I don't think I ever saw that. Was that on the new forum or the old one? I'd be interested in seeing it.

Herzog's "Nosferatu" stands as the most stunningly beautiful horror film I've ever seen. I also think it was even better than the original.

I saw David Chalmers give a (disappointing) talk on Friday, and he mentioned having written a paper on the philosophical content of The Matrix. You might be interested, Abe.

Cool, I'll check it out.

agreeeeed

Sherman's March (McElwee)

Have you seen this dreww? I feel like it would be your cup of tea since you liked Bernie for its depiction of the South. This is the best depiction of southern women I think I've seen and the protagonist is clearly you. I personally thought it was one of the more creative documentaries I've seen, more personal (but still applicable universally). Also very funny, in a woody allen kind of way, but way more honest and believable.

I repudiate my argument in that. I like The Matrix these days. It is kind of silly and certainly not one of the deepest things cinema can do but it's one of the best examples of a superficial style attaching itself to a bunch of deep concepts an a palatable way.


Yup, I think because of a zedz rec on Crit Forum. Definitely one of the best documentaries I've ever seen.

Dude the sequels are some of the most shallow pretentious shit you'll ever run into.

I remember not liking the sequels at all.

Reloaded is an interesting watch. Convoluted so that it makes the original look like Raiders of the Lost Ark, but if you're looking for insane philosophical implementation in film, it's a ball.

Hot Coffee: A

Tort reform, more like fart reform. If you have ever used the phrase "sue-happy" and used the story of the old lady burning herself with McDonald's coffee to support the usage of this phrase, see this documentary!

Trouble with the Curve
8/10

Ruby Sparks
8.2/10

Review of Being John Malkovich for class

Kaufman scripts always seem to start with a promising exposition and an intriguing postmodern gimmick before caving in to either lazy cynicism or easy sentimentality. Here, in Adaptation, and especially in Synecdoche, New York, Kaufman seems to have a sick preoccupation with sexually useless, artistically minded white males who resemble himself. We can't know for sure, but it seems as though the more of Kaufman's own pathetic qualities he puts into a film's protagonist, the more credit he apparently expects me to give him for being "honest" or something like that (God help him if he expects this strategy to generate my sympathy). This sort of artistic attitude, and the critical trends which don't seem to have a problem with it, are the sort of thing that make me think I was born in the wrong era and should have grown up when artists were expected to be both highly perceptive about life and/or highly skilled at putting those perceptions into a form which could challenge or inspire us in some way so that we can grow and become more perceptive and sensitive ourselves, rather than merely subjecting us to briefly diverting, snarky puzzles. I don't feel like I learned much about life or human experience from this film other than that Kaufman hates himself and therefore creates elaborate narrative structures to save/distract himself from his own radical immaturity, as if recognizing your own immaturity in excruciating convolution were a replacement for actually growing as a human being (or an artist, for that matter). Of course I don't want to get too hung up on identifying Kaufman with his protagonists--violate the classic rule of identifying the poem's speaker as the poet--but I find it hard to believe that anyone would deny the very personal tone which permeates all of Kaufman's major scripts. But even leaving this aside and concentrating on this film's larger movements and overall form, what is there of value? Was this film just praised because it was weird and different enough from the average 1998 film, and therefore deserved all the accolades it received just for trying? On a micro level there can be no doubt that the film is in some sense well made. All of the special effects landed, the acting always exuded exactly the attitude you could tell Kaufman was going for, the cinematography and scoring are inventive, the comic timing is often impeccable, the pacing is impressive despite the narrative insanity. But to what end? A pathetic, stupid, shallow man is punished for being pathetic, stupid, and shallow? I give you the go ahead to punish away. But don't expect me to enjoy or acclaim it just because you wrap it up in a bunch of narrative parlor tricks.

Obviously the film plays with themes of individuality and sexual identification in ways that are uncommon for a movie as well-funded as this. My problem is that whenever I attempted to follow through with one of those themes, the film didn't ever seem to develop any of them into anything of particular significance; they just seemed like fodder or scaffolding for the film's shallow critique of shallowness. I am willing to be convinced that there is more going on here, but the convincing will have to come from something outside of my own abilities of interpretation.

i'm at a weird point where i am inclined to intellectually agree with everything you said and yet am still emotionally drawn to his films but can't explain why.





edit: Dreww, do you dislike the narrative tricks? i see you praise several aspect of the craftsmanship but seem to have a distaste for that one aspect. but i couldn't tell if it was because you disliked the way he creates his narratives or if its because you feel he's using those tricks to replace true insight. the reason i ask is because that narrative insanity you mention is probably my favorite thing about the craftmanship of his films (even if that says nothing about what the film offers), and also the main reason for the hype/praise from most critics i think. to me, it makes for a really fun ride, especially in Adaptation (not so much in Synecdoche because its such a relentlessly soul-sucking film in many ways)