Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 4 released May 26th)
Polls: 1950s (Results), 1966 awards (May 28th), 1935 (May 29th)
Challenges: Comedy, Western, Iberian Peninsula
Film of the Week: Unter den Brücken, June nominations (May 29th)
World Cup S4: Round 2 schedule, Match 2A (Jun 4th)

the 2009 project

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3945
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

Re: the 2009 project

#201

Post by Onderhond » May 8th, 2020, 8:57 am

Not a terrible film and I quite liked the first (feel-good) part of it, but didn't feel the characters, nor the plot, nor the actors were strong enough for the more dramatic second part. I'm not a big fan of these feelgood/comedy -> drama shifts to begin with, it only rarely works for me.

Mulligan is a good actress, but I find that her choice in films is often a bit bland, which is why I don't really count her amongst my favorites.

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1886
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#202

Post by matthewscott8 » May 8th, 2020, 9:08 am

prodigalgodson wrote:
May 8th, 2020, 12:44 am
matthewscott8 wrote:
May 7th, 2020, 11:05 pm
prodigalgodson wrote:
May 7th, 2020, 9:48 pm
Nice review Matt. I wasn't particularly a fan but I didn't have that personal connection at all either.
It gets the feel of the country at the time, dour, racist, joyless, emotionally constipated. No point to life and success under the system just being another form of failure. The emotional constipation thing is still here. So much of life here is completely fake, and noone talks about it, noone talks about their emotions, their needs and the needs of others. It's been getting better, but slowly.
Interesting, here in Cali I feel like it's the opposite problem, emotional diarrhea and many people using their personal feelings as the yardstick for everything, complicates empathy and communication.
Yeah I mean, talking about one's emotions can just be selfish, narcissistic and shallow, it's not something that's amazing on its own, but it's on the team. In a relationship it at least avoids a lot of misccommunication, because empathy is great but it's not telepathy. There are also social problems like false consciousness that hinder good relations between people.

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1886
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#203

Post by matthewscott8 » May 8th, 2020, 9:11 am

Onderhond wrote:
May 8th, 2020, 8:57 am
Not a terrible film and I quite liked the first (feel-good) part of it, but didn't feel the characters, nor the plot, nor the actors were strong enough for the more dramatic second part. I'm not a big fan of these feelgood/comedy -> drama shifts to begin with, it only rarely works for me.

Mulligan is a good actress, but I find that her choice in films is often a bit bland, which is why I don't really count her amongst my favorites.
She was in Inside Llewyn Davis which is a legitimately great film in my opinion, in which she was perfect. But I generally agree the choice of films isn't great, if indeed she gets to choose, I have no idea.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3945
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#204

Post by Onderhond » May 8th, 2020, 9:38 am

matthewscott8 wrote:
May 8th, 2020, 9:11 am
She was in Inside Llewyn Davis which is a legitimately great film in my opinion
Worst Coen film for me :sweat:

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 1394
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#205

Post by cinewest » May 8th, 2020, 2:40 pm

Onderhond wrote:
May 8th, 2020, 9:38 am
matthewscott8 wrote:
May 8th, 2020, 9:11 am
She was in Inside Llewyn Davis which is a legitimately great film in my opinion
Worst Coen film for me :sweat:
One of my very favorites from the Coen's, and I like most of their films to some degree or another.

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1886
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#206

Post by matthewscott8 » May 26th, 2020, 11:56 am

Image

Taking Woodstock (2009 - Ang Lee)

Wow. This was absolutely incredible. At one point my whole body started tingling and my eyes were filling up. It got some appalling and appallingly written write ups back in the day.

It's a story about Elli, a nice guy young artist and designer who is busy supporting his parents' motel business in the Catskills. Once the Woodstock guys get kicked out of their original location, he organises for them to come to White Lake, and the motel becomes a focal point for the orgasm called Woodstock. His bridled frustrated life suddenly starts to get out and breathe.

Reviewers at the time said that there wasn't enough of the music shown, but that's not really the point, Woodstock was about more than music, it was about love. Suddenly for a few days in 1969 love was literally an unstoppable force.

I've been avoiding watching this for so long, d'oh.

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1886
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#207

Post by matthewscott8 » Yesterday, 3:35 pm

Image

Chun feng chen zui de ye wan / Spring Fever (2009 - Ye Lou)

Ah,this one is pretty beautiful and woozy. Spring Fever is a title relating to the restlessness at the onset of Spring. It's a story about people in love affairs, with the partners changing, as if in a dance. The movie uses its own metaphors of lotus flowers on a lake. It is shot in a verité style. There is a message, a man never ends up with the love of his life because of how different characters feel about sexuality, and shame. The characters are in the spring of their lives an they end up with their own stories and wounds, blossomings and regrets. It's really very special.

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1886
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#208

Post by matthewscott8 » Yesterday, 4:18 pm

So many years ago now I set myself the task of watching all 20 films from the main competition of Cannes 2009, that task is now complete. Notes below. I had a feeling half way through that I was going to pan the selection process as at that point it just seemed like a random bunch of films, but all the ones I like were in the second half of the process. I can see why the the Jury chose The White Ribbon to win as it was super "baity", but I didn't like the movie. I would have given the Grand Prix to Spring Fever. I don't think that would have been loud enough as a decision for the festival.

One thing I wanted to look into when I started the project was, if you ignore your premonitions about films and go watch stuff, do you catch a lot of great stuff you might not otherwise have done. Pretty conclusively yes, given Taking Woodstock and Spring Fever were the two I enjoyed the most from this list and I postopned them until last.

Antichrist (Lars von Trier) - 9/10, I loved so much about the movie, but the self sabotage of the "chaos reigns" fox detracted a bit. Brilliant and scatological on the subject of relationships.
Bright Star (Jane Campion) - 5/10, pretty disposable for me, was no fan of the casting. Campion is best when dealing with sex (In the Cut, Top of the Lake)
Broken Embraces / Los abrazos rotos (Pedro Almodóvar) - 6/10 Indulgent, overly kooky, or not kooky enough? Has its moments but no particular point to exist?
Butchered / Kinatay (Brillante Mendoza) - 8/10 brilliantly made, though naturalistic enough that many were deceived on that point. Not something I'd want to see again though, social issue movie maybe best seen by those in the Philippines government.
Enter the Void / Soudain le vide (Gaspar Noé) - 2/10 taken together his corpus appears homophobic, incredible achievement, but tainted by homophobia
Face / Visage (Tsai Ming-liang) - 8/10 postmodern and hermetic, probably made for the director's own purposes?
Fish Tank (Andrea Arnold) - 9/10 lots of energy and wonder
Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino) - 1/10 pathetic
In the Beginning / À l'origine (Xavier Giannoli) - 6/10 a bit meh, maybe home bias to let this one into the lineup. Yes people require illusions, thanks for that
Looking for Eric (Ken Loach) - 7/10 nice but not really memorable, even for this Eric Cantona fan
Map of the Sounds of Tokyo / Mapa de los sonidos de Tokyo (Isabel Coixet) 8/10 nice camerawork, but a bit dour and uninspired.
A Prophet / Un prophète (Jacques Audiard) - 8/10 people fell hard for this in 2009, for me it was didn't stand out from the crowd of prison movies, certainly nowhere near A Man Escaped or Le Trou
Spring Fever / 春风沉醉的晚上 (Lou Ye) 10/10 tender
Taking Woodstock (Ang Lee) 10/10 :)
Thirst / 박쥐 (Park Chan-wook) 10/10 wacky, delirious, moving, Park keeps hitting those homers
The Time That Remains / الزمن الباقي (Elia Suleiman) 5/10 angst on the subject of the Palestinian occupation. Ponderous and probably not worthwhile, "worthy".
Wild Grass / Les herbes folles (Alain Resnais) - 10/10 sometimes infuriating experiment, ultimately satisyfing.
Vincere (Marco Bellocchio) - 5/10 biopic of Mussolini love interest that lacks insight
Vengeance / 復仇 (Johnnie To) - 5/10 badly written, with Johnny Hallyday painfully miscast, has its moments
The White Ribbon (Das weiße Band) - 2/10 blunt and pretentious

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 1394
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#209

Post by cinewest » Today, 2:12 am

Cool! Watching the full slate at Cannes sounds like a more doable project, and one where I'd have to see fewer films I can't really get into, or stomach (as with something like Inglorious Basterds). Looking at the list, I realize that I have only seen only a little more than half of these, so far, and disagree on your assessments of most (aside from the Tarantino). All were very watchable for me (a rating of 5 is the tipping point)

I thought The White Ribbon was outstanding. In fact it is among my top 5 for the decade (10/10)
I do pretty much agree with you about Antichrist
but I disagree about The Time That Remains, which is tied for third as an 8+
with Broken Embraces (one of my very favorites by Almodovar, and for some reason overlooked in comparison with others from his best period) 8+
Enter The Void- Have mixed feelings about this one, which was amazing (the drug trip) and so so (the rest) at the same time (7.5). Noe is definitely a provocateur, but he tends to deliver
A Prophet- Very solid crime drama that won more applause than it deserved, largely because a lot of people go in for this kind of thing (7.5). Pretty much how I feel about the director, too
Map of the Sounds of Tokyo- Took me by surprise as a nice little discovery, but I think you've gone overboard (7). Check out The Secret Life of Words, which is my favorite by this director
Bright Star- a period piece that some really seem to love. Me, not so much, though the lensing is pretty good (6.5). Doesn't come close to The Piano
Fish Tank- The director definitely showed some of her talent (which has subsequently flourished), but this one pales next to similar films I have seen (6.5). Check out American Honey
Looking for Eric- Not bad by any means, but pretty forgettable (6)

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1886
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#210

Post by matthewscott8 » Today, 10:20 am

cinewest wrote:
Today, 2:12 am
Cool! Watching the full slate at Cannes sounds like a more doable project, and one where I'd have to see fewer films I can't really get into, or stomach (as with something like Inglorious Basterds). Looking at the list, I realize that I have only seen only a little more than half of these, so far, and disagree on your assessments of most (aside from the Tarantino). All were very watchable for me (a rating of 5 is the tipping point)

I thought The White Ribbon was outstanding. In fact it is among my top 5 for the decade (10/10)
I do pretty much agree with you about Antichrist
but I disagree about The Time That Remains, which is tied for third as an 8+
with Broken Embraces (one of my very favorites by Almodovar, and for some reason overlooked in comparison with others from his best period) 8+
Enter The Void- Have mixed feelings about this one, which was amazing (the drug trip) and so so (the rest) at the same time (7.5). Noe is definitely a provocateur, but he tends to deliver
A Prophet- Very solid crime drama that won more applause than it deserved, largely because a lot of people go in for this kind of thing (7.5). Pretty much how I feel about the director, too
Map of the Sounds of Tokyo- Took me by surprise as a nice little discovery, but I think you've gone overboard (7). Check out The Secret Life of Words, which is my favorite by this director
Bright Star- a period piece that some really seem to love. Me, not so much, though the lensing is pretty good (6.5). Doesn't come close to The Piano
Fish Tank- The director definitely showed some of her talent (which has subsequently flourished), but this one pales next to similar films I have seen (6.5). Check out American Honey
Looking for Eric- Not bad by any means, but pretty forgettable (6)
I think I've been pretty harsh on films that to me don't come out as top of breed, The Time That Remains, I was fine with and initially positive about, but a lot has been said on the occupation of Palestine, what is novel here? The Bright Star / Piano comparison is right too, how does a film look vs its directors output.

I've not yet see anyone come out with any text on why The White Ribbon is a great movie. Dead Man is another one. Everyone says they're great, but they tend to have no words to explain why. I don't really see the purpose of having a character with Down's Syndrome beaten for no reason. There are allusions that this is something to do with fascism, but kids who are taught that masturbation is bad end up kicking the shit into a disabled person, I don't think so; of course Haneke has a get out clause because anyone can say, well that didn't necessarily happen Matt; but I'm happy to argue it either way, if this movie has nothing to do with Reich then it's obscure unpleasant nonsense. For Reich, whose work this movie seems based on, sexual attachment is healing, for Buddhists sexual attachment leads to murder. Many people I know believe both of these things, because we're motley. For me I'm taking this in and vomiting it. I think at least Reich could have broadened out Marxism as a theory, but it didn't happen.

With Noé every single homosexual character in his movies is portrayed in an ultra negative light. Seul Contre Tous, Irreversible, Enter the Void, we see homophobic ranting, a gay man beaten to death, unrealistic portrayal of a gay S&M club, and in Enter The Void the vibe is
A tragedy befalls our youngster hero in the early part of the film, and flashbacks then provide us with answers as to how it happened. Of course, a gay man turns out to be responsible for the downfall of this lost but essentially wholesome straight boy. The film seems to pose this question: How will wholesome straight people ever survive in a world being taken over by “dirty” gay men? The word dirty is used in the film to describe gay men, followed by a detailed description of fecal material being involved in gay sex. The implication is that men become gay because they are attracted to fecal material. (Reminder: the gay bar that Noe imagines in “Irreversible” is called The Rectum. Where do you begin to do a psychoanalysis of a person like this? What is Noe struggling with inside himself and then projecting onto gay men?)
http://dunmyer.blogspot.com/2010/11/ent ... -back.html

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1886
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#211

Post by matthewscott8 » Today, 10:49 am

cinewest wrote:
Today, 2:12 am
Cool! Watching the full slate at Cannes sounds like a more doable project, and one where I'd have to see fewer films I can't really get into, or stomach (as with something like Inglorious Basterds).
It's tricky to do this thing off one list, I mean straight up with this example a problem is that I think the movie cinéphiles love the most from this year was at Cannes, but it was in the Un Certain Regard Section, Dogtooth. That was what people were excited about on movie forums in 2009, The White Ribbon was more respected than adored. My favourite film of the year was also at Cannes, but it screened Out of Competition, Panique au village. Also if you then expanded to include these pieces, you are generally wading through the swamp, there are some terrible films in Un Certain Regard and OOC. I will publish another list I've gone through today, which is again problematic. There is perhaps no real shortcut, unless you find someone whose taste aligns with your own and has treated the ground before you. For some who are very canonical in taste, the Sight & Sound annual critics poll top list is usually going to be the one stop shop of choice (it was only 10 movies long in 2009 though was up to 50 in length last year).

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3945
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#212

Post by Onderhond » Today, 11:00 am

matthewscott8 wrote:
Today, 10:20 am
There are allusions that this is something to do with fascism, but kids who are taught that masturbation is bad end up kicking the shit into a disabled person, I don't think so
Repression leads to violent behavior? Could be a Hitler thing. I didn't like The White Ribbon at all though, so don't ask me.

Also that reading of Noé is hilarious. I hope regular psychology goes beyond the tripe written there.

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1886
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#213

Post by matthewscott8 » Today, 11:06 am

Onderhond wrote:
Today, 11:00 am
matthewscott8 wrote:
Today, 10:20 am
There are allusions that this is something to do with fascism, but kids who are taught that masturbation is bad end up kicking the shit into a disabled person, I don't think so
Repression leads to violent behavior? Could be a Hitler thing. I didn't like The White Ribbon at all though, so don't ask me.

Also that reading of Noé is hilarious. I hope regular psychology goes beyond the tripe written there.
I agree that the homophobe is just a repressed gay guy a la Freud is generally not true. Stil Noé does appear to be a massive homophobe. No-one really seems to disagree with that, it's just an inconvenient truth. It would be in my all time top 10 films if I overlooked it. I mean the film is incredible and blew my away when I saw it in the cinema, but I do think Noé is basically a Nazi.
Last edited by matthewscott8 on May 29th, 2020, 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1886
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#214

Post by matthewscott8 » Today, 11:07 am

This was the result of a poll of cinephiles I did in 2014 on IMDb. Relied upon two stages, nominations, then voting on everything 1-10/10:

Eccentricities of a Blonde-haired Girl (Manoel de Oliveira)
Face / Visage (Ming-liang Tsai)
Hadewijch (Bruno Dumont)
Alamar (Pedro González-Rubio)
Like You Know It All / Jal aljido mothamyeonseo (Sang-soo Hong)
Sweet Rush / Tatarak (Andrzej Wajda)
Amer (Hélène Cattet, Bruno Forzani)
Petropolis: Aerial Perspectives On The Alberta Tar Sands (Peter Mettler)
Ruhr (James Benning)
Fish Tank (Andrea Arnold)

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3945
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#215

Post by Onderhond » Today, 11:25 am

matthewscott8 wrote:
Today, 11:06 am
I agree that the homophobe is just a repressed gay guy a la Freud is generally not true. Stil Noé does appear to be a massive homophobe. No-one really seems to disagree with that, it's just an inconvenient truth. It would be in my all time top 10 films if I overlooked it. I mean the film is incredible and blew my away when I saw it in the cinema, but I do think Noé is basically a Nazi.
These criticisms were also launched at “Irreversible,” primarily because of its notorious rape sequence and arguably unfavorable depiction of gay characters. Yet the filmmaker has consistently denied such claims, and is already prepared to ignore them this time around.

“They can say whatever they want,” Noé says. “I’m not homophobic. Anybody who knows me knows that I’m not. I’d rather have the [critics] say that I’m anti-religious or something like that. I don’t care when people attack me for things that are not true. Those sorts of reviews say much more about the people writing them than about the movie itself.”
Source: https://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/1 ... r-the-void

That's not to say he couldn't be lying of course, but trying to psychoanalyze a director through his films is just insane. It could be a fun pass-time among friends, but labeling someone racist, homophobic or even a Nazi is way more uncomfortable than Noé's films ever will be.

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 1394
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#216

Post by cinewest » Today, 12:31 pm

matthewscott8 wrote:
Today, 10:20 am
cinewest wrote:
Today, 2:12 am
Cool! Watching the full slate at Cannes sounds like a more doable project, and one where I'd have to see fewer films I can't really get into, or stomach (as with something like Inglorious Basterds). Looking at the list, I realize that I have only seen only a little more than half of these, so far, and disagree on your assessments of most (aside from the Tarantino). All were very watchable for me (a rating of 5 is the tipping point)

I thought The White Ribbon was outstanding. In fact it is among my top 5 for the decade (10/10)
I do pretty much agree with you about Antichrist
but I disagree about The Time That Remains, which is tied for third as an 8+
with Broken Embraces (one of my very favorites by Almodovar, and for some reason overlooked in comparison with others from his best period) 8+
Enter The Void- Have mixed feelings about this one, which was amazing (the drug trip) and so so (the rest) at the same time (7.5). Noe is definitely a provocateur, but he tends to deliver
A Prophet- Very solid crime drama that won more applause than it deserved, largely because a lot of people go in for this kind of thing (7.5). Pretty much how I feel about the director, too
Map of the Sounds of Tokyo- Took me by surprise as a nice little discovery, but I think you've gone overboard (7). Check out The Secret Life of Words, which is my favorite by this director
Bright Star- a period piece that some really seem to love. Me, not so much, though the lensing is pretty good (6.5). Doesn't come close to The Piano
Fish Tank- The director definitely showed some of her talent (which has subsequently flourished), but this one pales next to similar films I have seen (6.5). Check out American Honey
Looking for Eric- Not bad by any means, but pretty forgettable (6)
I think I've been pretty harsh on films that to me don't come out as top of breed, The Time That Remains, I was fine with and initially positive about, but a lot has been said on the occupation of Palestine, what is novel here? The Bright Star / Piano comparison is right too, how does a film look vs its directors output.

I've not yet see anyone come out with any text on why The White Ribbon is a great movie. Dead Man is another one. Everyone says they're great, but they tend to have no words to explain why. I don't really see the purpose of having a character with Down's Syndrome beaten for no reason. There are allusions that this is something to do with fascism, but kids who are taught that masturbation is bad end up kicking the shit into a disabled person, I don't think so; of course Haneke has a get out clause because anyone can say, well that didn't necessarily happen Matt; but I'm happy to argue it either way, if this movie has nothing to do with Reich then it's obscure unpleasant nonsense. For Reich, whose work this movie seems based on, sexual attachment is healing, for Buddhists sexual attachment leads to murder. Many people I know believe both of these things, because we're motley. For me I'm taking this in and vomiting it. I think at least Reich could have broadened out Marxism as a theory, but it didn't happen.

With Noé every single homosexual character in his movies is portrayed in an ultra negative light. Seul Contre Tous, Irreversible, Enter the Void, we see homophobic ranting, a gay man beaten to death, unrealistic portrayal of a gay S&M club, and in Enter The Void the vibe is
A tragedy befalls our youngster hero in the early part of the film, and flashbacks then provide us with answers as to how it happened. Of course, a gay man turns out to be responsible for the downfall of this lost but essentially wholesome straight boy. The film seems to pose this question: How will wholesome straight people ever survive in a world being taken over by “dirty” gay men? The word dirty is used in the film to describe gay men, followed by a detailed description of fecal material being involved in gay sex. The implication is that men become gay because they are attracted to fecal material. (Reminder: the gay bar that Noe imagines in “Irreversible” is called The Rectum. Where do you begin to do a psychoanalysis of a person like this? What is Noe struggling with inside himself and then projecting onto gay men?)
http://dunmyer.blogspot.com/2010/11/ent ... -back.html
I have always enjoyed chatting about films with you Matt, but, obviously, we perceived the ones in dispute here very differently, and none of the arguments you have provided are very compelling or engaging. I haven't picked up on any of the "gay bashing" stuff in the two Noe films I have seen, though there is plenty that is negative about people that populate his films. At the same time, he has been willing to explore things that most filmmakers shy away from even when they touch the same territory. The basic difference between our two appraisals of Enter the Void id that I saw something unique and interesting within it that you did not.

As for White ribbon, I thought it a brilliant portrait of a particular kind of Germanic protestant perfectionism, repression, punishment, and hypocrisy, scapegoating and denial was the perfect set up for a leader like Hitler and Hitler youth, given the crushing conditions and sense of shame in Germany between the wars. I happen to think that Haneke is probably the most brilliant, uncompromising thinker in film that there is at the moment, and he was at the peak of his powers from Funny Games until Amour.

As for your comment about the Occupation of Palestine being overdone, I personally hadn't seen anything by a Palestinian filmmaker before, and I thought his fictionalized account not only conveyed a different sense of the Palestinian plight, but also a dark biting humor and well conceived narrative.

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1886
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#217

Post by matthewscott8 » Today, 1:29 pm

Onderhond wrote:
Today, 11:25 am
matthewscott8 wrote:
Today, 11:06 am
I agree that the homophobe is just a repressed gay guy a la Freud is generally not true. Stil Noé does appear to be a massive homophobe. No-one really seems to disagree with that, it's just an inconvenient truth. It would be in my all time top 10 films if I overlooked it. I mean the film is incredible and blew my away when I saw it in the cinema, but I do think Noé is basically a Nazi.
These criticisms were also launched at “Irreversible,” primarily because of its notorious rape sequence and arguably unfavorable depiction of gay characters. Yet the filmmaker has consistently denied such claims, and is already prepared to ignore them this time around.

“They can say whatever they want,” Noé says. “I’m not homophobic. Anybody who knows me knows that I’m not. I’d rather have the [critics] say that I’m anti-religious or something like that. I don’t care when people attack me for things that are not true. Those sorts of reviews say much more about the people writing them than about the movie itself.”
Source: https://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/1 ... r-the-void

That's not to say he couldn't be lying of course, but trying to psychoanalyze a director through his films is just insane. It could be a fun pass-time among friends, but labeling someone racist, homophobic or even a Nazi is way more uncomfortable than Noé's films ever will be.
Haha well to hoist you by your own petard, I haven't said or done anything hateful, and what you have said says more about you than me. Beat your own logic?

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3945
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#218

Post by Onderhond » Today, 1:43 pm

matthewscott8 wrote:
Today, 1:29 pm
I haven't said or done anything hateful
I would say you have. How you want to read Noé's films is your own choice of course, but using your own reading to brand someone a homophobe or Nazi is quite something else.

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 4333
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#219

Post by OldAle1 » Today, 2:17 pm

Matt's hardly the first person to say these kinds of things about Noé though - pretty common criticisms of him actually. It's one of the things that's kept me away from seeing any of his work, apart from his first film which I saw when new and when he had no reputation (and I don't remember it well now), though I'm sure I will get to Irréversible at some point at least. "Provocateur", "shocking" and similar terms - also applicable to Lars von Trier and Haneke in different ways - aren't really positives to me, at least not anymore, and given that I have quite mixed feelings about the latter two directors, I can't say I find a strong impetus to investigate Noé's later stuff, or at the very least, he's not likely to become a priority.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3945
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#220

Post by Onderhond » 35 minutes ago

OldAle1 wrote:
Today, 2:17 pm
Matt's hardly the first person to say these kinds of things about Noé though - pretty common criticisms of him actually.
I'm sure it is, but that doesn't make it any more valid does it? I'm aware that these kind of "basic" readings (ie translating subject matter from films to character traits) are quite common, but it's an extremely simplistic and often erroneous way to look at the relationship between art/entertainment and the people who enjoy them.

It's on the same level as "metal is for satanists", "violent video games make you violent" and "you can only enjoy horror if you are deranged".

(and I'll just say add this, pre-empting certain replies: should there be statistical evidence that these ideas are generally correct, that still doesn't give you the right to apply it to an individual).

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 1394
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#221

Post by cinewest » 25 minutes ago

OldAle1 wrote:
Today, 2:17 pm
Matt's hardly the first person to say these kinds of things about Noé though - pretty common criticisms of him actually. It's one of the things that's kept me away from seeing any of his work, apart from his first film which I saw when new and when he had no reputation (and I don't remember it well now), though I'm sure I will get to Irréversible at some point at least. "Provocateur", "shocking" and similar terms - also applicable to Lars von Trier and Haneke in different ways - aren't really positives to me, at least not anymore, and given that I have quite mixed feelings about the latter two directors, I can't say I find a strong impetus to investigate Noé's later stuff, or at the very least, he's not likely to become a priority.
I can see associating Von Trier with Noe for their desire to be "bad boys" in some sense, but there is something authentic about them in a way that I don't find true about some of the arty hipster filmmakers like Winding-Refn. I think that Von Trier is a much greater filmmaker than Noe (as well as most other contemporary filmmakers) based on what I have seen, and I don't see the connection to Haneke at all, who is kind of a cross between Bergman and Hitchcock, but with a style all his own.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3945
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#222

Post by Onderhond » 17 minutes ago

I think Haneke is known for his dark, grim films, which does put him somewhat closer to Noe and von Trier (his "horror" films also have something to do with it I guess) . Depends from what angle you look at it I guess. His general approach is quite a bit different though.

Also, it isn't my intention to attack you directly Matthew, but I really dislike that kind of reading/pigeonholing.

Post Reply