Rewatches and Rediscoveries
- Searchlike
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:21 pm
Re: Rewatches and Rediscoveries
Ashamed to confess It's a Wonderful Life still works for me, eh, most of it anyway...
I make no secret of my fondness for McCarey sentimentality, but that I also enjoy a sugary dose of Capra sentimentalism every now and then is something that I wouldn't tell just anybody. Please keep it a secret, my fellow champions. Or don't, and feel free to use it against me if I ever step out of line.
I make no secret of my fondness for McCarey sentimentality, but that I also enjoy a sugary dose of Capra sentimentalism every now and then is something that I wouldn't tell just anybody. Please keep it a secret, my fellow champions. Or don't, and feel free to use it against me if I ever step out of line.
aka FGNRSY
- St. Gloede
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:50 pm
Western (2017, Valeska Grisebach)
I have been racking my brain to put words to what it is Valeska Grisebach does in Western that is so incredibly hypnotizing and brilliant.
All I wrote the first time I saw it was: "Incredibly bare minimalism. Grisebach finds something incredibly vulnerable in this masculine culture, and she never lets it go".
This holds true once again - it is something in how Grisebach shoots masculinity, in particular hyper-masculinity and downright toxic masculinity. What she is able to do is find something genuinely vulnerable there - something sad - something that makes you empathise, feel something - it is, frankly, jarring. We have all seen films that revel in this behaviour, and we have seen films shows it as dangerous, scary and/or (purposefully) unnerving. But that is not this film.
Take for instance an early scene where the boss harasses a young woman by the river, and practically assaults her - while the men simply sit and watch. There is something pitiable about how they look on - and fail to do anything before several lines are crossed. It finds weakness, complacency, unease, powerlessness. Who are these men? Why are they the way they are? Perhaps we won't get those answers, but the experience of the all-male workplace, and the petty, childlike, and brutish way they act leave a lasting impression.
However, it is not solely masculinity at display - there is also a degree of National chauvinism, and cultural relations. Our Germans are working in Bulgaria, building up the infrastructure - and as one gleefully shouts - they are back after 70 years (referring to the Nazis in WW2).
Large sets of the film are focused on communication without language and the bonds that can still be made. Our lead character, Meinhard Neumann's "Meinhard" in particular stands out by in some ways being able to assert himself against his fellow German, and strike relations and even friendships, with the Bulgarian population - to the confusion of the others - and there is a lot of clear subtext - including the prominent use of a German flag - at one point shot as if enveloping Meinhard, or perhaps even as a cape.
The entire film is calm, stripped back and minimalistic. There is no true excess emotions - the camera rather captures larger contexts and contrasts with a peering eye - shredding our characters, in particular our Germans, and leaving them naked - but still hard to comprehend and touch. This peering eye, and the details it manages to capture make Western a powerful, visceral experience - though, just as the first time I saw this film there seems to be even more just out of reach. 9/10.
-
What are your thoughts on it?
I have been racking my brain to put words to what it is Valeska Grisebach does in Western that is so incredibly hypnotizing and brilliant.
All I wrote the first time I saw it was: "Incredibly bare minimalism. Grisebach finds something incredibly vulnerable in this masculine culture, and she never lets it go".
This holds true once again - it is something in how Grisebach shoots masculinity, in particular hyper-masculinity and downright toxic masculinity. What she is able to do is find something genuinely vulnerable there - something sad - something that makes you empathise, feel something - it is, frankly, jarring. We have all seen films that revel in this behaviour, and we have seen films shows it as dangerous, scary and/or (purposefully) unnerving. But that is not this film.
Take for instance an early scene where the boss harasses a young woman by the river, and practically assaults her - while the men simply sit and watch. There is something pitiable about how they look on - and fail to do anything before several lines are crossed. It finds weakness, complacency, unease, powerlessness. Who are these men? Why are they the way they are? Perhaps we won't get those answers, but the experience of the all-male workplace, and the petty, childlike, and brutish way they act leave a lasting impression.
However, it is not solely masculinity at display - there is also a degree of National chauvinism, and cultural relations. Our Germans are working in Bulgaria, building up the infrastructure - and as one gleefully shouts - they are back after 70 years (referring to the Nazis in WW2).
Large sets of the film are focused on communication without language and the bonds that can still be made. Our lead character, Meinhard Neumann's "Meinhard" in particular stands out by in some ways being able to assert himself against his fellow German, and strike relations and even friendships, with the Bulgarian population - to the confusion of the others - and there is a lot of clear subtext - including the prominent use of a German flag - at one point shot as if enveloping Meinhard, or perhaps even as a cape.
The entire film is calm, stripped back and minimalistic. There is no true excess emotions - the camera rather captures larger contexts and contrasts with a peering eye - shredding our characters, in particular our Germans, and leaving them naked - but still hard to comprehend and touch. This peering eye, and the details it manages to capture make Western a powerful, visceral experience - though, just as the first time I saw this film there seems to be even more just out of reach. 9/10.
-
What are your thoughts on it?
i don't think there's anything shameful about that!Searchlike wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:20 pm Ashamed to confess It's a Wonderful Life still works for me, eh, most of it anyway...
yeah me either i've seen it 50000 times and would still watch it again
- Searchlike
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:21 pm
I think my biggest source of embarrassment derives from liking a film with an angel named Clarence. Is there a more pleasant-sounding name out there than Clarence? And you're going to name you angel character Clarence, really? There's something very unsubtle about it. Don't know why it irks me, it simply does.
aka FGNRSY
maybe it's the duke of clarence from richard III, stabbed and drowned in a vat of wine
at least i like to think so
at least i like to think so
- Searchlike
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:21 pm
That would make the film immensely better, I hope you're right.
aka FGNRSY
sooo, i'm a serial rewatcher. always have been. suppose i always will be to a certain extent. but my version of rewatching is mostly putting garbage on in the background while i do other stuff. you know how some people put on music in the background while they study? i put on movies that are either so shitty or i've seen them so many times that they require so little attention that they might as well be white noise. anyways, i've 'rewatched' ivan reitman's draft day maybe a dozen times in the past month. to paraphrase evelyn, i'm pretty sure this is an evil movie. it's the worst type of adequately made crap that i believe actively makes viewers more stupid than they already are. as you all know, i can be very anti-braincells. after a long day of doing stuff, there's nothing that i love more than killin' some brain babies. genius it up during the day, dumb it all down at night. my motto to live by. and draft day has been particularly effective at the latter. it's a truly gawd awful movie. terrible. evil. every piece of dialogue uttered is exposition. the movie actually believes the viewer is so dumb that they have to highlight every single teeny tiny thing in big giant bright blaring all-caps letters. there's never a moment where two football dudes are talking, and one says something, and the other says something, but there's like these little nonverbal cues that reveal a world of something else going on underneath. no. sample dialogue is: 'hi have you met my friend star wide receiver joe blow?' this would be like you introducing two people, and instead of saying, 'joe, i want you to meet jim,' you actually say, 'joe the worldclass plumber, i want you to meet the worldfamous grocery store bagger jim.' also, if i was talking to the general fucking manager of a national football team, i'm pretttttty positive that i shouldn't have to insert a dude's star wide receiver status before talking about them. i think bill belichick knows who dan marino is, bro. ya don't gotta preface dan with hall of fame quarterback. holy shit. but then there's also the entire premise of the film, which is this: general manager of the cleveland browns (lulz) gets bullied into making the worst trade in nfl history, but then by sheer dumb luck, including a bunch of conveniently timed amazingly stupid decisions by every single other gm in the nfl, the browns gm ends up having the best draft ever in nfl history. k. thx. the problem? the browns gm is ofc made out to be this absolute bobby fischer-level chess-playing genius who engineered this entire super awesome wonderful draft by sheer smarty pants big brain know-how. gtfoh. it's made obvious early on that the browns gm is made to do something he doesn't want to do. then once it's done, every other gm just magically gets stupid, while the browns gm gets a little less stupid. it's evil america in a nutshell. you can succeed in this country by sheer luck so long as you're a little less stupid than the other guy when he's being more stupid. seriously. i want to kill braincells at the end of a long day, but this movie is a straight up lobotomy. you got chadwick boseman (rip) for some reason talking like a black guy's version of a generic white guy's version of how a southern black guy would talk. every time he opens his mouth, i expect 'yawww suhhh wan me shine doe shoes' to come tumbling out of his mouth. meanwhile, jennifer garner should've gotten an academy award nomination for doing the best job ever at being a total nonentity. costner does nothing but his best version of jeff bridges' gruff voice (you know, the voice that jeff bridges uses now for every single film role ever since he won an academy award for gruffin' it up in crazy heart), and that's all he does cuz he's kevin costner, and his acting range is limited to not being able to act, and merely being present. you have the random pointless cameos from real nfl peeps, ratcheting up the product placement to a mil. no one and nothing is funny. no one and nothing is dramatic or enthralling or interesting. i can't even attest to the entertainment value. i'm just telling y'all, this shit is evil. this isn't junkfood. it's meth. bad for the individual, bad for society in general. when i 'rewatch' this pos, i don't just watch it, i hatefuck it. grrr
HA! that is so cool
- St. Gloede
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:50 pm
lost in translation was not quite as magical as when i put it on at 2am in that glorious phase between sleep and wakefulness a few years ago, but it's still fun, moving, and refreshingly mood- rather than plot-driven for a hollywood film. that soundtrack! scarjo! murray!