lumping:
ordinary people
in the bedroom
you can count on me
house of sand and fog
heavy
respond to any or all
1) which film is most dynamic and why?
2) what is/are the cinematic commonality/ies that works for these films?
3) any films you might add to this lump? explain why?
thanks
haven't seen "heavy", but aren't they all about the disappereance or the addition of a person that causes major rifts in another family's daily life? aka the "you think these people have it all...but look again" genre.
it's like serious fiction workshop writer's favorite theme "subtle change in a relationship that causes a major rift" or whatever Carver-esque themes you'd throw in there. I enjoyed "In the Bedroom" the most from this lump because it seemed to be the least petty and I guess most melodramatic (good and bad) which resulted a more generic but more satisfying ending. I find that most dynamic just because though it was an "easy" ending on paper, the sudden shift in the tone was a big risk and it pulled it off in my opinion.
I'll throw in Ang Lee's "pushing hands" in there 'cause it's roughly about the same thing, though a bit more naive and even more melodramatic. but I think all these films deal with "suburban represssion" and Pushing Hands did away with it in the end quite nicely, and though not most realistic, it was also very satisfying. The Celebration too, has just a little bit to do with all the aforementioned films.
god I feel like I'm taking a test or something.
Quote from: pete
god I feel like I'm taking a test or something.
nice work pete...you passed
on a side note...i was invited to book soup on sunset a while back to hear todd field and will mapother read selections from andre dubus shorts...enjoyable evening
i have only seen you can count on me, house of sand and fog, and in the bedroom....
so...
Quote from: atticus jones1) which film is most dynamic and why?
2) what is/are the cinematic commonality/ies that works for these films?
3) any films you might add to this lump? explain why?
1.> most dymanic?....in the bedroom.i fucking love this film...why? its raw energy, force, acting....it
feels real to me...i can relate to the stahl character..[i like hot older women too]....th eparents are unrelinting...daddy gets revenge....oh man....mommy slaps hard...thats the best cinematic slap....and todd field is a cool guy...
2.> commonalities.....?....
spoilers...............
of the three that i have seen they all:
-the house is a major character
-a tragic death is dominant factor for the characters actions
-family crisis
-all end on sort of a bummer
3.> add to the lump?....cant think of anything right now......
great thread by the way....keep it going man... :yabbse-thumbup:
another fine reply...
if you can add a film or two to the lump and justify the additions i would gladly tack on some extra credit for the extra effort...
jones
The Ice Storm
some of Woody's films...such as Crimes and Misdemeanors.
indeed...i shall rewatch bits of those tonight/this morning as they are part of my 2,826 dvd collection...i am aj...king of beepers
justifications for your inclusion are what interest me most...ideas?
Quote from: atticus jones
justifications for your inclusion are what interest me most...ideas?
downbeat domestic dramas which include ensemble casts.
oh...k
i suppose i'm curious as to what keeps a downbeat drama frum getting a beat down by viewers...using these films or others as positive/negative examples...
itb downbeat but no beat down imo bc of subtle/brilliant performances, haunting score, possibility of seeing marisa naked...
as an xxxample
Quote from: atticus jonesoh...k
i suppose i'm curious as to what keeps a downbeat drama frum getting a beat down by viewers...using these films or others as positive/negative examples...
itb downbeat but no beat down imo bc of subtle/brilliant performances, haunting score, possibility of seeing marisa naked...
as an xxxample
not only subtle performances, but subtle direction. This is why Eastwood's films work so well. I guess one could add Mystic River to the list.
yes...yes
maybe redford as well...a river runs through it?
sum say too slo...but i want to reexamine the devices used to kick the downbeat tone out of no flo zone...
and into buzz worthy prone
I'd throw We Don't Live Here Anymore into the mix; it's based on the short stories of Andre Dubus, who also, as noted, crafted the basis of In The Bedroom, and whose son wrote House Of Sand And Fog.
I think the common factor of most of these movies have been succinctly expressed; consider also that, for the most part, their titles are completely interchangeable and would remain descriptive of the content of the films.
I think In The Bedroom is the best of those films initially listed, although I stilly have problems with the ending (and yet I love the same Shakespearean trick when it was used in Mystic River - odd).
Quote from: GhostboyI'd throw We Don't Live Here Anymore into the mix; it's based on the short stories of Andre Dubus, who also, as noted, crafted the basis of In The Bedroom, and whose son wrote House Of Sand And Fog.
.
We Don't Live Here Anymore is a very good film. I thought I was the only one here who liked it. I'm a fan of anything Ruffalo or Watts.
floating along nicely ghost...
love the wdlha addition and the dubus sr/jr link...
do any of you feel films in this genre need a device/gimmick/trick as mentioned to lift them out of their serious/realistic/possibly boring trappings?
any films in the realistic fiction genre come to mind that fall flat due to script inadequacies?
still want to view dr btw...a dress will be sewn soon
Quote from: SHAFTRQuote from: GhostboyI'd throw We Don't Live Here Anymore into the mix; it's based on the short stories of Andre Dubus, who also, as noted, crafted the basis of In The Bedroom, and whose son wrote House Of Sand And Fog.
.
We Don't Live Here Anymore is a very good film. I thought I was the only one here who liked it.
i liked it. mainly for the acting.
Quote from: atticus jones.
do any of you feel films in this genre need a device/gimmick/trick as mentioned to lift them out of their serious/realistic/possibly boring trappings?
any films in the realistic fiction genre come to mind that fall flat due to script inadequacies?
If it's being described as a device/gimmick/trick then it isn't needed. It works only if it natually progresses the story (a la Short Cuts / Magnolia). Obviously the #1 thing is to have characters that the audience can care about. Frank TJ Mackey isn't necessarily likeable, but he is a character that I care about.
Carrying on the Short Cuts/Magnolia line of thinking, Crash doesn't work it's gimmick. (I'm starting to get off track though, I'm moving away from the gritty genre into small world films). Anyways, the racism theme in Crash doesn't work because it never feels believable (nor with characters we care about). The result is a film that doesn't say anything about racism, but instead a film that is using racism as a gimmick to tie everything together.
not to be a dick butt u dun't support your points vury well...
you made several opinionated statements and let them hang there without using any supporting details, facts or examples to strumphen them...
i appreciate your opinions indeed but would have been more edified had you come to the table with some meat for the sauce...
this may just be inexperience in academic writing or naivete in that you beeleeb what you write everyone will blindly accept as fact...either whey we are here to help...
me and my two friends...myself and I
resubmit for half credit
I got a bit sidetracked when I brought Small World films into this conversation.
In short, I don't think films in this genre need a gimmick.
EDIT: What do you want me to elaborate on?
why is having characters you can care about the #1 thing? (not that I disagree for this genre) as opposed to an interesting plot twist or a special effect for that matter...
which films have those and which don't?...what makes you care for a particular charcter?
in terms of device/gimmicks/trick...i mean slow films or portions of films needing "something" to keep the audience from drifting/losing interest...
edit: maybe serious fictions need these or maybe not...one could argue either way but do you think there is room for them in these types of films?
much like the exploding matchbook in poor pops pocket during the potentiallly slow scene from heart ate
stuff like that i guess
thanks for the mature response
* I think that this genre depends on subtlety, realism & depth. A plot twist or special effect goes against all three of these. It might catch the attention of the viewer, but in the long run it hurts the film. This will definitely become more apparent on repeat viewings.
* I'm having a hard time citing a specific film. I just came back from Dennys and my friend and I were talking about what makes Frank TJ Mackey a character we care about. In all honesty, we couldn't pinpoint an answer, but I believe it depends on what I mentioned in point 1. He works because of subtlety, realism & depth. I think just the fact that he is a layered character makes us care for him. He's not a stereotype, but someone we want to know more about.
* In this genre, some audiences may lose interest. It is just the nature of the beast. I think that the audience needs to find something that they can relate to with their own lives.
Since it's been mentioned so much and everyone is familiar with it on here, I'll use Magnolia as an example again. My friend is currently teaching a 3 week film class to High School students (I've guest lectured). He has showed them Magnolia and a lot of them don't really like it. I think it just has to be a given that some people just won't like the film, especially people that young. I saw Magnolia when I was 19 and I was able to relate to it (I had experienced Love, Cancer, Death of a parent, etc). These kids might have trouble getting into a film like Magnolia because they don't have that experience to draw on. Likely, they'll rewatch the film a few years later and that viewing will "click" for them.
Outside of gimmicks, one could always use subjectivity as a trick to grab the viewer's attention. I'm thinking of what Scorsese often does with his films (a la alka seltzer in Taxi Driver). These will often make the viewer's attention heighten because the shot is lingering. Also, see the CU of Dirk in Boogie Nights. This works because it also advances the story through the psychology of the characters.
* Are you saying science fiction films need gimmicks or realistic drama?
a grand slam breakfast...
perfect order
i suppose for this conversation the word gimmick may be inadequate...based on the films you cited as reference points, specifically fagnolia, i might say the prologue, the frogs, the singing, the casting of cruise, the animation, the editing and camera work are all in place to ensure this basic human drama does not become a snoozefest...im not saying that was the intention of including them but in fact i believe thats what they do
its like ordinary people on ex or sumthin...
im wondering if all serious fictions could use a bump to heighten the sensations...
just wondering
sci fi ?...they have never been favorites...or second favorites for that matter...i believe their capacity to support "gimmicks" is more vast than the universe...for relatively few, their ability to cohabit with characters from a serious fiction upbringing only makes for a particulary pretty family photo
but I think most of these suburban melodramas do have gimmicks:
pushing hands has kungfu, magnolia has production value, donnie darko has sci-fi, happiness is gross, american beauty has conrad hall, and quite a few of them have big stars between gigs who are waiting to play something different.
a significant portion of this genre are like directortial debuts, and most of the time they get greelit because somehow the director is able to find a star or two in there. those who can't find stars must make suburbia really wacky or lame or sexy. but in my opinion, all of them have hooks, at least the ones we've listed.
working at an indie theater I've seen a slew of those that just came and went every summer. most of them are somewhat poignant and sincere and well-acted, just not poignant and sincere and well-acted enough to do well. for example this summer alone we've had imaginary heroes, winter solstice and my summer of love that all kinda flopped. then we have like mysterious skin and me you and everyone we know that are doing pretty well.
and there's a disparity between suburban films made by young filmmakers, middle-aged or older ones. the older ones are usually about writers and their sexual escapades, through passive aggressive lies and revenges--kinda like humorless woody allen films. the young ones tend to be about the hypocrisy of the American dream and some fucked up family members doing fucked up things and their young heroes (always in love) got fed up with it and want to escape from it all. I guess why I didn't like Lost in Translation, because it's got that affluent young suburban mindset but it's in Tokyo, despite the fact that it attempts to be a wong kar-wai/ jarmusch-esque extreme urban isolation film. a good film of the latter "young genre" that trascends it is Noi Albinoi. the ending is trascendental as a film and then especially as a film of that genre.
Quote from: petebut I think most of these suburban melodramas do have gimmicks:
pushing hands has kungfu, magnolia has production value, donnie darko has sci-fi, happiness is gross, american beauty has conrad hall, and quite a few of them have big stars between gigs who are waiting to play something different.
.
Some of your examples could be cited as gimmicks, others are just examples of talent.
I also agree with your assessment of this genre often being used as debut film material. I think that is because this genre offers itself to a modest budget.
Quote from: atticus jones
i suppose for this conversation the word gimmick may be inadequate...based on the films you cited as reference points, specifically fagnolia, i might say the prologue, the frogs, the singing, the casting of cruise, the animation, the editing and camera work are all in place to ensure this basic human drama does not become a snoozefest...im not saying that was the intention of including them but in fact i believe thats what they do
its like ordinary people on ex or sumthin...
im wondering if all serious fictions could use a bump to heighten the sensations...
Either way, I agree, lets throw away the term "gimmick". It seems that this conversation is based on what to do keep an audience interested. I guess the cited examples of Magnolia are examples of this. So, doing a trick to keep the audiences attention is fine, and even encouraged, if it is done correctly. I think this is where the thin line between gimmick & trick occurs. If it works, it will progress the story and catch the attention of the viewer. If it doesn't work, it will fail at one or both of these and ends up playing off as a gimmick. The audience will see it as that and the film will suffer because of it. If the trick can serve as an outlet to develop backstory, subjectivity, ambiguity, etc...it will likely succeed.
With this genre, it really is the story that matters more than anything else. It's not a genre where success can occur with style over substance. Sci Fi films can be successful with style over substance b/c investment in the characters and story isn't as important.