88 replies to this topic

[Christian]

Ron Reed, on 21 October 2011 - 11:39 AM, said:

Christian, on 21 October 2011 - 11:36 AM, said:

Ron Reed, on 21 October 2011 - 11:30 AM, said:

I'm getting tempted to shell out the sixty bucks or whatever it is for the most recent version of the book. Damn you, Greydanus!

Some of us still feel a little bad that we shelled out $11 to see the film.

Some of you are uncultured morons.

He says in a tone of respectful and mutually affirmative affection.

To which I respond: "Four stars my @$!"

In a mutually affirmative way.

[Overstreet]

Great review, Steven. And in the immortal words of Crissie Hynde,

When the night falls on you, baby
You're feeling all alone
You won't be on your own

I'll stand by you
I'll stand by you

[SDG]

Thanks, gents.

I enjoyed writing that review because it challenged me to do a lot of work to provide as much context as possible for the viewer. When I can do that, I feel that I'm providing a real service.

Ron, where do you see the new edition of the book for sale? I read about it on the movie website, but I can't find anywhere to buy it. It's not at Amazon.

[David Smedberg]

Ron Reed, on 21 October 2011 - 11:39 AM, said:

Christian, on 21 October 2011 - 11:36 AM, said:

Ron Reed, on 21 October 2011 - 11:30 AM, said:

I'm getting tempted to shell out the sixty bucks or whatever it is for the most recent version of the book. Damn you, Greydanus!

Some of us still feel a little bad that we shelled out $11 to see the film.

Some of you are uncultured morons.

He says in a tone of respectful and mutually affirmative affection.

Ron Reed has an excellent point. Even if he misidentifies the proper recipients of his opprobrium.

/but yes, affection

[vjmorton]

SDG, on 21 October 2011 - 01:04 PM, said:

Thanks, gents.

I enjoyed writing that review because it challenged me to do a lot of work to provide as much context as possible for the viewer. When I can do that, I feel that I'm providing a real service.

Ron, where do you see the new edition of the book for sale? I read about it on the movie website, but I can't find anywhere to buy it. It's not at Amazon.

So then my tweet-review is correct and I didn't "not get" the movie -- it IS the greatest coffee-table book ever.

[SDG]

vjmorton, on 21 October 2011 - 01:07 PM, said:

So then my tweet-review is correct and I didn't "not get" the movie -- it IS the greatest coffee-table book ever.

I don't quarrel with that assessment at all. I demur, but I don't quarrel, and I would never say you "didn't get" the film on that basis. (It's a phrase I usually avoid, since it's used way too liberally to express mere disagreement, and it generally annoys the heck out of me.)

What elicited that response in this case was what I took to be your non sequitur comment about whether heretics were crucified in 16th-century Flanders.

To use a term I coined oh-so-pedantically in the thread on Winnie-the-Pooh, but which is perfectly at home here, there's a diegetic blurriness in the film, reflecting the historico-cultural eclecticism of the painting. Bruegel is working on the painting, and the subject of the painting unfolds before our eyes. The riders are Spanish police and Roman soldiers. Characters are 16th-century Christians and contemporaries of Jesus. Heretics are mounted on cartwheels and the Savior is crucified.

Or perhaps I didn't get the point of your question?

Edited by SDG, 22 October 2011 - 10:19 PM.

[SDG]

Corrected the word in red in my last post.

[Christian]

Landmark's E St. theater, showing the company's customary patience with arthouse films that need time for word-of-mouth to build, announces in its newsletter that this film will end its two-week run Thursday:

Leaving Thursday, 10/27:

E Street: THE MILL & THE CROSS

Or maybe word of mouth just ain't that good?

Seriously, although I didn't care much for Mill, the way Landmark treats its films leaves a lot to be desired.

Edited by Christian, 24 October 2011 - 02:54 PM.

[Darrel Manson]

Christian, on 24 October 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

Landmark's E St. theater, showing the company's customary patience with arthouse films that need time for word-of-mouth to build, announces in its newsletter that this film will end its two-week run Thursday:

You're lucky - it only got a week in L.A.

[Ron Reed]

Darrel Manson, on 25 October 2011 - 10:08 AM, said:

You're lucky - it only got a week in L.A.

Only two showings in Vancouver.

Thus sparing hundreds, or even thousands, the tedium and expense.

Edited by Ron Reed, 25 October 2011 - 10:20 AM.

[Overstreet]

Two weeks in Seattle. That was more than I'd expected.

[Christian]

Question for SDG, who just posted a Facebook link to the latest "Reel Faith," featuring a review of this film:

On this program, do you ask David about movies you haven't seen ("The Big Year") while he asks you about movies (like this one) that he hasn't seen? Or have you both seen all of the films reviewed, and you give each other turns? I find this odd but not off-putting.

But David's eight-or-so bird puns during his "Big Year" review? THAT'S off-putting.

Edited by Christian, 25 October 2011 - 11:59 AM.

[SDG]

Christian, on 25 October 2011 - 11:59 AM, said:

Question for SDG, who just posted a Facebook link to the latest "Reel Faith," featuring a review of this film:

On this program, do you ask David about movies you haven't seen ("The Big Year") while he asks you about movies (like this one) that he hasn't seen? Or have you both seen all of the films reviewed, and you give each other turns? I find this odd but not off-putting.

But David's eight-or-so bird puns during his "Big Year" review? THAT'S off-putting.

Ha ha ha ... for the record, our producer counted 5 bird puns. I'll pass on your feedback. Mike & I may encourage David's verbal cleverness a bit too much -- his best conceits are really good, and he comes up with them so fast -- although we didn't encourage him to do all the bird puns. (IIRC, I gave a deliberately strained line reading to my scripted "gone to the birds" reference.)

Ideally, David and I do at least two tandem reviews of films that we've both seen, and if there isn't a third film that we've both seen then one of us takes a solo shot.

Last week was a hard week and we wound up seeing two films apiece, one together and the other two separately, for a total of three films. Our producer didn't like that; he said the show needs more back and forth, more dialogue between differing points of view (or at least different voices), so we need to see at least two films together.

Overstreet, on 25 October 2011 - 10:54 AM, said:

Two weeks in Seattle. That was more than I'd expected.

It's been held over several weeks at Film Forum in New York!

Edited by SDG, 25 October 2011 - 12:22 PM.

[vjmorton]

SDG, on 21 October 2011 - 01:21 PM, said:

vjmorton, on 21 October 2011 - 01:07 PM, said:

So then my tweet-review is correct and I didn't "not get" the movie -- it IS the greatest coffee-table book ever.

I don't quarrel with that assessment at all. I demur, but I don't quarrel, and I would never say you "didn't get" the film on that basis. (It's a phrase I usually avoid, since it's used way too liberally to express mere disagreement, and it generally annoys the heck out of me.)

While I'm not sure I've glommed onto the difference between "not get the movie" and "[not] glommed to what the film is doing," I obviously came across as testier than I intended to or objectively was, so I apologize for that.

[SDG]

vjmorton, on 25 October 2011 - 01:52 PM, said:

While I'm not sure I've glommed onto the difference between "not get the movie" and "[not] glommed to what the film is doing," I obviously came across as testier than I intended to or objectively was, so I apologize for that.

Testy? Please. I took your comment as a straightforward rejoinder from a man who had been poked, albeit gently, in a provocative way. (Christian has been the testy one in this thread, not you. ) So, no worries.

To hopefully clarify, I wasn't specifically distinguishing between "not getting the movie" and "not getting [or 'glomming to'] what the movie is doing" -- at least, not directly, although indirectly you could say that it comes down to that.

What I meant was what elicited my comment about being "not sure" that you glommed to [what] the movie [was doing] was not that you called the film "the greatest coffee-table book ever" -- that's a characterization that doesn't immediately raise red flags as far as getting the film goes -- but rather that you criticized it as "a Passion allegory at one and same time too in the background and then too closely following (was there ANY place in Christendom that crucified heretics? I REALLY doubt it)." That criticism makes me think you may have simply misunderstood what the film is doing -- at least, if I understand you correctly.

My take is that we are not meant to see the Christ figure as a contemporary of Bruegel's whose death happens to bear a literalistic resemblance to the Passion of Christ. We are not in Bruegel's Flanders per se, but in the Flandery-Passiony world of the painting -- or rather that world transposed into the cinema's dimensions of time and space; a cinematic interpretation of Bruegel's inner world as represented in the painting, with Bruegel himself as a character.

Did you read my review? It may clarify my perceptions here.

Edited by SDG, 25 October 2011 - 04:09 PM.

[Crow]

Overstreet, on 25 October 2011 - 10:54 AM, said:

Two weeks in Seattle. That was more than I'd expected.

It's going to be held over for a third week here in St. Louis, which suprised me. That is very good news.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Ron Reed wrote:
: Only two showings in Vancouver.

Actually, it won't be released here until January 6. Festival screenings are a whole other beast.

[SDG]

Guess what I'm watching tonight or this weekend?

 mill-disc.jpg   22.96K   22 downloads
Click to enlarge

[Ron Reed]

SDG, on 27 October 2011 - 11:13 AM, said:

mill-disc.jpg
Click to enlarge

Jealous! Say, could you make a copy and distribute it to me?

[Persona]

Saw this tonight on a great screen with EXCELLENT sound, and it blew. me. away.

I only have five or so films that can compete for a spot on a Top Ten list this year. I might not be able to come up with ten, and that's sad. Regardless, this is the first film that gives me an uneasy feeling about The Tree of Life in its number one spot. I don't think it will take the throne from the Malick, but it is a tough choice, let me tell ya.

Back to reading the thread now...