tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post5097446879101456772..comments2024-03-12T12:38:23.542-04:00Comments on The Kind of Face You Hate: The Right Way to Like a Moviebill r.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-1808596764799837422010-07-16T08:18:12.411-04:002010-07-16T08:18:12.411-04:00To begin:
Thing is, Bill, the entry you are writ...To begin:<br /><br /><i> Thing is, Bill, the entry you are writing about was responding to a wave on Twitter that had already gone on.<br /><br />Explaining why I didn't review on Monday or go to the screening was because I was already being accused of tweeting what I did because I was not part of the group.</i><br /><br />Okay, fair enough, but can’t you allow for the possibility that you sorta started that? You hadn’t seen the film at that point (I acknowledged your review in an earlier comment), and you’re already saying, in essence, that you’re suspicious of the judgment of those who had. You may not have intended this, but there are strong, and rather insulting (to those critics), implications in what you originally wrote that started that wave.<br /><br />And, again, I don’t know what to make of your claim that you were not thinking about the DARK KNIGHT situation when you wrote this piece (not talking about your review, you understand), because YOU brought up that situation! I know, because, as I’ve pointed out, you called it a “shitstorm”, and mentioned “the last time this happened”, which doesn’t so much imply as outright state that we’re dealing with it again.<br /><br />I also never once claimed that you hated DARK KNIGHT, nor would it matter to me if you did. The whole point of this is the early strike mentality, the suspicious condescension towards those who like Nolan and the need to call them on whatever it is you see is wrong with their early reactions. It’s all very strange, since you did like the movie, but I don’t understand how you can’t understand why people would take issue to what you wrote prior to seeing it. This is all becoming, and will no doubt continue to be, a very circular argument, because you can’t see in what you wrote anything to get annoyed about, and I can’t see how you can possibly miss it. But I do appreciate you stopping by and giving your side of things.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-82195353806819729112010-07-16T01:16:28.076-04:002010-07-16T01:16:28.076-04:00Sorry about the multiple posts... I got error mess...Sorry about the multiple posts... I got error messages and tried again and tried splitting the message in two. Please feel free to erase the extras.David Polandnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-2381008839756584482010-07-16T01:13:39.041-04:002010-07-16T01:13:39.041-04:00Thing is, Bill, the entry you are writing about wa...Thing is, Bill, the entry you are writing about was responding to a wave on Twitter that had already gone on.<br /><br />Explaining why I didn't review on Monday or go to the screening was because I was already being accused of tweeting what I did because I was not part of the group.<br /><br />Bringing up Dark Knight happened in that piece, long after the Twitter fight, and was a natural step from bringing up movies that had strong, one-sided responses. At that point, I was writing about the phenomenon, not about the movie or the specific event. <br /><br />But no, when I was thinking about the reviews, I never once thought, "These Nolanites!" or "This is like The Dark Knight" or "We're we go again."<br /><br />You know, I have been doing this for a fairly long time. I have been the first negative voice a studio hears from press many times. And I can't think of a time when I ended up being the only one. <br /><br />And then there is the general geek rage I have seen when questioning the tone of marketing on movies like Kick-Ass or Watchmen.<br /><br />I would love to have a long, real, public conversation with Jeremy and Drew and Devin and anyone else about the issue of how a wave can start. As I have written before... happens to the effete NY snobs and happens to geeks and happens to mid-brow folks and happens to guys like me. Everyone who is outside of the wave seems to be able to see it happen... including the guys who are so angry at me in this case.<br /><br />Also...<br /><br />"'EVERYBODY is usually wrong', as it implies YOU are usually right"<br /><br />Uh, no. I may agree with EVERYBODY, as I do on Toy Story 3... or Avatar. It's not about me. It's about when the wave become monochromatic.<br /><br />And finally... this perception that I HATED The Dark Knight is simply false. I wasn't disappointed by Nolan. I just thought he aimed high on both the visual and idea level and succeeded in the former and got lost in the latter. I said then, a longer film - two-parter - with more time to develop Two-Face, might have been The Godfather with effects.<br /><br />Likewise on Inception. Good movie. But not the second coming, for me, as it falls short emotionally. Some people love the emotional content. And some HATE it.<br /><br />Finally... not sure if you have noted my actual review or the piece about Edelstein being chased through the e-streets like Frankenstein for truly hating this movie. I think both add balance, as far as the issue of me and how I feel about all this.<br /><br />I don't think there is a right way to like a movie. But before we get all high and mighty about judgment, perhaps we need to consider that, for instance, almost everyone judges junket people harshly, and almost everyone holds some critics above the rest. Judgment is not arrogance.<br /><br />Take care...David Polandnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-25024801534769556522010-07-15T23:29:35.878-04:002010-07-15T23:29:35.878-04:00First of all, thank you for dropping by and leavin...First of all, thank you for dropping by and leaving a comment.<br /><br />Second:<br /><br /><i> but I was not going to abandon friends so I could join in a clusterfuck of reviews released like it was a national moment of celebration</i>.<br /><br />What you wrote here is very simple to understand. You made a very reasonable, and none-of-my-business choice to not ditch your friends. Fine. Why you bring it up, I don't understand at all, other than to get say that you KNEW the reviews were going to be hyperbolic, you'd already decided that, and you didn't want to associate yourself with that. That's an attempt to raise yourself above those who went to that screening and (hey, you predicted it!) loved the film.<br /><br />Next:<br /><br /><i>And I have to say... I never gave Dark Knight a single thought. None of this had shit-all to do with Nolan or his movies... aside from the comparisons to Kubrick being ignorant of both Kubrick's work and Nolan's.</i><br /><br />If you didn't give THE DARK KNIGHT a single thought, then how did you come to write this?<br /><br /><i>And I am pretty sure that the last time I walked into a fast-moving shit storm for questioning perfection was The Dark Knight. <br /><br />Commercially, I was wrong about the film. I thought parents would think twice before taking the 10 year olds to see the murdering clown. They did not. (Even so, it's not like i thought it would flop.)<br /><br />Aesthetically, I think I was dead on. It's beautifully made.... lots of great stuff... but the great intentions that The Nolans brought to it as screenwriters were not fulfilled. The Harvey Dent thing just didn't work at a level anywhere close to The Joker and The Joker's thing about choosing loses its focus (or nerve) a bit in the third act.<br /><br />I am not the only one who feels this way about this film... but I seemed to be in a very small minority when the movie opened. And I was attacked - as people are on the web - as some sort of hater. I didn't hate The Dark Knight. I quite liked it... and never said or wrote otherwise. But I didn't think it was perfect... and that was some sort of New Media sin</i>.<br /><br />That's a lot of words about DARK KNIGHT that you apparently were able to write without thinking about it at all. So I don't really know how to respond to your claim that it wasn't on your mind, other than to say, well, of course it was. You were setting up those early, glowing reviews of INCEPTION as the 2010 version of all the DARK KNIGHT bickering. You said it yourself, when you wondered when we last saw such a "shitstorm". Which term, by the way, tends to relate to something highly negative or unpleasant. So if the early INCEPTION reviews remind you of a "shitstorm", those reviews that were written before any of this stupid-ass fighting and insult-hurling even began, who exactly, in this instance, is playing the part of the angry DARK KNIGHT fans? Because it sure as hell ain't me.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-92157851871651097452010-07-15T19:34:50.355-04:002010-07-15T19:34:50.355-04:00I haven't had time to read all the comments......I haven't had time to read all the comments... was just sent here... but I am fascinated by how "what David Poland thinks" gets parsed in such detail by someone other than me.<br /><br />Keeping it simple... we ALL get to decide what we think of each film we see. All opinion is valid, even if we disagree strongly. <br /><br />It wasn't just that there were 100% positive reviews... it was the hyperbole in a number of them that led me to a generality... on Twitter... in 140 characters.<br /><br />And I have to say... I never gave Dark Knight a single thought. None of this had shit-all to do with Nolan or his movies... aside from the comparisons to Kubrick being ignorant of both Kubrick's work and Nolan's. <br /><br />But even the Kubrick thing, fought in other places, was turned into "they're saying Nolan is not worthy of a comparison to Kubrick." I can only speak for myself in saying that the Kubrick bar is high... but it is also about the kind of work he does. The comparison, for those who love Kubrick, is very specific and therefore, invalid.<br /><br />I will try to get back and read more of this later...David Polandhttp://www.thehotblog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-89551096267661396072010-07-12T00:37:41.353-04:002010-07-12T00:37:41.353-04:00Jason:
You're right-on, man. Great comment.
...Jason:<br /><br />You're right-on, man. Great comment.<br /><br />Adam:<br /><br />Thanks! I'm glad someone else in who is in college understands where I'm coming from.Kevin J. Olsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17275402809912728035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-72760124323632389572010-07-11T20:40:37.190-04:002010-07-11T20:40:37.190-04:00Kevin's first comment was a masterpiece. Addre...Kevin's first comment was a masterpiece. Addressed the issue better than I possible could. I should know, after all... since I'm still in college and still study among those ill-educated "cinephiles" that Kevin talks about!Adam Zanziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14524618281515322239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-17097199903441321092010-07-11T17:51:27.964-04:002010-07-11T17:51:27.964-04:00I love how I couldn't spell "Roll" c...I love how I couldn't spell "Roll" correctly in the header of the previous post. Ah, typos. Without them, spellcheck would making writing too easy.<br /><br />Tony: That's a great point about being 'forced' to see things beyond your hoped-for scope in the pre-cable days. In addition to the multiple channels, there's also YouTube. So much distraction. Anyway, we come to agree by thinking about it from different angles.<br /><br />Kevin: I don't think you came off as if you were all-knowing on the subject, so no worries there. And I think you're right about the difference between Tarantino and Nolan. Of course I also know plenty of people who love QT movies who have neither spotted nor explored his influences. That's not a criticism, actually, it's a compliment. His films are often richer if you spot the influences, but they stand alone, too.<br /><br />The other thing I wanted to bring up that's related to my last bit of rambling above ...<br /><br />We've all been there when someone, let's call him Young Joe Moviegoer, says "X is a great movie," and we know that part of the reason is that Joe hasn't been exposed to much film. Perfect example from my own past: I saw the American version of <em>The Vanishing</em> before I knew an older version existed. I loved it. And because of that early love I still have a soft spot for it, even if I recognize (and agree) that the original is superior.<br /><br />Point being, all of us have an attachment to our discoveries, even if later on we learn that the film that felt so new to us was really a retread, often even a tired or uninspired one.<br /><br />So the other thing I wonder is ... The generation that grew up with 60s and 70s movies ... is it possible their taste and knowledge of film history is no better than the rest of us? Is it possible that they were lucky enough to be born in a time when film -- for a number of reasons -- happened to be going through a genuine renaissance?<br /><br />If you've read Malcolm Gladwell's <em>Outliers</em>, apply that logic, which repeatedly demonstrates that timing isn't everything, but is pretty close to it. So if you spin that out, against the other factors we've considered, maybe people from my younger brother's generation are being no more ignorant, no more closed-minded, no more narrowly focused when they celebrate Nolan than previous generations of moviegoers have been. But where as some of us lucked out to catch the wave of <em>Chinatown</em>, <em>Taxi Driver</em>, <em>Star Wars</em> or even <em>Pulp Fiction</em>, others have been born into <em>Memento</em> and <em>The Dark Knight</em>, in an era when it's harder than ever to be original.<br /><br />This is a further tangent, but it's almost getting to the point where filmmakers might be best evaluated the way athletes are: against the peers of their own generation.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-73389790908988787902010-07-11T17:31:37.411-04:002010-07-11T17:31:37.411-04:00Jason says:
I've got two (half) brothers who...Jason says:<br /><br /><i><br />I've got two (half) brothers who are 13 and 18 years younger. The older of the two has grown up on Nolan. He's having the reaction to many of his films that some people of my age group had to Tarantino. And what I'm wondering is if it's realistic for him to ever appreciate the waves of cinema to the degree that I think I could. (Not to imply I've got it all figured out. I don't. I have huge blindspots. I just think I have a distinct advantage over younger generations.)</i><br /><br />Yup. I think the comparison to Tarantino is apt. Although I would argue that Tarantino's film's encourage the viewer to look back at the film's being referenced, and to seek those films out, too. While I don't think Nolan is too concerned about that. However, you're right in that I am one of those people who will slavishly look forward to something by Tarantino, no matter what the film is about. I suppose that's what this younger generation of filmgoers is doing with Nolan. So that's understandable. <br /><br />Oh, and your comment makes me think about my initial comment, and I don't want it to seem that I know all of the answers in regards to cinema. There's still TONS of stuff, from famous/important filmmakers (Ozu or Godard), that I haven't seen. I'm not condemning them for not looking to the past, but it does seem curious that they're growing up as fans of film who are (perhaps, I don't want to generalize) thinking that the medium goes as far back as something a MEMENTO. <br /><br />Okay, I may be stacking the deck there, but I agree with Jason and Tony that I find it weird that even early Spielberg isn't being explored by this generation of filmgoers. <br /><br />Anyway...Jason and Tony said it better than I ever could...Kevin J. Olsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17275402809912728035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-15349762082625289012010-07-11T16:17:00.485-04:002010-07-11T16:17:00.485-04:00Way to hog the comment thread, Bellamy.
About you...Way to hog the comment thread, Bellamy.<br /><br />About your theory, I believe the big difference between my generation (I'm 38) and today's generation actually stems from the opposite of what you propose. Yes, we were the first generation to have easy access to films of the past through, cable, home video, and what have you. But we were also the last generation to have limited choices before the explosion of the video age.<br /><br />Here's what I mean. I grew up with a television landscape which consisted of exactly 3 network channels (no FOX) and 4 local channels. Sometimes, I had no choice but to watch those old, B&W movies I considered so yucky as a kid. But you know what, it broadened my horizons through such points of reference like the Creature Feature's Universal Monsters, Godzilla Theatre, the Little Rascals, the Late, Late Movie, and other venues which ran films I just wouldn't have necessarily have chosen for myself at that age if I hadn't been forced to out of necessity to avoid from being bored. I discovered I liked a lot of stuff which would be off the beaten path for today's kids.<br /><br />What do you have today? Narrowcasting. Channels with no scope beyond that oftheir target demographic. The Cartoon Network, MTV, CNBC, even a network channel with supposedly broader based appeal have a strongly defined identity now based on their respective constituencies: FOX aims for a hipper Midwestern audience with AMERICAN IDOL, etc.; CBS goes for the older folks with their police procedurals, CSI, NCIS, etc.<br /><br />The other major difference between my generation and theirs is the utter disappearance of any movies which aren't pre-sold in some way. This one is arguable because the "Age of Sequels" began back when I was a kid, and my childhood is littered with them. But even then, their was more diversity and risk in the alternative mainstream studio fare than there is now. Look around at the cineplex now, and try to find five movies which aren't sequels, remakes, adaptations of novels, video games, etc. Even auteurs are pre-sold. Nolan is "the director of THE DARK KNIGHT." Aronofsky's films are "from the director of REQUIEM FOR A DREAM." Maybe this second line of reasoning is a little more tenuous than the first, but I think that combined with the former, there is something to it.Tony Dayoubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04632329277519635858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-84260347063241910392010-07-11T12:15:03.850-04:002010-07-11T12:15:03.850-04:00Bellamy Rambles, Part V - Fuck It, I'm On a Ro...Bellamy Rambles, Part V - Fuck It, I'm On a Role, When Am I Going to Get Co-Author Credit at this Blog?<br /><br />Here's an idea that's been running through my mind for the past year, but I've never dedicated the time to thinking it all the way through. Maybe someone else can run with it.<br /><br />In the above, comments by Kevin and Tony (I think), touch on Nolan's place within his generation and, just as significant, the place of Nolan's movies within a certain generation. That is, there's a generation of people who are being exposed to Nolan (or Aronofsky or whoever ...) long before they are exposed to other filmmakers, even not so distant ones like Early Spielberg, for example. <br /><br />My thought is this ...<br /><br />I wonder if many of us, say those at the end of the Baby Boom generation and through Generation X, are at a significant tipping point in terms of cinema history. Many of us came of age in the advent of home theaters ... BETA, VHS, DVD, OnDemand, Blu-ray. We are the first "generation" that could easily go back and watch films that came before our time. And the technology inspired some otherwise lost films to be revived. We are of an age where it's still somewhat reasonable to trace cinema back to its beginning, because we naturally grew up with certain films, didn't have to go far back for a renaissance with others, and that left not so much history before that to dive into and come to understand on a fairly knowledgable level.<br /><br />I've got two (half) brothers who are 13 and 18 years younger. The older of the two has grown up on Nolan. He's having the reaction to many of his films that some people of my age group had to Tarantino. And what I'm wondering is if it's realistic for him to ever appreciate the waves of cinema to the degree that I think I could. (Not to imply I've got it all figured out. I don't. I have huge blindspots. I just think I have a distinct advantage over younger generations.)<br /><br />Anyway, what I wonder is if somehow this will lead to some divide where future generations will grab on to the films of their era even more tightly than I feel like people of my generation grab on to films of our era. That is, for the most part, I feel like savvy film fans my age don't feel like the best, most innovative films were made in the 80s or 90s when we were growing up, but the 60s or 70s. And I somehow doubt that younger generations will feel about the 60s or 70s the way we do, and I doubt that the 80s or 90s will take their place (which might say more about the films, I admit).<br /><br />These are rough ideas, gut feelings that something is now or is about to be different, that we're at some kind of tipping point. Not sure if this strikes anyone has interesting or trite (or maybe it's just incoherent). Anyway, there's the end of my ramble.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-58581608645793761122010-07-11T12:02:25.469-04:002010-07-11T12:02:25.469-04:00Bellamy Rambles, Part IV, The Search for Spock ......Bellamy Rambles, Part IV, The Search for Spock ...<br /><br />Before I go, I just wanted to highlight a comment from Greg ...<br /><br /><em>... the misperception is always that the subject matter makes the movie. You know, Ghandhi is better than Jaws because it's about Ghandhi and the other one's about a stupid shark. That kind of thing. As Roger Ebert never tires of saying, "it's not what the movie's about, it's how it's about it."</em><br /><br />I think Greg is on to some thing here. At the same time, I believe Ebert goes against his maxim all the time. I think we all do. I think it's difficult not to.<br /><br />I'm not going to ramble here or to cite examples (because this is one of those cases where I could cite 100 examples that support this argument and just as easily cite 100 that oppose it). I'm just going to say that, broadly speaking, I think most of us tend to place a higher value on films that we think have greater weight or depth. So, to use Greg's example, if you make a movie about a shark it's gotta be really fucking good, or else it's hardly worth talking about. I just think we all have a natural tendency to ascribe added value to movies with greater meaning if for no other reason than they tend to give us more to talk about. And meaning is often tied directly to subject matter, sometimes unavoidably. Greg's example is perfect: It would be almost impossible to make a Ghandi movie without meaning. To remove the meaning, would be to remove the thing that makes Ghandi worth making a movie about. On the other hand, it would be very easy to make a movie about a shark that had little meaning, as those <em>Jaws</em> sequels proved.<br /><br />So I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with Greg and Ebert: The subject matter should not make the movie. And yet often it plays a much bigger role than many of us would probably like to admit.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-1745440088689844222010-07-11T11:52:25.493-04:002010-07-11T11:52:25.493-04:00Bellamy Rambles, Part III (fucking free Blogger) ....Bellamy Rambles, Part III (fucking free Blogger) ...<br /><br />7) The movie comes out to almost universal praise, which only highlights the dissenters. The first wave of chaos, in my memory, was all related to reviewers who dared to dislike the film. And this backlash was notable for two reasons: 1) Some of the "fans" ripping the negative reviews HADN'T SEEN THE MOVIE. This rankled critics, understandably, and made the backlash news in and of itself, increasing the friction. 2) The common theme of those ripping the dissenting critics was the charge that they must have an agenda, which would seem perfectly preposterous and a sign of just how moronic the dialogue around art can be these days ... EXCEPT to anyone who has ever read Armond White. Point is, those ripping the likes of Uhlich were being childish (and I'm not even talking about the attempted slurs) but their charges weren't entirely unfounded in the broader picture, because there DO seem to be critics who try to make a name for themselves by standing out, and so to <em>some</em> degree the so-called fanboys had a reason to be suspicious of the dissenters, just like we often feel suspicious of universal praise or negativity. (I'm not endorsing this, just trying to understand it.)<br /><br />8) In my opinion, it was only after the initial, general firestorm when the debate centered on the issue of <a href="http://coolercinema.blogspot.com/2008/07/dubya-dark-knight.html" rel="nofollow">symbolism</a>. And what was special about that symbolism? Well, it had something to do with, at that time, a very unpopular president amidst a very unpopular war. And that has to do with politics. And so the possibly politically minded <em>Dark Knight</em> came out in a time when Americans were as politically engaged (which isn't to say informed) as they have been in my lifetime (I'm 33).<br /><br />9) In addition we saw things like Emerson's great, thoughtful series about his objections to Nolan, which I agreed with in large part even though in a few cases he seemed to be saying there was a right and wrong way to make a movie, and even though I like <em>The Dark Knight</em>, in spite of its faults. The Emerson stuff was significant because it furthered the debate, and did so in a way that kind of rubbed <em>some</em> of the film's supporters' noses in the dirt. (And I'm describing effect there, not Emerson's intent.)<br /><br />All of the above is my interpretation of what made <em>The Dark Knight</em> an unusual case, a kind of perfect storm of controversy, if you forgive the cliche. And while some of that has to do with Nolan, I think for the most part it was isolated to discussion of <em>The Dark Knight</em> specifically and to issues that Nolan had an effect on but that, so often, weren't really focused on Nolan.<br /><br />None of this is to disagree with the idea that Nolan's films have inspired debate (making a backwards-moving film helps). But I'm still not sure I've come across a lot of comprehensive analyses of Nolan, other than general observations like the fact that he doesn't know how to shoot action in a comprehendible way. So I'm not really sure that Nolan is the key ingredient in the controversy surrounding several of his films.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-44224751258345628892010-07-11T11:51:29.813-04:002010-07-11T11:51:29.813-04:00Bellamy Rambles, Part II ...
Third ...
Steven an...Bellamy Rambles, Part II ...<br /><br />Third ...<br /><br />Steven and others have touched on some of this, but I think <em>The Dark Knight</em> chaos was related to several things in about this order ...<br /><br />1) <em>Batman Begins</em> was, among fans, hugely popular, reviving a much beloved franchise that thanks to Joel Schumacher was almost better left forgotten. This created anticipation.<br /><br />2) Everyone knew <em>Begins</em> was somewhat of an appetizer, a stage setter for the arrival of Joker. This increased the anticipation.<br /><br />3) Prior to his death, photos of Ledger's Joker circulated around the Web, indicating the dark interpretation that was to come. This further increased the anticipation.<br /><br />4) We cannot ignore that Batman is comic-related and that comic-related films have rabid fan-bases that <em>include</em> (but are not entirely made up of) younger people who are well connected via the Internet. A biopic of, say, Julia Child doesn't have a target audience that spends as much time engaging with one another online, so <em>The Dark Knight</em> was set up to explode in our modern coliseum of controversy: the Web.<br /><br />5) Ledger dies, making <em>The Dark Knight</em> a societal curiosity, a must-see even for people without interest in the franchise.<br /><br />6) HUGE MARKETING CAMPAIGN.<br /><br />** Please notice that none of the above has much of anything to do with Nolan specifically, other than the fact that he'd made a film that had given people hope about the rebooting of the Batman franchise. **Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-66189726502562096172010-07-11T11:49:52.069-04:002010-07-11T11:49:52.069-04:00Bellamy Rambles, Part I...
Can I take a moment to...Bellamy Rambles, Part I...<br /><br />Can I take a moment to say that this, right here, is why my movie-watching life is so much richer thanks to the blogosphere. First there's Bill's post, and then there's sustained intelligent debate that evolves, touching on multiple issues, but always stays close enough to the original topic that you can go back to it at any time. I'd saved reading this post for when I had time, and I'm sorry to have missed an opportunity to join the ongoing discussion at its peak. But I got the benefit of reading all these smart analyses. Good job, all.<br /><br />OK, so let me jump in ...<br /><br />First thing I was going to do was to remind folks about Bryce's Nolan <a href="http://thingthatdontsuck.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Nolan blogathon</a>, which is here now. I was hoping to contribute to it but won't have the time this week, so I hope others will use it as an opportunity to explore some of their Nolan thoughts in greater detail.<br /><br />Second ...<br /><br />A smaller point: For what it's worth, I thought <em>The Prestige</em> was a letdown, too. And then I watched it again. It's one of those movies where knowing how/where it ends makes it all the richer, in part because it allows you to appreciate the way Nolan lays the groundwork, and in part because it allows the "mystery" to fade to the background a bit and let the themes come forward. I'm not proclaiming it great, but I think it's worth a second look.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-71025212585884969062010-07-10T12:55:28.554-04:002010-07-10T12:55:28.554-04:00@Bill: Many thanks. And yeah, it starts Sunday and...@Bill: Many thanks. And yeah, it starts Sunday and ends Saturday, so you've got plenty of time.<br /><br />Anything you could do would be fantastic.Bryce Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17040954580033470664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-68358840407226406572010-07-10T12:17:03.508-04:002010-07-10T12:17:03.508-04:00Bryce - You certainly may. I'm sorry I didn&#...Bryce - You certainly may. I'm sorry I didn't notice you were doing this sooner, I might have done more. Although, I guess I still can.<br /><br />Steven - Thank you. That's been my exact experience, hence my frustration over too few people noticing that there were actually two sides to this nonsense. For various reasons, I'm not going to be reading any reviews of INCEPTION (although I should point out that Poland has now seen and reviewed the film, and while I only skimmed it, and the comments, it would seem that he liked it pretty well), because I just will not got drawn into this again. I just want to see the movie, write it up, or not (depending on my mood), and let the movie be the movie.<br /><br />Incidentally, all this dissent against THE PRESTIGE is really surprising to me, especially from other Nolan fans. I thought almost everyone liked it.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-39058238064040687082010-07-10T10:09:47.586-04:002010-07-10T10:09:47.586-04:00As someone who thought both sides of the Dark Knig...As someone who thought both sides of the Dark Knight "debate" behaved rather poorly, I appreciated that someone wrote about this. While there were plenty of rabid fans on the internet who resorted to name-calling and threats, if you read most of the dissenting reviews, many of them resorted to personal insults and generalizations about the movie's supporters in place of actual arguments. Try to read any of the pro and con reviews of "Dark Knight". Hardly any of them presented much in the way of arguments.<br /><br />I have been dreading the debate over "Inception" for months because, much like "The Dark Knight", I think everyone will fight over what the movie represents rather than genuinely discussing what the movie actually is. That the debate has already started with one side characterizing the other with false assumptions is not a good start.<br /><br />Re: "The Prestige". It's the one movie Nolan has made I cannot get into at all. I think the central twists (the doubles) just got a bit silly. And the way Nolan tries to shift sympathies between both characters does not work when I lost any sympathy for anyone about halfway through the film.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05571206086671634525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-86228828837126393812010-07-10T02:20:14.470-04:002010-07-10T02:20:14.470-04:00Bill I'm launching a Nolan Blogothon on Sunday...Bill I'm launching a Nolan Blogothon on Sunday, would it be alright if I linked this?Bryce Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17040954580033470664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-14737500300884247912010-07-09T18:00:57.307-04:002010-07-09T18:00:57.307-04:00What film? See! I'm totally with this whole ...What film? See! I'm totally with this whole thing.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05730146625671701859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-79771830287856389342010-07-09T17:42:10.128-04:002010-07-09T17:42:10.128-04:00Greg concedes, and so does Bill. So even though we...Greg concedes, and so does Bill. So even though we agree on many points, I win! Last man standing wins!<br /><br />No, really... we'll table this discussion till Bill has a chance to think of something smart to say about the film... hurm... I mean...Tony Dayoubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04632329277519635858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-9713223237652971442010-07-09T17:34:12.616-04:002010-07-09T17:34:12.616-04:00Will you -- can you -- forgive me?
No. Okay, yes...<i> Will you -- can you -- forgive me</i>?<br /><br />No. Okay, yes.<br /><br /><i>Also, I'm going to stay clear of the PRESTIGE debate, because some time I want to do a full-on post on that film, and I don't want to give it away for free here! I mean, come on! But you guys have at it</i>.<br /><br />You should do a post on it and incorporate how brilliant Tony and I are into it, somehow. As such, I will comment no further on it to keep my ideas hidden from view as well. In fact, forget everything you read! I never said it!Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05730146625671701859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-12893566722944101262010-07-09T15:14:44.443-04:002010-07-09T15:14:44.443-04:00Greg - Sorry, yes, you've said it, and I'm...Greg - Sorry, yes, you've said it, and I'm probably unfairly jumbling too many comments together (for some dumb reason, I didn't think I'd get so much traffic on this post, and I can't keep up with it today). It does feel to me as though many of the comments have weighed towards marveling at the vitriol from DK offenders at the time, and not the other side, which is the only side I ever see anymore. But yes, you're right, you haven't been part of that. Will you -- can you -- forgive me?<br /><br />Kevin - I see where you're coming from. I admit again that I'm a bit defensive on this topic, because I've felt the DK backlash from people who I thought knew me better than that, and that if I liked the film, even if they didn't agree with me, then maybe I had a sound reason.<br /><br />For the record, I have read those comments, at HOUSE NEXT DOOR and so on, myself, and they are depressing. I just wish there were more acknowledgment that this was hardly the only kind of defense the film received.<br /><br />Also, I'm going to stay clear of the PRESTIGE debate, because some time I want to do a full-on post on that film, and I don't want to give it away for free <i>here</i>! I mean, come on! But you guys have at it.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-14201817441773879712010-07-09T14:25:51.526-04:002010-07-09T14:25:51.526-04:00I don't agree with you there, I think his inst...<i>I don't agree with you there, I think his instincts are off</i>.<br /><br />I should elaborate a bit more. I don't actually disagree with what you said, I do think he is trying to be "arty" at times, but <i>that</i> is one of the ways I'm saying his instincts are off and betray him.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05730146625671701859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-59029810043870836982010-07-09T14:24:04.062-04:002010-07-09T14:24:04.062-04:00About The Prestige, I think Ebert says it better t...About <b>The Prestige</b>, I think Ebert says it better than I do so I'll just use one of his passages: <br /><br /><i>What you will learn in the movie is, I believe, a disappointment -- nothing but a trick about a trick. With a sinking heart, I realized that "The Prestige" had jumped the rails, and that rules we thought were in place no longer applied</i>.<br /><br />In the end, this is I think a personal argument either you take one side or the other. I feel it was a cheat. As to the visuals, I don't agree with you there, I think his instincts are off. Which leads me to: <br /> <br /><i>Nolan knows too much on the technical side to be as dumb as you suggest</i>...<br /><br />Whoa, no, wait! I'm not saying he's dumb, I'm saying he has talent and skill but many times visually his instincts aren't there. The chef in my example made a great steak, he knows what he's doing in the kitchen, it's his presentation that's off. That's a far cry from dumb. I'm saying he's talented in one area, not so much in the other.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05730146625671701859noreply@blogger.com