Last Watched

[rischka]

am i the only one here who lives at a trailer park ? part of why i was interested in nomadland is there is a large community of retired people who travel this way by choice, leaving aside those who live 'off the grid' entirely. we see a lot of them, esp in winter. i know people who commute from canada and alaska every year, not to mention the upper midwest. we call them 'snowbirds' -- these people mostly aren't in economic crisis. i think i'm gonna have to watch this movie and see if it rings true. trailer parks are something else again -- mostly bad but mine is pretty nice stay in school kids ! and plz no gentrification -- i can't afford it

[grabmymask]

I don't want to be harsh enough to claim that this is the intention, to somehow whitewash poverty and poor living conditions as an eccentric living choice of brave pioneers/individualist.

I think McDormand’s Vogue cover story about the film is very revealing about the intentions behind the film. For instance, it says, “At some point in her 40s, McDormand told Coen the following: ‘When I’m 65, I’m changing my name to Fern, I’m smoking Lucky Strikes, drinking Wild Turkey, I’m getting an RV, and hitting the road.’ This became the [film’s] bass line.”

Quite literally seems like a vanity project for McDormand to engage in what I can only describe as poverty-tourism. Very much an idealizing of their lifestyle.

[Jürka]

am i the only one here who lives at a trailer park ?

from my perception (from your pics) your dwelling place is not a house on wheels.
and the surrounding doesn't look like a trailer park captured by Giuseppe Andrews.
your dwelling place looks rather idyllic and i would like to live in such a "trailer park".

when i investigated (some time ago) the trailer park issue (as a part of the gentrification issue), i was surprised there are/were some trailer parks in Europe.
as i said in the other thread, a family of my bro-in-law was enthusiastic about traveling each summer (if possible) to Yugoslavia in a van.
and nowadays, my sis and her hubby have their van permanently parked in a camping site in North-Eastern Bohemia (at the big pond) and (with the exception of winter) they go there as often as possible (for weekends, vacations and alike) — but their permanent dwelling place is a flat in town.
i am noticing more and more young ppl building their vans (houses on wheels) or trying to live like nomads.
i don't own the flat in Prague and in pension (or maybe even sooner) i intend to move to a village cottage (that i inherited — i wouldn't be able to afford any house using bucks i earn). and when i will be in pension (and if i won't be crippled) i plan to spent winters in some warmer spots (somewhere in the south) — tho not in a van because i don't have a driving licence.

otherwise, in Bohemia are quite popular "gardening colonies" within cities.
even Prague has several of such localities with several little garden plots (with little garden houses) next to each other.
in the past, i fancied an idea to afford such a garden plot with a garden house and live in it but it is not connected to the grid and thus i would have to forget about flushing toilet and alike (so i dismissed the idea).
and ofc there is a pressure from developers to turn these gardening colonies into the blocks of flats.

[rischka]

At its very worst during its first half hour Nomadland flirts with being the movie McCrea wants to make in Sullivan's Travels.

https://letterboxd.com/filipe_furtado/film/nomadland/ ok i'm watching this. and yes you're right, i wouldn't want to live anywhere else, i could never afford this view in town and i prefer to be close to nature. this 'house on wheels' hasn't moved in a very long time (and i don't own it anyway). i probably could buy a house but i don't want to. i may end up as a nomadwoman!

[Silga]

I don't understand most of the criticism against Nomadland and Frances McDormand. Whenever Hollywood makes a movie about rich people and their lavish lifestyle, there are always comments like - 'All they know is their luxurious life. Why don't they make movies about ordinary folks and their daily problems, etc.'

Part of the criticism make it sound like McDormand is supposed to ditch everything she has earned or donate it all and when, and only when, will she be able to portray and understand a character like the one in Nomadland. Come on.. This is a feature film, not a documentary or some charitable project to educate, shine a light on the situation and work for the betterment and future of that community. It is a film project, with dedicated awards campaign, with ultimate goal to succeed in movie industry and further the careers of those involved.

Also, Frances McDormand has proven times and again that she is far and away from the typical Hollywood persona surrounded by glitz and glamour. I watched Nomadland and I believed the character McDormand portrayed. I mean, it's not that someone like Jennifer Lopez or Mariah Carey is in the starring role..

[Jürka]

there is also a phenomenon in Bohemia called "tramping"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_tramping
around Prague, there are several "tramping colonies" with little cottages (some of them suitable for permanent living, some only suitable for staying over weekend or for permanent stay if you are a Diogenes type).
most local "tramps" have their permanent dwelling places (usually in towns) and go to tramping colonies or in the woods (sleeping under the stars) only in spare time.
background of the local "tramping" is an idealized perception of the Wild West.

Tramping (in Czech and Slovak language) is a movement incorporating woodcraft, hiking/backpacking/camping and scouting, with a characteristic flavour of and styled on American culture, especially the Wild West. The latter is particularly noticeable in the tramping song, a song and musical style associated with tramping.

Tramping originated in Czechoslovakia in the beginning of the 20th century and is still present in today's Czech Republic and to a lesser degree in Slovakia. It manifests itself in a distinctive style of clothing, hiking culture and tramping music. For the urban youth it was a specific form of a "return to nature".

Tramping, not to be confused with simple hiking, is a pastime born out of the pressures and opportunities of the interwar period. Saturated with idyllic images of the American West and seeking respite from the pressures of modern urban life, many Czechs set off into the woods. Tramp settlements with names such as Hudson, Little Bighorn and Swanee soon became temporary homes for scores of Czechs impersonating cowboys, Red Indians, forty-niners and other American characters.

The Czech and Slovak tramps established several thousand provisional settlements ("osada") - mostly around big cities (Prague, Bratislava, Plzeň, Ostrava, Brno)- with elements of a specific architecture (wooden cabins, fireplaces, totems etc.) imitating the Wild West.

[rischka]

that's interesting! i had read about that phenomenon in germany, where people dressed in costumes like cowboys and indians.

i'm 10 mins into nomadland and they're talking about quartzsite, az which is a famous RV colony now https://www.ci.quartzsite.az.us/

there is a huge gem & minerals show there which i may visit one day (because i am a nerd). many of those people i suspect have chosen that lifestyle

also worth mentioning my mom's grandpa who was a legit hobo. when his wife died young he packed his kids off to an orphanage and hit the road. my grandpa was sent out to farms to work but he didn't like it much and ran away to work on the railroad. he finished only the 3rd grade

i guess i might have the wandering gene. anyway, it is bothering me a bit that frances is play-acting and these people are kept in the dark

edit: uh oh it's all good til the rainbow people show up also the cinematography is so ugly; is this on purpose?

[rischka]

well it is better than 3 billboards if only for the scenery. i've seen 3 best picture nominees and it's enough

edit: brody is predicting nomadland for best picture, best director and best actress

[Jürka]

i may end up as a nomadwoman!

while browsing through all the films of the G Kurdish FF, i see there is also a contribution to the "nomadic life" discourse.
i guess i will try it (before the 27th deadline).

ABUR MIGRATORY BIRDS (Gül Ertunan Karaaslan, Sedat Kiran, 2020)
https://www.globalkurdishfilmfestival.c ... ory-birds/
Nomadism is the oldest socio-economic activity in the world, based on the relationship between manpower, animal, and nature. In Northern Kurdistan, the animal life-sustaining communities and tribes continue living their nomadic lifestyle, without being bound to the soil. This documentary is a three-year observation of the Kurdish Koçer nomads.

[St. Gloede]

I don't think the film would have gotten the critique it did if it was simply a film about a woman choosing to live in a van out of grief, and coming across this culture of people who seem to choose to do the same. I don't think a film like Into the Wild for instance got this kind of critique - but this goes back to what I said with Nomadland being a little naive/confused/unfocused (or perhaps as some claim, malicious) as it specifically sets the film during the financial crash and makes this the backdrop both in the opening cards and throughout the film - and the message that can be taken away is: yes, all these people did lose their homes and were forced to live in cars - but they want it that way, and isn't it kinda "cool"?

I really wonder why they chose this framing when it is not really what the core story is about.

Regardless, a good to great film with an incredible performance - but I definitely understand that people could question its motives.

[sally]

the family game (1983) yoshimitsu morita

a bitter królikiewicz doing teorema in the style of ozu *shrugs*

[Roscoe]

BLONDE VENUS -- von Sternberg's Dietrich obsession is in full force here, as he adores and debases his goddess. It only came to me the next day that Herbert Marshall's character fury at his erring wife isn't entirely unjustified, okay thanks honey for raising all that money for my medical life-saving treatment, but you only told me you were going back on the stage to earn the cash, not sleeping with a politician and being his kept woman while I was gone, did you really have to move in with him, and come on, taking our son with you is in pretty bad taste, isn't it?

[rischka]

bloody nose, empty pockets -- so this isn't a documentary? or is it. the people were actually drunk right? did they know each other at all? very convincing

i was trying to identify all the b&w movie clips in the background. maybe there's a list at imdb.. omg the cranes are flying, never would've got that one

feel like i have a hangover now. gonna go to bed

[...]

Haven't seen Nomadland and don't live in a trailer park, just a too expensive tiny apartment, but I have worked with people that are "nomads" in the movie sense and have seen Zhao's earlier movies. Her previous films were of the "show don't tell" type, where she essentially tries to capture a key time of a character's life, where "character" has a strong link to an actual place or people, but not identical to a doc style. The movies go out of their way to allow the character's choices to speak for themselves without much imposition save for dramatizing the relationships to give a better sense of the larger social climate the character is operating in and basing their choices on. In The Rider, for example, the lead character has had serious physical damage done to him by appearing in rodeos and could die if he continues to ride, but may still do so anyway despite that risk. Zhao just lets that speak for itself within the context of the community and place the character inhabits without placing added weight to those things beyond what we can see (and some occasional too lovely shots or others that suggest some attachment to character perspective perhaps.)

Those movies didn't get criticized for that, in fact they were a bit overpraised for that aspect, but then they were "arthouse" flicks, not "Oscarbait", where the discussion changes to fit that need. For all I know Nomadland is terrible, but the critical discussion on it I've seen elsewhere is even more so, people who find no fault with Toy Story or other blockbusters all of a sudden are keyed in on hypocrisy, which seems more than a day late and dollar short, so, personally, I'm not taking any of the talk as being worth much since it's almost all ignoring its own contextual issues among other things. For me, Songs My Brother Taught Me and The Rider had enough good elements to them, the former perhaps more than the latter, that I'm interested enough to see Nomadland sometime, but maybe not for quite a while until it hits my library, maybe as a double bill with The Eternals.

I'll also add that working with trailer folk and other low income people has taught me that the concerns about or interest in social justice and being poor or vulnerable aren't as connected as one might think in the US, so if you're making a film about that, do you try to capture those lives as they see them, or as others might want them to be shown?

[St. Gloede]

I have only seen The Rider before, and I really liked it as well. I agree that Nomadland is a clear continuation of the style, only a little more polished and precise in its cinematic language - and with a much stronger central performance. I disagree that it simply let the community express itself though. It seemed a very overt commentary on toxic masculinity, and could even be a little too forceful in the messaging at times - but the non-professional actors really worked, and there was such a fantastic degree of vulnerability there (a little like Western, but with a less austere atmosphere). I may have missed some of the critique (and if it is that rich people can't play poor people, etc. that gets silly) but in terms of framing (being about the recession forcing people out of their homes) and messaging/presentation of Amazon - I do think we can say there are very dubious elements here as well.

(Also, seemingly, I may be the one that likes the film the most here?)

[flip]

any good will i might have felt towards nomadland evaporated when for the fifth time a character showed up and said "hello, my name is willow and i have [horrible medical condition]". i haven't seen zhao's previous films, but if they were 'show don't tell', then this film is the opposite, just blunt and bald expository dialogue that wallows in a very shallow pool of human misery. and i found the film's construction contradictory:

i don't understand how someone can make a film about finding some sort of liberation in the open spaces of the nevada desert but refuse to hold a shot for more than two seconds.

clearly a lot of people disagree with me about the film, but there are grounds to criticize it before even considering the politics etc.

[grabmymask]

people who find no fault with Toy Story or other blockbusters all of a sudden are keyed in on hypocrisy, which seems more than a day late and dollar short, so, personally, I'm not taking any of the talk as being worth much since it's almost all ignoring its own contextual issues among other things

I’m not sure how an animated movie for kids about toys is comparable to a drama that exploits the actual lives of impoverished people (who were lied to!) to further the financial and cultural status of those who made it? Obviously Disney and Pixar are both horribly exploitative companies (Disney’s straight-up the worst), but I really don’t think anyone critiquing Nomadland is then turning around and showering Disney with praise either? Also, Nomadland’s reception has been overwhelmingly positive. Critical and negative views of it may be the popular positions on here, but that is far from representative of its general reception. Of course, now that it won best picture, more backlash is certainly inevitable (and imo justified).

[...]

clearly a lot of people disagree with me about the film, but there are grounds to criticize it before even considering the politics etc.

And that's great, I wish there were actually more people doing that among the whatever one wants to call this current era of reviewing/criticism done by podcast and youtube video instead of the blandly informed "like/dislike" moralism that passes for critical engagement nowadays, where the viewer is always to be served rather than actually engage with the work in a more mutual manner of reflection. Like I said, I haven't seen the movie so I'm not so much defending it as being annoyed by the way it's been discussed by reviewers, particularly in how they so often assert superior claims of "knowledge" about the lives of the people being represented while being every bit as distant from that reality and hypocritical as they claim Zhao to be. They find it easier to attach themselves to pure consumer product that fits the tropes that suit their pre-packaged expectations than examine their own points of reference. (incidentally though, having spent a lot of time working with and around the transient, trailer living to street life, introductions often contain excessively personal information around medical, legal, and other social problems. I can't say if the movie gets that bit right in how they present it or make use of it in the story, but it is definitely a thing.)

[nrh]

i'd say that backlash to a highly praised film once it leaves the festival circuit and enters wider release is hardly new (3 billboards was the most controversial recent example but decades of sundance and cannes darlings have elicited similar reactions), and nomadland going to hulu rather than the usual limited release art house release certainly sped things up.

but the backlash is hardly confined to people here, just looking for example of the terrific argentine critic roger koza's review (with help from google translate) where the calls the film the equivalent of a heart emoticon...

http://www.conlosojosabiertos.com/nomadland/

[flip]

greg - i haven't encountered much of that type of criticism of nomadland beyond the passing references to it here (just because i don't read about film in many places outside of scfz) but i think i'd agree with you about it, the perspective some commentators seem to be adopting sounds alien to how i think about film.

[St. Gloede]

Agree with Flip. I have not seen this criticism for this film (but have seen similar commentary before). That said, I hope we're not separating messaging (intentional or unintentional) from film criticism.

It is also worth noting that dissecting or analysing a part of a film or highlighting potentially "problematic elements" is not the same as dismissing or discrediting a work. You can have films as a personal favorite, and still find elements to be problematic, or find that a specific read can lead to some intruiging and possibly troubling places - it can even make the film more interesting. I have noticed a trend recently to dismiss certain types of critique and analysis as if it is an affront to the film and cinematic passion, when it is often just a part of what we can love about film discussion.

[...]

I guess the reason the criticism around this movie set me off is that the reviews purport themselves as critiquing the film's alleged neoliberalism while having fully embraced a neoliberal stance in how they review films, which is becoming even more entrenched as "the" accepted method of thought around art beyond even how it was entangled in criticism before. It's depressing, no doubt because it's an area of interest that I find important personally, even knowing that interest is a niche one at best.

[grabmymask]

For what it’s worth, though I strongly disliked the film, I do not at all think there is any kind of moral imperative that people should dislike it or anything like that (nor I do I have any kind of personal problem with people who like it, obviously). In fact, my favorite of the best pic noms this year was Sound of Metal, which similarly has plenty of its own “problematic” elements regarding its representation of deaf people. I definitely don’t think criticism of films’ socio-political implications (and conditions under which they were produced) is the “be all end all” of film critique, but I also don’t think such critiques should be totally ignored. I dislike Nomadland for reasons that go beyond its dubious production, but addressing the dubious production is, I think, important. I don’t see anything necessarily hypocritical or “neoliberal” about such critiques at all—though of course they can be taken to ridiculous extremes.

[...]

I definitely don’t think criticism of films’ socio-political implications (and conditions under which they were produced) is the “be all end all” of film critique, but I also don’t think such critiques should be totally ignored.

No, that shouldn't be ignored, anytime there are people involved with a work there will be socio-political implications that are worth discussing, but that discussion has to be more than simply reading the packaging and deciding if that fits your current tastes. It's just that so many of the reviews are fricking lazy or no longer question the neo-liberal values around movies as consumer good, like toothpaste, tub and tile grout, or a local hardware store, to be yelp reviewed for consumer satisfaction and any character more nuanced than Immortan Joe, or any story requiring more attention than Jojo Rabbit gets short shrift against a "good laugh" or "awesome action", the big emotions are what matters.

It may well be that my interests are old-fashioned and falling out of date and the trend towards art as simple pleasure is the way forward and maybe that will be for the best, who knows? Once the barrier between high and low art was breached, and rightly so, the understanding that there is no intrinsically superior "type" of work, opera isn't inherently better than hip hop say, the demand shifted to no works are better than others as long as someone thinks its great. That effectively makes immediacy of reward worth more than any notion of lasting value because immediacy is easier to appreciate and if all things are equal, convenience wins.

Eh, there are still some people who write decent criticism and maybe its more just the sheer glut of info plus the new dominance of a few streaming services that are creating a momentary lull in consideration, where the access to videos talking about the craft or praxis of art are getting people interested and they haven't yet got to thinking about why immediate pleasure has its limits, we'll see I guess. I'm just grumpy about it right now because the immediate pleasure, craft and science types are taking up so much space in writing about art lately.

[---]

I guess the reason the criticism around this movie set me off is that the reviews purport themselves as critiquing the film's alleged neoliberalism while having fully embraced a neoliberal stance in how they review films, which is becoming even more entrenched as "the" accepted method of thought around art beyond even how it was entangled in criticism before. It's depressing, no doubt because it's an area of interest that I find important personally, even knowing that interest is a niche one at best.

What do you mean by "the neoliberal stance in the they review films"

[...]

It's accepting the corporate ideology as the defining one, it's taking the way things are as being the way they should be or at least as an acceptable method or measure for other areas of life that shape social values. That Disney controls the market, for example, becomes the way representation is understood, how Disney provides it.

Because Disney films are so popular they are taken as a stand in for society to a large degree, which means you aren't "seen" until you're represented in a Disney film, but that's always subject to Disney's own interests in how you'll be represented. Blandly positive perhaps, if you don't look too close, but more fit to the Disney model of consumers. Disney attempts to capture as much of the world as they can in their representative net in that way, converting the tales of all cultures to Disney product. It isn't just Disney of course, though they are the biggest fish in the pond at the moment, you can look to how Sony/DC attempted to control Black representation in the Justice League movie as another example, or how those big budget films become the center of consideration for a host of social values and reviewers go along with that, only tending to correct the worst offenses in the movies that aren't found to be "entertaining", while largely accepting the pleasures of the "good ones" as proof of moral sensibility, I mean the reviewer's obviously a good person so if they enjoy the movie it must be good too since they couldn't possibly like something that wasn't worthwhile.

Or to put it a different way, it's thinking I like this movie because it's good, when it's really more this movie is good because I like it, and that "liking" is shaped by a narrow band of Corporate designed, trope driven pleasures that are easy to digest.

Oh, and let me add the standard disclaimer, there's nothing wrong with enjoying basic pleasures as long as they are understood as such. It's only when you treat the simple as profound that those pleasures lose their place.

[mae west]

That's a very interesting assessment of contemporary film culture, greg! I think I agree with it entirely, especially the way the discourse risks legitimizing Disney movies as a form of political representation for demographics.

My biggest pet peeve, on this theme, is the Criterion Collection and its channel, and how it's positioned itself as the cinephile's hobbyist's brand - No One Can Come to Appreciation of Film Art Except Through Me. Of course, most people don't have access to the kind of 'other means' I do to get to watch all these classics of the past in HD, so I completely understand why cinephiles would use Criterion Channel or collect Criterion home video releases. But I worry that it's become sort of the cinephile's equivalent of Disney in this regard. A genre of movie or a national cinema isn't seen to have been legitimized as art by our film culture until it gets commodifiedly represented in Criterion, leading to all these comments on Letterboxd and (I assume) Twitter of 'Where's the Criterion??'. I also don't like how Criterion positions all its movies as all great works of art - the implication is that if it isn't morally and aesthetically good, it's not supposed to be in the collection. If you think a given movie in our collection is not morally or aesthetically good, well, (the implication goes) maybe you're just not cultured enough to see it. It doesn't promote critical thinking or a sense of history, just a sense that herein lies the movies you need to love to join the in-group of cinephilia. I much prefer home video companies that release films as objects of cultural history, giving you some context perhaps to think about it but leaving it to you to decide if it's any good.

Of course, maybe I'm just grumpy and don't like it when a movie that felt like a precious secret among hobbyists suddenly goes semi-mainstream.

[...]

That's definitely the corporate niche Criteron has asserted for itself, the Keepers of the Arthouse, where they become tantamount to the deciders of what gets accepted as "great" and what doesn't, but they do at least seem to care about movie history and aren't just wielding their power completely haphazardly. They do know their business model relies on movie fetishists of a particular sort however, and from that make choices that reflect that bias as well as sometimes pretend to "select" for enshrinement that seem a lot more like "close enough to count cuz they're "foreign" and we can get them for a good price" choices. It's also a bit of a problem that they lean so heavily towards a certain tradition of "quality" that echoes some of the problems of film history (or at least they used to, I haven't kept up these last few years.) India, for example, had very little representation among the "greats", which just makes it easier for some to continue to hold that India isn't a top tier film making nation, unlike the usual suspects in Europe and, of course, Japan. But the desire to restore and release movies of merit is still pursued and that's worth quite a bit, but then its also worth noting that there are people in Hollywood who really do try to make high quality films too when they get the chance, it's just that the money side has to come first.

[mae west]

I should clarify that I obviously like Criterion immensely more than a tyrannosaur of contemporary media production like Disney. It just kinda stings more with Criterion precisely because they're better and are dealing with something I actually care about, film history, but are commodifying it and in certain respects limiting the discourse around it. Still, the commodities are something I care about and they can at times contribute positively to the discourse around it, all of which means they're nothing compared to Disney.

[grabmymask]

I also don't like how Criterion positions all its movies as all great works of art - the implication is that if it isn't morally and aesthetically good, it's not supposed to be in the collection. If you think a given movie in our collection is not morally or aesthetically good, well, (the implication goes) maybe you're just not cultured enough to see it.

I agree. Although I think this is much more a problem with their “fanbase” than with the brand itself. They treat the Criterion name as some kind of mark of quality rather than just another boutique home distribution label—which is really all the company is.

Though, It is interesting that most of the other boutique labels, a lot of which focus on horror/exploitation (e.g. Scream Factory, Blue Underground, Synapse, etc.) don’t have a similar problem. Obviously, fans want their favorites to get released on blu-ray, but they don’t personally offended or weirdly upset when a movie that they don’t like gets released on the label (as I’ve noticed some people do with Criterion, like when they released the Valley of the Dolls movies and John Waters movies, for instance).