 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Glengarry GlenRoss posted by patrickU on December 12, 2002 at 12:54:38:
You WILL get contradicting opinions.I thought the story was banal and trivial, artificial and tired.
Acting was generally good, but Lemon's false teeth dominated, he overacted, especially in the fatal episode - it was a flap. Casey was good, as was Harris, the rest I could perfectly live without.
Pachino was his usual idiotic loud and empty self...
Don't recall the music.
I didn't like the film much either.
Follow Ups:
Actually, I FEEL frustrated...YOU did get the strong opinions....
nt
Did you know that Mussolini last "congress" was in....Salo...not to be mistaken with Sado, witch in this case, would cross the film " Salo, and then the word salaud....
.
There is no art in Salo. Just a meager adaption of the Marquis. As usual, the book was better. 8^)
I strongly disagree with you. Salo is close to a pinnacle of artistic achievement, but its subject is extremely objectionable, making it hard for some people to see beyond it. It is like a naked girl selling postcards - you will probably not see what's on them.Salo should be approached in that way. Art CAN be shocking - as we know, Bosch created quite a stir in his time. There are numerous examples of that through the ages.
We are seeing the same effect here as some reported in Glengarry (albeit in the opposite direction) - the subject dominated and captivated. In Salo it dominates and repulses.
I always advise the people who love movies to learn to separate the artistic side from the subject. In some cases it is not necessary, as they simply flow together, but in others it is mandatory.
One of my favorite examples of how these two are unrelated, is the short 50 second segment in the Lumiere and Company, the one by Michalkov-Konchalovsky - one of the best ones there. In that micro-movie he "studies" a rotting corpse of a dog. As repulsive as the subject is, he manages to do incredible job directing the camera. Take a look if you have a chance.
nt
it had none. It was a cheap rehash of "120 Days of Sodom". There was nothing to gain from seeing it. Artistic? Whoever made up all the poo-poo did a great job. I guess that was artistic, FX.The beauty of criticism is that it is ALL opinion. My opinion is no more valuable than yours.
There are NO artistic experts beyond appraisal and history. All the rest of art is what each individual feels or thinks about a work. Only the creator of that art truly knows.
I may just go rent Salo again (if it hasn't been decommisioned). What is an earlier work of his for me to draw comparison--Canterbury Tales or such?
Well, it IS your opinion, of course, so we have just exchanged ours.If you want to study his art (I am intentionally using this word here), then the usual suspects like the Decameron, Arabian Nights, Medea and Canterbury Tales are all fine and important.
But I would also add one that I find rather unusual - Comizi d'amore (Love Meetings) - a documentary about love. I thought it was extremely artistic and interesting. I would probably skip the Theorema.
Victor, I think this is a good example of how personal experiences can affect how one sees a movie (or any art). To me, this movie captured so well what shit salesmen go through, it really touched a nerve. So the story being "banal artificial and tired" really didn't matter to me. I would rate it as good to very good, just because it captured this so well.And as far as Pacino's acting, I think I tend to cut him some (probably too much) slack, because I've seen him turn in some good performances. I have stated more than once that he usually overacts terribly, so in a movie like this my thoughts are "that wasn't too bad for Pacino". Did you ever see his movie about a movie about Richard III? Spacey acted circles around him in that one, IMO.
I gave at the office!
I certainly agree with the personal experiences playing roles in our enjoyment, and often they become predominant so as to completely dominate. I guess the problem with the story was that it tried to jam in too many aspects of salesman's life, creating in essence too thick a soup. So the conflicts became too many, outlined in too sketchy way, quick jumps from one to another. And the last, fatal episode is pretty much the tribute to the American school of script writing - "without somethins that jucey there can't be no movie".If you stay with the subject of Al Pacino, then the fatal episode would be comparable to his Scent hero driving blind. If in Glengarry it is still within the reason, failing on subtleties, then in the Scent it is Hollywood in its worse extreme, idiotic situation put on pedestal, in a feeble attempt to grab audience attention.
Needless to say, the original Scent didn't have that idiocy - as I said, this seems to be a completely American phenomenon.
Another pitiful example of that same fallacy was the match counting exercise in Rain Man - the pathetic nature of that one was incredible, and I was sorry to see a fine actor do that.
I remember watchng a part of Richard III, losing interest and switching channels, so I am not in great position of arguing its merits.
Spacey is a great actor, but overused, and should try to concentrate on seeking roles that would allow his subtle talent to show, instead of being just a pawn in things like the Negotiator.
The 'match counting exercise' in Rain man was an accurate glimpse into the very real aberrant behaviors of autistic people. I HAVE an autistic brother who does this counting with various objects, and repetitive counting is a frequent abberation of theirs that the producers/director of Rain Man probably wanted to get across to strengthen their portrayal of Rain Man. I thought it was an excellent touch to the film.
Every performance is inspired. Being derived from the Pulitzer Prize winning stageplay Glengarry Glen Ross is composed of a limited number of set pieces that may appear somewhat claustrophobic on the big screen, but given the high-caliber of acting of it's outstanding ensemble cast that is quickly forgotten and may even work to it's advantage. IMHO, criticism of ANY performance in this film borders on pure buffoonery coming from someone who considers himself a connoisseur of quality film fare. True, Pacino has phoned-in overacted performances in a number of roles over the years, but he NAILS his character in David Mamet's screenplay. As a matter of fact, every character is stunningly well defined and each actor's performance articulated flawlessly.FYI, the story which you consider "banal and trivial, artificial and tired" would more accurately be described as inspired and sophisticated, realistic and original in my informed opinion; unfortunately, your viewpoint is diametrically opposed to what I've expressed here. Of course, you're entitled to like or dislike whichever films you choose, but in fairness you should also consider the possibility that some of those European films you like may fall well short of the praise you and other armchair critics heep on them; some are REAL snoozers by comparison.
AuPh
Personnal, dear Auph ?
Victor and I agree on some things and disagree on quite a few more, but when someone criticizes every element of a film which you consider artistic and insightful it comes close to a criticism of one's personal tastes. My remarks were entirely fair and I stand by them.AuPh
And do NOT stand by yourself...Bad habit.
Sometimes he loses it, and getting personal is not unusual for him.Unfortunately he also divides all films into American and Foreign, and instead of learning what else is out there, in that great world of ours, he simply locks the door and closes his eyes.
As I've pointed out, it's nothing personal; if someone else had heaped dung all over Glengarry Glen Ross they would've received a similar critique of their shoveling technique. As for Mr. Khomenko's comment about dividing films into European and American, I do this only because the styles and subject matter are often quite different, not better or worse, nor because I've chosen to "lock the door and close my eyes." It would probably surprise Victor to learn that I'm actually a fan of WORLD cinema, ...just not the particular European films he seems to find favor with. As a matter of fact, judging from his track record on critiques, I'd almost conclude that Victor's recommendation is a sure fire reason to ask for a second or third opinion, but THAT might get personal. ;^)AuPh
Mr. Khomenko and Victor are they the same person ?
Victor, you wrote:"The story was banal and trivial, artificial and tired."
"Lemon's false teeth dominated, he overacted"
"Pachino was his usual idiotic loud and empty self..."So bloody typical of you. No wonder I consider it a complete waste of time to post here on what has become your personal bully pulpit (second only to the Outside forum).
Victor, I can't recall the last time you had a single good thing to say about Hollywood movies and the American public that goes to see them... in fact, you seem to get your rocks off by trashing anything even remotely mainstream, and worse, make hugely false and denigrating generalizations like those above on a regular basis. Have you ever considered that when you piss all over a film that is beloved by millions of moviegoers over several generations -- Casablanca, for instance -- that perhaps it is YOU that has the problem, and not the rest of the world?
Please, if you are so contemptuous of American films, do us all a favor and stop watching them or at the very least spare us your negativity and quit posting about them.
I too, disagreed with Victor about Casablanca - please see that exchange for a civil discourse on the matter, as opposed to telling someone to "Shut up". I also disagree with his take on "Glengary Glen Ross" - I think it was a very good movie. AND I'm sure as time goes on, there will be more disagreements. But that's what makes it interesting.
I gave at the office!
:o)
I like Victor's posts. That being said, though, I have to agree with Dave that since Victor hates just about all contemporary American films, his posts don't really add to the discussions.We should force Victor to watch Hollywood films like the rehabilitation program in A Clockwork Orange. Soon he will vomit when he sees Tarkovsky's Solaris and clap with delight at the sight of George Clooney's bare ass in the remake. To be followed by his daily posts counting down the days until Terminator 3.
Dr. Hibbert at a Hollywood romantic comedy on the Simpsons: "I thought that she was going to pick the snob."
It is the case of the stolen promise, TA... from the distance it looked much better... like a dream, actually. I am still in love with American films, but unfortunately almost all the ones I like come from the previous era.I like your idea of force feeding, but I am already doing it, watching many of them on TV when I am all by myself. Last night I saw that real marvel with Molly Ringwald (whome I actually like, although don't quite know why) called "Not Another Teen Movie". Watched most of it, anyway.
Again personnal attacks, why not just debate about the contend and the why´s and how`s.
But watch yourself, I think he gets off on unnecessary roughness. :o)AuPh
***Victor, I can't recall the last time you had a single good thing to say about Hollywood movies and the American public that goes to see them... in fact, you seem to get your rocks off by trashing anything even remotely mainstream, and worse, make hugely false and denigrating generalizations like those above on a regular basis. Have you ever considered that when you piss all over a film that is beloved by millions of moviegoers over several generations -- Casablanca, for instance -- that perhaps it is YOU that has the problem, and not the rest of the world?You got it right, buddy, I do have problem with the trash produced today.
to Russia ?
How can you make some critics of the wonderful Hollywoodian paradise, and the smart kids looking at...
Back..back to the USSR....
are you going to apologize? I almost never agree with Victor, however I think he does not offend anybody. Please apologize and keep this board free of xenophobia.
RubenSan Francisco, California
You totally miss the point, and you had me to find out who is Mr. Lott .
Of course it was irony, as if you would look in more frequently you should have know,that Victor & I agree more often , that not, culture and good taste have always a price.
And YOU, should know me better, shame on YOU.
Patrick .
Sorry, maybe I should be the one doing the apologizing; to you, rather than Vic! :o)AuPh
nt
I am well past that stage.Sorry Dave, I shall continue expressing my views on Hollywood and... shall we say... the insignificant "the rest of the world"?
Well, this film was made 1992, but it look more dated, it is more from 70 / 80, the atmosphere remind me of " The Death Of A Salesman " somehow.
I, for one that can NOT stand Pacino ( very terrible ) found that he was quite right for THIS role.
But it could be the fact that the last film I saw with him must be at least 10 years old. ( The Scent of a women ) witch was an horrible remake of a very good film, as we know....
I found in this picture, an adjacent humanism that was quite right, even if I hate it....Vase clos...leaning for a kind of cinema verite.
The worst was the use of the world -fuck- a thousand time around.
Dreadful.
More I think of it ( I just finish my viewing about half hour ago )
More I dislike it. Still my respect for it for the crafmanship in it.
***But it could be the fact that the last film I saw with him must be at least 10 years old. ( The Scent of a women ) witch was an horrible remake of a very good film, as we know....Don't you think the weakest point in the original was its ending? The last half an hour was going nowhere. But still, between the two films and two actors (Pacino and Gassman) the choice is trivial.
I can´t tell ! i saw this film twenty ( at least ) years ago...But I still have a v ery fond memory of it. I try to find a copy or wait till it shows up on tv...But till now, I was out of luck..
In France, ( just read it this morning ) the Decameron & Salo just came on dvd...
I think that if you have ever been a commissioned salesperson working from generated lead sheets you can REALLY relate to this movie. I found it an accurate portrayal of the uphill battle that salesmen face, especially as they get older and are "forgotten". The movie is quite deep in placing the Jack Lemmon character in a no-win situation. You may not like Pacino but he was a perfect fit for his role, and I think he did a great job especially when his "client" (Jonathan Pryce) came back asking for his refund. Kevin Spacey also played a convincing minor role as the office manager.And last but not least, Alec Baldwin's motivational scene where he says "My watch costs more than your f#cking car !!" and "In our sales contest first prize is a new Cadillac, second prize is a set of steak knives, and the rest of you are fired !!" reminds me of several sales managers that I have experienced over the years.
Lemmon, Pacino, Spacey, Ed Harris, Alan Arkin, Jonathan Pryce, Baldwin, what a powerhouse cast !!! I think you should watch the movie again sometime and give it another chance.
I agree 100%. I could feel the tension and desperation in the characters throughout the entire movie. I felt it was an excellent insight into the live's of a group of salesman trying to sell an impossible (or at least improbable) to sell product. Sorry, no apology here. I liked it as well.
And I agree, that it makes this film much more personal. This is one of the "must see" films for salesmen (another is "Used Cars"). Also, do you remember the scene from "Ruthless People" - Judge Reinhold was trying to be a "Hard sell" salesman to the young couple, and just couldn't do it? Really true to life stuff, there."You can't afford it? Fucking finance it!"
HA!
I gave at the office!
Who is well played...
Doomsday---You mean guys will really sit and take the kind of shit the Baldwin character was handing out? Nobody would object to his bullying and invite him outside to see if his Rolex can trump a punch in the nose in the manliness sweepstakes?
If you are in the system...It will work the way it was described...
I just go to look at some review of it...and found the Chicago Tribune with a critic on it..the writer make an analogy to " The death of...) funny, is it not ?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
