|
Twin Cinema posted:I agree. My two favourite moments from the film are when he starts relating to the Future by talking about the shaving his friend's back, and the whole scene where he meets Jesus (Him pushing aside all the slaves, and then "squint(ing) against the grandeur"). To me the highlight is near the end, when he's excitedly telling Mannix about all he learned from the Communists, and he sort of gets it but not entirely ("It's from a book called Kapital, with a K!") He's ultimately just as well-meaning and naive as the cowboy hero. An interesting parallel I noticed with this movie is it takes place in the same kind of environment as The Man Who Wasn't There- a postwar America where things are about to change pretty dramatically for the kind of people portrayed in it. Mannix's job isn't terribly secure, as the Lockheed guy hints, but it's not because movies are on the way out, but because the central studio system is already falling apart and becoming more atomised, and a "fixer" only works if your talent is under lock and key and you have control over them. Granted it took a while, and he might see out most of the rest of the decade, but even by the time the period portrays, you had the unions (which did in fact start arguing for things like residuals) and actors negotiating great individual deals (Jimmy Stewart in Winchester 73, in 1950, was a watershed), etc. It was a transitional period. That's one of the interesting ironies of the film. The guys calling themselves "The Future" are right in the sense that a change is coming, but they're just dupes for a foreign power and won't actually see through an actual revolution. It's an odd decision to portray the kind of guys who got caught up in the Blacklist as outright Soviet pawns (and actively trying to insert propaganda in their work), but I think the Coens are going for a kind of absurdity, and of course they're ultimately harmless.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:07 |
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I'm not sure I understood that scene either. Did movie stars do porn on the side or is it a LA Confidential look-alike type deal? Publicity was thought to be under the purview of the studio you were contracted to. It's not that she was making porn, it's more that in that era doing something like Maxim would be a minor scandal that might taint an actress being groomed to be whatever. Movie stars didn't appear in girlie mags. Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield and the like were famous because they'd done pinup, not the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
I'm currently in a movie theatre about to watch Hail, Caesar! for a second time. Usually it takes me a second viewing to enjoy Coen brothers movies, but I fall in love after. So we'll see if it holds up on a second viewing. On an tangential note, they're showing trailers for Alice Through The Looking Glass before the movie. Am I crazy or does that look good?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
I'd lean on the "you're crazy" side. It looks like complete dogshit to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Caught it tonight with the wife. We both loved it. I think everybody's basically said how I felt about it, other than that I love portrayals of L.A. in the 40's and 50's. It was a really beautiful city back then. Grossly segregated, of course, and that hasn't changed much in the ensuing decades, but still, I love the style of that age. Also, I want to see spinoff short films for a lot of the non-Brolin major characters. Particularly Ralph Fiennes as the director. Does anyone else think his character may have been based off of David Lean, by the way? quote:That's one of the interesting ironies of the film. The guys calling themselves "The Future" are right in the sense that a change is coming, but they're just dupes for a foreign power and won't actually see through an actual revolution. It's an odd decision to portray the kind of guys who got caught up in the Blacklist as outright Soviet pawns (and actively trying to insert propaganda in their work), but I think the Coens are going for a kind of absurdity, and of course they're ultimately harmless. Yeah, that was the way I read it myself: they existed as a hapless version of how the McCarthyites imagined Communists in Hollywood. They're a fifth column, but not a particularly good one. As it turned out in real life, that's not how leftist writers and intellectuals at the time behaved at all, but this twist on reality is that much more fun for a reason. Majorian fucked around with this message at 11:07 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 11:03
|
|
|
Was this a movie anyone else could have been another hour for them? I know it's box office poison but I really would have preferred the movie to go on longer which is a real first for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Second viewing didn't help much. I thought the film was, for the most part, "funny" in a "oh I get it" sort of way instead of an actually in-the-moment, funny way. I guess I would have to have lived in that time to truly appreciate the film. This is definitely a movie for 50s cinema industry buffs, which is an extremely small niche. And niche films are great for those in the niche but it's just not for me. It's a shame, because I really really wanted to enjoy this film. And yes, I was crazy for thinking Alice Through The Looking Glass looked good. Must've been the chocolate I was eating during the trailers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Was this a movie anyone else could have been another hour for them? I know it's box office poison but I really would have preferred the movie to go on longer which is a real first for me. Honestly if the only thing they added were more fake movie scenes I would be down for another hour of that. Like they could have spoofed classic monster movies, or Douglas Sirk stuff, or sci-fi from the time period. Basically I want to just watch the Coens make more fake movies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:Honestly if the only thing they added were more fake movie scenes I would be down for another hour of that. Like they could have spoofed classic monster movies, or Douglas Sirk stuff, or sci-fi from the time period. This. The whole "On The Town/Dames At Sea" spoof with Channing Tatum may not have added much to the story, but boy was it a beautifully executed scene. More stuff like that would have been great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
If anyone hasn't read it, City of Nets was the Coens' big influence to make "Barton Fink" and is full of behind-the-scenes insane/weird/hilarious stories like the ones that make up Caesar. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00GLS2IZ0/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:Honestly if the only thing they added were more fake movie scenes I would be down for another hour of that. Like they could have spoofed classic monster movies, or Douglas Sirk stuff, or sci-fi from the time period. Oh man. Let's see, what genres would I have wanted to see? I wish there was a full-length version of Merrily We Dance. Seeing Mannix have to deal with some of the drugged-up musical stars of the era, like Judy Garland with her uppers, would've been dark, but potentially funny. I think I have to agree with whomever upthread said it should've been a miniseries. No way they could've gotten the budget for it, but having a week in the life of Eddie Mannix would allow the Christ allusions a chance to breathe and more of the super fun pastiches.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
edit: Spoilers! Saw this last night - people aren't kidding that it's a lot to digest! The plot doesn't feel like a real "plot," it's more like you're just witnessing a string of events. It's a slice of life film, except the slice captures an entire studio... lots of themes of authenticity, the role of entertainment, integrity, what it takes to be a good person, etc. Mannix's arc is really odd. He begins the film by slapping a woman - this makes you hate him, but so much happens in the film that by the end you've grown sympathetic, but at the very end he is revealed once again to be a pretty heartless businessman. The audience is tricked into thinking that he's chosen art over business, but not really, he's pure business! Anyways, I'm gonna be thinking about this one for a while. Veskit posted:Was this a movie anyone else could have been another hour for them? I know it's box office poison but I really would have preferred the movie to go on longer which is a real first for me. Absolutely - in fact, I almost think this might have worked better as a miniseries?... Like, 5 one-hour episodes revolving around Capital films in production and Mannix's life. Polo-Rican fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Glad to see this film is getting pretty good reviews, love me some Coen Brothers and just watched Raising Arizona and O' Brother this past weekend. Caesar definitely looks like fun 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Transistor Rhythm posted:If anyone hasn't read it, City of Nets was the Coens' big influence to make "Barton Fink" and is full of behind-the-scenes insane/weird/hilarious stories like the ones that make up Caesar. City of Nets is a great book.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
Something popped into my head this morning: When Clooney threatens to rat out the communists who kidnapped him, they retort with the title of his first movie, which rumors claim he only got it via buttsex. Now, at the end of the film, we're told that it's bullshit, spread by Channing Tatum. It works. Things is, Clooney reacts to that initial threat with a  look. Did this imply, for anyone else, that it was actually true? Was Mannix lying at the end to get Tilda to drop the story, source be damned?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Something popped into my head this morning: The issue was not that the source for that story was lying, it was that the source for that story was a communist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Something popped into my head this morning: The way Mannix reacted when it was first invoked told me it was definitely true. It wasn't until he heard the source was Tatum's character, a newly defected communist, that he had a solid defense against the rumor. Before that he was just bluffing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Did anybody notice that Baird Whitlock's name in the book of Communist party members was a loose end? There's no way it wasn't left in on purpose. I liked it. Another mess for Eddie to clean up. Majorian posted:This. The whole "On The Town/Dames At Sea" spoof with Channing Tatum may not have added much to the story, but boy was it a beautifully executed scene. More stuff like that would have been great. Not really sure what to say to the people complaining that it wasn't a "real" comedy. It's a Coen brothers movie, you know it's going to be unusual when you go in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
How does this compare to Burn after reading?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Michaellaneous posted:How does this compare to Burn after reading? Similarly rambling (in a good way), much sillier and cleaner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Michaellaneous posted:How does this compare to Burn after reading? equally satirical of the opposite subject
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
"He's a bachelor. And he's very angry!" is a great description of G-d.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Transistor Rhythm posted:If anyone hasn't read it, City of Nets was the Coens' big influence to make "Barton Fink" and is full of behind-the-scenes insane/weird/hilarious stories like the ones that make up Caesar. I have now ordered this. I've also been listening to You Must Remember This, an amazing podcast that covered the history of MGM in great detail, and is now doing an equally great series on the blacklist. Does anyone have any other books/documentaries/films/etc. that covers this similar period in Hollywood history?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Saw a preview screening of this (doesn't open in the UK properly until Friday) and absolutely loved it. I loving adore how the Coens set all these plates spinning and then just let them all crash to the floor not really giving a poo poo. Not one of their all-time classics but still extremely funny, clever, and well-made. Anyone know any good essays or thinkpieces I can read?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
I watched it today and I enjoyed it. I didn't find it as funny as some of their other comedies and I can see why some people don't like it but I really enjoy films and shows that are just 'a day in the life' sort of things. I also have to echo the opinions on the fake movie scenes, those were put together awesomely especially the musical number in the bar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
Michaellaneous posted:How does this compare to Burn after reading? The trailers for Hail, Caesar! made me think we were getting something Burn After Reading-esque, but it felt completely different to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
This movie was really self-indulgent on Coen's part, but very fun nevertheless. The best gag was unplanned by them, though, which is that the movie was preceded by a trailer of Risen, which is the exact same plot as the in-movie Hail, Caesar!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 11:48
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:self-indulgent Can you or someone else explain this term to me as it applies to filmmakers? I see it as a really common criticism of films but it doesn't seem to really mean anything. I would say that the act of making any art at all is self-indulgent, almost by definition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:Can you or someone else explain this term to me as it applies to filmmakers? I see it as a really common criticism of films but it doesn't seem to really mean anything. I would say that the act of making any art at all is self-indulgent, almost by definition. Part of the unwritten contract between storyteller and audience is that the former will tell the latter an entertaining story that adheres to a (rough) framework: character introduction, inciting incident, character development/rising action, climax, denouement. When a storyteller breaks from this formula, they are in some way betraying the trust that the audience has put in them, and if this breakage comes in the form of indulging in the act of telling for reasons having only to do with their personal enjoyment and nothing whatsoever to do with the satisfaction of the audience, then they are open to claims that they are being self-indulgent. Take, for example, the many set pieces in Hail, Caesar! They are all very enjoyable as individual scenes yet none of them adds anything to the story that the film is telling, which is set up as "A Day In the Life of Eddie Mannix." These bravura scenes are without narrative substance, and because of the obvious attention paid to these scenes, many critics label them as being the result of the Coen Brothers being self-indulgent. Obviously self-indulgence in storytelling has an eye of the beholder quality to it, but something like Hail, Caesar! is about as good a quantitative example of self-indulgence by directors as you're ever going to see, especially if you're well enough versed in the Coen Brothers' oeuvre to know their particular peccadillos. EDIT: This is offered by way of explanation, not exactly criticism of Hail, Caesar!. I think that the Coen Brothers achieved exactly what they set out to with the movie, which happened to fit the label of self-indulgent from the start, and they're accomplished enough filmmakers that I basically trust them to make the movies they want to make. centaurtainment fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
centaurtainment posted:Part of the unwritten contract between storyteller and audience is that the former will tell the latter an entertaining story that adheres to a (rough) framework: character introduction, inciting incident, character development/rising action, climax, denouement. When a storyteller breaks from this formula, they are in some way betraying the trust that the audience has put in them, and if this breakage comes in the form of indulging in the act of telling for reasons having only to do with their personal enjoyment and nothing whatsoever to do with the satisfaction of the audience, then they are open to claims that they are being self-indulgent. if you consider the movie a comedy, long humorous scenes that do nothing to advance the plot fit in quite well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:if you consider the movie a comedy, long humorous scenes that do nothing to advance the plot fit in quite well. The Big Lebowski is the Coen Brothers' best comedy and doesn't have an ounce of fat on it. Try harder at being contrarian.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
centaurtainment posted:Part of the unwritten contract between storyteller and audience is that the former will tell the latter an entertaining story that adheres to a (rough) framework: character introduction, inciting incident, character development/rising action, climax, denouement. When a storyteller breaks from this formula, they are in some way betraying the trust that the audience has put in them, and if this breakage comes in the form of indulging in the act of telling for reasons having only to do with their personal enjoyment and nothing whatsoever to do with the satisfaction of the audience, then they are open to claims that they are being self-indulgent. So, in your view, the aim of making a film is (or should be) to satisfy an audience and in doing so adhere to a traditional storytelling structure. I can't get on board with that premise so the term "self indulgent" still has no real meaning or value to me. Also you can't possibly discern what was and wasn't intended to "satisfy the audience." Those extended set pieces are regarded by many as a strong point of the film so your whole point about it being a self indulgent work, based on the definition you presented, kinda falls apart.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
This movie is self-indulgent as hell. Are you kidding me? It's just the Coens indulging themselves in a bunch of stuff from classic Hollywood they love. It doesn't feel like they made it to express a point or a worldview like usual and more because they just wanted to put all this stuff in a movie. This movie is also proof that self-indulgent is not necessarily a negative term, because it's loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:So, in your view, the aim of making a film is (or should be) to satisfy an audience and in doing so adhere to a traditional storytelling structure. I can't get on board with that premise so the term "self indulgent" still has no real meaning or value to me. Also you can't possibly discern what was and wasn't intended to "satisfy the audience." Those extended set pieces are regarded by many as a strong point of the film so your whole point about it being a self indulgent work, based on the definition you presented, kinda falls apart. I think the problem is that "self-indulgent" isn't necessarily a criticism of a work's quality, though it is largely deployed as one, especially when discussing Hail, Caesar!. Like I wrote, I wasn't making a quality judgment, just trying to explain what the term might mean in a vacuum and then why it has been applied to the film under discussion. But since I'm getting the idea that your question was of the rhetorical variety and you have no honest desire to understand the concept, I can't do much more for you than that...
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
I think the key scene in this film is when Brolin slaps Clooney for saying Capitol Pictures doesn't make movies with any artistic value. That's the "world view' the Coens are expressing here- for all of the petty bullshit and drama surrounding Hollywood and and narcissistic actors and directors, and dumb tabloid crap, they have a respect for people still putting effort into their craft trying to make something good and enduring. All of the brief film scenes we see are actually good! The sailor dance number is impressive, the cowboy singer actually pulls out a good performance once the lines have been modified for him (And his song in the singing western he makes isn't bad), the mermaid thing involved some quite good choreography... Even Clooney's big scene from the Jesus movie captures the attention of all of everyone filming the movie, though he flubs the line about faith...much like how he had lost faith in the movie he was making. Interestingly, the younger Coens seemed more cynical about Hollywood art in Barton Fink (It's even about the same company, Capitol Pictures). Now they seem to be more positive and believe that the efforts are worth it- Or they're hopeful that they're worth it, at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
I gotta say, I'm very mixed on this film. I enjoyed the 'heightened' take on McCarthy era, but it was a let down in the plot department. Mannix discovers the plot, offscreen and mentions the 'mystery' solution in conversation. I thought it was a huge letdown - I was expecting the silliness or drama to ramp up, instead it's resolved in dialogue. That's a real bummer for me. The endless cameo appearances were also kind of distracting. Jonah Hill, Frances McDorman, Wayne Knight, Scarlett Johansson and Ralph Fiennes have perhaps 2 scenes each. Actually, Jonah Hill shows up exactly once and then is mentioned in dialogue. Why bother? It just felt like the Coens made a list of their friends or people they wanted to hang out with and then wrote them parts. What I did enjoy in this, was the vignettes and the cowboy plotline. It really brought me back to watching 'ancient' westerns and roman epics on free-to-air TV in the 90's - without cable in Australia, you had 3 - 5 channels, so picking were slim. Every now and then luck would strike and there'd be something amazing, like Ben Hur and it was a big deal. The films felt so old - bad vhs transfers, transmitted analog, to a cheap antenna. The slow, oldness seemed to make them even more dreamlike and painterly. Hail, Caesar, really brought me back to that and it was unexpected.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
centaurtainment posted:The Big Lebowski is the Coen Brothers' best comedy and doesn't have an ounce of fat on it. The one-man show.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 11:20
|
|
|
well why not posted:I gotta say, I'm very mixed on this film. I enjoyed the 'heightened' take on McCarthy era, but it was a let down in the plot department. Mannix discovers the plot, offscreen and mentions the 'mystery' solution in conversation. I thought it was a huge letdown - I was expecting the silliness or drama to ramp up, instead it's resolved in dialogue. That's a real bummer for me. The arc of the film is, I think, Mannix's crisis of faith and rediscovery of meaning in his job as a fixer. Within that, I don't think that the kidnapping plot is resolved offscreen. Rather, the kidnapping plot is part of the "heightened McCarty era" take on Mannix, where his being a fixer is something with national impact and importance. The resolution of the kidnapping plot, then, isn't the communists being arrested offscreen but Mannix slapping Whitlock back in to respecting the studio (or at least doing what they say). Whitlock then goes on to give a great inspirational speech that rallies everyone around great American-Christian virtue. Or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Perhaps some might say the movie is "self-indulgent" because it requires now-esoteric knowledge of 50s cinema and Hollywood to truly appreciate. Without that context the movie might just come off as an iteration of self-contained events and characters that have no resonance in the story beyond their respective scenes. To an outsider, it would appear that the Coens are pulling a succession of "Hey, remember this?" gags for an older audience, or perhaps an audience with "false nostalgia" for the 50s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:07 |
|
|
SciFiDownBeat posted:Perhaps some might say the movie is "self-indulgent" because it requires now-esoteric knowledge of 50s cinema and Hollywood to truly appreciate. Without that context the movie might just come off as an iteration of self-contained events and characters that have no resonance in the story beyond their respective scenes. To an outsider, it would appear that the Coens are pulling a succession of "Hey, remember this?" gags for an older audience, or perhaps an audience with "false nostalgia" for the 50s. Some might say that, I suppose, but I wouldn't agree. I'm not that well versed in 50's pop cinema but I still found those sequences extraordinarily entertaining and integral to the point the Coens were making (seriously, guy who thought that this movie wasn't saying anything?). But I guess if you can't get lost for a few minutes in that Channing Tatum dance sequence then this movie just won't work for you. The Coens are the Eddie Mannix character, constantly putting out fires, dealing with political pressures, eccentric personalities, and grinding out films, but they see value in the endeavor because of the occasional moments of sublimity the movies can offer. This is a very personal film for them, and that point may be lost on people who just can't relate. Maybe that's why people think it's self-indulgent, but I still think that the goal of any artistic endeavor is to "indulge" yourself and create something that has personal meaning to you, and just hope that others connect with it as well. That's why I still think that term doesn't have any value in a discussion of art.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 20:01
|
|