Game of Thrones

True, my three favorite characters are two generic male heroes and the most masculine female hero. Some might say Arya acquires an annoying BDE, and that Ned and Jon are so prototypical they're boring. Jon especially turns out too perfect: good-looking, strong, wise, courageous, compassionate, the product of Westeros' two most heroic dynasties. All he's missing is not murdering your lover/leader. Maybe the most interesting thing about him is his fate: oblivion at the Wall. Or maybe that just puts him even further into the deified martyr camp.

Jon is boring and too perfect, but I didn't find him boring at all. I found him exquisite. It took some time though. He wasn't perfect at first. Actually, the more perfect he got, the less boring he got. For the first several seasons, he acted out of insecurity, resentment, and piety. He actually became more interesting, far more wonderful to me, when he shed his flaws and ascended into heaven.

Subtle style

I'm guessing they're not actually gold in the movie. But I hope they are. I don't need movies to soberly reflect reality. If a character is wealthy, paint them gold. See my recent post on Book Thief adaptations -- if a whisper is "like a needle and thread" in the book, don't just expect the actor to deliver that image in their voice, show a needle and thread. I don't know! Make movies more interesting! At subtlety's expense. Movies are not artistically adventurous enough. My ideas above are kind of cheap, but at least they're noticeable. I'm tired of this poverty of style. You'll say I'm crass, and I probably am, visually. I think I'm subtle in script, but I'm probably not in visuals. I need more going on.

Essentially, I need more ideas flowing. I need more adventure.

But maybe I don't. I don't just want maximalist gibberish. But I do need style, when the story isn't enough. My complaint is too many movies are lame in story and style. The Book Thief isn't strong enough in story; it leans on its prose style, so it has to lean on its cinematic style. I highly doubt it delivers. L'Avventura is lame in both.

L'Avventura

It's fascinating how unfascinating this classic movie is. I have a measly record with foreign art films of the 40s-60s. They tend to be boring. I can't say what could be different about L'Avventura. It just wanders. I'll have to look it up. If nothing else I'm interested in what other people saw in it.

I'm sick of art that's just famous for its apathy. Apathy is boring. I'm sure it felt innovative in the 60s but it's tired now. Existentialism isn't interesting when it's just apathetic, nor am I convinced we should all be calling apathetic things existentialist.

In a very heterosexual-male turn for me, I enjoyed Claudia's scenes the most, and did not enjoy Sandro at all. His hair made me very uncomfortable. It was so equine and 50-year-old-manlike for what should have been a freewheeling youth (like Claudia). Breathless did better there -- I mean I was uncomfortable with the guy in that movie too, but at least his hair was fresh and free. Sandro would have served better as Claudia's dad, or Claudia's boss, or Claudia's agent. Instead I have to watch Claudia give him undeserved affection and, ultimately, forgiveness. What an ass.

It's fun to talk about movies with inherent mysteries, like "where actually did Anna go", or "why is the yellow man standing up at the end of Blue Velvet", but depending on the execution it can be not fun at all to watch said movies. The mystery of L'Avventura is not mysterious to watch. You just soberly acknowledge "ya I actually don't know where Anna went." It's a mystery to talk about in film class, not a mystery to drag you to the edge of your seat, or even a mystery to make you wonder. You only wonder when someone else makes you wonder, like your professor, or your self-inflicted blog quota.

It's cool to have a central mystery, like "where actually did Anna go", and it's cool not to oversell it. It's even cool, in the worst form of hip, to vastly undersell it. But I'm tired of that form of hip. L'Avventura is hip in a way that doesn't age well. It's cool to talk about how uneventful L'Avventura is, but shouldn't movies be enjoyable or at least stimulating during the movie?

Despite all of this, I have a feeling the next time I talk about L'Avventura I'm going to convince myself I like it. As a matter of fact, it's exactly my kind of movie: moody, visual, mysterious. 4/4 stars.

Edit:

"texture of the prose works as much as what he says in the prose" I think that's totally fair, and in fact I love art as style, even at the expense of message or narrative. But the style must be outstanding. Maybe, in spite of my many years loving movies, film is not actually my medium, because I'm not an exceedingly visual person. L'Avventura did not stand out for visual style. Maybe it just doesn't strike like it used to, or maybe it's too visually subtle for me. I entirely agree that I miss visual cues in movies. I'm more focused on story, and overt visual cues. So why not just read instead, if story is what I care about most? Reading is hard on my attention span, and I simply enjoy movies more. Especially when they're overt in visual style. Maybe Antonioni is just too subtle for me. My visual sense is not intense. I'm much more intellectual than sensory, hence my attraction to good story. You could say L'Avventura is intellectual, but that's partly conflating intellection and art, and partly assigning intellection to something that allows intellection but doesn't inspire it. It just wasn't inspiring.

"It has appeared on Sight & Sound's list of the critics' top 10 greatest films ever made three times in a row: it was voted second in 1962,[29] fifth in 1972 and seventh in 1982.[30] In 2012, it ranked number 21 (with 43 votes) in the critics' poll and number 30 (14 votes) in the directors' poll." Notice how it just keeps going down.

"his films—a seminal body of enigmatic and intricate mood pieces—rejected action in favor of contemplation, championing image and design over character and story" like Malick, but Malick is less subtle, which I need. Not that I love Malick, but at least he's forcing an experience that Antonioni only suggests. Malick is Antonioni for the 21st century's subtlety and attention span.

"Ingmar Bergman stated in 2002 that while he considered the Antonioni films Blowup and La notte masterpieces, he found the other films boring and noted that he had never understood why Antonioni was held in such esteem. Orson Welles regretted the Italian director's use of the long take: "I don't like to dwell on things. It's one of the reasons I'm so bored with Antonioni—the belief that, because a shot is good, it's going to get better if you keep looking at it"

L'Avventura was near the top of my watch list for almost 10 years. I doubt I would have liked it any more anywhere in those 10 years, or in the prior 10. It's just one of those things.

Antonioni seemed like my type of director, like Tarkovsky: painterly and philosophical. Tarkovsky is also better to think about than to watch, though he stands out a little more than L'Avventura did, even though I'd expect to enjoy the Italian over the Russian. Tarkovsky seems a little more ambitious. The mysteries of Solaris and Stalker at least stoke a little alien fear. The mysteries of L'Avventura just involve the blasé of people, and are therefore intrinsically blasé, self-consciously so. I don't need a movie to drag me through the blasé; that's most of living. I do need a movie, though, to confront me with the alien. I can't do that in any sensory way outside fiction. So, for example, space movies like Solaris, Interstellar, and 2001 get a little boost above similarly-styled movies about people. At least those three stimulate some foreign phobias. I'm not xenophobic enough to fear movies about normal people, and I'm past finding apathy profound.

Blowin Your Mind and Moondance

They're like Dylan's pop flops, but sandwiched by greatness 1-2 years on either side, instead of Dylan's decades. Dylan's DC scales up and down over decades, while Van's AC was ripping those 5 years. How could the muse come and go like that? Well, maybe it didn't. Maybe it stayed, and he collected his easy tracks, and saved up his hard ones. I can't blame him for churning out these easy, decent songs. "Sorry bro, you can't release your perennially-bread-winning Brown Eyed Girl for everyone, you can only bleed into the vinyl for maybe no one." No. He can cash his albums which are not bad. And I can ignore them ever after.

Despite Brown Eyed Girl, Moondance was easily the better album for me. Blowin Your Mind was such basic blues. I'd see it live... no cover at a local bar... he shredding his cords, his band shredding their chords... the devil in his voice could rally any unsuspecting venue... but the record is not so fun.

The Odyssey

Christopher,

You have to abandon your ego. You have to harness your imagination for the grand into the sensory, because you can't harness it into the story -- that's already set. After you write the script, you have to go through every line and trim the cheese. You can't let that shit creep in. You have to elevate Matt Damon beyond anything he's ever done; beyond his relatability; beyond himself. He has to become "godlike", not down-to-earth. None of the actors can be themselves, actually. They all have to find a plane within yet above what they've known. This is a task like portraying Christ. It's an absolutely searching and sacred task. I don't mean to deify the poet but this work deserves all of the sincerity of the Bible, for its context if not its quality.

You have to give up the director's chair. You can't pull this off. You're too gimmicky. You made a living surprising dummies. Is that difficult enough to grant you this loaded project? It's not. This is not for you. I'll watch you though. Good luck. You'll need it.

Playing Odysseus

Ignoring that this new movie is Nolan, here's what the performance demands:

1. Famous
2. Classical male hero
3. Almost divinely wise
4. True of heart through fantastic tragedy
5. Weathered
6. Hale

Actor: where they fail

Tom Cruise: 4, 5. I don't trust him after Magnolia and Scientology, and has he ever worn a beard? He may not be tall enough for 2 either

Timothee Chalamet: 2, 5

Matt Damon: 2. This is the studio's actual choice, and it won't fail, but he isn't grand or serious enough for me. He's soft and silly. The Departed and Interstellar make him despicable, and stuff like the Dunkin commercials make him too silly

Tom Hanks: 2

Joaquin: 2, maybe 3-4

The Rock: 3. Hercules checked some boxes for him, but alas, dumb and cheesy

Ian McKellan: 6, 2? I really want this to work, I just haven't seen him in anything besides Gandalf and interviews, and those offer conflicting images

Sean Bean: ...😯 If I remember right, Iliad lasted 10 years and Odyssey 10, and it's been 20 years since he portrayed the character in Troy... Also come on, Ned Stark checks every box

Leo: 2? Has Leo done an epic like this? I shouldn't doubt him though, he's proven himself across the board. The Revenant alone is compelling resume for The Odyssey

Fiennes: portrayed Odysseus recently, apparently, but I'm skeptical of 2 and 4

Day-Lewis: I can't discount this guy for playing just about any guy, but I also can't ask him to do so. He does that which he does, and he doesn't do that which he doesn't. He might be too cerebral and old for 2 anyway.

Wahlberg: 2, 3. Dumber Damon

Clooney: 5, maybe 2

Pitt: hmmmm. 3? He's a bit more Achilles jock than wise Odysseus. Interesting though...

Mikkelsen: ooooooh. Rough journey of Valhalla meets moral battle of The Hunt. He isn't a slam dunk on 1 though

Denzel: see my comments on Macbeth and Gladiator. He's too idiosyncratic

Dafoe: 2. He has this inherent ugliness

Pascal

Eric Bana

Viggo

Krasinski

Daniel Craig

Sean Penn

Christian Bale

McConaughey

Will Smith

Crowe

Fassbender

Cumberbatch

The Menu

I wouldn't mind if this was the new basic movie. This, Saltburn,... movies your friend who is not a film buff likes and calls weird. At least they try something new, even if they don't execute on the level of truly original movies.

The Menu had some really painful bits. I hated Anya Taylor-Joy's skeptic. I hated most of the characters. They were horror cliches, but worse, they were terribly written, and didn't seem to know it. I thought at first the awful writing was self-conscious, but I no longer think so. I think the writers tried writing various kinds of people and simply failed, most tragically at writing the chef -- the artist, with whom they should be kin. The acting followed suit, almost cringey enough to be satire, but again I don't think they tried to be garbage.

Serious similarities to Midsommar. Girl tags along with shaky boyfriend to horror fest. The group slowly realizes bad things are happening, and they aren't sure how seriously to take them. Group gets picked off one by one. Traumatized people accept their fate by the end. Girl escapes the final furnace.

I really didn't like the ending. If I missed some symbolism, that's on me. It was unsatisfying and worse, uninteresting.

Adapting The Book Thief

I'm 3/4 through The Book Thief (the book). Apparently there's a movie. What would I be thinking, were I adapting it?

1. do we do the Death voiceover?

The narration is essential to the book. It's not just about the narrator's unique perspective (Death), it's about style. The style of the prose is my favorite thing about this book. The dialogue can come across in film, of course, but how do you deliver that style of narration without a voiceover? Bake it in the visuals? That would be interesting. For example, when Death describes a white sky (synesthetically), you make the sky extra white. When Death describes a voice like a needle and thread... you show a needle and thread? You abstract everything, mix all the senses. That's one way. The other way is a voiceover. How do you voice Death? On paper, the coldness comes across. But you don't just want the coldest actor, because Death actually has more conscience than many of the characters. Death has a warmth. And Death is cold. Also, should we assume Death is male? I certainly did. Maybe Death isn't. In any case it sounds cheesy to do a Death voiceover throughout -- and it would have to be throughout, with any hope of making this movie stand out. It doesn't stand out enough purely on its story. I wouldn't be interested in this book or movie purely for its story. The narration is the best part. Maybe that's why I haven't heard of this movie -- they failed to make it stand out.

2. how much German do we speak?

I wouldn't mind a full-German movie with subtitles. There's no way that's what they did. I'd definitely want at least some German, and the kids better have real accents.

Blue Velvet

This is one of the more confusing movies I've seen in a while. Not Lynchian confusing, like the multiverse of Mulholland Drive, but meta confusing, like how is this the great work of a great artist? I'm not saying it's not, but I'm not close to saying it is. If I hadn't known this was Lynch, might I have written it off as a bad movie? It's painful, from the cheesy vibes to the overacting to the strangeness of the sexual violence. Not ingredients of a good movie. Yet there are ingredients of a good movie present: managing to keep the viewer in suspense after reason goes out the window, then managing to surprise them after telling them anything can happen.

This was certainly my least favorite of the 3 I've seen (Inland Empire was the other). Despite a persistent cringe, it was certainly the easiest to digest, with its comparatively straightforward plot and consistent characters. It was straightforward enough as to suggest a whole different director. But it was not inspiring like the others, not unsettling in those fantastic ways, not so creative with the craft. The other two were dreamy. This was just an ugly story you could read about in the local paper. The others were strange in their narrative backwardness; this was strange in how emotionally unsatisfying it was. It didn't even score in fear or mindfuckery. It just scored in the manufacture of the cringe, with a few shocks to boot.

Questions remain:

• what injury did Jeffrey's dad suffer at the beginning? It appeared to be caused by or symbolized by a mishandled hose
• what was the point of the beetles near the beginning, which reappear in the robin's mouth?
• was it Frank who killed the men at the end? Why?
• was he also the one who cut off the original ear? What's with the Van Gogh fixation?
• why did Dorothy turn up naked at Jeffrey's house, and how did she know where it was?
• why did Dorothy react to Jeffrey's invasion with such affection?
• what's Frank's relationship with these two songs?
• what was on the wall above Jeffrey's bed?

So there are questions, but they're fewer and lesser than those of the other two movies. They aren't nearly as intriguing.

Joker Folie a Deux

After the first half:

I'm biased by the negative press but I have to say the timing is weird and it's just kind of boring. The songs are really not hitting. I liked Joker dancing in the last movie, but it's really excessive here. Every time someone starts singing I'm tempted to fast forward despite my inclination to watch movies the way they're intended (like a theater). The songs are boring. And outside of them, the pace is strange -- long dramatic shots that aren't actually that dramatic, because nothing is happening, no tension was built for the long shots to bathe in. It's just slow wandering scenes without much narrative drive. Also, Arthur is just in prison and not really doing anything, just waiting for trial. He's not doing anything! Who would have dreamed of a Joker movie in which Joker doesn't do anything, criminal or otherwise? I'm sure something is coming in the second half, but it's a little odd. Not screamingly bad, but a little disappointing.

After the second half:

This movie is unhinged. What, a Joker movie unhinged? Sounds great. No, you don't understand. It's concerning that anyone involved thought this movie would work. An entire movie of Joker in captivity doing absolutely nothing. Introducing Harley Quinn and she does nothing but sing. The script is confounding. It's utterly undramatic. In the absence of action, one would at least expect a character study, but nothing about Fleck is fascinating like it used to be, and the writing doesn't conduct any study, of any sort, let alone an insightful analysis of insanity. Nothing happens at all; Fleck doesn't advance as a character; surely the plot doesn't advance. After the smashing success of the first movie, they let them make a mess of the second. It's a polished mess, with all budget, no substance, not even any entertainment. I also want to call out those moments of stupid writing common to both films. There are these moments of incredibly artificial dialogue, in both movies, that undermine whatever authenticity or artsiness the rest of the two movies suggests. I'm sure I don't get it.

Boyhood

I generally don't care too much about things that are realist in both style and story. Boyhood was certainly both, and oddly engaging. This movie justifies realism, riding the technique to increased, not decreased, stimulation. It resonates a broad band of my fundamental wavelengths, while superhero movies (can't talk about stimulation without talking about them) simply electrify a single wire in my circuitry of desire.

I generally don't care too much about things that are realist in both style and story because they don't give me anything new to take home. I typically haven't broadened my artistic palate (as Tarkovsky might broaden it), found new perspective through a manufactured vantage (Interstellar), or provided myself one of those YOLO experiences you just can't apologize for, however base, however ephemeral (Game of Thrones). I used to refuse those last totally. Then I realized my life was dull. I hate that Game of Thrones would be my solution, but it did get me going, while I continue to navigate my overly calm seas, searching for storms I guess?

Realism usually achieves none of entertainment's three purposes, as I just stated them. Boyhood was different. It was hyperrealistic, to engrossing effect, thus justifying the entire genre's existence. It still doesn't give me what a more stylistic, intellectual, or intense movie gives me, but it offered more than I expect from its kind: a rich, positive experience. It was also creative in form, so I got a slightly new angle on filmmaking, though I prefer creativity in sensory style or in plot.

I wish Samantha retained her spunk. She was a funny kid. I like Mason despite his awkwardness and self-indulgence. I certainly defined both qualities as a teenager. In spite of those I was impressed how maturely he interfaced with his mother; I wonder whether I did that? I never had a problem with her, but did I support her like he did? It's so hard for me to judge my high school maturity. I remember feeling very profound and very awkward.

I liked Ethan Hawke's performance/character quite a bit, despite early misgivings. He's not always a well-advised father, but he seemed always to be a well-intended father, ultimately sound of heart and head, and that was enough. Once I came to trust him, I really enjoyed his presence. Even once he domesticates he's an honest and relatively cool father.

I do relate to Mason a bit. I was awkward, artsy, and thoughtful. Differences: I was less feminine, endured far less home chaos, and took fewer risks.