Sorry, I don't mean to go on and on about IB but things keep popping up in my little bird brain.

The whole Chapter thing and the whole "Once upon a time" thing at the beginning felt phony to me. Kinda cheesy and bushwa. I'm not sure how to describe that. It didn't seem necessary. But I like how it seemed like each Chapter could be its own movie or short film.

Tarantino's films kinda feel like this for me: You're watching a fireworks show at the beach or park. You stand there and the sky starts off black and calm. Then bang a big firework. It screams look at me! Look at what I'm doing. Then it goes away. Then there's another bang, different colors maybe bigger than the last one. We go oooh and aaahh and then it goes away. Maybe there's the Star Spangled Banner playing somewhere and it sort of fits because the blooms are red white and blue. But halfway through this fireworks show you think, hmm... I wish I was at Disneyland. At Disneyland there's music choreographed to the show, it's coordinated and makes you feel something. Happy, sad, touched etc. I never feel emotionally invested in any of his films. I don't care about a lot of his characters. I cared about Shoshana as she ran away at the beginning but I was also resolved to think that hey, Tarantino is probably going to kill her off anyway... maybe right at the beginning, right now.

I have no idea if I'm making any sense.
:D

ETA: Now, I'm not saying everything has to be Disney. That's not the point I was trying to make.

And this is why I just don't find his work as interesting as many other filmmakers'. (Though, good point about his occasional subtlety - I hate Michael Bay's films; I don't hate Tarantino's - they just annoy me.)

I agree there's more than a tiny bit of artifice that proclaims This is a Tale in Tarantino's films, rather than the usual movie mode of lulling you into a false sense of Really-Happening.

I'm not belittling that. I love the way movies can do that. And how such Absolutely Artifice conventions as a musical score can relay the element of emotion rather than proclaiming This is a Tale throughout the proceedings.


But the mode of Storyteller Presence also works for me. It's just another way of telling a story, and I find it a rather entertaining one. Yes, everything seems less "real," but as long as the story is told well, I certainly don't mind one now and again that has the Storyteller front and center.


Chapter headings, obviously incongruous music cues (heck, a few of them were from Kill Bill! and certainly "took me out" for a moment) ... as long as it's done well, I don't rather like some obvious technique now and then. I guess it's the corollary of the Roger Rabbit theorem .... as long as it was [funny], or - in this case, as long as it was [good.]

Tarrantino's style is all about the artifice of film making. He had no interest in suspending disbelief, he always wants you to be aware that you're watching a movie, being told a story. That's why, I believe, he uses so many idioms from the early days of film, when they were still toying with the medium, hadn't mastered the suspension of disbelief, and were still just putting plays and telling stories on screen. It either works for you or it doesn't I suppose. I enjoy it because it lets you in on his thought process. By making his style and directorial/editorial choices front and center you get a lot of information from the film about exactly the tone and message he's trying to send.

Getting back to Michael Clayton:
Does anyone have an opinion about the last shot of the film. Clooney in the taxi. The shot goes on and on. Kinda cool but I'm wondering why it was there and what it meant. I'm not sure. I liked it, I guess.

Actually, I find suspension of disbelief frequently tougher in current mainstream movies than in much fare from the thirties through seventies. Quick case in point: A Night To Remember (58) vs. Titanic (97). The latter is so impressed with itself and its shiny effects that it pulls me out of its story constantly. AN2R is subtle, unflashy, and even if the effects are primitive, I leave that movie feeling like I lived through it much more than Cameron's effort. Another quick example; I prefer The Longest Day (62) over Saving Private Ryan (98) for Normandy landing sequences, largely because it doesn't go out of its way to throw snazzy techniques, severed limbs and surround sound whooshes and explosions in my face. Ryan almost seemed like a (very grisly) theme park attraction. And don't get me started on Pearl Harbor. Okay, rambling, must get ready for work.

Then you liked the last shot of Jackie Brown.

I liked the performances in Michael Clayton, but I thought the script was trying too hard to be Networky. I also didn't buy the basic set-up. (He's a "fixer" at a law firm? With a gambling problem?)

It's my dream to film black box versions of all the recent special effects extravaganzas: "Black Box Titanic," "Black Box Beowulf," etc.

I'm not saying everyone other than Tarrantino succeeds at it, just that Tarrantino or that all old movies failed, simply that Tarrantino actively avoids it preferring the purposeful effect of putting style and film making technique in the forefront of your mind during his movies (as opposed to the examples you give where the same may happen for you but not for the reasons it does in a Tarrantino film).

But I liked the rest of Michael Clayton... ;)

I prefer The Longest Day over Saving Private Ryan as well, flippy. I found SPR to be pretentious in places. Also I was confused on how the movie was supposed to be Ryan's flashback but he didn't see any of what happened.

I'm pretty sure the long last shot of Michael Clayton is just to let it sink in what he's done and get a glimmer of how he feels about it and how the past week has changed his life.

Keep in mind it was just an interesting way to do the end credits. If it hadn't been the end of the film, the taxi shot would have been 6 seconds long instead of 600.