Never heard of it till now.
The Film thread - Page 28
Styleforum Top Picks
Crowd was mad that the french film didn't win. I like batalla en el cielo.
So I just watched that for the first time and all I could think of is how similar the film is to Kim Ki-duk's Samaritan Girl. Both movies have protagonists undergoing some sort of inner transformation inspired by christian morality set against a Christian but morally indifferent society. Both characters are, as I understand them, driven by guilt. Kim's film is even more ruthless and more opinionated. Reygadas is mostly indifferent. I think I like his aesthetic stuff more. I'm generally against art overweighted by concepts, it at least has to have some sort of redeeming aesthetic qualities. And very generally I'm opposed to the intellectual artist who I see as a modern anomaly, though Reygadas bridges the two sides gracefully.
Watched Jim Jarmusch's Only Lovers Left Alive. So there's this scene where a centuries old vampire is going through all the books she's packing for a trip to see her vampire husband. Among the texts are Endgame, Don Quixote, and then the camera shows Infinite Jest packed in the same suitcase and I lol'd and couldn't take the movie seriously anymore. Apparently in the bourgeois intellectual's wet dream, which is what the film really is, immortal vampire geniuses do nothing but accumulate cultural wealth, make rock n' roll music, live like bohemians, and despair over the human race; because those are the things culturally enlightened folks do. Tilda Swinton has really nice bone structure though, and there's a joke near the end about how Christopher Marlowe wrote all of Shakespeare's plays. Overall pretty disappointing.
Also Tilda Swinton wore a nice cream colored (?) jacket.
Edited by accordion - 7/23/14 at 8:33pm
Finished Stillman's 'yuppie trilogy' the other day. Definitely an acquired taste but quite enjoyable if you're not allergic to hyper articulate preppie angst, overly analytical and self involved characters and very written dialogues (one of Stillman's trademark, his sensibility is definitely more literary than cinematic). Granted it all sounds perfectly awful especially if, like me, you don't have any sort of affinity with that kind of milieu but... Stillman loves his characters and pokes fun at their mannered and stilted ways in equal measure. It's a right distance that avoids both mawkish admiration and knee-jerk satire and that somehow makes the whole thing palatable and, yes, (very) enjoyable. A lot of people really hate the stuff though and I can see why.
@noob seems like something you might've seen, what'd you think of those ?
Edited by sipang - 7/28/14 at 4:00pm
Stillman! Of course I'm a fan. Through and through. (At one point I even slogged through a third of his novel adaptation)... But for me his films pretty much exist in that golden nostalgia zone safe from objectivity. I'd say your assessment is pretty spot-on. Maybe some mention of early Noah Baumbach is in order, and the amazing Chris Eigemann, the covalent bond between the two directors. Baumbach collects all the plaudits now, but it's hard not to prefer his early stuff, where he was still learning from (some say outright stealing?) from Stillman. (Even Highball -- a movie he pieced together from spare film and leftover actors -- has a certain breezy charm particular to that era.)
Don't know what else I'd add about his films, other than to implore more people to watch them.
Never seen Metropolitan and avoided Damsel in Distress, but I liked Baumbach's Kicking and Screaming, probably my favorite of his movies along with Squid and the Whale. The only thing that annoys me about his characters is when they complain about being poor, as in Frances Ha, which was decent otherwise. When you can fall back on your parents at any time and choose to live in manhattan without a stable job, you shouldn't be allowed to complain about money problems. His films are pretty entertaining, but the grand daddy of bourgeois people talking about bourgeois things is Rohmer. I watched My Night at Maud's for the first time recently and it was almost deceptively complex. Rohmer and perhaps Hong Sang-soo's films are more intellectual, while Baumbach and Nicole Holofcener's are more personal.
(I remember now, if ever there was a legit argument against Baumbach/Stillman, it was that they were mere fluff, yet swung a heavy boot to the throat of the working man).
(Sipang, I know I'm being selfish, but you should write more words about Stillman -- they comfort me, like a pixeled lullaby. )
the film is befitting to the new song and music video of Coldplay
Magic in the Moonlight by Woody Allen
Ma nuit chez Maud has a couple of wtf moments that involves second-hand smoke and fire hazards. I'm kinda curious about Manhattan, will try to catch. The best regarded Rohmer film is usually Le Rayon vert (The Green Ray). I have a pessimistic interpretation of the ending that I thought was obvious but not to critics apparently. The story is full of subtle details, usually ironic, from the clothing to the dialogue to the cinematography. I would recommend the film over My Night at Maud's, which is more dry and intellectual.
I'm longing for watching Magic in the moonlight but it only releases in October in France, so sad. Have you seen Annie Hall and Manhattan ? Those are my favorites.
Oh that's funny that you're talking about Stillman. I've seen Metropolitan like 2 weeks ago in a theater in Paris (Thank god, some old theater/cinema here broadcast some old movies for cheap) and tonight one of them will broadcast Ma nuit chez Maud, thanks to you guys, i'm definitely going to see it.
I've seen bits and pieces of Annie Hall when I was a kid during those Saturday afternoon movies that played in the local channel. I was so drawn to Dianne Keaton's style in that movie, it was very Armani. Then I scanned through it for a class in college. One of this days, I will try to see it in completion.