FS #287: The Lovely Bones / Top 5 Supporting Performances of 2009
Also on the show: Music by Slimfit and Massacre Theatre -- presented by Pixar Talk. This week's winner will get the Pixar DVD of their choice.
Filmspotting #287
:13-14:50 - Review: "The Lovely Bones"
Music: Slimfit, "More Than Wrong"
15:47-18:26 - Voicemail, Polls
18:27-34:13 - Listener Feedback ("Avatar")
Music: Slimfit, "Yesterday's Gone"
35:04-39:29 - Massacre Theatre (Winner: B. Stinson)
39:30-42:24 - Notes
42:25-52:29 - Top 5 Supp. Actresses
Music: Slimfit, "Damp Powder"
53:17-1:06:36 - New DVDs / Donations
1:06:37-1:18:32 - Top 5 Male Leads
1:18:33-1:22:14 - Close / Next Show / Outtake
NOTES
- I know, I know... Tree of Souls NOT Tree of Life.
- Get a chance to win "The Boys are Back" on DVD here.
- Sundance/Filmspotting Meetup details.
- Info about PS Hoffman in Chicago as part of Sundance Film Festival USA.
- Landmark in Seattle - metroclassics.blogspot.com.
- Jeff Goldsmith's Creative Screenwriting Podcast can be accessed through iTunes here.
- Follow more notes and corrections at http://twitter.com/filmspotting.
Labels: Peter Jackson, The Lovely Bones, Top 5 Supporting Performances of 2009
posted by Candace @ 9:42 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
I like neither film, and both are vanity projects par excellence. The same assessment you made about The Lovely Bones can be applied to A Single Man, in which Ford's style seems to be more superfluous (and quoting Foundas' "excessive") than integral to the film, and one should not excuse him for "interiorizing Firth's psychology" as why we are bombarded with the same stale "prettiness" since that could be said about The Lovely Bones and letting Peter Jackson pass for simply "interiorizing the imagination of a teenage girl." Colin Firth = yes! Tom Ford = amateur, whose future work may redeem him from imitating Wong Kar Wai without understanding how to film emotion besides as a perfume commercial.
I think Dan Kois says it best: [Latin lover] talking about the lurid purple sunset, and how it's caused by California smog. "Sometimes awful things have their own kind of beauty," he says. And sometimes awful movies have their own critiques embedded right in their dialogue.
I don't understand why people would unsubscribe just because they didn't agree with your views on one movie. The whole point of the podcast is to encourage discussion about films and for me, it's a great way to find movies I've never seen before.
I hate the "pretentious" argument some used against you just for calling out the flaws which are so apparent in the movie. It's fine if people are excited about great effects, but when the plot is generic and childish, what separates a movie like "Avatar" from other blockbusters like "Transformers".
I know when I go see a movie, I'm hoping to be swept away and lose myself in another world for 2 hours. However, I look to the plot, direction, and acting to do that for me and if the effects are the only thing worthwhile, the filmgoing experience won't hold up.
We shouldn't have to settle for average pap like "Avatar" and it really does offend me that it made so much money so quickly. I enjoy my blockbusters, but come on. I know I'm rambling, because I'm writing this while listening to the show, but in conclusion, when did expecting a movie to be great all around become a bad thing and "pretentious". We settle for average so many times and give our money to undeserving films too often, which makes it harder for films with intelligent scripts and great acting, but not worldwide appeal to be made. FYI, same thing is going on right now on TV with Leno about to replace Conan because Conan has to much of a "niche appeal", according to the big bosses.
Anyway, love the show and thank you for consistantly recommending great movies.
The instant success of 'Avatar' really does depress me. A comparison of this "most technically innovative" film of 2009 with its 1999 counterpart - 'The Matrix' - highlights a larger downward trend in mainstream filmmaking over the last decade.
The script for 'Avatar' is not simply bad. It is an insult. To me, the use of "Pandora" as the setting and "unobtainium" as the goal of the antagonists are not just two problematic elements of an awful script. To assume as such would underestimate the intelligence of Cameron & Co. To me, they are overt, cynical middle fingers to anyone who entertains the notion that a decent script is required to fill theater seats. I thought the fervor over 'Star Trek' earlier this summer was a sad product of lowered-expectations in sci-fi films, but 'Avatar' really has lowered the bar.
Kudos to Adam and Matty. Shame on the mainstream movie reviewers (inluding Rogert Ebert, one of my favorites, even if he does give too many stars away) for not calling the powers-that-be out for this tripe.
Regarding Adam's last name:
Kempen is a (largely rural, historically quite poor) region of Antwerp province in Belgium. Kempenaar thus means "he/she/it from Kempen" (think of suffixes like -ian or -er -- Canadian, New Yorker, etc.).
And now, back to the movies!
I was disappointed in the Avatar review for one reason-I was completely unsurprised.
I actually liked the movie, so when I saw that Filmspotting was going to review it I played the play button on my Zune with trepidation. Yes, you read that correctly, Zune. I was already going over what Adam and Matty would say in my head. Not because I agreed with it, but rather because I knew what to expect from websites like npr.
So, I was disappointed when what I heard was exactly what I expected. Kind of like the mirror opposite of David Denby of the New Yorker, who totally surprised me. Denby, who actually got that "Unobtanium" was Cameron's one self-conscious joke in the movie.
It's easy to dismiss something that is insanely popular as being "for the masses." It's a little harder to try and suss out why a movie that makes its American audience the bad guys in a conflict with giant blue people is already one of the most successful movies of all time, both internationally and domestically. And it's silly to compare it to a movie like Transformers 2, which made half its tally on the opening weekend.
Cameron clearly can tap into Jungian archetypes. He understands exactly what makes a protagonist so perfect that we forget that he isn't "real", in any sense of the word. He also is able to create convincing worlds, something that should not be ignored. How many others would love to have come up with Pandora and figure out how to film it so well?
Nobody has to like Avatar, and I wouldn't argue that the dialogue and plotting isn't workmanlike and at times hollow. But I was fully invested in the outcome and I consider myself to be a very discriminating movie viewer. The Matrix is a good reference point, but I think Star Wars is even better.
[It's easy to dismiss something that is insanely popular as being "for the masses."]
We didn't and wouldn't do that. Maybe you're reacting to something a listener said, can't recall.
We're played on NPR. NPR doesn't have any say in our editorial content. (And since almost everyone is going crazy for Avatar, I'm sure I can find an NPR critic who loved it.) It sounds like you're a fairly regular listener, so it makes perfect sense you'd have a good idea how Matty and I would react to Avatar. It doesn't mean our reaction is any less valid because you can predict it; just that you've come to have a decent sense of what our likes/dislikes/preferences are. Bottom line is we're simply sharing our reaction and trying to encourage conversation not tell people what to think.
I actually hadn't listened to response show yet-I just listened to it. I was surprised by your strong reaction to my comment.
As far as the anti-populist critique, I was moreso responding to the the comments on this page. There was no audience response yet (from what I remember) at the time of your review, so I certainly can't throw that on you.
I didn't read anything on npr that wasn't instantaneously dismissive. They even analogised it to Ke$ha in a piece on the website. I also wasn't implying that npr controls your content, just that you play to largely the same audience.
However, I must say that I am baffled that you compared this unfavorably to Titanic in the most recent podcast. I enjoyed watching the boat sink in Titanic but I can't recall a successfull (critically and commercially) movie with worse dialogue, in my entire life. Not only that, the characters in that movie are all cardboard cutouts.
I don't think Sam Worthington can be overlooked, and I think that is what you and Matty are doing, and I think that is part of the reason you didn't enjoy the film and are reacting to it so differently than is the larger viewing public. I personally didn't notice his Australian accent slipping out. I'm not an actor so that could be why, but my wife (a fellow civilian who doesn't like sci fi but also enjoyed Avatar) was surprised to learn that Worthington is Australian.
You did note that he was good in Terminator: Salvation (a terrible movie otherwise) but I think he is even better in Avatar. Yes, we all know where his loyalty is going to lie in the end, but I thought his journey was very convincing and he gave a charasmatic and interesting lead performance. He is the soul of this movie, and the effects alone can't explain why Avatar is beating the pants of trite crap like Transformers 2 in terms of audience reaction. I also thought the interaction between Worthington and Weaver was compelling.
I was a little disappointed that Basterds didn't win picture or director but Mr. Cameron is entirely deserving. Every bit as much as Star Wars or Indiana Jones, this movie will be watched for generations to come.
I appreciate at the end of the podcast comments you and Matty emphasized you are not trying to take the enjoyment from people who do like or even love Avatar. I also think that you were very honest in that last statement from your above comment. Likewise, I'm not trying to take away your legitimate experience/reaction, but I do believe there is something that the audience for Avatar is reacting to, beyond spectacle.
Sorry, wasn't trying to come off strong, just wanted to address a couple of your points. I guess I get a little nervous when people make a charge that suggests (in this case, inadvertently) that we might be turning our noses up at mass entertainment.
I recall a lot of the same clunky lines in Titanic, of course, but I don't recall questioning almost everything the story threw at me the way I did with Avatar. I also don't think Cameron was trying to say anything profound with Titanic, whereas I'm not sure the same can be said with Avatar. In any event, I haven't seen Titanic since, what, 1993? Might be brutal if I tried to watch it again.
Post a Comment
<< Home