A noob's journey through cinema

Discuss anything you want.
Post Reply
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 3199
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Wooley » Sat Nov 23, 2019 2:19 am

Slentert wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:51 pm
Some recent (re)watches:

The Blues Brothers (1980)
Hadn't seen this in forever and honestly, it was kinda shocking to see a full-blooded comedy that looks like an actual movie. Most comedies nowadays are just strings of partially-improvised sequences and look like sitcoms with slightly more expensive sets.
The Blues Brothers will never be an absolute favorite movie but it is undeniable how this movie is able to work as a comedy, a musical and an action movie as well. It hits every beat it needs to hit. Remarkable.
It is an absolute favorite movie to me.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3037
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Jinnistan » Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:04 am

Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:38 pm
Gosh, will someone telling me that I'm confused over and over again make me rethink my position? Or will it just come off as lazy gaslighting?
I'm asking you to identify where I said that which you are accusing me of saying. The fortunate flaw in gaslighting is that it's much more difficult to accomplish when we have a verbatum record of the conversation. What you underlined earlier is an example of my having rejected physical standards of attraction - the basis of objectification - which you are peddling as evidence of my having expressed a preference for a physical standard and contributing to objectification. If you aren't confused, then what's your excuse? Or does the point when intent/context ceases to matter happen to conveninetly align with where an argument can no longer be supported by the textual record?

Let me explain bad faith in this context: Immediately after my first post responding to your take on Eyes Wide Shut, I sent you a PM to open a back-channel, offering you to let me know if I were to cross a line or offend you, because I am sensitive to the fact that sexual subject matter provides a minefield. It was my attempt to avoid the kind of meltdown that we've seen play out (as if it were completely predictable). For whatever reason, you chose to ignore this invitation. It's clear to me, despite your increasingly unconvincing claims that you have some kind of respect for me as a poster (after our 5-6 years of mostly genial online interactions), that our respect is not as mutual as I had assumed.

The cliche is that the Left eats its own. Twitter's circular firing squads are notorious. Despite the fact that we share a common concern in the damage caused by sexual objectification (the Bernard, Leys, Klein study I posted above provides the most substantial summary of the problem that's been posted in this discussion and I recommend everyone read it in full), I'm not immune from being tossed under the bus for the small price of ignoring any inconvenient context that stands in the way.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3037
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Jinnistan » Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:07 am

topherH wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:15 am
More black cops should shoot foreign terrorists after having an epiphany. I don't know where to go with this but, I said it.
I don't know if this is a pile on, but I'll say it again for clarity:

Black Lives Matters has a mission against the systemic dehumanization of the black community, including but not limited to a predatory culture of law enforcement.

Officer Al Powell does not represent this predatory culture.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Takoma1 » Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:07 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:04 am
I'm asking you to identify where I said that which you are accusing me of saying. The fortunate flaw in gaslighting is that it's much more difficult to accomplish when we have a verbatum record of the conversation. What you underlined earlier is an example of my having rejected physical standards of attraction - the basis of objectification - which you are peddling as evidence of my having expressed a preference for a physical standard and contributing to objectification. If you aren't confused, then what's your excuse? Or does the point when intent/context ceases to matter happen to conveninetly align with where an argument can no longer be supported by the textual record?
You keep saying that I am confused.

But your posts are full of contradictions that things that do not make sense to me.

You say that we shouldn't shame people or have hangups about our bodies. Then you use the old "must be compensating" joke to talk about Tom Cruise's penis. But when I point this out, you just say that it's okay because Cruise will be "fine". So we can trot out shaming language when we feel like it? How can you give a little speech about being open and unashamed about talking about attraction/bodies and then use shaming language in the next breath?

I don't know how many times I made it clear that when I talked about "type", I meant pretty, thin, white women. I clarified that over and over. You're saying that you consider Kidman a different type than the other women. I've been pretty clear that, to me, they belong in the same category. There was no need to post a semi-nude photo of Kidman to prove anything. I know that the phrase "body type" can refer to build, so if my use of the phrase was confusing, okay. But I think it was really clear in several subsequent posts what I meant. I even explicitly said that I didn't consider breast size to be a distinguishing factor. I stand by saying that I don't consider Eyes Wide Shut as showing female diversity (even outside of the orgy scene).

"I like women with any sized breasts and anyway I'm more of an eyes guy" brings personal sexual preference into it, which I didn't find necessary. After reading numerous articles (among them things that talked extensively about female bodies and their distinct pubic hair), I didn't need to hear anything else about how someone regarded female bodies. So *your* context/intent was, I guess, to display rejection of typical standards, while *my* context was that I didn't need to hear another word about cup size. "I'm more of an eyes guy" is still something I find objectifying, sorry. You're welcome to disagree.
Let me explain bad faith in this context: Immediately after my first post responding to your take on Eyes Wide Shut, I sent you a PM to open a back-channel, offering you to let me know if I were to cross a line or offend you, because I am sensitive to the fact that sexual subject matter provides a minefield. It was my attempt to avoid the kind of meltdown that we've seen play out (as if it were completely predictable). For whatever reason, you chose to ignore this invitation. It's clear to me, despite your increasingly unconvincing claims that you have some kind of respect for me as a poster (after our 5-6 years of mostly genial online interactions), that our respect is not as mutual as I had assumed.
This isn't a meltdown. This is an argument. And there's a difference. No one is slinging around ad hominems. No one is rage quitting or sending nasty PMs. I'm not fuming or worked up.

If you're implying that I'm so delicate that you were trying to help *me* avoid a meltdown, I'm not sure what to say to that. I'm not a fragile little flower. I work two jobs, and both of them involve confronting some pretty intense things that happen to children and adults. Am I highly sensitive? Yes. It is my strength and my kryptonite. If I get frustrated sometimes because of the frequency of sexualized posts/comments on this site, it's because this is one of the things I do to relax and it's annoying when the garbage I'm trying to leave behind pops up here. I would have said the same things in a PM as I've said here. The only misgivings I have about having this conversation in this thread is that I'm sure Slentert is like "SIGH".
The cliche is that the Left eats its own. Twitter's circular firing squads are notorious. Despite the fact that we share a common concern in the damage caused by sexual objectification (the Bernard, Leys, Klein study I posted above provides the most substantial summary of the problem that's been posted in this discussion and I recommend everyone read it in full), I'm not immune from being tossed under the bus for the small price of ignoring any inconvenient context that stands in the way.
I don't think that "Please think twice about if posting sexualized comments/images is necessary to the conversation" is putting someone in front of a firing squad. Asking someone to reflect on their words or how they might be perceived by someone else isn't tossing someone under the bus.

Two people can have views that generally align but disagree on where to draw certain lines. You seem too think that it was appropriate to post that photo, and I don't. My friends and I had a huge debate a while back about whether or not it is appropriate to allow children to role play as minority groups to which they don't belong. And I was on the "less progressive" side of that argument because I allow my students to role play as slaves or Native Americans when we have debates or do other exercises where we consider multiple viewpoints.

My stance that, to an extent, context doesn't matter is the way I feel about films and about posts here. I've had a similar conversation with Wooley about the "satirical" use of nudity in Slumber Party Massacre. He thinks it works and is meta and generates discomfort, and I disagree. I'm willing to assume good intentions in what you said and posted (the photo maybe not so much), and it doesn't change my general reaction to it.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25433
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Stu » Sat Nov 23, 2019 7:56 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 8:44 am
It's less and less surprising to see all of things I haven't said.

But, hey, let's blame the black guy on BLM grounds for shooting....I'm sorry, what was the race of the kid? We're just all making this shit up as we go along?
Yes, because one of the core beliefs of BLM is that police brutality isn't a problem if the officer involved is black, and it also doesn't matter if the victim isn't black as well.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3037
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Jinnistan » Mon Nov 25, 2019 12:58 pm

Takoma1 wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:07 pm
"I'm more of an eyes guy" is still something I find objectifying, sorry. You're welcome to disagree.
Thank you. I guess I'll just have to agree with all of these social psychologists instead.


Takoma1 wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:07 pm
No one is slinging around ad hominems.
You accused me of gaslighting you. We're beyond civility at this point.
User avatar
Slentert
Posts: 1086
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:23 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Slentert » Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:13 pm

Nobody's Business (1996)

Great, rather short (less than an hour) documentary. where director Alan Berliner tries to interview his father about his family history, who in his turn maintains there is nothing worth noting about them. There is this really interesting tension between a son trying his damn hardest to express his love and interest in his father's life, and old man Berliner who refuses to accept this sign of affection from his son. Oscar Berliner is at a point in his life where he lost any kind of curiosity or will to change his way of thinking, yet it would be inaccurate to call him bitter. He clearly loves his children and grandchildren, and seems somewhat content with how is life is now, despite certain losses and disappointments that are inevitable when you've lived a long life. He just seems afraid to get hurt once he might open up.

What could've easily been an unremarkable piece of navelgazing, is able to achieve a certain sense of universal resonance.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Takoma1 » Tue Nov 26, 2019 12:10 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 12:58 pm
You accused me of gaslighting you. We're beyond civility at this point.
We weren't seeing eye to eye on a point and you over and over and over again used the word "confused" to describe me. (You also called me "glib" , said that I was "projecting", said "Any misconstrual issues you took away from my comments are not my fault," and maybe said I was having a meltdown--though perhaps you were applying that word to the situation as a whole).

It never seemed to occur to you that the way you expressed yourself might have been the problem. I DO think that it's lazy, when someone doesn't understand you (or, to be more specific, isn't taking the message from your words that you want them to), to just repeat over and over that they must be confused. Looking at a woman's face instead of her body (especially when she's doing something like sports reporting) is of course more humanizing. But I don't think that's conveyed in what you wrote.
User avatar
Slentert
Posts: 1086
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:23 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Slentert » Fri Nov 29, 2019 11:14 pm

The Irishman (2019, Scorsese)

Joe Pesci in this movie gives one of my favorite performances of the year. Not to take anything away from De Niro and Pacino, who are undoubtedly great, but both of them don't do anything we didn't already know they were capable of, where Pesci plays a bit against type here. His Russell Bufalino is so controlled, calm and soft-spoken. He is able to give the impression that he carefully selects every word before he opens his mouth, giving everything he says that little bit of extra weight. He almost appears friendly, compassionate even, but deep down you know this is not a guy you want to turn against you. A nice diversion from what you would expect him to do in a Scorsese gangster picture.
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by crumbsroom » Sat Nov 30, 2019 12:06 am

How would The Irishman hypothetically rank for someone who is not so enamoured with Scorcese's later career work? I love Shutter Island and Wolf of Wall Street but struggle to appreciate much since Goodfellas.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 3199
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Wooley » Sat Nov 30, 2019 12:35 pm

crumbsroom wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 12:06 am
How would The Irishman hypothetically rank for someone who is not so enamoured with Scorcese's later career work? I love Shutter Island and Wolf of Wall Street but struggle to appreciate much since Goodfellas.
I have the same question. I've struggled with most of his modern work, is this movie a throwback to his great work or just another chapter in his modern catalogue?
User avatar
Slentert
Posts: 1086
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:23 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Slentert » Sat Nov 30, 2019 1:18 pm

I have not seen all of Scorsese's work, but I think it's much better than Shutter Island or The Departed, maybe not as good as something like Wolf of Wall Street. Scorsese's mob movies aren't my favorite by his anyhow I prefer stuff like Taxi Driver, After Hours, The Age of Innocence... Would still fully recommend The Irishman because it's a really good movie, even though it probably won't crack my top 10 of 2019.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25433
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Stu » Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:57 am

I haven't seen everything I want that Scorsese's made over the last 30 years (or from before then, to be honest, though I did go out of my way to check out Who's That Knocking At My Door?, of all things, for the New Hollywood thread), but it's still definitely the best thing I've seen him make since Goodfellas, which, like so many other people, is one of my all-time favorites, so that should give you some idea of how much I loved The Irishman. But, to go off on a bit of a tangent here, I'm happy to see the online pushback against people complaining about Peggy's lack of lines to Frank, because maybe the fact that he's distant to his family and she's giving him the cold, judgemental shoulder throughout the film is the whole point of their relationship? Because, speaking as an extremely proud, die-hard political progressive, that entire talking point feels like nothing more than keyboard crusaders trying to score "woke" points to fuel the never-ending cycle of online outrage, and quite possibly contributing to a culture that made garbage like this one of the most popular reviews of Mean Streets on Letterboxd, because there's absolutely no good reason why a film primarily set in mobbed-up dive bars in Little Italy should be male-oriented, and there's certainly no significant, three-dimensional female presence in that film at all, no siree...

User avatar
Slentert
Posts: 1086
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:23 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Slentert » Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:27 pm

Does anyone here have any experience with the works of Hal Hartley?
I caught a rep screening of Simple Men last week and I needed about 15 minutes to adjust to his very specific style, after that I really started to enjoy myself, and after the Kool Thing-sequence I fell in love. Watched Trust today and that one was great as well. Hartley's characters are so eccentric and distant that you can barely consider them as actual human beings but for some reason I find them to be unbelievably relatable. Like, the tone of his movies is so artificial yet completely sincere, I don't know how he is able to pull that off.
Some people might find him somewhat pretentious, and he possibly is, but he has a nice sense of humor to back it up with, I was nearly rolling on the floor with laughter when watching Simple Men with an audience.
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by crumbsroom » Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:33 pm

Slentert wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:27 pm
Does anyone here have any experience with the works of Hal Hartley?
I caught a rep screening of Simple Men last week and I needed about 15 minutes to adjust to his very specific style, after that I really started to enjoy myself, and after the Kool Thing-sequence I fell in love. Watched Trust today and that one was great as well. Hartley's characters are so eccentric and distant that you can barely consider them as actual human beings but for some reason I find them to be unbelievably relatable. Like, the tone of his movies is so artificial yet completely sincere, I don't know how he is able to pull that off.
Some people might find him somewhat pretentious, and he possibly is, but he has a nice sense of humor to back it up with, I was nearly rolling on the floor with laughter when watching Simple Men with an audience.
I generally don't like Hartley type comedies, where everyone is overly eloquent and seems to have practiced what they were going to say that day before leaving the house. So I do have prejudices against his style. But I do think I liked one, maybe Unbelievable Truth, and might have liked anothrr, Henry Fool.

But it is also possible I hated Henry Fool. I can't really remember.
User avatar
Slentert
Posts: 1086
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:23 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Slentert » Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:52 pm

crumbsroom wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:33 pm
I generally don't like Hartley type comedies, where everyone is overly eloquent and seems to have practiced what they were going to say that day before leaving the house. So I do have prejudices against his style. But I do think I liked one, maybe Unbelievable Truth, and might have liked anothrr, Henry Fool.

But it is also possible I hated Henry Fool. I can't really remember.
You see, usually that stuff bothers me, but since I don't view his characters as actual human beings, it works perfectly for me.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3037
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Jinnistan » Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:04 pm

Fowl Fartley. Aims for artier Jarmusch and hits like refried DeCillo. I hated Henry Fool because it was the last straw for me.

But Amateur does have Elina Lowensohn and Isabelle Huppert. So that one.
Post Reply