Brian C wrote:The Jewel of the Nile > Come and See
Elem Klimov gave do-gooder liberals something to gawk at and justify their self-loathing, but Lewis Teague looks forward instead of backwards, and expands on Zemeckis's masterpiece Romancing the Stone with his visionary fable of international relations in our turbulent world.
domino harvey wrote: Until that point, and it takes a lot of participation to get there if you ever get there, you'll find more support here by offering evidence and interesting/insightful theories, rather than "Look at me"-isms. I can tell by the quality of your writing that your intelligence isn't forced or masked, but there are better ways to get noticed than picking fights (and we're not always playing fair back either, admittedly)
I mean, seriously, what are you talking about? I was having a discussion with matrix that was invoked by my own admittance of insecurely downsizing my friends' film tastes sometimes. How exactly could I have "offered more evidence/insightful theories" about this admittance? Please explain how it is a "'Look at me'ism"? Had I "offered more evidence/insightful theories" about my own seeming insecurities, would mfunk not have completely reworded my thoughts on the matter? I'm not sure how one "picks fights" with outsiders of conversations that only come in to insult you in every thread (to which I've only responded about 20% of the time).
Jesus Christ, I throw you some rope and you hang yourself with it. Forget niceties, you're on your own
i'm having serious grad school flashbacks with the one guy in every seminar that just has no idea when to shut up.
and mfunk leaving makes me sad. worst. trade. ever.
Last edited by HistoryProf on Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Is Armond White gaining disciples? Or just pseudonyms? From the local Willamette Weekly, posted 7 days ealier than the Better-than list:
Alistair Rockoff’s Top 10
I had a wonderful time at the movies in 2010. I laughed, I cried, I learned about other people and myself. I find the challenge is resisting the hype, what Manny Farber called “white elephant art” and what I think of as “sugar mama art.” Long before you say “I do,” you’re drawn in by advertising, all the fancy money being thrown around. But when you finally get to the bedroom, you have to keep your eyes on the chandelier if you want to fulfill your expectations. The feeling doesn’t last. Until Mama offers you some new expensive thing. Or you grow up. I’m trying to grow up.
1. Vincere
Marco Bellocchio’s Passion of Mussolini captures the danger of falling in love with the Leader.
2. Wild Grass
That pubic title is the first Freudian slip in Alain Resnais’ psycho-romance: Your mind is the scene of the sublime.
3. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
Generation Y gets a roundhouse kick in the pants. Charlie Brown vs. King Arthur, Round One: Fight!
4. The Yellow Handkerchief
William Hurt takes that same generation on a road trip to romantic redemption, in Udayan Prasad’s Southern reverie.
5. I Love You Phillip Morris
Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor are here, they’re queer, and they will not get used to it. Neither will you.
6. Nowhere Boy
John Lennon has two mommies: Isn’t he a bit like you and me?
7. The Fighter
Some of the year’s best male casting: Mark Wahlberg and Christian Bale as modern America’s Castor and Pollux.
8. Mother and Child
Some of the year’s best female casting: Annette Bening, Naomi Watts and Kerry Washington, as modern America’s Lady of Sorrows.
9. Despicable Me
Steve Carell and Jason Segel put Pixar to shame in this brilliant slapstick cartoon about the joys of parenthood and shooting the moon.
10. Jonah Hex
Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor show how Americans face death. In their comic-book screenplay, Josh Brolin’s gunslinger rises to the occasion.
Most Overpromoted Hits: Inception and The Social Network sound like the inventions of business majors, and they are. As overprescribed as Prozac and Ritalin, both films sold young moviegoers on the inevitability of selfishness.
Last edited by Cold Bishop on Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
Indeed, David and Schreck are greatly missed. If losing our best contributors is the cost of welcoming arrogant newbies, I'd rather the forum just close itself off to new members for large periods of time, or even institute some kind of blackball system.
Highway 61 wrote:Indeed, David and Schreck are greatly missed. If losing our best contributors is the cost of welcoming arrogant newbies, I'd rather the forum just close itself off to new members for large periods of time, or even institute some kind of blackball system.
I've seen forums where that happened, and they died. People inevitably leave- and it sounds like mfunk left as much for personal reasons as for reasons relating to dealing with newcomers- and unless you nurture new voices, things get stagnant quickly and die off slowly.
edit: Although I should probably recognize that as a relative newcomer myself, I probably have sort of a biased opinion
I wouldn't mind shutting down the forums to newbies. Most of them don't understand that this isn't so much a discussion forum as it is an online collective (and by collective, I mean a place to go for a wealth of information on any given subject related to arthouse film). Honestly, when I realized this, the site became way more valuable to me. While I hope to contribute more in this New Year, I think perhaps newbies should heed the advice of laying low for a while, observing how the forum works, then perhaps they'll get as much out of it as I have.
This forum has always had its ups and downs. There will be new members to replace the old, and there will always be arrogant newcomers and meltdowns. I think there's a pretty solid foundation of great posters and an atmosphere of civility and discipline (so uncommon on Internet forums) that keeps this place afloat in its off-seasons. If the forum were closed to new members during its lulls, we might have missed members like HerrSchreck entirely.
tojoed wrote:ut can someone get David Hare to come back, he's greatly missed.
Seconded. He wasn't effected by the Queensland flood, was he?
David isn't in Queensland, so no. Rightly or wrongly (and I hope I'm not mischaracterising his position), I believe he left in protest at the concerted defence of work he considered homophobic.
As for shutting down the forum to newbies, this sounds like a terrible idea, since everyone has to be a newbie at some point, and who wants or needs an echo-chamber? The rest of James' suggestion seems sensible, however, but I don't see why it should only apply to newbies.
Personally, the more this place resembles a film discussion forum and the less it resembles a high school playground, the happier I am. And, oddly enough, that's not as unconnected to the start of this post as you might think.
zedz wrote:As for shutting down the forum to newbies, this sounds like a terrible idea, since everyone has to be a newbie at some point, and who wants or needs an echo-chamber?
Agreed. That would be an awfully silly knee-jerk reaction - no reason to punish all for the transgressions of one. I think James just needs to heed the advice that many have offered and back off a bit on his overwhelming condescension and insistence on taking over every other thread on here. Though I suspect the former may be difficult.
Why not use the "Foes" feature on the forum if there is somebody you don't like? Instead of being mad by their every post. Like Armond White
User Control Panel description wrote:Foes are users which will be ignored by default. Posts by these users will not be fully visible. Personal messages from foes are still permitted. Please note that you cannot ignore moderators or administrators.
zedz wrote:Rightly or wrongly (and I hope I'm not mischaracterising his position), I believe he left in protest at the concerted defence of work he considered homophobic.
Enter the Void? Or something else entirely? I'm genuinely puzzled: it doesn't get much more gay and gay friendly on the interwebs than it does here.
zedz wrote:Rightly or wrongly (and I hope I'm not mischaracterising his position), I believe he left in protest at the concerted defence of work he considered homophobic.
Enter the Void? Or something else entirely? I'm genuinely puzzled: it doesn't get much more gay and gay friendly on the interwebs than it does here.
I would agree. I love reading david's posts, he's extremely smart and knowledgeable, but if that's the reason for his leaving, it seems a touch oversensitive.
I totally agree with tartarlamb - people were similarly upset that members from previous iterations of the forum such as Tristan and Jamie Christley left (or acquarello, etc), but while it's sad to see any valued member leave it doesn't really help to pine, or get upset at Mubi or Twitter, or so on (I believe david hare posts sometimes at davekehr.com now). We can be glad for the time they spent with us and the insight they brought, and maybe follow them at whatever place they've moved to (and of course be overjoyed if they return!), but have to respect their decision to leave for whatever reason they do it.
And it is always great to see new members bring their own opinions to a discussion, even if we may not agree. Sometimes we can help with any issues we might have with a member's post through constructive criticism or gentle correction. I know my far too emotional spat years ago with Barmy and Herr Schreck in the Contempt thread belies this (to say the least!) but sometimes it is great to have someone not particularly like your favourite film - in trying to explain what we feel they may have missed, or what we particularly like about a piece of work it can often help us to appreciate it more ourselves.
I think it must have been the Enter The Void thread that caused david hare to leave, but also think it had also been brewing for some time beyond that (and I haven't seen Michael around much either since that time, which is also a shame). Here is probably as good a place as any to apologise if any of my comments on the film contributed to that offence (I'm still of the opinion that Noe isn't smart or coherent enough as a filmmaker to have understood the potential offensiveness behind any particular messages or stereotypes in his films. Though I should have articulated more that I understand that you don't really need to have a philosophical stance or a particular filmmaking skill to contribute to negative stereotypes!)
I was at such a loss in that Enter the Void homophobia discussion. I'm not sure if I saw some sort of alternate cut at Sundance without the objectionable material, or if it was something that I simply wasn't attenuated enough to to even notice at the time. zedz and others pointed out what was objectionable, but I honestly didn't even recall the scene or scenes well enough to make any contribution to the discussion. In any event, I went back and re-read the Enter the Void thread, and it does seem that someone trolled David Hare out of his mind in that thread, which is unfortunate.
