tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3081747433018117316.post3093043780230308180..comments2024-03-26T15:33:47.822+05:00Comments on THESE VIOLENT DELIGHTS: The folly of 'likeability' versus 'unlikeability'Tom Shonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06938779517705582285noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3081747433018117316.post-42260482042972654322013-01-18T00:08:08.691+05:002013-01-18T00:08:08.691+05:00online casino gratis had been decided that only on...<a href="http://sverigeonlinecasino.net/" rel="nofollow">online casino</a> gratis had been decided that only one <br />friend was laughing at beggar done with it?'<br /><i>My website</i> ; <b><a href="http://sverigeonlinecasino.net/" rel="nofollow">online casino</a></b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3081747433018117316.post-53929718867754355762011-02-11T19:53:58.028+05:002011-02-11T19:53:58.028+05:00@Tom - I've been mulling over this post for a ...@Tom - I've been mulling over this post for a few days now (I found it through Brody's blog). I think you're making good points and I agree, in general. But though I know there are people out there using "challenging" the way you're saying they use it, that's not how I use it (or, at least, that's not how I want it to sound when I use it). For me, when I talk about a "challenging" movie, I'm not thinking of one that challenges some other, imagined audience (the mythic "general audience" or whatever), but one that asks <i>me</i> to meet it halfway - to engage actively and not consume passively. What I don't like about the "unchallenging" movie is that, too often, it operates based on "movie rules" - i.e. things happen in it in a certain way because that's the way we expect things to happen in movies - rather than operating based out of observation of/insight into something human. (FWIW, one of the things I like about <i>The King's Speech</i> is that it does provide this kind of challenge in the way it reverses the more conventional moral of <i>The Queen</i>.)Jon Hastingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01030406521787423155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3081747433018117316.post-61388727572199113232011-02-03T03:39:18.369+05:002011-02-03T03:39:18.369+05:00Horror is very much a love of mine, too, although ...Horror is very much a love of mine, too, although I don't buy Aronofsky's contention that Black Swan is a horror film. He said the same thing about Requiem for a Dream, too, but it seems to me that he aims much higher, and tI don't mean that as a compliment. He'd have to be more interested in showing the audience a good time to be a true horror director. Of even to be more in touch with the audience, period. He lacks that tip-of-the-fingertips feel for the temperature in the theatre: witness his surprise (and it was surprise) that Black Sawn was being greeted with laughter. <br /><br />I think you hit the nail on the head when you say Black Swan needed to be more sensual. Aronofsky is the least sensual filmmaker working today. He's all in his head, and hates, absolutely hates bodies. You feel like he's one of those types like Mike Myers who talks about perversity all the time but jumps out of his skin if you touch his knee. You compare him to someone like Lynch and you realise how tactile, and sensuous Lynch's images are, even his titles: Blue Velvet. Is there a more sumptuous movie title out there? And what do we get from Aronofsky? Pi. Lovely. I can feel a tingle in my toes just thinking about it.Tom Shonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06938779517705582285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3081747433018117316.post-41299755677163870442011-02-03T02:42:27.447+05:002011-02-03T02:42:27.447+05:00To add one thing to the above (not directed at you...To add one thing to the above (not directed at you, Tom, just in general): Yes, I'm aware that <i>Black Swan</i> is supposed to be a horror film. But I'm finding many filmmakers today fail to grasp that horror can be elevated when it's contrasted against its opposite (i.e., against some form of "light"). Horror films that are 24/7 all-dark all-the-time from the get-go are invariably less horrifying.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3081747433018117316.post-33574925142247165742011-02-03T02:34:28.304+05:002011-02-03T02:34:28.304+05:00As for Natalie Portman's Nina, I hadn't th...<i>As for Natalie Portman's Nina, I hadn't the slightest clue what she makes of Cassel's leering aesthetic advances. Do they repel her? Does she submit to them anyway because she so wants the part? Was she going to develop a dark side anyway? At the end of the movie, I am clueless, and so, I suspect, is Portman. A better actress would have asked all these questions until she got an answer that satisfied her. As it is, the idea that Nina's wishes might be divergent from her director's doesn't seem to have occurred to her. She's under orders, from start to finish.</i><br /><br />And that parallels Portman's relationship with Aronofsky, whom I had the sense couldn't care less about the interior life (or logical consistency) of his movie's main character. Best Actress or no, Portman's limitations are exposed badly under his direction. With a strong director she can be effective: <i>Closer</i> isn't my favorite movie, but Mike Nichols has always been good with actors, and he helps Portman work up enough mojo in her scenes with Clive Owen you almost forget that she's the world's most reluctant stripper. She may have looked better in <i>Black Swan</i> with somebody like Brian De Palma at the helm. While not my favorite filmmaker, I could see him having fun with the white swan/black swan silliness, with visualizing the psychological states, and making the movie as a whole more sensual.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3081747433018117316.post-59961090509218246102011-02-03T01:31:21.617+05:002011-02-03T01:31:21.617+05:00Couldn't agree more. I found Isabelle Huppert ...Couldn't agree more. I found Isabelle Huppert compelling in The Piano Teacher not because her character was unlikeable, although she was, but because she so successfully communicated the yawning gulf between her exterior and interior life. By the end of the movie, you can feel the almost heroic effort it takes to get the most basic social pleasantries out of her mouth. Her interior life is as vivid and treacherous as a blush. As for Natalie Portman's Nina, I hadn't the slightest clue what she makes of Cassel's leering aesthetic advances. Do they repel her? Does she submit to them anyway because she so wants the part? Was she going to develop a dark side anyway? At the end of the movie, I am clueless, and so, I suspect, is Portman. A better actress would have asked all these questions until she got an answer that satisfied her. As it is, the idea that Nina's wishes might be divergent from her director's doesn't seem to have occurred to her. She's under orders, from start to finish. Aronofsky fobbed her off with something about her character 'coming into her own', which she then interpreted through some gender studies crapola that allowed her to spin the most exploitative part for an actress in years as some sort of post-feminist triumph.Tom Shonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06938779517705582285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3081747433018117316.post-4046578618699970612011-02-03T01:02:09.648+05:002011-02-03T01:02:09.648+05:00I tend to dispense with the likable/unlikable dich...I tend to dispense with the likable/unlikable dichotomy and judge instead by whether characters are compelling/non-compelling. I don't have to like the characters to get absorbed in their stories (the three leads in <i>L.A. Confidential</i> come to mind). Conversely, I've seen plenty of films where I find the characters "likable" or "nice" yet bore me to tears. That I find the characters of <i>The Social Network</i> more compelling than those in <i>The King's Speech</i> doesn't diminish your point, though the latter film seems so terrified of rubbing against any rough edges I can see why some think that it's taking the easier route. (Harvey's threat to airbrush the one scene with any spark isn't exactly negating this impression.)<br /><br />The <i>Black Swan</i> example is a good one, however, especially when viewed through that review quoted by James Wolcott that argues Aronofsky has it backwards: It's the role of the <i>White Swan</i> that's the greater challenge for a ballerina, because the White Swan has a richer interior life. A movie about that notion wouldn't have put as many butts in seats, of course, but developing it may have made for a more compelling, less monotonous heroine and narrative.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3081747433018117316.post-34726504539401103152011-02-03T00:01:16.774+05:002011-02-03T00:01:16.774+05:00This attitude doesn't surprise me at all. Edgy...This attitude doesn't surprise me at all. Edgy, dark, unpleasant characters have been viewed with more more respect by film types for decades--at least since the counter-culture films of the '70s (and also retrospectively with the celebration of film noir over and above other styles of cinema in the '40s and '50s). And it's not just prevalent in the indie film sector. Nolan's Batman is celebrated over other comic book superheroes for his "darkness," the latest Harry Potter was praised for being the darkest entry in the series to date, etc. etc. It's just a lazy mental attitude that must be fought at every turn.SteveWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3081747433018117316.post-1576484188023483722011-02-02T23:03:36.925+05:002011-02-02T23:03:36.925+05:00I have to keep reminding myself that I actually th...I have to keep reminding myself that I actually thought The Social Network was a better film than The King's Speech. The way this battle is being fought out I am hearing many more objectionable arguments mounted by Social Network fans than I am by King's Speech fans. It's really bringing the snobs out of the woodwork. In fact, I can't find any arguments from King's Speech fans online, at all, which is crazy. It's suddenly dropped from number 6 or 7 on people's top ten lists to 'barely mentionable.'Tom Shonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06938779517705582285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3081747433018117316.post-16072656681363419102011-02-02T22:05:40.840+05:002011-02-02T22:05:40.840+05:00Cieply's point isn't even dented. Both mov...Cieply's point isn't even dented. Both movies take liberties with the facts. You can make a reasonable, though not watertight, point that whitewashing a deeply flawed head of state is a bigger crime against history than making out a titan of business to be worse than he actually is. But that isn't what Brody is saying. I re-read it to make sure, because it didn't seem possible, but he really is arguing that making someone less likable is a more artistically respectable act. Which puzzles me on levels you don't even bring up. Such as, what kind of defense is that? Why not just say The Social Network is a better, deeper and richer movie? <br /><br />A good screenwriter and director bend characters to suit the shape of their narrative. I can't fathom the notion that one direction is always preferable to another. Brody seems to be saying that less likable always = more complex, but that dog won't hunt. There's plenty of detestable people, and movie characters, out there who are boringly noncomplex. They're simply shits. Even if you accept the prevailing view that people are no damn good, doesn't that make human decency a larger mystery--and more challenging to depict?The Sirenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13587505433284584391noreply@blogger.com