GREAT FILMS & MAN ON THE MOON

[finlayr]

Anyone agree with me that Man on the Moon is one of the finest films in recent memory??

I'd like to share with you some of the best films that I've seen lately.  If you haven't seen these, then you haven't seen cinema...

1)  Irreversible

2)  I Stand Alone

3) Persona

4)  elbisreverrI

5)  Irreversible...

6)  Did I mention Irreversible??

7) Through A Glass Darkly

8)  Gangs of New York

9)  The Killer

10)  Mulholland Drive

11)  Saving Private Ryan

12)  My Langer

13)  Are Those My Feet?

14)  Crossroads  (just kidding)

Here's two that makes me sick:

The Guru

and

The Sweetest Thing

They're practically the same....

[Pubrick]

ur right about Man on the Moon. i think it plays better to ppl who didn't live through the era, or aren't aware of it ie. mostly everyone outside america. courtney love wasn't as good as she was in Ppl vs LF, her performance is the film's only weakness. besides that, minor historical inaccuracies notwithstanding, it does make u question reality from a new perspective. kaufman was a fascinating individual and carrey's performance is the greatest tribute to the point of transcendence.

[ono]

Anyone agree with me that Man on the Moon is one of the finest films in recent memory??

Haven't seen it; I'll add it to my list.

1)  Irreversible

Heard it's needlessly exploitative and the last shot doesn't excuse it.

2)  I Stand Alone

Heard it's needlessly violent with no point.

Of course, for those two, I am listening to hearsay, but I don't feel the need to see pretentious French films with gratuitous violence and sexuality.  Don't need to clutter my mind with that.  God bless real film critics.  Yes.

3) Persona

Agreed.  It's brilliant.  Wish there was a DVD with decent subtitles, though.  The VHS version sucked, and I could only understand a little more than half of what was being said, which says a lot for its power.

7) Through A Glass Darkly

Okay...

8)  Gangs of New York

Loses its way in the third act; should have ended with the scene when Bill has Leo's character by the gonads, but he let's him go just about the same time Scorsese lets the picture get away from him.  ***/****

9)  The Killer

Never heard of it.

10)  Mulholland Drive

Incredibly overrated.  A beautiful film, but Lynch thinks it's cool to throw the narrative flow out the window.  I admire its craftsmanship very much, but not its final result.  **/****

11)  Saving Private Ryan

One of the worst films ever.  Zero stars.  I'm dead serious.  I hate, hate, hate, hate, HATED this movie.

12)  My Langer

Bah?

13)  Are Those My Feet?

Double "bah?"

14)  Crossroads  (just kidding)

How very droll of you.

[MacGuffin]

10)  Mulholland Drive

Incredibly overrated.  A beautiful film, but Lynch thinks it's cool to throw the narrative flow out the window.  I admire its craftsmanship very much, but not its final result.  **/****

"Mulholland Drive" is told as a dream. Do your dreams have a narrative flow?

9)  The Killer

Never heard of it.

Then you must never have heard of John Woo.

[ono]

10)  Mulholland Drive

Incredibly overrated.  A beautiful film, but Lynch thinks it's cool to throw the narrative flow out the window.  I admire its craftsmanship very much, but not its final result.  **/****

"Mulholland Drive" is told as a dream. Do your dreams have a narrative flow?

If I said yes, it's not like you would believe me.  My dreams do have a flow, but when I wake, it's incredibly hard for me to put them back in a chronological order.  So I know what you're getting at, and what Lynch was trying to get at.  How I feel about Mulholland Drive is the same way Ebert felt about Blue Velvet: that it's a film with a lost soul.  Our dreams don't make much sense, but some of them can be quite beautiful to ourselves.  But that doesn't mean much to other people.

I simply felt what Lynch did with the characters was irresponsible and a cop-out.  I'm not saying everything has to be explained or handed to you on a silver platter.  See Donnie Darko for instance.  But there has to be some sort of logic to it, otherwise you're just alienating the audience.  Even dreams have logic.

Un Chien Andalou's logic was a vacuum really.  It played on the idea of the antithesis of logic.  "Let's make sure to write down any ideas we can think of, no matter how crazy, and none of them should make any sense as part of the whole," said Dali and Bunuel.  Lynch tried and failed to toe the line here.  He wasn't sure if things were supposed to be nonsensical, or to have some sort of key to them, so he threw in the clues and sat back and laughed as crazed fans tried to figure out "what it all meant."  He then falls back on this "film is its own language" motif, like music.  I respect the attempt, and the idea of representing dreams on film.  It's something I'd like to try out someday.  But nowhere in Mulholland Drive (that I can recall, though I haven't seen it in quite some time) are you in any way told this is a dream.  It's just the explanation that makes the most sense, if "sense" is indeed what you call it.

9)  The Killer

Never heard of it.

Then you must never have heard of John Woo.

I have.  Action flicks just aren't my cup of tea.

[Gold Trumpet]

Too many movies mentioned to deal with them all so I will deal with the one on the title thread. Above all, Man on the Moon seemed like nothing new in the run of biography movies on celebrated entertainers. The movie runs like an Andy Kaufman special in just showing all his best highlights and giving the secrets away. I can watch Kaufman himself for that better. I would have liked a study into what drove Kaufman to do what he did more than any of that. Its an entertaining movie but nowhere near the promotion here.

~rougerum

[sphinx]

But there has to be some sort of logic to it, otherwise you're just alienating the audience.  Even dreams have logic.

but the movie has logic depending on how you look at it.  not feeling like trying to understand the movie, however hidden it's meaning isn't an excuse to dislike it.  or perhaps you just can't discern any logic in the movie at all?

[MacGuffin]

Our dreams don't make much sense, but some of them can be quite beautiful to ourselves.  But that doesn't mean much to other people.

Dreams do make sense (everything means something), and if yours are narrative as you say, then it should be easy for you figure out what your subconscious is telling you.

I simply felt what Lynch did with the characters was irresponsible and a cop-out.

How so?

Lynch tried and failed to toe the line here.  He wasn't sure if things were supposed to be nonsensical, or to have some sort of key to them, so he threw in the clues and sat back and laughed as crazed fans tried to figure out "what it all meant."  He then falls back on this "film is its own language" motif, like music.

What an insult to Lynch. But like dreams, you're open to your own interpretation.

But nowhere in Mulholland Drive (that I can recall, though I haven't seen it in quite some time) are you in any way told this is a dream.  It's just the explanation that makes the most sense, if "sense" is indeed what you call it.

One of the opening shots is the camera hitting the pillow.

You need to see it again then. But I doubt you will. Just making an assumption like you did about me. Even Ebert gave "Blue Velvet" a second chance.

Action flicks just aren't my cup of tea.

"The Killer", along with John Woo's other Hong Kong films, aren't just about action.

[ono]

Our dreams don't make much sense, but some of them can be quite beautiful to ourselves.  But that doesn't mean much to other people.

Dreams do make sense (everything means something), and if yours are narrative as you say, then it should be easy for you figure out what your subconscious is telling you.

I should clarify and say they don't make much sense on the surface.  You have to dig down and analyze the symbols, just like with Lynch's films.  And yes, I can figure out what my dreams are saying.  It just takes a little work.  And believe you me, I have worked a lot on Mulholland Drive.  My love/hate relationship with it wasn't just a knee-jerk reaction.

I simply felt what Lynch did with the characters was irresponsible and a cop-out.

How so?

Like Lynch's film itself, it's really hard to put in to words.  The tagline is first thing that comes to mind.  "A Love Story In The City Of Dreams."  Really opposite of the truth, rather tongue in cheek, but disappointing for people who don't know what to expect.  It's rather elitist, in a way.  It alienates the audience, because it offers one thing, and then delivers another.  A love story and city of dreams both imply something happy and hopeful.  The film is quite the opposite.  Plus, he took two (or is it one?) character(s) that we cared about, and reduced them to these dream ideas, and, well, I guess it was my own disappointment in the way things turned out that led more to my disliking the film.  Really, as I said before in another thread, James Berardinelli, an online critic who I don't agree with that much, really summed up my thoughts on why Mulholland Drive didn't work for me.

Lynch tried and failed to toe the line here.  He wasn't sure if things were supposed to be nonsensical, or to have some sort of key to them, so he threw in the clues and sat back and laughed as crazed fans tried to figure out "what it all meant."  He then falls back on this "film is its own language" motif, like music.

What an insult to Lynch. But like dreams, you're open to your own interpretation.

I don't think it's an insult.  Like I said, I respect Lynch a lot.  It's just that this film was a letdown to me.  But I totally get the beauty of it.  Really.  There are so many images in the film that are priceless.  It reminds me of another film that Ebert didn't really like, didn't really hate, and I felt the same way: O Brother, Where Art Thou?.  All these ideas and assembled into one piece, but they just didn't gel.  In Mulholland Drive, we have the dancing elderly couple, later turned cockroach size, the archetypal detectives, the brilliant use of the woman bum in the alley, representative, obviously of the most feared, and of course, there's the blue box and the key, representative of the unknown.  To me, that is.  And we also have a brilliant performance by Naomi Watts.  I got chills in the scene in the casting agent's office when she performed that scene, first angrily, then sexily.  One of the best scenes, in and of itself, that I have ever witnessed.

So you can see, I do appreciate the film, and I'm not insulting Lynch at all, so it's rather premature for you to jump to conclusions.  I'm just saying it didn't all gel.

But nowhere in Mulholland Drive (that I can recall, though I haven't seen it in quite some time) are you in any way told this is a dream.  It's just the explanation that makes the most sense, if "sense" is indeed what you call it.

One of the opening shots is the camera hitting the pillow.

Alright, this I gotta see.  The problem with a film like this is, though, it's so frustrating, so subjective, that you become more and more angry with repeated viewings.  That, or if you love it, you just grow to love it more.  And there are so many other films to see, that I don't know if I can devote another two and a half hours to being disappointed, punched in the gut again.

You need to see it again then. But I doubt you will. Just making an assumption like you did about me. Even Ebert gave "Blue Velvet" a second chance.

Now when did I make an assumption about you?  Never.  If you're referring to the "yes" -- "it's not like you'd believe me" exchange, I guess that would be an assumption, but only based on the way you sometimes ask rhetorical questions of people who post things that disagree with what you think, as a way of starting some sort of discussion.

I don't "need" to see a film again, though I may choose to do so if the mood strikes me.  I remember in an interview Altman gave Ebert, he said the saddest thing he's heard is that someone "saw" his movie, meaning only once.  I'm all for art in pictures, but sometimes it's a little pretentious for directors to demand that viewers see their movies more than once to "get it."  There is a fine line here as well, as some pictures are for different audiences than others.

Action flicks just aren't my cup of tea.

"The Killer", along with John Woo's other Hong Kong films, aren't just about action.

I realize that.  And I'm sure I'll get to it eventually.  But I'm also sure you understand there aren't near enough hours in the day for writing about movies, writing your own stuff, watching movies, and doing whatever else it is that one must do to get by from day to day.

[MacGuffin]

I should clarify and say they don't make much sense on the surface.  You have to dig down and analyze the symbols, just like with Lynch's films.  And yes, I can figure out what my dreams are saying.  It just takes a little work.  And believe you me, I have worked a lot on Mulholland Drive.  My love/hate relationship with it wasn't just a knee-jerk reaction.

So you would rather Lynch dumb down his inclinations and have them spoon fed to you because it takes "a little work" to figure out the meaning?

I don't think it's an insult.

Saying that Lynch didn't know what he was doing or how to sew up his film so he placed a bunch of meaningless clues so fanboys will go ga-ga over them, laughing at them and the the meanings they came up with isn't an insult, but a repectful statement?

Like I said, I respect Lynch a lot.  It's just that this film was a letdown to me.... So you can see, I do appreciate the film, and I'm not insulting Lynch at all, so it's rather premature for you to jump to conclusions.  I'm just saying it didn't all gel.

See above. Also, I believe that you appreciate the film, but saying it was a letdown is something different than saying Lynch didn't know what he was doing.

Now when did I make an assumption about you?  Never.

If I said yes, it's not like you would believe me.

I don't "need" to see a film again.

You're right. You don't even "need" to watch a movie once which would be even sadder for a filmmaker who put his blood, sweat and tears into it.

But I'm also sure you understand there aren't near enough hours in the day for writing about movies, writing your own stuff, watching movies, and doing whatever else it is that one must do to get by from day to day.

After many years, I do fine, and have found time to watch films that "aren't my cup of tea", although I really don't have a cup of tea.

[ono]

So you would rather Lynch dumb down his inclinations and have them spoon fed to you because it takes "a little work" to figure out the meaning?

No, of course not.  You seem to be twisting what I'm saying, and ignoring references to other movies that did this much better than Lynch did.  Donnie Darko was a prime example.  Nothing was dumbed down a bit, or handed to you on a platter, but it wasn't nonsensical either, and you could draw things from it to interpret it as you felt was right.

Saying that Lynch didn't know what he was doing or how to sew up his film so he placed a bunch of meaningless clues so fanboys will go ga-ga over them, laughing at them and the the meanings they came up with isn't an insult, but a repectful statement?

Not an insult, but a statement of fact as I see it.  But again, you seem to be twisting what I said, exaggerating for effect.  I do think Lynch laughs a bit at people trying to interpret his films.  A guy with his kind of sense of humor seems like he would.  From his films, it seems to be in his personality.

See above. Also, I believe that you appreciate the film, but saying it was a letdown is something different than saying Lynch didn't know what he was doing.

"Didn't know what he was doing," meaning, he didn't know how to really tie things up, or end it, which was one of the same problems he had with Blue Velvet in my opinion.  Refer to a thread somewhere else where I talked with godardian about this same thing.  Blue Velvet was complex in that it was straightforward noir, but pure Lynch as well.  You can't pigeon-hole it either, which is the frustration.  But the parts that you can pigeon-hole (read: the ending especially) are most frustrating of all.  Not to get into a whole discussion on Blue Velvet; again, see the discussion I had with godardian, for my feelings on this.

Now when did I make an assumption about you?  Never.

If I said yes, it's not like you would believe me.

I addressed this in a previous post, because I figured that's what you'd be referring to.

I don't "need" to see a film again.

You're right. You don't even "need" to watch a movie once which would be even sadder for a filmmaker who put his blood, sweat and tears into it.

Yeah, a lot of filmmakers put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into their films, but some are simply worth seeing more than others.  I don't think any of us have time to see all the films we want to see.  You, of course, are a paragon of knowledge around here, and you seem to have seen most stuff, and know pretty much everything there is to know about film news, which is admirable.  But how many films are there that you yourself mean to see, want to see, but just haven't gotten around to it yet?  For me, the number is at about 600.  I try to watch an average of a film a day, but it's hard to keep up at that pace.

[Ghostboy]

I didn't think Man On The Moon was all that great either, dramatically, but I loved Carrey in it.

Onomatopeia, you rock for not only consistently explaining your POV but also being open to going back to give things another chance.  Swell!

[SHAFTR]

I love Man on the Moon, but I am a huge Carrey fan.

Persona was my introduction to Bergman and I really enjoyed it.

The Killer is great fun, I think there are 120 deaths in it.

[modage]

if this board is going to be drooling over irreversible for the next year, i'm going to have to hire someone full-time to start cleaning up my puke.

[Gold Trumpet]

Though I think it is fine Ono has a different point of view and all towards Mulholland Drive and its great he is willing to back that statement up at all, I can't help but think on my one read through of the argument (yes, one read through is all I have time for now even if you guys sweated it) that a lot of Ono's dissapointment comes from missed expectations. I can't identify with this because I saw the movie after the hype and discussion on dvd and knew what I was getting into. He referenced advertisements and such that said something of a film more hopeful and in a context completely different.
My own idea of the film is that unlike Blue Velvet, (which is as typical as any Hitchcock film and rapes a subject of honesty) that the film really does go after the interpretation of what comes when having a dream. Blue Velvet seemed to have ideas of one, but still a straight forward story in a typical genre with coloring a little to it. Muholland Drive seems to follow dream logic in that so much can be explained when thought is put to it, but nothing ever fully explained because contradictions and loose ends are everywhere. Yet the film follows a path that feels so personal and as a story we would know and has ideas and clues that feel like they can be deciphered, but really can never. The clues inside the dvd box only seem to push this and the hope that Lynch is trying to make a piece that can seem deconstructable, but fully not.
A Lynch film that I thought was also trying to play the dream game but really worked along the lines of a "soul less" much more was Lost Highway. The clues and subtle similarities of what can match to make sense are there, but so vague that it all seems impossible in just thinking about. That movie also deals in telling one story and extending that story to its breach while Muholland Drive not is more curious, but also more wide ranging in stories and ideas and curiosities. There is a world more to wonder about in Muholland Drive. Lost Highway seems to be without any deeper curiosities and more of a play in style and story only in what could maybe match.

~rougerum