Movies of the season

[Anthony_NYC]

Did anybody see "Shortbus"? I'm not sure we can discuss it in any detail here (graphic sex), but a friend dragged me to see it, and it surprised me. Not a great movie, but often touching and funny, and pretty original, too.

[dirac]

I plan to go if I can but the one theatre that's showing it is playing it at 10:00 pm only. Normally I wouldn't be deflected by this, but the theatre's not too close by. I'm hoping it runs through this weekend and I can catch it Friday or Saturday. If I do I will report back.

[papeetepatrick]

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19652

This is a much better review from the NYReview of Books, in the current issue, than was that one of 'The Queen'. I am not very interested in this film (and don't plan to see it because it sounds boring), but some of the commentary has been interesting--this one easily the most so, at least to me. It's interesting how Coppola would have made certain kinds of crucial, deadly omissions. Knowing that, I'd rather re-read St-Simon's Memoirs, even if it's about Louis XIV, if I need a sense of the singularly luxurious style--because Antoinette did a lot of it, but I doubt anyone ever surpassed the Sun King at this variety of pursuits: There's a cake recipe with 18 eggs in the St-Simon that Louis XIV used to gorge on, so he really ought to be as famous for cake as Antoinette was.

[papeetepatrick]

Techine's LES TEMPS QUI CHANGENT.

I'd seen this about a month before dirac put this post up, but I think it should still qualify for the awards season even though it was released here late. Nothing from the Golden Globes. I don't know if they are the same as the Oscars, with sometimes nominating an actor/actress from a foreign language film, but separating off the film. Anyway, I remember Deneuve and Depardieu both being nominated for Oscars.

It might sound ordinary-snooty, but I really don't care too much for any of the awards and never watch them, because all I want to know is what goes on politicking behind the scenes and I don't know anybody who's going to tell me. So, when they nominate and award all sorts of things I can't stand, I don't care much for the animal behaviour you get in the presentations and acceptances; and when several do a political statement, it is just too gross. 'Babel' is a film I liked and got the most Golden Globe nominations, but I still don't care that much.

I think 'Changing Times' is a terrific and beautiful film and there is this wonderful editing of scenes that is very abrupt: especially if there's sex implied, there's a refreshing lack of foreplay and all those idiotic bedroom things full of pop-song 'passion.' Better to do this sharp cutting or just go ahead and show it as in 'Pola X.' I've liked Depardieu a lot in the 70's, 80's and 90's, but haven't kept up with his work in the last 7-8 years. But Deneuve has surely made more excellent films since 1998 than any other star: 'Place Vendome,' 'Pola X,' 'Est-Ouest', that very fine mini-series version of 'Les Liaisons Dangereuses,' 'Dancer in the Dark', 'Time Regained', even though there have been some silly commercial things like that theme-parkish '3 Musketeers', which I just fast-forwarded through. She gets better and better as the years go by and is easily the most interesting film actress still working IMO. I'm not sure I could have imagined anyone who used to be the very embodiment of Parisian chic so able to throw out all vanity (quite zaftig here, dowdily dressed, and doggedly common and no-nonsense in her inhabiting of the role) and, especially in this film, show her warmth which was really always there. Not to mention her extraordinary intelligence, which has always been obvious. Depardieu is understated but exactly right, and the little subplots with other family members are all very effective, and with Techine's economy, he does not worry about making all sorts of connections between one and the other. Not overdoing this somehow makes all the supporting actors and their own stories very much alive. The connections are simple; they don't need emphasis.

There was a good review of this in the NYT during the summer, but it was good because it made the film sound very enticing but gave away nothing of what happens--which then is not at all obvious. I hadn't any idea what would happen with the old youthful lovers now meeting 30 years later. It seemed to me that things could have gone in almost any direction, and there is a lot of very fast, busy development that goes on.

Definitely my favourite of all films I saw in 2006. I went on and on about this because I don't believe I've seen anyone post about it here. I think the DVD has been out for some time.

[dirac]

Thank you for the report, papeetepatrick – I must see that.

She gets better and better as the years go by and is easily the most interesting film actress still working IMO.

I’ve gotten to like Deneuve more over the years. As you note, she’s had remarkable luck (and taste) throughout her career and has made more films that will last for awhile than many other stars. (Initially I was more favorably disposed towards her older sister, the late lamented Francoise Dorleac.) The young Deneuve struck me as a director’s tool, interesting enough if Polanski orBunuel was telling her what to do but not a performer with much individuality or initiative. But with a face like that, who cared? (And she was very appealing in The Umbrellas of Cherbourg.)

It might sound ordinary-snooty, but I really don't care too much for any of the awards and never watch them, because all I want to know is what goes on politicking behind the scenes and I don't know anybody who's going to tell me. So, when they nominate and award all sorts of things I can't stand, I don't care much for the animal behaviour you get in the presentations and acceptances; and when several do a political statement, it is just too gross.

Not 'ordinary-snooty' - just sensible. The awards shows are a guilty pleasure of mine, although they’re not nearly so much fun since the heyday of Cher and Geena Davis, with all the female stars today showing up in simple sheaths lest they be jeered to death in the press. Politics are certainly important – it’s useful to think of the Oscars as a form of election-cum-popularity-contest, with everything that accompanies such things.

I’m steeling myself for ‘Apocalypto’ this weekend.

[papeetepatrick]

papeetepatrick writes: Will report back to the other thread in a few weeks after I have read the novel.

Please do. I saw an interview with Ellroy and he seemed most pleased with the picture. I understand the movie does depart from the book, but apparently a real effort was made to follow Ellroy, although there were significant changes.

I really didn't think I'd go through with this, but I'm glad I did. The Afterword, which I only noticed as I was finishing the novel was written by Ellroy on February 27, 2006! He praises the film in a way which demonstrates how differently authors feel about how their work is adapted. Truman Capote was always disgusted. I read 'Beloved' before seeing the film, and then was surprised at how faithful it was to the novel, or so I thought, and how much better I thought it was than critics I'd read had. Then I saw Toni Morison on Charlie Rose and she said they didn't get it right at all. All I can say is that they followed her text closely.

In 'the Black Dahlia', Ellroy's text is given faithful treatment in terms of plot and character about 3/4 of the way through, then it's as though Friedman and DePalma smash an enormous lot of what remains to bits. It's not distorted with weird pieces of plot conjoined in new ways the way 'LA Confidential' was, but the characters are often nearly unrecognizable, which I'll mention presently. But Ellroy is a different sort of bird, with all this emotion about his mother and the Dahlia, and this book, which he calls his 'signature book' was clearly worth all the trouble of reading a 4th long Ellroy novel: It's far greater than the others, because Elizabeth Short was real and inspired as well as inspiring. He's talking about the movie 20 years after he wrote the book I'd just finished, and which as an object at a distance I could see no comparison at all: The book is a thousand times greater than the film, and not just in the matter of changes. Ellroy looks back, unlike Chandler and MacDonald, who have a romanticism and elegance due to writing about things that were happening within the periods in which they were written. What he mainly offers more of is not more insight into detectives in SoCal or detective novels, but about the LAPD and intricate detailing of police corruption and police work.

He thinks Josh Hartnett is perfect as Bucky Bleichert, for example! That it's a 'trinity' of Bleichert/Ellroy/DePalma. That's why this mind-blowing Afterword Ellroy wrote for the edition to accompany the movie's release ought to be read by anyone who found the movie interesting. And if you read the book, it's simply nearly unbelievable; but if the film interested you, then read the Afterword even if you don't read the novel (only in the 2006 edition, as mentioned.)

Characters such as Madeleine (played by Hilary Swank) are infinitely more developed and complex in the book and her outcome is not even vaguely similar to what happens in DePalma's film. Ellroy's mother, also murdered, however lived a few blocks from 39th and Norton when the Dahlia was murdered and his parents constantly discussed and 'lived' the case. He talks in the Afterword of continuing to work on this fusion he's been obsessed with for years between the two murdered women, and how he loved the unknown one while repudiating the wayward parent, murdered by a man who had just raped her. This is a rare opportunity to see how a writer views his own work and how this work was always kept alive long after it was published and marketed.

It does make you see the film differently, but I don't really like it any more than I did when I first saw it, nor do I think it is a fine work as I do the book. I am not emotionally involved with it as Ellroy is. I'd want to see an 8-hour miniseries to think before what I thought the novel was would have been done justice. His plotting and twists are incredibly intricate, but for himself that novel is no longer the way he sees the characters. Just for one small example of how characters were changed, De Witt is killed in Tijuana by Blanchard just a few days after his release, and Emmett Spraque, Madeleine's 'father', is not her real father although he thought he was for 11 years, and when he found he wasn't, he became her lover. She works the Black Dahlia motif long after the murder when she does her clubbing. And so on. I could go on and on, but I won't. The book is phenomenally good, and the Afterword is then simply mind-boggling.

[dirac]

papeetepatrick writes: Will report back to the other thread in a few weeks after I have read the novel.

Please do. I saw an interview with Ellroy and he seemed most pleased with the picture. I understand the movie does depart from the book, but apparently a real effort was made to follow Ellroy, although there were significant changes.

I really didn't think I'd go through with this, but I'm glad I did. The Afterword, which I only noticed as I was finishing the novel was written by Ellroy on February 27, 2006! He praises the film in a way which demonstrates how differently authors feel about how their work is adapted. Truman Capote was always disgusted. I read 'Beloved' before seeing the film, and then was surprised at how faithful it was to the novel, or so I thought, and how much better I thought it was than critics I'd read had. Then I saw Toni Morison on Charlie Rose and she said they didn't get it right at all. All I can say is that they followed her text closely.

He thinks Josh Hartnett is perfect as Bucky Bleichert, for example! That it's a 'trinity' of Bleichert/Ellroy/DePalma. That's why this mind-blowing Afterword Ellroy wrote for the edition to accompany the movie's release ought to be read by anyone who found the movie interesting. And if you read the book, it's simply nearly unbelievable; but if the film interested you, then read the Afterword even if you don't read the novel (only in the 2006 edition, as mentioned.)

Thanks for the update. I suspect Ellroy’s comments are partly genuine enthusiasm and partly courtesy. Many writers past and present have complained about adaptations of their work for the screen, but I consider it bad form even if the book was mauled. It’s not as if Capote and Morrison didn’t know what they might be in for, after all, and it’s tacky for novelists to go around bleating about How Hollywood Destroyed My Masterpiece after the check has cleared. Even if he disliked Hartnett’s performance, and I’d not blame him if he did, it would be impolite to go around saying so for publication. (On the other hand, if he actually means what he says, one doesn’t know what to think.)

Regarding Morrison, I can’t imagine what she was upset about. Even if the adaptation wasn't perfect, the film was carefully and thoughtfully made, with a beautiful performance by Thandie Newton. She was lucky.

I’m going to check out that Afterword. I’ll try the book again, too, although my previous attempts at dealing with Ellroy have not been fruitful.

[Helene]

Thanks for the update. I suspect Ellroy’s comments are partly genuine enthusiasm and partly courtesy. Many writers past and present have complained about adaptations of their work for the screen, but I consider it bad form even if the book was mauled. It’s not as if Capote and Morrison didn’t know what they might be in for, after all, and it’s tacky for novelists to go around bleating about How Hollywood Destroyed My Masterpiece after the check has cleared. Even if he disliked Hartnett’s performance, and I’d not blame him if he did, it would be impolite to go around saying so for publication. (On the other hand, if he actually means what he says, one doesn’t know what to think.)

A few years ago in Seattle, either as part of Folklife or Bumbershoot, I attended a panel discussion with authors whose books had been adapted to movies.

One of them was James Ellroy. He made it very clear that once he cashed the check for LA Confidential, it wasn't his anymore, and they could do what they wanted with it. If he liked the end product and thought it was true to the book, that was gravy. He did say he was impressed with how the book was translated into film and how the film kept the spirit of the book, which couldn't have been turned literally into a script. Ellroy is quite charismatic in person, if you don't mind a bit of arrogance mixed with energy and articulateness (which I didn't).

Another author was Dorothy Allison, who talked about her book Bastard Out of Carolina. Her attitude was quite different, most likely because it was a wrenching account based on her own experience. She said Angelika Houston had to ask her multiple times for the rights to make the movie, and it took a long time before she was convinced that Houston would be true to her book. Even then, I got the impression that while she lauded the movie for the most part, she really hadn't let go.

I seem to remember a moderator and one other author, but he or she didn't make an impression.

[papeetepatrick]

dirac--I must emphasize that this Afterword is entirely, radically different from any author reaction to a film treatment I've ever read. For one thing, he certainly didn't need to write it to sell the movie, and I'm sure it had very little effect on moviegoers, if any. When you read it, you see that he voluntarily wrote every word of it. He keeps living this story.

The Afterword is a RAVE of the movie, and is as if he conceives of the story by now as much more what DePalma did with it than what he'd done with it 20 years before. I think not all authors (in fact, not even many) think of their fiction as 'living material' that is 'still growing' in this way. They may reassess it, but when they do, it is not usually as if the old completed work seems almost as if a sketch compared to what this New Genius (here DePalma) has done with it. It has to do with his personality, of which Helene has given some facets. I think you will see that all of it is enthusiasm and none of it courtesy, that he's just different, when you see the Afterword.

If it helps for now, I couldn't believe what I was reading in the Afterword. It could also be that he is very convivial and that he struck up a relationship with the filmmakers and was made more of a part of the process than is usual. For myself, I can't get past half-rehearsed performances and hybrid weird ones like Swank's. I thought his approach to perceiving the new version was interesting, even though I had not thought the film was outstanding except that somehow Mia Kirchner in the within-film porn loops did capture the neediness of the Dahlia herself. Only that redeemed the film for me, and ironically, it was the most important thing as well.

I thought Oprah was also wonderful in 'Beloved', and I agree, as before, that I had no idea what Morrison didn't like. I thought 'Beloved' was a beautiful movie.

[Petra]

I saw "The Good Shepherd" on Xmas Day. It is a very long account of US espionage during WWII and the beginning of the Cold War through the eyes of one of the major counterintelligence officers (Edward Wilson played by Matt Damon). It is directed by Robert de Niro so although it is self-indulgently long, the acting is outstanding. Unusually for a "suit" or "uniform" movie, each role is very distinct from the other. There is no confusing one tall patriot for another tall patriot or one dark haired beuaty for another... Matt Damon is making a great career as a spy or other person with hidden identities. However, he manages to make each such role very different - Edward Wilson is very different from Jason Bourne or Tom Ridley.

Angelina Jolie, with just a little help from the make-up department (it must be very tiresome to have a face that could launch a thousand ships ), does a remarkable job in portraying vulnerability and emotional despair. Tammy Blanchard, a complete unknown to me, was also excellent as the "other woman". Typecasting would have had their roles reversed.

I think the screenplay is original, which is quite unusual in a movie of this nature.

I see very few movies in the theatre so I don't know how this rates compared to the others discussed here or whether it has any chance for an Oscar. There are plenty actors here who could conceivably get a Supporting nod - Billy Crudup, Lee Pace, Michael Gambon, etc. The Academy loves Jolie of course.

[dirac]

Thank you for the report, GWTW. The reviews of “The Good Shepherd” have not been favorable, which is too bad as on paper this looked promising. Generally speaking, movies directed by actors do tend to have good performances if not always much else.

I wouldn’t think of Jolie is as the wifely type, unless you count Olympia in “Alexander,” where she was indeed a suitable match for Val Kilmer. (Her looks aren’t very Forties, however.)

[sidwich]

Tammy Blanchard, a complete unknown to me, was also excellent as the "other woman". Typecasting would have had their roles reversed.

Blanchard's been on the rise, playing with a number of famous and more established actresses. She picked up an Emmy playing the young Judy Garland in "Me and My Shadows" and a Tony nomination as Louise opposite Bernadette Peters in "Gypsy."

I wouldn’t think of Jolie is as the wifely type, unless you count Olympia in “Alexander,” where she was indeed a suitable match for Val Kilmer. (Her looks aren’t very Forties, however.)

I think the subject matter would have been hard for some audiences no matter what, but the idea of Jolie as the archtypal suffering 40s wife is a bit odd. Jennifer Connelly might have been a better choice. (I think Jolie could have made a killer Ava Gardner in "The Aviator" a few years ago, though.)

[dirac]

Tammy Blanchard, a complete unknown to me, was also excellent as the "other woman". Typecasting would have had their roles reversed.

Blanchard's been on the rise, playing with a number of famous and more established actresses. She picked up an Emmy playing the young Judy Garland in "Me and My Shadows" and a Tony nomination as Louise opposite Bernadette Peters in "Gypsy."

I wouldn’t think of Jolie is as the wifely type, unless you count Olympia in “Alexander,” where she was indeed a suitable match for Val Kilmer. (Her looks aren’t very Forties, however.)

I think the subject matter would have been hard for some audiences no matter what, but the idea of Jolie as the archtypal suffering 40s wife is a bit odd. Jennifer Connelly might have been a better choice. (I think Jolie could have made a killer Ava Gardner in "The Aviator" a few years ago, though.)

Thanks for the info, sidwich. (The thought of Jolie as Gardner crossed my mind, too, but although she would have brought the right spirit to the part I think her face and figure are just a little too contemporary.)

[dirac]

BABEL

This is sensational--it's got tons of sensation but profound too. You definitely need to see it in a theater. This is a sort of Essay on the Other, and it is not superficial. The telling point is that the supposed 'stars'--are far less interesting and full-bodied than literally every single actor among 'the Others.' There's more than structural similarity to 'Intolerance' than even I thought, therefore, with this matter of the Foreign Other. One of the most beautifully photographed films I've ever seen--in Baja (with the border between the U.S. and Mexico very important), Morocco, and Tokyo--it's got subtleties in it that you think are being lost in the interests of some ordinary style of narrative, only to then find them surprising you. All 3 stories in all 3 lands are tied together with the merest thread which nevertheless hugely affects all characters involved. One of the most amazing things is the reverse-chronology over a short period of time, which is even somewhat reminiscent of Robbe-Grillet (including some of the serialized images echoed in an intertextual way from one story to another), except by now new things have occurred and what is spectacular is that Director Alejandro Gonzales Innaritu makes you feel the power and presence of both the Global Spectacle and it's Internet Instant, but also the many-hours difference in time zones as still existing and juxtaposed to each other! The high-tech editing and lingering over 'still lives' like various interior an exterior shots near the action but with nobody in them are part of the grammar of this truly cinematic masterpiece--as are the striking sound images and use of music.

As for the 2 Malibu stars...er, um, San Diego characters... played by Cate Blanchett as pure drear and Brad Pitt as a caricature of the hot American movie star who gets down to breaking heads and doing quite difficult things (read 'China Syndrome', read Robert Redford, read Richard Gere doing tough and brooding)--well, they are rendered, miraculously, as 'exotic Others' in quite as much a way as all the non-Malibu actors are: They seem so dessicated and uninteresting by comparison to all the rest of the cast that you don't care anything about their characters' fates, at least I didn't. I never ever once saw either of them as anything but Blanchett and Pitt doing 'movie star.' Brad Pitt runs after a disappearing bus and he definitely needed a stunt man or double to do this, but his weird running has a cramped authenticity to it all the same.

The most moving story is the Japanese one, to my mind, about the deaf-mute daughter of a woman who has recently committed suicide. However, in one of the Baja segments there is a Mexican wedding that is pure pleasure to watch, reminding one of the big crowds in Robert Altman, but a lot more sensual and human.

I saw 'Babel' and came away with the mixed feelings I'm becoming accustomed to this moviegoing season. I thought it was a big improvement over Inarritu and Arriaga's last effort, '21 Grams.' It is beautiful to look at, although not in a picture postcard way, and the actors, some of whom I gather are nonprofessionals, give their all to their roles (some of which don't deserve the effort). The Mexican wedding sequence and the Japanese club rave are as remarkable as papeetepatrick says, but I grew increasingly annoyed by the melodramatic plot contrivances. I may very well see it again, though.

[Giannina]

I found "The Good Shepherd" an extraordinary movie; saw it a couple of days ago and can't get it out of my mind. Matt Damon comes into his own in an understated role amazingly well played; very unlike him and definitely Oscar material. His demeanor is deadly calm, and with a face that hardly changes expression he manages to convey deep devasting emotions. I thought Jolie as his wife was wonderful casting. She plays her femme fatale role in her opening scene, then pays the consequences of her actions for the rest of her life, becoming a dramatically beautiful, tortured, mature woman. The story line is upsetting; the movie is riveting.

Giannina

[dirac]

I saw “The Good Shepherd” yesterday, missing the Fiesta Bowl, which turned out to be an entertainment selection error of major proportions, and I didn’t tape the game, damn it. But I digress. I’m glad you liked it, Giannina, and thank you for letting us know your thoughts. I feel bad about it and don't mean to play the killjoy, but I disagree, I'm afraid. This wasn’t an easy picture to get made, I’m sure, and it’s obvious that everyone involved had worthy intentions. I had been looking forward to it because it takes up a major subject that hasn’t really been explored on the big screen, but I’m afraid they bit off more than they could chew, pardon the cliche. The movie is indebted thematically and visually to the Godfather movies -it's basically 'Godfather II' with Episcopalians and minus any energy or pulse (and Matt Damon is no Pacino, I’m sorry to say). TGS lasts three hours and feels like six, but it still tries to cover too much time and ground – characters and situations go undeveloped, loose threads stay loose, yet scenes still go on for too long. Certain plot developments pack no wallop because you can see them coming for miles. I understand the wish of De Niro and his screenwriter, Eric Roth, to avoid the usual spy flick thrills, but there has to be something to keep us with the story. It wasn’t there for me. The movie has a large and impressive cast, but only a few of the actors can really make their presence felt. I’m not sorry I saw it, exactly, but I can't really recommend it, either.

GWTW writes:

Angelina Jolie, with just a little help from the make-up department (it must be very tiresome to have a face that could launch a thousand ships (IMG:style_emoticons/default/devil.gif) ), does a remarkable job in portraying vulnerability and emotional despair.

Jolie ages rather like Elizabeth Taylor in “Giant” – gray streaks in the hair, not much else. And heavy drinking has no effect on her skin or figure. Both she and Tammy Blanchard do what they can with what they’re given. But Jolie is still too forceful a personality for the part, such as it is - she could obviously eat Damon for breakfast.

[Giannina]

Ouch!

But then I did see the Fiesta Bowl. What a whollop!

Giannina

[dirac]

Thank you for being so gracious, Giannina.

[Drew]

Dirac I love your posts and agree with you on almost everything!! But I must admit...

I liked The Good Shepherd very, very much and found it totally mesmerizing. I was a little disappointed with elements of the plotline involving Matt Damon's son which had a number of implausibilities that, I thought, didn't fit with the tone established by the rest of the movie -- and I did think Jolie was just too gorgeous for her role (though not at all ineffective in her scenes and fun to watch). But I still found the whole thing gripping from beginning to end. Usually episodic plots lose me, but here I felt drawn into a whole world of relationships or, perhaps, that should be "relationships." I know a lot of people and reviewers haven't liked it, but for me, Giannina's description is perfect: "riveting."

To make things worst:

I saw part of the Fiesta bowl--but left while the game was still tied, telling my husband that I thought it was a very good football game, but that a very good football game was still a football game.

[Petra]

Just to tie things up properly - I didn't watch the Fiesta Bowl, but I did suffer through the play-by-play the following day in the office cafeteria. Sorry, but I have a very low tolerance level for American football.

[dirac]

Drew writes:

I liked The Good Shepherd very, very much and found it totally mesmerizing. I was a little disappointed with elements of the plotline involving Matt Damon's son which had a number of implausibilities that, I thought, didn't fit with the tone established by the rest of the movie...

Thank you, Drew, for speaking up! I’m afraid I found the plot implausibilities difficult to take. I can’t really speak in detail about them without spoilers, but for me they went beyond the subplot involving the son, although I agree that was the most outstanding one. I’ll also add on a positive note that the film picks up considerably once the deadening flashbacks are out of the way, and the scenes with Damon and his young son are genuinely touching.

I did think Jolie was just too gorgeous for her role (though not at all ineffective in her scenes and fun to watch).

I didn’t think the problem was so much with the casting of Jolie, although that was part of it, so much as the lack of characterization provided for the wife. And it was certainly not her fault that her first scene with Damon put me in mind of Isla Fisher’s assaults on the virtue of Vince Vaughn in ‘Wedding Crashers.’

[dirac]

I did not get around to posting about ‘Apocalypto.’ Gibson is a real director – rich visuals, clear and cogent action. His action sequences are not the most original but they are exciting and clear, and Rudy Youngblood dashing through the jungle in his thong makes Daniel Day-Lewis in The Last of the Mohicans look like Grandma walking her miniature poodle. The digital photography, by Dean Semler, is remarkable. The movie is intense – there is a very long chase sequence that’s terrific but also just skirts Perils of Pauline territory and I can understand deciding that it’s just Too Much. Gibson begins the movie with a quote from Will Durant to the effect that civilizations rot from within, and the climactic human sacrifice seems to confirm that – it’s not merely the killing, but the bizarre ritualized extravagance and scale of the executions that is truly horrible. But this idea is not fully worked out. There is also a sequence early on in which a village elder tells a story that seems to suggest that what we’re about to see is not so much a story of a civilization in decline but that human beings are fated to die violently at the hands of others as a result of innate human desires - because people are perpetually discontented with their lot and because one man would dominate another. (The movie is dedicated to Abel.)

A point of departure from recent movies, including some involving Gibson, is that revenge is not central. Instead of Jaguar Paw’s wife and child being horribly dispatched and the rest of the movie occupied with his pursuit of vengeance, which is what one usually gets these days, he’s trying to protect, not avenge. (His father notes early on that Jaguar Paw is motivated by fear and in his view that’s not good. But that proves to be the motivation that drives him throughout the film.)

[Old Fashioned]

I did not get around to posting about ‘Apocalypto.’ Gibson is a real director – rich visuals, clear and cogent action. His action sequences are not the most original but they are exciting and clear, and Rudy Youngblood dashing through the jungle in his thong makes Daniel Day-Lewis in The Last of the Mohicans look like Grandma walking her miniature poodle. The digital photography, by Dean Semler, is remarkable. The movie is intense – there is a very long chase sequence that’s terrific but also just skirts Perils of Pauline territory and I can understand deciding that it’s just Too Much. Gibson begins the movie with a quote from Will Durant to the effect that civilizations rot from within, and the climactic human sacrifice seems to confirm that – it’s not merely the killing, but the bizarre ritualized extravagance and scale of the executions that is truly horrible. But this idea is not fully worked out. There is also a sequence early on in which a village elder tells a story that seems to suggest that what we’re about to see is not so much a story of a civilization in decline but that human beings are fated to die violently at the hands of others as a result of innate human desires - because people are perpetually discontented with their lot and because one man would dominate another. (The movie is dedicated to Abel.)

A point of departure from recent movies, including some involving Gibson, is that revenge is not central. Instead of Jaguar Paw’s wife and child being horribly dispatched and the rest of the movie occupied with his pursuit of vengeance, which is what one usually gets these days, he’s trying to protect, not avenge. (His father notes early on that Jaguar Paw is motivated by fear and in his view that’s not good. But that proves to be the motivation that drives him throughout the film.)

I suppose Apocalypto made a watchable, entertaining movie, but I hate the fact that Gibson decided to use the "authentic" Yucatec Maya language rather than English. It's not that I mind reading subtitles, but the native language lent the film a false impression of historical accuracy, which it most definitely was not. While I understand that this film wasn't meant to be a documentary, it kills me that people are probably going to see it and believe this is what the Maya culture was really like. There were so many blatant errors that it was difficult for me to sit through.

[dirac]

I suppose Apocalypto made a watchable, entertaining movie, but I hate the fact that Gibson decided to use the "authentic" Yucatec Maya language rather than English. It's not that I mind reading subtitles, but the native language lent the film a false impression of historical accuracy, which it most definitely was not. While I understand that this film wasn't meant to be a documentary, it kills me that people are probably going to see it and believe this is what the Maya culture was really like. There were so many blatant errors that it was difficult for me to sit through.

Good to hear from you in this forum, Old Fashioned. I wasn’t bothered by that quite as much as I was by similar boo-boos in The Good Shepherd, because I didn’t take the story as an attempt to tell us what it was really like –it’s not a realistic story at all in that sense -- and I doubt that people will take it as such (although you never know). But I know less about the Mayans and that probably affected my response as well.

[canbelto]

I saw Curse of the Golden Flower the other night. It reunited Zhang Zimou with Gong Li, his one-time muse, and it was supposed to be his return to "storyline" filmmaking, as opposed to his "martial art" flicks like Hero and House of Flying Daggers. Strangely, while the movie had its moments, it has less emotional impact than both Hero and House of Flying Daggers. Maybe it's because I felt like all both the Empress and Emperor were pretty despicable, so siding with the Empress (Gong Li, which Zimou filmed in endless, voyeuristic closeups) is hard. As usual the film had great visual beauty. But it grinds to a halt halfway through the movie from a fascinating family drama to a grand civil war, and despite some interesting moments the movie never recovers, in my opinion.

Other movies I've seen: Stranger than Fiction (charming, if a little too self-consciously charming for my taste) and Borat. During the movie large chunks of the audience walked out, but a larger chunk held their sides in splinters from laughing so hard. I was in the second group. This is a movie I think most people should see -- whether you find it totally offensive or a wickedly funny satire of American culture is for you to decide.

And Oscar noms today -- WHY was di Caprio nominated for Blood Diamond? He was 1000x better on The Departed.