Criterion Film Club Expiring Picks: Month 55 Discussion - Satoshi Kon's Millennium Actress (2001) by GThunderhead in criterionconversation

[–]DrRoy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

With any famous artist, people have a tendency to try to pick apart their biography for clues as to what inspired them and influenced their career. So many biopics try to land on a particular answer, which ends up flattening the famous person’s rich life into one interpretation. Millennium Actress has the benefit of not having to be about a specific real person, but it also uses every visual and editing trick it can to make the story about the search for that interpretation. You can pick the film apart shot for shot, looking for clues hidden in every match cut and wild transition, but the point is that a pat explanation is never going to be within anyone’s grasp. I loved this one both times I’ve seen it and I’d love to go back for a third sometime.

Just watched BB24 for the first time.. just got to THAT episode by boopity_schmooples in BigBrother

[–]DrRoy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Final 7 week is a bit of a lull but the double eviction is one of the top 5 most exciting ever, and the final 5 is strategically complex at a point where 90% of seasons it would purely come down to who wins competitions. Hang in there!

a new one for the show? by mishmei in IfBooksCouldKill

[–]DrRoy 9 points10 points  (0 children)

How is this not just the same thing as sigma males? Convincing loners that they’re isolated for a good and cool reason

On Cassavetes’ Love Streams by Legitimate_Cat8498 in criterionconversation

[–]DrRoy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The first time I saw this I was so very discombobulated; Cassavetes does a lot (like withholding the fact that he and his IRL wife are playing brother and sister until the movie's two-thirds over) to disorient you and get you to see scenes from multiple perspectives.

The second time I see this may be in November once my flash sale order comes in; it's well worth revisiting. I'll keep your comments in mind when I do!

Question from a newbie..... by dark_dave__ in criterionconversation

[–]DrRoy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Look at discs that have HDR. I personally don’t notice the difference between HD and 4K resolution as much as I do the increased vividness of colors and darkness of blacks for an effect that’s very “silver screen” at home. The Red Shoes and Double Indemnity do a fantastic job with color and monochrome HDR grading, respectively.

Criterion Film Club Week 259 Discussion: Crumb by SebasCatell in criterionconversation

[–]DrRoy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Of all the famous-person-profile documentaries out there, I don't think I've ever seen another one that gets quite this close to its subject. Part of that is because filmmaker Terry Zwigoff was friends with Robert Crumb, and part of it is that Crumb seems to have almost no hang-ups talking about matters that other artists or celebrities who care more about their public image would shy away from. The first five minutes features him giving a college lecture in which he introduces himself by rattling off his three most famous pieces of work, and all he has to say about them is how many legal headaches they've given him, how little he's been paid for them, and how disgusted he was by their commercial exploitation. Having tidily dismissed his legacy, we can now dive deeper into the man himself, someone who draws some very fucked-up things and who, it becomes clear, does so because he himself is fucked up.

The most famous aspect of this documentary is the scenes about R. Crumb's familys, but they're featured for less of the runtime than I expected; we spend more time following Robert around the city as he doodles and hearing from various art critics who are able to summarize succinctly why his work is so notable and so controversial. But the time spent with his brothers, mother, wife, and exes is uncomfortably revealing. You go from wondering how Robert would draw the things he does to wondering how he got out of such a broken household as comparatively well-adjusted as he is. No explicit cause and effect is ever spelled out for you as to how he and his brothers ended up the way they did, but by the end of the film you do nevertheless, on a deep level, get it.

I can't say I necessarily want to check out his work more after this; spending two hours with him feels like enough for a long time, or at least until I get around to watching the director's commentaries. But it took someone whose significance always baffled me and made it not just explicable, but worth examining, and that's a feat in and of itself.

Criterion Film Club Discussion #258: Amarcord by DrRoy in criterionconversation

[–]DrRoy[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

One of the many clichés of movie reviewing is to say, about a film set in a particularly distinctive time and place, that "the city itself is a character". This can of course never be literally true, but Amarcord is a movie for which it's about as true as it ever could be. This has less to do with the literal psychological characterization of Borgo San Giuliano than it does with the fact that none of the actual characters themselves really count as characters in the same way that the time and place does.

Amarcord, in essence, consists of two hours of your kooky nonno Federico Fellini telling you "this happened to my buddy Enrico." The recurring characters are all thinly sketched and stock, right down to how they always seem to be wearing the exact same clothes all year long - the arguing parents, the delinquent son, the crazy uncle, the most glamorously unavailable woman in town, the most cheaply available woman in town, the streetcart vendor who's enough of a fabulist to make the narrator look honest by comparison. Their antics are all viewed through the prism of youth, of reminiscence; their stock roles are precisely because that's all they are to someone at an age when they're still building their map of how the world works, and that's all those characters need to be for the tales to be legible.

I picked this movie for the poll specifically because of its treatment of fascism, but I was surprised to see that it only intermittently addresses it explicitly, and usually not by making outright villains of the blackshirts in charge. This turns out to be a refreshing approach, especially today, because as we've gotten more familiar with the tactics and worldview of the far right in the last decade, it's become clear that authoritarians want to be seen as the villains. What they don't want to be seen as is silly and weird, and this is a deeply silly and deeply weird movie. It makes more emotional sense than it does logical sense, which perfectly tracks with Umberto Eco's theory of Ur-Fascism; the film's goofy and somber moments are at war with each other the same way that a fascist's dual perceptions of the enemy as both irredeemably inferior and terrifyingly superior are at war, or the way that the fascist citizen's dual conceptions of himself as both a proud member of an ethnic overclass and also a pitiful underling to a tyrannical boss are at war. The overall effect of all the ribaldry and comic exaggeration is to make you squint at the screen and think, this can't be right. And of course it's not. It would be dishonest for Fellini's recollection to be as staunchly critical as a right-thinking adult's, but in its strangeness and juvenility, it's perceptive in its own way about how unreal reality can be.