23 response about Cinecast 87 - Regarding Henry »

1. 

   Spoiler - See I hear this time and again, how amazing the shot of Indy in front of the Mushroom cloud is, and that this is such a great piece of cinema… and if it was more than a beautiful storyboard frame so be it, but that is all it is… you can take frames from iron Man and say that makes for a fine image, that, to my mind, does not make Iron Man a beautiful film. I am tired of this arbitrary beauty to things, because we have the CGI to make things so, advertising is all about this and we are oversaturated in this gloss. I want images that when put together help the story not distract from it. What was the mushroom cloud in the context of the story of Indy?

   Comment by rot — May 27, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
2. 

   @rot, I only underscore that image (awesome, storyboard or not, because it means the ’small scale humans’ dwarfed by the mystical Ark/Shankara/Grail are now dwarfed by the powers of their own technology…it leaves Indy in a brave new world).

   The mushroom cloud represents the fact that Indy saving mystical artefacts from getting into the wrong hands have been trumped by Oppenheimer and co. Furthermore, the quaint plastic, chrome and Television of a nascent ’suburbia’ which started in the 50s simply has no place for Indy. The FBI/McCarthyists have no place for Indy’s heroism, and the world at large strays from the mystical Judaeo/Christian/Hindu legends and into the technological marvels of the latter half of the 20th century. I thought this was a knock-out way to take Indy in a new and fresh direction. Of course, this is all turfed about the time where John Hurt shows up.

   I guess the same could be said of Ironman’s tease in the Middle-East beginning (good) before devolving into the same-old, same-old (bad). I’d rather pay to see Ironman tearing up hell against the terrorists than see him fighting his business partner over intellectual property rights.

   Comment by Kurt Halfyard — May 27, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
3. 

   I see what you are saying but it was clumsily executed and for me just became a sight gag.

   Andrew also says the final shot makes him forgive the film enough to give it a pass… a single shot?!!! Is a film just an assemblage of shots that if one works we can congratulate the film? There is too much emphasis placed on cinematopgraphy, shots, etc… a film is dismembered and then if you can add up the right amount of ‘cool’ shots somehow you have a good film. Indy IV had no momentum, the shots did not serve anything, a shot without adequate context is just at most a pretty thing… the great importance of cinema is that images are juxtaposed and given some potential narrative significance.

   Comment by rot — May 27, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
4. 

   @ Rot “a film is dismembered and then if you can add up the right amount of ‘cool’ shots somehow you have a good film.”

   To a limited degree that is how Raiders of the Lost Ark originated as a film. homages to cool escapes and derring do. It’s just that it happened to have some fine actors, and a good screenplay and thus the adventure-blockbuster bar has been set and barely ever touched since.

   I believe the Mushroom Cloud sequence and how it stacks up against what the previous three films represents is a pretty spectacular image, not a sight gag. (and augmented/underscored by the subdivision home plastic and chrome previously). To each their own though.

   And on the final shot in the film, I don’t believe the rest of the film earned it, thus that particular moment fell quite flat for me. If the film was inventive and fresh and interesting then that scene would have connected, instead. Nothing.

   If Bond (albeit however clumsily) can constantly re-invent itself why not Indy? I think they tried and failed with this one, the screenplay and direction wasn’t as daring as Spielberg seemed to be in the late 1970s and early 1980s for this sort of thing.

   Comment by Kurt Halfyard — May 27, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
5. 

   The mushroom cloud is only there to show people that we are not dealing with nazis anymore but we have entered a new era. An era that Indy is somewhat awkward in. It’s an amazing shot but it sure didn’t save the film.

   Comment by swarez — May 27, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
6. 

   One of these days I need to write out my vehement defense of Blair Witch 2.

   Comment by Matt Gamble — May 27, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
7. 

   @swarez. No argument here. As great as that image is, it in no way makes what follows (post USA portion) from being a stinkpile

   Comment by Kurt — May 27, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
8. 

   Concerning Inside, I finally picked it up at HMV. It sure seems to me that it actually ended up being delayed here in Saskatoon. Perhaps it was delayed everywhere. It didn’t really bother me too much since I had already seen it and I’m glad to have it. I can’t wait to throw a party and surprise everyone with it.

   I also bought The Living and The Dead which looks really interesting.

   Comment by John Allison — May 27, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
9. 

   @rot,

   It ain’t the “shot” that I liked. It’s the idea and the message of the final 10 seconds of the film. It defied the standard of what we all thought we were going to see, but Lucas/Spielberg wagged their finger with a “na ah ah ot so fast” at the last second and it elicited a smile and even a bit of a chortle from me. So yeah, that with a burst of Williams’ score made me happy for the very ending of the film and that’s what stuck.

   Also, this segment is not what gives the film a pass (if I said that, it’s not exactly what I meant). What gives the film a pass (barely) is three fold: 1) the first half of the movie is terrific. 2) It’s Indiana Jones and that alone is a huge plus. 3) The final segment is the lasting impression I had and sometimes a final lasting impression as the credits roll strikes me as great and overshadows some of the last 30 minutes preceding it.

   Comment by Andrew James — May 27, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
10. 

    And yes Gamble, I’d love to hear a defense on BW2. I’ll start: shite.

    Actually, the first one isn’t even that great either. I liked it the first time, then the second time (watching it with my mom) I realized it was just three teenagers swearing and screaming at each other for 75 minutes and nothing particularly scary for the final 20 minutes. It works once. I never want to watch it again.

    Comment by Andrew James — May 27, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
11. 

    @Andrew: “Actually, the first one isn’t even that great either.” To that sir, I strongly disagree. So many good ideas and good executions of those ideas in that film, The original Blair Witch should stand the test of time as an innovative horror film.

    Comment by Kurt — May 28, 2008 @ 6:04 am
12. 

    @John: “The Living and The Dead which looks really interesting.”

    Its been on my shelf for a while now, and it comes with high praise, I’ve just not actually thrown it in the player yet.

    Comment by Kurt — May 28, 2008 @ 6:05 am
13. 

    hey guys, just so you know, the feed in itunes is coming through as a video again. cheers

    Comment by Rick — May 28, 2008 @ 6:51 am
14. 

    What exactly have you thrown in the player Kurt? Because it seems like you just have a pile of films and you never watch any of them.

    Comment by Matt Gamble — May 28, 2008 @ 7:58 am
15. 

    I know you jest Matt, but I’ll rise to the bait.

    Last films watched (over past 7 days):

    Eat, For this is My Body (screener for Twitch)
    For A Few Dollars More
    Raiders of the Lost Ark
    Confusions of an Unmarried Couple (screener for RowThree)
    Indian Jones and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (Theatre)
    The ‘Burbs
    The New World
    Extras Season2 Ep1
    Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade
    My Blueberry Nights (DVD)
    Chungking Express
    Indiana Jones and Temple of Doom

    (not a small amount of viewing for a guy with 2 kids and a day job and a house to maintain…)

    Comment by Kurt Halfyard — May 28, 2008 @ 8:12 am
16. 

    @Kurt - Good ideas and innovative does not necessarily a good film make. Watch it again. It’s pretty fucking boring. I get that it sort of started the Veritae trend of the past few years, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to like it over and over.

    Which is why I hesitate to watch Cloverfield again. I liked it quite a bit the first time, but have a feeling I’ll hate it the second time around. Which is why I’ll leave it be and keep the good taste in my mouth.

    Comment by Andrew James — May 28, 2008 @ 9:08 am
17. 

    Hey Rick, I have no idea why that would be happening. My iTunes feed seems fine. Try the one for JUST this podcast:

    feed://www.rowthree.com/category/cinecast/feed/

    Comment by Andrew James — May 28, 2008 @ 9:09 am
18. 

    OK, Rick, I see what the problem is. I’ll see if I can get my guys to work on it.
    Sorry for all these problems. It’s a behind the scenes issue with the system (Wordpress) that we’re using. Not our own stupidity.

    Comment by Andrew James — May 28, 2008 @ 9:19 am
19. 

    I lost track of where Kurt was comparing The Fall to a Matthew Barney film without ever seeing the movie so I figured I’d just slide my comment in right here.

    Kurt is 100% wrong.

    /fact

    Comment by Matt Gamble — May 28, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
20. 

    originally going by the plethora of production stills and having seen THE CELL. having seen the recent trailers, I’m more than happy to put on the hair shirt and actually anticipate THE FALL. i am

    Comment by Kurt Halfyard — May 28, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
21. 

    “Sorry for all these problems. It’s a behind the scenes issue with the system (Wordpress) that we’re using. Not our own stupidity.”

    no problem at all mate. just bringing it to your attention (hopefully without sounding whiney).

    Comment by Rick — May 29, 2008 @ 7:36 am
22. 

    Kurt: Good call on the defense of The Terminal. I thought it was a great film. Have you seen The Suguarland Express? Another great early Spielberg film.

    Comment by Jay C. — May 29, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
23. 

    Yea, I don’t know why The Terminal was crapped on (or at least that is my impression upon its release a few years ago), maybe it was the goofy Stanley Tucci gags, either way, it was an absolutely gorgeous little fluffy piece and if done well, there is nothing wrong with that.

    As to Sugarland Express (which tends to polarize folks, some love it, some detest it) I’ve not seen it. That & Amistad and some of his Nightgallery type TV work are my only missing Spielbergs. I’m not an uber-fan of the man, but I like a lot of his films (Duel, Jaws, Catch Me if you Can, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Temple of Doom, The Terminal, The middle chapter of A.I. (although I truly detest the opening and closing of that film), the first 95% of Minority Report, the first 95% of War of the Worlds, Munich, most of Jurassic Park, and Close Encounters of the Third Kind….

    I guess Empire of the Sun deserves a re-visit, same goes for that Columbo episode.

    I guess I am a fan.

    Comment by Kurt — May 29, 2008 @ 5:23 pm

Leave a comment