True Grit Biggest disappointment of the bunch, so far. Reminds me how out of sympathy I often am with the Coens' almost clinical deadpan, peering at their characters as specimens of a sub-human life form. The great tonal balancing act of Charles Portis' novel has had most of the humor bleached out of it. Here the players in the middle distance are a typical Coen gallery of grotesques, and the film barely flinches when their limbs are hacked off. The major players, too, starting with Jeff Bridges' growly-old-homeless-guy take on Rooster Cogburn, have been archly uglified. A welcome exception is Hailee Steinfeld as narrator Mattie Ross, surprisingly tall and broad-shouldered and a dignified presence, a classic "straight man" surrounded by goggle-eyed goons. Makes sense that people are comparing TG with "Winter's Bone" because of the "sand" (a refined form of grit) demonstrated by their heroines.
(This is somewhat unfair in failing to acknowledge that the final one third of TG is much more successful than the first two, with major contributions from Josh Brolin, composer Carter Burwell and the astonishing Iris DeMent, who cuts to the quick.)
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Screeners 2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Your weakness for toothless and/or hairy girl singers is infinite...
A lot of people say that it's impossible to form a acceptable opinion about a movie from a screener -- which would really cramp my style since I never see movies in theaters unless they are made by my employer who lets me in for free.
I think it depends on how many movies you've seen on the big screen -- if you see five theatrical movies a week for thirty years, you'll get from those 7,800 movies a pretty good sense of what something looks like when it's big and clear...
It's well known that musicians almost always have really crappy stereo systems. The sound is really in their heads...
Neither toothless nor hairy, except in a good, gingery kind of way:
Many video clips.
I certainly think I can "make allowances" at this point. Plus, home viewing has become a vastly different experience over the past few years. How could I ever have watched videos that were not letterboxed on screens lacking the crystalline resolution of my lovely MacBook? Given the crappy projection of 2nd and 3rd generation prints in lots of theaters, my milage might even be superior at times to that of the average moviegoer. (Digital projection will iprove things vastly - unless you're also against that.)
And while we're at it: If screeners are banned for critics, how about the extremely rarified experience of watching pristine first gen prints with perfect sound in plush studio screening rooms? Not an accurate taste of what most films partons are subjected to.
Critics should have some skin in the game. Screeners add to the sense of entitlement and arrogance of reviewers.
I am excluding present company from that assessment, but I have met many who feel entitled to their screeners and view films with an added layer of superiority due to their existence.
I'm sure that's true in many cases. But (not to harp on this point) it's also true of studio screenings. Critics don't have to mingle with the hoi poloi, get overcharged for popcorn, be distracted by oafs texting. People who have to pay to see movies out of their own pockets, at today's prices, might be less likely to sit still for a film that only has a couple of fun scenes.
Some of the difference is made up for me by having less free time than ever, and a general sense of life getting shorter. Much less patient with stuff that isn't giving me something chewy. I barely made it to the last act of True Grit. (But was glad I relented and gave it another chance.)
That 'barely making it to the last act' thing is characteristic of home viewing and not of the theatrical experience.
Depending on your point of view, that fact either supports or attacks the notion of reviewing from screeners.
Completely agree with the arrogance of the screener-eligible... Assumed to be assholes until otherwise proved, in may opinion, and, curiously, made even worse by their habit of bestowing the pleasure on all comers.
Keep it to yourself and maybe encourage some movie going.
Charming.
Just the kind of guy I am..
If some well-placed movie-lover thinks the general happiness of the world is increased by making it easier for friends to see movies for free, that's fine...
But look at it this way: The total grosses for "Tiny Furniture" as of last weekend are about $200,000. At an average ticket of $10, that's 20,000 admissions.
There are 6,000 academy members and god only knows how many critics and journalists. It doesn't take very many viewers per disc to make up a very substantial percentage of the box office -- most among the small target audience of such movies.
Ignore that all you want, just don't be smug about it.
One can't help but wonder if the Hurt Locker was affected by critics handing out their screeners rather than directing friends to the local theater.
A shame too, as the film is even more powerful on the big screen.
The only ground upon which I would accept the moral high tone of these arguments is the ground of impatience and/or laziness. I could wait for Netflix, but choose not to -- in part because of a vestigial (and possibly weak and sentimental) impulse to participate in the conversations my fellow human beings are having about these films.
Christian's more practical and aesthetic arguments I pretty much agree with. Make no claims for the superiority of my position on those grounds. I've argued myself that if Tulk saw more movies on big screens he mightn't have soured on them so much.
I would still argue that an experienced person could extrapolate from the experience of watching even "Avatar," ob video to a pretty solid notion of what it felt like in a theater, in 3-D. (I'm not the first person to notice how three-dimensional the use of deep spaces in that movie looks even on video.) On the other hand, the sheer sensuous experience of watching it (which is pretty much the only good reason to watch it, as I assume we all agree) can't be duplicated even on the largest and HDest of home screens. You can get an idea of the experience but you can't actually have the experience. One has to be overwhelmed and swept away; which is to say, one has to allow oneself to be overwhelmed. To the extent that this still matters to us.
Turning one's back on the theatrical experience means, in part, placing less emphasis on the poetic visual elements and more on the declarative narrative ones. Placing more emphasis on the "narrative element" than on the "music" of movie.
This is in my case an accomplished fact. I would almost always, now, rather watch a TV series that is smart and intricately plotted, even if the visuals are merely functional, rather than a big, blowsy Hollywood movie that stuffs my head with cotton. Or better yet, read a book. The returns of watching a movie that's only pretty good, such as Ben Affleck’s surprisingly conventional and predictable "The Town," have diminished almost to the point of no return.
I have no doubt that the well-staged heist sequences would be more powerful on a big screen, but that doesn't really answer the particular objection of lackluster storytelling. Maybe all you do in a case like this by seeing it on the big screen is help the movie to pull the wool over your eyes.
Post a Comment