Row Three » The Five Films That SHOULD Have Been Nominated for Best Picture Oscars - Where Cinema is more than just $100 Million productions

The Five Films That SHOULD Have Been Nominated for Best Picture Oscars

Chief Imagination Officer

Jan

2009

Alright, so maybe right off the bat this is a stupid article as everyone (including the thousands of Academy voters) will look at a collective group of films (hundreds released in 2008) and each would pick five different films that they think should be up for best picture. So yeah, to say THESE are THE five films that should’ve been nominated might sound pretentious and/or ignoramous; but bear with me here.

Like most internet pundits/readers/trollers, I was baffled by some of the choices that were nominated for best picture at the Oscars this year. Let’s put all of the other major categories aside as they can be debated endlessly and pointlessly. The Best Picture category however, is its own beast and can be looked at a little less subjectively. As soon as the nominees were announced, I (and thousands of others collectively) thought, “WTF?”. Instantly my mind reeled off several film titles that “should’ve” been nominated instead. And as I think about it, the more and more I think I/we are right.

Now this list isn’t just some fanboy listing off his favorite films of the year and crying foul. I want to make that very clear: these are NOT my personal choices for best pictures of the year. Got it? NOT a top five list. These are films of higher quality than those actually nominated and based on several factors, it is a fairly objective list. I thought about this quite a bit (meaning three coffees and a doughnut into my Monday morning) and came up with some reasonable choices for “proper” nominations using gut level instincts, a critical film eye and general Academy tendencies of years past.

Now having said that, anyone that bothers to do some research will see that three of these choices are in my personal top ten of the year and two of those are in my top three; hence I’m likely to hear cries of bullshit on my previous statements. So yeah, there is some subjectivity in here and of course that’s unavoidable; but these picks are still reasonable and as objective as possible with those reasons being explained below.

Before I get to my picks, a word about what was and wasn’t nominated for real. The only title I fully understand being nominated Slumdog Millionaire. It is typical Oscar winner material and I would bet a lot of money (and I am actually) that it will take home the coveted award come February 22nd. It’s critically acclaimed and is the one picture that everyone can love. Despite it’s darker sequences and inner nature, it really is ultimately a love story with “feel good” wrapped all around it. This is Forrest Gump, this is Titanic. Despite how you might feel about those types of movies (and yes around these parts we all know exactly how you feel about them), they were critically acclaimed and audiences adored them world wide; and for good reason. This is Slumdog Millionaire. There just isn’t anyone who really hated this movie. How could you? While NOT in my personal top ten, I still can understand why it is up for best picture and makes complete sense that it is nominated based on The Academy’s past inclinations. Still, there are better choices. Are they Milk (political/bio-pic), The Reader (holocaust), Benjamin Button (Forest Gump style epic) or Frost/Nixon (brilliant acting/script)? Certainly not. Those films were nominated for the reasons in parentheses that you just read. Are they good films? Most definitely. Worthy of calling themselves best picture of 2008? Hell no; hence this article.

Neither am I part of the fanboy contingent. I’m speaking of course of the Wall-E and The Dark Knight whiners. Both quality films to be sure, but also the most over-rated on the year and certainly not deserving to call themselves best picture contenders. Even if they were, The Academy would most likely not vote in an animated feature or a comic book adaptation for their big finale (yes, I’m aware that both have happened before, but I said “in general”).

Lastly, there are some other great films on the year that should/could be recognized. I threw out many of them as possibilities simply because it would be unrealistic to think that something like Ballast or Shotgun Stories would be nominated. Great pictures to be sure, but the tiny little films that no one has seen I simply ignored as possibilities (as the Academy does); otherwise this list would be impossible. This is supposed to be a list of films that would be plausible choices from The Academy that are better than the ones they actually did choose.

So here they are in no particular order. I looked over some of the more critically acclaimed and higher profile titles that were released in the previous calendar year of 2008 and concluded that these are the five films that should’ve been nominated. I’ve included their current Rotten Tomatoes score and Movie City News scoreboard rank just for reference. This is not meant to imply that only the most critically acclaimed films should be nominated. Though that is a factor.

Let the Right One In
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 97%
MCN Top Ten Scoreboard: 11
Now this may be a hard title to swallow in terms of the criteria I set forth in the opening to this article. In retrospect, Revolutionary Road seems like a more plausible title that would be an Oscar voter’s wet dream, but this little, foreign, vampire movie blows anything else so clearly out of the water that it should’ve broken free from those constraints. Let’s just pretend for a second that Sweden had submitted this film for consideration and that the Academy didn’t have their collective heads up their asses and would be willing to challenge themselves by actually having to read subtitles. It’s a stretch I know and this is the one pick I hesitated a bit on nominating for these reasons. Still, it is universally loved and otherwise has all of the ingredients of an audience favorite. It is the only film that was mentioned on all of the writers’ lists here at RowThree. According to the MCN, it was listed on more critics top ten lists than any other film mentioned here (save for one) and is on more top ten lists than two of the real nominees this year: Frost/Nixon and The Reader; and only three less lists than Benjamin Button. I’m also pretty sure it would’ve even surpassed those numbers had more people had the chance to see it. While not a chance in hell to be nominated (this year or next), I would be happy and proud to award Let the Right One In the title of best picture should it be voted as such.

Happy-Go-Lucky
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 93%
MCN Top Ten Scoreboard: 7 (tie)
Most Oscar years have a darling nomination everyone roots for but doesn’t stand a chance of winning (Juno, Little Miss Sunshine, Sideways, etc.). Happy-Go-Lucky should’ve been that pick this year. It’s cute, it’s upbeat, it’s wonderfully acted and it’s British. Some might walk away a bit annoyed with the characters, but that’s par for the course with this sub category (the darling). Yeah, this just seems like the type of movie that would make it in there and I would not have been surprised in the slightest had it been there. In fact, I’m more surprised that it’s not there than I would have been if it was nominated. If you haven’t seen Happy-Go-Lucky, do so soon!

Rachel Getting Married
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 87%
MCN Top Ten Scoreboard: 7 (tie)
We need a heavy drama piece to be nominated and there’s no question in my mind that it should’ve been Rachel Getting Married. Again, unanimously loved in the third row, it is a film that can be appreciated and maybe even empathized with on a gut level beyond nearly anything else released in 2008. It is raw, real, powerful, believable and to say it’s captivating is the understatement of the year. To say nothing about the stellar, break-out performances by everyone involved (most notably Hathaway, DeWitt and Irwin). It is arguably Jonathan Demme’s best picture (though admittedly I’ve seen few of them) and if nothing else, the great Sidney Lumet’s daughter, Jenny, penned this as her very first screenplay! This is an Oscar nomination/awards show dream come true. Why is this movie consistently and shamefully being overlooked!?

The Wrestler
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 98%
MCN Top Ten Scoreboard: 5
Here is the “little indie that could”, break-out movie of the year. Despite big names and a high profile director at the reins, The Wrestler is the film that looks like it was made for about three hundred dollars but rewards its audience with a hundred times that amount in joy and entertainment. Besides the obviously wonderful performances by its two leads, this is a movie that is beyond meta for its star Mickey Rourke. The Ram is a character that is instantly likable; instantly. Audiences are captured and are never let go of. Just the thought of the entire package and remembering individual scenes makes me choke up a bit with a mixture of both joy and tragic sadness.

*Synecdoche, NY
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 63%
MCN Top Ten Scoreboard: 13
Personally, I walked away from this movie scratching my head a little bit and it’s no where near my top ten of 2008. But if I had to pick a movie that should not only be nominated for best picture, but probably take home the trophy, I think Synecdoche, NY is unquestionably that film. Though I didn’t love the movie on a first screening and can completely understand why others might even hate on the film, I do see it for what it is: pure genius. Because this movie is so obviously an instant classic, I think it went right over the heads of most viewers (myself included). I’d even go out on a limb and say that it maybe went right over the heads of some of the actors involved! But after dissecting it and analyzing it and realizing everything that this film gives us on a conscious level, an unconscious level, a social level and a personal level, it is nothing less than sheer brilliance. Twenty years from now when Academy voters look back at their 2008 votes, I honestly believe they’ll hang their heads in shame and think, “what the hell was I thinking!?”

There you have it. These are the five films that The Academy voters should’ve nominated for their best picture category. Let the hate mail begin.

166 response about The Five Films That SHOULD Have Been Nominated for Best Picture Oscars »

Couldn’t agree more with these choices Andrew. You are bang on with the Synecdoche NY comments. A film that will only get better and more loved with age.

I wish that CHE was nominated for something. Anything. That is another movie that will likely be talked about in a number of years. An unconventional, and entirely successful bio-pic. Rare.

Comment by Kurt — January 26, 2009
I’m actually confounded about that. Is Che something that isn’t eligible until next year maybe? It wasn’t nominated for ANYTHING was it? Not sure it played in the States officially until after Jan 1.

Comment by Andrew James — January 26, 2009
Haven’t seen Happy-Go-Lucky or Synecdoche, NY, but if they’re anything like the other 3 films in this list, I can’t wait to check them out.

To hell with what the Academy says: Rachel Getting Married is 2008’s finest film.

Comment by Dave — January 26, 2009
TOTALLY agree with your choice of The Wrestler. That movie just blew me away – I am man enough to admit it made me well up at the end. And since I don’t experience that often for me that’s saying something. Rourke was astounding.

Also nice to see Happy-Go-Lucky in there; I can’t get enough of that movie. It’s a rarity of celebrating the good in life, and Poppy is simply the best film character of 2008, period.

I would also throw 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly in for at least consideration. Two outstanding achievements that I fully belive will be looked back on with great admiration by the majority (i.e. as classics) in years or even decades to come.

But do I disagree with any of the Academy’s choices for Best Picture? Sure – I would exchange Milk and The Reader for others but I also think they’re all fully worthy of being nominated. Particularly Slumdog Millionaire and Frost/Nixon (I’ve yet to see Benjamin Button – it hasn’t opened here yet).

Comment by Ross Miller — January 26, 2009
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly was nominated for four Oscars last year already. I don’t think the Academy would go for giving it nominations two years in a row, although you never know.

Comment by Jonathan B. — January 26, 2009
It was? Wow, I should have remembered that. Again it’s the damned delayed releasing thing that made it a 2008 movie at least for me in the UK.

4 Months…should have been nominated, though, in at least the Foreign Language catagory. That film is an utter, utter masterpiece. I’m sure Andrew will agree.

Comment by Ross Miller — January 26, 2009
Romania did not put it up for oscar consideration last year I think if I recall correctly. No chance it would have won though, it’s not about the holocaust.

Comment by Henrik — January 26, 2009
“A film that will only get better and more loved with age.”

Kurt, are you trying to provoke or do you really not see the arrogance and ignorance of statements like these? Why are they even necessary? Are you trying to set yourself up so that 20 years from now you can pull up a screenshot and pad yourself on the back?

Comment by Henrik — January 26, 2009
Oh, and the same goes for Andrew, but I strongly suspect it’s Kurt’s “I_am_your_sensei_and_if_you_don’t_agree_I_will_interrupt_you”-style arguing that has tainted Andrews perception of how to relate to this film in particular. He doesn’t do it other places from what I can see, but you Kurt, you do it all the time, you damned prick. Like I keep saying, watch Lady in the Water, realize the error of your ways. Or maybe that’s the real reason you never liked the film.

Comment by Henrik — January 26, 2009
Good choices there, although I would’ve probably went ahead and thrown in The Dark Knight, even if I know that even if it had been nominated for Best Picture it would have no chance of winning!

Comment by Mercurie — January 26, 2009
I wouldn’t suggest anyone waste their time with ‘Lady in the Water’. The only thing that movie was successful at was making Bryce Dallas Howard look ugly. Which is a shame, because she’s hot.

Comment by Andy — January 26, 2009
Andy, I wouldn’t expect anything less from you!

Comment by Henrik — January 26, 2009
@ Twenty years from now when Academy voters look back at their 2008 votes, I honestly believe they’ll hang their heads in shame

Andrew, c’mon. It’s an industry award show, no ones gonna be looking back at it in 6 months let alone 20 years. Although I’m impressed they nominated a film as good as Slumdog Millionaire which is an amazing film for most of its run time.

By the way, why do you call The Wrestler “meta”?

Comment by Rusty James — January 26, 2009
Henrik, I wouldn’t expect anything more from M. Night Shyamalan. Frank Lovece of Film Journal International put it best when he wrote, “Fans of actor Paul Giamatti or of filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan may get something out of Lady in the Water, a fractured fairy tale about a water nymph who comes to a Philadelphia apartment house to deliver an important message. Anyone else is likely to be perplexed by the muddled mythmaking or actively astonished at the self-indulgent ego of a writer-director-producer who casts himself in the role of a visionary writer whose martyrdom will change the world.”
I mean, ‘The Sixth Sense’ was clever, but everything else since has been pure garbage.

Comment by Andy — January 26, 2009
Rusty, not so sure about that. Maybe we don’t know what is in voters heads from their past votes, but people certainly go back and look at previous winners and losers and analyze and rethink things with hindsight being 20/20.

Comment by Andrew James — January 26, 2009
I thought The Sixth Sense was boring and shallow, and everything else since then has been good-to-amazing.

“Anyone else is likely to be perplexed by the muddled mythmaking or actively astonished at the self-indulgent ego of a writer-director-producer who casts himself in the role of a visionary writer whose martyrdom will change the world”

Pfft. Anyone else? What about people who don’t read the internet and have no idea what Shyamalan looks like?

If there is one thing to take from Lady in the Water, it’s an angry fuck you to critics, and as such, it would not have worked had he pulled any punches. He has to be the one who is the writer, this is a notion of an artist, that nobody knows who or how they might effect, they don’t even know anything about their shit themselves. As evidenced by the exquisite choice of song during the end credits, just shut your god damned mouths because you don’t know squat you stupid grownups.

Comment by Henrik — January 26, 2009
I disagree, respectfully. I took away that Shyamalan’s movies blow.

Comment by Andy — January 26, 2009
Henrik, wtf are you babbling about now? Because Kurt had S,NY at his #1 position I somehow feel obliged to indulge him and make it the one movie I think should win best picture? No. I make my own decisions thank you very much.

S,NY is a film I can most certainly see the genius behind, it just wasn’t as entertaining for me. Hence Doomsday is on my top ten list. But yes, 20 years from now I would say it is very likely that I’ll barely remember Doomsday, but S,NY will be a film that I keep going back to.

And your “Lady in the Water” argument is not only irrelevant, but it invalidates anything else you say.

Comment by Andrew James — January 26, 2009
can we PLEASE not turn this post into ANOTHER fucking Shyamalan debate?

Comment by Andrew James — January 26, 2009
What, Andrew? Shyamalan fits perfectly under this topic… Oh, no wait, I’m sorry. I’m sorry. ‘SHOULD have been!’ My mistake!

Comment by Andy — January 26, 2009
“I make my own decisions thank you very much.”

It has nothing to do with liking the movie, being impressed with it, thinking it should win an oscar or any of that. It’s the “I pretend to know the future”-bullshit that I usually only get from Kurt that you also spurted in your post. The logical conclusion would be that he got into your head, in this particular instance. Don’t get all antsy-pantsy, I didn’t imply you weren’t able to make your own decisions man, I very much acknowledge that you are.

And Lady in the Water is extremely relevant to this particular point, which you’d know if you understood the movie. EAT IT.

Comment by Henrik — January 26, 2009
“I took away that Shyamalan’s movies blow.”

Like I said, I expect nothing less from you Andy!

Comment by Henrik — January 26, 2009
@ Andrew, yeah I guess we don’t know. But I think you put a lot of emphasis on silly award shows. When you write about anyone “hanging their head is shame” over this stuff I think you reveal that you’re putting much more thought into it than the actual voters.

But please explain your “meta” comment.

Comment by Rusty James — January 26, 2009
“‘I took away that Shyamalan’s movies blow.’

“Like I said, I expect nothing less from you Andy!”

I expect nothing more from you, Henrik! Say hi to your gerbil for me.

Comment by Andy — January 26, 2009
“This is Slumdog Millionaire. There just isn’t anyone who really hated this movie.”

I did. I really really really HATED this movie. Possibly even more than Haggis’ Crash.

Can someone please explain to me why people are gushing all over it? It’s HORRIBLE. It’s gimmicky, it’s manipulative, it’s offensive, it’s contrived, it’s a mess.

I don’t know how they are calling it “feel good” and a “crowd pleaser.”

And the whole “fantasy/fairy tale” argument will not sell me. I can name dozens of fantasy films that have way better scripts than Slumdog. Not to mention better acting.

Comment by Ashley — January 26, 2009
By the way, great list Andrew, I agree 100% even though I haven’t seen S,NY and I didn’t care for Happy-Go-Lucky. I can see where you are coming from with both.

Comment by Ashley — January 26, 2009
@ Ashley

I just saw the movie and haven’t read any of the reviews but just read Andrew’s comments comparing the movie to Forest Gump.

Wow. I saw a drastically different film. The film I saw is Pixote mixed with the darker parts of Pinochio. The scenes when they’re kids weave a spell.

There’s a little bit of Usual Suspect as well. These scenes eventually grew on me but they’re responsible for the film derailing at the end. Danny Boyle drastically miscalculated by assuming we care anything about this stupid Who Wants To Be A Millionaire game.

To me this film is about kids. And orphans. It’s partly a thriller but also a travelogue through a cruel but exotically magical world. And it’s soul is that of a childrens film.

Comment by Rusty James — January 26, 2009
Great list, though personally I wouldn’t put Happy-Go-Lucky on it.

Comment by Joseph — January 26, 2009
Ashley – Although I did like Slumdog, I agree with you about how ridiculous it is that everyone considers it a feel good movie.

Do the two lovers just need to end up together for a film to be considered “feel good?” Has anyone actually watched Slumdog? It’s ultra depressing and violent. Sure you’re rooting for Jamal, the hero, and like in The Karate Kid he triumphs. But I also recall our Slumdog hero being tortured, his mom being killed, his friend’s eyes being burned out, and his brother raping his girlfriend only returning to get killed.

When I watch the trailer, I laugh.

Way to go Slumdog. You just brought hope to over 60 million slumdogs just like you in India.

Comment by Ty Webb — January 27, 2009
By the way, why do you call The Wrestler “meta”?

Because Kurt said so.

Comment by Matt Gamble — January 27, 2009
@Henrik: “Kurt, are you trying to provoke or do you really not see the arrogance and ignorance of statements like these? Why are they even necessary? Are you trying to set yourself up so that 20 years from now you can pull up a screenshot and pad yourself on the back?”

Nope, I actually believe this. Same with City of God and 25th hour, which are both certainly getting more respect and viewership now than they did at the time of their release. Oh, and Magnolia turns 10 this year..

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 27, 2009
@Ashley: “Can someone please explain to me why people are gushing all over it? It’s HORRIBLE. It’s gimmicky, it’s manipulative, it’s offensive, it’s contrived, it’s a mess.”

Preach it! While I did like the globalization elements and general cinematography/technical sides of the piece, as a storytelling and modern ‘fairy tale’ yea, it often falls over under its own foreshadowing and clunky romance. I failed to connect with the movie completely as well.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 27, 2009
“@ Andrew, yeah I guess we don’t know. But I think you put a lot of emphasis on silly award shows. When you write about anyone “hanging their head is shame” over this stuff I think you reveal that you’re putting much more thought into it than the actual voters.”

I definitely agree with this. More often than not, those ‘looking back’ and pointing out the Academy’s mistakes are outside the process, and knew they screwed up in the first place. I wish the Academy did hang their heads in shame once in a while; it would show they could actually learn from past errors. Unfortunately, their nominations year in and year out are proof to the contrary.

Comment by Dave — January 27, 2009
I agree with you Kurt. Che should have been nominated. 7 years of research was put into making the film. And Benicio Del toro was perfect for the role of CHe.

Comment by Elaina — January 27, 2009
Elaina – Not to mention that this does new and interesting things with the Biopic format, does a really remarkable job with the new RED camera, and captures an epic and intimate and overall big picture feel. Hey, it even feels like it gets the history right without being at the expense of the character or drama. Yea, Che is the real deal, so of course the Academy doesn’t get it.

Comment by kurt — January 27, 2009
@@ By the way, why do you call The Wrestler “meta”?

@ Because Kurt said so.

Ha ha. I was just reading the comments for the Wrestler review and Kurt does call it meta. Until someone cares to elaborate on this I’m putting out a level red critic bullshit alert.

Comment by Rusty James — January 27, 2009
@Meta, When you are writing about something well after the fact of seeing it, and having talked to a lot of folks about a movie, a phrase or thought are bound to make its way somewhere in the text. It happens all the time with me too.

I don’t see the big problem here guys.

Comment by kurt — January 27, 2009
@ I don’t see the big problem here guys.

In what way is the film meta?

Comment by Rusty James — January 27, 2009
Didn’t Kurt say it was meta because the film was written, and wrestling is also written?

Comment by Henrik — January 27, 2009
I think you are right about Rachel Getting Married, it was great and fully deserving of a best picture nomination. I think you are totally wrong in your judgment of Wall-E. Wall-E did something that is nearly unheard of in films today, it didn’t say anything for 30 minutes and was still riveting. That alone makes it one of the best pictures, because it was able to create a world of its own without the benefit of dialog. I’ll explain; A film that should be considered one of the best pictures has to have a few excellent qualities. It needs to be aware of what has come before, and Wall-E is rife with references to the silent era past, it needs to feel familiar enough that we know its place in the world, it also need to feel a sense of prescience, that it isn’t something that will age poorly, that is something of a rallying cry for those who see it. Hence, it needs to feel like it has a message that is important. It needs lovable, or detestable, nuanced and interesting characters and situations. It needs to be beautiful, or horribly ugly, it must be ascetically pleasing, and unless it is stylistically choosing not to be, it needs to be innovative in its style and technical ability. Wall-E was all of these things, and most of all, it was emotionally resonant for everyone that I’ve seen it with and those I’ve spoken with. I do love Pixar, unabashedly, I think they make great movies, this however, is something different. It’s a treatise on the world at large, our possible future as a species et all, a warning, all wrapped into a film that can be enjoyed by children and adults alike, it leaves no one out and it spares no one. A best picture is a movie that someone can watch and say, everyone has to see this. Slumdog, Button, The Reader, and Frost/Nixon, I don’t feel that way about. Here in America, I think people should see Milk, but I live in Los Angeles, and while I’m not a homosexual, I do realize the power of the yes on 8 proposition that just passed and its ramifications on homosexuals and their rights, and the rights of people in the United states. People need to see Wall-E, and I don’t feel that is true for any other Pixar films either. Wall-E is different, and it’s the best film of the year, without a doubt in my mind.

Comment by Brandon — January 27, 2009
@rusty, you can read my review right here at row three for why I used the word meta to describe the Wrester, I’ll save you the trouble of 2 clicks with a cut & paste:

“The Wrestler is built kind of like the sport that it is set in. The story is familiar, a bit shop-worn, even contrived, and perhaps a bit faked. While things are playing out on screen, it archives a genuine emotional workout: the best kind of cinematic magic. The film is a weepy and a crowd- pleaser in the best sense of both of those terms. It is a a solid and accomplished work which shows a talented filmmaker at the pinnacle of his career. While it may or may not do any favours to legitimize the modern cartoon that is WWE, it is a strangely positive love-letter to the sport (witness the charming ’shop talk’ in the Wrestlers greenroom) and those who grind themselves away practitioning it”

But I think Andrew is getting at the battering and lost chances of glory in both Mickey Rourke’s career (a rising star in the 80s before the burn out, then boxing, now back to acting with some real heart again…)

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 27, 2009
“The story is familiar, a bit shop-worn, even contrived, and perhaps a bit faked.”

Kurt, do you really, honestly feel, that the screenwriter tried to make the movie contrived and fake because it was about a wrestler?

Comment by Henrik — January 27, 2009
@Brandon. I like WallE a lot, my very, very postitive review of the film is kicking around in the archives and cross-published on twitchfilm.net

One criticism leveled at the film is that for all the grace and dignity and restraint of the first half of the film, things get pretty blunt when things move to the Axiom. Points are hammered pretty obviously, and the film teeters on being a big-chase film for quite a bit. I’ll admit that I liked the post-apocalyptic and love-story element more than the ‘anti-disney/walmart’ part on the ship (although that had some pretty distinct ‘preaching to the choir’ joy for me as well). And if there was an award for closing credits, WallE certainly has my vote. One thing thing that the film was about that many overlook is that kitch-culture can be risen to high art (HELLO DOLLY!) in the right context. Perhaps Pixar will get more artistic credit 50 years from now, rather than simply populist crowd-pleasing CGI films. WallE definitely throws down the gauntlet in the first half of the film on what a children’s film (or family film) can be capable of if it wants to stretch its audience. There is majesty and wonder there. But it didn’t quite make my top 10 because it gets a lot heavy handed in the 2nd half. I still think it was a 4 Star movie (Ms. Kael always said that GREAT MOVIES are rarely PERFECT MOVIES), yet I thought that the 10 other films hilighted by me were better films to suit my tastes and whatnot.

Anyone make it to the end of this post? I should be writing my THE CLASS review. Yie.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 27, 2009
@Henrik “Kurt, do you really, honestly feel, that the screenwriter tried to make the movie contrived and fake because it was about a wrestler?”

Not all great art comes out of intent. A lot of it comes out of execution. If you asked me whether or not Aronofsky (& writer Robert D. Siegel) had that intent when writing the film. I’d reply honestly that I haven’t the foggiest. I just call it as I see it on screen. The results have to matter as much as the intent some times. If it is a happy accident, then so be it.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 27, 2009
My award for closing credits goes to Speed Racer, a movie which probably has 40 minutes without dialogue as well, yet is indefinitely more experimental than Wall-E.

Comment by Henrik — January 27, 2009
Just seems weird. Wouldn’t that mean that everything that is badly written and fake is just a metafilm calling out that movies are written and fake to begin with?

Comment by Henrik — January 27, 2009
And…@Brandon.

What people should see and what people choose to see are rarely different things. Who is to decide what people “SHOULD” see anyway? The bulk of the population don’t want to think too hard when they are being entertained. You won’t change that. Obviously we here at Rowthree feel differently about the movies in most cases and generally recommend (and discuss) films that are invigorating of the emotions and the brain and everything in between (And Yes, I’d put THE READER into that category). Of course we also watch Grindhouse, Doomsday and Funky Forest for comepletey different reasons.

Sometimes great movies are not fun movies. You’ll never really convince the ‘entertainment only crowd’ to see these great movies. But I guess Wall E is an interesting balance, although still a long way from Antonionni or Fellini or Altman or Welles.

Milk is interesting and certainly well shot, but Milk is pretty much a paint-by-numbers biopic with a few good performances. The message trumps the movie itself in many ways. Not necessarily top-shelf cinema in my book (For Van sant, Last Days, Elephant, Gerry is much better – heck, TO DIE FOR is much better than Milk)

Truly challenging (and universal) cinema can be found in something like Synecdoche, NY or even Blindness, but folks don’t want that kind of cinema judging by the piss-poor box-office receipts.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 27, 2009
@Henrik “Just seems weird. Wouldn’t that mean that everything that is badly written and fake is just a metafilm calling out that movies are written and fake to begin with?”

Heh. You may be onto something. (kidding).

No, it just seems appropriate that a film about a sport that is faked yet still pleasurable to the masses has a film about it that uses a lot of tried and true manipulations and story tropes. It is the humanity on display from the performers and the ‘just back off’ approach in much of the direction that makes this triple-combination such a great movie.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 27, 2009
@ Not all great art comes out of intent. A lot of it comes out of execution. If you asked me whether or not Aronofsky (& writer Robert D. Siegel) had that intent when writing the film. I’d reply honestly that I haven’t the foggiest. I just call it as I see it on screen. The results have to matter as much as the intent some times. If it is a happy accident, then so be it.

This is turning into a retread of the Happening debacle.

Comment by Rusty James — January 27, 2009
WHOAH! I’ve missed a lot here and people are misinterpreting things a bit. First off, the “meta” thing:

Main Entry: meta
Part of Speech: adj
Definition: self-referential; referring to itself or its characteristics, esp. as a parody; about

Main Entry: meta
Part of Speech: n
Definition: something with refers to itself, esp. in self-parodying manner
Example: A movie-within-a-movie is an example of meta.

So meta to me (in regards to The Wrestler), it just means that the film’s character mirror’s Rourke’s own life in many ways. i.e. self-referential. e.g. trying for a comeback, getting old, career taking a dive, etc. It doesn’t have anything to with the fact that it is about wrestling. That’s just my perspective though.

Comment by Andrew James — January 27, 2009
SECOND:

“I just saw the movie and haven’t read any of the reviews but just read Andrew’s comments comparing the movie to Forest Gump.”

You misunderstand. I was only comparing it to Gump in terms of Oscar recognition. I just meant that this is the big movie this year that everyone loves and will take home the big prize, no matter what it is up against – just like Gump or Titanic.

Comment by Andrew James — January 27, 2009
@ Brandon re: Wall-e…

See Kurt’s comments three down from yours. It is exactly right (except I didn’t even get the “preaching to the choir joy” that he experienced).

First 40 minutes or so: 5/5 star film.
Last 45 minutes or so: 1.5/5 star film.

Which = medicrity.

Comment by Andrew James — January 27, 2009
Miraculously I agree with Henrik. I have very little desire to see Wall-e again (at least in its entirety). Speed Racer on the other hand is far more experimental, far more interesting to look and has a story that I actually care about. Sure it’s a bit on the trite side and some of the dialogue is cringe-worthy, but everything else about it is so interesting that it’s easy to overlook all of the negatives. With Wall-e, the negatives hit you over the head and while the animation is fantastic looking, it really isn’t any better than anything in Ratatouille or even Cars, so why bother with it again?

Goon is right on regarding this one. Speed Racer is a movie whose innovation will be ripped off for years to come. Wall-e is just another good looking Pixar movie.

Comment by Andrew James — January 27, 2009
Well I obviously disagree with Andrew on this, having seen Wall E three times (two in cinema, both time with kiddies). It has high re-watch value and has a great big heart which makes watching the movie multiple times very enjoyable. It is the grace of the first 40 minutes that elevate the film way above the norm. I think Ratatouille is a better movie, but only by a fraction of an inch.

Not seen Speed Racer yet.

But Andrew is seriously off-base thinking that WallE is ‘just another pixar movie’ — A BUGS LIFE, CARS, FINDING NEMO are ‘just another pixar movie. RATATOUILLE, WALL-E and THE INCREDIBLES above the usual Pixar standard. But we’ve had this debate numerous times. Andrew doesn’t like the ‘adult’ message nearly as much as he like the ‘world of cars, world of bugs, world of toys, world of monsters’ fantasies. Fair Enough. I like it when Pixars message runs counter to the accepted mediocre culture of America (Ratatouille = celebration of high-brow taste, Incredibles = everyone should not be treated as ’special’ for self esteem reasons, WallE = The average in America is a fat nation of spoiled indulged slobs due to WalMart & Disney, and also that Art is dependent on context and will always be evolving in new and interesting ways.

Comment by Kurt — January 28, 2009
I should give points to NEMO in that it has a very strong message to parents that overproctecting your child can lead to self-indulgence rather than being ‘good for your offspring’, but there is a lot of ‘filler’ in NEMO, even more than RATATOUILLE and INCREDIBLES. There is less ‘filler’ in WALLE, but it does devolve into a ‘chase movie’ in the final third, a similar problem with INCREDIBLES.

Comment by Kurt — January 28, 2009
“Ratatouille = Celebration of highbrow taste.”

This is the biggest nonsense I have heard about this particular film. The point of the film is that there is no such thing as highbrow taste, or lowbrow taste, that good shit is good shit, no matter if it’s veggies mashed together by a rat or something else. As long as it has heart (so romantic).

Comment by Henrik — January 28, 2009
I disagree. Remy goes out of his way to engage with something, develop his taste, and stand up above the middle and low-brow tastes (“All you do is eat garbage” he says to his brother and father). And Ego celebrates a real talent rather than the next trendy thing to come down the pipeline. It also says that applied talent can raise the mundane to art (i.e. a peasant dish to haute cuisine).

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 28, 2009
It should go without saying that this is pretty ‘deep’ for a childrens CGI film. And in layering their films like this, for actual families to enjoy and explore, this is why I like Pixar.

Is Ratatouille Bergman or Antonionni? No. But baby steps, Henrik. Baby Steps.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 28, 2009
Yeah baby steps are for babies though Kurt.

I’m not a big fan of Antonioni by the way. L’Avventura made me fall asleep (watched as part of education though, a horrible way to see anything, very few things are able to make an impression in that context), and I haven’t seen anything else I think. Nowhere near Bergman for sure.

Comment by Henrik — January 28, 2009
Well, I prefer Antonioni over Bergman, but that is a matter of taste. Try La Notte, and you’ll get a more accessible entry point to the mans work.

Also, I never really found the ‘class room’ to be an issue with absorbing good cinema (or books, etc).

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 28, 2009
I honestly am surprised at Kurt’s love of a movie that is 100% pandering to its audience. The second half of that film gives the viewer exactly what they want in terms of “toony” running around and unfunny dialogue. The “green” message is shoved down our throat almost more than the daily newspaper or CNN.

Agreed that Speed Racer’s anti-corporate message is the same thing (funny, coming from The Wachowskis and Warner Brothers), but it’s done on such a non-pandering level. What we see is NOT what you see in everyday animation.

What I meant by “just another Pixar movie” is that the animation is basically the same as other Pixar movies, just upping it a notch (as the next one will surely do as well). Oh joy, they improved a little on their last outing. How is this special or interesting? Doing something completely new is far more interesting to me. Even if I don’t like it (which I do, I really, really do), I applaud something for being innovative or different. Something new, not something borrowed. Speed Racer is that movie in 2008; much like some foreign stuff I’ve yet to see (Waltz with Bashir, SkyCrawlers, etc.).

Comment by Andrew James — January 28, 2009
I should point out I don’t actively dislike Wall-e, but this fawning all over it has started to drive me towards the dark side (much like TDK).

Comment by Andrew James — January 28, 2009
“Also, I never really found the ‘class room’ to be an issue with absorbing good cinema (or books, etc).”

You must be a dork!

Comment by Henrik — January 28, 2009
The correct nomenclature is Geek. (or as a goofy acronym: Genuine, Enthusiastic, Empowerd, Kid.) The best learning is done out of genuine curiosity, and not of fear of failure, or promise of wealth via career. I never took a formal education in the Arts, but it’s always been in the background of everything I do.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 28, 2009
I second Kurt’s recommendation, Henrik you should check out Antonioni’s La Notte. There is an end dialogue scene that is like something out of Scenes from a Marriage.

Comment by rot — January 28, 2009
@Andrew (WallE): “The second half of that film gives the viewer exactly what they want in terms of “toony” running around and unfunny dialogue”

But. Condemning its target audience (the Suburban WalMart/Disney set) for the laziness everything provided with no understanding or passion by portraying them as immobile slugs is HARDLY pandering for a Disney film. In fact, I give the film great credit to throwing that into the face of the viewer (and all the plastic junk Disney creates for 5 minutes pleasure than land-fill (think Happy Meal Toys and Dollar Store crap). Hardly Pandering. For the average WallE/Pixar viewer, that is actually food for thought. That at of course the generous nods to silent cinema and overall grace of the first 40 minutes makes the ‘tooney running around’ quite forgivable.

I think your general politics, Andrew, make the ‘GREEN’ message un-stomachable or more overly offensive.

As to Speed Racer. I haven’t seen it, so I cannot comment on whether their delivery of the moral of the story is any more or less gracefull than WallE.

On the ‘just another Pixar movie.’ They have made a commitment to 1 film a year, that is their business model I don’t think it is quite fair to hold them accountable for not making a giant-leap in technology with every film. It’s the story telling and the ideas that are the main draw over the ‘Whoa, that is great compositing’ factor. Surely, that is the only draw to CARS. The story their is so hoary and done-to-death and they don’t do anything interesting or fresh with the concept. Hence my extreme dislike of that film.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 28, 2009
“The best learning is done out of genuine curiosity, and not of fear of failure, or promise of wealth via career.”

Exactly, which is why a classroom is the worst possible place to be exposed to anything that is not restricted to simple facts to be easily placed into categories in order to prepare for exams. At school currently though, the films were just showings multiple times a week, as such unrelated to any sort of studying, but it still feels like you’re in school, and sometimes you just want to be able to go home (which you are, but you feel guilty, and you don’t want to miss something that might actually be really good, which came up quite abit in these screenings). I mean when you read a novel for regular school, any sort of experience is ruined by having to answer questions about on a test afterwards. It taints everything if you have to perform.

I’d like to see La Notte, sure.

Comment by Henrik — January 28, 2009
I forgot to mention that WallE’s interaction with Disney’s unethical (i.e. Non-’Green’) merchandising business model is 1000x more interesting than Enchanted’s ’safe gentle mocking’ of Disney cliches. Enchanted is a wet noodle. WallE actually has some bite (admittedly undermined and healthily ironic considering all the WallE junk sold at ToysRUs) against its corporate master.

Hey if someone actually thinks about all the consumer crap going into landfills and extrapolates it to the wasteland in WallE (or Idiocracy), then WallE has done a heck of a lot more than Enchanted and its half-assed empowerment, (or the power of fairy tales) message thrown in with some cheap sight gags.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 28, 2009
The story in Speed Racer is shallow, uninteresting and morally despicable, but the visuals are… well, see it.

Comment by Henrik — January 28, 2009
@Henrik ” it still feels like you’re in school, and sometimes you just want to be able to go home “

Why should it. That is your hang-up. I never felt like school should be school. I took what I need, good marks were often accidental, I had some bad marks in subjects that I was very good in. I went to learn, not to get good marks.

Unfortunately I’ll agree that our school system emphasizes good marks over genuine learning. But you don’t have to let that overall broad issue affect you too much as an individual. You of all people should know this.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 28, 2009
“Why should it.”

Because in the end, what every person desire is freedom. So it’s tempting to just walk out and enjoy your freedom rather than stay in, it’s always nice to get off early from anything. Add to that the horrible experience of sitting in an auditorium with 60-90 other people, 80% couldn’t give a shit about the film, people eating, writing notes on laptops, walking in and out etc. and it definitely feels like school.

I think you’re overly romantisicing your own experience because of your age and the fact that you have children now, I can think of nobody who were completely able to just treat school like you say. When it comes down to it, it always hangs over your head that if you don’t perform, you won’t be able to continue.

I definitely don’t go to school to get good marks, but I still want to continue because of the relationships with the people I met and meet there.

Comment by Henrik — January 28, 2009
“I think your general politics, Andrew, make the ‘GREEN’ message un-stomachable or more overly offensive.”

Hardly. I’m one of the more “green” people I know. Always have been. Probably more green than most people you know. But c’mon, the message is EVERYWHERE, ALL THE TIME. Aren’t we getting sick of it yet? Haven’t we got the message? Ok ok, obviously a lot of people have not, but I have and I’m tired of hearing about global warmi… er, climate change (and it’s my fault because I drive to work everyday) – especially in my entertainment/get-away trips to the theater. The loss of classic cinema (i.e. the My Fair Lady sequence) would have been a much more fun (ala Cinema Paradiso) avenue to travel down. But no, we have to safe guard a plant.

“Surely, that is the only draw to CARS. The story their is so hoary and done-to-death and they don’t do anything interesting or fresh with the concept. Hence my extreme dislike of that film.”

This is a funny statement, considering Wall-e’s message and methodology.

Comment by Andrew James — January 28, 2009
Well Andrew, it IS the extermination of all life as we know it. More important than realizing it’s not happiness to be fast as lightning or whatever the hell Cars was about.

That being said though, I can comfortably say this without having seen the film, Wall-E still sucks ass.

Comment by Henrik — January 28, 2009
@Andrew: “This is a funny statement, considering Wall-e’s message and methodology.”

What, like the faith in your audience that a dialogue-less 1st 30 minutes will not make people lose interest. I didn’t see that in Open with a Race, “Life is a Highway” montage. So no, I don’t see your point. Where exactly does Cars use grace and restraint or novel approach? At least I can claim the first half of WallE.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 28, 2009
(Yes, I’m being bitchy)

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 28, 2009
I never said Cars does this. I fully admit I like Cars for it’s fun characters, funny dialogue and gorgeous backdrops. That’s it. But the argument that W-E is better than Cars because it’s message is “hip and fresh” and Cars’ message isn’t, is invalid IMO.

Comment by Andrew James — January 28, 2009
And I don’t mean to pick on you. I’m picking on all the people that think W-E is “best” picture of the year. It’s entertaining at best. Nothing new, the interest of the message is nil and YES, the first 35 minutes are awesome (in a cute way), but there is no deep, emotional component there. Certainly not like something like The Wrestler or RGM.

Comment by Andrew James — January 28, 2009
Shit, Happy-Go-Lucky has more emotional depth and a more interesting message than Wall-E. Maybe not on the surface, but looking at it more deeply, it’s FAR more profound.

Comment by Andrew James — January 28, 2009
@ Andrew ” Cars because it’s message is “hip and fresh” and Cars’ message isn’t, is invalid IMO”

No I’m not arguing this at all (read my above comment again), I’m arguing that WallE has a grace of execution in the first 40 minutes which is more than the whole of Cars. For me, the slow-blossoming ‘love’ story was pulled off pretty magnificently between two non-humans with no dialogue.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 28, 2009
And I don’t necessarily think Rachel Getting Married has anything overly ‘profound’ to say (if you know something I don’t, please let me in on it), it just has some of the best execution I’ve seen in that type of film, well….ever.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 28, 2009
“Profound” maybe isn’t the right word in terms of what it is saying. But it’s more than just execution. Without being spoilery, Kym’s past gets pretty interesting as the story unravels. Dad seeing “the plate” was quite emotional and the way the characters relate (or don’t relate) to each other isn’t profound in itself, but it sure gives us a profound sense of being – or at least, it did for me.

Comment by Andrew James — January 28, 2009
I haven’t read through all of the comments here, but I sort of agree with both sides.

I thought the first half of Wall-E was great. I’ve re-watched it and it definitely help up. Although one thing…I don’t think it’s as dialogue-less as it seems upon first viewing. They still felt the need to include the exposition-heavy BnL commercial hosted by Fred Willard. Lots of dialogue in that piece.

In regards to the ending, I do have to agree with Andrew. It’s pretty typical. And sorry, an underlying ‘meta’ fuck you to it’s own audience is hardly enough to save it. (In fact, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to assume they are setting out to criticize Americans. After all, it’s the American’s who ultimately end up returning to Earth and saving the world.) Having said that, I just don’t get the whole idea of praising films for purposely targeting their audience or pushing their buttons. It just seems like such an easy, shallow way to win over the ‘edgy’ viewer. (See Funny Games) There still has to be a good movie behind it all.

If Wall-E really did have balls and wanted to stick it to its target audience, the robots would go back to Earth and rebuild on their own, taking over the planet. The humans would remain lazy because ultimately that’s what they prefer.

Comment by Jay C. — January 28, 2009
I happen to like Funny Games as well, so guilty as charged.

I’d have fist-pumped if the WallE creators had gone with Jay’s “THE MIST” ending. ha.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 28, 2009
“(See Funny Games) There still has to be a good movie behind it all.”

Didn’t you think that Funny Games was an extraordinarily powerful film, excluding the calling you out on it, though? I thought it was very strong.

What does an ending like that have to do with The Mist?

Comment by Henrik — January 28, 2009
@Henrik: That it is bitchy, confrontational and down beat i.e. not necessarily the norm of the genre and makes people go hmmm. or “OH My!”

Comment by kurt — January 28, 2009
***SPOILER***
***SPOILER***
***SPOILER***

But The Mist has a happy ending?

America wins in that one as well

Comment by Henrik — January 28, 2009
****SPOILER**** Well, I guess if you take the global view, but I think the film is more from the perspective of the characters that you see, not the country that you don’t.

Comment by kurt — January 28, 2009
“Didn’t you think that Funny Games was an extraordinarily powerful film, excluding the calling you out on it, though? I thought it was very strong.”

I didn’t hate the movie, but I certainly hated the message. But no, I didn’t think the movie underneath the message was extraordinarily strong. I liked it about as much as I liked The Strangers, which I also didn’t find extraordinarily strong. (I liked The Strangers a lot. More than Funny Games.)

What I’m saying is it’s a genre picture dressed up like an art film which criticizes the genre (And even worse, its audience). As a genre fan, I find it insulting, pretentious and hypocritical. Having said that, I still found things I could appreciate about it. (Mainly the opening title sequence)

Comment by Jay C. — January 28, 2009
We have a full on Movie Club podcast with the original Funny Games 1997. Not a heck of a lot different than the 2008 version. So you can get more perspective there. As a bonus – M. Night’s Lady in the Water is on the double bill.

Comment by kurt — January 28, 2009
Speed Racer on the other hand is far more experimental, far more interesting to look and has a story that I actually care about.

Bull fucking shit. You watched it on your iPod while driving to work, which by its very nature requires you to not care about the fucking movie.

Comment by Matt Gamble — January 28, 2009
Ahhhh, Matt. The Voice of Reason chimes in.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 28, 2009
“We have a full on Movie Club podcast with the original Funny Games 1997. Not a heck of a lot different than the 2008 version. So you can get more perspective there. As a bonus – M. Night’s Lady in the Water is on the double bill.”

Sweet cross-promotion!

Comment by Jay C. — January 28, 2009
We’re all about the win-win synergy to build share holder value. It’s a robust business model.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 28, 2009
I havnt seen all those films but out of the films I did see heres my favs. Oh and yes I agree with the exception of (Slumdog) the Academys picks sucked !!!!!!! as usual.

Best films 2008

Speed Racer
The Fall
Slumdog Millionaire
The Wrestler
Grand Torino

Ok that’s the last top 5 list I type. 2008 is over, I gotta let it go ,,,,

Comment by 790 — January 28, 2009
Someone else picks Speed Racer. I’m kind of on a Speed Racer high right now, so that picks makes me smile. I hated The Fall, but I do get what people liked about it.

Comment by Andrew James — January 29, 2009
I listened to the movie club episode, and it was pret-ty frustrating!

I definitely think Funny Games is an art film, exposing the genre rather than trying to hide that it is a genre movie. I can see why it’s insulting, but that’s what it’s supposed to do. It’s supposed to insult you for liking this stuff. I think that is a cool concept, and – perhaps – maybe even a worthwhile one. We could all do with a little less violence.

Comment by Henrik — January 29, 2009
“I can see why it’s insulting, but that’s what it’s supposed to do. It’s supposed to insult you for liking this stuff. I think that is a cool concept, and – perhaps – maybe even a worthwhile one. We could all do with a little less violence.”

How very conservative of you Henrik! Are you a big Nancy Grace fan? If not, you would love her.

Maybe ALL violent movies should include moments where they condemn the audience. If that’s all it takes to garner respect from the art house crowds. That way they could all be art house movies AND horror movies! You can have your cake and eat it too!

I can think of a billion more subtle and effective ways of criticizing violence than having one of your main characters turn to the audience and accuse you of getting off on it. If you’re really looking for films that insult the audience and condemn violence, why don’t you just PRETEND that Death Race was built to do so and it will be the best film of the year.

I now know the formula for a good movie. Insult, condemn, rinse and repeat.

Comment by Jay C. — January 29, 2009
Well, being so abrasive and confrontational and unsubtle is part of why it’s so different and what makes it ‘art’.

If all movies were like Funny Games, it wouldn’t be special. They’re not though, people like to fetichize violence, Haneke is comparable to Michael Moore, in the sense that he makes his point extremely hardcore and unsubtly, but look what he’s up against, every weekend another movie fetichizing violence. The fact that you feel offended proves that it works. You are getting off on it, which may or may not be okay in the real world, but in Hanekes eyes decidedly is not. You can argue the viewpoint all you want, but the movie is a completely success, and a masterpiece.

And Funny Games succeeds because it is anti-fetichistic towards violence. It never shows the violence, only the consequences, those who are always lacking in action movies. The only onscreen violence is when the character the audience are identifying with are comitting violence.

If being a pacifist is conservative then so be it.

Comment by Henrik — January 29, 2009
“If being a pacifist is conservative then so be it.”

Are you implying that people who enjoy on-screen violence aren’t pacifists? Now you REALLY sound conservative!

“The fact that you feel offended proves that it works.”

I’m offended for completely different reasons than most people are offended by this movie. It’s pompousness offends me. It’s hypocritical and self-congratulatory. If it’s a message movie, I don’t think it succeeds. Michael Moore’s blunt messages speaks in simple terms and on a level that a majority of people will understand. Funny Games is so high on its own cleverness that many audience members will storm out thinking ‘I don’t like violent movies’ rather than ‘I loved this BECAUSE I don’t like violent movies and this spoke on my behalf.’ I’d take Robocop over Funny Games any day.

There are many horror movies that never show the violence. This is not a new idea. It’s a golden rule that what you don’t see is more terrifying than what you see. The difference is these films do it for creative reasons, not to cover their ass when people accuse them of hypocritical anti-violence commentary.

Comment by Jay C. — January 29, 2009
“Are you implying that people who enjoy on-screen violence aren’t pacifists?”

Not sure. My disdain for violence is apolitical, it has nothing to do with anything other than not liking it. I do love RoboCop though. Violence is a part of culture that I’m not willing to give up, but I appreciate the sentiment of somebody calling people out. Wether or not you completely agree, it’s admirable. After I grew up, the movies that really stick with me and I find to be the best don’t have violence in them. Violence is shallow, it’s fetichistic and masturbatory, and horror movies are the biggest proponent of them. Now, that is not a condemnation (orwhateverthewordis), it’s a fact, and you have to decide what you think about it. For my own accord, people can like what they like, and as much as Saw can exist, Funny Games can exist.

“Funny Games is so high on its own cleverness that many audience members will storm out thinking ‘I don’t like violent movies’ rather than ‘I loved this BECAUSE I don’t like violent movies and this spoke on my behalf.’”

I definitely don’t think so, but it would be interesting to find out. Unfortunately, the movie would never reach an audience large enough to matter, but that’s the case with most things that are worth spending time on.

“It’s pompousness offends me. It’s hypocritical and self-congratulatory.”

This is only an issue, I think, because of your own preferences. Why doesn’t this complaint come up when discussing Jesus Camp? And I don’t see the hipocrisy anywhere. Or would you also say that Starship Troopers is hipocritical for showing the war? Nothing is fetichized in Funny Games, nothing is exploited, rather the opposite, it just leaves you there uncomfortable. Which, in my experience, is the only thing violence ever does to anybody, makes you uncomfortable in one way or another.

“cover their ass when people accuse them of hypocritical anti-violence commentary.”

Are you saying that he cut the film after people accused him of hipocrisy? I don’t think that’s true. Horror movies not showing the violence is a time-honoured tradition, but these aren’t the films Haneke is calling out. And most horror movies do end up showing all of it anyway, I mean one of the biggest examples people bring up is not seeing the shark in Jaws, but it still ends up eating a person on screen before the end. It’s the fetichising of violence that’s on trial, not violence as a whole, or violent tendencies.

Comment by Henrik — January 29, 2009
@ I can see why it’s insulting, but that’s what it’s supposed to do. It’s supposed to insult you for liking this stuff.

But doesn’t it bother you that the film that’s scolding its audience for watching “this kind of movie” is from a guy who just made “this kind of movie”. Twice.

I don’t really care to be lectured by snotty high brow types. I don’t have any “guilty pleasure” I’ll defend the films I like with out an apologies. But christ, I only watched the thing. Haneke thought it up and then got people to act it out. Twice.
That’s a bit hypocritical in my opinion.

@ And Funny Games succeeds because it is anti-fetichistic towards violence. It never shows the violence, only the consequences,

I actually don’t agree with this. It reminds of when people say Texas Chainsaw isn’t an explicitly violent film. It’s true in a sense but disingenuous overall. Both films communicate a great deal of violence through the screen. Which is all any violent film does; simulate violence. No films (well, very few) are actually violent.

While there might not be a lot of fake or gore effects in the Funny Games franchise the films definitley revel in cruelty and humiliation. Both of which are much closer to “real” than Eli Roth’s hokey finger severing stunts. Not to mention Haneke insistence on going as far as legally allowable to brutalize his actresses.
Anyone who comes out of Funny Games nodding in agreement with Hanake’s high minded pompus lecture has drastically failed the empathy test.

Comment by Rusty James — January 29, 2009
And pacifism is neither “conservative” nor “liberal” it’s cowardice dressed up as a university course.

If you’d ever bothered to over throw your monarchy you’d have learned that.

Comment by Rusty James — January 29, 2009
@ would you also say that Starship Troopers is hipocritical for showing the war?

But that’s not the same thing at all, is it. Verhoven was satirizing wars. Haneke is criticizing people for watching the wrong kind of movie.

The analogue wouldbe if Verhoven where invading neighboring countries in order to teach them that war is wrong. Or if Michael Moore made a film about hygene.

Comment by Rusty James — January 29, 2009
“But doesn’t it bother you that the film that’s scolding its audience for watching “this kind of movie” is from a guy who just made “this kind of movie”. Twice.”

It’s not violence he’s calling out, or violent films. It’s the fetichizing of violence.

“Anyone who comes out of Funny Games nodding in agreement with Hanake’s high minded pompus lecture has drastically failed the empathy test.”

Ridiculous. The experiment is obvious. It is succesful, because the film works without it. Precisely because I empathize, I think he is succesful in what he did beyond it. Just like having to paint a human being perfectly before you can paint it abstract, Haneke had to make an extremely powerful horrific film, in order to be able to call the genre out. Had his characters not been empathic, had his violence had no effect on the audience, the film would have been pathetic. But – like Verhoeven in Starship Troopers had better effects and better action than nearly any american gungho action movie and therefore succesfully exposes the genre and pisses all over it – Haneke does make a film that, had it not been an experiment, would have been something that somebody like Jay C. would be head-over-heels over.

Comment by Henrik — January 29, 2009
@ It’s not violence he’s calling out, or violent films. It’s the fetichizing of violence.

As I think I made a pretty good case for above; he’s as guilty of fetishizing his violence as anyone.

And I think the big difference between Funny Games and Starship Troopers is that Funny Games is scolding the audience.

Comment by Rusty James — January 29, 2009
You just said he had alot of violence, and cruelty and humiliation. That is what violence is, when it is not fetichized. When it is fetichized in an entertaining way, it’s Tarantino. When bad, it’s mostly everything else, particularly the entire genre of Texas Chainsaw-heritage-films.

Comment by Henrik — January 29, 2009
But doesn’t it bother you that the film that’s scolding its audience for watching “this kind of movie” is from a guy who just made “this kind of movie”. Twice.

Technically, almost every film Haneke has ever made is a violent horror film that denounces violent horror films. He’s not a fan of showing violence and eliminating the consequences and letting the audience sympathize with the killers, as is typical in a lot of horror films and exploitation films. They glorify the violence, and Haneke believes that violence is a serious enough subject that it shouldn’t be dismissed so easily. I think it is a valid point, even though I enjoy horror and exploitation films myself.

Also, I think Jay isn’t quite getting the intentions of Funny Games. Yes it is meant to offend and be pompous, but Haneke is trying to get horror fans to actually be uncomfortable watching a horror film. He wants them to experience what others experience, and hopefully realize that mindless violence is not always a good thing or an entertaining thing. He’s purposely assaulting the audience, making them the victims of a pointless game of cheap entertainment that they can’t possibly win, rather then them simply being allowed to watch that happen to others onscreen with no emotional attachment. Yes the film taunts the audience. Yes it is hypocritical. Yes it is cheating. But that really is the point. Audiences revel in that when Michael Myers is stalking virgins who are about to have sex, or when mothers are biting their daughter’s killer’s penis off, but the moment that style is focused on them they suddenly get “offended” or are off put by what they are shown.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and that is the brilliance of Funny Games.

Comment by Matt Gamble — January 29, 2009
@Rusty: “And pacifism is neither “conservative” nor “liberal” it’s cowardice dressed up as a university course.”

Tell that to Jesus, Ghandi, Einstein or Mother Theresa.

Sheesh.

(I hope you were being sarcastic, because otherwise this is about the most offensive and ignorant thing I’ve read on the internet. –Well, today, anyway…)

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 29, 2009
Is Jay’s issue that Funny Games went meta or that what it went meta over, i.e. its message, was itself distasteful?

It doesn’t bother me at all that Funny Games goes meta, that it stops and confronts its audience, I think as a technique it is no better or worse then other techniques (I am also not one of those people who bemoan the use of voice-over narration in films), then its a matter of what it is being used to say… is violence fetishism a worthy subject of criticism? sure. I also think the point of Funny Games is that it is not didactic, not really, the meta aspect is being over-emphasized here, he is not so much telling you as showing you. I think there are two or three moments where the audience is directly addressed, otherwise, the majority of the film is showing you the wrongs of violence fetishism, by giving it a sense of psychological reality. Hanaeke puts the knife to your neck first, makes you feel the threat and then talks to you, not the other way around.

Comment by rot — January 29, 2009
And both Godard and Truffaut both indicated that the best way to criticize a movie is to make a movie. I like what Haneke did, however blunt, and as Henrik said, it’s pretty novel in its approach, style, idea, and overall execution (heh.)

Not for all tastes, but a very good movie nonetheless.

The Robocop/Starship troopers approach is often lost on people. I think Haneke, in his criticism of American hyper-violent genre pictures was aiming at the lowest-common-denominator with his approach. Too bad that he was foolish enough to not see that they would likely reject or ignore the movie outright.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 29, 2009
…And this conversation has time looped back to January 2008.

(/kidding, carry on folks, I’m enjoying this)

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 29, 2009
Matt, you’re making a lot of sense. Why can’t you be this sharp all the time?

“I hope you were being sarcastic, because otherwise this is about the most offensive and ignorant thing I’ve read on the internet.”

I seriously doubt it was sarcasm, Rusty hates pacifism, he likes to take the real world as given, and realizes that in the real world, historically, you can’t avoid violence. He is ignorant though, but that’s hardly news.

“Too bad that he was foolish enough to not see that they would likely reject or ignore the movie outright.”

I don’t really believe this was the case, I doubt he was dying to get to do a remake, but when Naomi Watts got heavily involved and wanted the story told in America, I just think he stepped up because it made so much sense. I doubt anybody expected a mainstream blockbuster, they just thought it was the right thing to do, to make it in american so that americans would be able to watch it. They are not able to watch films that aren’t in american.

“…And this conversation has time looped back to January 2008.

(/kidding, carry on folks, I’m enjoying this)”

Worst joke ever. And stop ruining conversations between grownups with the pedagogue-esque pad on the back.

Comment by Henrik — January 29, 2009
@Tell that to Jesus, Ghandi, Einstein or Mother Theresa.

Sheesh.

None of those figures were actually pacifists. Maybe mother Theresa, I don’t really know.

Einstein supported dropping the bomb on Hiroshima. Ghandi used a nonviolent approach to gain India independence. But he wasn’t in principal opposed to violence. He served in the military, a descision I don’t believe he ever renounced.

Jesus, isn’t worth debating. Have you ever actually read the bible? Don’t misunderstand me, it’s an important cultural document, but as a moral guide… pfft. You can read any fool thing you want into that damn book. There’s no reason to believe Jesus was a pacifist.

Saying violence is regrettable, or best to avoid when possible is not pacifism it’s just common sense. No one wants to get hurt.
Pacifism is the a posteriori belief that violence as a means of conflict resolution is never justified.
Well that might be a nice thing to believe but like many nice things its translation to the real world is disasterous and immoral. Certain principals are worth fighting / dying / killing for.

Comment by Rusty James — January 29, 2009
I can imagine many principles that I would be willing to die for, but none that I would be willing to kill for.

Comment by Henrik — January 29, 2009
“a nice thing to believe but like many nice things its translation to the real world is disasterous and immoral.”

Immoral? But imagine Rusty, no violence. What a glorious world it would be! Also, imagine no greed! Amazing. We’d get nowhere, but it seems that getting somewhere will only kill us faster anyway.

Comment by Henrik — January 29, 2009
@ He’s not a fan of showing violence and eliminating the consequences and letting the audience sympathize with the killers,

Do you really think the point of (to use one of your own examples) Halloween is too empathize with Mike Meyers?

In fact I would argue that
1) the “killer” in Funny Games is actually Haneke.

2) that makes it unique in the horror / home invasion genre in that Funny Games actually does want you to sympathize with the killer. “I’m going to show you a bunch of terrible things that you shouldn’t watch. But it’s teach you a valuable lesson.” Eye-Ron-Ey!

This is what I meant when I said those who nod in agreement with Haneke fail the empathy test.

@ but the moment that style is focused on them they suddenly get “offended” or are off put by what they are shown.

I don’t think so. How come the cultural hall monitors of the world are always ganging up on Hostel / Saw but never the Funny Games franchise.

I think it’s because the latter slaps the capitol “A” Art label on itself whereas the other just does the same thing unapologetically.

Comment by Rusty James — January 29, 2009
@Rusty:
On March 21st, 1952, Einstein responded to a troubled pacifist who, like others, asked for clarification of apparent inconsistencies in Einstein’s various statements on pacifism and suggested that he make a public pronouncement about his actual pacifist position. Einstein wrote:

“I am indeed a pacifist, but not a pacifist at any price. My views are virtually identical with those of Gandhi. But I would, individually and collectively resist violently any attempt to kill me or to take away from me, or my people, the basic means of subsistence.

I was, therefore, of the conviction that it was justified and necessary to fight Hitler. For his was such an extreme attempt to destroy people.

Furthermore, I am of the conviction that realization of the goal of pacifism is possible only through supranational organization. To stand unconditionally for this cause is, in my opinion, the criterion of true pacifism.”

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 29, 2009
The whole point of Hostel or Saw is to SHOW violence. To up the ante in more extreme violence, to create a movie around the fetichizing of violence.

If you mean Haneke is the killer, in the sense that the Tomcharacter is in fact the director of the film, that’s fairly obvious. However, the intent of Haneke is also clear, to make the audience realize that there is no point in pretending that you emphasize with the victims, because the reason you’re even watching those films (Hostel, Saw) is to see them tortured and to be tortured yourself through them. That’s fetichizing. And Haneke doesn’t like it, and he’s going to tell you that he doesn’t like it.

Comment by Henrik — January 29, 2009
@ I can imagine many principles that I would be willing to die for, but none that I would be willing to kill for.

cowardice.

@ But imagine Rusty, no violence. What a glorious world it would be!

Like I said, it’s very nice. There are many nice things to believe that are wrong.
But if you refuse to fight for the precious things in the world that are under siege because you’d rather fantasize about some fantasy world of hippie hand holding then you are an immoral coward.

Comment by Rusty James — January 29, 2009
Your moralizing is pathetic. I just don’t want to be uncomfortable, I’d rather die than live an uncomfortable life. I will speak untill silenced, but if I am silenced then so be it.

Trouble with violence is, people will invent any sort of thing to get to do it. For instance, in the words of Oscar Wilde, “Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious” (heard in Michael Bays The Rock). There a tons of ‘virtues’ invented, such as patriotism, just to justify violence. What things are precious? Life? Life isn’t very precious, it’s nothing in and of itself, some may find their life precious, others may not. Comfort though? I will die for my comfort. Killing would ruin it as much as anything.

Comment by Henrik — January 29, 2009
“Also, I think Jay isn’t quite getting the intentions of Funny Games. Yes it is meant to offend and be pompous, but Haneke is trying to get horror fans to actually be uncomfortable watching a horror film.”

I understand completely. In fact, the message is so heavy-handed that I’m not really sure how anyone could NOT understand it. In regards to actually being uncomfortable while watching violence on film…many many many directors have achieved this WITHOUT needing their characters to turn to the audience and tell them how they’re feeling.

“Is Jay’s issue that Funny Games went meta or that what it went meta over, i.e. its message, was itself distasteful?”

That it went meta. It’s lame. It’s artsy fartsy bullshit. It’s obvious. Violence fetishized in movies?? This is the kind of subject I expect to be tackled on some panel debate on Dateline. What’s next, road rage? I can see it now…it’s like Speed, except Sandra Bullock in mid-bus chase turns to the camera ‘Do you think we’ll crash?? Do you WANT to see us crash? THINK ABOUT THAT DEAR VIEWER!’

This movie was BUILT to be analyzed in university film classes around the world. It wasn’t simply brilliant on its own merits…it was BUILT for it. Lame.

I think this weekend I’ll watch ‘I Spit On Your Grave’ and wonder if it could be considered art house if the characters simply talked to the camera.

Comment by Jay C. — January 29, 2009
“This movie was BUILT to be analyzed in university film classes around the world. It wasn’t simply brilliant on its own merits…it was BUILT for it. Lame.”

How the hell does this make any sense? It’s own merits are the film, the meta is part of it. All movies are BUILT, they just go for different things. It is brilliant on its own merits, what other merit is there?

Comment by Henrik — January 29, 2009
What I’m saying is that outside of the ‘meta’ element of this movie, it’s on par with the rest of the home invasion films of the past couple of years. Just because a character turns to the audience and talks to them, it’s suddenly brilliant.

I’m so sick of the word ‘meta’.

Comment by Jay C. — January 29, 2009
And without the satire, Starship Troopers is just on par with the other war movies.

Comment by Henrik — January 29, 2009
I think Rusty James summed up the difference between Starship Troopers and Funny Games quite well.

Comment by Jay C. — January 29, 2009
Kurt,
you’re right. Einstien was a self described pacifist. I was incorrect when I described him as an advocate of using the Atomic bomb.

But Einstien’s position is nonsensical. He stridently stands for an ideal that he says can only be realized by supernatural intervention (and he did not believe in supernatural entities).

He scoffs at those who fight but admits his way offers no alternative.

What’s the principal here? What’s he standing for?

But if all you mean by “pacifism” is that you’d rather live in peace time than in war time. And that you’d prefer peace but will fight against aggressors and bullies then I have no real disagreement with you.

Comment by Rusty James — January 29, 2009
Starship Troopers does the exact same thing as Funny Games, it just does it one mark more ’subtle’, by dressing the heroes in Nazi uniforms.

Comment by Henrik — January 29, 2009
I never took Funny Games as a criticism on violence but rather film formula and how the audience is always aware and secure in knowing how a film would turn out. He is constantly fucking with audience perception, turning things on their head and purposely messing with the built in expectations of the viewer. He builds the film up knowing what the viewer expects to happen and then yanks the secure line away from them, leaving them confused and rattled.

Comment by swarez — January 29, 2009
If that’s the case, then maybe he should’ve ended with it all being a dream! That would’ve REALLY fucked with our expectations!

Comment by Jay C. — January 29, 2009
By the way. I like Funny Games quite a bit. I even appreciate it’s “meta” layers. It adds things to discuss and think about.
But first and foremost it’s a good home invasion film. One of the best.
That renders its moralizing silly. It plays like a horror film made by a guy too self conscious to work in such a disreputable genre. I guess it’s embarrassing for him that he made such a good one.

I’m sure many of you enjoy films like Halloween and Texas Chainsaw. How do you reconcile that enjoyment with this films message?

And again, I don’t see much difference between reveling in gore effects and reveling in cruelty and emotional torture. Save for the fact that Haneke goes to great lengths to make his torture more authentic.

Comment by Rusty James — January 29, 2009
@ What things are precious? Life? Life isn’t very precious, it’s nothing in and of itself

Henrik’s ‘pacifism’ is supported by foundation of complete contempt for others. There is no virtue her. It’s moralizing for the immoral.

Comment by Rusty James — January 29, 2009
Okay, I’ll drop the existentialism and go for an argument more up your alley, you probably have a proper answer for this rather than attempt to argue that I have claimed I had virtues and that I moralize:

What problem has been solved with violence?

“I guess it’s embarrassing for him that he made such a good one.”

What an ignorant statement. Like I said, and I’m confident Haneke knows this, had the film not been among the best, and probably the best, home invasion film, the experiment would have failed and the film would have been pathetic.

Comment by Henrik — January 29, 2009
“I don’t see much difference between reveling in gore effects and reveling in cruelty and emotional torture. Save for the fact that Haneke goes to great lengths to make his torture more authentic.”

Gore effects are fake, cruelty and emotional torture is the reality. It is good to be reminded of the reality of things from time to time, or at least Haneke thinks it’s needed for film audiences.

Comment by Henrik — January 29, 2009
In regards to actually being uncomfortable while watching violence on film…many many many directors have achieved this WITHOUT needing their characters to turn to the audience and tell them how they’re feeling.

As has Haneke himself in other films. Specifically Benny’s Video and Cache. What’s your point?

If its that you don’t like that style, that’s not the point either. You aren’t supposed to like it. With Funny Games you are the victim, not the viewer.

I can’t think of a single film in which the audience is the true victim instead of the protagonists in the film. The events onscreen are inconsequential compared to what the film is doing to the viewer. Haneke has invaded the theater and turned the audience into the unwitting victim.

And comparing it to The Strangers is almost laughable (almost because Jay doesn’t laugh). That film is like any other home invasion film. It offers a buffer between the viewer and those in the film, comfortably allowing viewers to safely watch the events with no risk at all. Funny Games doesn’t afford one that opportunity, as every one who watches it is accountable and a victim. If you can’t see that hugely distinct difference between the films then no, you didn’t get Funny Games.

Do you really think the point of (to use one of your own examples) Halloween is too empathize with Mike Meyers?

Of course it is. That’s the inherent fault of slasher films. They are based on the audience rooting for the killer and his ever escalating displays in which he dispatches his victims because he’s the only character that is allowed any sort of development. Granted Halloween is probably the least culpable of the bunch, but it certainly is the case for the Elm Street and Jason movies. The audience is rooting for them to kill people in crazy ways all so it can repeated in another two years when the next installment comes out. And with Freddy he does it with awful one liners. Bonus!

Even in video nasties the same occurs. The violence by the antagonists is awful and abhorrent, yet when the protagonists engage in the same violence (often escalating to even more extreme situations) the audience is supposed to root for them even though they are engaging in the same abhorrent actions. These are incredibly hypocritical films, so to find fault for Funny Games following this structure seems incredibly odd to me.

In fact I would argue that
1) the “killer” in Funny Games is actually Haneke.

I’d agree with this.

2) that makes it unique in the horror / home invasion genre in that Funny Games actually does want you to sympathize with the killer. “I’m going to show you a bunch of terrible things that you shouldn’t watch. But it’s teach you a valuable lesson.” Eye-Ron-Ey!

And this is where you are totally incorrect. Yes, Haneke is the assailant, but the viewer is the victim. You aren’t supposed to like him. You aren’t supposed to think what he is doing is cool. You are supposed to HATE him and what he is doing for forcing you to see something you don’t want to see.

I think it’s because the latter slaps the capitol “A” Art label on itself whereas the other just does the same thing unapologetically.

No, one aspires to try and engage the viewer (even if you don’t like it) while the others simply want to revel in the gore. Saw/Hostel and what have you aren’t trying to do anything but make a gore film for people to enjoy. Funny Games is actually trying to engage the viewer on more then the most base level. It aspires to elevate the genre, both in style and substance. Its a horror film that for once, is actually horrific and not simply “scary” or violent.

And Funny Games gets slapped with an “art” label more for how uncommercial Haneke is then anything. He doesn’t care if his audience hates him, he simply wants to create something new and unique that might actually stimulate his audience. With Funny Games, he wanted to upset them, so he made a film that would. I fucking dare Eli Roth to make a movie that is designed to make the audience hate him. Hell I dare any horror filmmaker to do that, maybe then the genre wouldn’t be so derivative and boring.

Comment by Matt Gamble — January 29, 2009
I never took Funny Games as a criticism on violence but rather film formula and how the audience is always aware and secure in knowing how a film would turn out. He is constantly fucking with audience perception, turning things on their head and purposely messing with the built in expectations of the viewer. He builds the film up knowing what the viewer expects to happen and then yanks the secure line away from them, leaving them confused and rattled.

Somebody has finally got it!

Comment by Matt Gamble — January 29, 2009
If anything Haneke has created more shocking scenes in his films than Roth has. That single scene in Cache where the dude slits his throat fucked me up good.

Comment by swarez — January 29, 2009
“You aren’t supposed to like it. With Funny Games you are the victim, not the viewer.”

Worst selling point for a movie ever.

Comment by Jay C. — January 29, 2009
“I never took Funny Games as a criticism on violence but rather film formula and how the audience is always aware and secure in knowing how a film would turn out. He is constantly fucking with audience perception, turning things on their head and purposely messing with the built in expectations of the viewer. He builds the film up knowing what the viewer expects to happen and then yanks the secure line away from them, leaving them confused and rattled.”

To be honest, I kind of take this as read, and I don’t find it the least interesting, not in comparison to the debate about violence at least. Structure doesn’t turn me on.

Comment by Henrik — January 29, 2009
Let me be clear…outside of the meta elements, I liked Funny Games. I just found it’s message heavy handed, irrelevant and boring.

I also liked Cache.

Basically, this movie just doesn’t give people enough credit. Especially the kind of people who will take the time to watch it. I know all about the glorification of violence and I know when it’s happening in front of me. In the end, what is he trying to say? That I’m a bad person for watching horror movies? That I should be ashamed of it? Or does he just want to point it out? If so, congrats I guess? What is the ultimate goal here? Other than to make a film that will stir the pot for stirring the pots sake.

Comment by Jay C. — January 29, 2009
@Rusty, Einstein said “supranational” as in a UN or other type body, not ’supernatural’.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — January 29, 2009
Well Jay, you’re probably a strange incident, because you seem to know this shit good enough, even though you watch beheading videos and videos of people dying etc. I mean, you don’t have to apologize or rationalize, but I definitely can’t make it seem right to watch anything like that, nor do I get anything out of other than discomfort. And neither does Haneke I suspect, and he’s going to tell you to think about it forawhile, and his opinion is that its wrong to view violence as entertainment, and he’s going to do everything he can to convince you of it, by exposing you to the closest thing to a violent act I can think of being comitted on the screen in a movie theater.

He, and me I must admit, must be of the impression that the twisted relationship with violence that is prevalent in culture, mainly sparks from people having no actual experience with violence. I have equated the relationship with violence one would get from watching american mainstream action movies all their life without any real life experience, to the relationship one would get to sex if you watched hardcore pornography all your life without any real life experience. With this analogy, Funny Games would be comparable to something like the sex scene in Squid and the Whale (or Drenge which has the best one, but none of you have seen it).

Comment by Henrik — January 29, 2009
“Well Jay, you’re probably a strange incident, because you seem to know this shit good enough, even though you watch beheading videos and videos of people dying etc.”

Sorry, your English has lost me a bit here. If you’re saying that I spend my time watching beheading videos and people dying, I would have to say you’re wrong. I watch Wheel of Fortune and Kitchen Nightmares so often that I just can’t work beheadings into the schedule. Have I seen a beheading video? Yes. My friend Chian showed it to me. Have I seen death caught on film/tape? Yes. I find Faces of Death a very interesting piece of popular culture. Still not sure what the point of all of this is though.

Comment by Jay C. — January 29, 2009
Point is you watch things like that. I did not mean to say you spend your time watching them every day, not at all. But to me, watching a beheading video would just be sickening. I can’t even watch stuff like 9/11 footage without feeling sick.

I have seen animals die on film, but not for exploitations sake, I saw it in Mondo Cane which I thought was a masterpiece, and all the death was unnerving, but animals I condone the slaughter of, because there is no potential lost, and they feed humans which do have potential.

Comment by Henrik — January 29, 2009
“Point is you watch things like that” … and Haneke thinks you’re morally wrong for doing it, and he tells you so in Funny Games. So naturally you won’t like it. But I can see your point in that the audience that will see Funny Games are people who already know what they do when they watch Terminator 2 and are entertained, but then what about beheading videos? I can’t wrap my head around why somebody would watch that, it seems like a sick fetich with death.

Comment by Henrik — January 29, 2009
Yes, the beheading video was sickening and I wouldn’t watch another one.

I don’t like watching animals being killed but I also think Mondo Cane and Cannibal Holocaust are important films.

If you’re going to condemn violence, then you’re condemning a pretty massive chunk of film, television, video games, literature, and art. Where do you draw the line? Is it ok for you to love Mortal Kombat, but not ok for me to love Commando? Are the Looney Tunes ok?

Comment by Jay C. — January 29, 2009
I understand, I dug a hole in this argument before. Is saying case-by-case basis too much of a copout? But I would gladly throw out Mortal Kombat, I’m not very big on that film. Perhaps something like TMNT hits closer to something I genuinely enjoyed, but is based around violence.

I think though, if push came to shove, if I had the button to click, I would erase it though. Throw the baby out with the bathwater, and get rid of all of it. None of the stuff that really matters to me, really really matters, would be gone. And when I wanted entertainment, I could always jerk off.

Comment by Henrik — January 29, 2009
“You aren’t supposed to like it. With Funny Games you are the victim, not the viewer.”

Are we talking about Freddy Got Fingered

I get the point. Anyways with both of those movies I’m actually entertained, so if Haneke is trying to attack entertainment, I guess he failed by making a decent horror movie?

The finger wagging is annoying though, it’s like graffiti on a wall that says ‘No graffiti’, like a bully who beats you up with your own fists and says “stop hitting yourself”

Comment by Goon — January 29, 2009
Hah! Yeah Andrew, I’ve prob watched my Speed Racer dvd 12 times in the past year.

I usually find myself (late night, sometimes a little drunk) ff-ing to the Racer X attack on the Monster truck. This usually results in waking up a few hours later with the movie over and dvd menu rebooting itself like a broken record. Then I remind myself that its only tuesday and work starts in 4 hours. Sigh,,,

Speed Racer= good times!

Comment by 790 — January 29, 2009
Get that weak shit off my track!

I find myself tempted to grab a couple of the Hot Wheels Speed Racer toys. But I cant decide between the Mach 5 and the Mach 6

Comment by Goon — January 29, 2009
Sue me, but I’ve seen a Graffiti that said “Go paint on your own damn wall!”, and I thought that was really good.

Comment by Henrik — January 30, 2009
most graffiti actually annoys me, but if i was universally against it, once again, my favorite artist – Keith Haring, would never have become known to me. He grew out of underground subway art, but it was actually ART and now just writing his name in intelligible letters everywhere.

ANYWAYS…

attempted thread derail – since things art starting to go into peoples tastes/defending genre again, i was going tor throw up a link to an article about their sacred cows, and highlight a specific quote here. I guess its something anyone can consider when they want to universally attack anything from childrens films to the most adult anime, from jazz to norwegian black metal:

http://www.avclub.com/articles/avqa-sacred-cows,23217/

“what I absolutely can’t stand, and what puts me into a fighting mood faster than anything else, is people blanket-dismissing an entire genre or subculture or area of effort, especially with the always, always, always-uninformed “I’m not interested in that stuff because it’s all the same.” So here’s my pop-culture sacred-cow statement: Every genre is deep, nuanced, complicated, and diverse to its knowledgeable fans. That doesn’t mean every genre is for all tastes. You don’t have to like industrial or classical or conscious rap or Chicago blues or Beat poetry or fantasy novels or reality TV or whatever else. You aren’t even obligated to try them, much less to make the effort to immerse yourself in them enough to tell the classics and the keepers from the trash. Life is short, the world is big and full, and there’s nothing wrong with walking away from things that don’t speak to you. But people who get snotty or self-righteous about it, as though their personal tastes reflect some sort of immutable reality, steam the hell out of me. Ignorance isn’t attractive, but saying “I’ve never really gotten into [Westerns, opera, FPS games, whatever], and I’m not really interested” isn’t nearly as ignorant as lumping together every example of a genre as unnuanced and unworthy. People who do sound exactly like caricatures of ’50s parents, squawking about how Elvis and The Beatles are all just stupid noise.”

Comment by Goon — January 30, 2009
Sure everything is deep and interesting but you can’t deny the difference in the amount of musical ideas when comparing In Da Club to the ouverture to The Magic Flute. One is simple, the other is complex. In Da Club only gets depth if you wan tot analyze the HZ of the beat sound or other beeps and bleeps.

Comment by Henrik — January 30, 2009
Get them both Goon,,,

Did you notice that the Mach 6 is in the first race?
Continuity prob or fantastic oversight ???

Get that shit off my track indeed,,,

Comment by 790 — January 30, 2009
Henrik, I think you’re proving the point of the article whether you meant to or not. here you are and you cherrypick the argument by grabbing 50 Cent vs. Mozart, when I might as well counter with KRS One vs. Kenny G. I mean jeez man, I know some rap but I’m hardly an expert, and seeing that sort of write off, and assuming that technical ability automatically supercedes feeling you get from listening to it, for well, anyone, goes right to the heart of the argument the link I gave is making. It’s not far off from a dumb parent saying “all that rap is just talking”

Comment by Goon — January 31, 2009
That’s not what I meant though. I just meant that some things don’t strive for complexity, and don’t need it. Is “Bang your head” complex? No, and it doesn’t need to be to be awesome, and people who try and argue otherwise come off as trying to justify liking simple things. Just like the people who desperately hang on to the thin classical ties with heavy metal, or social commentary in monster movies.

Comment by Henrik — January 31, 2009
@ Einstein said “supranational” as in a UN or other type body, not ’supernatural’.

that does not make me look very smart. Still Einstein’s position is a mess. He’s a “pacifist” but he agrees that it’s sometimes necessary to fight and kill those who would kill you.

How is that pacifism? We all agree that violence is ugly and regretable. But most of us also agree it’s sometimes necessary. That’s why when someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night you call the police not the rainbows and unicorns hippy handholding brigade.

By the way, my record on Einstein is pretty spotty at this point, but I believe he was a big supporter of Israel.

Comment by Rusty James — January 31, 2009
http://www.illwillpress.com/hcf22.html

Both irrelevant and relevant to this thread.

Comment by Matt Gamble — January 31, 2009
We discussed Wall-E here, so I can post this. This is a quote from John Lasseter to a danish newspaper, that in essence sums up why he is a cocksucker and Pixar makes shitty films that would be ragged on if they didn’t have prettier colors than the competition:

»Jeg plejer at sige, at enhver film er fortællingen om én hovedperson. Alt andet er kun med for at understøtte den fortælling. Hvis det ikke støtter hovedhistorien og fører os frem til dens altafgørende vendepunkt – så bør det ikke være der!«.

“I usually say, that any film is the story of a single main character. Everything else is only in there to support that story. If it doesn’t support the main story and leads us to its decisive turning point – it shouldn’t be there!”

Comment by Henrik — February 2, 2009
I don’t agree with what Lasseter said there at all; but you are still being a fair bit of a douche about it Henrik.

Comment by Kurt — February 2, 2009
How am I being anymore of a douche than I ever was?

Comment by Henrik — February 2, 2009
“I usually say, that any film is the story of a single main character. Everything else is only in there to support that story. If it doesn’t support the main story and leads us to its decisive turning point – it shouldn’t be there!”

huh?

That is wrong on so many levels. First of all, who is the main character in Baraka? If a point of a story is to surprise someone, then it is useful to have a lot of wrong turns in the plot so that the surprise isn’t obvious, that is not serving character, its serving plot. In a lot of films it is not about a main character, characters are ciphers to some specific idea that one wants to express. Benjamin Button, for example, is not about character, it is about life in the abstract rendered through a fairy tale. You are ignoring the metaphoric possibilities of film. Sometimes a character is a means to an end, not an end in itself. I know you prefer the character over any other, but you cannot say that’s all there is because that’s bullshit.

you also confuse things in that translation, you start off saying the character is the thing, and then you say main story… those are different ideas.

Comment by rot — February 2, 2009
“I know you prefer the character over any other, but you cannot say that’s all there is because that’s bullshit.”

Hmm rot, to be clear, the quote you are referring to is from John Lasseter, not me. Feel free to join me in thinking he is a cocksucker.

Comment by Henrik — February 2, 2009
Saw Frost/Nixon over the weekend. My post still stands correct.

Comment by Andrew James — February 9, 2009
Saw Happy-Go-Lucky. I would not put it on this list at all. Not even close.

I liked it overall, the direction is good and the performances are there (but Hawkins is overrated IMO – not even the best performance in the movie). Story is lacking, actually boring for good chunks, it’s not funny save a few moments, and I couldnt stand the score. 3/5

Comment by Goon — March 15, 2009
I understand why you wouldn’t put it on the list Goon. HGL wasn’t even in my top ten of the year. But there is one film like this every year that is usually nominated. Ya know, the quirky, indie comedy. There wasn’t one of those this year. Hence, HGL should’ve been nominated. At least give it credit for being better than any of the other films nominated this year.

Comment by Andrew James — March 15, 2009
“At least give it credit for being better than any of the other films nominated this year.”

All the other nominees, save the Reader, are better than HGL.

Comment by Goon — March 16, 2009

The Five Films That SHOULD Have Been Nominated for Best Picture Oscars

166 response about The Five Films That SHOULD Have Been Nominated for Best Picture Oscars »

Leave a comment

Recent Comments