vjmorton

Member
  • Content count

    511
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About vjmorton

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 06/06/1966

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://vjmorton.wordpress.com
  • ICQ
    0
  • Yahoo
    vjmorton2001
  • Twitter
    vjmfilms

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Washington, DC
  • Interests
    Films of all kinds, but especially classic, non-English and silent movies.
    Also, I am not a Spanish adjective, therefore, I do not have a "gender." (Like all men and other animals, I DO have a sex, though.)

Previous Fields

  • Occupation
    Editor
  • About my avatar
    The protagonist from my all-time favorite movie not starring a rape-murderer, thus allowing A&F folks not the associate me with a sex killer
  • Favorite movies
    A Clockwork Orange, Time Out, Rear Window, 8 1/2, The Magnificent Ambersons, Casablanca, Sunset Boulevard, Cries and Whispers, Dr. Strangelove, Brief Encounter The Rules of the Game, Raging Bull, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Singin in the Rain, The Third Man, Tokyo Story, Memento, Greed, Dogville, The Passion of Joan of Arc
  • Favorite creative writing
    St. Augustine's Confessions, Mother Teresa's Come Be My Light, Machiavelli's The Prince, Hobbes' Leviathan, Austen's Pride and Prejudice, Homer's Iliad, the collected works of PJ O'Rourke, the criticism of Pauline Kael

Recent Profile Visitors

863 profile views
  1. best line in film is regarding the 12 Commandments: "Which two did they take out." The joke is de facto stolen from Mel Brooks, but played absolutely straight, which makes it WAAAY funnier.
  2. In what sense of "attracted"? I suppose "crush" may answer that, but one is obliged to hope that others, especially those with whom one disagrees, aren't that ... one is tempted to say "not that shallow," but charity requires the accentuation of possibility. So let me say instead that I am confident in Mr. Hughes's critical sensibilities as being higher and more refined than such a vulgar reading.
  3. Maybe that is exactly what the film "wanted to say."
  4. too lazy to look and see if all have been seconded, but ... I second L'ENFANT I second TREE OF THE WOODEN CLOGS I second MONSIEUR VINCENT I second WITNESS I second OF GODS AND MEN (surely that's been fifthed by now?) I second HADEWIJCH
  5. No ... in the dressing room beforehand. Then only Paulie is left in Rocky's corner for the actual fight and he just tells Rocky, "go kick his ass" -- which is NOT how to handle a Clubber Lang.
  6. One other thought that didn't fit well into replying to Steve. The (second-listed here) title ... it refers to a doctrine of contract law that the terms of a contract don't apply if they cannot be fulfilled because of exceptional cases that neither party can foresee. "Force Majeure" (obviously a French term, from Napoleonic code) is similar to, but slightly broader than, the Anglo-Saxon common-law "act of God" doctrine in that FM also includes what are obviously acts of men -- war, revolution, riot -- provided neither party contributed to them. What that has to do with the film should be clear enough if you've seen it.
  7. I never even had that problem because, as I said on Twitter, "when a man does something bad ... we don't talk about it and act around it ... that movie is THE LONELIEST PLANET; we talk about it and hash it out and the result is nauseating ... that movie is FORCE MAJEURE. As for the spoiltudinous points (which I just snipped) ... I think it was reasonably clear (certainly I instantly took it that way) that , which is why what happens at the end is exactly right (though obviously somewhat contrived ... the film is a symmetrical fairy tale about, among other things, ). Or to flesh that last out a bit ... Was it consistent with what she had been before? Arguably not, but then had the earlier [spoiler event] been consistent with what he had been? Not especially ... but that's the whole point. The exceptional case is, by definition, exceptional.
  8. Korean films are NOTORIOUS for wild tone shifts and the use of gore and cruelty in contexts that Westerners consider inappropriate. It's practically the defining feature of the country's cinema and exhibited by almost all its significant auteurs to at least some degree -- Kim Ji-woon, Park Chan-wook, Kim Ki-duk, Im Kwon-taek, (here) Bong Joon-ho and lesser figures. I remember being at the Toronto Festival retrospective in 2002, one of the earliest contemporary ones of its size and breadth in the West, and, almost to a man, the folk there made that observation. This is another way to get at the point I was trying to make above regarding the utter conventionality of the film. How so ... how would something being typical of Korean cinema in a way that diverges from American and European norms means SNOWPIERCER would look conventional to anyone reading a conversation conducted in English language using the Latin alphabet. Indeed, why not the opposite? (Yes, I'm making the case for exoticism. I am aware of this. It is a Good Thing.)
  9. Korean films are NOTORIOUS for wild tone shifts and the use of gore and cruelty in contexts that Westerners consider inappropriate. It's practically the defining feature of the country's cinema and exhibited by almost all its significant auteurs to at least some degree -- Kim Ji-woon, Park Chan-wook, Kim Ki-duk, Im Kwon-taek, (here) Bong Joon-ho and lesser figures. I remember being at the Toronto Festival retrospective in 2002, one of the earliest contemporary ones of its size and breadth in the West, and, almost to a man, the folk there made that observation. I would love to see the film as a critique of nihilism, even a popcorn one. I'm just not there with the film. I don't see how it could be more explicit -- pissed-offedness at God and revolutionism lead to the end of man.
  10. I posted the following on Twitter ... yesterday SNOWPIERCER (Bong, USA/S.Korea, 2014, 8) Didn't think much of Chris Evans, Tilda might be *too* good, the logic of the allegory would've been clearer if film ended one scene earlier (even so, c'mon ... what's gonna happen next), and too much of action is today's Parkinson's-operator-meets-Cuisinart-editor style ... BUT ... take away (almost) all of that (Tilda) ... and we'd been talking a year-best contender for me -- a film bursting with ideas and the proverbial Korean miles of brutal and self-conscious style (a specific music cue to a certain Kubrick film) -- when it has room to breathe, the editing is sensationally good. Also the progressively different looks of traincars (Skandies Scene FYC: the "school"), Song and Hurt and a taciturn Ivanov, the Nietzschean vision of society and eventually the universe, the critique of revolution, To get to Steven's ideological objections ... I guess I can't see the film as nihilistic in a bad way because I see revolution (and the specific act of blowing up the train) as itself as a form of nihilism ("let justice be done or the heavens fall," I said on the away home to the friend with whom I saw it), both absolutely and within the logic of the film. But then I also don't see Nietzsche as (merely) a nihilist but also the profoundest critic of nihilism (which in a phrase is almost exactly my reaction to SNOWPIERCER).
  11. BURN THE HERETIC!!!!
  12. Especially when you have overwhelmingly male filmmakers copying male filmmakers in genres defined for decades by vying for the eyeballs of 18 to 35-year-old males. If the last of those three is true (and it is) ... the other two are irrelevant. Only if we assume that neither nature nor nurture and culture has given men and women tendencies to see and express things differently. And, since essentially no one thinks that, well. I'm not making myself clear. I am saying that if a genre's audience is essentially young males (or in principle, any Definable Group X), any commercial, capital-intensive enterprise in that genre must necessarily focus on what Group X wants. That usually will be so, and always should be so, regardless of the characteristics of the people behind the camera, now or in the past.
  13. Especially when you have overwhelmingly male filmmakers copying male filmmakers in genres defined for decades by vying for the eyeballs of 18 to 35-year-old males. If the last of those three is true (and it is) ... the other two are irrelevant. And the "sexism" is not a problem that won't be exacerbated by self-conscious attempts by the feminist-inclined to fix it (as Robinson inadvertently proves).
  14. Waddya know ... you set up an affirmative-action standard, foreground characters' sex while denying sex differences and the result is ... this.
  15. Re the first point, I don't think you're giving enough credit to the film's sweet tone and how that makes that moment play. (Admittedly I don't share that scruple in most circumstances, but ... what the hell.) And re the second, I saw less of that angle here (and there's less as the film goes on) than in TOGETHER, which I think is Moodysson's film and which really is about that topic -- what might childhood rebellion look like in a culture that (claims to) value that.