|
Favorabilis Solitud posted:They weren't good nor bad. They are just there. Which is still better than quite a bit. See, I would always prefer exceptional badness to mediocrity. Like, if it's a choice between Chasing Amy and The Room...?
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
I feel like people in this thread kind of grasp at straws to poo poo on Kevin Smith. Even if Tusk is probably just going to be average, it's still a completely bonkers premise for a movie and I'm pretty okay with more movies being crazy like that, and if you actively don't want more movies to do crazy poo poo simply because Kevin Smith is doing it you probably need to reevaluate your perspective on this kind of thing.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:I feel like people in this thread kind of grasp at straws to poo poo on Kevin Smith. Even if Tusk is probably just going to be average, it's still a completely bonkers premise for a movie and I'm pretty okay with more movies being crazy like that, and if you actively don't want more movies to do crazy poo poo simply because Kevin Smith is doing it you probably need to reevaluate your perspective on this kind of thing. Eh, not really. It's not exactly grasping at straws to say he makes lovely movies. It's also possible to think the premise is okay, but be disappointed that a bad director is making it. Especially after the really tone-deaf trailer. I don't necessarily care if a premise is or isn't bonkers as long as it's done well. Do I think it will suck because Kevin Smith is writing/directing? Yes. Do I know that? Obviously not, but I only have so much to go one right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:See, I would always prefer exceptional badness to mediocrity. Like, if it's a choice between Chasing Amy and The Room...? Chasing Amy is worse than The Room.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 11:31
|
|
|
That premise for Yoga Hosers does not make me want to see it, neither does the trailer for Tusk. That Kevin Smith is helming the movies makes me feel the execution of the movies will not be good. It's possible that I may be wrong, and these movies will be masterpieces, but I really doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 12:06
|
|
wins.
|
K. Waste posted:See, I would always prefer exceptional badness to mediocrity. Like, if it's a choice between Chasing Amy and The Room...? Chasing Amy is a great movie. If you're gonna poo poo on Kevin Smith, at least poo poo on one of his lovely movies, like "everything except Chasing Amy and maybe Clerks" edit: actually what the hell, I like certain parts of Dogma a lot too. Uncle Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 13:29 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:I feel like people in this thread kind of grasp at straws to poo poo on Kevin Smith.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Chasing Amy is worse than The Room. I agree but not for the reason you think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Chasing Amy is a great movie. Welcome to my ignore list, you loving liar. Just kidding - but I don't think the film is good. The Room is better in every way. Funnier jokes, more competent visual direction, more consistent tone...Wiseau's film has a coherent ideological and narrative message and a visual style that comports with itself all the way through. Chasing Amy's visual storytelling (Smith is a fantastic conversational storyteller ('n poo poo), his defenders point out) is a crapshoot. Every scene is done differently for seemingly no reason, and the commentary repeatedly points out that he was just stealing shots from movies he saw around the same time (alongside other equally smart comments such as "gently caress DVD," which he later apologised for doing) so at least there's an explanation for it. The film conjures an image of an incompetent director all by itself, without any outside influence. With The Room you have bad acting and really bad ADR plus bad writing (in terms of stringing words together), and yet the experiences given by the film feel infinitely more honest and subjective than the smugly-sarcastic adventures of Kevin Smith Man, who learns to be a better person in an offscreen timeskip in the end and then the credits roll. The Room is fairly open about being imagined by Tommy Wiseau himself trying to make sense of his breakup. Both films are thematically linked by the 'IRL ruined relationship the director had' theme. LET'S COMPARE THE FILMS!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
I remember how mature Chasing Amy seemed when I was 17. I genuinely thought it was saying all this adult stuff about relationships.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Welcome to my ignore list, you loving liar. I haven't seen The Room, so I can't comment. But as to the rest, I'm certainly not going to claim that Smith is a brilliant or even a talented visual stylist. But in Chasing Amy, as in Clerks, the limitations work for the movie. In Chasing Amy specifically, it works in the same way Woody Allen works (when he does). The flat, almost theatrical staging serves to draw the focus towards the actors and the content of what they're saying - and between Jason Lee, Joey Lauren Adams, and even Ben Affleck, Chasing Amy certainly has the best performances Smith ever got out of anyone. The bit I always think of is the long take in the bar while Adams and Affleck play darts and people go in and out of the bathrooms behind them. It's completely static, but it's static in a "you are there" way that makes you feel like a fly on the wall observing an intimate moment. And it's not the only long take like that in the movie, so I think Smith knew what he was doing at least a little bit (the film's repeated focus on "shared moments" and what they mean). He's no Steve McQueen (obviously) but that darts scene works the same way the famous long take in Hunger does. As for whether he's stealing shots, so what? Literally every director does this. Bown posted:I remember how mature Chasing Amy seemed when I was 17. I genuinely thought it was saying all this adult stuff about relationships. Hint: it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
Bown posted:I remember how mature Chasing Amy seemed when I was 17. I genuinely thought it was saying all this adult stuff about relationships. Yeah exactly. Chasing Amy is probably Smith's best but a large part of that is the interplay between Affleck and Jason Lee. They're great together. But watching it now almost everything about it the "love story" is embarrassing. That dialogue in the car during Affleck's speech is irredeemable. But to say The Room is better in just about any way other than entertainment...eeesh. And I adore The Room. Uncle Boogeyman posted:
I love this shot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:The bit I always think of is the long take in the bar while Adams and Affleck play darts and people go in and out of the bathrooms behind them. Funnily enough, that's actually the shot I was referring to. If I recall correctly Smith admits he ripped it off from Seven on the commentary. I mentioned it directly in my original post but took it out because there were more. That shot in particular sticks out for you because it sticks out. In the middle of a bunch of (as you say) flat shots, you suddenly get something Artsy. (The Room never does anything near as pretentious as suddenly use A Good Shot it stole from somewhere else, by the way - it captures a very Urban mediocrity perfectly all the time except for basically one exact shot iirc). The darts shot makes everything around it look kind of bad. It's well-done for what it is, but if the appeal of the films is being flat and staged, why is it so different from all the others that it sticks out so much - or, why isn't the whole movie as well-shot as this? At that point he should have nicked more shots from David Fincher. Or maybe written the script and just got Fincher to direct it - you know, cut out the middle man. For a well-directed, well-shot film that features a bunch of folks talking witty, check out Glengarry Glenn Ross. Your post inspired me to go rewatch it right now. Thanks. e: What is the purpose of a shot referencing Seven in a film about a literal comic book lesbian dating a guy? Is it trying to point out how banal Amy's characters are by comparison? Is it aping the comic-book aesthetic of Fincher's late nineties works to make the film 'look like a comic book'? Or is it just 'a good shot' to tide viewers over while more Witty Dialogue plays out and the narrative progresses? Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Glengarry Glen Ross is pretty good. Smith is definitely a huge Mamet fan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:e: What is the purpose of a shot referencing Seven in a film about a literal comic book lesbian dating a guy? Is it trying to point out how banal Amy's characters are by comparison? Is it aping the comic-book aesthetic of Fincher's late nineties works to make the film 'look like a comic book'? Or is it just 'a good shot' to tide viewers over while more Witty Dialogue plays out and the narrative progresses? Look at this guy who thinks Smith thinks things out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
I don't have any problem with a good shot for its own sake.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Here's a crazy thought this thread just gave me in regards to Chasing Amy. Did Smith make the characters in the film too old in the first place? Granted, Lee and Affleck were probably too old at that point to play 17-19yo guys, but if Smith had made the film set in a late-high school or early college setting where the characters were all still developing and evolving emotionally, were less experienced romantically and sexually, would that have made a much more long-term difference in its reception over the years? A sort of, "none of these characters are mature enough to know better" as an excuse for their dialog, behavior, attitudes, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
I mean the whole point of Holden as a character is that he's wildly immature. The movie's got scene after scene of people giving him good advice that he then misinterprets in the worst possible way, because he only hears what he wants to hear. I don't find the idea of a 25 year old comic book artist being bad at understanding women/romantic relationships too hard to swallow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:e: What is the purpose of a shot referencing Seven in a film about a literal comic book lesbian dating a guy? It's s subtle hint that Alyssa is a sociopath who uses her sexuality as a weapon to murder friendships. What's in the box? Unsold back issues of the Death of Chronic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Zack and Miri was on tv at the bar with no sound last night. Was that movie filmed in a weird frame rate or something? It looked soap opera-y and cheap and it was really off putting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Hint: it is. It really isn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:Zack and Miri was on tv at the bar with no sound last night. Was that movie filmed in a weird frame rate or something? It looked soap opera-y and cheap and it was really off putting. Any chance it was a newer LED TV that has that god awful anti-motion blurring technology? Otherwise, I have never noticed anything strange about the film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:Zack and Miri was on tv at the bar with no sound last night. Was that movie filmed in a weird frame rate or something? It looked soap opera-y and cheap and it was really off putting. The tv might have had MotionPlus (or whatever it's called) turned on, a computer algoritm that turns all video sources to 60FPS by interpolating frames. Everything on the television looks like a soap opera. Z&M is ugly and badly shot, as I recall, but it doesn't have that soap opera effect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
I've known dudes older than Holden with even dumber attitudes about relationships, his age in the film is not an issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:Any chance it was a newer LED TV that has that god awful anti-motion blurring technology? Otherwise, I have never noticed anything strange about the film. It might have been that but I've never noticed that effect at that bar before (I'm a regular) but then usually they're showing sports or South Park so I don't know if the effect would be as pronounced with those.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:e: What is the purpose of a shot referencing Seven in a film about a literal comic book lesbian dating a guy? Is it trying to point out how banal Amy's characters are by comparison? Is it aping the comic-book aesthetic of Fincher's late nineties works to make the film 'look like a comic book'? Or is it just 'a good shot' to tide viewers over while more Witty Dialogue plays out and the narrative progresses? Smith liked the shot and wanted to use the shot, don't overthink it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I don't have any problem with a good shot for its own sake. Good films use shots purposefully. Otherwise they stick out and end up as window dressing - that Chasing Amy shot is an advertisement for someone else's creativity. I thought this film was about unique, creative people. Artists and their art. What does it say that the film's best stuff is borrowed? Also Woody Allen's films frequently use visuals excellently, such as Manhattan's excellent Planetarium scene (which also uses still unmoving shots of characters interacting with one another and developing an intimacy), which is on YouTube but not in a quality worth linking. Not just in terms of bare cinematography, I'm talking editing as well, subjective perspectives, that sort of thing. Films like Annie Hall take place on a special level of reality - remember in Annie Hall where, for that one shot from the racist old lady's point of view, he's dressed Full Hasidic? Nothing in Smith's work is as inventive as that - except Strike Back, which is legit his actual best film and fun. Uncle Boogeyman posted:I mean the whole point of Holden as a character is that he's wildly immature. The movie's got scene after scene of people giving him good advice that he then misinterprets in the worst possible way, because he only hears what he wants to hear. PassTheRemote posted:Smith liked the shot and wanted to use the shot, don't overthink it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:At the end of the movie Holder learns his lesson, magically, through events we never get to see. There's some mysterious growing-up he does. It ends up looking like a reflexive "but I'm better than that now, I promise!" on Smith's part and conveys very little actual learning. It's a film about the director, and it portrays the director as an idiot who wants to look cool. What? No he doesn't. Do you actually think he and Alyssa are gonna end up together again? Hell, in Strikes Back, Smith shows that even he knows that didn't pan out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:What? No he doesn't. Do you actually think he and Alyssa are gonna end up together again? Hell, in Strikes Back, Smith shows that even he knows that didn't pan out. So the film's ending is completely meaningless? ...Which one of us is defending the film again?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
weekly font posted:But to say The Room is better in just about any way other than entertainment...eeesh. And I adore The Room. When weighing the pro's and con's of mediocre works versus exceptionally bad works, entertainment is literally the only thing that matters. Glen or Glenda, The Room, Troll 2, The Miami Connection, all of these are independent movies that do far more with their limited budgets than Kevin Smith ever did. He doesn't win points in my book for making movies that any studio hack could have made but more foul-mouthed and cheaper. Yeah, being an independent filmmaker gives him the creative leeway to explore subject matter that other filmmakers don't have access to - but because he still makes bland, commercially derivative films, this is just pretension. Uncle Boogeyman posted:But in Chasing Amy, as in Clerks, the limitations work for the movie. In Chasing Amy specifically, it works in the same way Woody Allen works (when he does). The flat, almost theatrical staging serves to draw the focus towards the actors and the content of what they're saying - and between Jason Lee, Joey Lauren Adams, and even Ben Affleck, Chasing Amy certainly has the best performances Smith ever got out of anyone. The bit I always think of is the long take in the bar while Adams and Affleck play darts and people go in and out of the bathrooms behind them. It's completely static, but it's static in a "you are there" way that makes you feel like a fly on the wall observing an intimate moment. And it's not the only long take like that in the movie, so I think Smith knew what he was doing at least a little bit (the film's repeated focus on "shared moments" and what they mean).    I should note that, just so no context is lost, this scene is introduced after Affleck's character ends up putting his foot in his mouth after making too many Catholic molestations jokes. Actually, I'm not certain if that's supposed to be the emotion of the scene, or if it's just supposed to be an awkward pause of dead air in the conversation between he and Adams, because the pause itself doesn't last long enough for awkwardness to sink in (as anything other than a direction in the script which Smith doesn't linger on), and because I'm never certain in Smith's dialog what precisely the difference is between putting one's foot in one's mouth and doing what all the characters already do, which is go on and on and on and on... Contrast this with the awkward silence of the Jack Rabbit Slim's scene in Pulp Fiction, where Tarantino uses the ambiance of the room and close-ups of his actors to punctuate the naturalism of a scene that's obviously hyperreal. Furthermore, contrast Smith's style of writing with similar filmmakers who are known for long dialog that mingles the absurd with the banal, such as Jim Jarsmusch or Richard Linklater or Woody Allen. I think it's interesting that you praise what you see as Smith's theatricality, because what makes the works (especially the early ones) of these filmmakers theatrical isn't that it focuses on the actors and what they're saying - lots of films do this, doing it in a static shot doesn't make it theatrical. Theatrics to me has much more to do with the timing and rhythm of a scene, and in a film this connotes to exploiting the medium to borrow from the structure of theater. Allen and Jarmusch are very good at this. In the case of their films like Annie Hall and Coffee & Cigarettes, the cut ending a scene functions as a 'black out' that punctuates the conclusion of a scene while drawing the spectator into the next scene regardless of whether or not they take place in continuous time, or even regardless of whether they have anything to do with each other. Linklater has a similarly theatrical aesthetic in Slacker, except rather than using the cut - attempting to create the illusion of a continuous 24-hour odyssey - his characters' actions function as the 'black out' which concludes one scene and automatically instigates another. These are filmmakers who draw upon previous films and theatrical conventions in order to expand the possibilities of both mediums - the film does something which a play can not do, and by extension the film becomes something more than a film. Let's analyze the sequence of shots in the bar. Now, you would think that, given a theatrical aesthetic, the awkward pause between Adams and Affleck would be the perfect moment for the 'black out,' to jump immediately to the next tableau in the film-play. To me, this pause not only expresses naturalism, but foreshadows the eventual disintegration of their relationship. It's here, the conclusion of their brief 'clever' - really, just off-collar - conversation that we get the intimation that these characters don't really have that much in common. It's not love at first sight. They're still going through the motions of two people who may be sexually attracted to each other, but can't find anything to talk about without him trying to make himself sound smarter than he is, and her feigning interest. (This is a cliche dynamic.) Instead, however, the pause doesn't last long enough to express any tone or emotion other than 'a pause is happening,' and is interrupted by this exchange: "You play darts?" "Not professionally, you know. Only in bars." Cut to, the close-up of the dart board. Cut to, the shot everybody loves so much. This last line of dialog and the following close-up are totally non-essential information. They don't establish anything other than rudimentary diegesis, which is all going to be made obvious anyway by the 'fly on the wall' shot from over the dartboard at Adams and Affleck. I talked about this previously in regards to Clerks - despite the fact that Smith's strength is obviously in certain parts of his dialog, he is constantly burdening himself and his film with unnecessary diegetic information that reminds me less of theater (which, as you say, excuses a substantial amount of diegetic information in favor of focusing on what the characters do and say) and more of a million better shot, more expensive, better acted romantic comedies that I've seen before and which have no ambition to challenge the medium or spectator in the way that Jarmusch, Allen, and Linklater have done. Chasing Amy is less like a mediocre version of a film by those filmmakers (two of them obvious influences on Smith), and more like a cheap knock-off of About Last Night... Both films use extended dialog filled with vulgarity to create the feeling of naturalism, rely heavily on a pop sensibility (thankfully, Chasing Amy only has/can only afford one really hammy, unconvincing date montage), focus on a male lead whose obsession with one woman is revealed as a projection of his insecurities and who has a foul-mouthed friend in a 'gay panic.' Chasing Amy isn't any less pandering than About Last Night.... Its distinction is that as an independent feature it has even less of an excuse to be as highly homogenized as it is, despite its appropriation of queer-positive and third wave feminist themes. Sure, About Last Night... ends with an absurd, saccharine, hopeful ending, but so does Chasing Amy. The fact that he 'doesn't get the girl' in the end is immaterial, because in both cases everyone conveniently forgets just how predatory Affleck/Lowe reveals himself as being, which actually ends up being worse than his best bud who, while being homophobic and sexist, respects the independence of women. Everyone smiles and remembers each other with a sense of fond nostalgia, even though this is the guy who attempted to entrap them in a three-way to appease his own narcissism, that this is the guy who sexually assaulted his best friend, which the film plays off as a legitimate revelation of his latent bisexuality. But the film localizes the problem with Affleck's character in his insecurity (the only thing Silent Bob talks about), not in the phallic possession of others regardless of gender/sex. And this is absolutely a problem with Smith's writing as well. There's no delineation between characters being profound and speaking to the themes of the film (talking at the spectator), or just talking out of their asses. Consequently there's also no delineation between deflating the insecurities of men within a patriarchal structure and falling back on the tired melodramatic conceit of the 'problem' of female socialization. It's very similar to the later Mike Binder film The Sex Monster (which similarly uses static photography and Allen-esque set ups, though much more successfully than Smith), where the obvious text that the insecure man's attempt to control his partner's sexuality actually results in her becoming before his eyes the titular 'sex monster,' is really more emblematic of the regressive stereotype that men 'just can't handle' the socialization of women. This implicit phallocentrism uses satire as misdirection from what is actually the re-imposition of convenient social binaries. K. Waste fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Holy poo poo you are being boring film nerds. Here is my wall of text: Kevin Smith movies are funny, I don't care about artistic merit, I've never enjoyed anything Woody Allen made.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Holy poo poo you are being boring film nerds. This post is far more boring than anything anybody else has posted here. Would you suggest we just "turn our brains off"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
I would suggest you turn his movies off and throw them in the trash, because they aint so swell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Drunkboxer posted:I would suggest you turn his movies off and throw them in the trash, because they aint so swell. Nerd. Have you ever made a movie? Who are you to judge?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
I would say we watch his films because we love movies, and not liking something and thinking it's bad doesn't mean it's not worthwhile discussing or analyzing.MattD1zzl3 posted:I like mediocrity, I am a Philistine, and I latch onto impertinent details.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Kevin Smith's movies are pretty lovely though, and I find it hard to justify this level of effort and thought that is being put into discussing them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Have you guys heard about Kevin Smith's celebrity feuds? Wow!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:So the film's ending is completely meaningless? How did you read the ending of the film, exactly? I read it as yet another in a series of poor decisions by a chronically hopeless romantic who can't move on. It's a one-sided version of the ending to Eternal Sunshine, basically. I know this is addressed at me, but I'm not gonna lie, you're gonna need to edit it down considerably if you want me to read it. I know my one paragraph was great, but I'm not sure it necessitated an eight paragraph response. Uncle Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Your tl;dr  sentiment doesn't make his post any less fascinating to me.Smith really was trying to be an artist for a while before he decided that if he wasn't trying, nobody could criticize him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
I've been thinking a lot about the parallels between Tarantino and Smith recently. They both hit it big on the independent scene after their debut films got picked up by the Weinsteins and both are film aficionados that went from being the audience to the content producers. To me, Tarantino is basically everything that Smith should have been, or at least aspired to be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 23:10
|
|