Spielberg & Kushner's Munich '72 / Israeli vengeance film

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (565 of them)
You are one logorrheic cunt.

I don't consider "dumb escapism" insulting. Comparing an ambitious war film to one featuring a character named DANNY THE TUNNEL KING could be, tho.

Seeya when "Munich" opens. I'm off to tell Tom Stoppard and Tony Kushner they are CRAP.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 19:55 (eighteen years ago) link

Once I was sitting outside an NYU bar while a few loud bros refered to me as "Jon Williams" and some hot girl came up to me and said "You're John Williams?!!!!"

Jdubz (ex machina), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 20:22 (eighteen years ago) link

I don't give a damn how ambitious Spielberg might have thought SPR was - in the end it was just a soothing version of standard war movie heroism lined with morally questionable choices to give it a veneer of 'adult' respectability.

Are You Nomar? (miloaukerman), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 20:24 (eighteen years ago) link

Dr Morbius, we have people on this board for whom english is like their 3rd language who are hundreds of times better than you at communicating with people. You are possibly one of the stupidest, most irritating fuckjob trolls since Scaredy Cat/Nude Spock. You are like the fucking Scotty McClellan of Spielberg's administration or some shit. Please go away from this board where it is plainly obvious that everyone fucking hates your guts, and never agrees with you, and do not come back.

TOMBOT, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 20:32 (eighteen years ago) link

it makes me sad that anyone would think TTRL is "shit"--i guess i just find it so personally moving and beautiful that it's hard to swallow that. oh well.

but this maybe applies to my own reasons for liking spielberg's films. i really genuinely connect to a lot of the anxiety and fear and guilt and awe that pervades his work. his serious films are almost always about guilt rather than anxiety or fear or awe. SPR is ALL about guilt to me, it's in some ways a reflection of white american midwesterners being the ones to liberate the concentration camps--saving people they neither knew nor maybe even cared about. the investigation of THAT pretty amazing event is what the movie seems to be about to me.

but my point i guess is that i am willing to look past all his considerable flaws, just like i am willing ot look past Malick's considerable flaws in TTRL, or ANY ARTIST EVER because none are perfect, is because i find some emotional, intellectual, or even spiritual reward in their work. i find all 3 in spielberg.

ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 20:49 (eighteen years ago) link

one could argue that the conflict and the after-the-fact denial of the sudden, spontaneous chemistry is even sexier

gear (gear), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 20:53 (eighteen years ago) link

sorry wrong thread : (

gear (gear), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 20:54 (eighteen years ago) link

the idea of "pacing" is almost as relevant to film as the idea of "agreement" on a discussion board.

whoops.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 20:54 (eighteen years ago) link

See you fuckers in the trenches! I'm off to tell Steve McQueen and BMW Motorcycles they're CRAP.

TOMBOT, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 20:59 (eighteen years ago) link

>we have people on this board for whom english is like their 3rd language who are hundreds of times better than you at communicating<


That's mighty white of you, Thurston. Go get yer ass blown off.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 20:59 (eighteen years ago) link

http://www.magicgallery.com/images/Thurlev1914-1sht.jpg

TOMBOT, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 21:01 (eighteen years ago) link

the last time i saw thurston moore he was wearing a redd foxx t-shirt.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 21:01 (eighteen years ago) link

Stenc, "pacing" is very relevant to shit-throwing monkeys whose visual experience has been hardwired by bad TV.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 21:04 (eighteen years ago) link

joyous happenstance of the heroic few

"everyone but Matt Damon and Ed Burns and that cowardly one gets killed" = "joyous happenstance of the heroic few"

monkeybutler, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 21:08 (eighteen years ago) link

the idea of "pacing" is almost as relevant to film as the idea of "agreement" on a discussion board.

jorelly, I would like to discuss this further with you. Why do you think that? I am not sure I understand what some members of the audience are referring to when they are referring to "pacing"--a slowly paced movie can be just as rewarding as a quickly paced movie, so I don't think any of the people here are discussing some kind of pow-bam-boom-action-only type of idea. Pacing is pretty relevant to storytelling, which the majority of films claim to do--like I said, we're not talking fast versus slow, we're talking inconsistent and clumsy versus smooth and compelling (at any speed of pace).

So, I would like for you to defend your statement.

Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:00 (eighteen years ago) link

filmmaking and storytelling are different disciplines.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:03 (eighteen years ago) link

Can you give me an example of a mainstream commercial filmmaker who isn't trying to tell a story?

Dan (Talk About Splitting Hairs) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:12 (eighteen years ago) link

i imagine pacing in film is analogous to pacing in running. keep it steady, know when to break for the finish.

but really, all people mean when they talk about good pacing in film is that there are no long boring parts between the cool parts.

ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:19 (eighteen years ago) link

possibly also knowing when to slow it down. SPR's opening scene is prob a good example of a film deliberately sticking to a pace that isn't comfortable.

ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:20 (eighteen years ago) link

http://www.imdb.com/Name?Braff,+Zach

TOMBOT, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:22 (eighteen years ago) link

Oh wait, you said mainstream commercial filmmaker

http://www.imdb.com/Name?Bay,+Michael

TOMBOT, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:23 (eighteen years ago) link

Michael Bay tells stories! He told a story about a meteor coming towards the world and a bunch of guys flying up to stop it.

'Twan (miccio), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:27 (eighteen years ago) link

I was going to dispute that but really, I don't think anyone can get a coherent story out of "Pearl Harbor" (mostly because the only rational response to watching that movie is to shut it off before its innate Affleckitude pulls you into the abyss).

Dan (Hartnett Is Pretty Fucking Awful In It, Too) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:28 (eighteen years ago) link

The story of Pearl Harbor is that America was attacked but then we attacked them back while living and loving.

'Twan (miccio), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:29 (eighteen years ago) link

Let us celebrate Uwe Boll. Er...

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:29 (eighteen years ago) link

UWE BOLL OTM.

'Twan (miccio), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:30 (eighteen years ago) link

In 1967, mine workers discovered the first remnants of a long lost Native American civilization - The Abkani. The Abkani believed that there are two worlds on this planet, a world of light and a world of darkness. 10,000 years ago the Abkani opened a gate between these worlds. Before they could close it, something evil slipped through. The Abkani mysteriously vanished from the Earth. Only a few artifacts remained, hidden in the world's most remote places. These artifacts speak of terrifying creatures that thrive in the darkness, waiting for the day when the gate can be opened again. Bureau 713, the government's paranormal research agency, was established to uncover the dark secrets of this lost civilization. Under the direction of archaeologist Lionel Hudgens, Bureau 713 began collecting Abkani artifacts. When the government shut down his controversial research, Hudgens built a laboratory hidden within an abandonded gold mine. There, he conducted savage experiments on orphaned children in an attempt to merge man with creature. Hudgens victims survived as "sleepers" - lost souls awaiting the moment of their calling.

'Twan (miccio), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:31 (eighteen years ago) link

filmmaking and storytelling are different disciplines.

Uh, yeah. What Dan said. Unless you're trying to claim Spielberg as some kind of avant garde, this doesn't make much sense on this thread. Spielberg is clearly doing both--if you asked him, he'd say the same.

Regardless, if filmmaking somehow doesn't include the story, whatever it is, a person is trying to tell with their film, does it include the actors or the music or etc etc etc? Or are you really trying to split it right down to the idea that filmmaking is nothing more than moving photographs, and as such arguments about a filmmaker that criticize his choice in things besides pure cinematography are irrelevant???

Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:35 (eighteen years ago) link

How are narrative filmmakers - mainstream or otherwise - not inherently involved in 'storytelling'?

Stenc, "pacing" is very relevant to shit-throwing monkeys whose visual experience has been hardwired by bad TV.

This is utterly batshit insane. 'Pacing' is a function of editing and narrative - you want to tell me no critics in history, Agee to Kael to Rosenbaum to Farber etc. - have ever considered that in valuing a film?

Are You Nomar? (miloaukerman), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:47 (eighteen years ago) link

eh, forget i said anything.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:47 (eighteen years ago) link

TOO LATE NOW, BUDDY

Dan (YOU'VE MADE YOUR MORBIUS-LINED BED, NOW LIE IN IT) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:50 (eighteen years ago) link

Yeah, stenc, I'm not trying to pick on you or anything but I don't understand what on god's green earth you mean with a statement like that. Cos, I mean, yes, at it's very most basic, taking a film of something doesn't necessarily involve storytelling, pacing, etc. You can just sit there and film a door for 17 hours if you want. But movie-making--and I think we can all agree here, besides Mr. Moneybags Douchey, that we are discussing someone who qualifies as a movie-maker--involves all of these things. So I'm really honestly not sure where the hell you were trying to take that.

Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:52 (eighteen years ago) link

And quite frankly I find it disingenuous to claim that a film of a door opening and shutting for 12 hours or flowers in slow motion or something doesn't constitute telling some kind of story, some kind of message, with a very deliberately chosen pace.

Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:54 (eighteen years ago) link

NB: I am totally trying to pick on you.

Dan (Is It Working?) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 22:54 (eighteen years ago) link

Stenc, "pacing" is very relevant to shit-throwing monkeys whose visual experience has been hardwired by bad TV.

hahah! spielberg is like the original shit-throwing monkey whose visual experience has been hardwired by bad TV!!

s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 10 November 2005 05:41 (eighteen years ago) link

The part where, if the squad hadn't shown up where they did when they did, the Germans would have controlled the bridge and thus prevented a major part of the Allied offensive from Normandy into the rest of France. A development that is positively Kubrickian in the way that chance and contingency interfere in human planning, if not pulled off with quite the same depth or panache.

-- monkeybutler (pdenniso...), November 9th, 2005.

this is an excellent point.

I don't give a damn how ambitious Spielberg might have thought SPR was - in the end it was just a soothing version of standard war movie heroism lined with morally questionable choices to give it a veneer of 'adult' respectability.
-- Are You Nomar? (wooderso...), November 9th, 2005.

ah i see. how do you know when the morally questionable choices are applique or integral to the film? intuition?

the pacing/storytelling/imagery thing... in practice it's hard to tell these apart. even slow, non-narrative films have some kind of pace but then i can think of a fair number of films which have multiple rhythms and moods. 'last crusade' is all pace, all the way: it's almost a continuous chase. but sometimes an incredible shot has rhythm and drives the narrative: eg the amazing single take travelling shot in 'war of the worlds' (haha or 'touch of evil') which follows cruise's car down the motorway.

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Thursday, 10 November 2005 10:03 (eighteen years ago) link

i wonder if the US media will pick up on this. they seem generally keen to link the riots with 'islamism'.

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Thursday, 10 November 2005 10:40 (eighteen years ago) link

how do you know when the morally questionable choices are applique or integral to the film?

When they appear once per castmember and are never discussed again, and the whole movie is bookended with three and a half pounds of mild orange cheddar, those are pretty good indicators.

Which brings us back to a massive problem people have with Spielberg, minus all the discomforts we've discussed about his execution, he seems like he spends a lot of time stepping out on the cliff edge from which one descends into auteur-space, looking down, putting his hand out to show that he's totally going to do it, then turning around and using his complete control of the project to make sure it doesn't really offend or shock anybody over 7.

You almost get the feeling that after he made Jaws he realized that the super cheesy fake shark was exactly what he wanted all along, and used that as a guideline!

TOMBOT, Thursday, 10 November 2005 13:06 (eighteen years ago) link

>'Pacing' is a function of editing and narrative - you want to tell me no critics in history, Agee to Kael to Rosenbaum to Farber etc. - have ever considered that in valuing a film?<

I meant 'PACING' with the quotes ... ie, "oh no, nothing's happening, the camera is static, a dialogue scene went on for more than 3 minutes, etc."

Forget I said anything as well. Ever. Let Frank & Hot Lips be your guides.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 10 November 2005 14:16 (eighteen years ago) link

TOMBOT is otm that spielberg never really follows through -- i'm not even a big fan (haven't bothered with 'CMIYC', 'the terminal', etc), but he's not alone among top-rank hollywood directors there. the reason i'm excited for this film is i think he'd have to work hard to make a crappy affirmative ending out of the true-story material at hand.

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Thursday, 10 November 2005 14:21 (eighteen years ago) link

I meant 'PACING' with the quotes ... ie, "oh no, nothing's happening, the camera is static, a dialogue scene went on for more than 3 minutes, etc."

Yeah, but nobody you're discussing this with (yes, I am making the assumption I can speak for slocki and Alex on this one, knowing some of their other tastes in film) meant pacing in that fashion. I'm not really sure why you feel the need to be such a condescending prick on these threads so I'm going to take your advice and forget you've ever said anything.

And yeah, I think Tom basically hits it on the head, the potential for true greatness Spielberg has shown is what really creates the violent reaction towards him; it's kind of like no one gets really angry if they go to see a Michael Bay film and he pusses out on some BIG MEANINGFUL THING but with Spielberg it's kind of like, then why did you bother making this film? Why not keep doing what you excelled at, which is big blockbuster entertainment? He doesn't straddle the line very neatly at all. (and yeah, Enrique OTM in that he's not alone)

Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Thursday, 10 November 2005 14:30 (eighteen years ago) link

TS: Steven Spielberg vs Ron Howard

Dan (Whose Schmaltz Reigns Supreme?) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 10 November 2005 15:32 (eighteen years ago) link


http://www.bilbocine.com/mash.jpg

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 10 November 2005 15:38 (eighteen years ago) link

you are the worst arguer EVER.

s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:01 (eighteen years ago) link

come on, posting "funny" pics when you have run out of arguments is a venerable ilx tradition

, Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:12 (eighteen years ago) link

admittedly i just did that... on a noise board thread... to dr. morbius!

s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:14 (eighteen years ago) link

but it was funnier than trying to win an argument by comparing the person you're arguing with to a character from mash!!

s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:15 (eighteen years ago) link

using his complete control of the project to make sure it doesn't really offend or shock anybody over 7.

i dont mean to pick on this post because i think it's a good one. but one reason spielberg is such an interesting figure to debate is that it forces (or should force) the participants to ask themselves just what is so bad about a "happy" ending, or lack of ambiguity, or something that doesn't offend or shock anyone over 7. (all of these issues are pretty up front in the end of AI, i think).

why do we value these things in storytelling or filmmaking? what makes them better? (because they better correspond to "reality"? is that really valid?)

anyway, just some stupid thoughts

ryan (ryan), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:30 (eighteen years ago) link

that was all poorly written. but yeah, i guess my point gets across. (one reason i feel so strongly about AI, for instance, is that it seems the transcend the whole happy/unhappy ending thing for something completely weird and fascinating). on another level it's always worth questioning the surface "complexity" or moral ambiguity of a lot of films which really cant claim those qualities beyond the gesture. i think a lot of spielberg's films genuinely can, and not always because spielberg intended them to.

ryan (ryan), Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:34 (eighteen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.