Licorice Pizza - SPOILERS!

Started by wilberfan, November 05, 2021, 08:30:50 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RudyBlatnoyd

Here's someone with some nice and insightful things to say about LP. They seem to have intuited that it's a much darker, tonally odder film than the misleading marketing suggested, which I suspect is part of the reason why some people have had problems with the age gap, racism etc in it - they've not picked up on the fact that the whole world it's depicting is pretty shady and messed up in a lot of ways. This seemed obvious to me, but I know a lot of people didn't see it. Shrugs shoulders.

https://thebaffler.com/latest/the-world-was-just-an-address-hamrah

WorldForgot

Quote from: Yes on March 23, 2022, 11:31:23 PMI just don't understand why Momma Valentine's eye-rolls and Gary's snicker in the background has been dismissed by so many? The first wife is given an empathetic close-up and expresses her wishes for a better business model as opposed to the exploited orientalism Frick wants. In the second scene, Frick dismisses Gary's proposition because this is an "American business", and Alana is the only one who shows respect bowing.

And it's also strange (though, understandable) these moments have been examined, but not the anti-Semitism of the talent agent, or the sexism of both the photographer and Sean Penn. Or the repressed sexuality of Joel Wachs. All part of the text!

But hey, it is what it is.

Right! Even surprising too that the George DiCaprio scene where he appropriates groovy slang and manages a wig shop hardly goes remarked. The entire film is predicated on permissable exploitation-hustle. Lucille Ball has aged herself out and surrounds herself with cute cherubs for appeal. Cher without Sonny. It's absolutely threaded with dancing duos of gaming the system.

Drenk

Because Mrs Valentine knew that the copy ad about the waitresses, probably Gary's idea, would fail—he's amused, she has a backup.
Ascension.

Drill

The scenes just weren't at all worth any of this. Again, I have to wonder if Sellar/Lupi/Tichenor would've put their foot down. Even in that DGA talk, it seemed like Somner was the only one who could stand up to him. Were a first time feature film editor and still relatively new producer ever going to be able to tell him "no"? It's not a coincidence that it's IMO his most self-indulgent work in quite a while.

pynchonikon

He also liked that shot of Peters smashing the cars' windows, as he said it was in the movie until late in tne editing process, before listening to Penn's suggestion and deciding that cutting it out would be better for the movie.

Peters' characterization and Cooper's excessive energy might be (un)intetionally used as comic relief, similar to Higgins' buffoonery (although the actual joke in the first scene for me is Anita's WTF expression, as Gary's snicker also indicates) or Penn's delusional ravings or Harris' exaggerated facial expressions, but in the end as I see them all these serve the film's motives (female objectification, casual sexism and racism, toxic masculinity, frosty cynicism of the 70s etc), how successfully or unsuccessfully it's up to the viewer.

Yes

Quote from: Drill on March 24, 2022, 02:22:47 PMThe scenes just weren't at all worth any of this. Again, I have to wonder if Sellar/Lupi/Tichenor would've put their foot down. Even in that DGA talk, it seemed like Somner was the only one who could stand up to him. Were a first time feature film editor and still relatively new producer ever going to be able to tell him "no"? It's not a coincidence that it's IMO his most self-indulgent work in quite a while.

Well, MGM asked him to remove the scenes and he told them no. He probably would have turned down Focus if they suggested as well. He's going to do what he wants at this stage

Drenk

Gary and his mother are not reacting to the accent in that scene. The accent is like Doc yelling in IV, it's not happening, yet it's happening on screen—surreal slapstick. It's meant to be tonally off. The fact that some people say this is supposed to be a realistic depiction of the times is confusing, it isn't. Also, the racism would be present without that particular joke. Obviously, PTA takes delight in that bit. He does it twice in the movie.

The scene with the agent works better as a comical representation of casual antisemitism. Maybe because Alana is involved in the scene? Maybe because he doesn't try to do Pynchon surreality?
Ascension.

Alexandro

Quote from: Lewton on March 21, 2022, 11:54:15 AMI saw the movie a while ago but never posted about it. I didn't see it right away because I wanted to wait until I could find an empty theater and I sorta succeeded (well, there was one other person).

This post is probably going to sound like "PTA fan in denial but trying to be charitable" or something but that's really not it...I did like it. I want to watch it again. I'll do that in the summer, I think. This was supposed to be a summer movie after all, and I think those little external things can help a viewing experience (IV = great summer movie, PT = great winter movie).

It's probably too early to say but right now, just on a gut level, I think I'd be more inclined to re-watch The Master or IV? Unlike every other PTA movie, I didn't walk away with a strong sense of the ideas or qualities that will draw me back to LP for future viewings. I'll figure that out later. I think that's maybe a good thing, or a good sign that he's not on auto pilot (see my next paragraph). My sense of the movie is still percolating, so we'll see what future viewings bring. I also respect that this movie has opened up PTA's career to perspectives that weren't really explored in his older films.

I'm not saying I walked away from it totally unaffected. There were a lot of beautiful visual touches and the same emotionality and lack of bullshit/phoniness that I like in other PTA movies. I respect how oddly paced this movie is too, and how it seems like PTA isn't conceding to anyone's tastes or pandering to his own fan base or to really anybody. There's a lot of integrity in the way the movie was put together.

I was surprised to find myself slightly more impressed by Cooper Hoffman than Alana Haim, mostly because the press and the audience reactions seem to focus mainly on Alana. She is for sure great here and fits with zero awkwardness into PTA's world/style. However, Cooper as Valentine may be the most immediately likeable character in PTA's work since...Reilly or PSH in Magnolia, maybe? Not that likability is so important in a movie but it ended up being an important part of the motor that kept this movie going, like how Freddie's chaotic mindset really keeps the story moving in The Master.

Oh and when Alana crossed the street to meet the guy spying on the campaign office, my first thought was that the guy sorta looked like a younger PTA circa that behind the scenes YouTube video, or maybe a bit like PTA from the Boogie Nights era, and the effect was kind of spooky for a moment or two...but this is almost 100% just my own weird little subjective experience.

You've summed up how I feel about it currently. I've watched it twice, but don't feel the urge to go back and dig into it again as I've felt with every other PTA film ever. I enjoyed the relaxed, fun vibes and the colorful and somewhat dark detours, but not so much that I'm eager to replay them as, I don't know, something like Once upon a time in Hollywood (which I initially wasn't so sold on it, but it grew just by revisiting sequences in my head and I now love it).

I'm not dwelling in the many things that makes this special, because it is, and everyone's already done that here and elsewhere. Hard to point out exactly why I don't feel that involved with it. I can tell that on my two viewings, by the time the Safdie storyline entered the frame I was ready for the film to wrap up. I understand why is there and I like it, but in the context of the whole film, my initial reaction was like "oh, this still has more to go...mmm ok...", and that's never a good sign, particularly on a comedy.

Still, I'll surely revisit it multiple times and find more layers to enjoy, as it usually happens.

Jeremy Blackman

I'm coming to a new conclusion about the Jerry Frick scenes. Maybe we're overthinking it.

People like David Chen have acknowledged from the beginning that representation does not equal endorsement, and they understand PTA is not condoning the behavior. In fact, most critics of the scene seem to understand the intention.

So why are they still upset about it? Hopefully I'm not overstepping with speculation here, but I'm gathering that a lot of Asian viewers, mostly because of personal experience, are at the point where they sort of just don't want to see this type of racism on screen at all. As Drenk said, it's not worth it. It's not worth it for the joke, or an oblique point about 70s racism. It's not worth it when you have to parse the laughter in the theater to figure out if you're being laughed at.

Does that mean these viewers would never tolerate a depiction of anti-Asian racism ever? Not necessarily. I think the pain point here is that it's a throwaway joke, and the weight of it just isn't taken seriously. A perspective clearly exacerbated by PTA's refusal to take the criticisms seriously.

Yes

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on March 26, 2022, 07:52:58 PMI'm coming to a new conclusion about the Jerry Frick scenes. Maybe we're overthinking it.

People like David Chen have acknowledged from the beginning that representation does not equal endorsement, and they understand PTA is not condoning the behavior. In fact, most critics of the scene seem to understand the intention.

So why are they still upset about it? Hopefully I'm not overstepping with speculation here, but I'm gathering that a lot of Asian viewers, mostly because of personal experience, are at the point where they sort of just don't want to see this type of racism on screen at all. As Drenk said, it's not worth it. It's not worth it for the joke, or an oblique point about 70s racism. It's not worth it when you have to parse the laughter in the theater to figure out if you're being laughed at.

Does that mean these viewers would never tolerate a depiction of anti-Asian racism ever? Not necessarily. I think the pain point here is that it's a throwaway joke, and the weight of it just isn't taken seriously. A perspective clearly exacerbated by PTA's refusal to take the criticisms seriously.

This is 100% it

wilberfan

Pretty much where I ended up on it, too.  It still feels like an 'unnecessary' over-reaction--but obviously from my non-Asian personal perspective.   

Drill

I still don't know what he was thinking with that response. Or that he wouldn't have had something remotely prepared. Especially the "it's difficult for me to relate to" part. Honest, perhaps, but the whole coy tone was the wrong approach to this.

Yes

Quote from: Drill on March 26, 2022, 09:04:41 PMI still don't know what he was thinking with that response. Or that he wouldn't have had something remotely prepared. Especially the "it's difficult for me to relate to" part. Honest, perhaps, but the whole coy tone was the wrong approach to this.


He's just a white guy, an artist who does whatever he wants. He's going to have blindsides regardless of intentions and background, it's only natural because his perspective. Especially someone so coy and sheepish who created something that was so obvious to him. And this was his first film in this.. "discourse" era/environment

Drill

True. I guess since he likes to keep up with current music/films/etc., I thought that would've extended to the current social climate a bit more. Not so much as a filmmaker since he's never really been that type anyways, but in general.

polkablues

To be fair, the current music he keeps up with is Haim. 😕
My house, my rules, my coffee