the LAST FILM YOU'VE SEEN thread

As you know, I usually prefer not to negatively comment on what a certain critic has said, partly because he or she isn’t here to respond to it, but mainly due to the fact that the conversation then often simply becomes a medley of quotes and interpretations. But in this case, I’ll first add what director Keren Yedaya had to say about Dargis's remarks: "One thing to understand about Dargis is that she is actually coming from this field of study, and she holds an oppositional approach to mine, claiming that prostitution has to do with the freedom to choose. Since she is all for legalizing prostitution, I think she sees me as her enemy. Therefore, I truly believe that the attack on me here was both political and personal. Although I usually don’t have a problem accepting negative criticism about the film, I found the review to be really insulting."

Now that I’ve read Dargis’s review more carefully, I think there’s some truth to what Yedaya had said. Her comment regarding the characters being ideological constructs is actually irritatingly naïve. Are the filmmakers not allowed to mold their characters around their beliefs? But while critics shouldn’t repress their own ideologies while viewing a work, they have certain responsibilities to their readers that they must also attend to. Dargis has a strong personality, and that’s one of the reason why I do like her, but in this case she her allowed her own views to get the better of her. (She also ended up mentioning the word "melodramatic” in her review for a film which adheres to Dardennes’ naturalism.) And while it’s true that a woman’s "desire" is perhaps not explored enough by filmmakers, it might not be one the main reasons why a prostitute’s offspring ends up in the same line of work. The film's approach is anything but didactic; it actually confronts the viewers with a few humanistic questions. As I mentioned earlier, it is now out on DVD and I hope that people get a chance to watch it.

Good answer. Thank you. I can't comment myself since I haven't seen the film.

Goodbye South Goodbye (1996) - Hou Hsiao Hsien

A rapid departure from Hsiao's previous Good Men Good Women, this is more akin to Liang's Rebels of the Neon God than typical Hsiao. The joy is that this director could stretch, and his next film, the masterful Flowers of Shanghai, is nothing like this. Similar things abound such as the long shots, but tone and theme are remarkably different. The camera becomes more subjective here. Sure much of it is still in long shot and observational, but there are many more POV shots than one might suspect, and the camera is much more mobile this time around.

Goodbye is what one may consider Hsiao's gangster film. Sure this deals with part time thugs, but it's not an ultra violent gore fest most commonly associated with Hong Kong action films. Instead it is more of a social critique. As one luckless gangster seems to do just worse and worse all because he was trying to come up in the world. Not quite the rise to power films that are commonly associated with the genre. In fact the film takes on a bit of a black comedy undertone, because Kao and Flathead are just so damn unfortunate.

The film was selected by more than one source as one of the ten best films of the 90s. That praise is exceptionally high, and I much disagree. It is however a welcome departure for Hsiao, and a film that is infinitely masterful. Another viewing would no doubt enable me much further understanding, but on first impression it is quite a remarkable film, but let's not go overboard.

Grade A -

This was my first Hou movie. It seemed rather dissultory and strange to me, but I could see here was a unique style. As I said for Three Times, I don't think Hou always hits it, but when he does, he's amazing. I would probably agree with your evaluation; fine, but not the best. Still you must rate him higher than most to give it an A-.

I thought it was damn good, just not quite perfect, I'm comparing it perhaps unfairly to Flowers of Shanghai which I believe is his masterpiece (of the six films I've seen).

Shine (1996) - Scott Hicks

Well, well I once remarked that I'll see every film nominated for a best picture Oscar, so this film that I should have seen four years ago at least took me awhile. It doubles up for me covering a best actor Oscar winner as well, which means I've seen the last 30 winners of that award, a pointless streak, but we need incriments. This film shouldn't have seemed like a chore though. I found 1996 to be arguably the weakest year in feature films in the last 20+ years. I'm always interested to discover perhaps a hidden gem, something I haven't yet seen, but Shine wasn't that. Instead it was a by the book, predictable, and extremely cliche film made for the sole purpose of winning awards.

How many times have you seen a film around Oscar time about a troubled genius, mental illness, a strict disapproving father, redemption in later life through love, and squandered talent? Well hell look at every year's best picture nominees and it's quite possible there's a film there that fits all the above. Shine just makes up for it because Fargo avoided those cliches I guess. Geoffrey Rush is admirable in his role here, and brings some humor to the troubled part, but I never believe it's anything more than a gimmick role. Acting shouldn't be about developing a speech pattern, pretending to be crazy, but about conveying real emotion, and I don't really think Rush does that here. Noah Taylor, who plays the younger David does that, and his screen time is even greater than Rush's so perhaps the wrong man got the Oscar here. Neither really deserved it, but perhaps in a supporting category they could have been honored.

I can't help but cringe at some of these films. Seeing the stern father storm about in the beginning of the film I knew where this film was heading, I just prayed that this would be different. Something told me to remain optimistic, maybe this filmwouldn't go down the same roads that so many other triumph in the face of adversity pics do. Unfortunately it wasn't different, the same thing, and the tone of the film from the first fifteen minutes prevaded throughout. I do think that Rush's appearance helped make the film a little lighter, and you can't help but laugh at some of the things he does, such as jumping on a trampoline in an open trenchcoat with nothing on underneath, but these few flashes of humor aren't enough to sustain the film.

Grade C -

Absolutely. I found Shine very, very annoying. I ractually made me angry; I was seething for days. It was fake and manipulative. And it has all those clichés you mention. An Oscar trap, like a fly trap.

Agreed The Flowers of Shanghai is way better than the Boys... But I have not seen all Hou's output yet. It's not all available on Netflix.

Distant (2002)

Well my introduction to Turkish film was a good one. It's pace is set up early in extreme long shot. The film has a deliberately slow pace that suits it just fine. It never really ventures into satire, predictability or pathos, so for my money intelligent filmmaking all around.

Grade A -

Don't remember reading about this directed by Nuri Bilge Ceylan but www.metacritic.com indicates a 84, and very high praise from Hoberman, Lane, et al.

It came out here about two years ago.

I finally got to watch Gerry (2002), kind of went about Van Sant's Trilogy in mixed order, but well they aren't exactly related plot wise so I think I'm safe. Gerry stands out as the most minimal of the films and the most evocative. There is no plot to speak of, but I felt reminded of the journey in Walkabout. Just a lot of open landscapes and wide wide shots. I'm gonna give the film another day or two to sink in before I go rating it or expanding further, because Elephant and Last Days both required deliberation.

Gerry especially benefits from viewing on a big theatrical screen. But also Last Days. I think Elephant wouldn't need that as much, though I did see it in a theater.

Claude Chabrol 1985: Le Cri du Hibou (The Cry of the Owl). (Back to Netflix dvd's after a hiatus.)

This is pleasant enough to watch but it seems to me to meander and lack momentum -- to be another example of why sometimes I'm not sure if I really like Chabrol or not, though clearly he is fine when he's fine. This is also based upon a Patricia Highsmith story; and being a big Highsmith fan i felt, as often happens, that her sense of menace and compulsive intensity were lost.

I liked Distant but not as much as others did. It seemed slightly derivative of the techniques employed by the likes of Kiarostami, Tsai, etc.

Haven't seen Chabrol's Le Cri du Hibou; didn't know it existed on DVD. Thanks.

Just running through all the French films on Netflix for the past decades.

All or Nothing (2002) - Mike Leigh

For some reason I avoided this film. I missed it when it was out, and never bothered to pick it up on DVD. I can't honestly understand for the life of me why. All or Nothing is the best film I've seen in a long time, and it is leading me to believe that 2002 was one of the most fantastic years in all of film. I'm no expert on Leigh, but I seriously wonder whether or not he has a film better than this.

The whole film is washed in depression. Every character is miserable, and those that aren't obviously depressed are openly angry. The language of the kids in the film is such that I seriously wonder what parent would tolerate it. You see that one is a vacant alcoholic, another is just beaten by the world, and the last is somewhat overjoyed. Maureen seems to be the only character cheerful. I wondered at first if it was just a front. Someone that smiles on the outside, but is as beaten as everyone else on the inside. As the film progressed though, I found her to be the only character that had any sort of base. She was level headed throughout, knew what to do, and never really seemed to be discouraged. She was the one in the apartment complex always willing to help, but no one seemed to want it. We find eventually that her help is needed, first from her reluctant daughter and then from Penny and her son.

As usual the cast is full of hardly recognizable but top notch actors. Timothy Spall is the only recognizable face and if his name isn't familiar he was in the Harry Potter series. He is very far from an attractive man, and isn't someone you'd expect for a lead. In the role he is absolutely astonishing. First as the depressed and silent victim, but when he does get to open up, it is among the most moving scenes in any film.

I really want to expand on this, but alas my time for writing is brief, but damn this was one amazing movie.

Grade A

I agree, excellent film. Why do you think that year was one of the best of all time though?