Elaine's comments (member since Nov 03, 2008)

Elaine's comments from the Movies We've Just Watched group.

You have a valid point. Where do we draw the line and wherever we do, there's a measure of arbitrariness to it. For instance, I could watch the scene in Taxi Driver over and over when the camera is tracking the results of Travis's rampage to the accompaniment of the fantastic percussions and horns of Bernard Herrman's fabulous soundtrack, and don't find it obscene and certainly not eye candy. It is Scorsese's comment on how movies glorify violence as a solution to problem people.

Alex DeLarge wrote: "Another great post Elaine! A co-worker finally figured out that my screen name is from A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and asked how I could equate myself with such a violent movie. The violence is actually qui..."
I taught Clockwork Orange when I taught film -- and Taxi Driver, Psycho, Miller's Crossing, Apolcalypse Now, Man on Fire and other films with violence in them. So, I'm no prude about some blood, gore, and rape. I think Alex in Clockwork is not a nice character -- he sings and dances his way through mayhem and rape, and imagines himself lashing Jesus as he's on his way to the cross, so I don't think Kubrick is saying we should admire him. Like Scorsese I think he's saying that we'e elevated violence to an art form, we've made it on a par with music, and liking art, such as Alex's love for Beethoven, is no guarantee of goodness, a comment on the Nazis, no doubt. I also sense a parody of the do-gooders who feel sorry for Alex's plight as well as a parody of "scientists" who claim that it is only a matter of training to erase evil from someone's soul. Kubrick makes a case for Alex's free will being used to indulge in cruelty. In other words, it is a matter of nature or desire as much as nurture. Alex's parents are silly, but they're not cruel or violent. Alex is not violent because he lacks material things either. REcall the scene where he surveys his hoard of stolen goods. He doesn't care for them. He steals them because he is depriving people of things they like. Kubrick, I think, is making a case that neither society nor science has a clue of how to stop innate violence, but also even a violent person has rights. What do you think should be done with the Alex's of this world. Don't forget Kubrick did this film during the heyday of punk violence in England.

Tom wrote: "I liked HISTORY OF VIOLENCE very much, except for the gross miscalulation of William Hurt's dreadful performance, one of the real low points of the decade, I think. Otherwise the film has all the ..."
Far from Patricia Highsmith, this was based on a graphic novel. Yes, Hurt was absurd. Even though he is supposed to be somewhat demented, he was absurd. I don't know what Cronenberg was thinking with that "broheem" nonsense, and the touching of foreheads? Gimmeabreak.

Well, from The Bluebird of Happiness and The Wizard of Oz, the movies have told girls to stay home. This just brings it to a new level. I like your phrase, "super macho middle age fantasy." Neeson looked so absurdly old next to the young men he was so enthusiastically offing, I could have laughed had I not been so appalled.

I saw the much lauded Taken and was appalled. Everyone I know and respect was very taken with it, and the reviews were good. The central plot is excellent, a father rescuing his daughter. The light it sheds on the all-too-real international trade in young women is one that needs a beam focused on it. However, and it's a big however, Liam Neeson, clearly past his prime of youth manages to kill ten or more young, lithe, weapons equipped men in scene afer scene, Neeson using just his little gun. Not only was the amount and intensity of violence not necessary, it was wholly unbelievable. Even James Bond never managed such feats. Often young, lithe, muscular men are shooting Neeson from all sides at once, some with repeating guns, and he manages to kill them all and escape with no visible wounds. Come on. I am usually very ready to suspend my disbelief, but in this one I could not. The whole movie depends on explosive violence to keep people glued to the screen. It is nothing more than something to feed on the gross desire for blood, gore, and pain that audiences just love. Oh, and how likely is it that a special operative would retire from his career just so he could have visitation rights to see his daughter who lives with his ex-wife, and how likely is it that this operative would preternaturally know his daughter would be in danger when going to France? As I said, the plot is an excuse to use special effects to present the most violent scenes possible. In effect, the violence is there to titillate. (And this is from someone who counts Taxi Driver and Miller's Crossing as two of her all time favorite films.) Violence, like sex, should have a reason beyond eye candy to be in a film.

He got a standing ovation at Cannes, and the picture is paced so slowly in between the spurts of violence, I don't think it ever made it to blockbuster ranking. The acting, especially by Viggo Mortensen is amazing. His ability to change his whole persona by adjusting the most minute details of his posture and body motion is unparalleled and I thought the rhythm of the movie, the conflict between normalcy and crazy violence was brilliantly done. The issues of family that are raised are important -- oh, hell, I love it. If you don't, you don't. People do have different tastes and we can't all like the same things.

Alex DeLarge wrote: "Cronenberg's A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE is a great film and almost made #1 on my list the year it was released. Elaine is right; the sex depicts another graphic side to Tom/Joey and it brings all kinds..."

Alex the blu ray Special Features shows the two cuts made for America. They were minimal, just blood spurting a little instead of just dribbling, and a mouth more filled with blood. I failed to see how it made any difference in our perception of the violence and why they bothered to cut out a few seconds of blood was so trivial and inane. If they really didn't want to show violence, they should have just shown Joey hitting back without showing the collateral damage, which, of course, would've wrecked the entire impact and meaning of the picture. BTW, is Viggo Mortensen gay? At the Cannes Festival, he kept kissing Cronenberg on the mouth and when he's Tom, he is somewhat effeminate. Of course, that's probably because in our culture a nonviolent man is not considered manly. Machismo is equated with a willingness to do violence. ((When he says he chose his name because it was "available," do you think he meant he made it available by murdering a Tom Stall?)

Jim wrote: "When you need to establish a connection between them either loving or is it just a sexual relationship? I've noticed lately "love scenes" or "sex scenes" to be in very few movies lately because I g..."

I have previously complained about how unerotic movie sex often is, done gratuitously and mechanically, but in this movie, it is erotic, and establishes the different personas of Tom and Joey. You'll have to see the movie to understand what I'm talking about. I agree with you totally about violence, and am writing a review of Taken with just that issue discussed.

I just rewatched A History of Violence for the nth time and, in view of my comments of the merits of censorship, I have to say that the two sex scenes in this movie are not only erotic (which they aren't in too many movies), but are essential to the movie. Each scene reveals the true persona of Tom and Joe, respectively. Had these scenes been banned, the movie would have been poorer in its depiction of duality, Cronenberg/s favorite theme from The Fly on. Whom do I prefer? Tom or Joey? Well, some mysteries must remain.

Another movie about the importance of commitment and the possibility of true love! What is this world coming to? Ghosts of Girlfriends Past with Matthew McConaughey, Jennifer Garner and Michael Douglas romp through this somewhat predictable (as to outcome) romp. Actually quite enjoyable. Oh, and it takes place in Newport, RI, in winter no less.

I have a feeling I'm not supposed to have liked Stir of Echoes with Kevin Bacon. But I did. It's one of those movies in which someone gets second sight (you know, they can see the dead, etc.), but I did like it. It's a bit like Shamalyan, but gorier. It taps into folkloric beliefs about freeing the spirit of someone who... If I say more, it will spoil the plot.

You're lucky you have the option of going to the sf opera for nothing. For us to go to the Met in New York, not only are the tickets very expensive, but so are the hotels. The local opera groups aren't that good. i love the sf opera, but I like to see different productions and hear different singers doing the same opera. Even if I've seen Lucia at the Met, I want to see it as produced in Covent Garden (if it's available), so I feel that the blu ray & dvd options are viable. For us in the hinterlands, the MetLive has been a boon, and, as I said, it's not the same experience as opera in an opera house. It has become a cinematic form, so I see no conflict between the satellite presentations and live opera. Even LaScala is doing satellite productions and I believe the sf opera did one last season.

The Metropolitan Opera presents 9 live performances of opera via live HD satellite to cinemas around the world. Even a self-proclaimed clod like my husband just loves them. Because they use cameras as one would in film, these performances are virtually a new art form combining cinematic techniques with live performance, and one ends up analyzing not only the operatic performances, the orchestral renditions, but, as with movies, the camera work, mis en scene, etc.

Also, there loads of opera on DVD and blu ray, and you can compare the Metlive performances and productions with other ones. For instance, after watching the controversial Tosca that opened the season (t was booed at the Met), we watched the benchmark Zeffirili production on DVD. Anybody else out there interested in discussing either or both the Metlive and the recorded operas?

Yes, I have, which is why the movie is so scary, but can it be that Blackwater is so all-encompassing and powerful, (yes) -- or are they just saying, given precedents, this can happen? What I want is some hard evidence that it has gone so far, that Blackwater is still a major player, etc. Otherwise, it's just propaganda of an especially pernicious kind. If people just give up, thinking government is controling every aspect of our lives, they will succumb to that as the Russians did for so long (& need I remind you of of Nazis who first promulgated their propaganda as truth in movies.)

I watched State of Play the other night. Either it is true, and, if so, scary as Hell, or it is a doomsday flick making up a story about a secret miliitary for hire operation funded by Congress who will control all our lives even more thoroughly than Stalin controlled Russia. It is well-acted, although a short, fat, unkempt Russell Crowe took some getting used to, and decently shot, albeit with a lot of predictable shots of Crowe walking through bare corridors with rows of matching doors on both sides, all without labels, to emphasize both the impersonality and secrecy of our government and his own (and our) entrapment. There is also a lot of proselytizing of the necessity for newspapers and how vulnerable we all will become if they die out as a source of news (as they seem to be doing.) The implication is that only an independent newspaper can uncover the truth and tell us what's really going on. Of course, the news reporter is a supersleuth who won't give up and keeps on digging when it seems as if the treasure has been uncovered. Shades of Watergate. Do these Doomsday movies, telling us that our entire government is totally corrupt serve a purpose? If they're true, of course they do. But if they are not true, what is the result of undermining every shred of faith people have in their leaders? BTW, the movie is enjoyable.

I am Ashkenazi & we knew Italian Jews were Sephardic, but still were surprised at the fact that we couldn't even recognize the Shema. We did figure out when they were citing the names of the dead because of the intonation of names being called out in a list. In Israel, they lump the Arabic Jews together with Sephardim, bit none of this has to do with the movies. Another topic entirely

Alex DeLarge wrote: "I recommend de Sica's THE GARDEN OF THE FINZI-CONTINIS. I also liked Costa-Gavras' film AMEN. Of course, Resnais great documentary must be seen though it is only a half-hour long.
George, thanks ..."

I have seen GARDEN several times. I actually had a classmate in junior high who was an Italian Jewish girl whose last name is Ottolenghi. When we were in Rome, we went to services at the synagogue and the names were totally unlike what we think of as "Jewish" names. Also the Sephardic service was totally strange to us. And the people looked Italian, not Jewish. Don't ask me what it means to look like one or the other, but it's a sort of "Jewdar"

Yes, I did read Bury My Heart & have read many accounts of what was done to Native Americans, but that merits a full discussion not under this thread. Perhaps I'll do a blog post on my blog.

Phillip wrote: "Elaine wrote: " In my neighborhood growing up, kids in the first grade at Holy Name School were already calling me a dirty Jew and a Christkiller...."

you gotta love those compassionate christians..."

I forgot to say that this eas after they found out I wasn't Irish like them. I was a freckled redhead with a tiny nose and a definitely, "funny you don't look Jewish" face, but I didn't go to confession every Saturday afternoon with the rest of the kids and I went to public school. So the word got out that I was a dirty Jew.

Phillip wrote: "i've never seen defiance.

are we only talking about feature films on the holocaust or can i mention documentaries?
if so, shoah is my favorite holocaust film.

i prefer to read on this subject. i'..."

I had forgotten about Counterfeiters. I liked that a lot!! But I agree with you, we know about the horrors of the camps, so what more can a movie show, unless they really want to get horror film graphic about it. Now there's a real horror film: what Mengele did to identical twins!! Even reading about it, I won't read another novel on the subject. Clearly there were 12,000,000 stories of heartbreak and how many can one human digest? I do read histories, however. Have you read Hitler's Willing Executioners?