Miscellaneous Movie Musings

[Alex]

His 8 year old is not a biological child. It is a child that Calista Flockhart had adopted before she and Ford got together. His last biological child was born when he was 48. Not young, but not horribly old either (though his four biological children came in pairs 15-20 years apart with two wives).

[Tref]

Originally Posted by Alex

His last biological child was born when he was 48.

That is one long gestation period!

[Gemini Cricket]

I mean, I think one would have to be pretty out of it if one didn't know the man was hiding people at his house. I knew it from the start. But the scene didn't build for me at all. When we finally saw the man cry and even seeing the expression of Shoshana (I believe it was her) through the slats that's where I bought the scene. But the scene could have started a lot later in.

I wanted to see a scene where Landa realized who Shoshana was. I mean, what's the point in him knowing her name at the beginning if that doesn't happen. UNLESS we're supposed to derive from the milk reference that he knew. Not sure.

[Alex]

Since half the purpose of that scene was to set a tone I think it would have lost its value if it started later (though of course that is lost anyway if the tone doesn't work for a person).

Of course we knew he was hiding them as soon as Landa's purpose was revealed. It wasn't about whether he was, it was about what Landa would do with that knowledge. But talking where Michael Bay would have a 50-person shootout is pretty much the epitome of Tarantino.

[Gemini Cricket]

Which is why I think he'd make a great playwright.

[innerSpaceman]

And yes, I'm pretty sure the milk reference was the pay-off on that. Nice that it wasn't spelled out with spilt ink, but pretty clear nonetheless.

I'm with Alex all-the-way on this one. Table Scene 1 (as it shall henceforth be known) = brilliant. Un-exploit chronicling = smart. The series of scenes were tense, entertaining and suspenseful just as much for the interplay between the characters as for the situations. That they didn't consist entirely of when the situations are prevalent was a unique joy of these film.

Most movies don't have scenes that play out so langorously as these. True, if you find them boring, they are just "slow." But I found ever scene in this movie clever and interesting.

[innerSpaceman]

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.]

[Ghoulish Delight]

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.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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.

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.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

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.

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?)

Originally Posted by flippyshark

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.

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