Eastern Promises

[Alexandro]

I stand by my judgement of Viggo's performance being great. This could have gone terribly wrong. It could have been a complete caricature. But he becomes the character and behaves perfectly like his character. Even when he's completely silent you get a sense of who this guy is, and not necessarily as the film progresses and the screenplay gives him room for that, he achieves this pretty much from the start, cause he has his character digested and ready to go.

(KINDA SPOILERS)

It seemed to me Viggo's character wasn't precisely a nice guy in a bad predicament. Wasn't he all, in the end, about becoming the boss one way or another? I mean was he really acting on decency? It didn't seem to me that way.

(END OF KINDA SPOILERS)

I'm sure the film is richer than what we've been claiming at this point. Cronenberg deserves more credit than this. However I can't forgive him for that stupid voice over, which was others have pointed out, was unnecessarily melodramatic and unintentionally funny.

[Gold Trumpet]

OK, he's not the simple nice guy, but he is the one who extends himself to seemingly having a conscience. That's still a cliche that goes outside the standard thug who has no interest for outside people. I thought the film was pretty standard for following cliche protocol.

[Chest Rockwell]

OK, he's not the simple nice guy, but he is the one who extends himself to seemingly having a conscience. That's still a cliche that goes outside the standard thug who has no interest for outside people. I thought the film was pretty standard for following cliche protocol.

I sort of agree. I enjoy the movie as I do every other Cronenberg movie, but this one doesn't have all the intelligence in its underlying execution as do his others, particularly in comparison to A History of Violence. AHOV was riddled with cliches but in that Cronenberg was making broad statements about human nature, both within the simple parameters of the story and within the larger context of the audience watching the movie. By using a pantheon of archetypal film characters and narratives in juxtaposition with scenes like the violent sex scene he forced the viewer to confront the split between fascination and disgust, to consider his role as a viewer of such scenes in the movies (where violence is not always so direct). Here it just feels like Cronenberg wanted to make an well-crafted hit. So in that sense it was a disappointment for me, for while it was enjoyable enough I didn't personally get anything else out of it.

[w/o horse]

Or like it doesn't matter what the fuck kind of story you give Cronenberg because he's still going to make it about human ugliness and what he used to do is make films about what the human body could become and now he's making movies about what the human body is + + now in Eastern Promises he's become more talented at disguising his voice (which is also his vision), something I think began at Spider and has progressed.  This is the solid point that I believe I am 100% right on:  Eastern Promises has all the elements of a great Cronenberg film (it being a great Cronenberg film) and, and to me the conversation taking place only reinforces this, it's the unification of all his devices.  AKA you have to actually break this one down and think about what Cronenberg is trying to say.  Everyone here is surely familiar with the Lynchian tactic of taking care of the audience to allow room for self-indulgence, and how Lynch broke down that wall in Indland Empire, which was completely self-indulgent, and brilliant, but not incredibly rewatchable, well instead of retreating into familiar territory and magnifying statements from his past Cronenberg is a filmmaker who's actually developing his themes while creating films that have ostensibly become less of what he is.  I think the corny way of saying this is that films operates on two different levels.

And no one should be surprised I gush at this prospect if they can remember that Squid and the Whale thread.

[Gold Trumpet]

Or like it doesn't matter what the fuck kind of story you give Cronenberg because he's still going to make it about human ugliness and what he used to do is make films about what the human body could become and now he's making movies about what the human body is + + now in Eastern Promises he's become more talented at disguising his voice (which is also his vision), something I think began at Spider and has progressed.

I'm trying to understand this. Because Cronenberg takes a typical story and makes it his own we should compliment him on his achievement? I don't think so. Cronenberg adapts the story to fit his personality, I guess, but he doesn't change the story to truly look different than most other violent films. The cliches and standard devices of plot still overcrowd any chances for good introspection.

This is the solid point that I believe I am 100% right on:  Eastern Promises has all the elements of a great Cronenberg film (it being a great Cronenberg film) and, and to me the conversation taking place only reinforces this, it's the unification of all his devices.  AKA you have to actually break this one down and think about what Cronenberg is trying to say.  Everyone here is surely familiar with the Lynchian tactic of taking care of the audience to allow room for self-indulgence, and how Lynch broke down that wall in Indland Empire, which was completely self-indulgent, and brilliant, but not incredibly rewatchable, well instead of retreating into familiar territory and magnifying statements from his past Cronenberg is a filmmaker who's actually developing his themes while creating films that have ostensibly become less of what he is.  I think the corny way of saying this is that films operates on two different levels.

I think you're operating on the point of rationalization. Eastern Promises has a story that is more familiar to general audiences. Filmmakers shouldn't be complimented for being able to marry their personality to the most standard material. If they do try to do this it should be to challenge the standard norms instead of make their personality and intelligence low grade enough to fit within (as is the case with Eastern Promises) a melodrama.

[w/o horse]

Challenge the standard norm?  Is that really so fucking necessary?  I very much enjoy the essay in the Criterion edition of Shoot the Piano Player in which Kent Jones talks about how during the time Godard and Truffout were the most popular arthouse filmmakers Godard was seen as the more challenging artist, how he was so keen on having like a political agenda and disrupting the image of his nation's ethos and doing etc iconoclast things but how now looking back it's harder to find a way to relate to those Godard films and a lot of it feels jejune or contrived or just frankly embarassing and then there was Truffout who was doing a very different thing.  What Truffout was doing was crafting films, at the time seen as bourgeoisie, because they lacked the qualities mentioned that Godard possessed, but nevertheless crafting films that existed less within their time.  And I think it'd be difficult for anybody to actually make the argument that Godard's films have aged better than Truffout's.

Cronenberg is doing a very Hollywood thing oh yes.  He's not bucking the system in any way.  He's become more like a demented Golden Age director, taking material and brandishing it with his voice.  From a creative standpoint I think that's much much more taxing than the self-indulgence you crave (which is terribly reactionary).

[Chest Rockwell]

Or like it doesn't matter what the fuck kind of story you give Cronenberg because he's still going to make it about human ugliness and what he used to do is make films about what the human body could become and now he's making movies about what the human body is + + now in Eastern Promises he's become more talented at disguising his voice (which is also his vision), something I think began at Spider and has progressed.  This is the solid point that I believe I am 100% right on:  Eastern Promises has all the elements of a great Cronenberg film (it being a great Cronenberg film) and, and to me the conversation taking place only reinforces this, it's the unification of all his devices.  AKA you have to actually break this one down and think about what Cronenberg is trying to say.  Everyone here is surely familiar with the Lynchian tactic of taking care of the audience to allow room for self-indulgence, and how Lynch broke down that wall in Indland Empire, which was completely self-indulgent, and brilliant, but not incredibly rewatchable, well instead of retreating into familiar territory and magnifying statements from his past Cronenberg is a filmmaker who's actually developing his themes while creating films that have ostensibly become less of what he is.  I think the corny way of saying this is that films operates on two different levels.

And no one should be surprised I gush at this prospect if they can remember that Squid and the Whale thread.

That's the thing, though. I don't think his themes really developed much at all from A History of Violence to Eastern Promises. I think he basically used the same ideas in the crafting of the different levels, as you say. So while I love AHOV for the reasons I mentioned (and the same reasons you like Eastern Promises), Eastern Promises is just a repeat for me. Years ahead when we're all talking about Cronenberg's body of work I don't think we'll be saying Eastern Promises is a great progression of ideas, but more a progression of craft. He's becoming more adept at creating a transparent narrative, for better or worse.

[Gold Trumpet]

From a creative standpoint I think that's much much more taxing than the self-indulgence you crave (which is terribly reactionary).

First off, I would never call that as what I want. I've never said it and don't intend to. I doubt many people would equate "challenging norms" and "self indulgence" to be the same thing.

Challenge the standard norm?  Is that really so fucking necessary?  I very much enjoy the essay in the Criterion edition of Shoot the Piano Player in which Kent Jones talks about how during the time Godard and Truffout were the most popular arthouse filmmakers Godard was seen as the more challenging artist, how he was so keen on having like a political agenda and disrupting the image of his nation's ethos and doing etc iconoclast things but how now looking back it's harder to find a way to relate to those Godard films and a lot of it feels jejune or contrived or just frankly embarassing and then there was Truffout who was doing a very different thing.  What Truffout was doing was crafting films, at the time seen as bourgeoisie, because they lacked the qualities mentioned that Godard possessed, but nevertheless crafting films that existed less within their time.  And I think it'd be difficult for anybody to actually make the argument that Godard's films have aged better than Truffout's.

Kent Jones has little right to speak for everyone. Regardless of my own personal feelings, Jean Luc Godard is considered by far the more influential filmmaker of the two. Breathless is considered the first modernist film and many of the attributes in his films are seen in a lot films made today. I'd agree that Truffaut's first three films are influential, but he became an everyman filmmaker afterwards. He has little legacy to give to today's filmmakers because his works became so identifiable with everyone else's after. The criticism of him was that he was making films to just make films. Stanley Kauffmann once said, "When Francios Truffaut has an idea, he makes a film. And sometimes when he doesn't have an idea, he makes a film anyways."

I put to the question to you, what major filmmaker had a career of both challenging films and standard films and saw their best film made within the latter department? I can't think of any. Stanley Kubrick topped out with 2001: A Space Odyssey and Orson Welles with Citizen Kane. Few people consider Elephant Man or Dune to be David Lynch's best as most people don't think the same of Intolerable Cruelty or The Ladykillers for the Coen Brothers. There may be a few exceptions, but I think it's a good rule that is mostly accurate.

[w/o horse]

Well you see, I love The Lady from Shanghai.

[Sleepless]

Watched this last night. Was slightly disappointed. Was hoping for Viggo to just blow me away, but he didn't... Naomi Watts was fine (was actually thinking - does The Painted Veil count as 2007 - cos she was better in that). Don't really have that much to say. Was perfectly good film, if quite predictable. I wanted it to be much better than it was.