1. "I Am Jack's Manic-Depression": Jim Emerson, straight-up at Scanners.
["If you've ever suffered from clinical depression, you know the experience is impossible to convey to someone who hasn't also gone through it. It doesn't make sense. It's like trying to describe why you love somebody. How do you explain a lack of feeling, or interest, or pleasure, that is both numbing and excruciatingly painful? How do you account for a disconnection with the past and any conception of a future? It's not "living in the moment" -- it's being stuck in a moment from which you can't imagine any escape -- not just the feeling that this asphyxiating near-deadness will go on forever, but that you can't imagine ever having felt any other way (even though, logically, you know that is not possible). You can remember feeling pleasure -- no, make that "having felt pleasure" -- but you have no memory of what it actually felt like. One of the (many) reasons I probably connect so strongly with David Fincher's "Fight Club" (1999) is that, by capturing clinical depression more accurately than any other movie I've ever seen (though Laurent Cantet's "Time Out" and Eric Steel's "The Bridge" delve mighty deep into that abyss), it helped shake me out of the grips of a depression that was sucking me down at the time. I was the only person in the theater convulsed with laughter from beginning to end, because it was liberating, exhilarating, to see the truth of my own inner experience reflected back at me in its funhouse mirror. I recognized myself in the movie, relished the psychological acuteness of what I was seeing, felt its black absurdity resonate in my poor, chemically imbalanced noggin."]
2. "Lyons, Mankiewicz named 'At the Movies' hosts": Just as the alignment of Jamie Bell and the Sphinx has foretold! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!!!
["Ben Lyons, a Hollywood reporter and film critic for "E! News" and others, and Turner Classic Movies host Ben Mankiewicz will take over "At the Movies" when its new season begins in September, Disney-ABC Domestic Television said Tuesday. Don't look for the syndicated program's "thumbs up-thumbs down" ratings to return. Roger Ebert shares a trademark lock on it with the widow of his late co-host, Gene Siskel, and Ebert has said they're hanging on to it."]
3. A Nayman/Tracy double-header at Reverse Shot, the former on The Dark Knight, the latter on Hellboy II.
["Talking faux-seriously about juvenilia has become a marvelous way to avoid talking seriously about the serious. The slew of hyperbolic, overheated critical rhetoric that follows in the wake—hell, in advance of—the latest high concept blockbuster is enough to make one gag. In these cases, critical investigation has by and large become a matter of repeating verbatim the films’ stridently announced surface-level themes with some linguistic curlicues and intellectual tumbling tossed in. As it has so often, commercial calculation finds a willing handmaiden in critical laziness, even (or perhaps especially) that evinced by those more intelligent and discerning writers who devote their efforts and talents towards designing elaborate intellectual justifications for films that neither require nor deserve them."]
4. "Under-rated movies #16: Waking the Dead": Sheila O'Malley on Keith Gordon's film.
["What the movie really is about is their love. But there's so much more in there. It's about America - it's about politics - it's about, to some degree, what happened to the best and brightest of the Left, during the Vietnam War. How so many of them became so disenchanted that they had to check out entirely. They stopped being a part of the conversation in this country. One way to look at all of this is as an extended metaphor (although the movie is subtle, and does not hit you over the head with it): Here is this Democrat Congressman-to-be, haunted by his radical Left girlfriend, killed by her political beliefs. The Democrats, haunted by that side of their party, by that fringe element - the Democrats haunted by the ghost of the Vietnam War. But that's just an interpretation. It's handled very delicately - it doesn't hit you over the head)."]
5. It's time, once again, for our readers to pick the fifth link (mainly because I'm sick as a dog and need to crawl back into bed). First prize is a one-on-one Punch-Out bout with the dashingly handsome man above.
Quote of the Day: Matthew Arnold
Image of the Day (click to enlarge): Carp pedicure, anyone?
Clip of the Day: Meredith Viera interviews Kenny Anderson, who had a close call with an SUV... in a diner.
_____________________________________________________
"Links for the Day": Each morning, the House editors post a series of weblinks that we think will spark discussion. Comments encouraged. Suggestions for links are also welcome. Please send to keithuhlich@gmail.com.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Links for the Day (July 23rd, 2008)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Lesbians lose; lesbians cheer.
Re: Today's Video
His spider-sense was tingling!
Smith&Wesson make commemorative "2nd Amendment" Revolver.
flashing GIF at DCist
Re: #5
Porn for Wii: Dark Room Sex Game
By the way, was it really true that in the original Punch-Out! if you lasted until a certain round against Tyson, that you could punch one of his gloves and a brick would fall out, disqualifying him? Or is that just a Nintendo Urban Legend?
This interview with Teri Garr at the AV Club is refreshingly B.S.-free, and one hell of an entertaining read.
Also, I don't think this conversation about Werner Herzog's latest doc at Roger Ebert's Journal has made the links yet. Herzog himself gets involved in the comments!
Re: #4
Tracy's pan of Hellboy II is one of the few to take del Toro to task for his "soft" world-building (a theme that came up on THND in the comments sections of two previous reviews), and he manages a level of clarity and coherence that few of us dissenters (from the common view that del Toro is some kind of Mexican film prodigy) have managed. Bravo.
His larger attack on the "critical" establishment for its elevation of passable commercial product to Aristotelian philosophical heights is similarly well made, despite a certain taste of reactionary gall: this kind of anger is important as a means of shaking us out of critical complacency and forcing us to re-align our values, but it's still merely the result of a violent disagreement with popular opinion. :)
Nevertheless, (un)intentionally bestowing "seriousness" on frivolous product (sometimes a result of the critical community's desperate efforts to join in the breathless discourse surrounding a new "major motion picture") is a lamentable fact of the industry ... but how do you counter-act it other than by writing detailed pieces about films that no one seems to be talking about, or in which no one seems to be interested? And, sometimes, isn't the given product genuinely worthy of examination? Isn't everything, in one context or another?
There's a puzzle without an answer, I think.
Adam Nayman's confrontation with The Dark Knight is also pretty satisfying, but I wonder at his claim that including a backstory for the Joker would make him a more satisfying villain -- or rather, would "imbue his subsequent descent into insanity with some dimension." Reading the Joker as "insane" (at least in the Nolan's latest take on the character) is inaccurate. It's like reading Hamlet or Ophelia or Lear as "simply mad." You know, like their plights done gone rendered them crazy or something. That's just not it.
"Madness" in Shakespeare is generally a clearer view of "truth" at a level higher than that which governs "normal" social interactions and their basic rules. It is an insight into a realm where day-to-day actions become absurd in the face of inescabable mortality, or where class, power and control become meaningless in light of the leveling force of death (to put it in woefully reductive terms): the inability to find meaning in a world that offers only the most absurd and ugly behaviour in an effort to survive for a puny and always finite time. This is a basic definition of the kind of nihilism to which the Joker's brand is related.
The difference between Shakespeare and the Nolan's, however, is that while the former leavens the starkness and growing horror of this vision with a concomitant sense of transcendence (linked with self-awareness and/or wisdom and/or pathos -- illustrated and illuminated by his powerful artistry, his aesthetic control), the Nolan's offer us nothing but bleakness. Their Joker is a potent consciousness whose sole desire is to take advantage of his insight to hurt, disfigure and destroy the people and the society around him. He revels in his nihilism and it insinuates itself into the very fabric of the film, sucking the life and hope out of every frame (or so it seemed to me). (After the thrilling introduction of Ledger's Joker -- he really is terrific -- he's left to sort of spin his tires in a moral "no fly zone". They don't let him go anywhere else and it's frustrating to see Ledger, who is better than the material allows, I think, stuck in the same spot for 2½ hours.)
SPOILERS for The Dark Knight
That last ditch effort to throw some uplift into TDK by way of the "ferry crisis" is only so much hogwash, brought low by its clunky logistics (how much more poorly thought out could this "moral quandry" be?), absurd scale (the Joker did this when and using what infinite supply of explosives?) and artlessness (the manipulative efforts to bend and twist our expectations were insulting after so much straight misery). A "vicious" criminal appears ready to blow the other ship to bits, but (surprise!) takes an honourable stance and tosses the remote overboard, reassuring our faith in humanity in such a belaboured way it makes me want to retch. The citizens vote in favour of offing the criminals by an extraordinary margin (a true testament to the moral worth of a public who bears no responsibility for the final outcome of its decision), but nobody's ballsy enough to pull the trigger. Well isn't that just the most resoundingly heart-warming tale you've ever heard? Thanks guys! Way to lighten up the joint.
All is merely ugliness.
So essentially (and simplistically): the Joker is a pretty terrifying nihilist (and the refusal of a concrete backstory is part of his overarching effort to deny meaning), but the Nolan's refuse to allow the character to do anything other than inhabit the darkest spheres of nihilistic thought, while their artistry offers no leavening force or attitude or ideology in the face of such grimness. It's a damned dirty shame.
(Come to think of it, maybe it would have been better to give him a backstory and soften his philosophical clarity: he's too dark a force to be reckoned with in this context....)
I should also point out that Nayman's complaints regarding the mismatch between the real world and the film world in the Nolan's allegorical design are spot-on.
"...equating the Joker’s pseudo-Nietzchean ramblings about the fragility of the social order with real-world terrorism is at best specious and at worst offensive."
"While I won’t venture into Dave Kehr territory by suggesting that Nolan is endorsing warrantless wiretapping, there is something disconcertingly easy about the way that particular plot strand gets knotted: Batman rigs his all-seeing TV Eye to self-destruct once its purpose has been served. A neat trick, but also pretty easy, ideologically speaking."
Indeed.
In fact, the Joker would be much more satisfying if he weren't chained to the allegorical terrorist role and actually allowed to develop freely, dropping the "pseudo" and hewing closer to the "Nietzschean".
Re: #5
Teaser for The Day the Earth Stood Still remake starring Keanu Reeves.
Most of the Internet buzz I've seen has been negative. People get so upset when great movies are redone. But I'm actually looking forward to it. I know it's blasphemy, but the original is starting to show it's age.
You only get a quick glimpse of what looks like Gort in the trailer, so it's not clear how much screen time he'll get.
It'll be interesting to see if in this version Klaatu once again dies and is resurrected for the sake of mankind.
I'm only guessing, but since Keanu Reeves has already done that as cyber-Jesus in The Matrix, I suspect that the remake may be more faithful to the original short story, "Farewell to the Master," which has a different ending.
Hi Kevin H,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments -- I appreciate them, very much. When I referred to the Joker as insane, I thought -- hoped -- that it was clear I was referring to Moore's Joker in The Killing Joke. And while the Nolans' Joker may not be insane, as such -- you do a better job delineating his psychology than the filmmakers do -- I still feel that there's a prefab aspect to the character that's both too easy and profoundly unsatisfying. Not to mention unworthy of Ledger's performance. Like Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood, he manages to elevate his role beyond the level of mere, bleak conceit: TDK is a long, predictable slog, but Ledger's marvellous moment-to-moment choices -- which were, of course, shaped by Nolan as a director, so credit is due in several directions -- alleviated some of the tedium.
Adam,
You're welcome. And thanks in return for the clarification. Can't say I disagree with any of your points now and must admit that we're pretty much cruising the same wave (except that I have exactly zero familiarity with even one Batman comic in all his long, convoluted history -- never thought that hurt me much though).
Kinda wish I'd read your review thoroughly (i.e. right to the end) before rushing to comment on a particular point part way through, because that would have saved me from essentially paraphrasing your criticism of the "ferry" sequence (and in surprisingly similar terms to boot!).
Also, I suppose I should correct my first post above. I'm obviously refering to link #3 rather than #4. But if we haven't figured that out by now...
Mike, that Teri Garr interview is terrific. Thank you!
Read it, anyone who hasn't.
"One foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel..." Was there ever a more apt commentary on the human condition? Thank you, Miss Garr.
About this Ben Lyons person. That his father was/is a hack was/is one thing, but--the apple hasn't fallen far from the tree--shouldn't we all be headed for the Pepto to hear Lyons the younger roar (I've already forgotten over which film), "It'll make you stand up and cheer!" Leaving aside for the nonce that this trite, non-descriptive phrase was a rote cliché long before the 26-year-old "critic" was even a gleam in Jeffrey's eye, when, WHEN, was the last time, if ever, you saw anyone standing up, other than to make a hasty retreat to the exit, in a movie theatre, let alone while cheering at the same time?
Kevin H, your reading of the ferryboat sequence is sublime.
Kevin H, your reading of the ferryboat sequence is sublime.
Yes, but did you read Adam's? : )
Seriously, though, thanks for the compliment -- it made my day. And for another terrific tear-down of this particular sequence (along with a broader venting of disgust for the film in general), take a peek in the comments section over at Dave Kehr's site:
http://www.davekehr.com/?p=59
Scroll down to dmohr's comment on 07.21.08 @ 9:44 pm. It's another jewel, I assure you, and you can revel even longer in its sublimity because he's made use of at least 4 or 5 times the word count I allowed myself above. : )
Post a Comment