Brick

[gob]

Yeah, I wished I'd seen this on the big screen too but still really enjoyed it nonetheless.
Quality debut.
I really liked the tone of it... very little hints of humour and it didn't disappear up its arse into a self-conscious noirish parody.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt is pitch perfect as well.

[socketlevel]

i say, stop being smart with cinema, just be smart with subtext.

i say, elaborate (feel free to answer in the brick thread)

well the thing is with this movie, it always feels like it's too aware of itself.  not that this is a bad thing always in cinema, but with this kinda story you can't help rolling your eyes every now and then.  this type of teenage acting, and more important the directing/writing of teens, started in the 90s.  it hasn't let up yet.  characters almost seem smarter then the situation their in, overly witty, and the audience never gets to be one step a head of them.  it all started with "scream", characters were talking about the plot rather than reacting to the actions around them.  it's just annoying in my opinion.  it's harder to write a script and keep the audience ahead of the characters, yet still have it interesting and throw twists throughout.  when characters comment on the plot with sly remarks or overtly "cool" dialog, it's only done in an attempt to make them desirable.  now if maybe they only did this with one character, the femme fetal character, it would have been a more interesting piece.  making her allure have more body to it.  when every character is cool, it shows the writers need to be cool and accepted.  it's not three dimensional enough for me.

i see the noir examples and references/devices in the piece (femme fetal, detective like protagonist etc...) however the film never treats the characters as people actually going though these experiences.  almost like you get the impression it's happened before in their lives, nothing is shocking to them.   i understand this is the creative decision on the director, and it was deliberate, however i think the story was strong enough that this style wasn't needed.  when you look back to noir of the 40s-50s this was the melo drama that existed in all films of that time.  when you infuse that in a contemporary film, where acting has taken on a whole new form and school of thought, it only appears like a noir nerds dream.  it's not organic enough in my opinion, and bottom line it's a disingenuous piece of work, it doesn't treat the material with enough respect to let the story play out.  so that explains my bit on not being smart with cinema.  with subtext i meant that it should have taken the time to give insight on something cultural, show (even if layered) some type of problem.  film noir did that, it came from German expressionism, and was doing that as a reaction to society through entertaining means.  beyond the neat plot twists, this film offers nothing other than how to be cool as the filmmaker sees it.

-sl-

[modage]

i don't think this film is anything like Scream or any of the post-Scream era of films.  none of the characters in this film are aware that they're in a film noir.  they aren't talking about Bogie or mentioning other noir films or simply going through the motions.  if they only had 1 character speaking this way it wouldnt make any sense.  it would break the reality of the piece and you'd need to have other characters remarking on "what the hell is her problem?".  by dropping you into this world where all the characters simply are this way, you're forced to accept it, or reject it as the case seems to be with you and the other people who don't enjoy the film.  i think the film is completely genuine.  it's as genuine as any modern film that has noir roots.  the only difference between a film like Millers Crossing and a film like Brick, is Brick has taken the familiar period setting away and replaced it with modern day high school.  some people have a hard time getting over that juxtaposition but i think its a really interesting one, and one that really works.  i think there is an awful version of this film that COULD'VE been made, with noir narration and characters spouting film referencing dialogue, but instead i think a really nice balance was struck here. 

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

First off, and possibly most importantly, it's Femme FATALE, not a baby girl.

Secondly, I don't think this movie is "aware of itself."  It is stylized, and this may lead you to beileve that it is pretentious from the beginning.  It's a fair assumption most high school students don't talk this way and it's also fair to assume they're definitely not as articulate.  Really what's going on here is a classic genre like noir mixed with modern settings, so it almost feels out of place.  If it did have voice over thoughts, then I'd agree it would be campy.  But the pacing of the dialogue is what made the movie stand out so much.  It wasn't to make the teens look smarter, but to apply an old technique to a new context.

[socketlevel]

SPOILER AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST

the teens in this film act like their 40, too much wisdom behind what they say, that's what i meant by the dialog.  scream was the same way in tone, having too much wisdom.  they are totally different films because of this mannor of speech, yet same sense of false depth.  characters say things, and low and behold, their wisdom precedes them.  if you go talk to a teenager, they don't know the same kind of life experiences as depicted through conversations of the characters in brick.  regardless of the origins of the dialog, it's the mannor it is delivered in, not the words themselves.  it could be in old English and i still wouldn't buy it (or modern vernacular or any other form for that matter).  too much confidence in their actions/words.  i can't help but laugh when i see films like this, like the baz remake of romeo and Juliet, or cruel intensions (dangerous liaisons) it's the same deal.  they don't need to talk about bogie, they talk about sex and violence instead.  or sip martinis cuz that's the cool thing to do.  or the parties are lounges like they're bohemians living the dream.  the movie doesn't try and show this juxtaposition, it just throws the characters in an unrealistic depiction, and doesn't do anything to make it real or feel like it has it's own environment.  max fisher was a character that was like this, and Wes Anderson understood how stupid it is.  we all love him, but laughing at him at the same time.  the characters in brick are the ones that Wes Anderson is making fun of.  i'm not saying brick should have done what rushmore did, it should have however avoided the natural target it made itself for this level of hilarity

i do agree with you the setting is a big factor as well.  along with everything i just said, being a period melo drama with the decor of MTV doesn't fit.  yes i understand this is what they set out to accomplish, it's just a neat idea that can't be applied correctly.

I'm not saying the femme fetale should talk in a different vernacular then the rest of the characters, but if she has the confidence that goes beyond the rest of the characters, then she is unique.  I'm not attaching the style of conversation (being unrealistic compared to contemporary speech) to the maturity or confidence all the characters inhibit, which unless I'm wrong, you assume i am mixing those two things up.  all the characters could have talked in this manor, yet had different characteristics (like confidence levels or "cool" levels) which they really don't.  they're all one cool collective, too smart for their own good.

in miller's crossing, there were weasels, pathetic characters, and etc...  all these characters are too cool for Christmas.  even the nerdy adviser is good looking enough and cool enough to have a hot girlfriend.  i knock the film for this, and the lack of subtext as i stated before, not the unique quirks.

it's just a movie for people who like movies, not that this is a bad thing, it's just not a great version of it.  i suspect people like it cuz there is very little to compare it to.  i appreciate the originality, but that need to be original is forced in this example.

-sl-

EDIT - and if you look at the classical Femme Fetale, this is that character.  she starts out strong and seductive, then is depicted very weak and needs help, and in the end she is the mastermind.  brick followed that structure, good or bad (i'm just responding to the post before this one, not making a comment on how good or bad brick's application was)

[socketlevel]

First off, and possibly most importantly, it's Femme FATALE, not a baby girl.

Secondly, I don't think this movie is "aware of itself."  It is stylized, and this may lead you to beileve that it is pretentious from the beginning.  It's a fair assumption most high school students don't talk this way and it's also fair to assume they're definitely not as articulate.  Really what's going on here is a classic genre like noir mixed with modern settings, so it almost feels out of place.  If it did have voice over thoughts, then I'd agree it would be campy.  But the pacing of the dialogue is what made the movie stand out so much.  It wasn't to make the teens look smarter, but to apply an old technique to a new context.

that's cool, i disagree but i can understand where you're coming from.

btw - i noticed your signature - you can download the missing tracks from "niadre lades - usually just a t-shirt" online (fruscente's site i think)  you finally get to hear the beautiful ending to mascara (on the album you only get to hear a snipit of it)

[hedwig]

btw - i noticed your signature - you can download the missing tracks from "niadre lades - usually just a t-shirt" online (fruscente's site i think)  you finally get to hear the beautiful ending to mascara (on the album you only get to hear a snipit of it)

don't encourage it! 

[Alexandro]

Apparently, I should have watched ten more minutes of this movie to "get it". I stopped at the 35 min mark. Life's too short to give a 96 minutes movie half of it's lenght to become interesting. Yes, teenagers mixed with 40's noir films. Clever. What else is there? Not much that I saw.

This movie is completely self aware without earning one bit of it. We're supposed to be totally into it from the beggining, and actually believe these idiot kids talk that way or, even more annoying, don't seem a bit surprised about anything that happens around them and choose instead of making ironic comments filled with detective jive. If only the main character was like that it might be interesting, but these kind of mexing genres exercises are nothing new and they never work. New York New York didn't work either, to give an example. Movies that feed only on other movies end up feeling cartoonish and uninvolvent (i dont know if this word exists but im sure it explains itself). The music was horrible and kept taking me out of the film.

the mysterious skins comparisons, im sure, are only related to gordon levitt, but that was a far, far, faaaaaaar superior film that succesfully had thriller ingredients mixed in the bag.

[modage]

Apparently, I should have watched ten more minutes of this movie to "get it". I stopped at the 35 min mark. What else is there?

about an hour.  i really don't understand why there is so much vitriol towards this movie.  i could see some people being more into it than others or saying you really don't get where all the love is coming from.  but jesus christ, you had to turn it off?  were you aware of what the film was about when you rented it?  why wouldn't you then be totally into it from the beginning?  mixing genres is nothing new, there is nothing new, but they can and do work.  you cant review a movie that you shut off, and you can't "get" a movie that you've decided to hate within the first 10 minutes. 

[Alexandro]

look man. i didn't decide to hate this movie in the first ten minutes. i heard and read is great. i knew it was a thriller, and i knew it mixed film noir with high school settings. i didn't knew characters would talk like if they were in a film noir, but when i noticed it at the beginning, I thought it was a cool idea. this was the movie that i rented last week that i really wanted to see. is the one i chose first.

i dont think it works at all. I gave it 35 minutes to get interesting, and as i noted, it is almost half of it's lenght. i have almost no time in my life to squeeze 4 movies a week there but i try, and it really pisses me off when something by a filmmaker i dont even know, with a bunch of actors who havent really proven to be al pacino takes that long for a person to say:; "ohhhhh i see now". the problem with this movie is that it asks for you to be completely into it from the very first frame, as if putting 16 year old kids talking like humprey bogart and interrupted by stylish noir musical score is a common thing. as i said, if it had worked, i would have seen more, but by the 35 minute mark i was already expasperated at looking at gordon levitt and his non reactions to the sordidness onscreen. from the very first moment when the girl calls him in a state of hysteria and his answer is the coldest, worst performed "hold on" in recent years, i was hoping nothing was wrong and it was just me. liek i said, life's too short and there are tons and tons of good movies that i want to see, and i also want to sleep, eat, clean my cat's shit and make love to my girlfriend, so sorry.

[Pubrick]

and i also want to sleep, eat, clean my cat's shit and make love to my girlfriend,.

in that order!

[Alexandro]

well she wouldn't fuck me unless i cleaned the cat shit...

[Gold Trumpet]

I'm very late, but I guess had better things to do than watch this movie. I've only caught whiffs of the praise and bashing so I have no clue if I'm going to be repititive, but I'll try to keep it short:

The film is amateur hour. I'm sick of movies that try to carry on an art film shell without any clue how to execute it. From the get go this film overloads on vacant shots, narration overlaps, odd angles and bad editing. The last complaint comes in scenes that could be obvious in one shot, but are shown in shots that break down the scene so it plays out a story like there is something important to reveal. I'm sure I'm missing some filmmaking tricks that were used, but the complaint is that all of this was used at the very fucking beginning.

The criticism isn't that great films don't use these tricks. They do. The complaint is that better films tell an emotional story and allow scenes to build up to where utilization of these tricks become effective and thus mesh with the story. This isn't to say a film has to be bare of all style before the climax. They do not at all. They just have to know what tricks to use that are good at the beginning and don't call attention to the filmmaker's artistic hand because the viewer will be taken out of the story. Brick is a film that wavers between scenes that look like any high school movie (the fight scenes) and Antonioni-esque isolation shots (Hewitt walking alone) and it is all at the beginning!

The film has no tone because it is slammed with an over abudance of film geek tricks that anyone fresh out of film school could master in. Bringing all the elements together to make an organic, cohesive film is something harder to attain. Brick doesn't do it. For the time being, all hope Rian Johnson gravitates beyond this with his next film, but fuck Brick.