 
|
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: Need help with Lost in Translation posted by Victor Khomenko on January 14, 2004 at 08:22:59:
Pink girl furniture? Stuffed animals?Yep, it was low key, to be sure. I also wish something actually happened in the movie. But you know, it affected me. I thought about it for a long time after watching it. I've found that people without a romantic bone in their bodies tend to dismiss it. Honestly, if you were looking for "steamy sex scenes", you really never will get a movie like this.
I loved the subtlty of the performances. Murray will get an oscar nom for this and may actually win with it. He played the hangdog absolutely perfectly. I usually hate when comedians go serious, but it worked here because he always had that mischeivious gleam in his eye. The scene with the Japaese hooker that made it to his room killed me. The character was immensely varied, yet perfectly balanced.
I loved Scarlett Johanssen too. This was a real star turn for her. She countered the Britney Spears starlet character that was running around in the hotel.
Best movie of the year? No. Top 10 though. An artful character film with lots of internal depth.
Follow Ups:
Have you seen Virgin Suicides, BTW? Same stuffed animals, arranged differently.But this is sad. If movies like Lost have great shot at Oscar then the whole scale is shifted down in favor of syrupy American-style feel-gooders.
Perhaps the only reason the Foreign Language movies are judges separately is the fact that in an all-out competition the films like Lost in Translation would never have any chance.
The only good thing I could say about that movie is that it was inoffensive. That is more than I could say about many others, for sure, but that hardly justifies all the hoopla around it.
How would you like to be a Mongolian, watching the nominations for the Mongolian Academy, with all movies presented being the Mongolian movies about sheep herding?
If you lock yourself in, you are bound to degrade.
Have you seen Virgin Suicides, BTW? Same stuffed animals, arranged differently.Never saw Virgin Suicides. The description wasn't anything I'd be interested in. Imagine I will see it someday . . .
But this is sad. If movies like Lost have great shot at Oscar then the whole scale is shifted down in favor of syrupy American-style feel-gooders.
Not sure how ANYBODY could call LIT a "syrupy American-style feel-good" movie. That's more along the lines of "Seabiscuit". LIT had a definitely non-Hollywood ending. The movie had a somber tone that I found quite unlike many American movies.
Perhaps the only reason the Foreign Language movies are judges separately is the fact that in an all-out competition the films like Lost in Translation would never have any chance.
Where do I begin? I sure have seen my share of foregin films over the years and find them, for the most part, to be pale imitations of American films.
Keep in mind that the US makes hundreds of movies every year. Hundreds. Almost all of them are distributed around the world for you to spend your money on. Only a few are really good, and even those are flawed. How many films from France or Russia or Mongolia will get distributed in the US this year? 3? I bet those 3 happen to be the best movies made in their respective countries this year, too. I usually see a handful of foregin movies every year and, like I said, most are just average local slice of life movies. In their own way, just as insular, nationalistic and limited in scope as most American movies.
You can say that foregin films are better than American films all you want, but you're wrong.
The only good thing I could say about that movie is that it was inoffensive. That is more than I could say about many others, for sure, but that hardly justifies all the hoopla around it.
Welcome to the movie industry. If anything is any good at all, the hype machine gets turned on and it will wring every last penny from it. Don't hold it against the movie.
How would you like to be a Mongolian, watching the nominations for the Mongolian Academy, with all movies presented being the Mongolian movies about sheep herding?
If you lock yourself in, you are bound to degrade.
What? I bet every Mongolian movie IS about sheep herding. That's my point, most foregin films are about thier respective countries and cultures.
American movies are mind bogglingly diverse if you think about it. There are no other countries in the world that can, or will, produce movies as diverse as LIT, Bad Santa, Master and Commander and . . Oh I dunno, Finding Nemo. Fact is, America is the most diverse and creative place in the world because it's comprised of little bits of every culture in the world. We don't carry the baggage of any one country.
A pale imitation of US films?
Well even if now it is increasily becoming true, as the people being increasely and completly stupid in all parts of the world after seeing Big Bucks without brains but with a lot of boum boum-- the perfect commercial machinery without soul & eating too much Mc & Cola.
American movies are just for most of them, a big industry, a permit to press $.
If you can not see that then you must be blind.
The key word is, be it food or wine or every thing we consumes..Industry.
Somewhere we lost our souls.
The only thing that gonna save us as an individual is " dirigisme " .
As to forbidden yourself to watch this tons & tons of shit coming down, till you drawed into more.
Give me the name of ten films of US / Hollywood origin worth to look at in the year 2003.
I could not.
A truer statement you have never spoken. I don't have any idea what the typical day is like for you or Europeans, but for many here, we are victims of what I have dubbed "The Encapsulation Theory." Here it is in a nutshell: people get up in the morning and get ready for the office....they leave their house and take two steps into their garage, hop into their car, hop out and take a few steps in the outside air into their air conditioned office building...leave the office building and head for the gym for an indoor workout...hop back in the car and head home...park in the garage and enter the house for the evening. There is very little communing with our natural earth surroundings. We are not in touch with the earth, we are encapsulated. We have lost our soul connection to the earth.This is why I love mountain biking, hiking, camping, and climbing. I feel more alive in the outdoors, more connected. Office buildings equal disconnection. I would never survive in a Corporate America scenario. And movie theaters...don't get me started. Excuse me Patrick, I must now run outside for some air, I'm suffocating.
People are basically every where just the same, cultures may and are different, but not persons. The naked man is in his diversity just the same.
YesI know what you mean, but on the other side most people do need a kind of routine..that is reassuring....that is what we did learn from day zero and before in mother wombs.
Of course there is the intelligent routine, the reflected one and the dum one..the one you spoke of.
Most are lacking the necessary courage, be it moral or physical.
We build houses and towns, big one small one and they do rhytm us to sleep...but is is a lure, our own illusion we need to go day after day....
Thank you for the picture of fresh air....
1. Mystic River
2. The Human Stain
3. Cold Mountain
4. Elf
5. Finding Nemo
6. Master and Comander
7. Monster
8. Lost in Translation
9. 21 Grams
10.Something's Gotta give
Worth....of course in the sense of beeing unique, measuring to the work of the best....
In your sense most of them may be worth to look at, and with the exception of Nemo & Elf I will check them...But is one of them a masterpiece?
I doubt it.
I consider Eastwood's adaptation of Dennis Lehane's "Mystic River" a masterpiece, yes.
One out of ten....But it would be worth. I can not comment as I have not see it, but I know that Clint is getting better and better since his film on J. Huston...I will have a look at it when on DVD!
And comment.
Another Clint effort I highly admire is his adaptation of "The Bridges of Madison County" from 1995. He acts as well in this and his character and that of Meryl Streep have wonderful, believable chemistry. I have a laserdisc of it with Dolby Digital sound and prefer it to the DVD since the DVD is not letterboxed and laserdisc DD is better than DVD DD. "Bridges.." has a wonderful sound track and must be the quietest sound film ever made. I use it as a demo to show friends and visitors that we're all not into explosions and car chases (at least not all the time).
I can not say that for this one! I found it very lame...The score won´t help me...As i did not like his " Unforgivable " or what was it...much too violent!
While I can appreciate that you didn't care for "Mystic River" I hardly think it fair to refer to it as "very lame". Not with its acting, writing, and directorial restraint (Eastwood never once gives us a Hollywood type view of the Boston skyline even during a scene on the Mystic River Bridge; he just lets the bridge loom over the neighborhood).
I too consider the Bridges just a mediocre movie. To me it bordered on irritating... that given two actors I like... so I really don't know what made it that way - perhaps the distinction between a simple story and a shallow one - I don't know. But I honestly haven't spent much time thinking about that movie after watching it - this is usually an inportant sign, and I never even put my thought on it in any order, so I am going by just an emotion.
I could have not feel it better.
It was just shallow.
Sometimes I think those guys should try to see the " original* " the master band...instead of generation XXXX.* The original** is of course as old as the earth..No copywright...
** just someone was a better catalyst as others..
...used to be more diverse than that of any other country - or at least I would entertain that possibility. Lately that point has been harder and harder to defend, given the worsening and homogenization of its production.But that, however, wasn't my point.
My point was that by limiting your Academy Awards to just American films you are cheating the American public.
America is still only about 4% of the world population, and there is a LOT that is happening in that "REST OF THE WORLD".
It is real shame our Academy is so locked in stroking our ego instead of promoting the best films in the world.
Look at what is happening at Cannes, for instance.
There they are after finding the best film, whereever it is produced.
This promotes good competition and makes the public more aware of the great world of movies.
If you decide to stay mentally with the Academy, on the other hand, you are bound to develop the mentality of that sheep herder, instead of becoming a citizen of the world.
The Academy is rightly paranoid - being a monopoly it relies on its exclusivity to maintain its grip. If more foreign movies were promoted through its Awards, more big studios would lose money - bad idea. So the hundreds of great movies get lip service by being jammed into a small secondary category.
To present the current situation in any positive light is naive - no isolationism ever is.
For a brief list of what's out there and on how the US films stack up against the world best, view these:
http://us.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Cannes_Film_Festival/2003
http://us.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Cannes_Film_Festival/2002
http://us.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Cannes_Film_Festival/2001
http://us.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Cannes_Film_Festival/2000
I have to warn you - it might be sobbering.
We're doing 2 different things.You attacked American films in general. I defended them.
Now you attack the Academy Awards, when I said nothing about them in my last post.
The last thing I'm going to do is defend the Academy Awards. Yes, it is Hollywood-centric. Generally, they are just an industry driven popularity contest. But I gotta tell ya, so is Cannes. There's a lot of films in those lists I haven't seen, but just like the Oscars, of the ones I have seen, about half are crap. It's different crap than the Oscars, but crap is crap. "Dancer in the Dark" as best picture? What a truly horrendous trainwreck of a movie. That's just as embarassing as "Titanic" winning best picture.
You are wrong to think that just because the Academy Awards don't nominate these movies, that does not mean that they are not available to be seen in the US. The big cities are filled with small theaters showing these small films.
If you decide to stay mentally with the Academy, on the other hand, you are bound to develop the mentality of that sheep herder, instead of becoming a citizen of the world.
Yes. But what makes you think that everybody in America is like this? America sure has it's share of sheep citizens, but so does EVERY other country. You have this generalized and closed-minded view of Americans and America. Yeah, we love ourselves . . . but we love ourselves no more than the French, Spanish or Chinese do.
Lost in Translation is about American archetype characters thrust into a foreign place. Yet the movie is constructed like a small European art film with it's internalized emotions and slow pace. It's got more American appeal because it's about American archetypes, even though the construction of the movie is not styled for action-loving general US filmgoers, the ones that see Bad Boys 2.
It's obvious that you tend to dismiss America, Americans and American art in the same way that the Academy dismisses foreign films. When was the last time you had anything really good to say about an American film?
Qui aime bien, châtie bien, we use to say in France.
The Cannes festival his more oriented in a political way now, that must have started in the late 60´s..It is just chic to be anti- American films, may I say...but any way hasard or not ...they deserve it....One could argue what about the biggest industry in the world..the Indian cinema....made for another continent?
Victor do not dismiss US films he just dismiss bad quality, and rightly so!
Please explain this French saying.Indian cinema is appallingly bad. It is their replacement for TV.
No, Vic may not dismiss US films, but there is a prejudice there. There is a limited scope of vision.
Well actually there are a few US films that I do like, and there is still the hope there are more to come...so like Cervantes we carry on.
Well I have the same prejudice then, but it is NOT one, just experience...
Look, most of them are sugar coated, far away from any truth, overly romantized, raped from any REAL human feelings, a cosmetical world without real soul..Look at " The Last Samurai "..I just saw the preview ( Yes THAT could be a real prejudice, but I KNOWS it is not )
This is just so distorted from any thing real real. Appaling.
Yes, the last Samurai was appallingly bad. An insult to Samurai everywhere. Ed Zwick thinks he's David Lean, but he isn't qualified to remove Lean's lens cap. It was plastic and emotionally retarded.Unlike you and Vic however, I don't think EVERY movie has to be pure truth and stark reality. Movies inherently have a cosmetic and sugar coated element. the trick is to hold that in check.
On the other hand this is a personal question, why wasting his time and getting dumber at this stupid movies when there are so manys good outside that we still did not see...
And no they don´t have inherently what you says!!!
Weird thing to say!
But you could post a headline on this:
" Are all movies inherently cosmetic and sugar coated "
Do that.
I feel the all-too-familiar defensive notes rising in your voice... that is bad.Me... I call them as I see them, no matter where they come from. So just recently I slammed a French film (Kaka full blast rating) and a Russian one, and today praised an American film.
To me American movie industry represents just a small portion of the world muvies. And not necessarily the most interesting, just voluminous. Apparently to you it is opposite, but that is your issue.
Funny, I did't hear Patrick scream bloody murder over my criticism of some French works - you should take some tips from him.
One would be foolish to deny the existance of very definite general (or typical) flavors for movies made in different parts of the world.
Russian films... French... Italian... Japanese... Polish... German... American... Swedish... Spanish... Chinese... Czech... Finnish... Brazilian... Mexican... Hong-Kong... Korean... Belgian... Norwegian...
...they all have strong local flavors. Some tend to be much more insightful - guess which ones? Some tend to gravitate to simplicity and fast action... guess who?
But there was good lesson to be learned from perusing the Cannes lists I gave you - as they provide a good glimps at the world as the whole... something typically not visible to an American viewer, but something that is usually VERY obvious to the movie buffs in other parts of the world. If you keep denying this you are falling behind.
I agree that Dancer in the Dark is hardly a great film, but that was just the jury vote - the list of runner ups speaks for itself.
Last thing you want is to adapt that silly America=World attitude.
The rhetorics in your last paragraph? I was used to us when living in the USSR, thank you. But that was in the totalitarian society.
Funny, I did't hear Patrick scream bloody murder over my criticism of some French works - you should take some tips from him.Feel free to bash bad American movies. LIT is not a bad movie, it's quite good in fact. It's subtlties were obviously lost on you, a man that normally goes out of his way to find subtlty. Vic, you didn't even watch the whole thing!
...they all have strong local flavors. Some tend to be much more insightful - guess which ones? Some tend to gravitate to simplicity and fast action... guess who?
There you go again. The American industry produces more films of EVERY type than all those countries you listed, combined. There's bound to be a higher percentage of crap.
To you, an ideal film is a slice of life story about the locals. Culturally interesting, but ultimately, the human story remains the same whether it's Maoris trying to keep their culture alive or a Hindu family preparing for a wedding. I don't go to the movies purely for a sociology or anthropology lesson. I go to be entertained. Most foreign films don't get the fact that it's entertainment first.
Last thing you want is to adapt that silly America=World attitude.
Don't like American cultural Imperialism, eh? American cultural Imperialism doesn't care what you or I think. It is a mindless juggernaut.
America is the great melting pot. Every culture bubbles into the stew, flavoring it. We don't care about other cultures as much the rest of the world does because we already have them living with us on the same block. How many Frenchmen personally know Japanese people and have a sushi bar in the neighborhood? How many Chinese people know Swedes personally? Well, for them, seeing how these cultures live and interact is a new and revelatory thing. For Americans, every day, bud, every day.
The best and the brightest from all around the world end up here in every profession for a reason. The freedom to kick ass. This dynamic allows for a film industry like ours to flourish unlike in any other country. Without the American business to emulate, the rest of the world's movie industries would be at a loss for how to make movies. Without an American movie industry, there is no foreign movie industry. Americans invented the medium and continue to move it forward.
It is not about bashing American movies! It is about to bash BAD movies, one can only note that most of them are US productions because this an money industry! And with even more vigor as the others countries are now making the same merde, and that is fatal.
What will be left are only a few fools, who like tubes or vinyls records or analog photography. In one word " old farts ".
And that is tragic, because our lost is not our gain.
***Funny, I did't hear Patrick scream bloody murder over my criticism of some French works - you should take some tips from him.
Feel free to bash bad American movies. LIT is not a bad movie, it's quite good in fact. It's subtlties were obviously lost on you, a man that normally goes out of his way to find subtlty. Vic, you didn't even watch the whole thing!Sure, I didn't even finish it! It was BORING! I seldom fall asleep in front of the screen.
I'll grant you this: if I were less tired, I might have finished it.
But be fair - I didn't slam that one.
***There you go again. The American industry produces more films of EVERY type than all those countries you listed, combined. There's bound to be a higher percentage of crap.I don't know the proportion, and you don't know it either... I don't work on percentages. I see a movie - I rate it, that is all. But of course over the time my scale had developed based on many films from all over the place.
***To you, an ideal film is a slice of life story about the locals.
Locals? Who are the locals? Locals to me? Here, in Delaware? In NYC (loved the one last night)? In Paris (loved one a few days back)?
I don't think what you are saying makes any sense. How "local" was Passion in the Desert?
*** Culturally interesting, but ultimately, the human story remains the same whether it's Maoris trying to keep their culture alive or a Hindu family preparing for a wedding. I don't go to the movies purely for a sociology or anthropology lesson. I go to be entertained. Most foreign films don't get the fact that it's entertainment first.I don't have problem with your view of the movies - that is your business. I expect a bit more of movies, and I rate films based on my expectations. I am not forcing anyone to adapt my views, just suggest what might be interesting... if they go and see it - fine, if not, I don't lose much sleep.
***Don't like American cultural Imperialism, eh? American cultural Imperialism doesn't care what you or I think. It is a mindless juggernaut.
It is... but I really care little what it is. When a good movie comes from America I rate it highly... simple as that. I don't get involved in the cultural wars.
***America is the great melting pot. Every culture bubbles into the stew, flavoring it. We don't care about other cultures as much the rest of the world does because we already have them living with us on the same block.I don't think this as as true as you are describing. Many Americans are completely oblivious of the world outside their home town - the isolationism is in American veins.
***How many Frenchmen personally know Japanese people and have a sushi bar in the neighborhood? How many Chinese people know Swedes personally? Well, for them, seeing how these cultures live and interact is a new and revelatory thing. For Americans, every day, bud, every day.
Well, to some, yes. But you are mostly talking NYC.
***The best and the brightest from all around the world end up here in every profession for a reason.
I never doubted that. But we should not be arrogant enough to presume that this great country is the best place for everyone.
Like every other country on Earth it also has weak spots. High culture is most definitely one of them.
***The freedom to kick ass. This dynamic allows for a film industry like ours to flourish unlike in any other country.Well, unfortunately most of it is like fast food industry. Unfortunately we, the Americans, let our formerly advanced movie culture decay in favor of schlock one... I feel very strongly that way.
That doesn't mean good stuff is gone - just that there is less of it, in my view.
***Without the American business to emulate, the rest of the world's movie industries would be at a loss for how to make movies.
Well, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Perhaps you should review the things done in Europe before that.
***Without an American movie industry, there is no foreign movie industry. Americans invented the medium and continue to move it forward.Consider this. Without any questions there has been tremendously great and positive contribution of the American movie industry to the rest of the world. Granted.
But also granted is another trend... that of corruption. Today more and more films in more and more countries immitate the American money-producing trash. You can see it all over the globe. And this is not something to be mightily proud of.
Anyway, big subject and good foundation of endless discussions.
Locals? Who are the locals? Locals to me? Here, in Delaware? In NYC (loved the one last night)? In Paris (loved one a few days back)?The locals in the location the film takes place. Mongolian films are invariably about Mongols doing Mongolian things.
***America is the great melting pot. Every culture bubbles into the stew, flavoring it. We don't care about other cultures as much the rest of the world does because we already have them living with us on the same block.
I don't think this as as true as you are describing. Many Americans are completely oblivious of the world outside their home town - the isolationism is in American veins.
Nonsense. Within 5 houses of my own suburban California home I have black, white and asian neighbors. I have 1st generation German, Brits and Chinese immigrants. How many Icelanders, Japanese or Russians or Mongols can say this? Its' right under our noses every single day, so obvious, no one seems to notice . . . outside the USA.
Regardless, just as many Euros and Asians are ALSO blind and oblivious to the world outside their home town.
Like every other country on Earth it (America) also has weak spots. High culture is most definitely one of them.
Because art is business driven in the US. In Europe's golden age, all the money was controlled by the church. The church sponsored all art. That's why the Louvre walls are covered with Bible scenes. Today, business controls the money. The US is the strongest business economy in the world, therefore, we have the largest sponsorship of the arts. No, not the government (we are disgustingly behind on that), but business.
Now, note I didn't say "High Culture". High Culture (opera, classical music, poetry) is dead, run down by the onrushing express train of the machine age. The art of the 20th century that will be remembered 500 years from now are disciplines like industrial design, advertising, architecture, movies etc. Places where the US excelled over all other countries.
***The freedom to kick ass. This dynamic allows for a film industry like ours to flourish unlike in any other country.
Well, unfortunately most of it is like fast food industry. Unfortunately we, the Americans, let our formerly advanced movie culture decay in favor of schlock one... I feel very strongly that way.
Yes, but because it's so strong, producing hundreds of movies a year, there is also room for a lot more good small films to leak through than in a place that produces 3 films total per year.
***Without the American business to emulate, the rest of the world's movie industries would be at a loss for how to make movies.
Well, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Perhaps you should review the things done in Europe before that.
Before that? Before movies?
Or do you mean stuff like German Expressionism which was really simply a style of art direction? The French New Wave films about nothing? Please elaborate what I'm missing.
Today more and more films in more and more countries immitate the American money-producing trash. You can see it all over the globe. And this is not something to be mightily proud of.
You see the glass half-empty, I see it half-full. You can fight the world if you want, but the world doesn't care. It will just mow your ass down mericilessly if you let it. Better to keep you head above the wave and see the good when it comes.
Anyway, big subject and good foundation of endless discussions.
Boy howdy!
.
Why? I liked the movie, but I don't get what seems to me to be the rather willful 'oscar buzz' around him. His performance here isn't markedly better than his performance in, say, Ghostbusters or Caddyshack, there's not much to his character, it certainly isn't a stretch for him, just a rather (appropriately) muted performance. Not great art.It wasn't, maybe, a great year for movies, but I do think it was a great year for individual performances, and I don't feel like Murray's was one of the more impressive. If he gets the nod it'll be for the same reason they usually give veteran actors any acknowledgment--because they've so far failed to do so (or had any legit pretext).
I think it was, as you say, an artful character film, but I think there are plenty of people who deserve to be in front of him.
_____________________________"What is this, a freak-out?"
- Violet Beauregard
"Lost" had little to do with "Caddyshack," or in the comic masterpiece, "Groundhog Day."
You're being as unfair to him as those who compared Clint E's performance in "Unforgiven" to his spaghetti western efforts.
Hey, I like those movies. I like Bill Murray in those movies. Groundhog Day is another good example. Again, I don't see what he does that's so impressive.Ralph Fiennes in Spider does an excellent job. That's acting.
Benicio del Toro in 21 Grams does an excellent job. Again, acting.
Didn't like Mystic River, but Tim Robbins? Acting.
Bill Murray is like a good Keanu Reeves: we like Bill acting like Bill, while Keanu acting like Keanu is annoying. But he isn't doing much beyond that. That's not a bad thing, it's just true.
_____________________________"What is this, a freak-out?"
- Violet Beauregard
When Bill is doing the commercials, or when he's being introduced to folks, he is the Bill "of old."
But with Scarlet, in his room alone, talking to his wife, etc.---he plays off his persona. I can't believe you missed it. THAT's why he's being considered for an Oscar---he put a bit of himself out there. Not as much as, say, Marlon B did in "Last Tango..." but something similar. Hey, to think of it, maybe the "Lost" is a play on "Last." Two older guys, younger girls...
I think there are plenty of people who deserve to be in front of him.Like whom?
Billy Bob in "Bad Santa" immediately leaps to mind. Giamatti in "American Splendor"?
Dang, you compare this performance with Ghostbusters or Caddyshack? What, are you kiddin' me? Sounds like you saw a different movie than I did.
in 21 Grams, not Mystic River.Maybe 'Scrooged' would've been a better example.
Bill Murray just looks that way. All he has to do in Lost in Translation is sit around looking dejected. I don't see the accomplishment. His performance is subtle, but that doesn't make it acting, it makes it Being Bill Murray With A Camera Pointed At Him.
What does he do in the film that makes you think he deserves an Oscar for it, or even a nomination?
_____________________________"What is this, a freak-out?"
- Violet Beauregard
See, I get the same feeling of sameness in all Sean Penns roles. And I see Benny the Bull heading the same way after a spectacular start to his career. Penn always takes the same sorts of explosive and bitter roles. He does the same damn thing over and over again. Generally his movies are unpleasant and not entertaining. The synopsis of 21 Grams sure doesn't make me want to see it, however good it might be. I'll prolly see the DVD eventually, but geez, movies are an escape, no?Just because Penn is good at somber/explosive does not mean he's a great actor. He can't do romantic, he can't do likable, he can't do comedy. His rep in the business is that he's an enormous prick. Prolly why he neveer won an oscar- further proof that it's just a high school popularity contest.
Fienes as a disturbed and introverted man. After playing "The Tooth Fairy" in Red Dragon, how much of a stretch is THIS role? Another case of typecasting. I'd love to see the guy take a role as an extroverted goofy guy. Never happen.
Sure, Murray has traded on his persona for decades and it has worn thin. But that is EXACTLY what this LIT character was about. He was the right guy for the job in the same way that Penn was for 21 or Mystic.
I'm always gonna lean towards a comedic role. Comedy is always much more difficult than drama. Subtle comedy like Murray's role in LIT, especially. Ditto Billy Bob in Bad Santa. It's easier to make people feel sad than happy, but to make people feel both, it's a high wire act. These roles are easy to dismiss, but finding the bridge between comedy and pathos and not falling off of it is very hard.
***Just because Penn is good at somber/explosive does not mean he's a great actor. He can't do romantic, he can't do likable,Maybe you didn't see Racing with the Moon? I am not really his fan, but your brush is way too broad and valuation of him simplistic.
I never like Penn, he tries hard and I can respect that..But he misse something, and I wonder if he will ever get it.
What about his work in "Colors", "The Game", and "Sweet and Lowdown"?
He was a mysoginist jerk!"The Game" was a very small part and rather smug, don't you think? "Colors" was a rote cop action flick. Lots of scenry chewing in it by Penn and Duval. I don't recall Penn being likable or romantic or funny in it, but it has been almost 50 years since I saw it . . .
Forgot about that one. Surprisingly good. What's Woody Allen's deal? How can he manage to still pull off gems like that and still churn out all the other crap of the last decade?
_____________________________"What is this, a freak-out?"
- Violet Beauregard
I kind of agree about Sean Penn, although I think it's interesting to contrast his role in Mystic River with the one in 21 Grams, because they're different characters, but a similar tone, and I think the quality of his role has everything to do with the ability of the director. Which I think is what makes him an excellent actor, because you can see how he responds to different styles of direction. Bill Murray, on the other hand, it doesn't matter what he's in. If you like him--and I do--you'll like the movie, probably. I can't think of a Bill Murray movie/role I haven't liked. And I think that LiT is knowingly 'about' him, in a way, but that again underlines my feeling that he's not really doing much in the way of acting.Didn't see Red Dragon, but I can't imagine that the role in Spider is really in the same mien. Actually I viscerally disliked Spider, minute-by-minute, while I was watching it. And it's only been in the many several months since that I've sort of reconstructed it from memory and come to respect it, and Fiennes's performance in particular. Has that ever happened to you? Weird feeling.
I thought Bad Santa was unnecessarily, demonstratively mean-spirited. But it had its moments. Billy Bob was good in it, and his moments with the kid seemed to belong to some ideal version of the film, that didn't get made.
Anyway the Oscars suck. When Shrek beat Monsters Inc. I wanted to sue. I thought I didn't care, then that happened, and now, to the extent that I care at all, they make me very angry.
_____________________________"What is this, a freak-out?"
- Violet Beauregard
Glad you see the same kinda thing about Penn. We can agree to disagree on whether Murray is different with each director. His character for Wes Anderson in "Rushmore" is most similar to his character for Sofa Copola in LIT, yet the performances are strikingly different. I think the fact that it could be taken as being sorta about him really panders to what the public perception of Bill Murray is rather than the real guy. You don't know him anymore than I do. He manipulates that perception into the role perfectly. It's very sublime.There have been some godawful Murray movies, usually broad youth market comedies. Crap like "The Man Who Knew too Little" or "Larger than Life". Another reason for me as to why LIT was such a Bill Murray revelation. For me, the LIT character was a complete break of type.
Billy Bob was really great in Bad Santa. It's hard for most people to get past the evil and grotesque content of the movie to see this complex character. He was brutally deadpan and mean and yet he made this scumbag strangely sympathetic. He transformed what would have been a one-note role for most actors into something of massive tragi-comic proportions.
Yes, the Oscars suck . . . but I still watch 'em.
I agree. It was skillful the way their attraction grew so subtley and slowly as their own marital relationships cooled. And the way they had to part at the end was ttruer to life than the ordinary
"romantic comedy" would have it. Murray won't win best actor but will be (and should be) nominated.
s
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 ]
