Bullshit about Movies

[X]

One of Funny Games' intents is to bring to the surface the expectations that we have for the films we watch. Chief among these expectations is the rule of karma (or what we interpret to be karma in the Western world), or, simply put, the expectation that the good guys will come out on top and the bad guys will get theirs. But, Haneke wants nothing to do with escapism; film, to him, isn't meant to be a panacea that imposes moral order onto something that he believes to be chaotic and meaningless (i.e., life).

Haneke is a nihilist? I was unaware of that. Despite what my custom user tag might lead people to believe, I have no respect for nihilists. They're fools.

Ultimately, then, the rewind sequence serves to, at least partially, satisfy Haneke's aforementioned intent. We, as an audience, get a sense of relief when one of these young sociopaths is finally shot and, presumably, killed. But, then Haneke rewinds the film in order to show us that he won't acquiesce to the unstated demands that most viewers have. Condescending? Maybe. Effective and purposeful? Most definitely.

He could have achieved the same desired effect without the rewind sequence at all. Doesn't the fact that these two young sociopaths win in the end acheive the exact same purpose that the rewind sequence has? That the good guys do not always win? It was nothing more than an excuse to do something "different" in a film. I respect those who try to break boundaries, but you cannot criticize Aronofsky for superfluous editing and showcasing style over substance and than praise Haneke for the same thing, it's hypocritical.

Do Aronofsky's films offer a critical look at society and examine how it affects the characters of his films? I would argue that this is not the case. His characters are addicted to drugs, and they are impoverished, but he doesn't really explain why they are addicts or extremely poor.

There are several reasons touched upon for why they are addicted to drugs. Take Tyrone (Marlon Wayans) character for example, one of the obvious reasons he's fallen into drug addiction is that he has never gotten over the death of his mother. He talks about her, he dreams about her, and he sits with her picture late in the night thinking of her. I'd say that's a pretty obvious example of one of the reasons that led him to drug addiction.

As for the poverty example, in the Wrestler Aronofsky most certainly does touch upon the reasons. Rourke's character squandered all of his money on drugs and booze, that's rather obvious.
.
What do you want Aronofsky to do? Come right out and have the main characters say "We were poor because" or "I was addicted to drugs because"? That would be heavy-handed and just plain stupid.

So, I have to disagree with you there.

Aronofsky takes things as they are. There's nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't preclude him from being a great director, but it does show that Aronofsky, relative to Haneke, doesn't look at the big picture, or how things work on a macro rather than micro level.

Again, you're making the statement that films that delve into the reasons behind their character's motivations are superior to films that don't. Which is ridiculious. And how exactly does Haneke look at the big picture in Funny Games? The sociopaths have no motivations, no reasons, they just kill purely for the sport of it. Again, you're criticizing Aronofsky for something that Haneke himself does as well.

Furthermore, in mentioning how Haneke deals with social issues, I was merely stating facts and looking for a point of comparison between the two. No theme has more value than any other, so I'm not sure where you got that impression.

But you basically just said the same exact thing above. You state that Haneke is a superior director because he tackles larger social issues and their reasons, which would logically lead to the conclusion that you consider films that delve into explanations behind their characters motivations to be superior to films that don't, which I think is a rather absurd notion.

It is probably the case that we do have different perspectives on the films that we watch, as you say. And, I will agree with you to a certain extent that Haneke doesn't deal with subjects with such finality as other directors. But, I don't see how this is meant to be disadvantageous to Haneke, as, instead, with his films, he has provided unprecedented insights into the human condition. I don't think any film of his better demonstrated this than Cache, which seeks to show that egoism plays a bigger role in our lives than we want to admit. And, if Haneke's argument here does have merit, then there are many, many disheartening implications for social progress.

I agree with you completely about Cache, and it was a brilliant film. I still consider Requiem For a Dream to be superior though. I was far more emotionally invested in Requiem than I was in Cache. This is of course up to personal interpretation, as some topics will simply capture the interest of some individuals more so than others, but it's simply my opinon on the matter.

And also, I would certainly argue that Aronofsky delves into insights of the human condition, as all of his films are primarily character studies (with The Fountain as a possible exception) and thus deal almost exclusively with the human condition.

You should post in this thread more often tdigle, we need more intelligent and passionate film enthusiasts in here, I'm really enjoying our conversation thus far.

 

[X]

I'm probably a nihilist.

I didn't sympathize with him until he was dying in agony because of the way he treated others. His lack of care for them negated most of the feelings I've felt for him.

...Umm...huh? How did you possibly come to that conclusion? He wasn't dying in agony because of the way he treated others, he was dying in agony because he made a simple mistake that anyone could. If you're referring to the way he treated others as being the reason he was in the wild in the first place, I'd disagree again. It was actually quite the opposite. His father was an unsympathetic brute obsessed with money and materialism, which led Chris to reject everything that his father stood for (careers, money, personal property) and go off and forge his own path in life.

Plus, as someone who has experience with the wilderness, he was an idiot about they way he did things.

That's more of an aside than anything else.

How was he an idiot? He made a mistake between two extremely similar plant types, one edible, the other poisonous. People make mistakes, you shouldn't condemn them for it.

Awesome, man. I'm glad you enjoyed it as much as I did. I thought you would. The Holbrook scene still gets to me, even after I've watched it as many times as I have.

There were several scenes that really touched me, but the Holbrook one was up there. Like I said, that last 15 minutes or so had some tears welling up in my eyes.

And hopefully, you find both Delirious and Gone Baby Gone to be as enjoyable as I hyped it as well. You'll like Delirious I'm sure, but I think you're absolutely going to love Gone Baby Gone.

Well considering how much I enjoyed Into the Wild, I'll have to get on those two ASAP. Thanks for the recommendations JMT.

And you know what? Tomorrow I get paid and along with picking up Seasons 2 & 3 of Friday Night Lights, I'm also going to get The Piano Teacher and Caché. You guys know how I felt about Funny Games, but at the same time... I've read people who hated Funny Games as much as I did, but yet still call those two films masterpieces. So I will see for myself just how great of a director this Michael Haneke is.

Which Funny Games did you see? The original, or the remake? I loved the original, but the remake just seemd a tad bit too "Hollywood-ized" for my taste. It was still enjoyable and obviously it's basically a shot-for-shot remake, but I prefer the original. Michael Pitt and Tim Roth really helped out the remake though, those two actors are simply amazing and among the very best working today.

So JMT, I've got a question for ya. Do you think Into the Wild was snubbed big time by the Oscars? After viewing it, I certainly do. I'm not 100% sure whether or not I liked it more than I did No Country For Old Men, but it DEFINATELY deserved a nomination atleast. Emile deserved a nomination for Best Actor, Penn deserved a nomination for Best Director (and quite frankly should have won it) as well. I mean, come on, Into the Wild deserved a Best Picture nomination FAAAAAAR more than fucking Juno did. I really liked Juno, but it should never have been nominated for Best Picture.

 

[Murfish]

...Umm...huh? How did you possibly come to that conclusion? He wasn't dying in agony because of the way he treated others, he was dying in agony because he made a simple mistake that anyone could. If you're referring to the way he treated others as being the reason he was in the wild in the first place, I'd disagree again. It was actually quite the opposite. His father was an unsympathetic brute obsessed with money and materialism, which led Chris to reject everything that his father stood for (careers, money, personal property) and go off and forge his own path in life.

I may have worded it incorrectly. My meaning was that I only began to sympathize when he had condemned himself to death because I am a human and humans tend to feel sympathy for people in that situation.

Before that, I couldn't get into the character at all because of the way he treated other characters(the ones that cared about him, not his father).

How was he an idiot? He made a mistake between two extremely similar plant types, one edible, the other poisonous. People make mistakes, you shouldn't condemn them for it.

He was an idiot in how he approached going to Alaska and surviving there. He wasn't nearly prepared enough, and Alaska is probably the most dangerous place in the US for survival.

 

[X]

Leave it to Murf to hate on a film about transcendentalism. Nihilist.

What characters specifically did you feel he treated badly? I didn't get that impression from any of them. He genuinely cared and loved just about every character he came across in the film. Do you mean like when he told Holbrook that they'd talk about adoption after he got back from Alaska? That wasn't cruel, that was made perfect sense. Adoption papers are nothing more than that---papers. He already considered Holbrook a grandfather/parent, and he knew that feeling was mutual, and that papers weren't necessary to convey that. If he had said yes to that question it would have contradicted everything that he stood for.

 

[Murfish]

I didn't like the fact that even though so many characters loved him so dearly, he didn't have much of an issue with leaving them behind.

His quest was more important to him than anyone he encountered, that's why I didn't like him.

 

[jmt225]

Which Funny Games did you see? The original, or the remake? I loved the original, but the remake just seemd a tad bit too "Hollywood-ized" for my taste. It was still enjoyable and obviously it's basically a shot-for-shot remake, but I prefer the original. Michael Pitt and Tim Roth really helped out the remake though, those two actors are simply amazing and among the very best working today.

I saw the remake. It really, really pissed me off. In fact, I made a thread about it in the Movies Section. Check out my rant below:

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=30791

Man I was pissed, lol. Tdigs and I have a good discussion in that thread though.

So JMT, I've got a question for ya. Do you think Into the Wild was snubbed big time by the Oscars?

Damn fucking right. I've been bitching about this since I first saw it. What pisses me off more than anything though is that Emile Hirsch didn't get a nomination.

There is no way in hell Tommy Lee Jones is better in Eli than Emile Hirsch in Into the Wild. No one, and I fucking mean NO ONE, with a brain in their fucking head should ever think that. Hirsch was also better than George Clooney in Michael Clayton. Now, Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood... no, he wasn't that good. But as far as Depp in Sweeny Todd and Viggo Mortensen in Eastern Promises... I won't say Emile Hirsch's performance were better than those two, but it IS arguable.

After viewing it, I certainly do. I'm not 100% sure whether or not I liked it more than I did No Country For Old Men, but it DEFINATELY deserved a nomination atleast. Emile deserved a nomination for Best Actor, Penn deserved a nomination for Best Director (and quite frankly should have won it) as well. I mean, come on, Into the Wild deserved a Best Picture nomination FAAAAAAR more than fucking Juno did. I really liked Juno, but it should never have been nominated for Best Picture.

Well, I enjoyed it way more than I did No Country for Old Men, but I completely agree with everything else you said.

Also, thinking about it... the only movie that came close to Into the Wild in terms of me enjoying it as much in 2007 was Gone Baby Gone. There Will Be Blood comes in 3rd, and it varies from there.

 

[X]

I didn't like the fact that even though so many characters loved him so dearly, he didn't have much of an issue with leaving them behind.

His quest was more important to him than anyone he encountered, that's why I didn't like him.

That's not a very good reason to dislike him. I think the whole transcendentalist theme may have flown over your head if you faulted him for that Murf.

Life is first and foremost a personal journey. He needed to seek out a path for himself completely and utterly different from those of his parents, and he did just that. He cared for his parents, but there were things much more important to him than the feelings of those around him.

Call it selfish if you'd like, but the happiness of those around you always comes second to your own personal happiness. And if he had stayed behind and gotten a career and become just like his father, he would never have found happiness.

Chris said it himself: "You are wrong if you think that the joy of life comes principally from the joy of human relationships. God's place is all around us, it is in everything and in anything we can experience. People just need to change the way they look at things".

 

[Murfish]

That's not a very good reason to dislike him. I think the whole transcendentalist theme may have flown over your head if you faulted him for that Murf.

Life is first and foremost a personal journey. He needed to seek out a path for himself completely and utterly different from those of his parents, and he did just that. He cared for his parents, but there were things much more important to him than the feelings of those around him.

Call it selfish if you'd like, but the happiness of those around you always comes second to your own personal happiness. And if he had stayed behind and gotten a career and become just like his father, he would never have found happiness.

Chris said it himself: "You are wrong if you think that the joy of life comes principally from the joy of human relationships. God's place is all around us, it is in everything and in anything we can experience. People just need to change the way they look at things".

Or maybe I just disagree with transcendentalism. If that's the case, I'd say I have a good reason to dislike him.

He could have lived a life that was different from his parents without caring so little for others.

I'm not talking about leaving his family. I'm talking about the others.

Didn't he change his view a little at the end?

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

He could have achieved the same desired effect without the rewind sequence at all. Doesn't the fact that these two young sociopaths win in the end acheive the exact same purpose that the rewind sequence has? That the good guys do not always win? It was nothing more than an excuse to do something "different" in a film. I respect those who try to break boundaries, but you cannot criticize Aronofsky for superfluous editing and showcasing style over substance and than praise Haneke for the same thing, it's hypocritical.

How? It's only after literally manipulating the film that Haneke illuminates our assumptions/expectations. Had one of the two guys been shot and had the other subsequently avenged him by killing off the family, viewers more than likely would have just found the film pointless and probably would have speculated that Haneke was just a bitter, old man who hated the bourgeoisie lifestyle. So, without the scene, not only would Haneke have not gotten his point across, he would also have made one that does nothing to further his aims as a film maker and, from the looks of things, one that contradicts what Haneke really is (he is an affluent man who enjoys the finer things in life).

There are several reasons touched upon for why they are addicted to drugs. Take Tyrone (Marlon Wayans) character for example, one of the obvious reasons he's fallen into drug addiction is that he has never gotten over the death of his mother. He talks about her, he dreams about her, and he sits with her picture late in the night thinking of her. I'd say that's a pretty obvious example of one of the reasons that led him to drug addiction.

As for the poverty example, in the Wrestler Aronofsky most certainly does touch upon the reasons. Rourke's character squandered all of his money on drugs and booze, that's rather obvious.
.
What do you want Aronofsky to do? Come right out and have the main characters say "We were poor because" or "I was addicted to drugs because"? That would be heavy-handed and just plain stupid.

So, I have to disagree with you there.

Again, these reasons are all personal and don't answer the bigger questions. So, Tyrone is addicted to drugs because his mother died. Why didn't he look to assuage his grief through other means? Why is it that he specifically chose drugs? These are questions that I feel Hubert Selby, Jr., gives thorough answers to in his books. Like I said, I thought Requiem For A Dream was a very good adaptation, but the film failed to provide as complete a picture as the book did on its characters. Was the film more intense and in-depth in its treatment of the experience of drug addiction? No doubt. Do I feel that Aronofsky did this at the expense of answering the question of why these characters used drugs in the first place? Yes, I do.

I'll give you The Wrestler, but, had I not already had an intimate knowledge of the world of American professional wrestling, I definitely don't think that I would be able to agree that the film did a good job of explaining why Randy "The Ram" Robinson is only one of many similar cases. Therefore, it asked way too much of the viewer.

And, you're right that films shouldn't be heavy-handed. But, Requiem For A Dream and The Wrestler dealt with American subcultures inhabited by significant amounts of people. There isn't just one drug addict, as there isn't just one professional wrestler who is broken down by the time he hits 50. Given that this is so, I felt that it was incumbent upon Aronofsky to at least give the viewer an inkling of an idea of why such deviance exists (and, please, don't take deviance here to mean immoral; here, it's simply used to describe atypical lifestyles). Hinting at something is far from being heavy-handed.

Again, you're making the statement that films that delve into the reasons behind their character's motivations are superior to films that don't. Which is ridiculious. And how exactly does Haneke look at the big picture in Funny Games? The sociopaths have no motivations, no reasons, they just kill purely for the sport of it. Again, you're criticizing Aronofsky for something that Haneke himself does as well.

I'll admit that I'm making the claim that Haneke's films are superior to Aronofsky's (so far), but my argument is definitely not as facile as you make it out to be. Also, although I have loved discussing Funny Games, this film was made in 1997, and thus is irrelevant to the argument I am trying to make here. Yes, Haneke himself made a shot-for-shot American remake that came out two years ago, but, thematically, this film has very little to do with the other works he has put out this decade (more than likely, Haneke just remade this film because someone got the remake rights to it and he didn't want anyone fucking it up).

But you basically just said the same exact thing above. You state that Haneke is a superior director because he tackles larger social issues and their reasons, which would logically lead to the conclusion that you consider films that delve into explanations behind their characters motivations to be superior to films that don't, which I think is a rather absurd notion.

I think Haneke's a better director because he understands his primary aims and what they imply. Ultimately, this is what has allowed me to so clearly outline my thoughts on Haneke's films. I haven't been able to do the same for Aronofsky because, as far as I can tell, he is not yet as conscientious of a director as Haneke. And, I will admit that I highly value conscientiousness in a director that strives for realism.

 

[X]

Or maybe I just disagree with transcendentalism. If that's the case, I'd say I have a good reason to dislike him.

Do you actually know anything about transcendentalism? If so, why do you dislike it?

He could have lived a life that was different from his parents without caring so little for others.

What are you talking about? Please explain to me what characters he cared so little for and treated badly, he was kind and loving to literally every single person that came across his path, every single one.

I'm not talking about leaving his family. I'm talking about the others.

Again, who?

Didn't he change his view a little at the end?

No, he died. He didn't change any of his beliefs, what gives you that idea?

 

[Murfish]

Do you actually know anything about transcendentalism? If so, why do you dislike it?

I studied it a bit in English and read a bit on the web.

It's more...look below

What are you talking about? Please explain to me what characters he cared so little for and treated badly, he was kind and loving to literally every single person that came across his path, every single one.

He'd enter peoples lives, they'd make a connection, and he'd leave with little warning.

That's showing little regard for others. He also never intended to get adopted, why would he give the man false hope?

No, he died. He didn't change any of his beliefs, what gives you that idea?

Dunno, I remember him saying something about sharing joy with those around him in the final moments. I haven't seen in in a year, so I might be wrong.

 

[X]

I studied it a bit in English and read a bit on the web.

What do you dislike about it?

He'd enter peoples lives, they'd make a connection, and he'd leave with little warning.

So what? He never gave any of those people any false hopes that he would be sticking around, every time he met someone new he'd let them know that he was on his way to Alaska. You can't POSSIBLY hold that against him, they knew that if they connected with him he was only going to leave them, it wasn't his fault. They knew what they were getting into.

That's showing little regard for others. He also never intended to get adopted, why would he give the man false hope?

No, it's not. He cared for all of those people, but he let them all know first and foremost that everything was secondary to his journey to Alaska. None of them seemed to hold it against him.

False hope? Holbrook's character knew damn well the kid wasn't going to go through with the adoption thing, it was all over his face. You didn't pick that up?

Dunno, I remember him saying something about sharing joy with those around him in the final moments. I haven't seen in in a year, so I might be wrong.

How does sharing joy with other people contradict any of his beliefs? Not sure where you're getting that idea.

 

[Murfish]

What do you dislike about it?

Less of a dislike, more of a disagree. The main point is still this guy.

So what? He never gave any of those people any false hopes that he would be sticking around, every time he met someone new he'd let them know that he was on his way to Alaska. You can't POSSIBLY hold that against him, they knew that if they connected with him he was only going to leave them, it wasn't his fault. They knew what they were getting into.

I didn't sympathize because everything was secondary to Alaska. He was so caught up in his idea of surviving out there that I think he missed out on what was offered to him time an time again. That is a reason to dislike someone.

No, it's not. He cared for all of those people, but he let them all know first and foremost that everything was secondary to his journey to Alaska. None of them seemed to hold it against him.

False hope? Holbrook's character knew damn well the kid wasn't going to go through with the adoption thing, it was all over his face. You didn't pick that up?

I hold it against him.

I don't like the way he conducted himself.

How does sharing joy with other people contradict any of his beliefs? Not sure where you're getting that idea.

His original mission was to get away from everyone. That's why he went to Alaska without intending to come back.

 

[jmt225]

He was so caught up in his idea of surviving out there that I think he missed out on what was offered to him time an time again.

But didn't he realize that himself by the end of the movie and felt terrible about it? The entire point of the quote, "Happiness is only real when shared." was that he regretted not staying with all the wonderful people he met.

 

[Murfish]

But didn't he realize that himself by the end of the movie and felt terrible about it? The entire point of the quote, "Happiness is only real when shared." was that he regretted not staying with all the wonderful people he met.

That's why I've said that I couldn't sympathize with him until then end when he had doomed himself and realized the error of his ways.

I'm not even saying that this a bad film, but I just didn't like him for the majority of it.

 

[X]

I didn't sympathize because everything was secondary to Alaska. He was so caught up in his idea of surviving out there that I think he missed out on what was offered to him time an time again. That is a reason to dislike someone.

So let me get this straight, the great things that you claim he missed out on are as follows

A) Didn't sleep with a 16 year old girl (he's 24 by the way)
B) Chose not to accept an offer of adoption from a lonely and confused old man

Yeah, what an asshole.

Sorry dude, but like I said before; relationships with people came secondary to him, and he came out and let everyone know that. If you want to dislike him for following his own beliefs, I can't stop you, but it isn't a legit criticism of the character or the film.

His original mission was to get away from everyone. That's why he went to Alaska without intending to come back.

When did he ever say he had no intention of coming back? On the contrary, he made plans for when he got BACK from Alaska. The real Chris also had no intentions of staying there forever, and in fact attempted to leave before his untimely demise.

Meh, I'm not going to convince you to like the guy Murf, so I'll just quit here. You've got it made up in your mind that you don't like him, and nothing I say will change your mindl. But you can't question the film itself.

 

[Murfish]

As I just said to jmt, he rubbed me the wrong way.

I liked the movie, it's just the character annoyed me.

 

[X]

Currently watching the absolutely awful but endlessly enjoyable disaster flick Daylight with Sylvester Stallone. I used to LOVE this movie as a kid, it's such a huge guilty pleasure of mine. It's pure drivel obviously with Rob Cohen directing, but its still just a fun as hell movie to watch. All disaster movies are. We all love seeing people and objects destroyed by disasters.

And it has Danielle Harris, the sexiest woman on the face of the planet. Awesome.

 

[Murfish]

So, to counter act generic facebook movie status quotes I see all the time, I've taken to picking a good quote every now and then and setting it as my status.

Today I chose the Dark City one where John tells his wife that they met for the first time last night, and am being accused of pot smoking.

 

[Murfish]

Anyone ever see Ginger Dead Man?

Great cheesy fun.

 

[X]

I'm now relaxing, enjoying a few brews, a nice bong bowl, and watching the cheesy awfulness that is Urban Legend 2. Such a bad movie. God I love bad movies.

What the freak...Jennifer Morrison is the star of this flick?! The hot chick from House?! Awesome.

And holy fuck Eva Mendes is in this as well?! AND IS THAT MOTHERFUCKING JOEY LAWRENCE/?!?!?!?

Wow it's been awhile since I've seen this flick.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Anyone ever see Ginger Dead Man?

Great cheesy fun.

we started to watch it at work, and it was so atrocious, that a group decision was made to remove it.

thats only a fate befallen one other movie. Says quite a lot.

For the record, I was enjoying gingerdead man.

 

[Razor]

Guys, watch Black Sheep. No, not the Tommy Boy movie. The movie about zombie sheep in Australia (or New Zealand). It is fucking hilariously bad.

or Cheerleader Ninjas. That was a very bad, horrible movie. Not even so bad it's good. It's just plain bad.

 

[Murfish]

Seriously.

Gary Busey is a psychotic killer that turns into a killer gingerbread man. It's awesome.

 

[X]

You didn't like Black Sheep Razor?!

I freakin love that movie, it's a great horror-comedy.