this seems like it can be a good flick. Written and Directed by Noah Baumbach, produced by Wes Anderson, starring Bill Murray, Laura Linney and John Turterro.
I heard the script is floating around somewhere. Does anybody know where i can find it?
Yeah, it's definately going to be a great flick in the good old Wes-style. :-D & :(
But I'm still wondering why Wes isn't involved in the Owen Brothers' directorial debut "The Wendell Baker Story".
here is a link to the trailer
http://movies.aol.com/movie/main.adp?tab=trailers&mid=21100#
i'm sure a quicktime version will be out soon, but we'll have to take this for now
who knows the song at the end of the trailer?
Quote from: Ultrahip Lobster Supperwho knows the song at the end of the trailer?
it's "the swimming song" by loudon wainwright III
and the second song in the trailer is "lets go" by the feelies
bill murray's in this?
saw this yesterday at the lincoln plaza cinemas here in nyc. really really loved it. it had just enough strangeness and boldness and fucked-up divorceness for me to like it. and incredible music (three Bert Jansch songs!) great flick. definitely go out and watch it.
i can't wait for the dvd. i'm getting it either way but definitely getting it if Baumbach does a commentary, which, i think, is incredibly unlikely. i should be, despite it's personalness and all. but anyway. go watch it already assmen!
I saw this today. It was too damn short! But it's really good, despite what seems to have been some heavy cutting. Jeff Daniels (who replaced Bill Murray at some point) gives a career-best performance - I would never have guessed it was him, had I not known it from the get-go.
i also REALLY liked this movie. it was a geniune surprise and i was glad to see it that way. the movie was very funny and very painful. a sort of truthful pain that feels like a punch in the gut and must come from a very real place. baumbach says the movie isnt based on his life though many of the details are the same, but i dont believe him because i believed every word in this movie. it was good, real good.
the most interesting thing about it, to me, was that Wes Anderson basically had made a fantasized version of this movie in The Royal Tenenbaums. he, coming from Texas dreaming of living the intellectual life in new york and eventually moving here. as well as always dealing with the Ahole father figure (though he has said his was not), whereas Baumbach actually lived this! and beyond that there are many other similarities (albeit some superficial ones).
- Jeff Daniels resembles in beard and dress Bill Murray from Royal T
- family of intellectuals/geniuses
- dad is an Ahole
- parents divorced
- brownstone new york house looks similar
- museum richie/margot escape to like exhibit with squid/whale
- tennis
probably about a dozen or more, though superficial, interesting ways the films overlap. though i wouldnt accuse baumbach of attempting to rip-off or resemble anderson in any way, i DO think that people who think anderson concentrates too much on being stylized and think he stands at a distance to smirk at his characters would like this film for being all the things they want anderson to be. funny and sad and very real. so recommended highly to both fans and non-fans (GT, you might like this). B+
im seeing this sunday...i think (am hoping) noah baumbach will be in attendance. if he's not, someone else 'important' will be, but it better be baumbach.
Quote from: modage(GT, you might like this). B+
Mod really is the best for guessing what I'll like. If it comes to my lowly city, i'm seeing it.
I can't remember the last time I wanted to see a movie so bad. This is RIGHT up my alley.
Quote from: JimmyGatorI can't remember the last time I wanted to see a movie so bad.
Really? Because I think this movie will be quite
good.
hahahaha....see what I did there? ADVERBS, USE THEM!
Pretty much everything Mod said.
This movie is real good, and real fucked up. Some of the stuff with Frank was squirm worthy, but then totally awesome because of the music (that was what I thought it was, right?). Everyone in the cast is great. Even William Baldwin, brother. Halley Feiffer is now 2 for two with this and You Can Count on Me.
A- brother
What a self-indulgence fest. I'd say Woody Allen-lite, but I want Woody's legacy to be this film like I want The Beatle's legacy to be Charles Manson. It somehow made amoral seem black and white. It was a high-brow Waiting.... That's too much of a compliment. I don't think I've seen a film full of intellectuals this dull.
Quotebaumbach says the movie isnt based on his life though many of the details are the same, but i dont believe him because i believed every word in this movie
That's because it was clearly conversations and kick-backs with friends slammed into a movie about the family. Zach Braff should get the altruist of the year compared to this movie. The History of Violence should get the subtle film of the year next to this.
Hyperbole and rhetoric aside, not too impressed. I don't hate it as much as the above paragraphs would imply, but I figure I should compensate for the accolades it's receiving. It would just have to be a different film for me to really bite into it, it would have to take some place else, and I would have to block out its obvious influences.
I'm fucking tired of these kind of movies. Honestly. Worn out, at least.
By the way, The Wild Child, Breathless, Blue Velvet, The Mother and the Whore, Psycho. Scoo-bee-dee-doo-wop.
For the most part, these movies are about dead. They're all too post-modern. This one looks kinda sincere though, and not just clever for the sake of being clever.
And this CANNOT be as bad as Garden State. Oh, how I hated that movie.
i dont think it's clever at all or has any relation to garden state. i'm not even really sure what 'these movies' are. this is pretty sincere.
Well, what I'm doing is unfairly grouping it with these Wes Anderson type movies that everyone seems to be making lately--filled with irony and indie soundtracks, and prides itself on being pretentiously subtle. Garden State is the quintessential example of a movie like this.
Now, I haven't seen this movie and I think it looks very, very good, so it's unfair for me to group this with those type of movies. However, I wouldn't be surprised to read critic's reviews that compare this movie to those, just based on the trailer.
I'm rambling. Sorry.
Quote from: modagethough i wouldnt accuse baumbach of attempting to rip-off or resemble anderson in any way, i DO think that people who think anderson concentrates too much on being stylized and think he stands at a distance to smirk at his characters would like this film for being all the things they want anderson to be. funny and sad and very real.
Well, okay then. This seems like my kind of movie.
Still though, don't you think that that type of movie is being made too much (not The Squid and the Whale, but something like Garden State).
What I like is that this movie (based on what I've read and on the trailer) seems to take the good parts of Anderson and then adds sincerity. Which is pretty much what you said.
I think wes anderson has a lot of sincerity.
but I think you were referring to suburban coming of age movies about family dynamics? I don't think wes anderson does that kind of movies, but he seems to have started a revival of those films for some reason.
If there is a trend going on, which is debatable, one could say that Rushmore birthed it.
i think the tenenbaum house appears for a few seconds during the opening titles...anyone else see that, or else a reasonable facsimile thereof?
i guess there could be multiple red corner homes with spires but considering the talent, doesn't seem to out there...
i think this was mostly in brooklyn and the tenenbaum house was in manhattan if i'm not mistaken? but they did look very similar.
Man...by the time Anna Paquin called Jeff Daniels "Coltrane" I just couldn't believe how similiar it had gotten to Tenenbaums...
Quote from: Ultrahip Lobster Supperi think the tenenbaum house appears for a few seconds during the opening titles...anyone else see that, or else a reasonable facsimile thereof?
I know what you're talking about. That looked like this one imminently recognizable house in Brooklyn Heights to me.
Quote from: mutinycoMan...by the time Anna Paquin called Jeff Daniels "Coltrane" I just couldn't believe how similiar it had gotten to Tenenbaums...
thats pretty miserable and embarassing
Not nearly as embarrassing as the scene where it gets its title from, where the brothers compare genitals...
That sounds pretty funny to me....but i haven't seen it yet, and it's not playing here yet.
SPOILERS *not that spoilers in a movie like this really matter that much.
Finally got around to seeing this today. I was surprised to see that it was a sold-out show, so I was lucky I got my tickets early.
Anyways, this is one of the better movies to come out this year. Any doubts that I had that this movie would be too Wes Anderson were completely dismissed. I read an interview today where Baumbach said that it wasn't until this movie that he started to make his movies from a more emotional place. You can tell.
Oh, how I loved these characters. Jeff Daniels deserves an Oscar in my opinion, and i wouldn't be surprised to see him get a surprise best supporting actor nomination. Never before have I cared so much for such a loathsome character.
Sixteen--the age where your old enough to start having your own opinions but not yet old enough to form them. That's what The Squid and the Whale is about for me. Time and time again throughout the movie, Walt steals the thoughts and ideas of others and marks them off as his own. In particular, the ideas of his father and mother. When Walt tells the story of the squid and the whale, it shows that as a kid we are not ready to see things as they really are. We need to live through our parents perceptions. That's why the 400 Blows -inspired ending is so significant--Walt is finally seeing the squid and the whale as it really is. It's apart of growing up. Walt's museum display of the squid and the whale is Antione Doinel's ocean.
The movie isn't without it's flaws, though. I felt for a little while during the third act, Baumbach was unsure of where he was going with the movie, but completely redeemed himself when (SPOILER!) Bernard has his heart attack. It is pretty much the make or break point in the movie. The scene could have came as contrived in the hands of another, lesser experienced director, but Baumbach handles it with ease.
Certainly one of the better movies of the year and far better than Life Aquatic.
Quote from: Losing the Horse: on October 22, 2005, 12:57:02 AM
What a self-indulgence fest. I'd say Woody Allen-lite, but I want Woody's legacy to be this film like I want The Beatle's legacy to be Charles Manson. ... blah blah blah... unwarranted rant about a film that's nothing like I describe...
So off base that it's funny... I know you were tripping acid or whatever when you saw it and wrote this, but it makes no sense... this film is absolutely NOTHING like Garden State... it's almost the complete opposite... I don't know if you even saw it.
Quote from: modage on October 18, 2005, 06:52:24 PM
i DO think that people who think anderson concentrates too much on being stylized and think he stands at a distance to smirk at his characters would like this film for being all the things they want anderson to be. funny and sad and very real. so recommended highly to both fans and non-fans (GT, you might like this). B+
That's exactly what I was thinking through this whole thing... Refreshing film in a year full of almost nothing good.
My quote followed by your reaction is unfortunate. It's good to see minimization once again taking place on the board, but if you couldn't see the seeping fumes of hindsight and irony than you're lying to yourself. I haven't read Baumbach but I'm sure he admits as much. It was a 'looking back' movie as ever there has been one. Unless you suffer drama through the tinted glasses of maturity. The kids weren't kids, the adults weren't adults, and the situations weren't immediate. It was a New York hipster talking life. Absolutely.
And I was sober when I saw the film. Too bad for me.
Oh, then you were drunk when you posted that review?
I thought you said something about you being drunk or something... maybe I was just assuming that.
The "hipster" comment just doesn't make sense... do you mean because it's an independant film? Do you mean because it was produced by Anderson? Comparing something like this film to Garden State just makes no sense to me.
I'm not saying this is the best film of the year, I'm saying you picked a bad film to use as an example of what you were trying to say but never quite said in your "shaken not stirred" thread.
I've seen you make compelling arguments, but I'm not seeing one here.
I don't have that much to say outside of what's already been said, but I don't see you saying much other than this movie is too "hipster".
Like I said, it's not the film of the decade for sure... I just feel that it's a poor example for your argument against films like Garden State (which I DO feel is a total wannabe hipster movie).
This fim has warmth and REAL emotion and I've know people EXACTLY like the older son. It's an event movie though... it's not a statement film, which may have been what you wanted, but not all films are like that. Sometimes a film is just really good and it doesn't try to be anything else, it doesn't try to "move cinema". I think that's what this movie was and I really enjoyed it.
I've expressed quite exactly several times that I don't think there is real emotion. You think the older son was real, I say he was stoic, and as flaccid of a character as Ivan. What emotion were you swepped through in the film? That's obviously inherently a saracstic question, but I'm literally curious. To me it was a poor representation of family turmoil, and to repeat: it was far too much a reconstruction rather than a representation.
Quote from: Losing the Horse: on November 07, 2005, 03:43:51 AM
I've expressed quite exactly several times that I don't think there is real emotion. You think the older son was real, I say he was stoic, and as flaccid of a character as Ivan. What emotion were you swepped through in the film? That's obviously inherently a saracstic question, but I'm literally curious. To me it was a poor representation of family turmoil, and to repeat: it was far too much a reconstruction rather than a representation.
It's funny...I read an interview with Baumbach in the Boston Pheonix where he acknowledged that his movies up until now did not contain emotion, or something alone those lines. But he said this is the first movie where he really felt for the characters. Personally, I thought all the characters were great...and real. The problem with most of "these" movies is the characters don't feel real to me and lot of the emotions seem contrived. Even Ivan, who wasn't really a fully developed character, seemed very real. I know guys like that.
So, if you were talking about a lot of other movies that come out these days, I would be behind you 100 % Losing the Horse, but this movie is better than that. It's not like a Wes Anderson movie where all the dialogue is noticeably subtle. It's just a really nice movie.
It's certainly one of the better movies to come out in what is shaping up to be a weak year for movies.
Quote from: Losing the Horse: on November 07, 2005, 03:43:51 AM
I've expressed quite exactly several times that I don't think there is real emotion. You think the older son was real, I say he was stoic, and as flaccid of a character as Ivan. What emotion were you swepped through in the film? That's obviously inherently a saracstic question, but I'm literally curious. To me it was a poor representation of family turmoil, and to repeat: it was far too much a reconstruction rather than a representation.
I saw embarassment, I saw realization, I saw acceptance, I saw (evenutally) compassion. You obviously didn't see this, but I did, I know it was there.
In relationship to "hipster" movies (i.e., "Garden State"), this film separates itself in that there are no gimmicks (or at least none I can remember). "Garden State" and others like usually have bizarre occurrences just for the sake of something to do, where as"The Squid and the Whale" is rooted firmly in reality.
Personally I thought it was the best film of this year, though I believe it has been a less than stellar year for movies. And as always it may become clear later on that there are some flaws. Still, I enjoyed it quite a bit, as it was like the best parts of Woody Allen and Wes Anderson rolled into one.
Right, there's nothing wierd or offbeat about these characters--they are very real. I think I connect with this more than all of Anderson's movies, except Rushmore--his masterpiece and one of my favorite movies of the nineties.
This is right up there with Capote and Downfall as my number one movie of the year. :yabbse-thumbup: :yabbse-thumbup:
I just saw this, and I can't even see how to compare this to something like Garden State. Like ddmarfield said, I thought this was more rooted in reality than other movies like that. All the characters just really felt completely real, and I know people like some of them. All their actions were just exactly what they seemed they should be and it all worked really well. I don't think this could be something like Garden State, though (especially in popularity), just because of how blatant the movie is and the things it shows. All in all, I thought it's one of the best of this year.
No one in this thread has said the movie is like Garden State but everyone is trying to prove that the movie isn't like Garden State. Is it because JimmyGator was afraid it was going to be as bad as that movie before he saw this movie, or is it because I said this movie was even more self-indulgent than Garden State? Either way the movies haven't been compared.
Just to clarify. People can keep bringing up Garden State if they want.
Leaving aside the garden state and wes anderson comparisons and judging the movie purely on it's own merit for a second:
I thought the film overall was very good with a few fantastic moments. The cinematic choices I thought were all successfull, mirroring visually what was happening emotionally. The matter-of-factness of the family's dialouge was interesting, and the kids destructive behavior after the divorce (which could have been chilche and over the top) was handled in a fairly compelling way (some of the fantastic moments were in these sequences). Yeah Ivan wasn't what you'd call a fleshed out character, but this film is obviously focused on the four members of the family and has very little time to realize the periphial players. All you can hope for is a moment here or there that helps you to understand the side characters and I think Baumbach gave us those moments. Yes the movie is emotional, but not hamfistedly so, which I always appreciate. The performances were all great especially the youngest kid, who in many ways had the toughest role. You don't have to be a New York intellectual to relate to these people. There are several scenes that cover simple, true situations that most of us encounter at one time or another.
Also, I thought the use of music was gonna be distracting, but it ended up suppourting the film's tone perfectly.
One of my favs of the year (but as we've said, pretty shitty year so far)
I have to agree with most of the positive statements on here. I think the film's realness and genuine feeling comes from the fact that the character's quirks rise out of the situation, rather than the opposite (as we see in a lot of films). Fortunately, I never had to go through a divorce as a child, but I would say that this film is the closest I've ever felt to what that would be like for someone. It is definitely one of the top 3 movies of the year so far (I'm not quite sure where in the top 3 it falls).
Title: The Squid and the Whale
Released: 14th March 2006
SRP: $26.96
Further Details:
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment has announced The Squid and the Whale which stars Jeff Daniels, Laura Linney, William Baldwin and Anna Paquin. Based on the true childhood experiences of director Noah Baumbach, The Squid and the Whale tells the story of a patriarch of an eccentric Brooklyn family who once had been a great novelist, but has settled into a teaching job. When his wife discovers a writing talent of her own, jealousy divides the family, leaving two teenage sons to forge new relationships with their parents. The disc will be available to own from the 14th March, priced at around $26.96. The film itself will be presented in 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen, along with English and French Dolby Digital 5.1 tracks. Extras will include a director audio commentary, a behind the scenes featurette, and an interview with a New York Film Festival Critic. We've attached a small shot of the official package artwork below:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xixax.com%2Fimages%2Fdvd%2Fsquidandwhaledvd.jpg&hash=9202c11ab44dbcc2168dd5f1ac37302b49f88a9c)
I saw a double feature of Capote and then this. While Capote sucked, this had a very refreshing, vibrant method of storytelling. I think this is about the most realistic portrayal of children ever. Walt completely mimics his father, which is so true of kids (the Kafkaesque line is amazing) and the little kid cursing a lot, well I found personal similarities there (minus all the semen). This movie had the strange quality of being particularly gross and very blunt. Gross, with all the skin and fluids. But blunt with the directness of criticisms, an ideal epitomized by Royal Tenenbaum, the character. like when he says the kids' play wasn't believable. Saying this is similar to Wes Anderson is like saying scrambled eggs are similar to egg nog. The ingredients are there, but the method is drastically different. I really really enjoyed this film. Laura Linney was better than Jeff Daniels, who seemed to be channeling Murray a bit, but I know most of it was his own and you could feel that.
Quote from: Gamblour on January 02, 2006, 10:18:44 PM
I saw a double feature of Capote and then this. While Capote sucked, this had a very refreshing, vibrant method of storytelling. I think this is about the most realistic portrayal of children ever. Walt completely mimics his father, which is so true of kids (the Kafkaesque line is amazing) and the little kid cursing a lot, well I found personal similarities there (minus all the semen). This movie had the strange quality of being particularly gross and very blunt. Gross, with all the skin and fluids. But blunt with the directness of criticisms, an ideal epitomized by Royal Tenenbaum, the character. like when he says the kids' play wasn't believable. Saying this is similar to Wes Anderson is like saying scrambled eggs are similar to egg nog. The ingredients are there, but the method is drastically different. I really really enjoyed this film. Laura Linney was better than Jeff Daniels, who seemed to be channeling Murray a bit, but I know most of it was his own and you could feel that.
I cringed when you said Daniels was 'mirroring' Murray. It's kind of like saying the movie mirrors a Wes Anderson film. I thought that was sort of the point, considering Anderson co-produced it. I saw it today and enjoyed myself immensely. I think you're right by saying it's "gross." Truth is the good stuff, but it's also slimey and disgusting at times.
Quote from: Sal on January 07, 2006, 05:03:27 PM
Quote from: Gamblour on January 02, 2006, 10:18:44 PM
I saw a double feature of Capote and then this. While Capote sucked, this had a very refreshing, vibrant method of storytelling. I think this is about the most realistic portrayal of children ever. Walt completely mimics his father, which is so true of kids (the Kafkaesque line is amazing) and the little kid cursing a lot, well I found personal similarities there (minus all the semen). This movie had the strange quality of being particularly gross and very blunt. Gross, with all the skin and fluids. But blunt with the directness of criticisms, an ideal epitomized by Royal Tenenbaum, the character. like when he says the kids' play wasn't believable. Saying this is similar to Wes Anderson is like saying scrambled eggs are similar to egg nog. The ingredients are there, but the method is drastically different. I really really enjoyed this film. Laura Linney was better than Jeff Daniels, who seemed to be channeling Murray a bit, but I know most of it was his own and you could feel that.
I cringed when you said Daniels was 'mirroring' Murray. It's kind of like saying the movie mirrors a Wes Anderson film. I thought that was sort of the point, considering Anderson co-produced it. I saw it today and enjoyed myself immensely. I think you're right by saying it's "gross." Truth is the good stuff, but it's also slimey and disgusting at times.
I didn't say mirroring, I said channeling. Much different, and I think Daniels is better than Murray, because Murray would've just been all mopey, whereas Daniels adds this energy and angry and strange sexuality to it.
Quote from: Gamblour on January 02, 2006, 10:18:44 PM
Capote sucked
For me, this invalidates any of your opinions, from here on out -
Baumbach to Direct Kidman and Jason Leigh
Source: The Hollywood Reporter January 27, 2006
Noah Baumbach is reteaming with Scott Rudin for an untitled drama-comedy and is lining up Nicole Kidman and his wife Jennifer Jason Leigh to star, says The Hollywood Reporter.
The movie, which Baumbach is writing and directing as his follow-up to The Squid and the Whale will be distributed by Paramount's specialty film division, which is being run by new head John Lesher.
Although details are being kept under wraps, the film will be another multigenerational story that takes place over a weekend and follows a mom and her son who visit the mom's sister.
Kidman and Leigh are in talks to play the sisters, but no deals are signed.
Baumbach worked with Rudin on The Life of Aquatic With Steve Zissou, which he co-wrote with Wes Anderson.
Jack Black Aboard Baumbach's Untitled Film
Source: Variety March 7, 2006
Jack Black has joined Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Jason Leigh in Noah Baumbach's untitled film for John Lesher's Paramount Classics, says Variety. Scott Rudin is producing.
Black will play the husband of a young woman who is visited at her upstate home by her sister and 12-year-old nephew. Baumbach's script originally was titled "Nicole in the Country," until that became too literal when Kidman committed.
The film begins shooting April 2 on Long Island. Baumbach wrote and directed the Oscar nominated film The Squid and the Whale.
Coming off King Kong, Black just completed the Nancy Meyers-directed The Holiday, which Columbia opens Dec. 8. Next out is Nacho Libre on June 2, followed by Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny, which New Line releases Nov. 17.
Quote from: modage on March 07, 2006, 10:28:19 AM
Jack Black Aboard Baumbach's Untitled Film
Source: Variety March 7, 2006
Jack Black has joined Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Jason Leigh in Noah Baumbach's untitled film for John Lesher's Paramount Classics, says Variety. Scott Rudin is producing.
Black will play the husband of a young woman who is visited at her upstate home by her sister and 12-year-old nephew. Baumbach's script originally was titled "Nicole in the Country," until that became too literal when Kidman committed.
The film begins shooting April 2 on Long Island. Baumbach wrote and directed the Oscar nominated film The Squid and the Whale.
Coming off King Kong, Black just completed the Nancy Meyers-directed The Holiday, which Columbia opens Dec. 8. Next out is Nacho Libre on June 2, followed by Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny, which New Line releases Nov. 17.
The above should be interesting. I weatched it yesterday and while I saw some misicule similarities between daniels and Murray, the story and the characters were fresh and I love that they went to see Blue Velvet, it really mirrored the movie in some ways. Also, it didn't seem as short as it was.
Turturro wedded to Baumbach pic
Source: Hollywood Reporter
John Turturro has signed on to star in the untitled Noah Baumbach project at Paramount Pictures' new specialty division.
Jack Black, Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Jason Leigh already have boarded the dramedy. Turturro will play the husband of Kidman's character.
The story is being kept under wraps, but it is described as a multigenerational story in the same vein as Baumbach's recent effort, "The Squid and the Whale."
Newcomer Zane Pais, Flora Cross ("Bee Season") and Halley Feiffer ("Squid and the Whale") also have joined the ensemble cast.
Scott Rudin is producing.
I went into this film with optimism, but the experience wasn't positive for me. Modage is usually spot on for predicting what I'll like, but this film wasn't the case. When I finally read the entire thread I'm glad a few others didn't just fall in line and love this film.
The main problem with the film is characterization. Story-wise, Jeff Daniel's character is the melting pot to the problems of his family around him. The mother has been coping for years while the children are fracturing ties and deciding what parents they each continue will with. The oldest, who has everything to prove, goes with his father. The youngest clings to his mother and tries to grow successfully out of adolescence while on the brink of sexual discovery. The crux of the story is how their problems develop and how each of them (including Daniels himself) tries to come out of the other end a better person. The film is a portrait of an entire family and the problems that are bred within it because of one man.
But, the film has no sense of character development. The film consistantly shows the volatile actions of Daniels' character. His character is a necessity to be heavily highlighted at the beginning to introduce conflicts, but as the film goes along it should recede on the focus of his character and begin to develop the objectives of the other characters and their stories. The film should begin to evolve its objective of Daniels' character as well. This film is very structured in traditional dramatics. All the characters have evolutions that require an arc in telling their stories. The film hardly makes an effort though to do so. Daniels character is consistently the leading figure and consistently acting out on the insecurities that plagued him in the first 20 minutes of the film and are already too well known to the viewer.
A similarily structured film that does well in this storytelling is Tigerland. In almost every sense Tigerland and The Squid and the Whale are different films, but both have one-dimensional characters as their dominating character. Tigerland has Colin Farrell as the clown grunt soldier who appeals to everyone on at boot camp for his constant antics that get him into trouble. For the audience, this character is easy identification and easy entertainment because the first half hour defines him by his boldness to authority. The Squid and the Whale has Jeff Daniels as the constant harrasser to his entire family. His character is easy displeasure to the audience because he is portrayed only through his outbursts to everything and everyone. But, as Tigerland moves on, the portrait of Colin Farrell in just the one dimensional tone begins to recede. The film starts to introduce other characters and other view points to develop the audiences' vantage point of Farrell's character. Then the film offers begins to dig past Farrel's antics when he performs decent favors for other soldiers. Yet, within the tone of the film, he is still the same person as before. The films offers a rounded viewpoint of his character when it only began on one note. Also, the film doesn't take forever to begin adjusting the portrayal. The transition is perfecly clockwork to the story in the film. By the end of the film the revolution in his character is complete and the film was able to do it without being forced to yield to any scenes that felt cradled, forced or sappy.
The Squid and the Whale has to yield to those scenes at the end though. The bulk of the film is consistently strained by Daniels' non stop outbursts that most of the film operates on one note. Even the story of the oldest son (the second main story in the film) is so latent with repeated examples of the character's disillusionment and anger. The film dramatically unravels only through a series of character conflicts that gets less inventive as the story goes along. The conflicts are constant reminders in 'filmic' language that relations are strained between the family. But, when an interesting angle is shown that could cartwheel the story elsewhere, the possibilities are only hinted at instead of delved into. An example is the angle of the youngest son who mysteriously rubs his semen everywhere. That angle is only hinted yet but could be a greater story because it indicates an under the table reaction a child could have to a divorce. The topics the film goes after are much less interesting.
When the supporting characters go through their emotional transitions it is at the end and only given the breath of a few scenes for each character. Daniels' character doesn't begin to even turn til after he had the heart attack. There never was an evolution to any of the characters. When the film finally ends on the final shot being the 400 Blows homage, the trickery becomes apparent. Only short films operate on one level and try to find clarity in a final shot to give meaning to the rest of the film. The ending shot here is indeed a homage to The 400 Blows, but the best part about the ending shot in The 400 Blows is that the film didn't need that final shot. It could have ended 20 minutes before and been excellent storytelling nonetheless.
alright GT. i am gonna try to both:
a. boil down your long-winded review into a more manageable cliff notes version
b. refute accordingly
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on May 18, 2006, 06:21:29 PM
I went into this film with optimism, but the experience wasn't positive for me. Modage is usually spot on for predicting what I'll like, but this film wasn't the case. When I finally read the entire thread I'm glad a few others didn't just fall in line and love this film.
GT: High expectations, film doesn't live up to them, modage and him think alike but differ on this, glad other people didn't love it.
CB: okay.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on May 18, 2006, 06:21:29 PMThe main problem with the film is characterization. Story-wise, Jeff Daniel's character is the melting pot to the problems of his family around him. The mother has been coping for years while the children are fracturing ties and deciding what parents they each continue will with. The oldest, who has everything to prove, goes with his father. The youngest clings to his mother and tries to grow successfully out of adolescence while on the brink of sexual discovery. The crux of the story is how their problems develop and how each of them (including Daniels himself) tries to come out of the other end a better person. The film is a portrait of an entire family and the problems that are bred within it because of one man.
GT: His main problem with film-- Characterization. He gives a brief plot synopsis that does nothing to explain the problem he has w/ the film.
CB: characterization? this was arguably the best character-driven film of 2005. brilliantly written and acted across the board. i can't see how the characterization is a problem, let alone the main problem.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on May 18, 2006, 06:21:29 PMBut, the film has no sense of character development. The film consistently shows the volatile actions of Daniels' character. His character is a necessity to be heavily highlighted at the beginning to introduce conflicts, but as the film goes along it should recede on the focus of his character and begin to develop the objectives of the other characters and their stories. The film should begin to evolve its objective of Daniels' character as well. This film is very structured in traditional dramatics. All the characters have evolutions that require an arc in telling their stories. The film hardly makes an effort though to do so. Daniels character is consistently the leading figure and consistently acting out on the insecurities that plagued him in the first 20 minutes of the film and are already too well known to the viewer.
GT: Film has no character development. Something about traditional dramatics. Daniels' character has insecurities in the first 20 minutes that don't change throughout the film, and therefore, the film is flawed.
CB: no clue what you're really saying here. you're pissed b/c you feel each character should have a traditional story arc and the film should end w/ everyone learning something and coming out better and happy for it? the film is brilliant for not doing all that. it's an ingenious, insightful observation of a family and the hardships of divorce, failure, sexual confusion... since when do you necessitate a film being tied up in a nice little bow for you?
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on May 18, 2006, 06:21:29 PMA similarly structured film that does well in this storytelling is Tigerland. In almost every sense Tigerland and The Squid and the Whale are different films, but both have one-dimensional characters as their protagonists. Tigerland has Colin Farrell as the clown grunt soldier who appeals to everyone on base for his constant antics of getting into trouble. For the audience, this character is easy identification and easy entertainment because the first half hour defines him by his boldness to authority. The Squid and the Whale has Jeff Daniels as the constant harrasser to his entire family. His character is easy displeasure to the audience because he is portrayed only through his outbursts to everything and everyone. But, as Tigerland moves on, the portrait of Colin Farrell in just the one dimensional tone begins to recede. The film starts to introduce other characters and use their view points to develop the audiences new vantage points to begin to develop how we see Farrell's character. Then the tone's of his actions begin to slowly change and a new conflict is introduced within the story. The point of this new conflict is that the roots of it were seen in the first 20 minutes but as the story progressed and the understanding of Farrel's character moved along it came to take on a different meaning than Farrell just going up against Army regulations as the film originally started as. In the end, Tigerland remains a close personal story of experience like the Squid and the Whale does but it has some semblance in drama to know how things should change when the environment doesn't.
GT: Compares Squid the Tigerland, b/c they both have one-dimensional characters who present problems in the first 20 minutes and never change.
CB: i'm not getting the tigerland comparsion. you keep referring to Daniels as the central character. if anyone should claim the "main character" moniker, its Walt, the older son. but really there is no main character.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on May 18, 2006, 06:21:29 PMTigerland is only the story of one man. The Squid and the Whale has to follow the progressions of an entire family. The film lacks objectivity and allows a one dimensional character like Daniels' to run through the entire film without a leash to restrain him. It leaves the other characters finding their transitions in only the matter of a few scenes each and all very late in the film. Daniels' himself isn't shown in a different objective til his accident of having a heart attack. In the end The Squid and the Whale is a short film trying to be a feature length film. Its entire story operates more or less on one level and it tries find greatness in the redemption of a final shot. The ending shot is indeed a homage to The 400 Blows, but the 400 Blows was a much better film. It had a larger diversity of character conflicts and a natural storytelling that didn't rely on the themes and conflicts being so insistent.
GT: Tigerland is about 1 character, Whale is about a family. Film lacks objectivity, it's a feature-length that should be a short, ending shot is a homage to 400 blows, but 400 blows is better so Squid therefore sucks. The final shot tries to redeem a one-dimensional narrative.
CB: oh my god.
1. name me one film or documentary even that is "objective."
2. any film this witty should be short. less is more dude.
3. please stuff rocks in my pockets and throw me off a bridge if this goes on for more than another page in this thread.
Quote from: ©brad on May 18, 2006, 07:43:33 PM
a. boil down your long-winded review into a more manageable cliff notes version
b. refute accordingly
You did neither, meathead. All your cliff notes did was badly interpret everything I said and all your refutals were just generalization arguments. I can't really argue them because you had no interest to argue anything I said. You had no interest to question my review to better understand where I was coming from. You entire post is a stunt only to undermine my entire review in the eyes of the rest of the board.
Also, if you notice, I've been heavily editing the review. I do that now with all my reviews after I post. When I posted my Art School Confidential review I wasn't done tinkering with it for another four hours. That four hours meant restructing numerous sentences and deleting entire paragraphs and including brand new ones. This review for the Squid and the Whale was tough because I tried writing it originally five days ago and just didn't like the results. So I rewrote it 3 more times. This version here is actually the fourth version I wrote and I still am changing up a lot of things.
See, the point is, I'm open to being criticized and am very much aware of my weaknesses when it comes to reviewing. I'm trying to be more diligent about working with my posts so you have no excuse to be an asshole. Whether you are aware or not, you were being one. Try to just fucking disagree. I don't fault anyone for not liking the movies I like so you can get off of it too.
Congrats. Another reason for me to feel at odds with the admins here. Just take a note from them and try to ignore me like they already do. I'll ignore you right back. You're still the dumbest of the bunch and the one who always comes back for more.
OK, one comment was worth an argument.
Quote from: ©brad on May 18, 2006, 07:43:33 PM
you keep referring to Daniels as the central character. if anyone should claim the "main character" moniker, its Walt, the older son. but really there is no main character.
You're right that there really is no "main" character. But, Daniels character does appear through out the film continually. The film never lessens the percentage of his screen time ever. It hinders the development of the other characters because his character is only one note emotionally.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on May 18, 2006, 08:59:54 PMCongrats. Another reason for me to feel at odds with the admins here. Just take a note from them and try to ignore me like they already do. I'll ignore you right back. You're still the dumbest of the bunch and the one who always comes back for more.
gt, you have no reason to feel at odds with any of the admins. am i the dumbest of the bunch? hah, yeah maybe. am i out to get you? nah. as much as i probably should, i do not ignore you. hey man, i honestly do respect the time and energy you put into posts, which is way more than most peeps around here. and i'll humbly admit that you've come a long way in your posting, at least from a comprehensibility standpoint.
as far as your editing technique, i say it's great to edit and edit; however, why not write your posts first in MSWord and edit them there, instead of editing when they're live on the board? the latter makes absolutely no sense at all. you should do a first draft of your posts in a word processor, get them to where you're good and happy, spell/grammar check that mo'fo', and
then hit the post key. that way, you can't play the "well i was still in the midst of editing my review" card, which is an undeniably weak card to play.
as for the rest of your rebuttal, honestly, i'm really not trying to attack you. i'm just trying to
understand you, b/c dude, some of the stuff you say makes no goddamn sense.
Quote from: ©brad on May 18, 2006, 10:54:31 PM
as far as your editing technique, i say it's great to edit and edit; however, why not write your posts first in MSWord and edit them there, instead of editing when they're live on the board? the latter makes absolutely no sense at all. you should do a first draft of your posts in a word processor, get them to where you're good and happy, spell/grammar check that mo'fo', and then hit the post key. that way, you can't play the "well i was still in the midst of editing my review" card, which is an undeniably weak card to play.
Lets just say I do edit along all the measures you just requested that I do. Its just after I post and take into account the glaring fact everyone else will be seeing what I wrote that my brain all of a sudden clicks on another level of criticism and just notices more errors. I'm not trying to editing intentionally like this. Its just been happening lately.
But, no hard feelings. Apologies for any undeserving harsh words. I really don't know who the dumbest admin is. I just put too much strain on myself with actually doing drafts (never so many for a review here ever before) that I was ready to blow up on anyone who tried to take shots at it. Read the review again. I'm sure it at least makes more sense.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on May 18, 2006, 06:21:29 PM
But, the film has no sense of character development. The film consistantly shows the volatile actions of Daniels' character. His character is a necessity to be heavily highlighted at the beginning to introduce conflicts, but as the film goes along it should recede on the focus of his character and begin to develop the objectives of the other characters and their stories.
I see the film as being primarily about Walt shedding his fathers shadow. Walt and Bernard's arcs are inextricably linked because of Walt's infatuation with his father to the point of imitation. Furthermore, the delusion in Walt's admiration for Bernard is never exposed due to the formers naivety and the latters cunning and pomposity. Therefore it is justified to me that Walts arc be as flat as Bernards, with only the formers moment of realisation being a significant change in direction - immplying an imminent reconciliation with the mother that was always there for him. A reconcilliation which we almost see until Bernard comes tearing into the house like a jealous child.
In fact that scene is a perfect example of how the objectives of the other characters across the board are constantly being blocked or reassigned by Bernard. He fucks everything up.
I'm satisfied with the drama and comedy that this dynamic brings. I can understand you wanting more 'meat' particularly with an ending that feels undeniably stunted the first time round. As for the mother and the youngest son, they feel like casualties of war to me.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on May 18, 2006, 11:08:37 PM
I really don't know who the dumbest admin is.
:yabbse-tongue:
i saw it today and all i can say is that it's pretty grim and i'd probably never watch it again. divorce is a topic that disturbs me in deep ways.
Quote from: ®edlum on May 19, 2006, 04:56:54 AMI see the film as being primarily about Walt shedding his fathers shadow. Walt and Bernard's arcs are inextricably linked because of Walt's infatuation with his father to the point of imitation. Furthermore, the delusion in Walt's admiration for Bernard is never exposed due to the formers naivety and the latters cunning and pomposity. Therefore it is justified to me that Walts arc be as flat as Bernards, with only the formers moment of realisation being a significant change in direction - immplying an imminent reconciliation with the mother that was always there for him. A reconcilliation which we almost see until Bernard comes tearing into the house like a jealous child.
In fact that scene is a perfect example of how the objectives of the other characters across the board are constantly being blocked or reassigned by Bernard. He fucks everything up.
I'm satisfied with the drama and comedy that this dynamic brings. I can understand you wanting more 'meat' particularly with an ending that feels undeniably stunted the first time round. As for the mother and the youngest son, they feel like casualties of war to me.
I pretty much agree with this. The movie is, in part, about how long it takes Walt to come around to reality, making the audience more and more incredulous that he doesn't wake up sooner. Though you might have had the right idea, Kevin -- absolute disgust is what we should be feeling, and perhaps he's making the point that we ought to not judge Walt/Noah too harshly, since a lot of folks like me were captivated by just what an irrepressible asshole Bernard is. I couldn't look away, and the fact that you could might be a testament to the fiber of your character, as opposed to those of us who were completely sucked in.
...of course, if that's the case, then I'm still not sure it's a fair criticism of the film. :yabbse-grin:
Quote from: Split Infinitive on May 19, 2006, 11:17:27 PM
Quote from: ®edlum on May 19, 2006, 04:56:54 AMI see the film as being primarily about Walt shedding his fathers shadow. Walt and Bernard's arcs are inextricably linked because of Walt's infatuation with his father to the point of imitation. Furthermore, the delusion in Walt's admiration for Bernard is never exposed due to the formers naivety and the latters cunning and pomposity. Therefore it is justified to me that Walts arc be as flat as Bernards, with only the formers moment of realisation being a significant change in direction - implying an imminent reconciliation with the mother that was always there for him. A reconcilliation which we almost see until Bernard comes tearing into the house like a jealous child.
In fact that scene is a perfect example of how the objectives of the other characters across the board are constantly being blocked or reassigned by Bernard. He fucks everything up.
I'm satisfied with the drama and comedy that this dynamic brings. I can understand you wanting more 'meat' particularly with an ending that feels undeniably stunted the first time round. As for the mother and the youngest son, they feel like casualties of war to me.
I pretty much agree with this. The movie is, in part, about how long it takes Walt to come around to reality, making the audience more and more incredulous that he doesn't wake up sooner. Though you might have had the right idea, Kevin -- absolute disgust is what we should be feeling, and perhaps he's making the point that we ought to not judge Walt/Noah too harshly, since a lot of folks like me were captivated by just what an irrepressible asshole Bernard is. I couldn't look away, and the fact that you could might be a testament to the fiber of your character, as opposed to those of us who were completely sucked in.
...of course, if that's the case, then I'm still not sure it's a fair criticism of the film. :yabbse-grin:
I'm not arguing with the importance of the storyline. I'm extremely happy you guys got to the crux of the story. The problem looking back at my review is that I never did. Thats why my review seems off when the criticism could have been centered better.
My main contention with the film is how it plays out the relationship of the father and son. The fact that the son undeservingly holds his father up on a pedestal and copies everything he says is obvious from the beginning. The point of conflict begins at the father and the divorce and the problems develop with the mimicry and anger his son is showing. As the films rolls along, the problems are obvious, but the film never introduces other strands of narrative into the film to deepen the story. His son getting a girlfriend and the young attractive student moving just reinforce things we already understand about the characters. The portrait is never deepened but only extended. It allows problematic characters like Daniels to be annoying because his antics essentially just become repetitive. I wasn't annoyed with Daniels because his performance was that good. I was annoyed with him because the writing allowed his character to be whiney and ridiculous in every scene. Sure I understand the purpose is to portray him as such, but the film doesn't have to do it the way Blair Witch Project was trying force viewer sickness by shaking the camera the entire time. It made the film feel forced.
And when the son begins to understand the faults of his way, it is in the matter of only a few scenes. One is him talking to his mother and the other is when Daniels' character tries to take the youngest sibling away. There's little progression in resting the evolution of a character on only a few scenes.