disagree with Mr. Cresswell's analysis of Die Hard. It is quite clearly not a deep or profound film by any means, but watch it up against almost any other action (now called, laughingly, "high concept") movie, and you will see the difference. To spell it out, there is no wasted shot or line of dialogue to be found in the entirety of Die Hard: absolutely every shred of the film serves to advance the plot. It was for this same reason of economy that Ayn Rand prasied Fritz Lang's Siegfried. To use your wording, there is no "padding out" in Die Hard.

Furthermore, there is more to Die Hard than one would assume of an "action flick." Broadly, the theme is redemption: the cop John McLane repairs the fractured relationship with his estranged wife. And Sergeant Al Powell (played by Reginald VelJohnson, best known as the father from "Family Matters") reclaims his self-confidence, one might say even redeems himself. Die Hard is also about competence vs. incompetence as personified respectively by out-of-town cop McLane on the inside of the building, quickly and effectively dispatching the "terrorists," and LA Police Chief Dwayne T. Robinson on the outside mucking everything up quite amateurishly.

In conclusion, I wouldn't pass up a film just because it contains "spectacle" (i.e., gun fights, car chases, etc.).

Lauren Oliver

(Edited by Lauren Oliver on 6/18, 1:06pm)

Post 35

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 2:48pm

First of all, Lauren: Bravo!! You summed up what I would have pointed to as the plot (now that I understand the distinction between plot and story) very well indeed.

Second, Peter: Thank you for explaining the distinction :-)

Post 36

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 3:16pm

Peter wrote:
>Hey, Daniel, you've just persuaded me to give this film the ten-minute test, and perhaps to give Speielberg the Rule Nine exception.

Perhaps you could issue him with a one-day-only Fellini Pass...;-)

Be interested in your thoughts when you get round to it.

Peter:
> 'Mean Streets' on its own almost inspired a 'No Scorcese' rule.

Oh, that's a little harsh. Sure, 'Mean Streets' is about a bunch of losers, but losers are just as interesting and much a part of life as anything else. It's pretty evident what Scorsese's opinion of them is right from its droll, much-imitated opening sequence. Although it's enfant terrible directorial swagger has faded through being photocopied to many times, there's still all those young, yet to be famous actors stretching their wings. And all those themes of Scorcese's later movies - trying to do the right thing in the face of religion, or machismo, or money, or Italian family tradition, or all of the above - are also all there, also yet to be famous.

The 'loser' movies I don't like tend to be 'beautiful loser' movies, like "Leaving Las Vegas' or 'Permanent Midnight'.

And of course I completely reject the idea that Lawrence Of Arabia has a single boring frame....! But it sounds like we don't want open that topic up again....;-)

Aaron:
>Thanks for the ideas. I'm not a Spielberg hater (I liked 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' series), and actually hadn't known til you mentioned it that he did A.I.

Spielberg's rep as a great entertainer is deserved. But it gets in his way when he wants to do something serious. People automatically assume it's going to be superficial or trite. Movies like his kinetic 'Jurassic Park 2' - far superior to the first one - are like what Graham Greene used to call his 'entertainments'; brilliant fun from a master showman, piling up wild situations just to watch him get out of them. But when he changes tempo, as he did very abruptly with A.I., he doesn't always take his audience - or his marketing dept - with him.

- Daniel

Post 37

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 7:54pm

Speaking of serious films... does anyone here have an objective opinion on the proto-objectivist politics of The Dreamers (2003)? Any comments on the views of Eva Green or the particular aesthetics of "Venus de Milo" would be appreciated.

Post 38

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 2:23am

Since this movie thread has inevitably sunk into contemporary crappage, allow me to reintroduce some depth by mentioning a few of my non-obvious Hitchcock favorites (as opposed to the obvious Vertigo, Rear Window, Psycho, Strangers on a Train):

* Rebecca -- (Lawrence Olivia) Hitchock's first American film. Won the academy award for best picture.
*Spellbound -- (Gregory Peck, Ingrid Bergman) great mystery; includes a Dali-designed dream sequence
*Rope -- (James Stewart) Shot continuously, like a play, with unnoticeable cuts only to change the film when the reel ran out; includes a cool Nietzschean speech
*Dial M for Murder -- (Grace Kelly) This plot was exactly plagerized by the Michael Douglas film "Perfect Murder"
*The Trouble With Harry -- (Forsynthe, Shirley McClain, her first film) An oddball, almost surreal Hitchcock film that's actually a black comedy with priceless dialogue. Very funny.
*Frenzy -- Hitchcock's penultimate film, done in 1972, and in classic form.

There you have it.

(Edited by Alec Mouhibian
on 6/19, 2:29am)

Post 39

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 12:29pm