Film
Three Films: The Blah, The Okay & The Pretty Good
Because my wife is away, presenting a paper on The Gurlesque at the National Women’s Studies Conference, I’ve been filling the lapses in my workload with movie watching. I’ve also been reading a manuscript by one of our fellow giants, which brilliantly knocks the rotten teeth out of language. But in terms of movies, I’ve watched three over the last three nights. One was blah, one was okay, and one was pretty good.
The blah one: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. I only rented this because A D Jameson called it a “magnificent film” and claimed that it was superior to Inception because, in a nutshell, of it’s compositional efficiency. I disagree with Jameson at the level of premise: I see no correlation between quality of film and quantity of shot compositions, especially in the case of Scott Pilgrim. Furthermore, I see no such thing as artistry in Scott Pilgrim — Timur Bekmambetov did the whole comic book style visual personification thing in a much more interesting way in Nightwatch years ago, not to mention the Wachowski Brothers’s comic book style film Speed Racer (which I also found much more interesting than Scott Pilgrim). But on a more general level, it seems incongruous to compare a Readerly text (like Scott Pilgrim) with a Writerly text (like Inception). Scott Pilgrim is passive. Audiences need not engage their mind when viewing it. To argue the merits or demerits of such a work requires a different set of value criteria than is required for a work that necessitates the active participation of the audience’s thinking capacities (i.e. Inception). All I can say about Scott Pilgrim is that I found it massively boring because I was not invited to participate in the construction of the film. There were no mysteries in the film, nothing for me to do but sit back and watch the underwhelming spectacle of adolescent fantasy: comic books meet video games meet manic pixie dream girl.
The okay one: Shutter Island. I rented this one because my wife doesn’t like scary movies so I use her absences as opportunities to indulge in them. It was between this one and Splice and my decision to select this one came down to the fact that Scorsese directed it. Automatically, this was a better viewing experience for me than Scott Pilgrim because it invited my participation. Since it crossed the line from Readerly to Writerly, I won’t proceed to compare the two. What I will say about Shutter Island is that I associated it with other films of a genre I think of as “simulated reality” films. These include: The Truman Show; Total Recall; The Matrix Synecdoche, New York; eXistence; Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind; Inception; The Game; Fight Club; the list goes on. In all of these films, the central question is asked: what is real? Stacking Shutter Island up against other films in this genre, I wouldn’t put it at the top of the list. But even the films I’d put at the bottom of that list are more enjoyable to me than most films because I have a certain proclivity for them.
The pretty good one: Ali Fear Eats The Soul. I rented this one because Ben Marcus listed it on his website as a source. Oddly, this was my first experience watching a Fassbinder film. Don’t know how I managed to get out of film school without ever seeing anything by him, but I did. As I watched, I couldn’t help but think about Ben Marcus watching this and so could not help scrutinizing it in terms of how it might yield inspiration for my own work or else insights into his. Aside from that, I found the film captivating. It’s unusual and sad, very sad, and I’m sure there’s much more I could say about it upon a second viewing, but my initial reaction was positive. I enjoyed the quiet beauty, the vibrant and enticing colors, the meticulous shot compositions, the sorrow of being scorned, the way a relationship can become an island and how that island is one way to think about utopia.
Next up for me is another Fassbinder film, this time one from the list: In A Year With Thirteen Moons, which, incidentally, was released the year I was born.
Last night I watched She’s All That, The Thirteenth Floor, and Alice in the Cities. Strangely enough, the Wenders film was the most enjoyable. Who knew?
Scott Pilgrim was fun to watch in the theater because it was really loud and it just sort of overwhelmed me, and I like watching Michael Cera pretty much all the time (I don’t know, he’s charming, whatever). But you probably shouldn’t have expected any sort of higher filmic experience from it, no.
You might want to check out “All That Heaven Allows” (Douglas Sirk) seeing as the Fassbinder is a re-interpretation of it. Or “Far From Heaven” (Todd Haynes’ version).
Oh yes. And I think you might enjoy Kings of the Road
Great article, Chris. And thanks for informing me of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl.
I finally have a more definitive explanation for why I viscerally hated the lead girls from Garden State and (500) Days of Summer.
Nice reviews. I felt the exact same way about Shutter Island.
I love that you referenced the Manic Pixie Dream Girl. In high school, I’m now sad to say, I was very much a MPD Girl (partially motivated by my massive crush on Zooey Deschanel, partially motivated by the social validation such a role provided). Now I hate everything they represent. Women are not fucking whimsical passive faerie doormats, thank you very much.
Hahaha. Thirteenth Floor (another “simulated reality” film) Alice in the Cities (another foreign film) and She’s All That (I suppose another adolescent fantasy film? — I haven’t seen it) — well played.
I need to give Wim Wenders another shot. I watched a gang of his flicks years ago and did not care for them. But time changes us. I’ll seek out Kings of the Road, thanks!
I can see the appeal of viewing it in the movie theater — context can certainly change perception. And I agree, Michael Cera is usually pretty enjoyable.
Thanks for these tips. I watched the Haynes film years ago when it first came out and didn’t care much for it, other than the stunning visuals. I haven’t seen the Sirk film but will put it on our Netflix queue now.
Thanks, Michael. My wife introduced me to the MPDG concept and ever since I find myself identifying versions of it everywhere!
Thanks, Dawn. I agree with you wholeheartedly: women should be represented as having legitimate agency, not as tools for men to use for the purposes of working out their own issues — especially when it comes to works of entertainment rather than art, since entertainment is the primary vehicle for transmitting normalization codes to the culture at large. Being passive is a very vulnerable position: when we allow entertainment to feed us without actively and critically engaging with it, we allow ourselves to become susceptible to programming. Glad to hear that you’re no longer going along with the programming that suggests social validation in exchange for subordination.
don’t skip the marriage of maria braun it’s pretty damn good
And Lola, Veronika Voss, The Stationmaster’s Wife, Lili Marlene, The Third Generation, Berlin Alexanderplatz, and on and on.
Fassbinder is kind of consistently amazing, though I really fucking hated Merchant of Four Seasons. 13 Moons, obviously brilliant, and my other favorite is Querelle, mostly because it’s like a subjective manifestation of aesthetic lust for me
i like the BRD trilogy a lot, and also found Deutschland im Herbst compelling (more as showing the intellectual landscape of German filmmakers in the 70s and the political climate with the RAF etc etc). Berlin Alexanderplatz is pretty good (but long long long), but you might want to check out his very early work and his plays too. the Brecht influence is pretty heavy, which is either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your taste; but the movies are really simple and clear and i think beautifully shot. have fun!
The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant is the most spiteful and also my favorite out of the 5 or 6 Fassbinder films I’ve seen. A film so cruel and despairing it hurt.
one of my favorite “simulated reality” movies is The Ninth Configuration. directed by the fellow who did the exorcist. shutter island steals its basic premise from that movie, if i remember correctly.
KINGS OF THE ROAD is really great. You articulated *exactly* how I feel about SPvs.TW. I haven’t seen any Fassbinder except for a bit of WORLD ON A WIRE… I remember watching a clip of ALI: FEAR EATS THE SOUL in class once years ago, and hating it at the time, but I’m sure my taste has matured since then…
Nicholas Ray’s BIGGER THAN LIFE is another great Sirkian melodrama — you should definitely check it out!
Hi Christopher,
Thanks for the link, but I think it’s reductive to say that I made a correlation between “quality of film and quantity of shot compositions” (although to be fair I’m not sure what you mean by “shot compositions”). Rather, my original post concerns itself with economy: is the author using her or his materials effectively? (The same question comes up on writing all the time: Do you need this many characters? This many locations? This many paragraphs? Etc.)
My argument is that Wright uses his shots and cuts more effectively than Nolan, which is one reason (of many) why I think his film is better—but I could list several other reasons. (I’ve meant to write more about “Scott Pilgrim,” but just haven’t had time. The new DVD release might motivate me…)
But in any case, it isn’t a simple question of the sheer number of shots. If that were so, Sokurov’s “Russian Ark” would be the greatest film ever, while Sergei Eisenstein’s early films would be considered crap!
Incidentally, Fassbinder directed an earlier version of “The Thirteenth Floor”: “World on a Wire” (“Welt am Draht,” 1973) an adaptation of Daniel F. Galyoue’s source novel, “Simulacron-3” (aka “Counterfeit World,” 1964).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070904/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacron-3
Many cheers,
Adam
13 Moons is my favorite film. part of what i find so compelling about fassbinder’s work is the flawless staging, the theatricality which has a sort of terrifying ritualistic patina to it; like a strange conflagration of a catholic mass, a soap opera, and czech avant-garde theatre. his approach to excess and ornament laced with this dooming teutonic frigidity… MAN.
also, martha is absolutely a must-see.
the best fucking thing about shutter island was the penderecki:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r2Ht7LvTnc
…especially when it comes to works of entertainment rather than art, since entertainment is the primary vehicle for transmitting normalization codes to the culture at large. Being passive is a very vulnerable position: when we allow entertainment to feed us without actively and critically engaging with it, we allow ourselves to become susceptible to programming.
Very good point. This is why it’s so insidious to me.
With In a year of 13 moons, you’ll never want to eat beef again…maybe.
Excellent, thanks for this tip! I usually love Nicholas Ray’s films, will certainly check this out.
Check. Putting that in my queue.
This sounds super intriguing — and what a blurb: “A film so cruel and despairing it hurt.”
!!!
I’m teaching 3 Penny Opera next semester — I’m interested in Brecht’s project and how he’s influenced others. Will seek these out, thanks Shane!
Hey Adam,
Thanks for taking the time to reply. As (I hope) you know, I appreciate and respect the intellectual weight you bring to the literary community. It’s with great interest and pleasure that I engage in conversation/debate with you.
Now then, I reduced your analysis to compositional efficiency because, as you’ve reiterated here, your argument was basically that Wright is more efficient with his composition. You say in your original post “Edgar Wright is doing much more with [his shots] than Christopher Nolan does.” One, I disagree with your assertion that the quality of a film can be reduced to the efficiency of shots. Just because one sequence “does” more than another sequence is no indication of the quality of the film. If that were the case then all of Pedro Costa’s films would have to be declared poor quality – his shots/sequences don’t do anything! — or Bergman or Tarkovsky, etcetera.
And since you’ve made the connection to literature, I will say that I also disagree with the implication that “excess” is a negative thing. Too much should be the goal of all art. Minimalism, cutting the fat, trimming the lard, worrying about too many characters too many paragraphs too many locations, I find all that sort of thinking icky – it’s like, if efficiency is the goal why read literature instead of Cliff’s Notes? Why read that long ass play Romeo and Juliet, why not just tweet that shit: guy and gal shouldn’t get it on because their families hate each other, but they do it anyway and then end up killing themselves. That’s efficient as hell. No need to waste however many hours it takes to read the whole thing. I’m being obstinate, but my point is that fat is luxury. Fat is the point. Excess is valuable. Why say in five shots what you could say in thirteen? And why make each shot do something?
Also, your Aristotelian argument that “the essential difference between these clips is that, in the case of Scott Pilgrim, the script has been dramatized” (from that original post) fails to persuade me. I can think of countless examples of amazing films that lack dramatization: Glengary Glenross, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf , Annie Hall – hell, most of Woody Allen’s pictures, most of Godard’s pictures for that matter are basically just people talking rather than doing. What about Beckett? Beckett don’t dramatize, but I doubt you’d exclude him from the badass club.
I think the problem I’m identifying arises from the fact that when you’re comparing SP to I, you are attempting to show a difference in degree when in fact they are different in kind. I mentioned this in my post above: SP is a different kind of film than I. Comparing their shot sequences is like trying to compare an inning of baseball with a quarter of basketball. Sure, they are both sports, but they are different kinds of sports. SP and I are both films, but they are different kinds of films.
Alright, I gotta go get my morning coffee. Sorry if this response seems rushed, I just belted it out…gotta chug coffee and get to campus, the youth demand their education!
Happy Monday,
Chris
at the rist of intruding here a bit: i don’t think a.d is saying that excess is a negative thing or that a film “can be reduced to the efficiency of it’s shots” – compositional efficiency is just one of many things on which to judge a film. really, seems to me, by using SP, he’s highlighting Nolan’s clumsiness (though, granted, the films are different). seems like he’s maybe implicitly saying that economy is often helpful in getting to what’s important, highlighting it. a bunch of extra shots and/or scenes and/or settings isn’t terribly compelling and/or engaging if what’s basically being said/accomplished is expository.
too much might be the goal of all art (i guess), but christopher nolan’s characters telling me what’s happening in the movie sort of sucks. kind of think south park’s episode insheeption is a fairly good critique of nolan’s “too much.”
anyway, really fun comments to read.
risk; its…fuck.
Hi Invoice,
I haven’t eaten red meat since 1998, so I’m cool with some no-meat propaganda :)
I totally agree with you about the music, Kristin. Thanks for pointing out the composer’s name — I forgot to look before I returned the movie. Very powerful stuff.
w/r/t 13 Moons — I’m excited to watch it, haven’t gotten a a chance yet.
Excellent, thanks for this tip! I usually love Nicholas Ray’s films, will certainly check this out.
Check. Putting that in my queue.
This sounds super intriguing — and what a blurb: “A film so cruel and despairing it hurt.”
!!!
I’m teaching 3 Penny Opera next semester — I’m interested in Brecht’s project and how he’s influenced others. Will seek these out, thanks Shane!
I like the sound of “subjective manifestation of aesthetic lust” — will put Querelle on my list. Thanks, Mike.
Ooooohhh, I haven’t heard of that film. Will check it out. Thanks, Alan.
I haven’t seen that South Park episode…wonder if it’s on the free streaming website? Will check.
I’m thinking about your comments about “christopher nolan’s characters telling me what’s happening in the movie” sort of sucking — will marinate on this and try to come back with a thoughtful response.
Chrissy Higgs, have you ever watched any Toyoda?
His films Pornostar (Poruno Suta), Blue Spring (Aoi Haru), & 9 Souls are both visual and intellectual, more psychological than philosophical.
He is very Un-Nihonjin in the way he moves the camera.
I’ve openly wept on several occasions while deconstructing “Blue Spring”.
Re:comic book/movie thing. Have you watched the Korean film “Nowhere to Hide”?
Closest to an actual Manga I’ve seen. The opening scene is one of my favorites in film.
Mad Dog shit.
Curious that you refer to Speed Racer’s “comic book style.” As the source material is not a comic, but an old Japanese cartoon, does succeeding as a filmed comic equal failing as a live action cartoon?
heuristic math
brecht + film + post-war france = godard
godard + gay + sixties + west germany = fassbinder
That opening is amazing. Thank you.
Jereme, wow awesome no! I’m woefully deficient when it comes to Asian cinema. Just went to Netflix to put these films on my queue: looks like they call Pornostar something like Tokyo Psycho or Tokyo Rampage (they are separate entries but look like the same film?) Got em all on there now….excited especially for Blue Spring.
Yeah, you’re right about Speed Racer being a cartoon not a comic book — and I hadn’t even really considered the fact that the source material for Scott Pilgrim was a comic book, which conjures up a whole host of other issues/categories/etc. I was thinking only of the “style” which I thought of as comicbookish — for instance, Ghost World the film comes from the comic book, but the film isn’t really in a comicbookish style the same way Scott Pilgrim is, you know? I don’t know…probably I’m misusing my terms.
Matthew just pulled your geek card. Where’s your degree now Chrissy Higgs!
Yeah, Pornostar had some legal issues with the name I guess. The dvd I watched was called Tokyo Rampage but I have also heard it go by the Psycho moniker. It is one of Gena’s favorite movies.
Let me know when you watch one of them. I would love to hear what you think of the director.
Ken has my copy of 9 Souls. It is a dick smacker.
Darconville,
There is another scene after the opening that is fucking amazing too.
Hahahaha!
Just saw this, pretty after the fact. But, oh well:
. You’re continuing to misunderstand what I mean by shot economy; see Alan Rossi’s comment for clarification. (Thanks, Alan.) See this post for further clarification: http://bigother.com/2010/10/04/more-on-inception-shot-economy-and-1-1-1/
. Furthermore, I don’t argue anywhere that “the quality of a film can be reduced to the efficiency of shots”; shot economy is but one aspect of filmmaking (just like language economy is but one aspect of writing). It’s not the most important thing, it’s not the least important thing—it’s just one thing, but it’s something that can be talked about. (And, no, I don’t see anything wrong with comparing SP and I in this regard. Their respective genres don’t really enter into it. My ultimate claim is that Nolan is using very formulaic filmmaking to render his film, and doing it sloppily at that. It’s a pretty simple argument that I haven’t seen you respond to anywhere with any substance.
. “If that were the case then all of Pedro Costa’s films would have to be declared poor quality – his shots/sequences don’t do anything! — or Bergman or Tarkovsky, etcetera.” ??? I don’t think you understand what a shot or a sequence “does.” All three of those directors are pretty brilliant, in part because their shots and sequences do /tremendous/ work. I’ll be happy to demonstrate what I mean here, if you like—go ahead and pick any shot or sequence from any of their films, and I’ll analyze it along these lines.
. You’re also reducing my claim about dramatization. I don’t mean that the work is presented as some realist narrative (the actors run around, waving their arms and emoting). Rather, I mean that the director has done something to /translate/ the ideas in the screenplay into a cinematic form that is other than formulaic filmmaking. Nolan makes every one his films pretty much the same exact way—sure, the CGI changes, the costumes and settings whathaveyou, but he still shoots most of his scenes with the exact same approach: master shot, close-ups, actors expositing. That’s not direction. That’s hackery, formula filmmaking.
. “I will say that I also disagree with the implication that ‘excess’ is a negative thing.” I hope I didn’t imply that, because I don’t agree with it in the slightest. “Excess” is not the same thing as a lack of economy. I’m nowhere arguing in favor of Minimalism as a dominant style. Scott Pilgrim is a pretty excessive film, hardly minimalist. I’m reminded here of what Jonathan Rosenbaum said about Satantango: “its 431-minute running time is necessary not because Tarr has so much to say, but because he wants to say it right.”
http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/?p=11937
. “if efficiency is the goal why read literature instead of Cliff’s Notes?” You’re attributing pretty silly arguments to me. Do you honestly think I’m claiming something like this?
. “What about Beckett? Beckett don’t dramatize, but I doubt you’d exclude him from the badass club.” Beckett’s films are as dramatic as hell. I was just rewatching Eh Joe, for instance. Every single aspect of that film is very carefully considered in a way that’s completely beyond someone like Nolan: it uses a simple aesthetic strategy, but it’s still a dramatic one (to slowly zoom in on the actor’s face as he delivers the monologue, syncronizing the zoom with the performance to finish both simultaneously).
Best regards,
Adam
Just saw this, pretty after the fact. But, oh well:
. You’re continuing to misunderstand what I mean by shot economy; see Alan Rossi’s comment for clarification. (Thanks, Alan.) See this post for further clarification: http://bigother.com/2010/10/04/more-on-inception-shot-economy-and-1-1-1/
. Furthermore, I don’t argue anywhere that “the quality of a film can be reduced to the efficiency of shots”; shot economy is but one aspect of filmmaking (just like language economy is but one aspect of writing). It’s not the most important thing, it’s not the least important thing—it’s just one thing, but it’s something that can be talked about. (And, no, I don’t see anything wrong with comparing SP and I in this regard. Their respective genres don’t really enter into it. My ultimate claim is that Nolan is using very formulaic filmmaking to render his film, and doing it sloppily at that. It’s a pretty simple argument that I haven’t seen you respond to anywhere with any substance.
. “If that were the case then all of Pedro Costa’s films would have to be declared poor quality – his shots/sequences don’t do anything! — or Bergman or Tarkovsky, etcetera.” ??? I don’t think you understand what a shot or a sequence “does.” All three of those directors are pretty brilliant, in part because their shots and sequences do /tremendous/ work. I’ll be happy to demonstrate what I mean here, if you like—go ahead and pick any shot or sequence from any of their films, and I’ll analyze it along these lines.
. You’re also reducing my claim about dramatization. I don’t mean that the work is presented as some realist narrative (the actors run around, waving their arms and emoting). Rather, I mean that the director has done something to /translate/ the ideas in the screenplay into a cinematic form that is other than formulaic filmmaking. Nolan makes every one his films pretty much the same exact way—sure, the CGI changes, the costumes and settings whathaveyou, but he still shoots most of his scenes with the exact same approach: master shot, close-ups, actors expositing. That’s not direction. That’s hackery, formula filmmaking.
. “I will say that I also disagree with the implication that ‘excess’ is a negative thing.” I hope I didn’t imply that, because I don’t agree with it in the slightest. “Excess” is not the same thing as a lack of economy. I’m nowhere arguing in favor of Minimalism as a dominant style. Scott Pilgrim is a pretty excessive film, hardly minimalist. I’m reminded here of what Jonathan Rosenbaum said about Satantango: “its 431-minute running time is necessary not because Tarr has so much to say, but because he wants to say it right.”
http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/?p=11937
. “if efficiency is the goal why read literature instead of Cliff’s Notes?” You’re attributing pretty silly arguments to me. Do you honestly think I’m claiming something like this?
. “What about Beckett? Beckett don’t dramatize, but I doubt you’d exclude him from the badass club.” Beckett’s films are as dramatic as hell. I was just rewatching Eh Joe, for instance. Every single aspect of that film is very carefully considered in a way that’s completely beyond someone like Nolan: it uses a simple aesthetic strategy, but it’s still a dramatic one (to slowly zoom in on the actor’s face as he delivers the monologue, syncronizing the zoom with the performance to finish both simultaneously).
Best regards,
Adam
[…] The problem is that, in the summer of 2010, Chris Higgs preferred Inception to Scott Pilgrim. (Chris’s pronouncement of SP: […]