All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. Today
  3. Priscilla Page has some thoughts on the race stuff in MAG7:
  4. I have this film coming from the library in a few days, and I won't be able to get to it until next week. I've seen only a handful of French New Wave films, and I've enjoyed them for their interesting formal elements--but that's about it. After reading some of the reviews posted at the top of this thread, I'm looking forward to this one. Speaking of New Wave, it only just occurred to me to me that Joel Mayward's icon/avatar is from The 400 Blows (correct?), the only New Wave film I've seen more than once. Is there a thread where folks discuss why they chose the avatar they did?
  5. Film Starring 'American Idol' Contestant Who Says She Was Mocked by Judges Gets Release Date An independent movie called Because of Gracia, which stars a former American Idol contestant who says her appearance on the former Fox show mirrors the experience of her character in the film, has picked up a distribution partner and set an opening date for Sept. 15, 2017, the filmmakers said Friday. At age 16, Moriah Peters tried out for American Idol and told judges Simon Cowell, Randy Jackson, Kara DioGuardi and Avril Lavigne that she was a Christian who was saving her first kiss for marriage. Peters said the celebrity judges praised her looks and her singing, but belittled her chaste lifestyle. One judge told her, "You're trying to be too perfect," while another told her, "Go out, kiss a guy, come back," she says. Now, Peters stars in Because of Gracia, in which she plays a high school girl who is similarly saving herself for marriage. She also sings and is called “perfect” in the movie, just like on American Idol seven years ago. . . . Hollywood Reporter, April 14
  6. Our first look at Joseph, Mary, and the animal protagonists.
  7. Yesterday
  8. Second Wings of Desire. I also want to point out that my nominee 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days is listed in bold on the compiled list of nominees, but it has not yet (alas!) been seconded. Seconds, anyone?
  9. There are so many layers to this film. I wonder if Varda was intentionally being subversive in her approach, as she's in the vein of the French New Wave while also incorporating some very different elements and decisions. Even the title is subversive--it's really more like Cleo from 5 to 6:30ish, thwarting our expectations. It's definitely an experiment with the cinematic form, both in its construct of "real time" chapters, as well as that sudden contrast between the colorful opening with the tarot cards and the rest of the black-and-white film. But it also seems to subvert the male-centric New Wave narratives simply by having a female protagonist who doesn't die at the end, and by incorporating and critiquing feminine stereotypes. There's also a contrast here with films like Ikiru and Wild Strawberries, which are similar in the central character's existential crisis due to impending death, and their wandering/wondering throughout the film. But this is not an elderly man who is reeling from having lived a meaningless life; this is a very young, beautiful woman who is struck with the fact that she may not even be allowed the opportunity to live a full life, meaningless or not. Hence the "waking up" theme--Cleo's conversation with Antoine the soldier and his comment that the soldiers are "dying for nothing" in the Algerian war is a tipping point for her, as up until this point no one has really taken her seriously, nor has she seemed to take herself seriously. There's a willingness to face death--or at least the result of a medical exam--with a sense of resolve and courage after this conversation. There's also something being said about the nature of art, with the short film Nathan mentioned, the sculpting sequence, the music, fashion, etc. I'd have to watch the film again to mine those depths.
  10. Every film project DF has been attaches to since GONE GIRL sounds like a massive step down.
  11. Time for another prologue ... though I think this one might actually be part of the new film. Suffice it to say that I wonder what Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof make of the way that Sir Ridley seems to be discarding the basic concept that Prometheus was built around. (I read somewhere that Sir Ridley had apparently said, in reference to the fans, something like, "They want aliens? I'll give them f--ing aliens!" In other words, if the fans were upset that Prometheus had all this stuff about Engineers and almost nothing in the way of Xenomorphs, then Alien: Covenant is going to swing hard in the other direction.)
  12. To be directed by... David Fincher?
  13. Links to our threads on M. Night Shyamalan in general and Split (2016) in particular. We don't seem to have a thread dedicated to Unbreakable (2000). Links to our threads on other Shyamalan films The Village (2004), Lady in the Water (2006), The Happening (2008), The Last Airbender (2010), Devil (2010), After Earth (2013), Wayward Pines (2015) and The Visit (2015). We don't seem to have threads on Praying with Anger (1992), Wide Awake (1998), The Sixth Sense (1999) or Signs (2002). - - - M. Night Shyamalan Unveils ‘Split’/’Unbreakable’ Sequel Starring Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson M. Night Shyamalan has unveiled a sequel to his films “Split” and “Unbreakable,” called “Glass,” which will conclude the movie trilogy. The horror-thriller stars Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, James McAvoy, and Anya Taylor-Joy. Universal Pictures and Blumhouse are producing “Glass,” which hits theaters on Jan. 18, 2019. Shyamalan announced the news on Wednesday in a series of tweets. . . . “Glass” will follow the conclusion of “Split” with Dunn pursuing McAvoy’s The Beast in “a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Price emerges as an orchestrator who holds secrets critical to both men.” . . . Variety, April 26
  14. To be directed by Joe Johnston, whose credits include Honey I Shrunk the Kids (1989), The Rocketeer (1991), The Pagemaster (1994), Jumanji (1995), October Sky (1999), Jurassic Park III (2001), Hidalgo (2004), The Wolfman (2010), Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) and something called Not Safe for Work (2014).
  15. Rob Z wrote: : None of the gospels say she wasn't there, right? Right. It's kind of puzzling, actually. John's gospel says she was present at the Crucifixion. Luke-Acts pretty much says that she was present for the Ascension (or, at the very least, that she was present in the Jerusalem church during the ten-day window between the Ascension and Pentecost). But *none* of the gospels place her at the Resurrection, which took place *between* the Crucifixion and the Ascension and would have been an opportune time for Jesus to appear to her. The absence of any reference to Jesus' *mother* at the Resurrection becomes even more puzzling when you consider that Cleopas, one of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, was quite possibly Jesus' *uncle*. So Jesus appeared to at least *one* of his relatives in the gospels (and according to Paul, Jesus appeared to his brother James as well; presumably that's why the brothers of Jesus are also present in the Jerusalem church between the Ascension and Pentecost). But not his mother! Anyway. Curious stuff, this. : If I remember, in Rossellini's The Messiah, in which Mary also plays a larger role, the resurrection is also very rushed. I think we see some people going to the tomb, led by Mary Jesus' mother, they hear the report of the empty tomb from the women, then Mary runs to the empty tomb, she falls to her knees and raises her hands and eyes heavenward...and that's the end. We never see the resurrected Jesus, which is in line with the film's tell-don't-show approach to miracles, but still a little jarring to have the resurrection itself affirmed without showing Jesus. Yes. The National Geographic Channel movie Killing Jesus did something similar: Mary and a few other people find the tomb empty, and then Peter has a second really large catch of fish, and everyone just kind of basks in the knowledge that Jesus is somehow still with them... : Rossellini's Mary is played by the same actress throughout the film, so she looks like she could be the adult Jesus' teenage daughter! Yes, there are a few other films that do something similar, like Cecil B. DeMille's The King of Kings, where Jesus is played by an actor in his 50s while Mary (who appears at the Resurrection here, too!) is played by an actress in her 20s. This apparently has something to do with Catholic traditions regarding Mary's incorruptibility. (Some Catholic Facebook peeps were talking just the other day about the reasoning that went into Michelangelo basing the Mary of his Pieta on a younger woman, rather than an older woman.) : Actually, a disciple--I can't recall which--is about to strike with the sword but then Jesus says "Put away the sword..." which in the gospel text he says after the ear is cut. But in the film, the disciple listens and doesn't strike. That's a striking omission (the fact that the film shows a disciple drawing his sword but omits the moment of violence itself). I wonder to what degree that might have been influenced by Pasolini's desire to avoid the expectation that Jesus would heal the servant's ear afterwards (a miracle that appears only in Luke's gospel, not in Matthew's).
  16. Ok, finally watched this tonight. I really liked the trick of having the tarot deck be in color while the rest of the movie was in black-and-white. I'll be honest, this was a difficult movie for me to get into. With the exception of a couple of Chabrol flicks, that's par for the course for me re: French New Wave. But there's a lot of interesting stuff going on--some of the editing is rough, but not in a "they don't know what they're doing" way; the opposite, in fact. One sequence that puzzled me, initially, was the short film they watch at the movie theater. For one thing, it's almost painfully unfunny. For another--well, it seemed like a bizarre interpolation. But as the movie developed it became apparent that the whole larger film is played off of, inverted or parodied, in the short film. Which then made me wonder if the short isn't too on-the-nose. It's a neat sequence, once it snaps into place. I can definitely see why this would go on a list of "films about waking up." I really want to hear what some of y'all have to say about this one.
  17. Last week
  18. Brave New Jersey - Oct. 30, 1938. A title card at the beginning, then immediately after a newspaper with that date. Heaven's Floor - April 23. When Julia tries to get a plane ticket, the counter person tells her there's nothing available until Apr. 23.
  19. Loved it.
  20. I stand corrected regarding the conflation of Matthew and Luke when I mentioned the ascension. Yes, it's interesting how some Jesus films enhance Mary's role beyond the gospel accounts. But from the beginning, Christian tradition has also augmented Mary's role beyond the gospel accounts, including before the gospel accounts themselves became canonical, and sometimes in ways that seem (to me) to be at odds with the gospel accounts. But I'd imagine that all that tradition influenced Pasolini's depiction of Mary. None of the gospels say she wasn't there, right? If I remember, in Rossellini's The Messiah, in which Mary also plays a larger role, the resurrection is also very rushed. I think we see some people going to the tomb, led by Mary Jesus' mother, they hear the report of the empty tomb from the women, then Mary runs to the empty tomb, she falls to her knees and raises her hands and eyes heavenward...and that's the end. We never see the resurrected Jesus, which is in line with the film's tell-don't-show approach to miracles, but still a little jarring to have the resurrection itself affirmed without showing Jesus. Rossellini's Mary is played by the same actress throughout the film, so she looks like she could be the adult Jesus' teenage daughter! On the other hand, Pasolini's older Mary (portrayed by his own mother!!!) looks like she could be Jesus' grandmother. There are so many litmus tests in Jesus films--how are miracles portrayed, how is violence portrayed, how are Jews portrayed--and I suppose the portrayal of Mary is another variable that demands interpretation. Actually, a disciple--I can't recall which--is about to strike with the sword but then Jesus says "Put away the sword..." which in the gospel text he says after the ear is cut. But in the film, the disciple listens and doesn't strike.
  21. Ross Butler (Reggie) is leaving the show. This is, to my knowledge, the second re-cast (Dilton is played by different actors in the pilot and in subsequent appearances). It's a shame, because Butler brings a tremendous amount of charm to what could have been a one-note character. Given how good the show has been at casting, I guess we should expect them to find a suitable replacement--but I'm still disappointed. Related: this seems related to the second season of 13 Reasons Why, which I haven't seen but which has had people in my timeline running around in a tizzy. So I guess I should see it.
  22. Mau wrote: : Calling my Faith a "thing" and pretending there is some type of contradiction about it is non charitable for me. . . . This, from the person who said I am probably not a Christian because I had never heard of a tradition that he claimed was "well-known". Who is speaking non-charitably about whose faith here? Evan C wrote: : At the risk of speaking for Peter, it seemed quite clear to me that "thing" referred to the idea there was no meat at the Last Supper, not your faith. That is correct. : As to the film itself, deviations from minute details of the Gospel are valid artistic licenses. They don't make it blasphemous; it would need to profane Jesus and somehow suggest he wasn't the Son of God to be that. I've always loved the fact that the film takes all of its dialogue from Matthew's gospel, *except* for a few extra lines from Isaiah, which Pasolini felt he could get away with because Matthew's gospel quotes Isaiah so often anyway. That's the kind of cinematic deviation that actually *underscores* what the gospel is about! Rob Z wrote: : The resurrection and ascension sequences feel rushed, intentionally so, but rushed nonetheless). Well, there's no ascension in Matthew's gospel, nor is there in this film. (Matthew ends with Jesus appearing to the disciples on a mountain in Galilee. Luke's gospel ends with Jesus ascending from a hill outside Jerusalem. These two passages are *not* describing the same event, though they are often conflated in films and such.) But Matthew's account of the resurrection is pretty rushed to begin with, so it's probably inevitable that a film that sticks to Matthew's account would feel rushed, too. (Though it bears mentioning that Pasolini doesn't *entirely* stick to Matthew's gospel, since he places Jesus' mother Mary at the crucifixion, which only John's gospel does, and he also places her at the empty tomb, which *none* of the gospels do.) (Oh, and does Pasolini show Peter cutting off the ear of the high priest's servant? I can't remember, but if he does, then *that* is also arguably taken from John's gospel. Yes, the synoptics also describe one of Jesus' followers cutting off the servant's ear, but it is only John's gospel that identifies the follower in question as Peter. Pasolini could have shown James or John doing it and still have been making a faithful adaptation of Matthew's gospel, per se.)
  23. Well, I was going to. But then I popped the disc in and discovered that Netflix had sent me a broken one. So it'll be a couple of days.
  24. Poster and release date
  25. Future not looking good according to I09
  26. That's wonderful! I likely won't take a course, but I do hope to have some in-depth conversations with him, as my PhD research may include some New Testament hermeneutical stuff regarding film and narratives (like, what exactly is a parable anyway? Funny enough, Wright has a brother who also is a theology scholar, Stephen Wright, whose expertise is in parables.) If nothing else, I'll aim to get a book or two signed, as well as read his entire New Testament corpus.
  27. I now have Wright's The New Testament and the People of God on the way to me from Barnes & Noble. It might not be the most accessible starting point, but the one I'm really eager to read is The Resurrection of the Son of God, so I want to start the series it's in. On a completely different note, I just read Orson Scott Card's Xenocide . I thought the setup was equal to any of the previous Ender books, but the payoff was imperfect at best. It was worth reading, but doesn't make me wildly eager to read Children of the Mind, though I'm sure I will eventually.
  28. Joel-- I unexpectedly got a chance to attend a lecture by Tom last night at a local church here in Cincinnati. Totally random event that I learned about due to a friend's post on FB. Wow--I think if you have the opportunity to take a course, you definitely should. Two tidbits: 1) Wright writes out his entire lecture, and while he's not appear to read verbatim, I was close enough to see the notes pages were all text. 2) Apparently, he's a very warm and personable instructor, forming relationships and whatnot with the students. So much so that he gave a lecture at this local Cincy church because he taught the senior pastor as a student twenty years ago. That's an endearing quality.
  1. Load more activity