Robert Rodriguez
Submitted by jim on Fri, 04/01/2005 - 08:31
Tags:
Even if you have no interest in Robert Rodriguez or Sin City (and I still have misgivings about the movie based on the trailers, even while recognizing that I am a lousy prognosticator), this Wired piece is a must-read. Tons of great anecdotes, including how Rodriguez convinced a burned-by-Hollywood-before Frank Miller to let him do it, why he resigned from the Director's Guild, and how he manages to be "the first filmmaker since Lucas who's had the confidence and skills to work outside the studio system yet still produce big-budget, effects-laden pictures." « via GreenCine »
I think that it is safe to say that Sin City has realized it's aspirations... I am agape.
Yes. I'm in love, too. :-)
God has spoken. You will be disappointed by Sin City, Jim.
Running the risk of kissing a lightning bolt, I predict Jim will be quite pleased with Sin City.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I saw it this weekend! I must regretfully report that my reaction was somewhat mixed. Even so, I was amazed and impressed by how beautifully it captured the look (sometimes exactly) of the books. I need to reflect a bit further and find some time to write up my thoughts (to appear in the usual place).
Jim, in addition to your impressions I'm interested in knowing if you thought it was worth spending a theatrical viewing token on it.
I did. The look of the film alone made it an excellent choice for theatrical viewing.
I certainly look forward to the review, even if I am sorry you were somewhat disappointed.
Heck, I'm glad you even had the chance to make a rare movie outing to watch it!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I strongly disagree with Manohla. I believe you will like the film alot, Jim. Although I've never read the graphic novel so I can't say how it compares the movie blew me away.
Glad to hear it! I've been debating whether I should make this one of my rare theatrical outings. I hope I can sneak away!
(that I missed House of Flying Daggers in the theater should give you some idea of how rarely I can actually do it)
I would say that this film is definitely worth a big-screen viewing. I really can't imagine appreciating it as much on a TV at home, especially on our little 27 inch tv. Maybe if you have a nice home-theater setup it would do it justice.
Nope, "little 27-inch TV" sounds all too familiar...
Glad you liked it, Dan. I hope Jim likes it, too, and I hope I like it. I made the post because, if I remember right, Manohla is one of Jim's favorite movie critics.
Yes, but more for her writing than her taste. The woman sure can turn a phrase. Actually, I'm still irritated by her half-assed pseudo-review of Oldboy, which managed to piss me off (boy, talk about stereotyping an entire fanbase!). Perhaps I'll agree with her when I finally get a chance to see it, but somehow I doubt it. She's far too comfortable slinging "high art" and "low art" labels around. Loved it when A Girl and a Gun returned fire.
I must reflexively rush to god's defense... not that she needs it. I don't understand AGAAG's peevishness or why they think that being a fan of Oldboy means that you are a c-f afic who "failed to know and support the distinctions she mentions." Turning aside from the straw men of loving Million Dollar Baby (what thuh?) and her slippery English usage, I'd say that "largest fan base" does not mean every single fan. Who knows? it may not even mean a majority of Mr. Park's fans. Alienated or not. Even if that was an all encompassing statement it only refers to cult-film aficionados who do not distinguish between hi/lo art. If I had to guess, I'd say that Ms. Dargis would number herself among the c-f afic crowd. If you can take umbrage at the possibility of "may" then you ought to note the sincere lack of a comma after "cult-film aficionados ."
I'm certainly no film critic but I have yet to read any fleshier description of the plot to Oldboy . To fault someone for failing to mention the theme of "the lust for vengeance--how it poisons human decency, distorts the ability to live in the real world, and leads to self-destruction as surely as the retribution it may (or may not) wreak" (when the lack of such a subtext is the main hammer-blow struck by the reviewer) is to fault them for having a different viewing experience. So why shout "Exploitation!" in a crowded theater? Pasolini and Peckinpah weren't held up as being non-exploitative directors who "who handled violence artfully" but as examples of movie makers who dealt with questions of philosophy and politics. Perhaps the cinematic innuendo of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was lost in the evisceration.
Speaking of which, Ms. Dargis claims that the movie is "a good if trivial genre movie, no more, no less." That sure sounds modulated for a sustained rant. Most distressing of all is that, in fending off imagined attacks, the real snark sighting is missed. The suggestion "that Mr. Park knows the adolescent mindset of his target audience all too well" is a double slap at auteur and audience... and a cheap slap shot to boot.
I hope that the subtext of Oldboy extends beyond the actual text and that you enjoy it when you see it. Whether you do or not, I don't think that your opinion should help her "pseudo-review" to pass any assed-test. I think that Ms. Dargis handed down the same judgement for both Sin City and Oldboy . The difference between the two reviews lies in the aspiration that Oldboy has to be considered high art compared with the desire that Sin City has to be a graphic novel. That may very well be an unwelcome distinction for some... but hopefully not all.
It's possible she's dead-on in regard to Oldboy. Like you, I haven't seen it (as you note). But I don't really think you can effectively defend the line "it's no surprise that Mr. Park's largest fan base may be those cult-film aficionados for whom distinctions between high art and low are unknown, unrecognized and certainly unwelcome" while at the same time concede that "...Mr. Park knows the adolescent mindset of his target audience all too well" is a cheap shot, coming as they do in the same review. I think those two statements taken together clearly reveal her mindset.
This is also not the first time she's sounded off on Park. Here she lays into Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance. I've noted elsewhere the problems I have with that piece (at least this time I've seen the movie in question, so am only on shaky ground in discussing it rather than no ground at all).
I remain baffled as to how she can excoriate Park while exhorting Peckinpah (only having seen Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, The Wild Bunch, Straw Dogs, and The Getaway).
Whether or not Ms. Dargis is dead-on about a movie shouldn't redeem a dead-on-arrival review. If her review is less than (I'm searching for a word... rigorous. thorough. balanced. full-assed.) she shouldn't be cut any slack for managing to be right.
I meant to say that I think that the "...largest fan base..." line was neither a blanket nor a pejorative statement. I do think that Ms. Dargis would consider it a pejorative (but not blanket) indictment but I think that she'd be wrong. There's nothing wrong with appreciating an aesthetic of violence. It might be dangerous and psychotic but it's not wrong. Speaking as someone who used to be one, "adolescent" is not only an insult but a dismissive one. As usual, her mindset is clear. I think that's a good thing.
The objections to her judgement seem (to me) to be c-f afic name calling. If she had labeled American Pie et al as puerile (she loves that word) far fewer hackles would have been raised. Few people think or would want those movies confused with high art. That distinction might be unwelcome but if it is truly mistaken then I would like to see Mr. Park's high artistry defended and not Ms. Dargis' low blows attacked. If she is wrong on the merits it should be simple dismiss her catcalls without a cat fight.
I don't know if Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance has anything to match Gloucester's blinding in King Lear (it is pretty horrific.) But that would be a strict apples-to-apples comparison taken without concern for context. Seeing Cornwall's life bleed away, Oswald beaten to death, Edmund bludgeoned, Goneril and Regan poisoned and stabbed, Cordelia hanged and Lear overtaken by Alzheimer's without the surrounding plot would be nothing more than a snuff film. The betrayal of both old age and self-serving children, the unrecognized faithfulness of a devoted son or daughter, small acts of charity being repaid with monstrous attrocities, the loss of someone you truly love and who truly loved you... These all serve to put violence in proper, tragic perspective. I truly hope that the violence in Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance serves some dramatic/thematic purpose within the movie. That may be the crux of the matter.
Not everything has to be Shakespearian in scope or style. To go to the opposite extreme, stylized violence shouldn't pose as art, drama, theme or anything other than a fetish. I take it as a good sign that the simple descriptive "Cornwall plucks out Gloucester's eye" might be more horrific than a live octopus being consumed onscreen (or any other distasteful act.) As for myself, I believe that anyone who can take pleasure in Gloucester's blinding has totally missed the point (ie the artistic intent.) Taking pleasure in other acts of onscreen violence is certainly fine but it might be viewed as a failure of art, artist or audience to see anything beyond the act itself.
Well said. Regarding Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, I wouldn't call it Shakespeare, but I do think the violence fit in with the general themes of the poisonous quality of revenge, and a lamentation of dumb, brutish causality. It was awfully stylish violence though. Still, I was horrified rather than titillated, so my reaction may well be a personal one.
Just as a supporting argument in favor of Park, here's an interesting dissection of "Sympathy".
Wow, what a great piece! Who the heck is that guy, and why doesn't he have an RSS feed? Thanks for the link!