criterionforum.org

Are there any women who think this is a masterpiece? So far, I've seen only men who've had that response.

Not inferring anything, just genuinely curious.

I dunno about "masterpiece" but there are definitely some female critics who are positive on it.

Joyce Carol Oates liked it, though she's obviously partial: "“a work of art.” “Andrew Dominik is a very idiosyncratic director, so he appropriated the subject and made it into his own vision,” both from her New Yorker interview.

I found this absolutely to be a relentlessly dreadful slog of pretentious yet pointless dreck. I think Richard Brody nailed it when he compared it to Mel Gibson's misery porn of The Passion of The Christ.

I was already at the point where the words "Based on a true story" can be added to the list of "People are great," "The check's in the mail," and "I won't come in your mouth." It bothers me that our culture is at such a low point that people are writing fan fiction about actual public figures who lived in recent memory. It's not only unethical, it's quite pointless as well. If you wrote a movie that twisted the facts of say, Muhammad Ali's or Michael Jackson's life into some fictional world where you can pick and choose real events, and substitute fantasy for the rest, their estates would sue so fast it would make your head spin. And again, what exactly is the point? If you want to write fiction, leave real people and historical events out of it, unless it's a backdrop.

Beyond that, it was absurdly distracting to change aspect ratios, and color grading so many times. I get that they wanted to reproduce the famous photos, but again, what's the point? That Dominick is clever at reproducing old photos? Worst movie I've seen this century.

OldBobbyPeru wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 4:32 pm It bothers me that our culture is at such a low point that people are writing fan fiction about actual public figures who lived in recent memory. It's not only unethical, it's quite pointless as well. If you wrote a movie that twisted the facts of say, Muhammad Ali's or Michael Jackson's life into some fictional world where you can pick and choose real events, and substitute fantasy for the rest, their estates would sue so fast it would make your head spin. And again, what exactly is the point? If you want to write fiction, leave real people and historical events out of it, unless it's a backdrop.

I haven't seen the movie yet so I can't comment on it, but artists have literally been playing fast and loose with real-life historical figures and events forever. You can argue that certain artists do this to lesser or greater effect or more or less responsibly, and it's fair to criticize this (or any other) film's particular approach to this, but to say that all works of art must be 100% slavish to historical reality is a pretty questionable leap.

This movie isn't about Marilyn Monroe, it's about how the world didn't deserve her

OldBobbyuPeru wrote:It bothers me that our culture is at such a low point that people are writing fan fiction about actual public figures who lived in recent memory.

It bothers me that you think this hasn't been going on for millennia.

OldBobbyPeru wrote:If you want to write fiction, leave real people and historical events out of it, unless it's a backdrop.

This makes me want to pull my hair out. If you don't want to read any stories more than 50 years old, that's fine--but you don't get to start making up rules about them. Throwing down laws without even a passing knowledge of the subject. Just a-historical, ignorant rules thrown out by someone mad at a movie.

Blonde is the Hollywood-ized version of The Painted Bird. Two children… first, the boy, then the LA girl… wandering through a black & white landscape of horror trying to get home to their mommy and daddy.

Both films take inherently dramatic material and mercilessly beat us over the head with sledgehammers until our brains are spilling out.

I can see why critics of taste such as Dargis (NYT), Brody (NYer), Lane (NYer), and Chang (LAT) were Metacritic-rated as 20/100, 30/100, 30/100 and 30/100… although my rating would be lower closer to zero.

It wasn’t de Armas’s fault that they put a “Marilyn wig" on a chubby-cheeked Cuban/Spanish woman whose facial shape, eye shape, cheek shape etc etc. aren’t even faintly similar to Monroe. She at least attempted a credible performance although she reminded me of the first time my seven year old daughter smeared lipstick on her face to go trick or treating.

I’m holding out for Penelope Cruz to play Margaret Thatcher… utilizing her VC Barcelona/Blow persona… and transforming The Iron Lady into The Batshit-Crazy Lady. That I would pay to see.

Walter Kurtz wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:30 pm Blonde is the Hollywood-ized version of The Painted Bird. Two children… first, the boy, then the LA girl… wandering through a black & white landscape of horror trying to get home to their mommy and daddy.

Both films take inherently dramatic material and mercilessly beat us over the head with sledgehammers until our brains are spilling out.

Strongly agreed with the comparison to The Painted Bird, another superficially well made film with virtually no substance whatsoever, just a dogged commitment to the ill-conceived notion that suffering is intrinsically meaningful. But what especially rankles here is just how reduced Dominik's conception of Monroe's personality is. She is given no emotion or idea which is not a refraction of her Daddy Issues, a largely ahistorical conceit that reduces the character to replaying the same beat again and again, in scene after monotonous scene. This is not a woman who would go to war against a movie studio, who demanded perfection in her work and delivered cutting put-downs to those with whom she disagreed. Dominik's Monroe has only one dimension: victimhood. She's like one of those plastinated cross sections of a cadaver in a Body Worlds exhibit, but only one. By the time Dominik restaged the opening of The Elephant Man in the film's final moments, I was ready to cancel Netflix again.

ianthemovie wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:11 pm

OldBobbyPeru wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 4:32 pm It bothers me that our culture is at such a low point that people are writing fan fiction about actual public figures who lived in recent memory. It's not only unethical, it's quite pointless as well. If you wrote a movie that twisted the facts of say, Muhammad Ali's or Michael Jackson's life into some fictional world where you can pick and choose real events, and substitute fantasy for the rest, their estates would sue so fast it would make your head spin. And again, what exactly is the point? If you want to write fiction, leave real people and historical events out of it, unless it's a backdrop.

I haven't seen the movie yet so I can't comment on it, but artists have literally been playing fast and loose with real-life historical figures and events forever. You can argue that certain artists do this to lesser or greater effect or more or less responsibly, and it's fair to criticize this (or any other) film's particular approach to this, but to say that all works of art must be 100% slavish to historical reality is a pretty questionable leap.

Exactly where did I say that 'all works of art must be 100% slavish to historical reality'? I said that I, meaning just me, find it displeasing on an ethical basis. I also found the film displeasing and unpleasant. Your mileage may vary, as experiencing film is subjective.

Mr Sausage wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 pm

OldBobbyuPeru wrote:It bothers me that our culture is at such a low point that people are writing fan fiction about actual public figures who lived in recent memory.

It bothers me that you think this hasn't been going on for millennia.

OldBobbyPeru wrote:If you want to write fiction, leave real people and historical events out of it, unless it's a backdrop.

This makes me want to pull my hair out. If you don't want to read any stories more than 50 years old, that's fine--but you don't get to start making up rules about them. Throwing down laws without even a passing knowledge of the subject. Just a-historical, ignorant rules thrown out by someone mad at a movie.

Don't pull your hair out. When did expressing an opinion become 'making up rules'? And what exactly do you know about my knowledge of this or any subject?

There are rules about the use of public personas. See the case about Tom Waits vs Frito-Lay. But I'm not suggesting any 'rules' or 'laws' for cinema. I'm just bemoaning the lack of creativity that spawns works such as this. You can disagree, and it won't bother me or make want to pull my hair out. And if it makes you feel better, you can make all sorts of assumptions about my knowledge or lack thereof on any topic.

Here’s a fun fact: people with actual confidence and competency in an area or field don’t frame arguments as variations of “You don’t know me”, they exhibit their mastery in their words and actions. Your argument is too dumb for anyone to mistake you for an expert in anything related to it, btw

A blonde could've predicted that this thread would take this trajectory so fast. See y'all on page 7 of this

I hated Killing Them Softly and am not in a rush to see this, but I’m truly surprised by the way people are comprehending this film. If this film is breaking the brains of people the way I see it’s doing, it might be a masterpiece. It’s a weird feeling to see the opinion that narrative based on reality is lazy. Might as well stomp on my copy of Citizen Kane because it’s mean to William Randolph Hearst. Reality seems like a major foundation of fiction to me.

I’m already planning to bin my copies of 17 of lazy old Shakespeare’s plays. What was he thinking, making actual historical figures the main characters of his plays? Then I need to look for my exacto knife so I can remove The Persians from my complete Aeschylus before I build a fire for The Pharsalia, The Song of Roland, The Vindland Sagas, The Tale of the Heike, The Divine Comedy, The Shanameh, and other works I had mistaken for world masterpieces before finding out they’re really unethical and empty of imagination and creativity. Live and learn, I guess.

Mr Sausage wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 9:22 pm I’m already planning to bin my copies of 17 of lazy old Shakespeare’s plays. What was he thinking, making actual historical figures the main characters of his plays? Then I need to look for my exacto knife so I can remove The Persians from my complete Aeschylus before I build a fire for The Pharsalia, The Song of Roland, The Vindland Sagas, The Tale of the Heike, The Divine Comedy, The Shanameh, and other works I had mistaken for world masterpieces before finding out they’re really unethical and empty of imagination and creativity. Live and learn, I guess.

You have exaggerated and misconstrued my comment quite a bit. Maybe I wasn't clear. But I don't care to re-state it or try to clarify what I meant. Never mind. You won the internet today, Mr. Sausage! Well done!

OldBobbyPeru wrote:

Mr Sausage wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 9:22 pm I’m already planning to bin my copies of 17 of lazy old Shakespeare’s plays. What was he thinking, making actual historical figures the main characters of his plays? Then I need to look for my exacto knife so I can remove The Persians from my complete Aeschylus before I build a fire for The Pharsalia, The Song of Roland, The Vindland Sagas, The Tale of the Heike, The Divine Comedy, The Shanameh, and other works I had mistaken for world masterpieces before finding out they’re really unethical and empty of imagination and creativity. Live and learn, I guess.

You have exaggerated and misconstrued my comment quite a bit. Maybe I wasn't clear. But I don't care to re-state it or try to clarify what I meant. Never mind. You won the internet today, Mr. Sausage! Well done!

Exaggeration is how mockery works. What a bizarre thing to be butthurt about.

Anyway, what is there to restate? You said fiction shouldn’t use real people or historical events except as background. I gave a list of works that not only do that very thing, but have such monumental stature in world literature that they cannot be denied.

That’s the position you’re in, either disclaim your silly demand or deny Shakespeare. But you couldn’t accept that apparently and chose to make an excuse to peace out, some weird implication that this is all unfair. But it’s not unfair. You made the hasty, overheated comment, not me. It’s not my fault you’ve slagged off 17 Shakespeare plays just to tepidly insult some movie. No one forced you to make a twitter hot take.

OldBobbyPeru wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 9:56 pm You won the internet today, Mr. Sausage! Well done!

Just so we're clear. Mr. Sausage usually wins the internets in terms of his logical arguments. No shame, OBP.

OldBobbyPeru wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 4:32 pm I found this absolutely to be a relentlessly dreadful slog of pretentious yet pointless dreck. I think Richard Brody nailed it when he compared it to Mel Gibson's misery porn of The Passion of The Christ.

I was already at the point where the words "Based on a true story" can be added to the list of "People are great," "The check's in the mail," and "I won't come in your mouth." It bothers me that our culture is at such a low point that people are writing fan fiction about actual public figures who lived in recent memory. It's not only unethical, it's quite pointless as well. If you wrote a movie that twisted the facts of say, Muhammad Ali's or Michael Jackson's life into some fictional world where you can pick and choose real events, and substitute fantasy for the rest, their estates would sue so fast it would make your head spin. And again, what exactly is the point? If you want to write fiction, leave real people and historical events out of it, unless it's a backdrop.

Beyond that, it was absurdly distracting to change aspect ratios, and color grading so many times. I get that they wanted to reproduce the famous photos, but again, what's the point? That Dominick is clever at reproducing old photos? Worst movie I've seen this century.

Did you know Bruce Lee brashly stated he could defeat Muhammed Ali? I saw it in a movie once upon a time.

OldBobbyPeru wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 4:32 pm It bothers me that our culture is at such a low point that people are writing fan fiction about actual public figures who lived in recent memory.

If only Andrew Dominik was a fan…

Don't you all mean "if only Dominik chose to adapt another book", no ?

Dominik's approach to the material reminds me a lot of Kubrick's to The Shining, only using opposing formal strategies to exercise the same awareness of the limitations of the medium to get inside their character's minds and truly 'know' them as their narratives demand. Kubrick chose to implement extreme distancing techniques via spacial manipulation to alienate us from Jack, channeling his own sense of alienation, and sobering the burden of patriarchal expectations that is too overwhelming when you're that alienated without reinforcement. King's novel is wholly subjective, and Kubrick couldn't capture that deeply personal, internalized cognitive rabbit hole of defense mechanisms shielding and yielding to lonely vulnerability, so he externalized it, concocting literal barriers shielding and yielding to that isolated core. Dominik chose to go full-subjective, but he also knows that we can't 'know' Norma Jeane, so he creates this subjective experience as visceral, using the medium's possibilities to craft sensational stimulation that saturates the desperate cognitive ambitions Norma has to self-actualize. And since a main theme is that Norma Jeane is grasping to figure out how to even begin this process of knowing who she 'is' without external support to aid that search, it makes sense that we don't get to know her. The film is a horror movie about not knowing thy self, or having a basic blueprint to start the journey there.

Now that I think on it, Blonde and The Shining have a lot in common. There are common themes and a common auteurist attitude, where both artists exert an ironic humility by admitting their impediments while still going full-throttle into excess to demonstrate the flux of power to tell truth hand in hand with that acknowledgement of boundaries

I read Joyce Carol Oates's Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been? a few years ago though not the book the film is based on, and I knew the basic facts of Monroe's life. I watched Blonde in two sessions throughout today, the first break occurring at the monochrome restaurant scene with DiMaggio and then the rest just now. Thinking of it as a horror film feels very appropriate and I'd defend Dominik's right to make the film the way he wanted but while I think the film is very accomplished on a technical level and individual scenes like her audition for Don't Bother To Knock (or the crowd scenes outside the theater for the Some Like It Hot premier which made me think of the best scare in Inland Empire) are excellent and chilling, I'd also agree with the detractors that it starts to get wearying and exhausting after a while. I wasn't distracted by the aspect ratio changes and I loved the Cave/Ellis soundtrack. It's made me want to check out some of her other films, like Niagara and The Misfits. Truth be told, I can see both sides of the argument having valid points. Jesse James remains the only Dominik feature I'm totally sold on (that and the Nick Cave concert films/documentaries) but I'd also much rather see Netflix continue fund risky projects like this one instead of interchangeable dreck like The Gray Man though I'm fully aware this is unlikely after their subscriber numbers took a dive in the first and second quarter.

Not sure what Netflix's data will reveal in time, but there seems to be a pretty strong prevalence of the streaming version of 'walkouts' so far, i.e. people shutting this off after only ~20 minutes. I'm sure a lot of these articles are clickbait or just reflect the most extreme reactions to such an extreme film, but still, not promising for future risk-taking projects

Pieces like in Variety only highlighting the negative reactions don't help the cause either.