The House Next Door

I was just heading over here to post a link to that piece...I should have known you'd beat me to it!

I missed Wenders' Q&A at SXSW last week, but apparently he praised it at length there as well.

Thanks, David. If anybody got any quotes from SXSW, email them to me at reeling@aol.com or post them in this thread.

It got nominated just for best cinematography [at the Oscars] and it should have won that by a landslide.

I'll agree with Wenders there. The movie deserved to win. The world is ending. I just said something nice about Wim Wenders.

PS: Edward Copeland's poll to determine the worst Best Picture winners of all time inspired Anne Thompson, deputy editor of The Hollywood Reporter, to come up with her own ballot. The link is here

PS -- There are only a few days left to vote. Send your ballot at eddiesworst@yahoo.com. Commentary isn't necessary, just rank 10 movies in order, with 1 being the worst.

I would like to address an argument regarding age from an ealier thread. Christopher Plummer is 77 years old. He played Mike Wallace who is ten years older. All I'm saying is that just because he doesn't look like a man in his elder years doesn't mean he can't play one. Has anyone seem Wallace lately? He doesn't look 87. So, why are some people finding it so hard for Plummer to play his role in Iside Man?

wait, so odie, you don't like either PARIS, TEXAS or WINGS OF DESIRE? What is the world coming to?...

aaron: I am very confused. I don't recall such a discussion in a previous thread. Did I miss it?

I was speaking in refference to Anthony Lane's labored attempt at humor in his Inside Man review. Plummer's age really shouldn't be up for debate.

Oh, right. Agreed.

Sorry, still confused. Where in Lane's review does he say he's too young to play the bank mogul?

Lane seems to question the credibility of Plummer playing acharacter who worked with the Nazis. Ebert has also brought up the credibility of Plummer playing a man who must be in his nineties. This seems to be a rather small detail to get hung up on while watching a genre movie. I don't see critics getting hot and bothered every time a child doesn't look like he could possibly be the offspring of the two actors playing his parents.

Fair enough.

Brett: wait, so odie, you don't like either PARIS, TEXAS or WINGS OF DESIRE? What is the world coming to?...

Brett, I love watching those movies...when I can't get to sleep.

Twist my arm, and you might get me to say a few polite things about The American Friend.

Well, I certainly welcome anyone to the pro New World camp, and Wim's jaw is comrades with mine on the floor, but this would mean more to me if I'd ever judged a Wenders movie to be comprhensible. That goes ditto for all that later german school.

Of course, there's a lot I haven't seen (Paris, Texas) and self doubter that I am, maybe the ones I have are due for another look. I loved the idea of WINGS OF DESIRE, but not the execution. The Peter Falk is an angel part is delightful. Herzog is one of the only filmakers I've ever had the pleasure to meet, and I liked everything about him except what ended up on screen. I really want to see that bear movie, though. And I don't know what I think of Fassbinder. Scratch that- I think The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant is a powerful movie.

that's really sad for you, odie...

"That's very sad for you, Odie."

Don't cry for me, Brett. Save your tears for a more worthy and deserving cause.

Wagstaff: When I was driven to sleep by in two consecutive nights while watching Herzog films (Aguirre and Fitzcarraldo), I thought there was something wrong with me. I'm more relieved now.

As elated as I am by Wenders' praise of The New World, I am a bit irritated by his approach to lauding it -- why is he constantly alluding to the Oscars as if they actually represent the pinnacle of quality filmmaking? I understand he might have been simultaneously ejaculating on on The New World and shitting on the Oscars (sorry for the vivid imagery), but I would rather have him elucidate on the moments he particularly found awe-inspiring.

As for Wenders' himself, has anyone seen Land of Plenty? It's plenty of bullshit. Fortunately for Wim, Paris, Texas is one of 1985's best.

As much as I love some of Wenders' older material (PARIS, WINGS, even FARAWAY, SO CLOSE, and a part of me would still appreciate the chance to see the long version of UNTIL THE END OF THE WORLD), the most recent work of his does nothing for me.

I've got a close friend who is a Wenders devotee, and will gladly, repeatedly view anything the guy puts out there. The pinnacle(s) of our ongoing Wenders-feud came from my inability to finish either THE END OF VIOLENCE or THE MILLION DOLLAR HOTEL, no matter how many chances I gave them.

I have enormous respect for Wenders' opinions (I even met him once, and he's a super nice guy), but the recent work of his that I've seen (the documentary work aside) is the filmic equivalent of ambien. I hope someday he proves me wrong by creating another strong cup of black coffee.

In any case, I give him props for continuing to make the movies he wants to make and actually getting them made despite the fact that nobody seems to be at all interested in watching them.

Damn. You guys are a hardcore bunch!

I can attest to the greatness of the full version of UNTIL THE END OF THE WORLD (it's out on DVD in Germany, for those that care). It seems to me WW was never the same after that film -- I love most of his films before that, and can't stand the vast majority of them after that. He remains a pretty interesting thinker and, by all accounts, a pretty nice guy. Who knows? He might have another masterpiece or two left in him. A part of me wishes he'd go back to making films in Germany.

I can see why he responded to THE NEW WORLD, though. In a way, it's a film that melds the strengths of both Herzog and Wenders at the height of their respective powers.

As for why he mentions the Oscars so much -- you'll find that pretty much any major professional filmmaker gives the Oscars more consideration than you'd think. And given that WW was probably making those comments somewhere around Oscar-time, it makes perfect sense.

Ross: The filmic equivalent of ambien

and

The pinnacle(s) of our ongoing Wenders-feud came from my inability to finish either THE END OF VIOLENCE or THE MILLION DOLLAR HOTEL, no matter how many chances I gave them.

As to the first comment: Someone else besides me uses Wenders' movies to help them sleep! I feel so much better now.

As to the second: I did finish both THE END OF VIOLENCE (and the beginning of Odie's headache) and THE MILLION DOLLAR HOTEL. As much as I'd love to say "nyaah, I beat you at something!" I should be saying "Odie Dumb, Ross Smart."

Wenders is a classic example of a director believing his own hype or, as my mother so eloquently used to put it, "smelling his own pubic hair."

Matt -

I hate sounding so negative about a filmmaker who's given me more than just one great film in his (and my) lifetime. It's just always so damn depressing when someone you adore starts churning out stuff that seems so unwatchable.

I remain open to his future work, however, and in fact I'm hoping that DON'T COME KNOCKING might be a return to form, especially since the last time Wenders collaborated with Sam Shepard it was so damn perfect. (Has anyone here seen it yet?)

Totally off-topic: Is anybody else really annoyed by the KING KONG graphic that "shakes" the IMDB search engine today?

Bilge Ebiri said:

I can attest to the greatness of the full version of UNTIL THE END OF THE WORLD (it's out on DVD in Germany, for those that care).

I'm somewhat surprised that it's never come out over here, and I'm one of those people that never bothers to go to great lengths to get something that isn't out on R1. So I'll just have to wait.

odie:

You had me right up until you typed "pubic hair."

Ross writes, "Totally off-topic: Is anybody else really annoyed by the KING KONG graphic that "shakes" the IMDB search engine today?"

As a matter of fact, today I was at the office watching and reviewing TV screeners with my headphones on. I paused to check something on IMDB, that graphic came up, and I actually muttered, rather loudly, "You've got to be fucking kidding me." Nobody shushed me, though. It's a newspaper. Everybody talks that way.

My friend claims that it seemed as if Wenders was actually trying to make a bad film with Don't Come Knocking. He urged me to skip it.

So, instead, I went to the shockingly unshocking (and rather mediocre) The Heart is Deceitful is Above All Things.

I wrote:

It's just always so damn depressing when someone you adore starts churning out stuff that seems so unwatchable.

I wanted to add on to this thought. I'm used to great filmmakers selling out and hitting that point in their career where they just seem to be making stuff to grab a quick buck. You know, when they just don't care anymore or maybe they've run out of ideas or the fact that they don't have to fight anymore has turned them to shit? (Coppola, anyone?)

But Wenders is like the exact opposite of this. His films have become so niche and so uncommercial (despite the fact he seems able more than ever to grab some pretty high-profile talent with which to work) that I can only think he's making stuff solely for himself.

And I guess that's OK as he's earned the right to do that, but it certainly makes him a bit of an anomaly as a filmmaker and I'm unsure as to how gratifying that is for an artist.

Maybe in that sense, he's gratified completely by not having to give a shit about what anyone else thinks.

With that in mind - and having still not seen THE NEW WORLD - I can see why Wenders has such high praise for the film, because Malick definitely strikes me as the kind of filmmaker who doesn't think much at all about how the public will perceive his work. He's such a strange man, that sometimes it seems as if he doesn't realize the sheer scale on which he's unleashing his art. In his mind, making a huge period piece is no different than if he were writing a poem on a scrap of paper; it all just comes down to the tools that make the medium work.

(I hope the above makes a sort of sense.)

nick m wrote:

My friend claims that it seemed as if Wenders was actually trying to make a bad film with Don't Come Knocking. He urged me to skip it.

I really wish you hadn't typed that, man. ;-)

Ross: "I really wish you hadn't typed that, man. ;-)"

It's no secret -- it has been receiving terribly mixed reviews since it premiered at a number of film festivals.

nick m wrote:

My friend claims that it seemed as if Wenders was actually trying to make a bad film with Don't Come Knocking. He urged me to skip it.

Your friend is absolutely right, Mr. M. It felt like I was watching paint dry on a screen showing a double feature of a bad remake of Broken Flowers intercut with scenes from Blake Edwards' 1988 disaster Sunset, except Tom Mix was being played by Sam Shepherd and not Bruce Willis. Oh, and the projector had eaten half the script and all the logic associated with the story.

If you can imagine all this, then your imagination will have conjured up a better film than the one that was sitting on the screen.

If Wenders is content to make movies solely for himself, that's fine and dandy. I'm sending him a picture of my pimp stick going upside an unlucky head and a request for a refund. If his movies are made for him, he should pay for me to see 'em.

Ross: that's my Mom's saying, not mine!

And King Kong didn't shake my screen at IMDB! Instead, Christopher Plummer showed up and gave some Nazi papers to Q'orianka Kilcher. I think they're using their recommendations engine over there at IMDB to create graphics now!

Off topic: Ever note that IMDB recommends the strangest shit to you when you search for a movie? I was looking at a listing for Death Bed: The Bed That Eats (blame Jason for this) and imdb said "if you like this movie, you'll like The Muppets Valentine Special. I didn't ask why.

MZS: I actually muttered, rather loudly, "You've got to be fucking kidding me." Nobody shushed me, though. It's a newspaper. Everybody talks that way.

You mean everybody talks like Samuel L. Jackson at the Star Ledger? I can see it now:

Alan Sepinwall: We got snakes on the muthafuckin' plane! And in the personal ads too!

Matt Zoller Seitz: You've got to be fucking kidding me!

You should see me sitting there writing my TV columns, in my leather jacket and leather porkpie hat, chewing on a toothpick. I am one badass daily newspaper entertainment writer. Nobody gives me any shit either, because I'm such a bad motherfucker. Also because I don't wear pants.

odienator: "If Wenders is content to make movies solely for himself, that's fine and dandy. I'm sending him a picture of my pimp stick going upside an unlucky head and a request for a refund. If his movies are made for him, he should pay for me to see 'em."

That's actually a very interesting point. Should a director make a film for himself or the audience?

I recently interviewed Gavin Hood, the director of Tsotsi, and he claimed that he is primarily a storyteller and he has "respect" for his audience (meaning that he never wants to bore them, as he explicitly stated later in the dialog). That's all fine and dandy to entertain your audience on a superficial level, but I believe his film had a certain disprespect for its audience in the way it overstates everything, as if the audience could not pick up on the subtext and character arc immediately.

Now, I'm not exactly endorsing the fact that directors should solely make films for themselves, but I can definitely see how Malick made the film he wanted to -- not the film a general audience would want to see (this is a good thing, as The New World was very good).

So, should a director try not to compromise his vision as much as possible, or should he know his audience?

Nick: So, should a director try not to compromise his vision as much as possible, or should he know his audience?

The best advice I ever got as a writer was to know my audience. Your question seems to imply that a director cannot do both. Terence Malick made The New World he wanted to make, but he made it for his audience, the Malick lovers who occupy The House Next Door and other venues. He may have done it his way, but he had a specific audience in mind. Perhaps that audience solely consists of people who feel about the corruption of nature the way Malick does, or for people who know and love his cinematic cadences. But Malick did not create this movie just for himself.

Art does not exist in a vacuum.

Any artist who says "I created this (painting, movie, novel) for myself" is a LIAR if said work is released to the public. If I were creating a movie just for myself, why put it on film? I can watch it projected in the circle that I find in the windmills of my mind.

I have never been a fan of Wenders' work, but I am astute enough to see that it has gone down considerably in quality and seems to have forsaken the director's thematic signposts. If this is an intentional folly, then it shows a callous disregard for the people who love his work and who clamor to see it BECAUSE it is done "the Wenders way."

Nobody makes anything just for themselves and releases it. That whole starving-artist-don't-sell-out mentality is a hunka hunka burnin' horseshit. There's a reason starving artists starve. They deserve to.

Nick: I believe [Tsotsi] had a certain disprespect for its audience in the way it overstates everything, as if the audience could not pick up on the subtext and character arc immediately.

Ollie Stone has made a career out of doing just that: assuming the audience is a bunch of kindergarten kids who somehow snuck into an R-rated movie. So he has to draw us a map because we're not smart enough to follow him. Then he makes us eat the map one page at a time. Tres Greenaway!

Straightforward execution does not necessarily mean pandering. I thought Tsotsi was heavy-handed because the director was making a very melodramatic movie, not because he assumed the audience was stupid. Melodrama beats you over the head. It's par for the course, and if you're in the mood for melodrama, then it can be a satisfying affair.

I'd rather have Ollie's method than have a movie that hides a simple theme behind so much pretentious smoke that you choke to death before you're impaled on the point, that is, if you can find the point.

Odie and Nick: You're touching on one of the central issues for any artist: how much should be implied and how much should be spelled out? Obviously there's no one-size-fits-all answer, but I wonder if directors like Steven Spielberg and Oliver Stone have had some commercial success with political topics because they go to the trouble of spellling things out for us, just in case somebody missed it. Spielberg and Stone don't need framing devices and expository monologues, necessarily; I'd like to think their grasp of movie storytelling would cover all the bases and communicate their intent to anyone who's really watching and listening. But they cover their bases anyway, and a lot of viewers appreciate it. I don't think SAVING PRIVATE RYAN would have made quite the same cultural impact without the bracketing cematary sequences, and I doubt JFK would have worked without the park bench scene between Jim Garrison and the fictional Mr. X.

I agree that there should be a balance -- I was just posing a question which used both extremes.

For me, the job of a filmmaker should be to communicate something -- it does not have to be a strong narrative, but something -- to me. Therefore, a film should be significant (but not too precious) to the director, but also meaningful to its viewer. As Marcel Duchamp said, "a piece of art is not complete without a spectator."

I go to films, listen to music and read literature to gain a new perspective and insight into how another person views the world through (essentially) concepts, ideas and themes.

There is nothing worse than a vapid production.