cinema needs to be shaken, not stirred (squid vs truth)

[modage]

I completely disagree that it's surprising, and if anyone here has ever attempted to write a genre film I think they would agree.  Not to mention the long list of filmmakers who have made genre films that have been revealing, personal films.  This list is back on page two.  Again, I'm not at all against realistic films, but I'm completely over the gush of them lately  Who makes the genre films these days?  Genre filmmakers.  Who makes the personal films?  Personal filmmakers.  Why the line, why the timidness to cross the line?  When I go to Best Buy, why do I have to perch myself in the drama section?  Why is the new director most inclined to do do drama, mostly from his own life.  Look at what fills the indie releases.  Horror directors come along here and there and stay in horror.  Action may come along and stay in action.  Thinking about it though, diretors are still crossing into genre, but how, with the same detached, ironic way in which they confront drama.  Maybe it's not even the drama I'm tired of just, just the goddamned detachment.  Let me keep replying and find out.

ooh, you just got me with this bit.  i see your point.  and i dont know how much this has to do with your original argument, but as a seperate argument i'm interested by this idea.  not that i think this is the way to save cinema neccesarily, but at the very least we'd get some interesting films.  probably a lot of failures but atleast some interesting ones.  

i guess in the same way its facinating to see bill murray/jim carrey/steve martin play a more dramatic role going AGAINST all their comedic instincts it'd be interesting to see more directors step out of their comfort zone and do something different.  i guess Life Aquatic (adventure) was an attempt at that.  Punch-Drunk Love (comedy) probably too.  and Kill Bill (action).  but sometimes you just get Kundun or Age of Innocence.  sometimes you just need a genre filmmaker to challenge genre like in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.  but then that becomes a formula, it can only really work the first time.

i dont think i or ghostboy was claiming that Squid was pushing cinema forward but it was still a good film.  not every movie can do that, and if those are your expectations then you're in for a lot of disappointment.  you're usually lucky to get 2 or 3 films a year which you can love and hold above all else.

[killafilm]

I'm not totally following Losing the Horse.  It seems to me that you almost want there to be no Auteurs in cinema.  That you want directors to jump out of their comfort genre and ahem Lose themselves.  I mean maybe that's taking it a bit extreme, the directors having no Face.  But my thing is do you watch a Gore Verbinski, whom I like, and go 'that's a Verbinski movie?'

No?

Verbinski to me is someone who jumps around terribly well but has no Face.  Someone like Kubrick, or Soderbergh can mix it up and still feel the same.  While people may try to immitate this current 'indie' cinema I don't see how it can last.  Wes will not be the same Wes ten years from now.  It reminds me of how Spielberg says he couldn't make Close Encounters now.  I don't know if any of that makes sense So...

[JG]

How long can Wes Anderson make Wes Anderson movies?  I'll bet you not very long.  How long can these type of movies go?   I'll bet you not very long.  Wes is scared to say anything and hides behind irony, which is pretty representative of our generation--not just in film.  We're way too cynical.  

I like the whole idea of auteurs having a lot of creative control, but right now the same kind of movies are being made with the same aforementioned problems.  They're "comfort zone" lacks any sincerety.

So I kinda like what Losing the Horse is saying--it'd be interesting to see these directors be forced to work within a genre, especially someone like Anderson.   Would it force them to say something and open up as opposed to just being clever?  However, it wouldn't be necesary if the same type of movies weren't being made.

[hedwig]

Wes is scared to say anything and hides behind irony

Give me one example of this.

[JG]

Hmmm, well let me revise my statement:  it's not that he isn't saying anything with his movies, I just don't feel his heart is in it.  The point of the movie is not the real point.

He doesn't seem to care about the characters.  He just sets them up to say and do odd, clever things.  I'm having trouble explaining, so if anyone here agrees with me, feel free to do so.

[Reinhold]

Hmmm, well let me revise my statement:  it's not that he isn't saying anything with his movies, I just don't feel his heart is in it.  The point of the movie is not the real point.

He doesn't seem to care about the characters.  He just sets them up to say and do odd, clever things.  I'm having trouble explaining, so if anyone here agrees with me, feel free to do so.

i disagree with you. a lot.

the odd, clever things are in his movies are merely characters unapologetically being themselves-- leaving tension between people unresolved and putting it baldly onto film. it's a sort of awkwardness that real life doesn't have-- but that doesn't mean that he's not making statements about what people actually do to each other in real life.

[pete]

Wes's characters don't really say that much odd clever things.  They tell odd clever jokes, but when they're honest with each other they say really short brutal things.  I think you criticize Wes Anderson the one some people criticize Tarantino: you trash his imitators more than you trash him.  You describe Wes Anderson's movies like they're napoleon dynamite.

[JG]

Okay, I know I'm not gonna win this argument cause I'm not exactly sure what I want to say, or exactly how I feel.   Let me say, I am a huge fan of Rushmore and Royal Tenabaums.  However, ever since i saw life aquatic, i've been thinking alot about how i feel about wes anderson.   the scene when steve and ned crash just felt so contrived to me--like, "okay, here's the emotionally poignant scene that needs to be in the movie."  the more i think about it, it seems like the drama in his movies is there to just fill space between the funny parts.  

ah, i'm so frustrated cause I can't say what I want to say.  Just know that I like Wes Anderson, I just think that he spurred a lot of bad films which I feel are too detached and pride themselves on being subtly clever (Garden State).  

Maybe more from me when I can figure out what I want to say.

EDIT:

you trash his imitators more than you trash him.

you're probably right, and for that, i apologize.  but the "type" of film he has inspired is really bad for movies in the long run.  what i like about PTA is that he rejects post-modernism in his movies and really says something that he means.  and that's why kevin smith hates magnolia--it actually says something, which our cynical and snide generation marks off as pretentious.

ANOTHER EDIT:

But I should probably retract that because it's not like a movie like Garden State doesn't say anything--i mean look at all that bad dialogue in that movie.  it's just...i don't know...somethings missing.....ah forget it.

[Ravi]

That's the problem with imitators.  They usually imitate the surface aspects of unique filmmakers like Tarantino or Wes Anderson without getting at the core of what made their films good.  The Tarantino imitators just copy the ironic, comedic violence with characters who take the violence in stride, but without the cleverness.  A copy of something fresh is not fresh.

Likewise, the WA imitators just take those detached, often lackadaisical characters, and none of the real emotional depth or resonance of WA's films.  Rushmore and Royal Tenenbaums have relatable characters.  The worst of the imitators is Napoleon Dynamite, which just scrapes the surface of WA's films.  It has the weird characters and "clever" dialogue, and that's it.  It's all weirdness and catchphrases.  Garden State tries for the emotional resonance, but it doesn't have that effortlessness.  It's too blatantly manipulative.  Indie soundtrack + irony is the formula of many films.

[pete]

napoleon dynamite, aside from those symmetrical shots, really has nothing to do with wes anderson though.  the comedy is way broad and the stereotypes are way more middle American.  it's a film made by hipsters living in LA.  I still feel like ND is a superhero movie misunderstodd by everyone.

[JG]

Yeah, yeah.  And I don't dislike Wes Anderson (honestly this 2nd and third films are among my favorites of the past 15 years), but what his films have come to represent for other filmmakers--indie soundtracks, irony, "poignant" (not w/ Napoleon Dynamite but certainly with Garden State) moments.   There's a sense of detachment in these films that they're heart isn't really there, which is really a sign of how our generation is--we're just not quite there.  we're not that all involved.  we stand from back of the room and make cynical remarks.  nihilists.   we hide any sincerity behind irony.  

that's kinda what i was trying to say.  it was wrong for me to say that wes anderson isn't sincere, because that really isn't the case.

[modage]

i think you're making mass generalizations.  'our generation' is probably as detached as any other generation was.  attempts at sincerity don't neccesarily make better movies, sometimes they make really shitty ones.  wes anderson has a unique voice and he (nor any other filmmaker) can be blamed for any shitty imitations spawned by their work.  tarantino is not responsible for boondock saints, he may have inspired it but he can't be held responsible.  if the helicopter scene felt contrived it's either that the moment didn't quite work for you OR enough other moments didn't work for you in the film that when it came time for a big moment like that you werent responsive to it.  if you read interviews with anderson i dont think he considers his work 'ironic' or 'detatched' at all.

[JG]

essentially, i'm one of those guys that thinks "anderson concentrates too much on being stylized and think he stands at a distance to smirk at his characters,"  like modage stated in the squid and the whale thread.  

maybe our generation is just as detached as any other generation--i wouldn't know because i didn't live then.  based on my experience, i find our generation to be cynical to just not care as much about things around us, and i think this is reflected in cinema.  

what's great about PTA is that he is apart of small group of directors (Scorsese, Spike Jones)--and I'm about to quote Ebert--"in championing an extroverted self-confidence that rejects the timid post-modernism of the 1990s. These are not movies that apologize for their exuberance, or shield themselves with irony against suspicions of sincerity."

i feel that a lot of these indie filmmakers that are making these films in lieu of Wes Anderson (and it's probably very unfair for me to group him into this category) are an example of this type of filmmaking that PTA rejects.  The "Wes Anderson type" of movie is becoming all too common.  

So to get back to Losing the Horse's point--maybe it would be interesting to see these directors work in genre, and see what it would turn like.  I don't know...  

...maybe I'm completely wrong about this, but that's just how I feel.

[Pubrick]

more LTH/JB/GT and less JimmyGator please.

[cron]

the persons who are angry in this thread should start trying appreciating other stuff apart from movies. that is all.