brian’s review of The Foundation Pit > Likes and Comments

I purchased this last year; I haven't gotten around to it, unfortunately. Have you read any Platonov in the past? His story The Return (found in Soul) is one of the most beautiful short stories written in the last century.

this is my first platonov, matt. think i might pick up soul later this week. thanks for the recommendation.

i've never bought the brechtian strategy of distancing the reader/viewer in order to offer an opportunity to think

How do you enjoy most Godard then? Vivre Sa Vie is hella Brechtian. And Week-End? That sumbitch outbrechted Brecht.

for all godard's intellectual pretensions, i find him, maybe, the most romantic filmmaker of all time. if one were to take all the brechtian stuff out of his films, they'd still throb with life; take out all the romanticism and it's turgid dead stuff.

and i do dig all that brechtian stuff... i just don't believe it 'works' in the way in which it's supposed to. godard would puke on me for saying this, but spielberg could re-educate and rile the masses in a way godard couldn't even imagine. yup yup.

I agree. It is largely a faulty strategy. Too much distance and the audience's/reader's mind wanders; too little distance and the ideas behind the visceral experience are often occluded (e.g., Avatar). I think Godard was maybe the best at balancing the two sides because, for instance, when Anna Karina is shot dead in the street at the end of Vivre Sa Vie, she's not just a concept for the viewer. (Maybe in this sense Godard failed to live up to his own ideal here. Or maybe he knew exactly what he was doing. Either way, it's great shit.)

heh heh. you think a movie's themes must be more subtle than avatar for the audience to get it? i think your unnatural hatred for this wonderful film is occluding your own take... ask the average filmgoer how they feel about themes of imperialism in avatar and lemme know if the lack of a response is simply that avatar was too visceral, with too little distance... the best propogandists don't know the meaning of the word subtle or distant. talk to leni, you mulletted muthafucka.

Wow, Frankie sounds a bit like ol' DK. Anyway, good review Mr. Brian.

brian wrote: "heh heh. you think a movie's themes must be more subtle than avatar for the audience to get it? i think your unnatural hatred for this wonderful film is occluding your own take... ask the average f..."

God, I love you. Visit me in Yorba Linda.

Hey, New Friend brian, isn't funny how your thoughtful, intelligent review of this book currently has the same number of votes as my completely irrelevant, idiotic, and thoughtless review of Arab and Jew?

Funny.

Meanwhile that recumbent Ben Harrison fellow just scoops up the votes like he's cougar fishing at an opening night Sex and the City showing.

There's been a regime change. Let's hold each other and cry and remember The Giving Tree and 2666, respectively.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VastXQ...

i love you frankie fichte.
i wanna yorba your linda.
and ben harrison is the enemy.

THE SCOURGE MUST BE STOPPED.

Here's a history lesson... About eighty years ago, everyone was too busy Charlestoning and bobbing their hair to notice the krauts were taking a shit all over Versailles. And ten years after that, we were all having a grand fucking time watching Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (I mean the people who didn't jump out a window during the depression).

Meanwhile there was a little something I like to call NAZISM going on in the black, bilious bowels of Europe. A man named Adolph Hitler wowed his slow-witted barbarian peoples with his Charlie Chaplin impression and his alternative energy initiatives (burning Jews), while we were too fucking busy tossing back gimlets and watching Noel Coward plays to give a good god damn.

Ben Harrison is a lot like this. And if appeasement of this inhuman scourge is what you people are trying to sell, I ain't buyin', ya priggish Nevilles.

He must be stopped. Now. One day he's weeping like a girly-man while reading Graham Greene, and the next day he's annexing Czechoslovakia. Maybe that's okay with you, moral cowards, but I say... Viva la resistance!

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

*Edit: I think in message 15 Frankie is exposing himself (heh) as a non new member of goodreads. So no more half-nude pic here of my ugly hairy belly. (Trust me, taking it down was a public service.)

Er... yikes.

Sure... Harrison puts up a pic of himself shirtless to woo the last remaining recalcitrant female voters (and Stephens) of Goodreads. This is just like when Hitler lifted his Abercrombie sweatshirt and flashed his abs to secure the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939. (It also uncannily resembles the notorious Bruenning Affair of 2009, when said Seal Beacher doffed his t-shirt on the beach to net votes for his Saramago review.)

oh, god, is goodreads going to go topless again?? this just brings back wistful memories of shirts and skins football... if my dad wasn't on goodreads, things would be different, buddy.

First Pat, now Frankie. You're picking up new fans all the time, Ben.


Oh, and Avatar is awesome.

Yes, Avatar is an outstanding film.







(For retarded shut-ins who never get to see movies. Clunky dialogue, noble savage stereotypes, bad acting, pointless boring action sequences, black-and-white morality. And THREE hours of it? What's not to love?)

yes, we forgive cameron some clunky dialogue and noble savaging in that this is the first american action movie that actually has kids screaming for the dumb military-type call-of-duty american tough-guy (y'know... the one who is the good guy in every other mainstream movie and/or video game ever made) to get killed. yeah, typical stuff.

and the action sequences were AWESOME.
better, however, were the slow, soulful scenes b/t jake and neytiri. great stuff.

this film also made me want to fuck a blue, ten-foot computer creation with a tail. not bad.

HOT!

And before gottiboy chimes in here with his vituperative populist ejaculations, imagine that I'm wrapping my puckering shit lips around the tip of his nose. And then farting ecstatically.

I think that ends the debate right there...

too late, bitch.

this film also made me want to fuck a blue, ten-foot computer creation with a tail. not bad.

Just more ethnic fetishization. A sublimated means of 'taming' that magical savage with the ample booty. The inverse of the Mandingo Syndrome.

I'll be curious to see how much Avatar is remembered (and -- more to the point -- remembered fondly) in ten years. I predict it will be firmly ensconced in the kitsch pantheon by then.

You could be describing the original Star Wars. As with that movie, the flaws of Avatar become nigh-meaningless because the movie works at a gut, mythical, primordial storytelling level. And it's gorgeous. And the action scenes are incredibly well-staged (as opposed to most everything that's come out in the decade of shaky-cam and fast-cutting).

While I'm game for some visceral enjoyment in literature, I find this potential (to be on a thrilling ride) to be the best and most unique part about film. As a medium, I think there's only so much it can accomplish intellectually and artistically that's not available in other media. But Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Avatar achieve a type of entertainment and mythical (visual!) storytelling that doesn't have the same impact in lit (and vice versa). Personally, I want to see the same myths retold in fascinating new ways and locations.

I disagree. I cared about the characters in Star Wars (the original trilogy only, please) and Raiders of the Lost Ark. I didn't really care about anyone/anything in Avatar. I may like looking at pretty pictures, but to look at them for three hours, I need more. After hour two, I was just about ready to chop down the tree of life myself because I felt like these characters (good and evil) were just hollow archetypes. They were too good or too bad to seem really real or interesting.

Frankie wrote: "I disagree. I cared about the characters in Star Wars (the original trilogy only, please) and Raiders of the Lost Ark. I didn't really care about anyone/anything in Avatar. I may like looking at pr..."

Obviously, I can't disagree with your experience. But I was totally sucked into the world and characters (and I definitely think the 3-D helped with this). The romance worked for me. I cared when the tree was shot down. I had chills for much of the movie and an occasional lump in the throat. And I've never been happier to cheer against my own species. In a way, it's embarrassing to admit all of this--that I was so taken in by the movie and it's low-brow content, with its 2-D villains and a stereotypical underdog story. But that's the magic of film I think--it'd certainly never be interesting in a book. It's more like riding a roller coaster.

But I've always kind of hated that we often 'settle' for less in movies. I also think there's a lot of reverse-snobbism in film appreciation. I've seen this in discussions on GR; I am not implying that you are one of these snobs by any means, of course, because you're one of the least snobby people I 'know.'

People often seem to get miffed when someone's not able to appreciate a visceral action film on its own terms (or a stupid comedy). There's an implication that by not enjoying the 'low-brow' film I am judging the person who enjoyed it. (And I am, but they don't know that for sure.)

I just think that for $300 million, we are entitled to have it all with Avatar: better dialogue, a little more complexity in character development, a more competent lead actor -- in ADDITION to all the CGI razzmatazz. There are literally a jillion people aspiring to work in the film industry. Yes, a jillion. And the fact that we churn out so much unmitigated crap -- crap even by audience standards, who don't like many of these films either -- it's very discouraging. It's more discouraging in films than in books, I think, because a book is written by one person, at relatively little expense. Films are insanely expensive, and big studios have so much talent at their disposal. And yet... we're supposed to be contented with this -- because it's better than the average action film. We're supposed to be impressed and thrilled that it rises above mediocrity. I just don't buy it.

Frankie wrote: "this film also made me want to fuck a blue, ten-foot computer creation with a tail. not bad.

Just more ethnic fetishization. A sublimated means of 'taming' that magical savage with the ample boo..."

Sure, Cameron is putting forward the idea that simple, community-focused life is superior. But ultimately Jake is the one who's tamed and corrected--not Neytiri.

No I meant gottiboy is fetishizing her. Not that idiot in the movie (who couldn't even keep his American accent).

Frankie wrote: "But I've always kind of hated that we often 'settle' for less in movies. I also think there's a lot of reverse-snobbism in film appreciation. I've seen this in discussions on GR; I am not implying ..."

Well, the cost is exactly the reason we got a simplistic story with stock characters--they need to be sure they get their money back. That's an unavoidable reality. Cameron's already stated that sequels would be far cheaper since everything's built (literally and virtually), so we could very well get The Empire Strikes Back with Avatar 2 (i.e. a better, less mainstream story).

And I'm certainly not saying this was a Great movie. But I was very well entertained, and it was much better than I expected. I wouldn't say that I'm a reverse-snob in film appreciation, although I do have a much wider range of appreciation than I do for literature (for which I very well may be a snob).

Frankie wrote: "No I meant gottiboy is fetishizing her. Not that idiot in the movie (who couldn't even keep his American accent)."

Yeah but I think this is one of the amazing things about the movie--completely digital non-human creatures that you can enjoy/appreciate on very different levels than was possible before this movie. Previously, non-humans could only be cute or scary or annoying, but now they can be hot and empathy-inspiring. I too came out of the movie thinking Na'vi were more attractive than humans. That's fucking weird, and it's a pretty impressive (if disturbing) accomplishment. And it raises many interesting questions.

As much as I love them, I almost hate that there was a Jaws and a Star Wars because it heralded the age of Event Films like Avatar -- big budget commodities which involve so much capital investment that studios often insist upon the least common denominator (special effects, big name actors, retread franchises, shopworn ideas) because a failure (on this large of a scale) is unacceptable. Big failures have bankrupted studios. There's too much at stake, unfortunately. Call me obvious (and a Luddite) but I pine for the days of smaller films that were allowed to take greater chances (even if they were miserable failures)...

Yeah, I understand your enjoyment of it, but these smurfzillas didn't inspire any empathy from me. The appearance is fine, but at heart they're cardboard -- just like most 'creatures' in old-style special effects films. Looking real, for me, didn't translate to seeming real. This is where the script was inadequate in my opinion. I mean, I'm not looking for a Bergman film, but neither am I looking for Disney's Pocahontas.

Frankie wrote: "As much as I love them, I almost hate that there was a Jaws and a Star Wars because it heralded the age of Event Films like Avatar -- big budget commodities which involve so much capital investment..."

I completely agree with this. Star Wars would be different and inferior if made today--there's so much quirkiness in the beginning of that movie (droids wandering around Tatooine, weird Jawa interlude, Mos Eisley scenes). Some really strange pacing early on that doesn't 'work' in a modern sense. I would have liked to see some more quirkiness and off-beat beats in Avatar--although I really did like how Cameron took his time in the middle of the film and let us sit in the forest at night for 'no reason', etc. It's nice when things happen in an event movie for no good reason, and this type of unpredictability is now truly rare.

Your opinion is stupid and retarded.

; )

And yours is elitist and snobby.



(I can't wait for the make-up sex!)

I loved Avatar, though the script did kinda suck.

I love Ben Harrison too, but i find these Ben Harrison attacks funnier than fuck.

You 'love' Ben Harrison?

Okay, Il Duce. You're part of the Axis now.

bram is right, polack.
avatar is this generation's star wars.
nostalgia and fond memories aside, star wars is a plot lifted from kurosawa and greek myths, has little to no moral complexity (the bad guys are pure evil; good guys are saints), the script is well paced but pretty cheestastic, and the special effects are groundbreaking.
the same is true for avatar.
one cannot know this stuff for sure, but i'm quite certain that avatar, like its predecessors (wizard of oz, star wars, etc) will be remembered. fondly remembered.

and again, it'll also be remembered, historically, as a huge abnormality in that it's a mainstream american action movie with themes of anti-colonialism and a smattering of anti-americanism. a movie that subverts the usual 'big military tough guy' set-up. i suspect that if fox hadn't produced this movie and had upwards of $300 million at stake, the loonies at fox news'd be in an uproar.

I'm not arguing that other movies don't have recycled plots. That would be absurd because most action films are derived from just a few (one?) basic storyline. It's what the screenwriter/director does with that storyline (elaborates upon it, inhabits it with real characters, paces it well, and -- occasionally -- adds something profoundly new to the mix) that makes a film good or not. Of course. Like I always say, ANY storyline can make for a great book, film, TV show, or play in the hands of competent writers and directors. The most important thing about Star Wars (and other similar flicks) was that the characters living in this cheestastic world were believable and real to me. That wasn't the case with Avatar. It wasn't the case with Titanic either. I didn't give one shit about Leo and Kate's characters; in fact, I hoped that they would both die... painfully. I think this signals (for my taste) what is wrong with James Cameron. He loves a gargantuan epic, but he never quite enlivens it for me. It's more of a scenario than a story. I just don't like him as a filmmaker. I think he generally takes the low road -- not RELATIVE to other action films, but absolutely; I don't grade on the curve. There was a particularly discouraging interview with him in EW that I read when I was on the shitter at my parents on Xmas... (Maybe the elimination process colored my reading, however.) He made somewhat disparaging remarks about 'arty' films. It was a very wallowing-in-the-muck type of statement (as I recall) where he implied that these films don't speak to people like 'popular' entertainment does. His example?? Slumdog Millionaire. (Idiotic. The only way Slumdog differs from traditional Hollywood fare is that it's set in India. Never mind that Slumdog was very popular...) I think people settle for the Avatars of the world because that's what they're trained to enjoy, that's what their local cineplex is showing, those are the ads they see, those are the reviews they read in the local paper... Sure, Michael Haneke are Tsai Ming-Liang are not for everyone, but I think his comments were somewhat boorish. Unless I am remembering them wrong. This has nothing to do with the quality of Avatar, per se, but I think it points to Cameron's purpose in making films very clearly. There's nothing wrong with popcorn entertainment, but there is still within the continuum of popcorn entertainment 'good' and 'bad' and I think Cameron is content with sacrificing character and plot to spectacle and bombast when it's clearly not an either/or proposition.

But in the end...

All of these debates just reduce themselves to 'I liked it!'/'I didn't like it!'

How do you persuade someone who disagrees with you that a film is good, or vice versa?

As someone who hasn't enjoyed an action/adventure movie this much since The Matrix (a decade ago-and I was a freshman in HS), I'm of the opinion that this one will stand the test of time. And you probably won't like this to be used as evidence, but the fact that Avatar grossed just as much in its second weekend in its first is a pretty big deal. It's unheard of nowadays (and it was actually the best 2nd weekend gross ever). 50% drop off from weekend 1 to 2 is seen as 'not bad' now.

This movie is cruising on word-of-mouth love. Sure, it could be viewed like Titanic in 12 years, but I don't think so.

There's one thing that we can all agree on here...


Ben Harrison is pure evil.

Seriously. We should all get together and thank Pat for showing us the light.