The Jeffrey Wells Thread

Discuss films of the 21st century including current cinema, current filmmakers, and film festivals.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Randall Maysin
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

#301 Post by Randall Maysin » Fri Aug 04, 2017 6:54 pm

Are the Amish intentionally environmentally friendly though, or is it just a natural unintended byproduct of their lifestyle?

User avatar
Big Ben
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

#302 Post by Big Ben » Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:15 pm

Cremildo wrote:Not sure why it's so mind-boggling that a conservative can be an atheist and/or aware of Man's impact on nature. A bit less stereotyping would be welcome. Also, all this indignation because someone suggested a celebrated filmmaker might be conservative? I thought adult, intelligent cinephiles were actually interested in the worldview of other people.

As a conservative agnostic myself, I'm as interested in and respectful of Scorsese's Catholicism as I am of Godard's left-wing political beliefs.
My claim was that themes found in Bresson's work were not consistent to what I perceived Conservative politics to be today. Enviromentalism and atheism are not commonplace with American Conservatives. As I stated previously:
Big Ben wrote:And even if Bresson was conservative he would have been conservative by standards then. Can you imagine what Bresson would have thought of Marine Le Pen?
I don't care what Bresson's political beliefs were. He was a great filmmaker and nothing will change that. I feel the same way about Clint Eastwood. Eastwood made his career removing myth from the Western that John Wayne built his career on. And that's a concept I'd like to highlight. Wayne was a conservative (Even being a member of the John Birch Society) as is Eastwood but both men had a vastly different view of how to make films and how they should be conceptualized. Just because they're conservative doesn't mean they don't have vastly different opinions on how the world works in some capacity.
Last edited by Big Ben on Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

#303 Post by cdnchris » Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:16 pm

Cremildo wrote:Not sure why it's so mind-boggling that a conservative can be an atheist and/or aware of Man's impact on nature. A bit less stereotyping would be welcome. Also, all this indignation because someone suggested a celebrated filmmaker might be conservative? I thought adult, intelligent cinephiles were actually interested in the worldview of other people.

As a conservative agnostic myself, I'm as interested in and respectful of Scorsese's Catholicism as I am of Godard's left-wing political beliefs.
I wouldn't take it too personally as it's an American thing. I learned after moving here that "conservative" and "religious" (specifically Christian) have become quite intertwined and it can be hard to separate the two for people, where you say one and the other is automatically implied. Likewise, on the right the words "liberal" and "Godless heathen" seem to be mean the same thing.

User avatar
fiddlesticks
Posts: 887
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: Borderlands

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

#304 Post by fiddlesticks » Fri Aug 04, 2017 10:06 pm

Randall Maysin wrote:Are the Amish intentionally environmentally friendly though, or is it just a natural unintended byproduct of their lifestyle?
Amish environmentalism, sadly, is mostly the stuff of myth.

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 12260
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

#305 Post by MichaelB » Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:55 am

cdnchris wrote:I wouldn't take it too personally as it's an American thing. I learned after moving here that "conservative" and "religious" (specifically Christian) have become quite intertwined and it can be hard to separate the two for people, where you say one and the other is automatically implied. Likewise, on the right the words "liberal" and "Godless heathen" seem to be mean the same thing.
I also get the sense from American usage that there's not much distinction drawn between "liberal" and "socialist", which is pretty baffling to my European ears - where I come from, liberalism has very little in common with socialism, being both more tolerant socially and a fair bit more right-wing economically.

As for Clint Eastwood, he's always struck me more as a libertarian than a conservative in the traditional sense.

User avatar
HJackson
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:27 pm

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

#306 Post by HJackson » Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:34 am

The relationships between conservatism, liberalism (and libertarianism today), and socialism are complex and I certainly don't think any of them boil down to a simple antonym.

Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Friedrich Hayek, and Michael Oakeshott are all prominent figures in the history of ideas who can easily be described as both liberal and conservative coherently (Hayek's account of evolutionary liberalism in The Constitution of Liberty is instructive). Even Carl Schmitt - who was a prime, and supportive, theorist of dictatorship in Weimar and an active Nazi in the early years of the Third Reich - has been quite successfully described as an authoritarian liberal by one scholar, despite his most celebrated works acting as active critiques of a particular form of liberalism that make him strangely popular today among the hard left (again, the liberal/socialist distinction the American usage drops).

History of course wrestles around with these terms and in America "conservative" - which in the British tradition you could initially pin to an anti-rationalistic attack on a number of episodes of the Enlightenment - came to be associated with a hyper-rationalistic, metaphysical attempt to describe natural law and then bring society and an interpretation of the Constitution into line with it. "Liberalism" I think underwent changes in late 19th and early 20th century when the idea of positive liberty took hold beyond the confines of political philosophy and public welfare became a major issue. Britain's Liberal party were part of that, but the existence of a Labour party kept the distinction between modern liberalism and socialism more relevant in our vocublary.

In all cases these labels are pretty useless once you dig down into the ideas they attempt to describe.

User avatar
Big Ben
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

#307 Post by Big Ben » Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:22 am

MichaelB wrote: I also get the sense from American usage that there's not much distinction drawn between "liberal" and "socialist", which is pretty baffling to my European ears - where I come from, liberalism has very little in common with socialism, being both more tolerant socially and a fair bit more right-wing economically.

As for Clint Eastwood, he's always struck me more as a libertarian than a conservative in the traditional sense.
The first part if true as perceived by people on the far right (Fox News is famous for doing this.) and has been going on for as long as I've been interested in politics (which would have begun a year or two before Obama took office.). A conservative here may very well see little difference between "Insert Liberal Filmmaker Here" and someone like Ken Loach.

Libertarianism here is often associated more with conservative thought, at least where I come from. The complete and uncompromising view that personal liberty (gun ownership, taxation is theft etc) is paramount to everything else. So when people talk about Eastwood he is considered right wing at least by conservative nomenclature in the United States. Eastwood is a good example to compare to say Death Wish because he starred in the highly successful Dirty Harry series. A series of films where a man very liberally (Ha) uses his gun to smite anyone deemed a threat. This loose cannon use of firearms is almost always a conservative issue politically as well.

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 12260
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

#308 Post by MichaelB » Sat Aug 05, 2017 12:22 pm

Big Ben wrote:Libertarianism here is often associated more with conservative thought, at least where I come from. The complete and uncompromising view that personal liberty (gun ownership, taxation is theft etc) is paramount to everything else. So when people talk about Eastwood he is considered right wing at least by conservative nomenclature in the United States. Eastwood is a good example to compare to say Death Wish because he starred in the highly successful Dirty Harry series. A series of films where a man very liberally (Ha) uses his gun to smite anyone deemed a threat. This loose cannon use of firearms is almost always a conservative issue politically as well.
I wasn't actually thinking about guns (I'm not American, so this is rarely at the forefront of my mind) so much as social attitudes. For instance, I wasn't the least bit surprised to find out that Eastwood is a supporter of gay marriage, which is emphatically not a standard conservative position - although it's certainly one that you'd expect a libertarian to hold.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Posts: 5931
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

#309 Post by matrixschmatrix » Sat Aug 05, 2017 2:25 pm

I think, in an American context at least, the line between libertarianism and conservativism is often pretty thin, because the more prominent libertarians- the Pauls pere et fils for example- almost never make a stand on things like gay marriage, where they're theoretically further to the left than the conservatives. That may be due simply to the habit here amongst the right of policing their leftward borders far more strongly.

User avatar
Big Ben
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

#310 Post by Big Ben » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:56 pm

Image

He's currently getting roasted by Film Twitter. I'll let you all decide how you all feel about it but it's gotten so bad they're dragging up his Vanessa Shaw stuff.

User avatar
colinr0380
Posts: 8446
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

#311 Post by colinr0380 » Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:18 am



User avatar
Brian C
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

#313 Post by Brian C » Thu Jan 11, 2018 6:13 pm

I dunno, that sounds suspiciously like Wells trolling his own trolls.

User avatar
willoneill
Posts: 797
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:10 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

#314 Post by willoneill » Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:42 pm


User avatar
Kirkinson
Posts: 855
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:34 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

#315 Post by Kirkinson » Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:59 pm

Would've been around the time Smith turned the fictional "Movie Poop Shoot" from Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back into a real movie news site (basically turning a parody of Ain't It Cool News into a replica of it). It's long defunct now, but I looked up a random page on archive.org and there he is, same damn picture and everything.

User avatar
Brian C
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

#316 Post by Brian C » Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:20 pm

Man, I remember that. It’s crazy that was 15 years ago? Back in those days he was still doing actual bi-weekly columns instead of a blog, and personally I thought he was much more worth reading than he is now. The lack of editing and the discipline that goes with that has not been kind to him.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

#317 Post by DarkImbecile » Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:58 am

Brian C wrote:Man, I remember that. It’s crazy that was 15 years ago? Back in those days he was still doing actual bi-weekly columns instead of a blog, and personally I thought he was much more worth reading than he is now. The lack of editing and the discipline that goes with that has not been kind to him.
I'll second this, though the mention of Movie Poop Shoot made me realize I've been reading this guy for so long that Smith's site was the third place I read Wells' work online, after Mr. Showbiz and Reel.com, the former of which I started reading in high school 20 years ago. On the one hand, it can be hard to continue to justify wading past the poor-man's-Armond-White provocation posts when there are far fewer substantive reviews and articles than he used to churn out way back then, but I still check his site regularly for two reasons: A) pure habit and B) while the reasons he uses to dismiss or actively hate good films are often uniquely infuriating and wrong-headed - as detailed in this thread - when he latches onto a film he loves and fights to the death for it, I still more often than not end up agreeing with him (Call Me By Your Name being the example from this year that he's been riding for since Sundance 2017). There's plenty of coal to dig through for the increasingly rare diamond that he highlights from a festival or advocates for in award season, but they're not non-existent.

As an odd illustration of the fact that I've read Wells for almost two-thirds of my life, I sat down to the premiere of Darkest Hour at Telluride last year and - though for some reason I've never listened to his awards podcasts with whatever co-host he hasn't alienated at the moment, or his interviews with filmmakers, so I don't know his speaking voice at all - I heard the man seated directly behind me talking to the woman next to him and almost instantly knew it was Wells from his tone, syntax, and attitude. I turned around and said hello, noting that I'd been reading his writing for almost two decades, and he seemed a little surprised to be recognized. I'm not sure what it says about me that I'm far less confident I could do the same with A.O. Scott or Anthony Lane.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

#318 Post by DarkImbecile » Wed May 09, 2018 12:54 pm

The latest Cannes edition of Wells' semi-regular explorations of the limits of social awkwardness is worth a read both because it's funny and because it's more unclear than usual whether he's posting this self-deprecatingly: "Attractive" Isn't the Idea

User avatar
mfunk9786
Posts: 11796
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

#319 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon May 14, 2018 8:20 pm

Image

User avatar
Big Ben
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

#320 Post by Big Ben » Mon May 14, 2018 8:24 pm



User avatar
swo17
Posts: 13557
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

#322 Post by swo17 » Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:13 pm

Later in that thread:
Jeffrey Wells wrote:Incorrect -- 45 minutes in. Show started at 10:15 am, I was out the door at 11 am.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Posts: 28734
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Jeffrey Wells Thread

#323 Post by domino harvey » Sun Jun 10, 2018 1:51 pm

Update on Incredibles2Gate

Image


Post Reply