Watch Watched Watching: The Rambunctious Cinema of Terrence Malick

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

but I just have a hard time taking AFI's list as representing anything other than what old white snob film critics like.

I honestly don't get why you keep harping on this.  It'd be true for a lot of films, but certainly not Jurassic Park.  How the fuck you think Jurassic Park goes against the grain of conventional/conformist old white America is beyond me.  It's arguably a celebration of it.

As for the Tarantino clip, yeah, that's the general mainstream consensus on (American) film history, or at least how I learned it.  I think I even mentioned that interview in another thread.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

As for the Tarantino clip, yeah, that's the general mainstream consensus on (American) film history, or at least how I learned it.  I think I even mentioned that interview in another thread.

I have to address this in reverse order. AFI is picking a ton of films from the period QT identifies from the 50's to mid to late 60's that are a part of the heavily watered down era that these same critics seem to cherish, hence why their opinions should be considered somewhat out of touch with modern rankings. 

Quote

I honestly don't get why you keep harping on this.  It'd be true for a lot of films, but certainly not Jurassic Park.  How the fuck you think Jurassic Park goes against the grain of conventional/conformist old white America is beyond me.  It's arguably a celebration of it.

Why do you think it's a celebration of it? I want to hold off on arguing why I don't see it that way at all until I hear your reasoning. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I have to address this in reverse order. AFI is picking a ton of films from the period QT identifies from the 50's to mid to late 60's that are a part of the heavily watered down era that these same critics seem to cherished, hence why their opinions should be considered somewhat out of touch with modern rankings. 

Again, all of your gripes - that the AFI list doesn't consider foreign films, that it's selected by a bunch of old white people - should advantage rather than disadvantage Jurassic Park.  There is no valid reason to think it was omitted from the list because of these "flaws."

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Why do you think it's a celebration of it?

Because, as stated from the beginning, it's a rather quintessential brainless popcorn flick.  Which generally embodies conventional old white America and subsequently classic Hollywood.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Again, all of your gripes - that the AFI list doesn't consider foreign films, that it's selected by a bunch of old white people - should advantage rather than disadvantage Jurassic Park.  There is no valid reason to think it was omitted from the list because of these "flaws."

Yes and no. It's chances would be hurt by the introduction of foreign films, but a lot of films that were selected would not have been selected with a more diverse pool, especially if younger critics got a greater say.

Quote

Because, as stated from the beginning, it's a rather quintessential brainless popcorn flick.  Which generally embodies conventional old white America and subsequently classic Hollywood.

I just don't think it's that brainless. It's not some dumb action film, it's a tech thriller with a lot of science in the plot, even if it's junk science, and it strives to be more philosophical than your by the numbers popcorn flick. 

The target audience is not a critic who opines for the watered down films of the 50's, and for this lot Hammond is the character they're probably going to most identify with and I don't think they'd like that mirror being held up to them.

[Heartofice]

Lol at the idea that brainless popcorn movies are something that is limited to ‘old white America’. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's chances would be hurt by the introduction of foreign films, but a lot of films that were selected would not have been selected with a more diverse pool, especially if younger critics got a greater say.

......The second part of this sentence - the part I bolded - has absolutely nothing to do with why Jurassic Park wasn't selected.  It was not the victim of a lack of a diverse pool.  Hell if anything, if it made the list, the more compelling argument would be it made the list precisely because of a lack of a diverse pool.

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's not some dumb action film

LOL, yeah it totally is.  We just fundamentally disagree on that.

[DMC]

Just now, Heartofice said:

Lol at the idea that brainless popcorn movies are something that is limited to ‘old white America’. 

LOL at the idea anyone said that.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Woodstock '99: Peace, Love, and Rage on HBO. Very good documentary. I was familiar with most of it but this included interviews with artists and attendees I hadn't seen before.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

......The second part of this sentence - the part I bolded - has absolutely nothing to do with why Jurassic Park wasn't selected.  It was not the victim of a lack of a diverse pool.  Hell if anything, if it made the list, the more compelling argument would be it made the list precisely because of a lack of a diverse pool.

LOL, yeah it totally is.  We just fundamentally disagree on that.

I guess we just do. If you want to pick this up later I'm game, but I've got a meeting in, ugh, a little over 7 hours, so I need to crash. 

Hasta manana mi amigo.

[Veltigar]

I think this was one of the most impressive flame wars I have seen this far south on the board. It almost feels like a "Why Dany and Jon are bound to hook up" thread from general. Those always brought out the worst in people 

[polishgenius]

5 hours ago, DMC said:

They got The Third Man on there, and that's a British film.  In fact BFI ranked it the greatest British film ever right around the same time it was put on the AFI list.  Lawrence of Arabia was third on the BFI list and it's on the AFI list too.

 

I'd guess it's because at a studio level it's hard to untangle the British and US film industries. Wiki doesn't say exactly where Third Man's money came from, but it's implied Selznik's company was involved, which would make it a film with British writer/director but American (and Italian) leads shot in Venice funded by joint British/US money. Similar situation in Lawrence of Arabia. 

 

So while it's a bit cheeky to take those two films as 'American', if your specifications for it include production company it's not hard to do.




Anyway I'm surprised at the notion that Jurassic Park's characters are nothing. Sure, they're not the focus, it's not a character study, but one of Spielberg's big strengths as a spectacle director is getting you attached to the characters via at least some nuance in amongst the explosions and stuff. It's something more modern spectacle directors, from the really explody ones like Bay to the wannabe Spielbergs like Nolan, haven't really learned.   

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

but one of Spielberg's big strengths as a spectacle director is getting you attached to the characters via at least some nuance in amongst the explosions and stuff.

I never got this sense in most of his movies, which refers back to my pet peeve.  I think he's particularly defective at this, at least when we're talking greatest directors ever.  Munich may well be my favorite of his, and that's partially because of at the end, when the aide tells Bana something like "that's it, there's not a medal or anything!"

[TheLastWolf]

18 minutes ago, Veltigar said:

I think this was one of the most impressive flame wars I have seen this far south on the board. It almost feels like a "Why Dany and Jon are bound to hook up" thread from general. Those always brought out the worst in people 

You haven't crossed the Wall in a long time I see, it's been how the Starks and North are human flesh eating monsters while The Targs, Fairy Godmother Queen Dany and their Allies are liberators from heaven 

Spoiler

Like how all the Native Americans, Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, Aborigines were 'liberated' 

The other side is pretty obvious. And where I stand is even more 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, Veltigar said:

I think this was one of the most impressive flame wars I have seen this far south on the board. It almost feels like a "Why Dany and Jon are bound to hook up" thread from general. Those always brought out the worst in people 

Not really sure in constitutes a flame war given there wasn't any animosity. I just don't think AFI's top 100 list is the best to go off for the reasons I previous listed. It's a non-diverse group selecting a ton of films they're nostalgic about from a relatively weak era in Hollywood. I'd love to see a top 100 list from qualified film critics 40 and under, because I'm guessing there a number of high ranking films from AFI's list that wouldn't even make theirs

Or to put it more bluntly, I don't care about a list that has Singin in the Rain 5th, but doesn't even have Empire Strikes Back or The Dark Knight on it.

[Heartofice]

I think it’s interesting to compare and contrast the AFI top 100 with the British version, the BFI.

https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time
 

You could say that the British list goes too far in the other direction, heavily focusing on avant garde European movies from the 60s, and not interested in anything remotely mainstream or modern.

[IFR]

It is fun watching a passionate debate about a subjective matter. Jurassic Park and Gone with the Wind were both expertly crafted by top filmmakers of the time. 

I personally would watch Jurassic Park over Gone with the Wind any day of the week. A science experiment run amok is certainly more interesting to me than a racist love letter to Confederate times, whatever AFI says. And Dr Grant's character evolution as circumstances mold him into this strong, paternal figure, was more interesting for me to watch than Scarlett O'Hara over four hours becoming an increasingly shrill, charmless and horrible person. Neither approach was terribly original or greatly enhanced my view of the world, but certainly Jurassic Park is an intensely fun movie whose subject matter is relevant today, whereas I view Gone with the Wind as a crucible of boredom whose impact on society was actually pernicious.

But your miles may vary.

[Heartofice]

I find that anyone who was around the right age for Jurassic Park when it came out regards it as a stone cold classic, maybe their favourite movie.

I was maybe about 15 when it came out.. went to the cinema to see it and I thought it was.. fine I guess. Thought the dinosaurs looked good, impressive technology and stuff. It’s only been recently I’ve realised how much a lot of people love it. 
 

I just never got it. Maybe because Dinosaurs never excited me like maybe they do for others, but I also think that by the time I’d saw JP I had already watched movies like Aliens, Terminator, Predator ans Robocop, Indiana Jones and Star Wars countless times . So nothing in Jurassic Park really blew me away.

The biggest problem for me though was that I didn’t like any of the characters. Sam Neil is a good actor but he’s not the lead in an action movie and Goldblum was the Fly to me. For me it’s a movie of set pieces and spectacle and little else, that’s why it never grabbed me. There was nothing there to make me want to come back and watch it again… in fact I don’t think I did for many years 

[Maithanet]

I also think that the Jurassic Park should get credit for the fact that it exhibited groundbreaking techniques (fully CGI characters interacting with humans at a level never before seen).  This was hugely influential on the future of cinema, arguably as much as any movie made in the past 30 years. 

Yes, simply being groundbreaking alone isn't enough to be an all-time great, but combine that with effective action/suspense and excellent directing, and you have a true classic. 

[Heartofice]

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I also think that the Jurassic Park should get credit for the fact that it exhibited groundbreaking techniques (fully CGI characters interacting with humans at a level never before seen).  This was hugely influential on the future of cinema, arguably as much as any movie made in the past 30 years. 

Yes, simply being groundbreaking alone isn't enough to be an all-time great, but combine that with effective action/suspense and excellent directing, and you have a true classic. 

JP has always gotten credit for that though, from the moment it was released it’s been held up as an exemplar of how to use visual effects. That they don’t look totally janky today goes to show how well done they were.

I do however think that isn’t enough to push it into classic category, for me there are far too many elements of the movie that means it wouldn’t hit the top of any of my lists.

[polishgenius]

34 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

You could say that the British list goes too far in the other direction, heavily focusing on avant garde European movies from the 60s, and not interested in anything remotely mainstream or modern.

That's  the BFI's beat though to be fair. But also at least as far as mainstream goes I think you're exaggerating - their top three are Vertigo, Citizen Kane and Tokyo Story, which is a pretty standard top 3 and not atypical of the rest of the list. They definitely do eschew modern films for older, foreign films, but it's not a bad thing to have a fairly major player highlighting things that may otherwise be overlooked.