vulpix
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by vulpix on Feb 22, 2011 1:49:47 GMT -5
I just finished listening to episode 205, and I felt compelled to comment on a couple of the more divisive issues while the discussion is still fresh in my mind. Congratulations on finishing your "marathon," by the way. It was a good listen.
I agree with Tyler regarding The Kids Are All Right. I had the same thought: If the movie happened to be about a straight couple, would anybody care about the film? I understand and appreciate highlighting gay films for the Oscars, but I don't think The Kids Are All Right comes close to the caliber of gay films from previous years like Milk, for example. The Kids Are All Right feels more comparable to It's Complicated.
I've been thinking about how I feel about Black Swan--I don't particularly care for it, although I don't hate it--and have wondered how much it has to do with how often I was told what an amazing film it was before I saw it. It's that whole subjectivity problem surfacing again, it seems.
Black Swan very much reminds me of Persona, but that film deals with similar issues in a way that isn't nearly as heavy-handed. My problem with Black Swan is that it takes ideas from a movie like Persona and places a Fight Club filter on it for mainstream palatability, similar to how Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland strips the whimsical appeal from Lewis Carroll's story and uses a Lord of the Rings filter for mainstream palatability. Sure, Black Swan has an interesting atmosphere, the same way Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland has an interesting visual style, but there just isn't enough substance and originality in either of those films for me to love them. In Black Swan, even those meta themes of the movie being about the making of the movie is exactly what Persona is about--just review the first two minutes (or listen to the commentary) of Persona if you have any doubts. The difference, however, is that Bergman's film is brilliantly understated, while Aronofsky's version is quite the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by marc on Feb 23, 2011 20:42:55 GMT -5
As David pointed out at the end of the discussion, the disagreement on THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT is not fundamentally aesthetic, but rather ideological. The elephant in the room, however, is that Tyler's Christianity, and its attitudes to homosexuality, really colored his opinion on the film, but yet he did not feel comfortable in expressing that directly, for fear of a backlash. He thus tried unsuccessfully to put his argument in the form of aesthetic problems. Beyond the homosexuality, I think the treatment of the Ruffalo character and the harsher judgment put upon him is also a hang-up. Certainly, the film is not beyond criticism, mostly in terms of its limited formal interest, but that certainly didn't seem to be what was bothering Tyler about the movie.
Also, I found it telling that WAITING FOR SUPERMAN was mentioned as being discriminated against by the academy for its conservative stance. I think this may be true, but more telling is the critiques of the film as biased and faulty in its facts and logic. It's interesting that Micheal Moore is the whipping boy of the podcast, yet a film done in his style from a conservative perspective is decried as being unfairly treated.
|
|
lennart
New Member
I don?t see race. On that subject I am very enlightened, and equally endarkened.
Posts: 23
|
Post by lennart on Feb 23, 2011 23:41:46 GMT -5
marc, I just thought I'd point out, in contrast to your and even our host David's thoughts, I don't think the difference is Tyler's ideology at all. I agreed with Tyler wholeheartedly and I can't confess to having the same views of homosexuality (which I don't think have ever even been mentioned, but are we assuming are more 'conservative'?). In any event, in my opinion Tyler's criticism were definitely reasonable and not based on any stance, political or otherwise. I recall listening to the podcast and the whole time agreeing with Tyler regarding the movie and disagreeing with David... and disagreeing with him even more when he ended the discussion by mentioning it's an ideological difference, which to my mind it absolutely is not. I don't want to make the argument for Tyler here and imply that he can't speak for himself... but I just thought it might add some credence to point out that he has some support. (And in any case, he said he'd give it like 2 out of 4 stars... he didn't hate the movie, he just was pointing out some of the stuff which kept it out of his top 10... which is kinda important if it's someone else's number 2 film of the year, I believe)
|
|
vulpix
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by vulpix on Feb 23, 2011 23:44:48 GMT -5
As David pointed out at the end of the discussion, the disagreement on THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT is not fundamentally aesthetic, but rather ideological. The elephant in the room, however, is that Tyler's Christianity, and its attitudes to homosexuality, really colored his opinion on the film, but yet he did not feel comfortable in expressing that directly, for fear of a backlash. He thus tried unsuccessfully to put his argument in the form of aesthetic problems. Beyond the homosexuality, I think the treatment of the Ruffalo character and the harsher judgment put upon him is also a hang-up. Certainly, the film is not beyond criticism, mostly in terms of its limited formal interest, but that certainly didn't seem to be what was bothering Tyler about the movie. I disagree. I'm an atheist, but I was in total agreement with Tyler regarding The Kids Are All Right. The Oscars often reward certain films for reasons that are more about politics than quality, and this is just one of those instances. Also, I found it telling that WAITING FOR SUPERMAN was mentioned as being discriminated against by the academy for its conservative stance. I think this may be true, but more telling is the critiques of the film as biased and faulty in its facts and logic. It's interesting that Micheal Moore is the whipping boy of the podcast, yet a film done in his style from a conservative perspective is decried as being unfairly treated. I haven't seen Waiting for Superman yet--the status on my Netflix queue remains the dreaded "very long wait." However, I think it's fair to say that when Moore's unblinkingly dishonest, liberal-leaning films are rewarded, yet conservative-leaning documentaries are not, a bias exists. Again, it's a case of politics winning over quality, and I see no problem with acknowledging this issue.
|
|
|
Post by marcraymond on Feb 24, 2011 9:39:02 GMT -5
A few points: Tyler did say, and repeated on twitter, that he hated the movie,even if he admits it has positive qualities. I'm guessing this hatred is not simply an offense to his aesthetic sensibilities. I actually don't have a problem with Tyler disliking the film based on ideology, even if I disagree, I just wish he would not tiptoe around it. And generally, Tyler is very good critic and my post was not meant to imply otherwise. I've been a fan and supporter of the show for years and continue to think it's one of the best out there. On WAITING FOR SUPERMAN, of course there are politics, I was just pointing out why defend a biased film from the other side rather than promote more accurate films. And I think Moore's reputation has been affected and he is no longer HOllywoods darling, and never was completely, lest you forget the booing (btw, who looks better on that issue now?) simply put, Guggenheim simply lies and misleads and this, as much as the politics, got it left off the nominee list.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler Smith on Feb 24, 2011 20:52:44 GMT -5
Okay. I just want to make it clear what is being said here. I am being put in somewhat of a bad position. I've stated that I'm a Christian. People know that going into every episode. So, if ever I happen to dislike a movie that, in some way, conflicts philosophically with my Christian views, people will only ever assume that it is because of those views. The only way for me to not be labeled a homophobe is for me to have loved The Kids Are All Right. Any negative view I have, no matter how in-depth I go about my problems with the film's artistic execution, will be dismissed until I just decide that, hey, you know what? I guess that movie was great, after all. It is correct that I was nervous about discussing the film, not because of what I was and was not going to say, but because of what people would hear. While David and I have discussed that a person's personal beliefs and experiences will always influence how they view a movie, I like to think that I've done a pretty good job of accepting a given film's views and approaching it from a purely execution standpoint. I think that the way the filmmaker approached a film purportedly about an entire family was fundamentally flawed. I think that she only cared about the kids through the prism of the adults. Once the adults' problems emerged, the kids may as well not have mattered. At no point did I say I had a problem with the fact that the parents are gay. I accepted that fact, believed that they truly loved each other, and moved on from there. I thought the dialogue was clunky, the direction was uneven, and many of the motivations murky. If you think that I'm purposely being harsh on those things because of my total inability to divorce my ideology from my critique, then you really should carry it as far as it will go and assume that I absolutely love the Left Behind series or Fireproof or The Omega Code. You must also assume that I hated Philadelphia, Brokeback Mountain, Gods and Monsters, Boys Don't Cry, Milk, and, it should be noted, Black Swan. One of the problems with being a Christian on the internet is that, because Christianity is a very visible religion in our culture, people just assume that they know what you believe and tend to see everything you say through the filter of their assumption. And, admittedly, there are a lot of terrible Christians on the internet that viewed The Kids Are All Right as the latest Hollywood extension of "The Gay Agenda." The movie was never going to be good to them; they never even gave it a chance. In fact, in all likelihood, they didn't see it. If you want to come down hard on them, then I'll be right there with you. But, as we've discussed on the show before, there needs to be a level of trust between critics and their audience. I put my opinion out there, trusting you to take me at my word, and you trust that I'm not steering that opinion in a certain direction to better accommodate my world view. I was worried about this discussion because I had a feeling that, because of people's awareness of my religious beliefs, it would give people a reason to doubt my commitment to objectivity. I was worried that there would be a breakdown of that trust. I did not like The Kids Are All Right. In some discussions, I have used the word "hate," which was much harsher than it should have been. Nonetheless, I do not think the movie was very good. All I can do is assure you that I came by that belief honestly and organically, trying to put aside any personal bias I may have for or against the film. My hope is that you believe me and we can move on to next week's episode. Thanks.
|
|
Dr Handsome
Full Member
...but you can call me Eric.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Dr Handsome on Feb 25, 2011 15:51:48 GMT -5
I would've responded earlier but I've only just finished the episode...
It's hard to speak objectively (being a Christian myself) but it's wild (and unfounded) to assume that those arguments were his way of "tiptoeing around" on his religious stance. I can't for the life of me see how you got to that opinion from his words.
Vulpix mentions another point worth making: there are some fantastic movies that deal with homosexuality that are worthy of an Oscar nomination (you've all mentioned Milk already) but (along with several other people who don't share my religious views) I just don't see The Kids are Alright as being in that league.
Okay, now let's take a breath...
Scott Pilgrim, it's always seemed so pretentious to put it this way, isreally experimental and has always seemed unappreciated to me (at least outside of geek circles) in that regard. That door, which in the book is slightly more literal, is reduced to a visual metaphor and I love how it actually works.
|
|
|
Post by ikderk on Feb 26, 2011 20:27:29 GMT -5
"Waiting for 'Superman'" was a good documentary, but there isn't a stinker in the category. "Waste Land" wasn't great either, but there were a slew of great docs ("Client 9" for example) that didn't make the cut either.
The issues presented in "Waiting for 'Superman'" are worth engaging in, but it certainly falls into the category of "commentary film" as mentioned on Tyler's More Than One Lesson podcast about "Religilous." The best comparison from another perspective is "Race to Nowhere," a film that argues the problems with education come with too much busy work and the stress of achievement rather than competence. Watching both films, I tend to think "Superman" was a better movie but "Nowhere" was an actual fix for the problem. Although "Nowhere" ignores teacher's unions protecting bad teachers, "Superman" doesn't address the basic problems of our educational curriculum.
|
|
|
Post by marcraymond on Feb 26, 2011 22:40:25 GMT -5
Okay. I just want to make it clear what is being said here. I am being put in somewhat of a bad position. I've stated that I'm a Christian. People know that going into every episode. So, if ever I happen to dislike a movie that, in some way, conflicts philosophically with my Christian views, people will only ever assume that it is because of those views. The only way for me to not be labeled a homophobe is for me to have loved The Kids Are All Right. Any negative view I have, no matter how in-depth I go about my problems with the film's artistic execution, will be dismissed until I just decide that, hey, you know what? I guess that movie was great, after all. It is correct that I was nervous about discussing the film, not because of what I was and was not going to say, but because of what people would hear. I have to disagree here. The main problem I had was the lack of directness and putting your cards on the table. If you had acknowledged your personal bias, and then stated that, despite this, you feel your main problems were the execution, and given the reasons why, it would have been much more honest. While David and I have discussed that a person's personal beliefs and experiences will always influence how they view a movie, I like to think that I've done a pretty good job of accepting a given film's views and approaching it from a purely execution standpoint. I generally agree, although approaching anything from a "purely execution standpoint" is next to impossible. We don't live in a vacuum. I think that the way the filmmaker approached a film purportedly about an entire family was fundamentally flawed. I think that she only cared about the kids through the prism of the adults. Once the adults' problems emerged, the kids may as well not have mattered. At no point did I say I had a problem with the fact that the parents are gay. I accepted that fact, believed that they truly loved each other, and moved on from there. I thought the dialogue was clunky, the direction was uneven, and many of the motivations murky. If you think that I'm purposely being harsh on those things because of my total inability to divorce my ideology from my critique, then you really should carry it as far as it will go and assume that I absolutely love the Left Behind series or Fireproof or The Omega Code. You must also assume that I hated Philadelphia, Brokeback Mountain, Gods and Monsters, Boys Don't Cry, Milk, and, it should be noted, Black Swan. Sorry, but I don't think this is a valid argument. It has the feel of "some of my best friends are gay". And furthermore, it is interesting that those are the movies you picked, all films that, while sympathetic towards homosexuals as individuals, nonetheless focus on gay characters that suffer and die, the tragic gay character that fits in with a more tolerant Christian humanism that still views homosexuality as a lifestyle as sinful and destructive. THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT is a very different film in its attitude to homosexuality than those films. One of the problems with being a Christian on the internet is that, because Christianity is a very visible religion in our culture, people just assume that they know what you believe and tend to see everything you say through the filter of their assumption. And, admittedly, there are a lot of terrible Christians on the internet that viewed The Kids Are All Right as the latest Hollywood extension of "The Gay Agenda." The movie was never going to be good to them; they never even gave it a chance. In fact, in all likelihood, they didn't see it. If you want to come down hard on them, then I'll be right there with you. But, as we've discussed on the show before, there needs to be a level of trust between critics and their audience. I put my opinion out there, trusting you to take me at my word, and you trust that I'm not steering that opinion in a certain direction to better accommodate my world view. I was worried about this discussion because I had a feeling that, because of people's awareness of my religious beliefs, it would give people a reason to doubt my commitment to objectivity. I was worried that there would be a breakdown of that trust. I did not like The Kids Are All Right. In some discussions, I have used the word "hate," which was much harsher than it should have been. Nonetheless, I do not think the movie was very good. All I can do is assure you that I came by that belief honestly and organically, trying to put aside any personal bias I may have for or against the film. My hope is that you believe me and we can move on to next week's episode. Thanks. Pointing a critic's possible blindspots and biases does not entail a lack of trust. My two favorite critics, Jonathan Rosenbaum and Robin Wood, are both clearly coming from certain positions and these positions occasionally lead them to overrate and underrate certain films. Which is fine, as long as the cards are on the table.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler Smith on Feb 27, 2011 5:18:56 GMT -5
I wrote and posted a long, frustrated response to this, but I deleted it. Instead, I think I may try to address it on the show.
|
|
|
Post by nixmith on Mar 2, 2011 7:55:45 GMT -5
Tyler, if it's any consolation, I've listened to the episode and it sounds to me that you approached 'Kids' the same way you approached every other film in the show--as a moviegoer. But, then again, let me put my biases out on the table: I am a sane person.
|
|
|
Post by siege121 on Mar 2, 2011 14:15:33 GMT -5
I finally saw just about every movie I wanted to see that came out on 2010, having just watched Blue Valentine last night. There are still some I want to see (Another Year, The Illusionist, Uncle Boonmee....) but I think I can finally put an end to 2010 with my own top ten list:
1) Black Swan 2) The Social Network 3) Inception 4) Blue Valentine 5) True Grit 6) Scott Pilgrim vs. the World 7) The American 8) Winter's Bone 9) The Fighter 10) The Town
I saw 65 films that came out in 2010, with either Alice in Wonderland or Machete being the worst. I made a point to see more documentaries this year although I only saw around 7 ( my Flickchart lists I'm Still Here and Jackass 3-D as documentaries but I don't count those). My favorite documentary of the year would be either Restrepo or Jean-Michel Basquiat: The Radiant Child. Both gave me incredible insight into topics I saw very ignorant of. This was not a great year for animated films and I think I may be in the minority in liking How to Train Your Dragon more than than Toy Story 3. That doesn't mean I didn't love Toy Story 3 I just resonated more with HTTYD. I thought this was a horrible year for comedies, or at least mainstream comedies. I loved Scott Pilgrim and The Other Guys but other than that the purely comedic film was one that didn't get made very well in 2010.
It wasn't the best year, my personal favorite year is 2007, but I do think that it was a very solid year for movies.
|
|
Dr Handsome
Full Member
...but you can call me Eric.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Dr Handsome on Mar 2, 2011 17:01:41 GMT -5
I don't think I can call How to Train Your Dragon better than Toy Story 3 but I did see it just a few days back and, yeah, it really is fantastic! I was angry at myself for not seeing it in 3D when I had the chance but luckily it's not something that's crucial to the quality of the film.
|
|
|
Post by marcraymond on Mar 3, 2011 9:48:36 GMT -5
Overall I saw 58 films released in 2010. My system is similar to David's in that I don't count films released in 2009 that open in US in 2010, partly because I live in South Korea (my 2009 list did include DOGTOOTH). I also saw 12 complete seasons of TV, which I've started to count in making my lists (if we count epic films like SATANTANGO and mini-series like CARLOS, why not?) My Top Ten are:
(1) POETRY (2) OKI'S MOVIE (3) BLUE VALENTINE (4) HAHAHA (5) NEVER LET ME GO (6) BREAKING BAD SEASON 3 (7) ANIMAL KINGDOM (8) RABBIT HOLE (9) EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP (10) THE HOUSEMAID
Different list than most because of geography (4 films from South Korea), but also my taste differed from the academy, with none of the ten Oscar films on my top 10 (my favorite of the Oscar noms was TRUE GRIT). Not that I disliked any of those films (even my least favorite, 127 HOURS, was OK and better, I thought, than Boyle's Oscar-winning SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE), but there were none I thought were truly great. Still have to see ANOTHER YEAR, UNCLE BOONMEE, and a few others.
|
|
|
Post by marcraymond on Mar 10, 2011 11:09:45 GMT -5
Tyler, if it's any consolation, I've listened to the episode and it sounds to me that you approached 'Kids' the same way you approached every other film in the show--as a moviegoer. But, then again, let me put my biases out on the table: I am a sane person. archive.tvo.org/video/119383
|
|
Dr Handsome
Full Member
...but you can call me Eric.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Dr Handsome on Mar 11, 2011 1:57:37 GMT -5
It might very well be difficult to speak one-hundred-percent objectively about a film but what you're suggesting is that... 1. Regardless of his followup his religious beliefs were unquestionably the source of any negative opinions he had about the film. 2. This wouldn't have been the case had he stated his theological beliefs at a very specific point in time, namely the moment before he'd reviewed the film on air. It's like you're saying “you're wrong that isn't what you meant to say." And furthermore, it is interesting that those are the movies you picked, all films that, while sympathetic towards homosexuals as individuals, nonetheless focus on gay characters that suffer and die, the tragic gay character that fits in with a more tolerant Christian humanism that still views homosexuality as a lifestyle as sinful and destructive. Like I said, I’m a Christian myself and I can relate to just how difficult it is to have people assume they’ve mapped out your every move. In this case you’re assuming that we’re only okay with homosexual characters if we’re able to see them in some sort of physical or emotional pain-- simply not true. It’s more than a little narrow minded actually. The only one of those films I’ve seen (so far, mind you) is Milk but as I understand it every one of those can be seen as promoting homosexual rights which by your logic would make them the opposite of what every Christian would want to see... even Black Swan doesn’t specifically tackle homosexuality.
|
|
|
Post by Jillian S on Mar 11, 2011 15:18:24 GMT -5
It is way too easy to say Tyler hated The Kids Are All Right because he is a Christian homophobe. His religion and politics have been well documented on BP, which is more transparency than we get from most critics, and he has never come across as someone who dismisses movies simply because a plot element may conflict with his belief system. In this same episode he gave a positive review to Dog Day Afternoon and to Julianne Moore's performance. If I hate a Tyler Perry movie is it automatically assumed that because I'm white my distaste is because I'm racist?
Tyler is a Christian (which is a really broad concept in our society), not part of the Westboro Baptist Church, so to assume this means he must be homophobic or anything else is really unfair. As I revealed on an earlier thread, I am a progressive and an atheist who initially assumed Tyler's movie tastes would conflict with mine, but this proved to be ridiculous, completely untrue, and highly bigoted of me. I hope you soon come to realize that you are actually the one judging based on a bias here, not Tyler.
|
|
|
Post by Jillian S on Mar 11, 2011 15:35:46 GMT -5
Didn't realize I wasn't logged in before.
I also wanted to say here, as I did on the episode's blog post, that Tyler talking about the list of movies his dad would want to see was really moving. IMO, allowing us glimpses at their personal lives and other viewpoints is what makes me care about Tyler's and David's take on movies; it allows me to feel connected and care about what they are saying even when I don't agree with a review or don't care about the movie being discussed.
|
|
cody
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by cody on Mar 12, 2011 23:48:51 GMT -5
My 10 favourite films of 2010:
1. Black Swan 2. The Social Network 3. Exit Through the Giftshop 4. Winter's Bone 5.Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World 6. Animal Kingdom 7. The Fighter 8. True Grit 9. How To Train Your Dragon 10. Let Me In
Honourable mentions: 11. Piranha 3D 12. Shutter Island 13. Kick- Ass
This list is subject to change considering my having not seen films like 127 Hours, The King's Speech, Mother etc.
|
|
|
Post by marcraymond on Mar 17, 2011 12:17:14 GMT -5
One last post just to clarify the issue. I did not say Tyler was a homophobe nor that THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT is beyond criticism. I didn't say that his religious views were unquestionably the source of his dislike of the film.
I simply observed, listening to him discuss THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT, a certain reservation and hesitation (perhaps due to his sensitivity about his religion and assumptions people have, which is fair enough) combined with a hatred of the film that seemed to go beyond what even his own review would indicate. Usually, when this occurs, it's for ideological reasons, which Tyler's review indicated himself, although the reasons given were more along the lines of they are bad parents, the film doesn't respect the children as characters, etc. My opinion was that it seemed an overreaction. My suggestion was that if Tyler had simply put the Christianity/homosexuality issue out there, then stated he felt it wasn't really a factor and went from there, it would have worked better. Just my own opinion about how best to confront these issues.
Another point: by suggesting that films with suffering gay characters are easier for mainstream audiences to digest, I was not saying people are sadists who enjoy the suffering. Rather that, unconsciously, they can fit into one's worldview easier.
Roger Ebert is fond of quoting Robert Warshow's "A man goes to the movies. A critiic must be honest enough to admit he is that man." This is what i was getting at.
Likewise, any criticism of criticism is done by individuals, and it's entirely possible (maybe likely given all the responses on his side) that my own biases (pinko commie hippie that I am) were stronger. I certainly would try to phrase it better and more articulately if I had a do-over.
|
|