Movies Thread

[duluoz]

I saw September 5 this weekend. I enjoyed it, but I typically enjoy gritty docudramas like that.

Yeah I watched it last night, and liked it.

For anyone who isn’t aware, it’s about the hostage crisis at the Munich Olympics, from the perspective of the ABC Sports broadcast control room within a hundred yards of the scene.

Very interesting seeing the story told from that perspective, and weaving in the actual archival footage of the event including Jim McKay’s live (at the time) commentary.

 

[duluoz]

^^ Yeah sorry but I’m not going to read all that about two movies I wasted like 5-6 hours on already. Science fiction has a tiny needle to thread for me, and these movies definitely didn’t come close. Especially with good actors (Zendaya, Chalamet) putting in achingly difficult performances to watch. Which are of course the nature of melodramatic epics like this, but I still expected to see something better somehow.

It was tough to make it through the second one without turning it off. And I almost never do that. But I made it through, so at least there’s that.

 

[BlueSteel]

My kids are dying to see it.

Mine loved it, fwiw.

 

[an0maly]

^^ Yeah sorry but I’m not going to read all that about two movies I wasted like 5-6 hours on already. Science fiction has a tiny needle to thread for me, and these movies definitely didn’t come close. Especially with good actors (Zendaya, Chalamet) putting in achingly difficult performances to watch. Which are of course the nature of melodramatic epics like this, but I still expected to see something better somehow.

It was tough to make it through the second one without turning it off. And I almost never do that. But I made it through, so at least there’s that.

Bad response, and most of what I wrote is about Star Wars films.

 

[breepf]

Good science fiction films of this kind are very rare. About 98% of science fiction films are garbage, and another 1% aren't science fiction films at all, but are called science fiction films, a problem you have in my view with seeing Star Wars stuff as such. It is not.

But wait, there's more, that's bad. Your comparison of them with the Dune films is akin to comparing a supermarket romance novel to War and Peace. You can like one more than the other but you can't call them the same level of seriousness or the same genre of fiction, and be taken seriously. Again, Star Wars is derivative of the Buck Rogers short serial movies, as hero melodramas, essentially to please kids. Works for adults too, as I said, I like them as kids stuff. That is a mostly unchanged template of what Lucas copied into seventies level special effects movies. There is death, but nothing carries any emotional gravitas at all. When Luke sees his only family as burned corpses, all that happens is he tilts his head down a moment and the forgets it and asks to become a Jedi. When Princess Leia has the same non-reaction--not just to her family being killed, but her home planet being destroyed--shortly thereafter she is cracking jokes with Han Solo. The acting reflects this triviality mode, and is blunted and cardboard, partly because a lot of them as talents are not up to much more, but at bottom because the material is written as just as cardboard. The whole story is haphazard and duct taped together, as when in the first film Ben tells Luke Vader killed Luke's father, then that was lie when in thee next film we have the contraption that Vader is Luke's father. This is a dumbed down version of bloodline complexities taken from Dune (a sad tactic Star Wars stuff did with a lot of things from other higher quality sources as well).

Your saying the Star Wars stuff is better, is an opinion I find absurd, but more objectively it's just a category error, in attempted comparison to Villeneuve's Dune films; that people will compare them does not mean that people should. It's deeply absurd for the reasons above in contrast to what is in the Dune films. I am not going into that. Instead, just as an open door, I offer a video below to address ideas going on in Villeneuve's Dune films, and this is on a completely different level. It's up to your ability to consider some actual ideas that it looks like you completely missed. What you write suggested you did not understand anything in Dune Parts 1 and 2 about humanity. Again, watch this if you care about learning one aspect of what Dune is about, that matters to truths about the human condition. If you want to stay cut off from it because science fiction (or whatever) then don't watch:



No doubt confronting this as I lay it all out may strike you has overly dismissive or harsh towards your opinions, and that is not the intent. The fact that I took some time to write this is a reflection that I respect your opinions on films in general.

I’ve got a few questions.

What big ideas do the Dune films or novels address? The novel did not strike me as super-interested in the technological future.

Do you read science fiction? If so, are the listed titles the ones that you consider to be the pinnacle of the genre?

 

[duluoz]

Bad response, and most of what I wrote is about Star Wars films.

That’s ok. I moved on as soon as the credits mercifully rolled the other week and don’t care nearly enough to get into it now. Too many other movies I much prefer to spend my energy on.

 

[duluoz]

Oof another tough Oscars nom documentary. Disturbing but really well done.

Rape scandal with a high ranking official, friends with Prime Minister Abe. Big cover up as you might imagine.

Japan doesn’t come out looking so hot.

 

[an0maly]

I’ve got a few questions.

What big ideas do the Dune films or novels address? The novel did not strike me as super-interested in the technological future.

Do you read science fiction? If so, are the listed titles the ones that you consider to be the pinnacle of the genre?

"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible."

The quote above is from Frank Herbert, author of Dune, and Dune Messiah, the two best and most important of his works. The first novel is considered one of the most important works of literature based on these major themes and philosophical standpoints:

* As with the quote, but focused: Messianic leaders are a danger to the human race, wield power for their own ends, and bend human allegiance and subsequently human events towards suffering and death. {{ note: please watch the video in the quote box of yours above }}

* Monarchical bloodlines tend towards the corruption of power, and are deeply connected to the problem just above.

* Often the paradoxical down the line impact of fighting extreme evil is a production of a new evil; this is entwined in the human condition

* "Progress" for the human species, given our instincts and fascination with religion, may be illusory.

* Disrespect for the ecological environment, due to temporary gains (capitalism is a focus here) financial, and power gains, leads to destruction.

The first Dune books' greatest assets, of massive scope, are just what made the film project so insanely difficult: the interconnected density of the world he imagined for tens of thousands of years from now, that our far future is a dystopia withe very limited high tech (partly a total rejection of all A.I.), with a grim retro-historical dystopian view of no real human progress despite a diaspora through part of the galaxy. Humanity spread apart, lost most high tech, retained and extended ideological extremism, bred human bloodlines for extreme mental capacities, and devolved to planetary feudalism. All the typical byzantine power-grabbing manipulations are just what brought instability, war and death throughout the colonized worlds, the retention and secrecy of high tech like space travel by only The Guild, and the genetic creation of a supposed puppet god (Muad Dib) and his subsequent escape beyond his creators' control.
~
To the other question, I have tried to read all the best science fiction my entire lifetime. I regard the gold standard for this what is termed "hard science fiction," which means not violating already known science outside of presentation of what is not yet known. I described with examples in my long post the huge importance of the genre, vastly above most other genres like say crime fiction or horror fiction. This is what Duluoz is blind to, and self-imposed blind with steadfast will.

 

[05C40]

"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible."

The quote above is from Frank Herbert, author of Dune, and Dune Messiah, the two best and most important of his works. The first novel is considered one of the most important works of literature based on these major themes and philosophical standpoints:

* As with the quote, but focused: Messianic leaders are a danger to the human race, wield power for their own ends, and bend human allegiance and subsequently human events towards suffering and death. {{ note: please watch the video in the quote box of yours above }}

* Monarchical bloodlines tend towards the corruption of power, and are deeply connected to the problem just above.

* Often the paradoxical down the line impact of fighting extreme evil is a production of a new evil; this is entwined in the human condition

* "Progress" for the human species, given our instincts and fascination with religion, may be illusory.

* Disrespect for the ecological environment, due to temporary gains (capitalism is a focus here) financial, and power gains, leads to destruction.

The first Dune books' greatest assets, of massive scope, are just what made the film project so insanely difficult: the interconnected density of the world he imagined for tens of thousands of years from now, that our far future is a dystopia withe very limited high tech (partly a total rejection of all A.I.), with a grim retro-historical dystopian view of no real human progress despite a diaspora through part of the galaxy. Humanity spread apart, lost most high tech, retained and extended ideological extremism, bred human bloodlines for extreme mental capacities, and devolved to planetary feudalism. All the typical byzantine power-grabbing manipulations are just what brought instability, war and death throughout the colonized worlds, the retention and secrecy of high tech like space travel by only The Guild, and the genetic creation of a supposed puppet god (Muad Dib) and his subsequent escape beyond his creators' control.
~
To the other question, I have tried to read all the best science fiction my entire lifetime. I regard the gold standard for this what is termed "hard science fiction," which means not violating already known science outside of presentation of what is not yet known. I described with examples in my long post the huge importance of the genre, vastly above most other genres like say crime fiction or horror fiction. This is what Duluoz is blind to, and self-imposed blind with steadfast will.

Well, I learned a new literary term today -- "Duluoz Legend." Any day I learn something new is a good day. I realize that everything Google serves up has to be taken with a grain of salt. But to a certain extent, if you look at enough sources and hope that the biases in the sources are different enough, then you can get hints at the real truth each of the sources is trying to obscure in order to advance its own agenda.

 

[breepf]

"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible."

The quote above is from Frank Herbert, author of Dune, and Dune Messiah, the two best and most important of his works. The first novel is considered one of the most important works of literature based on these major themes and philosophical standpoints:

* As with the quote, but focused: Messianic leaders are a danger to the human race, wield power for their own ends, and bend human allegiance and subsequently human events towards suffering and death. {{ note: please watch the video in the quote box of yours above }}

* Monarchical bloodlines tend towards the corruption of power, and are deeply connected to the problem just above.

* Often the paradoxical down the line impact of fighting extreme evil is a production of a new evil; this is entwined in the human condition

* "Progress" for the human species, given our instincts and fascination with religion, may be illusory.

* Disrespect for the ecological environment, due to temporary gains (capitalism is a focus here) financial, and power gains, leads to destruction.

The first Dune books' greatest assets, of massive scope, are just what made the film project so insanely difficult: the interconnected density of the world he imagined for tens of thousands of years from now, that our far future is a dystopia withe very limited high tech (partly a total rejection of all A.I.), with a grim retro-historical dystopian view of no real human progress despite a diaspora through part of the galaxy. Humanity spread apart, lost most high tech, retained and extended ideological extremism, bred human bloodlines for extreme mental capacities, and devolved to planetary feudalism. All the typical byzantine power-grabbing manipulations are just what brought instability, war and death throughout the colonized worlds, the retention and secrecy of high tech like space travel by only The Guild, and the genetic creation of a supposed puppet god (Muad Dib) and his subsequent escape beyond his creators' control.
~
To the other question, I have tried to read all the best science fiction my entire lifetime. I regard the gold standard for this what is termed "hard science fiction," which means not violating already known science outside of presentation of what is not yet known. I described with examples in my long post the huge importance of the genre, vastly above most other genres like say crime fiction or horror fiction. This is what Duluoz is blind to, and self-imposed blind with steadfast will.

Thanks for your reply, though I disagree with much of it.

First, I vehemently disagree that Dune is considered to be one of the most important novels of all time. Vehemently--though that is not to say that it can't be an enjoyable read (admittedly, I found it a slog). I also think it's a mistake to regard its commercial success for philosophical or political profundity. Herbert is on the same political tilt as Heinlein--trippy libertarianism. And, if I had to sum it up, I'd describe the novel as Lawrence of Arabia on another planet where the OPEC crisis is unfolding and everyone is doing space cocaine.

I am not a science fiction hater. I mostly read academic writing, but sci-fi is what I read in those brief moments of relaxation on a toilet or at a playground. I read plenty of hard science fiction. Dune is not hard sci-fi--if memory serves, it more closely resembles fantasy inasmuch as Hebert hand-waves about technology to instead insist on magic worms and the aforementioned space cocaine.

In any case, I was hoping that you'd name a few hard sci-fi favorites. My go-to is Greg Egan--I think his novel Diaspora is one of the best sci-fi novels ("hard" or otherwise) of the last 30 years. That being said, I don't think that hard sci-fi has some privileged insights into imagining the terms of the human condition in the present or future. After all, so much sci-fi is just re-packaging adventure tropes; so much sci-fi can transpose into more down-to-earth genres.

 

[breepf]

@an0maly

You wrote:

* Often the paradoxical down the line impact of fighting extreme evil is a production of a new evil; this is entwined in the human condition.

This conclusion about what the novel is doing--which I think it correct--is also a moment where Herbert's libertarianism shows through. In The Rhetoric of Reaction, a great, short book by AO Hirschmann, the late sociologist argues that one of the standard "reactionary" moves is the "perversity thesis": you try to do good and you inadvertently do bad.

 

[duluoz]

All the intellectualizing in the world can’t give Dune what it lacked, IMO — soul. Take Casablanca vs Citizen Kane. Casablanca has soul, and is far and away more compelling in my eyes. Citizen Kane is more innovative with technical prowess and can be intellectualized as a “greater” and “more important” achievement in ways. But there’s one I get excited to rewatch, and there’s one that feels like a chore. Or at best, a test where we’re dutifully noting the cinematic mastery along the way and patting ourselves on the back because we “get it.” But it’s hollow. Ever read Ulysses? Joyce crammed that thing full of so many layers and allusions and literary devices that he completely sapped the soul from it. So, smart and accomplished and intricately-crafted does not necessarily equal great, or even good.

Dune is very accomplished, sure. Well-crafted. Congrats to all involved, including the author I guess. Herbert? But for all these proclaimed technical and supposedly unparalleled narrative and metaphorical achievements and whatever else, it lacked soul, and the characters are not going to endure in the way great characters do. Ten, twenty years from now, Han Solo, Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Chewbacca, C-3PO, R2D2, Yoda will all still be widely recognized, if not still household names. “Paul” whatever-his-last-name-is, won’t ever be anywhere near that. He’ll be adored mostly by niche sci-fi fans, just like he already was going into these latest releases. And perhaps by some who are kids now, and for them it’s their Star Wars. But I mostly doubt that part, because Star Wars was singular in that era, while Dune is really just the latest big epic saga franchise treading in a crowded pool of blockbusters and franchises. Kids move from one to the next in a blink now.

Of course Star Wars benefited from the open waters of the time, but it absolutely nailed the cultural and Hollywood zeitgeist and became such a behemoth that it then shaped cinema and paved the way for movies like Dune.

This, more than any strict “according to Hoyle” rules for what sci-fi is or isn’t, or who stole whose ideas (Herbert, Jodorowsky, blah blah), or romance novels vs War and Peace or whatever else, is what makes the two franchises worlds apart and barely worth comparing in terms of lasting impact on cinema.

 

[duluoz]

And my vote would be for further conversation about sci-fi (books especially) to be moved to another thread, and let this continue to be the general movies thread. Thanks.

 

[Granville]

September 5 was very good. Munich Olympic 1972 crisis from the point of view of the ABC control room.

 

[duluoz]

September 5 was very good. Munich Olympic 1972 crisis from the point of view of the ABC control room.

Yeah a couple of us on the thread liked it.

I really liked how they integrated the actual archival footage, especially Jim McKay’s commentary as if the characters were communicating with him through his headset. And the grainy filter they used on the camera added to that seamlessness.

 

[breepf]

All the intellectualizing in the world can’t give Dune what it lacked, IMO — soul. Take Casablanca vs Citizen Kane. Casablanca has soul, and is far and away more compelling in my eyes. Citizen Kane is more innovative with technical prowess and can be intellectualized as a “greater” and “more important” achievement in ways. But there’s one I get excited to rewatch, and there’s one that feels like a chore. Or at best, a test where we’re dutifully noting the cinematic mastery along the way and patting ourselves on the back because we “get it.” But it’s hollow. Ever read Ulysses? Joyce crammed that thing full of so many layers and allusions and literary devices that he completely sapped the soul from it. So, smart and accomplished and intricately-crafted does not necessarily equal great, or even good.

Dune is very accomplished, sure. Well-crafted. Congrats to all involved, including the author I guess. Herbert? But for all these proclaimed technical and supposedly unparalleled narrative and metaphorical achievements and whatever else, it lacked soul, and the characters are not going to endure in the way great characters do. Ten, twenty years from now, Han Solo, Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Chewbacca, C-3PO, R2D2, Yoda will all still be widely recognized, if not still household names. “Paul” whatever-his-last-name-is, won’t ever be anywhere near that. He’ll be adored mostly by niche sci-fi fans, just like he already was going into these latest releases. And perhaps by some who are kids now, and for them it’s their Star Wars. But I mostly doubt that part, because Star Wars was singular in that era, while Dune is really just the latest big epic saga franchise treading in a crowded pool of blockbusters and franchises. Kids move from one to the next in a blink now.

Of course Star Wars benefited from the open waters of the time, but it absolutely nailed the cultural and Hollywood zeitgeist and became such a behemoth that it then shaped cinema and paved the way for movies like Dune.

This, more than any strict “according to Hoyle” rules for what sci-fi is or isn’t, or who stole whose ideas (Herbert, Jodorowsky, blah blah), or romance novels vs War and Peace or whatever else, is what makes the two franchises worlds apart and barely worth comparing in terms of lasting impact on cinema.

Whether it's Dune or Star Wars, I still don't understand why grown ass men get up in arms about the relative merits of corporate IP.

 

[UNCMSinLS]

Oscar Best Picture Nominee #5 - "The Brutalist"

My grade: C-

Wow, was this a brutal slog! The picture was muddy, the dialog was mumbly, important yellow subtitles were rendered unreadable over white backgrounds, and the exposition was excruciatingly slow, with at least an hour of wasted scenes. The closest comp for this movie was last year's "Maestro". And that was perhaps a better movie. Only Felicity Jones' appearance after the intermission saved this trainwreck (pun intended) from complete disaster. She deserved a Best Supporting Actress nomination as she was the best thing about this production. Without her, this overblown mess might have been branded with a D grade (or worse).

Oscar Best Picture Nominee #6 - "A Complete Unknown"

My grade: B+

I generally have problems with music biopics. At their core, they're typically rags-to-riches stories of redemption and fame (before or after the death of the artist). They have a predictable plot template. Possibly the best of this genre was "The Buddy Holly Story". Gary Busey was riveting as Holly and the musical production nicely captured the sound of the time. But, after most biopics about musicians, I find myself wishing for a good documentary on the subject or an up-to-date Wikipedia page.

With "A Complete Unknown", Bob Dylan can now be added to the list of biopic artists. I wish the director had chosen a complete unknown rather than one of the hottest actors in Hollywood. Timothee Chalamet was "aight" but lacked the hungry passion that the artist needed. I couldn't figure out if he was going for "jerk", "asshole", or as my wife said, "someone on the autism spectrum".

To me, the standout of the cast was Edward Norton as Pete Seeger. As with so many good performances, the best moments are "acted" in silence. To see the upbeat, positive Seeger realize quietly that the folk music he helped pioneer and champion was being tossed unceremoniously aside by a young punk was wrenching. Norton has frequently struck me as an actor capable of more. In this movie, I finally saw more. I would not be surprised if he won the Supporting Actor Oscar.

Was "A Complete Unknown" a bad movie? No. Was it a good movie? Also, no. Like its lead actor, it was simply "aight".

Time for me to check out the Wikipedia page and search for recommendations for a good documentary about Robert Zimmerman.

 

[duluoz]

What more is Norton capable of? He’s not a traditional leading man but has still put in performances like 25th Hour, Rounders, Primal Fear, Fight Club, American History X… I’ll admit he’s been kinda off the radar for a while but it seems more by choice.

 

[duluoz]

Time for me to check out the Wikipedia page and search for recommendations for a good documentary about Robert Zimmerman.

Gotta start with Pennebaker’s Don’t Look Back. But No Direction Home is more exhaustive. And Rolling Thunder is great too.

 

[UNCMSinLS]

What more is Norton capable of? He’s not a traditional leading man but has still put in performances like 25th Hour, Rounders, Primal Fear, Fight Club, American History X… I’ll admit he’s been kinda off the radar for a while but it seems more by choice.

I really liked him in "Primal Fear". Creepy good.