Film and Episodic Content Discussion Thread

I just watched this movie the other weekend! I am excited to compare notes.

 

Some notes, thoughts and opinions.
1. I thought this movie was so cheesy and every aspect was over the top. To me it felt like a hooray 50s or 60s film. There were no mellow moments in the film. Even the quieter Chuck Yeager portions felt like watching an over the top James Dean rebel. But still a very fun movie with great character arcs and dynamics.
2. 70s was a great time for films. I believe the catalyst was grittier westerns that began with The Searchers, then The Professionals and ultimately The Wild Bunch. Then coinciding is the Vietnam Conflict and free love movement which really kicked off more anti disestablishment within film producing. I would have included Steven Speilberg's 1941 as another director pet project that help justify studio reducing directors power.
3. I don't think the director incorporated the contrast with Chuck Yeager enough. In my opinion, Yeager just was thrown in for a minute here and their to provide some quick commentary. I felt that it was pretty unusual they dropped him after being the focus for the first 40 minutes. Only till the end when sees the bravery of the astronauts and then proving to himself he has the right stuff. What the film really downplays is Yeager's celebrity status and reluctance of being a celebrity.

 

I'd say there were plenty. Glenn in that thoughtful conversation with his wife before his mission. Yeager looking up at the stars... in fact most scenes involving Yeager where he's not flying are pretty mellow. The recruiters in their motel room before going to the bar. Gordo's wife in the new house before the barbecue. The film has quite a few over the top scenes, but there's plenty of smaller stuff to balance it out.

Well Spielberg had made some of the highest grossing films before 1941, so his reputation was pretty solid at that point. Cimino was always seen as a loose cannon and didn't really have the box office hits to make up for the massive failure, and the types of films he was making were anti-Star Wars... Spielberg was making popcorn movies in line with the new 80s way of thinking, so I don't believe they viewed him as a threat. It was the artier directors like Cimino and Coppola with bloated artistic epics that were the problem.

Interesting point of view... but I don't see it that way at all. There's that scene where he calls reporters and photographers "root weevils"... and prefers flying planes to being showcased in history books. His reluctance is pretty blatant. But the film doesn't go too far into it because that's the point of Yeager as I mentioned in my analysis... he wants what they have, even if he detests the institution of celebrity... he's a conflicted character

 

@ColtMrFire
1. Each scene had a clear motive and tone it was trying to get across is what I meant by mellow. I should have used the word subtle than mellow. Each scene with Yeager seemed blatantly clear what its purpose was rather being more subtle and requiring more interpretation. As you stated almost every scene could be a portrait not only from an artistic perspective but also each frame has clear purpose. That clear purpose adds an intensity for me even during the most mellow parts. Therefore no scene really feel subtle to me. Each frame easily says a thousand words.
2. I don't really agree with that. While Spielberg's were solid, he was known for going over budget and over schedule. But he shouldn't not be included because his artistic vision aligned with studios and had more apparent audience appeal. Cimino wrote the script for the sequel to Dirty Harry (Magnum Force) which wasn't nearly as radical as the first. Then directed Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, can't really say too much about that film but it was cheap ($4 mil) and seemed somewhat generic to me (still a very good movie). Then directs The Deer Hunter but that was produced by a smaller studio not a large one. Never saw Rose so I can't comment on that film but it cost $9 million and was well received. Heavens Gate was his only really risky film. But it all leads down to money and the risk associated with big budget films. The big budget 80s mentality films, like Jaws and Star Wars, helped directors like Coppola and Cimino create some of their highest budget films because studios were still learning from their success of blockbusters like Jaws, Encounter of the Third King and Star Wars. Their earlier films werent that much more than the average budget so their wasn't that much risk until after those films. You can list all the truly risky bloated artistic epics on one hand and the 3 biggest (2 of which were complete flops [yes I am including 1941 lol]) happened in 1979 and 1980 right before or during the beginning of the financial crisis. That really drove studios to have to take less risks.
3. I agree. But to me it seemed like his story ended at the 40 minute mark and the last 15 minutes is an epilogue. After the 40 minute mark we do not see Yeager again till another 40 minutes for 30 seconds during the first press conference scene. Where is blatantly obvious and stated by some characters how ridiculous calling them heroes and celebrity status for doing nothing. Then shows up 20 mins later for 2 1-minutes scenes, one showing the pilots making fun of monkey into space and other scene showing Yeager's regret not being able to have the chance to reach the stars. Then 30 min later we see him again for a very good couple scenes of him acknowledging the astronauts bravery in front of the other test pilots and quite literally a passing of the torch . Then another 20 mins go by and we get the 15 minute finale. So for 2 hours we only see Yeager for a total of probably 8 mins. To me it seems he should have been inter cut more to show his conflict. He is blatant at the beginning but barely builds on that for 2 hours. Impact on of ending of his story seemed a little hollow for me.

 

The great thing about film is that the sense of time is elastic... You can make a long film feel short and vice versa depending on how you edit.

So listing the number of minutes someone is onscreen to describe their "impact" isnt terribly relevant.. Ultimately the movie has a priority in telling the story of the Mercury program and trying to beat the Russians, so thats going to take more screentime... But thematically Yeager's presence looms large because of how his screentime is utilized.

Much like how the shark in Jaws is barely ever seen but its presence is felt all over the movie.

 

Normally I would agree with you that creating a timeline of onscreen minutes doesn't describe their impact. Hannibal Lector is a perfect example. But for 2 hours I don't think his scenes are impactful enough and are too far seperated. I think his most impactful scenes during that period is acknowledging the astronauts and the burning down of the bar. For me the scenes just feel like a quick reminder that Yeager is still out there.

We are not going to agree. They (including the whole film) simply impacted you more than me. I only recently saw this film (5 years ago).

Edit: I am very much excited to see your upcoming videos. Your ability to concisely articulate your passion for films is short videos are relieving. Many other commentators babble on too long without really saying anything and tend to repeat themselves.

 

I watched all three parts of Atlas Shrugged on Amazon. The cast was changed completely throughout the series which was odd and the acting was not consistent or even good throughout but the story made it worth watching. I may have felt differently if I had read the books.

 

Didnt you say you just saw it last weekend? Or did I misunderstand?

I've seen the film tons of times so I'm coming at it from a different angle... According to studies the brain is very poor at retaining information, so its necessary to intake multiple times before being able to properly assess something.. Teaching something (in say a lecture) is the most effective because you start making mistakes and have to re-evaluate.. Whenever I review a movie after having just watched it I realize I missed a ton of things after seeing it again.

Film is doubly tricky since it is mostly impressionistic.. This is why you often see people give wildly different opinions about the same movie... and those impressions become more accurate the more they watch.

This isnt to diminish your points as much as encourage you to see it multiple times (if you're interested).

 

I rewatched it last weekend. It is a fun movie so its on the list of movies I try to rewatch every year. Its been a lot easier lately.

But I completely agree with you. Forming an thorough impression of a film and analyzing it requires many views.

 

Just started Season-2 of Netflix' French policier, DARK SPOT--and continue to be impressed. As in Season-1, the Ardennes forest is a menacing presence that looms over nearly every scene. The sun rarely shines, a sepulchral mist hangs everywhere, and huge crows often appear. It's clear this dystopian place never welcomed people & often punishes them for simply being there.

The photography is something special. We often see extended long shots that slowly rotate by tiny degrees in & out/side-to-side, turning otherwise static/boring views into something subtly disorienting, hinting at an unknown being's POV. Many close-ups also continually move, with characters' faces slowly shifting through the frame. The effect is disorienting--we're never quite sure what's happening or if these characters are somehow in danger.

The acting is routinely excellent. A particularly Gallic vibe of morbid irony & ennui prevails. Every character is skewed in multiple ways. Whenever violence happens, it seems weirdly inevitable.

I'm a big fan of this moody series.

 

Closing thoughts on Netflix' Korean series, EXTRACURRICULAR:

This is the 2nd best Korean TV I've yet seen. The 1st was STRANGER, a straightforward & very adult police/prosecutorial procedural. By contrast, EXTRACURRICULAR is wildly youthful, experimental, cutting-edge. It's all about the behavior, thoughts, cellphone identities, relationships & crimes of high school kids. Just reading that you'd have no idea how edgy & different this storyline is: it's STRANGER THINGS without the horror/supernatural, but with bullying (lots of it); teen prostitution; drugs & drinking; and violence (sometimes playful, sometimes lethal).

At first it's bouyantly trangressive--in regimented S. Korea, these kids get away with so much & do it in style. But as the episodes click by, the real gravity & sadness of things they do to & with each other emerge quite starkly. This is a fun series, but underneath, it's serious and affecting: kids playing at crime & getting badly hurt.

There are memorable characters here. My favorites are the teen prostitute (played by Da-bin Jung), who at first seems trivial, then deepens into a vulnerable & wounded young woman (she acts with her eyes & face as well as any actor I know of); and Mr. Lee, the enforcer (played by Min-su Choi), who combines competent physicality with zen-like directness & personal mystery. The relationship/non-relationship of these 2 characters is a central mystery of the plot. Several of the "official" characters (the teacher; the school police lady) also distinguish themselves.

This unpredictable, careening story is very well written and can be experienced on multiple levels.

Highly recommended. Stick with it--Korean TV can at first be off-putting, unlike what you're used to. Just jump in...the water is fine.

 

In my latest video, I explain why the opening sequence of Poltergeist is a masterful example of subliminal storytelling.

 

Poltergeist & E.T. seemed like two sides of the same side coin (same year release obviously) to me, even beyond the usual Spielberg elements...

edit: another good explication @ColtMrFire - like @DEATHxMACHINE says you have a focused and economic style that I appreciate.

 

This is an amazing resource on the whole 'Spielberg actually directed Poltergeist' thing:

http://www.poltergeist.poltergeistiii.com/really.html

 

Why your love of THE TERMINATOR may not be as innocent as you think.

 

I'm happy to report that my love of this movie was never innocent.

Jungian analysis of THE TERMINATOR can either be dry & impossible to wade through; or enjoyable, flowing from accessible logic. Yours is the latter--and offers a possible explanation for the tsunami of good & evil superheros that continues to engulf us.

 

Thanks for the kind words... I think Cameron is well versed in these subconscious archetype storytelling techniques and its one major reason most of his films seem to latch onto popular culture.

 

At first I thought a Jungian analysis might be a little too easy - a cliche. Looking at his filmography however, I see your point. An "archetype" is at its core a universal cultural 'thing', expressed in an inner conflict of an individual. I wonder if Cameron has lost his sense of it however, because with Avatar he seems to have gone with an archetype that is not as pervasive and inwardly powerful universally - even if it is a deep obsession for a subculture such as "environmental activists" like himself. I see he has not done much since Avatar, except work on the two follow ups. While I enjoyed Avatar the first time I saw it, I doubt I will bother to see the follow-ups unless by happenstance as my tolerance for sermons is only about 10 minutes...

 

Well, regardless of how people feel about Avatar, it was the highest grossing film of all time for a long time, so it definitely touched a nerve.

I tend to give Avatar a pass because Cameron was breaking new ground in 3D and visual FX, and that in and of itself is enough to tax any filmmaker... the story being as vanilla as possible was probably insurance to make sure it was able to play all over the planet without worrying about cultural barriers.

 

Maybe, but I think the mythical typology (e.g. the "natives" - but even more so the "exploitative colonialists") was quite calculated and intentional. I would never deny the power of this typology in the culture among many - but I don't believe it to be universal (e.g. there is a real exhaustion of it from many) like the themes you expand on in Terminator. No doubt the follow-ups will be $successful$ however...