list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Chinatown on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Chinatown/5952/default.aspx Title: Chinatown
Year: 1974
Director: Roman Polanski
Plot: "You may think you know what you're dealing with, but believe me, you don't," warns water baron Noah Cross (John Huston), when smooth cop-turned-private eye J.J. "Jake" Gittes (Jack Nicholson) starts nosing around Cross's water diversion scheme. That proves to be the ominous lesson of Chinatown, Roman Polanski's critically lauded 1974 revision of 1940s film noir detective movies. In 1930s Los Angeles, "matrimonial work" specialist Gittes is hired by Evelyn Mulwray (Faye Dunaway) to tail her husband, Water Department engineer Hollis Mulwray (Darrell Zwerling). Gittes photographs him in the company of a young blonde and figures the case is closed, only to discover that the real Mrs. Mulwray had nothing to do with hiring Gittes in the first place. When Hollis turns up dead, Gittes decides to investigate further, encountering a shady old-age home, corrupt bureaucrats, angry orange farmers, and a nostril-slicing thug (Polanski) along the way. By the time he confronts Cross, Evelyn's father and Mulwray's former business partner, Jake thinks he knows everything, but an even more sordid truth awaits him. When circumstances force Jake to return to his old beat in Chinatown, he realizes just how impotent he is against the wealthy, depraved Cross. "Forget it, Jake," his old partner tells him. "It's Chinatown." Reworking the somber underpinnings of detective noir along more pessimistic lines, Polanski and screenwriter Robert Towne convey a '70s-inflected critique of capitalist and bureaucratic malevolence in a carefully detailed period piece harkening back to the genre's roots in the 1930s and '40s. Gittes always has a smart comeback like Humphrey Bogart's Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe, but the corruption Gittes finds is too deep for one man to stop. Other noir revisions, such as Robert Altman's The Long Goodbye (1973) and Arthur Penn's Night Moves (1975), also centered on the detective's inefficacy in an uncertain '70s world, but Chinatown's period sheen renders this dilemma at once contemporary and timeless, pointing to larger implications about the effects of corporate rapaciousness on individuals. Polanski and Towne clashed over Chinatown's ending; Polanski won the fight, but Towne won the Oscar for Best Screenplay. Chinatown was nominated for ten other Oscars, including Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Cinematography, Art Direction, Costumes, and Score. ~ Lucia Bozzola, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 44
Number of Lists: 90
Number of blog posts: 12
Number of discussion threads: 9
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:23:06 GMTChinatown1974Roman Polanski"You may think you know what you're dealing with, but believe me, you don't," warns water baron Noah Cross (<a href="/players/P____95260/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Huston</a>), when smooth cop-turned-private eye J.J. "Jake" Gittes (<a href="/players/P___104455/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jack Nicholson</a>) starts nosing around Cross's water diversion scheme. That proves to be the ominous lesson of Chinatown, <a href="/players/P___106743/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Roman Polanski</a>'s critically lauded 1974 revision of 1940s film noir detective movies. In 1930s Los Angeles, "matrimonial work" specialist Gittes is hired by Evelyn Mulwray (<a href="/players/P____20518/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Faye Dunaway</a>) to tail her husband, Water Department engineer Hollis Mulwray (Darrell Zwerling). Gittes photographs him in the company of a young blonde and figures the case is closed, only to discover that the real Mrs. Mulwray had nothing to do with hiring Gittes in the first place. When Hollis turns up dead, Gittes decides to investigate further, encountering a shady old-age home, corrupt bureaucrats, angry orange farmers, and a nostril-slicing thug (Polanski) along the way. By the time he confronts Cross, Evelyn's father and Mulwray's former business partner, Jake thinks he knows everything, but an even more sordid truth awaits him. When circumstances force Jake to return to his old beat in Chinatown, he realizes just how impotent he is against the wealthy, depraved Cross. "Forget it, Jake," his old partner tells him. "It's Chinatown." Reworking the somber underpinnings of detective noir along more pessimistic lines, Polanski and screenwriter <a href="/players/P___286255/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Robert Towne</a> convey a '70s-inflected critique of capitalist and bureaucratic malevolence in a carefully detailed period piece harkening back to the genre's roots in the 1930s and '40s. Gittes always has a smart comeback like <a href="/players/P_____7027/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Humphrey Bogart</a>'s Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe, but the corruption Gittes finds is too deep for one man to stop. Other noir revisions, such as <a href="/players/P____79456/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Robert Altman</a>'s <a href=/films/20770/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Long Goodbye</a> (1973) and <a href="/players/P___106024/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Arthur Penn</a>'s <a href=/films/24619/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Night Moves</a> (1975), also centered on the detective's inefficacy in an uncertain '70s world, but Chinatown's period sheen renders this dilemma at once contemporary and timeless, pointing to larger implications about the effects of corporate rapaciousness on individuals. Polanski and Towne clashed over Chinatown's ending; Polanski won the fight, but Towne won the Oscar for Best Screenplay. Chinatown was nominated for ten other Oscars, including Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Cinematography, Art Direction, Costumes, and Score. ~ Lucia Bozzola, All Movie Guide44Tag Target (>10)901294http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u45274ktews.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Chinatown/5952/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_July_13_Whodunit/625/43035/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 7/13/2009 8:23:06 PM
Body: [quote user="mercurial"] Gosford Park is a great recent example of a whodunit. With such an amazing cast it definitely makes me miss Altman. What do you all think? [/quote] Gosford Park's one of my personal favorites. It was simply a great way to film a mystery. So much of the information you need to take in is constantly in the background. Here's a few more that came to mind: Deceiver was a good, not great whodunit style mystery with a really good performance by Tim Roth as an expert at telling lies. He is playing a very similar role on a new show that I can't remember the name of. The Spanish Prisoner is my favorite Mamet film. This one completely blew me away the first time I watched it and I really like to revisit it once every few years. Chinatown and Brick come to mind as a couple of good neo-noir mysteries with alotta flair. ( I try to make a Chinatown reference at least once a month) And who could forget Who Framed Roger Rabbit? P-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-leeeeasse Eddie.. This movie reeks of cool.
]]>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:23:06 GMTleeroy711Weekly Theme7/13/2009 8:23:06 PM[quote user="mercurial"] Gosford Park is a great recent example of a whodunit. With such an amazing cast it definitely makes me miss Altman. What do you all think? [/quote] Gosford Park's one of my personal favorites. It was simply a great way to film a mystery. So much of the information you need to take in is constantly in the background. Here's a few more that came to mind: Deceiver was a good, not great whodunit style mystery with a really good performance by Tim Roth as an expert at telling lies. He is playing a very similar role on a new show that I can't remember the name of. The Spanish Prisoner is my favorite Mamet film. This one completely blew me away the first time I watched it and I really like to revisit it once every few years. Chinatown and Brick come to mind as a couple of good neo-noir mysteries with alotta flair. ( I try to make a Chinatown reference at least once a month) And who could forget Who Framed Roger Rabbit? P-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-leeeeasse Eddie.. This movie reeks of cool. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_June_29_Summertime/625/42883/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 7/1/2009 1:58:43 AM
Body: [quote user="mercurial"] I feel honored to post this week's theme as it will mark Weekly Theme's One Year Anniversary! Time has sure passed by quickly as it doesn't seem all that long ago that Emery asked me if I wanted to co-moderate this little brainchild of his. Anyways, here's to another year of weekly themes! Currently I'm sitting outside at my local coffeeshop where I come for the tasty caffeinated beverages and free Wi-Fi and am drenched from head to toe thanks to the blistering heat wave that is peaking now at 110 degress. Thusly I felt this week we should talk about all those movies about summer. Not just those movies that take place during the summer months, but the movies that might have been released during the summer or for whatever reason makes us reminisce about all the ups and downs associated with the season. There are those staples of summertime cinema that make everyone (kids and adults alike) think about how exciting the idea of summer was as a kid. The Sandlot, Now and Then, My Girl and White Water Summer all remind me of how much time I spent thinking about summer during the school year and couldn't wait until that last day of school so that I could toss away my school books and spend three months doing absolutely nothing. Getting a little older, Dazed and Confused became a start of summer ritual viewing for me as it perfectly captures those feelings of anticipation and all the possibilities that the summer months can hold. Some other films have tried to capture those same feelings with mediocre results. The Wackness was an interesting coming of age during the summer flick about a lackluster teenage drug dealer coping with the heat in New York after graduating high school. Adventureland had its moments with its colorful cast of outcasts running amuck at a summer amusement park as did Wet Hot American Summer but transplanted to a summer camp. My guilty pleasure summer flick is definitely Psycho Beach Party. Set in a 1950's Beach Blanket Bingo-like setting, this campy horror comedy gets me laughing every time (and a completely nude Amy Adams doesn't hurt either). But ultimately there are two movies that getting me thinking summer without a doubt. The first being one of the first summer blockbusters I saw and the other being because it takes place during summer. I vividly recall lining up to buy tickets for Jurassic Park and how amazed I was at how many people there were and how packed the theater was. Packed in a small hot theater, I was mesmerized by the movie and it still to this day makes me think of how great a summer movie can be. The other film is of course Jaws. I've gone into great detail in other discussions about how this film has pretty much ruined any summer trips to the beach for me (or any body of water for that matter) and I will forever love it for doing that. Any movie that can make a grown man go into hysterics when his friends joke around and push him over the side of a boat into a small lake during an afternoon of drinking deserves some major points. So break out the sun block and lets get talking! [/quote] Hooray for US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... I've never really thought of this group as a brainchild but whatever works..............maybe like an adopted brainchild that Chris & I decided to raise together in spite of constant adversity and redicule from our friends and family. We named that child Weekly Theme and raised him with all the love his "traditional family structure" never gave him. I'll never forget the day Daddy Chris took off Weekly's training wheels and ran along side of him as Daddy Emery cheerfully snapped photo after photo until he crashed into Mr. Woodril's hedges and skinned his knee. That child grew and grew, everyday becoming more and more of his own man............................. And that child's name was C. Thomas Howell....... And NOOOW you know...... the RESSST of the story... Anyway..... Summer movies are great. Evertime I hear that phrase I recall the time my family and I were standing outside in line for Jurassic Park and a 15 year old girl passed out in front of us from the heat.. I think it was about 117 that day but the lines were packed. I would also mention a couple films that come to mind that I think are great examples of portrayels of the summer heat. Burtolucci's La Commare Secca takes place durring a particularly sweaty Italian summer.... Also, Chinatown is one of my alltime favorite films and it does a great job of showing a hot summer in LA.
]]>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:58:43 GMTleeroy711Weekly Theme7/1/2009 1:58:43 AM[quote user="mercurial"] I feel honored to post this week's theme as it will mark Weekly Theme's One Year Anniversary! Time has sure passed by quickly as it doesn't seem all that long ago that Emery asked me if I wanted to co-moderate this little brainchild of his. Anyways, here's to another year of weekly themes! Currently I'm sitting outside at my local coffeeshop where I come for the tasty caffeinated beverages and free Wi-Fi and am drenched from head to toe thanks to the blistering heat wave that is peaking now at 110 degress. Thusly I felt this week we should talk about all those movies about summer. Not just those movies that take place during the summer months, but the movies that might have been released during the summer or for whatever reason makes us reminisce about all the ups and downs associated with the season. There are those staples of summertime cinema that make everyone (kids and adults alike) think about how exciting the idea of summer was as a kid. The Sandlot, Now and Then, My Girl and White Water Summer all remind me of how much time I spent thinking about summer during the school year and couldn't wait until that last day of school so that I could toss away my school books and spend three months doing absolutely nothing. Getting a little older, Dazed and Confused became a start of summer ritual viewing for me as it perfectly captures those feelings of anticipation and all the possibilities that the summer months can hold. Some other films have tried to capture those same feelings with mediocre results. The Wackness was an interesting coming of age during the summer flick about a lackluster teenage drug dealer coping with the heat in New York after graduating high school. Adventureland had its moments with its colorful cast of outcasts running amuck at a summer amusement park as did Wet Hot American Summer but transplanted to a summer camp. My guilty pleasure summer flick is definitely Psycho Beach Party. Set in a 1950's Beach Blanket Bingo-like setting, this campy horror comedy gets me laughing every time (and a completely nude Amy Adams doesn't hurt either). But ultimately there are two movies that getting me thinking summer without a doubt. The first being one of the first summer blockbusters I saw and the other being because it takes place during summer. I vividly recall lining up to buy tickets for Jurassic Park and how amazed I was at how many people there were and how packed the theater was. Packed in a small hot theater, I was mesmerized by the movie and it still to this day makes me think of how great a summer movie can be. The other film is of course Jaws. I've gone into great detail in other discussions about how this film has pretty much ruined any summer trips to the beach for me (or any body of water for that matter) and I will forever love it for doing that. Any movie that can make a grown man go into hysterics when his friends joke around and push him over the side of a boat into a small lake during an afternoon of drinking deserves some major points. So break out the sun block and lets get talking! [/quote] Hooray for US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... I've never really thought of this group as a brainchild but whatever works..............maybe like an adopted brainchild that Chris &amp; I decided to raise together in spite of constant adversity and redicule from our friends and family. We named that child Weekly Theme and raised him with all the love his "traditional family structure" never gave him. I'll never forget the day Daddy Chris took off Weekly's training wheels and ran along side of him as Daddy Emery cheerfully snapped photo after photo until he crashed into Mr. Woodril's hedges and skinned his knee. That child grew and grew, everyday becoming more and more of his own man............................. And that child's name was C. Thomas Howell....... And NOOOW you know...... the RESSST of the story... Anyway..... Summer movies are great. Evertime I hear that phrase I recall the time my family and I were standing outside in line for Jurassic Park and a 15 year old girl passed out in front of us from the heat.. I think it was about 117 that day but the lines were packed. I would also mention a couple films that come to mind that I think are great examples of portrayels of the summer heat. Burtolucci's La Commare Secca takes place durring a particularly sweaty Italian summer.... Also, Chinatown is one of my alltime favorite films and it does a great job of showing a hot summer in LA. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/2/27/40716.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/27/2009 6:02:07 PM
Body: The American Medical Association Alliance is unhappy with the appearance of a specific cigarette brand (American Spirit Lights) in He’s Just Not That Into You and is filing an official complaint to Warner Bros. and Time Warner over the issue. Brooks Barnes reports in today’s New York Times that the advocacy group doesn’t care that smoking is shown in a bad light in the romantic comedy (a character gets dumped for lying about quitting smoking, an offense seen as even worse than cheating); they think any acknowledgment of the act of smoking cigarettes — even if nobody is actually seen smoking onscreen, a la HJNTIY — could influence young people to start smoking. The smoking in movies issue has brought about much debate regarding censorship in the last few years, but I say bring on the smoking ban. And then Hollywood can get creative with hints at smoking the way it used to use innuendo and other fun tricks to imply sex. The irony would be that in the past, cigarettes were used as such implicit hints (see Love is a Many-Splendored Thing; Chinatown and just about any Hays Code-era film). I also say that this AMA organization should be happy that Hollywood is at least promoting a healthier brand of cigs, such as the all-natural American Spirits. Last year’s underrated male fantasy rom-com Definitely, Maybe went so far as to devote an entire flirting scene to why people should smoke the longer-lasting American Spirits than other brands. Funny, I don’t recall any complaints from the AMA regarding that movie (though here’s an interesting complaint from the New Mexico Media Literacy Project, at least). Although this complaint wasn’t the biggest film blog topic of the day (that might be whining about Leo DiCaprio’s Neverending Story remake), here are the few other responses I found around the net: In addition to sharing a video of the best cigarette commercial ever (it stars The Flintstones), Scott Von Doviak at The Screengrab notes that the AMA should concentrate on other health risks to young moviegoers, such as obesity: That’s right, all the kids need to see is that bright yellow box and it’s all over. Hey, you know what else comes in a bright yellow box? The eight dollar 12-pack of Butterfinger Bites at the concession counter, along with all the other sugary crap your kids are clogging their arteries with while they watch He’s Just Not That Into You. Richard at Gawker, after joking about lonely HJNTIY fans being better off starting smoking, offers support for the complaint: Really, though, the AMA is right. There’s no reason to put brand-name cigarettes in the movie. It adds some verité perhaps. But we are, again, talking about a movie whose thesis is that the unendingly complex communications between people can be boiled down to something like “men are mean, and women are shrill and lonely.” So. Matthew Perpetua also uses the opportunity to make fun of how silly the movie is, but unlike Richard, he’s against the complaint: “With all due to respect to the AMA and its mission, this is almost as ridiculous as a movie about people who still use MySpace, in which a character played by Ginnifer Goodwin can’t find a date.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:02:07 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/27/2009 6:02:07 PMThe American Medical Association Alliance is unhappy with the appearance of a specific cigarette brand (American Spirit Lights) in He’s Just Not That Into You and is filing an official complaint to Warner Bros. and Time Warner over the issue. Brooks Barnes reports in today’s New York Times that the advocacy group doesn’t care that smoking is shown in a bad light in the romantic comedy (a character gets dumped for lying about quitting smoking, an offense seen as even worse than cheating); they think any acknowledgment of the act of smoking cigarettes — even if nobody is actually seen smoking onscreen, a la HJNTIY — could influence young people to start smoking. The smoking in movies issue has brought about much debate regarding censorship in the last few years, but I say bring on the smoking ban. And then Hollywood can get creative with hints at smoking the way it used to use innuendo and other fun tricks to imply sex. The irony would be that in the past, cigarettes were used as such implicit hints (see Love is a Many-Splendored Thing; Chinatown and just about any Hays Code-era film). I also say that this AMA organization should be happy that Hollywood is at least promoting a healthier brand of cigs, such as the all-natural American Spirits. Last year’s underrated male fantasy rom-com Definitely, Maybe went so far as to devote an entire flirting scene to why people should smoke the longer-lasting American Spirits than other brands. Funny, I don’t recall any complaints from the AMA regarding that movie (though here’s an interesting complaint from the New Mexico Media Literacy Project, at least). Although this complaint wasn’t the biggest film blog topic of the day (that might be whining about Leo DiCaprio’s Neverending Story remake), here are the few other responses I found around the net: In addition to sharing a video of the best cigarette commercial ever (it stars The Flintstones), Scott Von Doviak at The Screengrab notes that the AMA should concentrate on other health risks to young moviegoers, such as obesity: That’s right, all the kids need to see is that bright yellow box and it’s all over. Hey, you know what else comes in a bright yellow box? The eight dollar 12-pack of Butterfinger Bites at the concession counter, along with all the other sugary crap your kids are clogging their arteries with while they watch He’s Just Not That Into You. Richard at Gawker, after joking about lonely HJNTIY fans being better off starting smoking, offers support for the complaint: Really, though, the AMA is right. There’s no reason to put brand-name cigarettes in the movie. It adds some verité perhaps. But we are, again, talking about a movie whose thesis is that the unendingly complex communications between people can be boiled down to something like “men are mean, and women are shrill and lonely.” So. Matthew Perpetua also uses the opportunity to make fun of how silly the movie is, but unlike Richard, he’s against the complaint: “With all due to respect to the AMA and its mission, this is almost as ridiculous as a movie about people who still use MySpace, in which a character played by Ginnifer Goodwin can’t find a date.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_February_2_Scandalous/625/40335/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 2/7/2009 9:58:11 AM
Body: Good topic Merc, Probably my favorite Rob Redford movie is Quiz Show, about a TV game show scandal. I stood up and cheered at the end when the last Senator scowls at Charles Van Doren: "I don't think an adult of your intelligence should be commended for simply, at long last, telling the truth. " L.A. Confidential and Chinatown are a couple of great neo/new noir scandal movies. I know I could sound like a broken record and mention a couple of Costa-Gavras movies like Z and Missing, but I won't .............. this time.
]]>Sat, 07 Feb 2009 14:58:11 GMTleeroy711Weekly Theme2/7/2009 9:58:11 AMGood topic Merc, Probably my favorite Rob Redford movie is Quiz Show, about a TV game show scandal. I stood up and cheered at the end when the last Senator scowls at Charles Van Doren: "I don't think an adult of your intelligence should be commended for simply, at long last, telling the truth. " L.A. Confidential and Chinatown are a couple of great neo/new noir scandal movies. I know I could sound like a broken record and mention a couple of Costa-Gavras movies like Z and Missing, but I won't .............. this time. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Weekly_Theme_for_December_1_The_Anti_Hero/625/37820/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 12/1/2008 7:30:28 PM
Body: From filmnoirstudies.com Anti-Hero - "The principal protagonist of a film who lacks the attributes or characteristics of a typical hero, but with whom the audience identifies" I just watched Branded to Kill by Seijun Suzuki the other night. It was a really good movie and I realized how much I like the way he writes his characters. This movie was about Hanada, a Japanese hit-man with a rice-sniffing habit. The anti-heroic element is obvious in this one but I also realized how much Story of a Prostitute and Gate of Flesh were anti-hero films as well. You know, the proverbial "hooker with a heart of gold" type of a story. You find this in noir quite a bit. It almost seems manditory that the private eye have some sort of extra-marital affair and/or drinking problem.... or he's just a jerk. Probably my favorite example is Jake Gittes in Chinatown. Oh and you can't forget the western genre. There may have never been a better anti-hero than "Blondie" in the "man with no name" trilogy. Kurt Russel makes a pretty good sci-fi anti-hero. Just think of Snake in Escape from New York or Jack Burton in Big Trouble in Little China. That's all I've got, who's your favorite anti-hero????????? TELL ME NOW!!
]]>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:30:28 GMTleeroy711Weekly Theme12/1/2008 7:30:28 PMFrom filmnoirstudies.com Anti-Hero - "The principal protagonist of a film who lacks the attributes or characteristics of a typical hero, but with whom the audience identifies" I just watched Branded to Kill by Seijun Suzuki the other night. It was a really good movie and I realized how much I like the way he writes his characters. This movie was about Hanada, a Japanese hit-man with a rice-sniffing habit. The anti-heroic element is obvious in this one but I also realized how much Story of a Prostitute and Gate of Flesh were anti-hero films as well. You know, the proverbial "hooker with a heart of gold" type of a story. You find this in noir quite a bit. It almost seems manditory that the private eye have some sort of extra-marital affair and/or drinking problem.... or he's just a jerk. Probably my favorite example is Jake Gittes in Chinatown. Oh and you can't forget the western genre. There may have never been a better anti-hero than "Blondie" in the "man with no name" trilogy. Kurt Russel makes a pretty good sci-fi anti-hero. Just think of Snake in Escape from New York or Jack Burton in Big Trouble in Little China. That's all I've got, who's your favorite anti-hero????????? TELL ME NOW!! http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/11/37228.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/11/2008 6:01:24 PM
Body: The holidays are coming, and that either means spending time with your dysfunctional family or escaping them for the movies … where you’re likely to be met by other, fictional dysfunctional families. Already this season, Rachel Getting Married introduced us to the f’ed up faux masala of the Buchman clan, and later this month we get to follow Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon as they’re pulled into their separate quadrants of kin in Four Christmases. Also, for those who think dysfunction is an American tradition, this weekend sees the release of the French film A Christmas Tale (Un conte de Noël), which unites the two major premises of dysfunctional family movies by being set during the holidays and involving an ill family member. With two more weeks left until Thanksgiving, after which we might not want to think about another family, real or cinematic, for the rest of our lives, it’s a perfect time to celebrate those dysfunctional tribes we love the best. Literally thousands of movies feature such families, though, so we’re sure to have left out some of your favorites. Definitely chime in below, and/or join the discussion currently going on over in our Top 5 group. The Corleones in The Godfather, The Godfather Part II and The Godfather Part III Any film about a family business is sure to qualify, but none exhibit more dysfunction than those in which the business is the mafia. Some other good examples include the Tempios of The Funeral and the Russian clan in Eastern Promises. But there’s no doubt that the Corleones take the cake. Maybe it’s Fredo’s fault, because inspiring fratricide is certainly evidence of a failing family. No, the Corleones are dysfunctional from the time Fredo and his siblings are little children, when Vito enters his family into a life of crime, from which none of its members will be able to escape. The “Johnsons” in Pink Flamingos If you only define dysfunctional as non-functioning, you leave out a great number of truly dysfunctional families, the kind that apparently gets along quite fine on their own but which doesn’t function within society. Think the Hewitts in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre films and the motley crew made up of Sycamores, Vanderhofs, Carmichaels and others in You Can’t Take it With You. Technically the “Johnsons” are an internally functioning group, and they even have an official place in society as “the filtiest people alive,” but with a shit-eating matriarch, an egg-obsessed granny and a son who likes to have sex employing live chickens, it doesn’t really get much more abnormal, and therefore dysfunctional, than this family. The Lisbons in The Virgin Suicides Both abnormal and non-functioning, it also doesn’t get much more dysfunctional than a family in which the kids commit collective suicide (well, one of them started the trend early). The Tenenbaums in The Royal Tenenbaums They’re clearly born out of Salinger’s Glass family, and their situation is so common that A Christmas Tale almost seems like a French remake of the Wes Anderson’s movie. But the Tenenbaums have come to be one of the most beloved dysfunctional families in cinema, so it’d be a crime to leave them off this list. They’re so popular that many fans probably wouldn’t mind having such an asshole for a father as long as they got to be a member of the family, similar to the dreams of outsider Eli Cash (Owen Wilson). Also, there are probably some guys out there who dream of having Margot (Gwyneth Paltrow) as a non-blood-related sister — as long as she’s really into making out with adopted-family siblings. The Aibellis in Spanking the Monkey Non-blood-related “incest” is one thing, but the Tenenbaums have nothing on the dysfunction of the Aibellis, with their motherloving son, Ray (Jeremy Davies), and the disturbingly consentual — though alcohol-induced — sex that occurs one awkward summer. The only incestuous family that might actually be more dysfunctional is the Cross clan of Chinatown. The Proffitts in Overboard The movie’s tone allows it to seem like such an innocently fun premise, but imagine a family in real life that would kidnap and exploit an amnesiac woman the way Dean Proffitt (Kurt Russell) and his four sons do. And imagine the woman who escapes this situation only to return in a Stockholm syndrome-as-happy-ending decision. Not only is it immoral, illegal and unlikely, it’s highly dysfunctional. The Crumbs in Crumb Dysfunctional families are obviously not limited to fiction, so it’s necessary to cite at least one documentary. Again, it’s difficult to narrow down. There are the scandal-stricken Friedmans of Capturing the Friedmans, the daffy duo in Grey Gardens (and The Beales of Grey Gardens) and the fraternal foursome of Brother’s Keeper. But it’s comic artist R. Crumb’s family that comes off as the most interestingly screwed up. Equally expected and revealing for a man of Crumb’s odd nature, reclusive brother Charles, bowel-cleansing Maxon and uncomfortable mother Beatrice are almost too strange to believe real. The Browns in Buffalo ‘66 Dysfunctional family movies often peak with their respective dinner scenes, in which uncomfortable announcements are made or food is thrown or climactic fights occur. None are funnier, however, than the reunion meal between Billy Brown (Vincent Gallo) and his unloving parents (Angelica Huston and Ben Gazzara). Mom ignores her son in order to watch football while Dad mostly hits on Billy’s pretend wife (Christina Ricci). The Dilwegs in The Pharmacist W.C. Fields has given us a few of the funniest dysfunctional families in film, and many fans would quickly reference the Sousés from The Bank Dick as his greatest tribe. But its this family from Fields’ earlier short The Pharmacist that should come to mind first, if only thanks to the daughter who shakes a martini with a pogo stick and eats the family pet after being denied supper. Radha’s family in Mother India The entire genre of melodrama offers up worthy selections for this list, but Bollywood arguably makes the most dysfunctional family melodramas of all, perhaps because a lot of them are meant as allegories for the dysfunctions of the Indian subcontinent. Mother India is possibly the most significant example from Indian cinema, even more than monumental films like Pather Panchali that aren’t of the Bollywood tradition. The film has all the necessary components: the metaphorically castrated and eventually abandoning patriarch; the desperate yet enduring matriarch; the sons who follow paths on separate side of the law. There’s even a familial sacrifice that’s comparable to the one in The Godfather Part II. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:01:24 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/11/2008 6:01:24 PMThe holidays are coming, and that either means spending time with your dysfunctional family or escaping them for the movies … where you’re likely to be met by other, fictional dysfunctional families. Already this season, Rachel Getting Married introduced us to the f’ed up faux masala of the Buchman clan, and later this month we get to follow Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon as they’re pulled into their separate quadrants of kin in Four Christmases. Also, for those who think dysfunction is an American tradition, this weekend sees the release of the French film A Christmas Tale (Un conte de Noël), which unites the two major premises of dysfunctional family movies by being set during the holidays and involving an ill family member. With two more weeks left until Thanksgiving, after which we might not want to think about another family, real or cinematic, for the rest of our lives, it’s a perfect time to celebrate those dysfunctional tribes we love the best. Literally thousands of movies feature such families, though, so we’re sure to have left out some of your favorites. Definitely chime in below, and/or join the discussion currently going on over in our Top 5 group. The Corleones in The Godfather, The Godfather Part II and The Godfather Part III Any film about a family business is sure to qualify, but none exhibit more dysfunction than those in which the business is the mafia. Some other good examples include the Tempios of The Funeral and the Russian clan in Eastern Promises. But there’s no doubt that the Corleones take the cake. Maybe it’s Fredo’s fault, because inspiring fratricide is certainly evidence of a failing family. No, the Corleones are dysfunctional from the time Fredo and his siblings are little children, when Vito enters his family into a life of crime, from which none of its members will be able to escape. The “Johnsons” in Pink Flamingos If you only define dysfunctional as non-functioning, you leave out a great number of truly dysfunctional families, the kind that apparently gets along quite fine on their own but which doesn’t function within society. Think the Hewitts in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre films and the motley crew made up of Sycamores, Vanderhofs, Carmichaels and others in You Can’t Take it With You. Technically the “Johnsons” are an internally functioning group, and they even have an official place in society as “the filtiest people alive,” but with a shit-eating matriarch, an egg-obsessed granny and a son who likes to have sex employing live chickens, it doesn’t really get much more abnormal, and therefore dysfunctional, than this family. The Lisbons in The Virgin Suicides Both abnormal and non-functioning, it also doesn’t get much more dysfunctional than a family in which the kids commit collective suicide (well, one of them started the trend early). The Tenenbaums in The Royal Tenenbaums They’re clearly born out of Salinger’s Glass family, and their situation is so common that A Christmas Tale almost seems like a French remake of the Wes Anderson’s movie. But the Tenenbaums have come to be one of the most beloved dysfunctional families in cinema, so it’d be a crime to leave them off this list. They’re so popular that many fans probably wouldn’t mind having such an asshole for a father as long as they got to be a member of the family, similar to the dreams of outsider Eli Cash (Owen Wilson). Also, there are probably some guys out there who dream of having Margot (Gwyneth Paltrow) as a non-blood-related sister — as long as she’s really into making out with adopted-family siblings. The Aibellis in Spanking the Monkey Non-blood-related “incest” is one thing, but the Tenenbaums have nothing on the dysfunction of the Aibellis, with their motherloving son, Ray (Jeremy Davies), and the disturbingly consentual — though alcohol-induced — sex that occurs one awkward summer. The only incestuous family that might actually be more dysfunctional is the Cross clan of Chinatown. The Proffitts in Overboard The movie’s tone allows it to seem like such an innocently fun premise, but imagine a family in real life that would kidnap and exploit an amnesiac woman the way Dean Proffitt (Kurt Russell) and his four sons do. And imagine the woman who escapes this situation only to return in a Stockholm syndrome-as-happy-ending decision. Not only is it immoral, illegal and unlikely, it’s highly dysfunctional. The Crumbs in Crumb Dysfunctional families are obviously not limited to fiction, so it’s necessary to cite at least one documentary. Again, it’s difficult to narrow down. There are the scandal-stricken Friedmans of Capturing the Friedmans, the daffy duo in Grey Gardens (and The Beales of Grey Gardens) and the fraternal foursome of Brother’s Keeper. But it’s comic artist R. Crumb’s family that comes off as the most interestingly screwed up. Equally expected and revealing for a man of Crumb’s odd nature, reclusive brother Charles, bowel-cleansing Maxon and uncomfortable mother Beatrice are almost too strange to believe real. The Browns in Buffalo ‘66 Dysfunctional family movies often peak with their respective dinner scenes, in which uncomfortable announcements are made or food is thrown or climactic fights occur. None are funnier, however, than the reunion meal between Billy Brown (Vincent Gallo) and his unloving parents (Angelica Huston and Ben Gazzara). Mom ignores her son in order to watch football while Dad mostly hits on Billy’s pretend wife (Christina Ricci). The Dilwegs in The Pharmacist W.C. Fields has given us a few of the funniest dysfunctional families in film, and many fans would quickly reference the Sousés from The Bank Dick as his greatest tribe. But its this family from Fields’ earlier short The Pharmacist that should come to mind first, if only thanks to the daughter who shakes a martini with a pogo stick and eats the family pet after being denied supper. Radha’s family in Mother India The entire genre of melodrama offers up worthy selections for this list, but Bollywood arguably makes the most dysfunctional family melodramas of all, perhaps because a lot of them are meant as allegories for the dysfunctions of the Indian subcontinent. Mother India is possibly the most significant example from Indian cinema, even more than monumental films like Pather Panchali that aren’t of the Bollywood tradition. The film has all the necessary components: the metaphorically castrated and eventually abandoning patriarch; the desperate yet enduring matriarch; the sons who follow paths on separate side of the law. There’s even a familial sacrifice that’s comparable to the one in The Godfather Part II. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/The_Eagle_Eye_Challenge_Rules_and_Winners/563/35388/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: SkyPilot
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 9/22/2008 2:39:08 PM
Body: Eagle Eye Challenge & Giveaway Spout's giving away one more Eagle Eye swag package on Monday morning. The winner will get a flash drive that's also a pen, like James Bond spygear! (Sorry, Q screwed up -- the flash drive's still good, but no pen.) You'll also receive a zip-up sweatshirt and t-shirt (see pics at the bottom). How do you play? Each day, Monday through Friday, we'll post a list of ten movies. You must figure out how the movies are connected. For example, you'll see the "FRIDAY Eagle Eye Challenge" thread in the Filmgaming group. The challenge post will look something like this: Eagle Eye (2008) (1) Phone Booth (2003) (2) The Last King of Scotland (2006) (3) Braveheart (1995) (4) Signs (2002) (5) Alien (1979) (6) Ghostbusters (1984) (7) Space Jam (1996) (8) Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) (9) Chinatown (1974) Add your answers to the challenge post thread. Your list should look something like this: 1. Phones 2. Forest Whitaker 3. Scotland (or Scottish) 4. Mel Gibson 5. Aliens 6. Sigourney Weaver 7. Bill Murray 8. Cartoons (or people and cartoons) 9. Detective (or private detective) Your submissions will be accepted until 9:00 am EST on Monday morning. We'll post the winner 10:00 am. Thanks to everyone for playing! There will only be one winner, so if more than one person gets all the answers right, we decide the winner randomly. How do you know if you've won? The winner will be posted in this thread, so check back here to see if you've won. Just a friendly reminder that the contest isn't happening in this thread-- respond to the Friday thread with your Friday answers. Links FRIDAY Eagle Eye Challenge THURSDAY Eagle Eye Challenge WEDNESDAY Eagle Eye Challenge TUESDAY Eagle Eye Challenge MONDAY Eagle Eye Challenge All ages are welcome to play. An individual can only win once during the week. All residents of US and Canada are eligible. Our contest rules (see fine print below) apply unless otherwise noted in this post. Have fun, and good luck! 1. DESCRIPTION OF PARTICIPATION The Promotion will begin on a set date. Spout LLC ("Company") reserves the right to end the Promotion at any time. The Company will post notice at Spout.com when the Promotion has ended. HOW TO PARTICIPATE: If you are an existing member or become a new member, you are eligible to earn the Reward by following the rules of the contest or promotion. 2. REWARD Participant will receive a reward as was outlined in the contest or promotion instructions and rules. In order for participant to be eligible to receive the Reward, the participant must follow the rules and instructions of the contest or promotion. The participants receiving the Reward will be notified by the email address through which they are subscribed to Spout.com. Participants may waive their right to receive the Reward. In the event of such waiver or the disqualification of a participant, such participant will not be entitled to the Reward. Reward has no cash value. If multiple entries for the contest or promotion are received, only the first entry, as determined by Spout.com in its sole discretion, will receive evaluation or reward. 3. ELIGIBILITY AND LIMITATIONS Participants must be at least 18 years old, legal residents of one of the 50 United States or Washington D.C. and members of the Spout.com community. Individuals who use the contest or promotion webpage to enroll themselves in the contest or promotion multiple times using different email addresses will be disqualified. In case of dispute, the authorized account holder of the email address submitted to Spout.com will be considered the participant. The authorized email account subscriber is deemed to be the natural person who is assigned an email address by an Internet-access provider, an online-service provider or another organization that is responsible for assigning email addresses or the domain associated with the submitted email address. Employees of Company and members of the immediate family of any such persons are not eligible to participate and win. The term "immediate family" includes spouses, siblings, parents, children, grandparents, and grandchildren, whether as "in-laws," or by current or past marriage(s), remarriage(s), adoption, co-habitation or other family extension, and any other persons residing at the same household whether or not related. Eligibility regarding the satisfaction of meeting the Reward requirements shall be at the sole discretion of Spout.com. Management reserves the right to refuse a Reward to anyone at anytime. If you have questions regarding your eligibility, please contact us. Promotion is void where prohibited by law. 4. DISCLAIMER Company disclaims all liability for the inability of a participant to complete any information or to deliver the information due to equipment malfunction, busy lines, inadvertent disconnections, acts beyond Company's control, or otherwise. Company disclaims all liability for any delays, misdelivery, loss, or failure in the delivery of any item sent by mail, courier, express, electronic transmission, or other delivery method. 5. PUBLICITY By participating, all participants grant Company exclusive permission to use their names, characters, photographs, voices, and likenesses in connection with this Promotion, including without limitation publishing such information in the Spout.com newsletter, and waive any claims to royalty, right, or remuneration for such use. 6. GENERAL RELEASE By participating in the Promotion participants release Company and each of its respective affiliated companies, directors, officers, employees, representatives, partners and agents from any liability whatsoever for any claims, costs, injuries, losses or damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the Promotion or with the acceptance or use of any Reward (including, without limitation, claims, costs, injuries, losses or damages related to personal injuries, death, damage to, loss or destruction of property, rights of publicity or privacy, defamation or portrayal in a false light). COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THE PROMOTION AT ANY TIME IF THE WEBSITE IS INFECTED BY A VIRUS, THE WEBSITE IS HACKED OR THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROMOTION IS COMPROMISED IN ANY WAY. 7. DECISIONS Company reserves the right to disqualify any participant and may refuse to give or revoke the Rewards to anyone who is ineligible, has violated any of these terms or conditions, gained or sought to gain unfair advantage in participating in the Promotion, or used fraudulent means to earn the Reward. Return of Reward notification as undeliverable may result in disqualification of the participant. Further, Company will resolve any disputes or ambiguities concerning these terms and conditions and Company's decisions concerning such disputes shall be final. All decisions will be made by Company and are final. Company reserves the right in its sole discretion to suspend, modify, or terminate the Promotion. 9. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION All federal, state and local laws and regulations apply. As a condition to participating in this Promotion, each participant agrees that any and all disputes that cannot be resolved between the parties, and all causes of action arising out of or in connection with this Promotion shall be resolved individually, without resort to any form of class action, exclusively before a court located in the State of Michigan having competent jurisdiction, which court shall apply the laws of the State of Michigan, without regard to the conflicts of laws principles thereof. By entering the Promotion both parties hereby waive any and all right to trial by jury.
]]>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:39:08 GMTSkyPilotFilmgaming9/22/2008 2:39:08 PMEagle Eye Challenge &amp; Giveaway Spout's giving away one more Eagle Eye swag package on Monday morning. The winner will get a flash drive that's also a pen, like James Bond spygear! (Sorry, Q screwed up -- the flash drive's still good, but no pen.) You'll also receive a zip-up sweatshirt and t-shirt (see pics at the bottom). How do you play? Each day, Monday through Friday, we'll post a list of ten movies. You must figure out how the movies are connected. For example, you'll see the "FRIDAY Eagle Eye Challenge" thread in the Filmgaming group. The challenge post will look something like this: Eagle Eye (2008) (1) Phone Booth (2003) (2) The Last King of Scotland (2006) (3) Braveheart (1995) (4) Signs (2002) (5) Alien (1979) (6) Ghostbusters (1984) (7) Space Jam (1996) (8) Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) (9) Chinatown (1974) Add your answers to the challenge post thread. Your list should look something like this: 1. Phones 2. Forest Whitaker 3. Scotland (or Scottish) 4. Mel Gibson 5. Aliens 6. Sigourney Weaver 7. Bill Murray 8. Cartoons (or people and cartoons) 9. Detective (or private detective) Your submissions will be accepted until 9:00 am EST on Monday morning. We'll post the winner 10:00 am. Thanks to everyone for playing! There will only be one winner, so if more than one person gets all the answers right, we decide the winner randomly. How do you know if you've won? The winner will be posted in this thread, so check back here to see if you've won. Just a friendly reminder that the contest isn't happening in this thread-- respond to the Friday thread with your Friday answers. Links FRIDAY Eagle Eye Challenge THURSDAY Eagle Eye Challenge WEDNESDAY Eagle Eye Challenge TUESDAY Eagle Eye Challenge MONDAY Eagle Eye Challenge All ages are welcome to play. An individual can only win once during the week. All residents of US and Canada are eligible. Our contest rules (see fine print below) apply unless otherwise noted in this post. Have fun, and good luck! 1. DESCRIPTION OF PARTICIPATION The Promotion will begin on a set date. Spout LLC ("Company") reserves the right to end the Promotion at any time. The Company will post notice at Spout.com when the Promotion has ended. HOW TO PARTICIPATE: If you are an existing member or become a new member, you are eligible to earn the Reward by following the rules of the contest or promotion. 2. REWARD Participant will receive a reward as was outlined in the contest or promotion instructions and rules. In order for participant to be eligible to receive the Reward, the participant must follow the rules and instructions of the contest or promotion. The participants receiving the Reward will be notified by the email address through which they are subscribed to Spout.com. Participants may waive their right to receive the Reward. In the event of such waiver or the disqualification of a participant, such participant will not be entitled to the Reward. Reward has no cash value. If multiple entries for the contest or promotion are received, only the first entry, as determined by Spout.com in its sole discretion, will receive evaluation or reward. 3. ELIGIBILITY AND LIMITATIONS Participants must be at least 18 years old, legal residents of one of the 50 United States or Washington D.C. and members of the Spout.com community. Individuals who use the contest or promotion webpage to enroll themselves in the contest or promotion multiple times using different email addresses will be disqualified. In case of dispute, the authorized account holder of the email address submitted to Spout.com will be considered the participant. The authorized email account subscriber is deemed to be the natural person who is assigned an email address by an Internet-access provider, an online-service provider or another organization that is responsible for assigning email addresses or the domain associated with the submitted email address. Employees of Company and members of the immediate family of any such persons are not eligible to participate and win. The term "immediate family" includes spouses, siblings, parents, children, grandparents, and grandchildren, whether as "in-laws," or by current or past marriage(s), remarriage(s), adoption, co-habitation or other family extension, and any other persons residing at the same household whether or not related. Eligibility regarding the satisfaction of meeting the Reward requirements shall be at the sole discretion of Spout.com. Management reserves the right to refuse a Reward to anyone at anytime. If you have questions regarding your eligibility, please contact us. Promotion is void where prohibited by law. 4. DISCLAIMER Company disclaims all liability for the inability of a participant to complete any information or to deliver the information due to equipment malfunction, busy lines, inadvertent disconnections, acts beyond Company's control, or otherwise. Company disclaims all liability for any delays, misdelivery, loss, or failure in the delivery of any item sent by mail, courier, express, electronic transmission, or other delivery method. 5. PUBLICITY By participating, all participants grant Company exclusive permission to use their names, characters, photographs, voices, and likenesses in connection with this Promotion, including without limitation publishing such information in the Spout.com newsletter, and waive any claims to royalty, right, or remuneration for such use. 6. GENERAL RELEASE By participating in the Promotion participants release Company and each of its respective affiliated companies, directors, officers, employees, representatives, partners and agents from any liability whatsoever for any claims, costs, injuries, losses or damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the Promotion or with the acceptance or use of any Reward (including, without limitation, claims, costs, injuries, losses or damages related to personal injuries, death, damage to, loss or destruction of property, rights of publicity or privacy, defamation or portrayal in a false light). COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THE PROMOTION AT ANY TIME IF THE WEBSITE IS INFECTED BY A VIRUS, THE WEBSITE IS HACKED OR THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROMOTION IS COMPROMISED IN ANY WAY. 7. DECISIONS Company reserves the right to disqualify any participant and may refuse to give or revoke the Rewards to anyone who is ineligible, has violated any of these terms or conditions, gained or sought to gain unfair advantage in participating in the Promotion, or used fraudulent means to earn the Reward. Return of Reward notification as undeliverable may result in disqualification of the participant. Further, Company will resolve any disputes or ambiguities concerning these terms and conditions and Company's decisions concerning such disputes shall be final. All decisions will be made by Company and are final. Company reserves the right in its sole discretion to suspend, modify, or terminate the Promotion. 9. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION All federal, state and local laws and regulations apply. As a condition to participating in this Promotion, each participant agrees that any and all disputes that cannot be resolved between the parties, and all causes of action arising out of or in connection with this Promotion shall be resolved individually, without resort to any form of class action, exclusively before a court located in the State of Michigan having competent jurisdiction, which court shall apply the laws of the State of Michigan, without regard to the conflicts of laws principles thereof. By entering the Promotion both parties hereby waive any and all right to trial by jury. http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/8/4/33502.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 8/4/2008 8:43:35 AM
Body: What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx Chinatown is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#19)100 Most Heart-Pounding Movies (#16)100 Years...100 Heroes and Villans (Noah Cross is the #16 villain)100 Movie Quotes (#74 - Lawrence Walsh: "Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown.")25 Film Scores (#9)The Revised Top 100 (#21)10 Top 10's (#2 Mystery) I borrowed Chinatown, again from my parents, who have an impressive movie collection. My mother, in particular, has a great love for 70's film, and why shouldn't she? It was something of a Renaissance in film history, and Chinatown is an exemplar of that Renaissance. I had never seen this film before, aside from clips, usually played during award show flashbacks ("she's my sister, my daughter, my sister, my daughter" or "I think you're hiding something" or the bit about his nose). I was excited to get my hands on it. It's one of those movies that struck me as unique - nothing's been made like it, before or since. Plus, it had good ole Jack in it. Jack is always entertaining, no matter what film he's in, good or bad. Also, everyone seems to love this movie, so I thought I would probably love it too - you know, in one of those mob mentality type plays on logic. I liked Chinatown, to be sure, but I can't say I loved it. I'll say why in a minute. Jack (Nicholson, that is) plays Jake Gittes, an ex-cop turned PI who specializes in tailing adulterous halves of married couples for the vengeful, paying halves. One auspicious day, Evelyn Mulwray (eventually played by Faye Dunaway) hires Jake to tail her husband, Water Department Head Hollis, whom she suspects of having an affair. The trouble? Hollis shows suspicious behavior but rarely of the extramarital kind, and the woman who hired Jake is not the real Mrs. Mulwray. When Jake's investigation is spilled to the press, complete with photos of Hollis with what looks to be another woman, Evelyn reveals that she was not the woman who hired Jake and slaps him with a lawsuit, but Jake doesn't go away quietly. Not wishing his dubious reputation to be further dragged through the mud, he starts poking around further and finds Hollis dead via what looks to be suicide. Now fully on the case, Jake investigates Hollis' dealings only to uncover a tangled web revolving around Los Angeles' water supply, a shocking secret of Evelyn's, and the possible involvement of her concerned yet morally ambiguous father, Noah Cross (John Huston). All the while, the cops and investigators, Jake included, make mention of Jake's past in Chinatown - a place that is more a state of mind than a location of note, at least until the end, where people go to forget and be forgotten, because apparently anything can happen there. Roman Polanski directed this film, and what's instantly likable about it is how tight of a film, in terms of its craft, it truly is. The pacing is flawless, percolating slowly, like a coffee pot, until the water reaches a boil. What starts as a somewhat tedious and cerebral mystery involving the diversion of water from city resevoirs becomes a fully engaging tale of intrigue and deceit complete with twists and turns. The technical elements of the film are remarkable and priceless, from the muted lighting, to the perfect art direction recreating the look of the 40s with astounding and eye-pleasing detail for this homage to and revision of film noir, to the astounding cinematography. Instant coolness points, 1974 though the year in which this film was made, for using reflective surfaces like rearview mirrors, camera lenses, and bifocal lenses to offer clues and bring the viewer into Jake's perspective and his PI-type investigatory world. And that score! Jerry Goldsmith's theme is equal parts touching and suspenseful, creating the perfect atmosphere for this unusual drama and underscoring Jake's confusion and triumphs and heartbreaks with skilled nuance. Mr. Goldsmith created several recognizable thematic film scores in his lifetime (including the original theme for Star Trek: The Next Generation), and I think is generally underrated. This score creates the feeling that maybe you've heard it before and maybe you haven't, which gives it a truly timeless quality. The performances are also unparalleled, between the one and only Jack, with his wisecracking nods to Humphrey Bogart's Sam Spade and others of his ilk to the seemingly pristine iciness of Faye Dunaway's femme fatale Evelyn. Also, John Huston plays an unusual villain - giving him more than the usual shades of gray. When you first meet Noah Cross, you suspect him of something, but you don't want to believe it. He's no-nonsense and seemingly forthright, donning a chilling sort of sanity, qualities that don't come often in a villain. His deeds, the viewer learns, are so heinous and his attitude so cavalier that, in the end, it's quite a shock to the system. It was a bold and balanced performance by Mr. Huston (and what a prolific guy he was in life). With all of this praise, then, why didn't I love the movie more? It comes down to story and character development, though, ironically, this film won its only Oscar for original screenplay. Much has been discussed about the film's healthy dose of cynicism, informed by the malaise of failure in Vietnam, the rise and fall of the counterculture, and the then-contemporary Watergate scandal. The film is dark and cynical to be sure, leaving the viewer with the sense that certain forces in life mean bad guys might just always win - and giving me an unusual and probably not much thought-of parallel to discuss when I review The Dark Knight shortly. My problem, ironically, was only the vague mentions of Jake's past in Chinatown, little information into why Chinatown was significant, lack of information on what happened to Evelyn's mother, little information into why Evelyn married Hollis (even if it was confirmation that it was rebellion against her father and because Hollis took care of her and her circumstances when she returned from running away). I guess I have little patience for mentions of background that go nowhere. I'd rather have no hints than unsatisfying ones. They create too many questions and detract from an otherwise perfect film that seemed to have no intention of answering them. Mysteries that create other mysteries are one thing, and I know there's a sequel to this film ("The Two Jakes"), but I don't need pepper for a pot that would've done well without the vague allusions. I think I'm most frustrated by the fact that the fact of Chinatown is the biggest mystery of all. Maybe I'm supposed to be. Maybe the sequel delves into that mystery. Who can say? Plus, this movie is rather dark and cynical. It's hard to love it, really, because of it's hard attitude toward certain social circumstances. I don't fancy myself a Pollyanna, but I prefer to be a little less gloomy about certain things. That's not to say, however, that Chinatown is not an excellent movie, deserving of its many places on AFI's various lists. It's just not one I'd pull out for kicks and giggles. Thusly, no test passing. As for ratings, I see this one as being an 8.5, between minor flaws and perfect entertainment. The flaws I see are more minor than the minorest (ahem), but I was not perfectly entertained, so there you are. Chinatown is a recommendable flick, though, worth its weight in filmmaking gold. And it's got some great quotes. My favorite: "You're dumber than you think I think you are." Oh, and, "...my nose. I like it. I like breathing through it." I think it's fair to say that few can deliver a line like good ole Jack.
]]>Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:43:35 GMTpippin06Reel Thoughts8/4/2008 8:43:35 AM What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx Chinatown is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#19)100 Most Heart-Pounding Movies (#16)100 Years...100 Heroes and Villans (Noah Cross is the #16 villain)100 Movie Quotes (#74 - Lawrence Walsh: "Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown.")25 Film Scores (#9)The Revised Top 100 (#21)10 Top 10's (#2 Mystery) I borrowed Chinatown, again from my parents, who have an impressive movie collection. My mother, in particular, has a great love for 70's film, and why shouldn't she? It was something of a Renaissance in film history, and Chinatown is an exemplar of that Renaissance. I had never seen this film before, aside from clips, usually played during award show flashbacks ("she's my sister, my daughter, my sister, my daughter" or "I think you're hiding something" or the bit about his nose). I was excited to get my hands on it. It's one of those movies that struck me as unique - nothing's been made like it, before or since. Plus, it had good ole Jack in it. Jack is always entertaining, no matter what film he's in, good or bad. Also, everyone seems to love this movie, so I thought I would probably love it too - you know, in one of those mob mentality type plays on logic. I liked Chinatown, to be sure, but I can't say I loved it. I'll say why in a minute. Jack (Nicholson, that is) plays Jake Gittes, an ex-cop turned PI who specializes in tailing adulterous halves of married couples for the vengeful, paying halves. One auspicious day, Evelyn Mulwray (eventually played by Faye Dunaway) hires Jake to tail her husband, Water Department Head Hollis, whom she suspects of having an affair. The trouble? Hollis shows suspicious behavior but rarely of the extramarital kind, and the woman who hired Jake is not the real Mrs. Mulwray. When Jake's investigation is spilled to the press, complete with photos of Hollis with what looks to be another woman, Evelyn reveals that she was not the woman who hired Jake and slaps him with a lawsuit, but Jake doesn't go away quietly. Not wishing his dubious reputation to be further dragged through the mud, he starts poking around further and finds Hollis dead via what looks to be suicide. Now fully on the case, Jake investigates Hollis' dealings only to uncover a tangled web revolving around Los Angeles' water supply, a shocking secret of Evelyn's, and the possible involvement of her concerned yet morally ambiguous father, Noah Cross (John Huston). All the while, the cops and investigators, Jake included, make mention of Jake's past in Chinatown - a place that is more a state of mind than a location of note, at least until the end, where people go to forget and be forgotten, because apparently anything can happen there. Roman Polanski directed this film, and what's instantly likable about it is how tight of a film, in terms of its craft, it truly is. The pacing is flawless, percolating slowly, like a coffee pot, until the water reaches a boil. What starts as a somewhat tedious and cerebral mystery involving the diversion of water from city resevoirs becomes a fully engaging tale of intrigue and deceit complete with twists and turns. The technical elements of the film are remarkable and priceless, from the muted lighting, to the perfect art direction recreating the look of the 40s with astounding and eye-pleasing detail for this homage to and revision of film noir, to the astounding cinematography. Instant coolness points, 1974 though the year in which this film was made, for using reflective surfaces like rearview mirrors, camera lenses, and bifocal lenses to offer clues and bring the viewer into Jake's perspective and his PI-type investigatory world. And that score! Jerry Goldsmith's theme is equal parts touching and suspenseful, creating the perfect atmosphere for this unusual drama and underscoring Jake's confusion and triumphs and heartbreaks with skilled nuance. Mr. Goldsmith created several recognizable thematic film scores in his lifetime (including the original theme for Star Trek: The Next Generation), and I think is generally underrated. This score creates the feeling that maybe you've heard it before and maybe you haven't, which gives it a truly timeless quality. The performances are also unparalleled, between the one and only Jack, with his wisecracking nods to Humphrey Bogart's Sam Spade and others of his ilk to the seemingly pristine iciness of Faye Dunaway's femme fatale Evelyn. Also, John Huston plays an unusual villain - giving him more than the usual shades of gray. When you first meet Noah Cross, you suspect him of something, but you don't want to believe it. He's no-nonsense and seemingly forthright, donning a chilling sort of sanity, qualities that don't come often in a villain. His deeds, the viewer learns, are so heinous and his attitude so cavalier that, in the end, it's quite a shock to the system. It was a bold and balanced performance by Mr. Huston (and what a prolific guy he was in life). With all of this praise, then, why didn't I love the movie more? It comes down to story and character development, though, ironically, this film won its only Oscar for original screenplay. Much has been discussed about the film's healthy dose of cynicism, informed by the malaise of failure in Vietnam, the rise and fall of the counterculture, and the then-contemporary Watergate scandal. The film is dark and cynical to be sure, leaving the viewer with the sense that certain forces in life mean bad guys might just always win - and giving me an unusual and probably not much thought-of parallel to discuss when I review The Dark Knight shortly. My problem, ironically, was only the vague mentions of Jake's past in Chinatown, little information into why Chinatown was significant, lack of information on what happened to Evelyn's mother, little information into why Evelyn married Hollis (even if it was confirmation that it was rebellion against her father and because Hollis took care of her and her circumstances when she returned from running away). I guess I have little patience for mentions of background that go nowhere. I'd rather have no hints than unsatisfying ones. They create too many questions and detract from an otherwise perfect film that seemed to have no intention of answering them. Mysteries that create other mysteries are one thing, and I know there's a sequel to this film ("The Two Jakes"), but I don't need pepper for a pot that would've done well without the vague allusions. I think I'm most frustrated by the fact that the fact of Chinatown is the biggest mystery of all. Maybe I'm supposed to be. Maybe the sequel delves into that mystery. Who can say? Plus, this movie is rather dark and cynical. It's hard to love it, really, because of it's hard attitude toward certain social circumstances. I don't fancy myself a Pollyanna, but I prefer to be a little less gloomy about certain things. That's not to say, however, that Chinatown is not an excellent movie, deserving of its many places on AFI's various lists. It's just not one I'd pull out for kicks and giggles. Thusly, no test passing. As for ratings, I see this one as being an 8.5, between minor flaws and perfect entertainment. The flaws I see are more minor than the minorest (ahem), but I was not perfectly entertained, so there you are. Chinatown is a recommendable flick, though, worth its weight in filmmaking gold. And it's got some great quotes. My favorite: "You're dumber than you think I think you are." Oh, and, "...my nose. I like it. I like breathing through it." I think it's fair to say that few can deliver a line like good ole Jack. http://www.spout.com/blogs/smooth_j/archive/2008/7/28/33178.aspx Post By: Smooth_J
Post To: Smooth_J Blog
Post Date: 7/28/2008 2:21:02 PM
Body: The idea for this analysis came to mind when I recently saw Bergman's The Seventh Seal. While I was not quite as blown away by the film as most accolades of the film would suggest, I still found it to be an excellent movie, and could see very clearly the influence it has had on so many films that have come after it. The one scene that I especially noticed a direct legacy in later films was a short, almost gimmicky little snippet during the medieval religious cult scene in the town--where the drums are beating loudly, people are screaming in agony as whips crack, and monks and other repenters are carrying enormous crosses on their backs. There is a short string of profile shots: Antonius, Jons, and "The Girl" (the only specific name I could find for her anywhere on the internet). The cuts between the faces are done with the beats of the drums; they are perfectly centered, with mist or smoke rising in the backgrounds, adding to each image's raw, black-and-white imagery; and each face perfectly describes what each character is feeling in the specific scene. Antonius stares onward at the happenings, in the middle of an intense existential dilemma, scrutinizing the scene and attempting to sort out what it all could mean. Jons observes with amused (yet somewhat disturbed) contempt for not only the people of the scene, but for all of humanity. And The Girl stares ahead in fear, the only one of them who truly realizes the oncoming apocalypse at such an early stage. At first glance, it seems like an empty trick thrown in for effect by Bergman. But such use of tone and the profile shot have been used countless times, seemingly originated by Bergman and his equals at this time of cinematic experimentation. For example, this technique of switching profiles to the beat of something is used pretty much verbatum in the film I'm Not There, where Todd Haynes switches between all the faces of Bob Dylan to the sound of gunshots--all in misty black-and-white photography. What makes a profile shot so effective is that (sorry for this cliche...) every face tells a story, and it only takes a skilled actor, a good director, and a camera with the right film to turn it into a work of art. But I mean, portraits and sculpture dating back to prehistoric times make use of the nuances of the human face, from Egyptian sculptures of pharaohs, the stone heads of Easter Island, and technically even Native American tikis. Different societies and different mediums of art have used the face for various forms of expression, and it is probably one of the most common depictions in art. Look at the Mona Lisa--it's one of the most famous works of art ever created, and it is a painting of a woman's face. It's the mystery behind her expressions, her features, her true identity that makes the work so timeless and so debatable. However, there's something about seeing the human face framed in a camera--especially on a black-and-white one--that is so beautiful and so perfect. In my mind, who cares about Joe Wright's five minute tracking shot. Hundreds of extras, thousands of dollars, all to capture a vast expanse of imagery without any empathy involved. For a well-done profile shot, all one needs an actor, a director, and a camera--nothing else. I'm not necessarily saying that a tracking shot would not be a work of art, since it is one in itself, but I feel as though such broadness cannot capture the undeniable intimacy of human emotion that is shown on any person's face. Even one's eyes, shifting crazily during a "trip" through time and space (2001: A Space Odyssey) have the ability to captivate a viewer, and give them a glimpse into a character's psyche. Last night, while running through this topic in my head, I came up with several movies and genres that utilize the human profile extensively. The first that came to mind was the film-noir genre, with its fims' personal, close feel. Who can forget the faces of the tortured heroes of these films, driving around puffing on their ever-present cigarettes? While my knowledge of this genre is pretty limited, I know enough to recognize the faces of the classic noir heroes. Neo-noir and crime films have taken up these techniques, especially films like Pulp Fiction (and other Tarantino) and Chinatown (which is pretty much classic noir). Another film that really sticks out in my mind is The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, with its infamous final shoot-out of only profile shots and guns. Leone had a gift for the small touches of the human face, as he also demonstrates his penchant for this in Once Upon a Time in the West. He perfectly illustrates the dirtiness and inherent wickedness in a lot of his characters through perfectly staged shots of their sweaty, grizzled faces. Kubrick was an auteur in many ways, and one that I have especially noticed is his perfect use of a framed, still camera shot. One of my favorites occurs in Dr. Strangelove, with the shot of General Jack Ripper during one of his monologues, where the camera is beneath his face and it basically looking right up his nose at a crooked angle. Just the staging of this shot gives the viewer a perfect sense of how unhinged the man really is. It's hilarity through just good direction. Now, I hate to stray off of my established topic, but I feel as though I can't discuss the profile shot without talking about its cinematic opposite, the subjective shot. While not nearly as popular, in the right hands, it can be nearly as effective as the human profile. David Lynch has pretty much mastered this craft, and he uses it flawlessly to create almost unbearable terror in Inland Empire. One of the most terrifying experiences I've every had while watching a movie happened when I watched Mulholland Dr. for the first time, when the man in the restaraunt is walking to face the monster in the alley--Lynch uses the man's point of view to emphasize the horror being faced. I pretty much shit my pants. Did that aspect of the film really serve much of a purpose? No, not really. But it has an undeniable finesse and effectiveness that makes it essential to the overall tone of the movie. Another film that uses the subjective point of view to enhance horror is one that I watched recently, Dreyer's Vampyr. It is a short scene in which it is used, but creates a great sense of claustrophic fear. A couple of films that go hand-in-hand in terms of use of POV are Being John Malkovich and Diving Bell and the Butterfly. BJM flawlessly portrays being inside the head of someone else, from the sound effects to the imagery. You ARE walking around in someone else's shoes, and it's amazing. DB&tB also uses this technique of seeing the world through someone else's eyes. Schnabel meticulously recreates the feeling of being confined within one's mind, with no escape and no possible sense of escape. It is a beautiful technique used in an absolutely beautiful film, and it heightens the unending and unavoidable sadness of the film. In a convoluted way, the film also makes great use of the profile shot--from the eyes of Bauby. The lighting and camera effects used illustrate the beauty of his nurse's faces unlike anything I have ever seen, framing them in his one eye with the foggy edges. The camera examines their features as though you are Bauby, longing to reach out and touch them, but you can't and it is near torture. For the most part, it is foreign directors that use these sort of simple shots to greatest effect--I feel as though they typically can emphasize beauty better than any American director ever could, not only through profile and POV but also through beauty of landscapes. Now, I know I must address that nearly every movie uses these sorts of methods, and my film repertoire may not permit me to do a full elucidation on such topics. However, I have always been taken aback by the immense possibilities of film-making. As I have dreams of becoming a film-maker, I can't help but analyze such things when I watch movies, and take them to mind when imagining camera angles and writing ideas. And the things that I have always marveled at are the simple things that can be done by anyone with an idea, a camera, and subject. That's where the true beauty of film-making lies, in its simplest artistry.
]]>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:21:02 GMTSmooth_JSmooth_J Blog7/28/2008 2:21:02 PMThe idea for this analysis came to mind when I recently saw Bergman's The Seventh Seal. While I was not quite as blown away by the film as most accolades of the film would suggest, I still found it to be an excellent movie, and could see very clearly the influence it has had on so many films that have come after it. The one scene that I especially noticed a direct legacy in later films was a short, almost gimmicky little snippet during the medieval religious cult scene in the town--where the drums are beating loudly, people are screaming in agony as whips crack, and monks and other repenters are carrying enormous crosses on their backs. There is a short string of profile shots: Antonius, Jons, and "The Girl" (the only specific name I could find for her anywhere on the internet). The cuts between the faces are done with the beats of the drums; they are perfectly centered, with mist or smoke rising in the backgrounds, adding to each image's raw, black-and-white imagery; and each face perfectly describes what each character is feeling in the specific scene. Antonius stares onward at the happenings, in the middle of an intense existential dilemma, scrutinizing the scene and attempting to sort out what it all could mean. Jons observes with amused (yet somewhat disturbed) contempt for not only the people of the scene, but for all of humanity. And The Girl stares ahead in fear, the only one of them who truly realizes the oncoming apocalypse at such an early stage. At first glance, it seems like an empty trick thrown in for effect by Bergman. But such use of tone and the profile shot have been used countless times, seemingly originated by Bergman and his equals at this time of cinematic experimentation. For example, this technique of switching profiles to the beat of something is used pretty much verbatum in the film I'm Not There, where Todd Haynes switches between all the faces of Bob Dylan to the sound of gunshots--all in misty black-and-white photography. What makes a profile shot so effective is that (sorry for this cliche...) every face tells a story, and it only takes a skilled actor, a good director, and a camera with the right film to turn it into a work of art. But I mean, portraits and sculpture dating back to prehistoric times make use of the nuances of the human face, from Egyptian sculptures of pharaohs, the stone heads of Easter Island, and technically even Native American tikis. Different societies and different mediums of art have used the face for various forms of expression, and it is probably one of the most common depictions in art. Look at the Mona Lisa--it's one of the most famous works of art ever created, and it is a painting of a woman's face. It's the mystery behind her expressions, her features, her true identity that makes the work so timeless and so debatable. However, there's something about seeing the human face framed in a camera--especially on a black-and-white one--that is so beautiful and so perfect. In my mind, who cares about Joe Wright's five minute tracking shot. Hundreds of extras, thousands of dollars, all to capture a vast expanse of imagery without any empathy involved. For a well-done profile shot, all one needs an actor, a director, and a camera--nothing else. I'm not necessarily saying that a tracking shot would not be a work of art, since it is one in itself, but I feel as though such broadness cannot capture the undeniable intimacy of human emotion that is shown on any person's face. Even one's eyes, shifting crazily during a "trip" through time and space (2001: A Space Odyssey) have the ability to captivate a viewer, and give them a glimpse into a character's psyche. Last night, while running through this topic in my head, I came up with several movies and genres that utilize the human profile extensively. The first that came to mind was the film-noir genre, with its fims' personal, close feel. Who can forget the faces of the tortured heroes of these films, driving around puffing on their ever-present cigarettes? While my knowledge of this genre is pretty limited, I know enough to recognize the faces of the classic noir heroes. Neo-noir and crime films have taken up these techniques, especially films like Pulp Fiction (and other Tarantino) and Chinatown (which is pretty much classic noir). Another film that really sticks out in my mind is The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, with its infamous final shoot-out of only profile shots and guns. Leone had a gift for the small touches of the human face, as he also demonstrates his penchant for this in Once Upon a Time in the West. He perfectly illustrates the dirtiness and inherent wickedness in a lot of his characters through perfectly staged shots of their sweaty, grizzled faces. Kubrick was an auteur in many ways, and one that I have especially noticed is his perfect use of a framed, still camera shot. One of my favorites occurs in Dr. Strangelove, with the shot of General Jack Ripper during one of his monologues, where the camera is beneath his face and it basically looking right up his nose at a crooked angle. Just the staging of this shot gives the viewer a perfect sense of how unhinged the man really is. It's hilarity through just good direction. Now, I hate to stray off of my established topic, but I feel as though I can't discuss the profile shot without talking about its cinematic opposite, the subjective shot. While not nearly as popular, in the right hands, it can be nearly as effective as the human profile. David Lynch has pretty much mastered this craft, and he uses it flawlessly to create almost unbearable terror in Inland Empire. One of the most terrifying experiences I've every had while watching a movie happened when I watched Mulholland Dr. for the first time, when the man in the restaraunt is walking to face the monster in the alley--Lynch uses the man's point of view to emphasize the horror being faced. I pretty much shit my pants. Did that aspect of the film really serve much of a purpose? No, not really. But it has an undeniable finesse and effectiveness that makes it essential to the overall tone of the movie. Another film that uses the subjective point of view to enhance horror is one that I watched recently, Dreyer's Vampyr. It is a short scene in which it is used, but creates a great sense of claustrophic fear. A couple of films that go hand-in-hand in terms of use of POV are Being John Malkovich and Diving Bell and the Butterfly. BJM flawlessly portrays being inside the head of someone else, from the sound effects to the imagery. You ARE walking around in someone else's shoes, and it's amazing. DB&amp;tB also uses this technique of seeing the world through someone else's eyes. Schnabel meticulously recreates the feeling of being confined within one's mind, with no escape and no possible sense of escape. It is a beautiful technique used in an absolutely beautiful film, and it heightens the unending and unavoidable sadness of the film. In a convoluted way, the film also makes great use of the profile shot--from the eyes of Bauby. The lighting and camera effects used illustrate the beauty of his nurse's faces unlike anything I have ever seen, framing them in his one eye with the foggy edges. The camera examines their features as though you are Bauby, longing to reach out and touch them, but you can't and it is near torture. For the most part, it is foreign directors that use these sort of simple shots to greatest effect--I feel as though they typically can emphasize beauty better than any American director ever could, not only through profile and POV but also through beauty of landscapes. Now, I know I must address that nearly every movie uses these sorts of methods, and my film repertoire may not permit me to do a full elucidation on such topics. However, I have always been taken aback by the immense possibilities of film-making. As I have dreams of becoming a film-maker, I can't help but analyze such things when I watch movies, and take them to mind when imagining camera angles and writing ideas. And the things that I have always marveled at are the simple things that can be done by anyone with an idea, a camera, and subject. That's where the true beauty of film-making lies, in its simplest artistry. http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/Re_TOP_5_MOVIES_TO_TEACH_AN_ALIEN_ABOUT_EARTH/563/31569/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: JillH
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 6/23/2008 4:23:27 PM
Body: Why not just send him The Pantheon? Annie Hall will explain our fatalistic love lives. Chinatown will depict our corrupt nature. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest will serve many purposes, letting him know that we are 1)crazy 2)paranoid and 3)dictatorial. The Godfather will depict our corrupt nature... and our propensity to be loyal and uphold honor. And Star Wars will, if nothing else, give him a good laugh when he sees what we've come up with when we tried to imagine his species. That's five. I hope this alien has more than a two week trial of Netflix; we haven't even gotten to the paradoxical heartbreak of success shown in Citizen Kane. I know you're not supposed to talk about these anymore, but you've gotta go with the Pantheon here, to impress the alien with Earth's (ok, America's) high caliber of movie-making.
]]>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:23:27 GMTJillHFilmgaming6/23/2008 4:23:27 PMWhy not just send him The Pantheon? Annie Hall will explain our fatalistic love lives. Chinatown will depict our corrupt nature. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest will serve many purposes, letting him know that we are 1)crazy 2)paranoid and 3)dictatorial. The Godfather will depict our corrupt nature... and our propensity to be loyal and uphold honor. And Star Wars will, if nothing else, give him a good laugh when he sees what we've come up with when we tried to imagine his species. That's five. I hope this alien has more than a two week trial of Netflix; we haven't even gotten to the paradoxical heartbreak of success shown in Citizen Kane. I know you're not supposed to talk about these anymore, but you've gotta go with the Pantheon here, to impress the alien with Earth's (ok, America's) high caliber of movie-making. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 313

Number of times used: 1454

]]>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:30:46 GMT8163131454Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/amazing/MemberTagFilms.aspxamazing
Number of films tagged: 179

Number of people who tagged: 156

Number of times used: 253

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:49:13 GMT179156253Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/brilliant/MemberTagFilms.aspxbrilliant
Number of films tagged: 179

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 285

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:28:43 GMT179137285Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dark/MemberTagFilms.aspxdark
Number of films tagged: 223

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 390

]]>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:40:47 GMT223137390Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/masterpiece/MemberTagFilms.aspxmasterpiece
Number of films tagged: 226

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 215

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:28 GMT226101215Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mystery/MemberTagFilms.aspxmystery
Number of films tagged: 156

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 208

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:30 GMT15682208Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/noir/MemberTagFilms.aspxnoir
Number of films tagged: 77

Number of people who tagged: 67

Number of times used: 134

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:23:43 GMT7767134Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/corruption/MemberTagFilms.aspxcorruption
Number of films tagged: 1236

Number of people who tagged: 47

Number of times used: 108

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT123647108Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/incest/MemberTagFilms.aspxincest
Number of films tagged: 238

Number of people who tagged: 40

Number of times used: 58

]]>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:56:44 GMT2384058Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-movie-ever/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-movie-ever
Number of films tagged: 16

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 23

]]>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 03:18:13 GMT161723Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/conscam/MemberTagFilms.aspxconscam
Number of films tagged: 2333

Number of people who tagged: 12

Number of times used: 19

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT23331219Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/femmefatale/MemberTagFilms.aspxfemmefatale
Number of films tagged: 161

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 14

]]>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:04:22 GMT161914Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/privatedetective/MemberTagFilms.aspxprivatedetective
Number of films tagged: 1052

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 22

]]>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:02:48 GMT1052722Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Original-Screenplay/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Original-Screenplay
Number of films tagged: 15

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 19

]]>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:31:55 GMT15519Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cynical/MemberTagFilms.aspxcynical
Number of films tagged: 7

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 8

]]>Tue, 09 Dec 2008 03:55:34 GMT758Tag