Last Movie You Watched

[Madiel]

Well, the article seems to hate the movie because the author seems to hate Buddy Rich, who the author mistakenly refuses to acknowledge as a jazz musician. But ignoring the author's ignorance on this item and looking at the rest, I suppose there could be some truth to it. But then, it would be a different movie. And certainly, one could assume that some of the stuff the author protests were not in the film were occurring outside the scope of the film. Anyway, sorry you didn't enjoy it.

No, the author hates the movie because the whole philosophy of the movie is to suggest that musical excellence requires being a colossal arsehole.

As for other things happening outside the scope of the film? No. The film explicitly leaves no room for any kind of more balanced musical life outside of the film. There is literally no time for it. One of my many problems with the film is the utterly absurd timeframes it presents between receiving music, learning it, group practice and performance.

[milk]

I saw Three Women at the theatre when it came out. It was in 1978 or 79. Apart from the general atmosphere, I recall only one shot, which I think is at the end: Shelley Duvall gets in her car, closes the door on her skirt, a portion of which is left out of the car, and she drives off. Her character was absent-minded if I recall correctly. IMO she stole the film from her co-stars.

She's incredible in this film. She starts off as a kind of comedic caricature but her performance takes several turns revealing all kinds of humanity. Her performance is a kind of magic trick in that she changes so effortlessly, it's almost inscrutable. She's really three different people in the film but it's also hard to say because of how committed Altman and Duvall are to the material. Spasek is also very good but Duvall is a virtuoso.

[milk]

No, the author hates the movie because the whole philosophy of the movie is to suggest that musical excellence requires being a colossal arsehole.

As for other things happening outside the scope of the film? No. The film explicitly leaves no room for any kind of more balanced musical life outside of the film. There is literally no time for it. One of my many problems with the film is the utterly absurd timeframes it presents between receiving music, learning it, group practice and performance.

I thought the film was technically interesting and worth thinking about. Yet I also felt it was a trick all the way, nothing approaching sublimity. It's good cinema without being very meaningful or important. I like the questions. Does anyone know if there's any good documentary about classical piano competitions? Something nice in movies and TV is when they put you as a fly on the wall in a world you want to see. I was never convinced Whiplash was real in terms of Jazz but within the world of the film it was well done. Plus, I imagine there are endeavors that ARE very much like that, just not big band drumming. I live in Japan and I think here it's probably the preferred way of doing things. 

[Madiel]

Yes, well, in Japan people will work themselves to death.

But as one one of the few negative reviews of Whiplash observed, in the USA the teacher would have been up on charges years ago.

I don't want to spend an enormous amount of time discussing what I think is essentially a weak movie (despite good acting), but the biggest problem is not having quite nasty characters. The biggest problem is being so basically uncritical about them. No-one inside the music school says a word. Not the other staff. Not the other students. There's an entire band in there who display zero interaction with each other whatsoever. Their role, apart from the rival drummers, is to deliver the musical notes with military precision.

No, the only people who seem to have a problem with these musical methods are the non-musical characters, who implicitly just don't have the understanding of what it takes to be great. Never mind that the whole story that greatness requires having something thrown at your head is false, within the movie it's gospel. It's horrible but the musicians all believe that it works.

I don't actually think it's good cinema because the central plot is so one-dimensional. There are also elements of it that make no sense. Oh right, the reason the teacher gets in trouble is because of something that happened to a person who left the school years ago. That's the trigger. And the student finally gets the teacher's respect by completely ignoring instructions and going off on a spectacular solo. As if that kind of undisciplined freeform artistic behaviour fits in any way with the terrified automatons the teacher has required up until that point.

You say you like the questions. I didn't see any. It didn't seem to me that the movie was interested in asking questions, beyond whether or not the student could get through the torture and 'make it'. The movie really didn't seem interested in asking whether it was actually necessary to go through the torture, because that would involve developing a plot beyond yelling and speed.

[Madiel]

Currently watching Novo, a somewhat odd French film about a man with no long-term memory.

It's kind of like Memento meets Fifty First Dates with way, way more sex.

At times the behaviour of some of the 'normal' characters doesn't make a lot of sense.

[mc ukrneal]

Yes, well, in Japan people will work themselves to death.

But as one one of the few negative reviews of Whiplash observed, in the USA the teacher would have been up on charges years ago.

I don't want to spend an enormous amount of time discussing what I think is essentially a weak movie (despite good acting), but the biggest problem is not having quite nasty characters. The biggest problem is being so basically uncritical about them. No-one inside the music school says a word. Not the other staff. Not the other students. There's an entire band in there who display zero interaction with each other whatsoever. Their role, apart from the rival drummers, is to deliver the musical notes with military precision.

No, the only people who seem to have a problem with these musical methods are the non-musical characters, who implicitly just don't have the understanding of what it takes to be great. Never mind that the whole story that greatness requires having something thrown at your head is false, within the movie it's gospel. It's horrible but the musicians all believe that it works.

If a teacher ever hit a student today, I agree. That was over the top. But the other stuff? That's realistic I'm sorry to say. I've seen or participated in groups that have been verbally and emotionally abused. I've seem a teacher 'berate' students minutes before going on to play to the extent that some students were actually crying as they took the stage. You can imagine how that performance went. And no one ever said a word about those incidents that I witnessed. I never told anyone, nor am I aware of anyone else even discussing it. We never discussed it among ourselves either.

But it doesn't bother me (as it does you) that the film chooses to ignore some aspects of his life in the film. I'm happy to make some assumptions on that score (haha). I think the film also asks lots of questions, but no need beating a dead horse if you don't like or connect with it. There are plenty of other films.

[Madiel]

You can imagine how that performance went.

You don't seem to actually understand what my problem with the movie is when you describe it as "realistic".

You tell me a story where the conclusion is, the music goes badly after the teacher treats the band appallingly. We're talking about a movie where the teacher treats the band appallingly and more often than not the band responds by winning prizes for him.

I get that there are monstrous people out there (and I get that the film deliberately pushes that to extremes). That's not the issue. The issue is that the film depicts this as the path to success. Your own narrative doesn't tell me that verbal and emotional abuse leads to excellence in music. The film does. The film asks you to walk out thinking that this kid went through hell, but he got there in the end because being treated like shit successfully motivated him to become a great drummer.

Oh yeah. Who according to an earlier unseen plot point might commit suicide several years down the track after he's played at the Lincoln Center as a delayed result of the abuse, but meh, let's end the narrative on a high.

[mc ukrneal]

You don't seem to actually understand what my problem with the movie is when you describe it as "realistic".

You tell me a story where the conclusion is, the music goes badly after the teacher treats the band appallingly. We're talking about a movie where the teacher treats the band appallingly and more often than not the band responds by winning prizes for him.

I get that there are monstrous people out there (and I get that the film deliberately pushes that to extremes). That's not the issue. The issue is that the film depicts this as the path to success. Your own narrative doesn't tell me that verbal and emotional abuse leads to excellence in music. The film does. The film asks you to walk out thinking that this kid went through hell, but he got there in the end because being treated like shit successfully motivated him to become a great drummer.

Oh yeah. Who according to an earlier unseen plot point might commit suicide several years down the track after he's played at the Lincoln Center as a delayed result of the abuse, but meh, let's end the narrative on a high.

There are a lot of people out there (mostly in other professions - thinking of sports initially here, specifically basketball coaches) that do think that this sort of behavior leads to success. You see this in everyday life on many talk show/interview shows as well (whether stars or just regular folk). If your starting premise is that you cannot create greatness in the way this teacher is doing it (which is what you seem to be saying in the key sentence I bolded above), I would say you are never going to accept anything that comes after in the film.

[Madiel]

Yes, I know that there are people out there that believe such things.

Not least because they keep getting fed fictional narratives that justify that belief.

That anyone thinks the only 2 options are being uncritically nice ("good job") or being terrifying says a great deal about their psychological and emotional deficits.

My problem with the film is that it completely fails to CRITIQUE this.

[Fëanor]

Academy Best Film 2019 award nominee, Ford v Ferrari.  Director: James Mangold;  Starring: Matt Damon, Christian Bale, Jon Bernthal, et al.

A pretty good flick.  Somewhat about the Ford GT40 race car;  much more about the interplay of sports car builder Carroll Shelby, his friend & driver Ken Miles, (tragically killed testing a GT40 revision), and Ford Motor executives including Henry Ford II, Lee Iacocca, and Leo Beebe.

IMDB = 8.2;  Metacritic = 81 critics & 7.8 viewers;  Rotten Tomatoes = 92, 98 viewers.  I give it 8/10.

[SonicMan46]

Yep - been trying to see some of the nominated films - two below recently (first streamed in a hotel a few nights ago, and second at home last night):

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) w/ Tom Hanks, Matthew Rhys, et al - bioptic of just a short span on the life of Fred Rogers - first synopsis below.  Reviews: 95% Rotten Tomatoes; 7.6/10, IMDB; 4.2*/5*, Amazon w/ some poor ratings - a little corny but Rhys performance is a strong feature; I'd probably still do a 4*/5* rating on Amazon.

The Joker (2019) w/ Joaquin Phoenix, Robert De Niro, et al - second short synopsis below.  Ratings: 8.6/10, IMDB; 69%, Rotten Tomatoes (88%, Audience); 4.3*/5* - not an easy film to watch and some discrepancy between the critics & audience on Rotten Tomatoes - but we both enjoyed the movie and found Phoenix's performance riveting - he's nominated for Best Actor and is likely one of the favorites. I'd also do a 4*/5* rating.  Dave

Lloyd Vogel is an investigative journalist who receives an assignment to profile Fred Rogers, aka Mr. Rogers. He approaches the interview with skepticism, as he finds it hard to believe that anyone can have such a good nature. But Roger's empathy, kindness and decency soon chips away at Vogel's jaded outlook on life, forcing the reporter to reconcile with his own painful past.

Forever alone in a crowd, failed comedian Arthur Fleck seeks connection as he walks the streets of Gotham City. Arthur wears two masks -- the one he paints for his day job as a clown, and the guise he projects in a futile attempt to feel like he's part of the world around him. Isolated, bullied and disregarded by society, Fleck begins a slow descent into madness as he transforms into the criminal mastermind known as the Joker.

 

[Karl Henning]

Last night, again: Pan's Labyrinth.

[aligreto]

Chef





I really liked this one as it works on many levels.

[Karl Henning]

Good to see you, Fergus!

TD:
Over the last two nights, My Fair Lady.

[aligreto]

Good to see you, Fergus!

Cheers Karl. It is good to be back.

[Papy Oli]

Yesterday : Gorky Park
For some reasons, the bleakness and tension of that movie stayed in my mind when i saw it as a teen in the mid/late eighties. Rewatching it now, that was still as good.

Today: a first watch of Gone Girl. great story build up and gripping...until the last third of the movie that was just absolute pants really....

[Karl Henning]

Lawrence of Arabia, which remains magnificent.

[George]

Redd Foxx - Standup

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z19kt3_Wc54

[SimonNZ]

Lawrence of Arabia, which remains magnificent.

Watched that just the other day for the first time in a long time.

The photography is amazing, especially the sense of scale. But so.e of the acting is less than great. And for some reason Lean let a lot of telescoping of reactions remain in, so people are often becoming outraged or whatever before they hear the words that are meant to outrage them.

[Papy Oli]

Victoria and Abdul and The Bookshop - both really good and very well acted

[asin]B0771S63ZT[/asin][asin]B07G2WYGN9[/asin]