 |
 |
Episode 114:
A boatload of catch-up movies to talk about. Matt Gamble from WhereTheLongTailEnds.com joins in since he loves Watchmen so much. Some of us did the homework assignment too: top 5 hangin’ out movies.
Thanks for checking out the show!
Click the Audio Icon below to listen in:
Below the fold are the Show Notes…
Show notes for the Cinecast Episode 114:
- Intro music: :00 – 2:16
- Opening crap: :30 – 3:15
- Stuff we saw recently: 3:16 – 1:04:42
- Watchmen: 1:04:44 – 1:27:41
- Top 5 (hangin’ out movies): 1:27:42 – 1:45:54
- DVD picks: 1:45:55 – 1:59:13
- “On the Road”: 1:59:14 – 2:07:32
- Closing stuff: 2:07:33 – 2:10:08
- Outro Music: 2:06:16 – 2:11:33
Bumper Music (with iTunes links) provided by:
Ram Jam
“Black Betty” (album: The Very Best of Ram Jam)
AND
Michael Jackson)
“Man in the Mirror” (album: Bad)
Track Row Three:
RSS Feeds (paste these URLs into your favorite RSS reader):
Cinecast (Andrew and Halfyard show)
After the Credits (Marina and Co.)
ALL the RowThree Podcasts on one feed
All posts and discussions from RowThree
Visit us on iTunes:
Stuff we looked at:
God Grew Tired of Us
The Betrayal
The Great Buck Howard
I Love You Man
House of Wax (3D) visit the Parkway
Patrick
• (Gamble‘s Review, Kurt‘s Review)
The New World (Extended cut)
Laws of Attraction
Son of Rambow
Sita Sings the Blues
– - see Sita Sings the Blues here
Sita’s title sequence (including the Indo-Techno mentioned) here.
Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father
Watchmen:
Kurt’s review
Opening Credits Finite Focus
Dr. Manhattan Too Sexy
Andrew’s Zero Interest article
Top 5 “Hangin’ Out Movies”:
Matt:
5) Stalag 17
4) Roger Dodger
3) Sideways
2) Enemy Mine
1) Dawn of the Dead (1978)
Kurt:
5) Naked
4) Scarecrow
3) Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
2) Coffee & Cigarettes
1) The Big Lebowski
“On the Road” with Andrew’s iPod segment:
Babylon A.D.
Andrew’s smile per mile quotient: .6
Blow
Andrew’s smile per mile quotient: .85
 |
| Cliff Curtis |
|---|
DVD Pick(s) for Tuesday, March 10th:
Matt:
Let the Right One In
Blu-Ray
Role Models
Kurt:
Synecdoche, NY
Blu-Ray
Let the Right One In
Andrew:
Rachel Getting Married
Blu-Ray
Traffic
 |
 |
| Miguel Ferrer | Clifton Collins Jr. |
|---|
Comments or questions?
Leave your thoughts in the comment section below, or email us:
feedback@rowthree.com (general)
andrew@rowthree.com
kurt@rowthree.com
did Gamble only show up so he could be the person complaining?
I sense lame.
:/
all kidding on the square aside, Gamble’s usually good on the show. But I hope he doesn’t pull an O’Reillyish yelling over everyone again.
I misspoke in the show when I called Pablo Escobar “el Jefe” (the boss). He is known as “el Padrino” (Godfather).
i love it when Gamble is on. he is like the color commentary. he adds another dimension and all three of the guys play well off of each other.
love The New World. can’t wait to get my hands on the extended cut.
Gamble’s great keep him on, even though I entirely disagree with virtually everything he says.
There are those people who come to a film with a schemata of how a film should work, and each frame of the film will be filtered through this craft expectation. I’m not surprised Gamble had problems with the editing of Dear Zachary, he is that kind of person, the kind that needs everything in check before he allows the film to absorb him.
If you come to Dear Zachary wanting to be moved, you will be moved, the editing of the film operates so that one is following the content not the syntax, you go from experience to experience, and the editing is behaving like an extension of the ontological experience of bearing witness to this grief. It keeps pace with the emotions that rise in you as you encounter the story, it doesn’t show any restraint for the sake of secondary concern of craft, its not there to win prizes, to be lauded by people who think of film as design more than art, its there to be felt. Its earnest, its sentimental, its indulgent, its exactly what it should be considering it is a film made by the best friend of the deceased.
In much the same way I thought Trouble the Water was the better documentary last year over Man on Wire, I will always take immediacy over craft, content over syntax, emotion over cool rationalization.
Great films are rarely perfect films. I think Dear Zachary does what it sets out to do in a very effective manner. Sure its biased towards one side, but it plays that to the maximum, making it a better film. The rhythms of the editing seem to be fundamental to the pictures effect. Wash out the manipulation, and what then?
It’s a part of the fabric of the film. A Key Part.
@ Great films are rarely perfect films.
That’s the way I feel about Tarnation and Synedoche,NY. S,NY is a mess, but it’s a profound experience as well.
Listening to Matt and Kurt talk about Watchmen is like the Simpsons when the kids are at the focus group trying to tell them whats wrong with Itchy and Scratchy. They all know they want something different, but they are inconsistent and in fact, often contradictory, and also feel they should win things by watching
seriously, you should listen to yourselves, gotta get the smoking back but cut the cat, gotta make it shorter but are mad X concept that happens 4 times in the book got put into one scene, generally wanting more diversion from the book but demanding the characters be the exact same, wanting more warmth and heart but also wanting it to be more cold and bleak. I mean geez.
Were you the guys complaining about Tom Bombadil being cut from LOTR but also wishing it was shorter? I mean, good thing you didnt read the Let the Right One In book otherwise we’d have another rampage about changes and themes, etc.
This isn’t meant to be a pro-Watchmen defense, even though I’m very much pro-Watchmen, its just silly hearing you guys jump all over the place. When you nitpick things to such a huge degree there’s a point where it all starts sounding like nonsense, and you actually even sound like bigger delusional fanboys or nerds than the people who would pull the Blade Runner thing.
_______
Son of Rambow is awesome. Listen, there’s a zillion other movies that gave me the opposite of what I expected when watching them, it doesnt mean the movie sucks or that its even its fault. Just off the top of my head, look at In Bruges and Rules of Attraction, two movies that were sold as much lighter, happier romps. Do they suck for not being like the trailer, or do you just appreciate the movies for what they actually are?
I’ve read Let the Right One in, the book. I think the filmmaker made all the right moves in adapting it to the screen, despite some major changes.
Perhaps the people behind Watchmen should have thought outside the box a little more (a la the opening credits, or the Dr. Manhattan finish, instead of just rigorously lighting panels from the graphic novel…
I went in with a number of talking points (well, see my written review), but it did degenerate to a ‘bitch session’ (or perhaps free-form-jazz-griping) I’ll admit that The Watchmen segment on the show was probably the low point. Just read my review text…
I wanted Watchmen to be more warm and more gritty, and well that is a roundabout way of saying -> MORE HUMAN. Except for Dr. Manhattan, these folks are supposed to be people…..not slaves to the framing and lighting and ramp-speed photography and .. etc. etc.
@ They all know they want something different, but they are inconsistent and in fact, often contradictory, and also feel they should win things by watching
But why do Matt & Kurt need to be consistent with one another? X can argue for more fidelity to source material while Y argues that they should’ve been willing to drop the source material.
I think it’s fair to say the film serves two masters. It should’ve just picked one rather than serve both mediocre.
Also, I’m reading the original Hayter draft, which is a modern update of the story. Hayter’s name is on the film but I think the script is mostly Alex Tse so it’s pretty different. I’m about a 3rd done. I’ll let you guys know.
“But why do Matt & Kurt need to be consistent with one another? X can argue for more fidelity to source material while Y argues that they should’ve been willing to drop the source material.”
That isn’t what happened, they both fell into the trap.
Wash out the manipulation, and what then?
You have a better movie.
If the director was named Michael Moore people would be throwing a shit fit over how one sided and manipulative this movie is. But because it is about nice old people people let the manipulation slide, and even funnier, laud the film for it.
Like that whole ridiculousness about the camera. My friend takes pictures? I never knew that. Obviously I never knew him. At all. Let me repeat that throughout the film, pounding my thesis into the proverbial ground.
My friend takes pictures? I never knew that. Obviously I never knew him. At all.
Or you can take the fiance’s therapist plot line, which is brought up for one quick moment, then dropped until the very end of the film when the director rushes through to tie up all of his loose ends to resolve the film. Sure nothing about what was going on was ever explained, let alone explored, but that might overly complicate and otherwise simple and direct tale and gawd forbid I possibly ruin my easy to follow dramatic narrative and possibly leave my audience questioning just how this could have happened.
My friend takes pictures? I never knew that. Obviously I never knew him. At all.
Back, and to the left.
Back, and to the left.
Back and to the left.
Back, and to the left.
Repeating something over and over doesn’t make it artistic. Doesn’t lend to dramatic weight. Doesn’t even mean you are right. But it sure as fuck is annoying.
My friend takes pictures? I never knew that. Obviously I never knew him. At all.
In much the same way I thought Trouble the Water was the better documentary last year over Man on Wire, I will always take immediacy over craft, content over syntax, emotion over cool rationalization.
Noise over expression. Irrationality over intelligence. Apples over oranges. May I subscribe to your newsletter?
They all know they want something different, but they are inconsistent and in fact, often contradictory, and also feel they should win things by watching
I’d agree with this. I had pretty low expectations with Watchmen, but what I got certainly wasn’t something I enjoyed very much, but it did exceed my expectations. The whole film had a pretty uneven feel, and it made it difficult for me to really enjoy the movie for any length of time.
Were you the guys complaining about Tom Bombadil being cut from LOTR but also wishing it was shorter?
technically, if people wanted accuracy they would have wanted the films to be longer. The story does take place over the course of several years after all. True nerds wanted the movies in real time.
I’m also upset that I forgot Howard the Duck was coming out on DVD this week.
“…look at In Bruges and Rules of Attraction, two movies that were sold as much lighter, happier romps. Do they suck for not being like the trailer, or do you just appreciate the movies for what they actually are?”
I loved both of those movies until the massive shift in tone (especially RoA). After the bathtub scene, that movie left me walking away not pleased. I own the movie and love watching the first 75 minutes or so. Same with In Bruges. Funny, unpolitically correct humor with almost Lebowski qualities. Then the final 15 minutes or so it falls apart.
It isn’t that the movie (Rambow) was something I didn’t expect. I’m delightfully surprised by the unexpected all the time. The problem with SoR is that everyone told me what it is and what it is about. No one mentioned (until I wrote the post and people in the comments mentioned the same thing) to me the darker subtext (hell, it’s not even subtext; it’s what the movie is about). How much time in SoR is spent actually filming the movie? I would say 20 minutes tops. The rest is family issues, school issues, friend issues, religious issues, etc.
I fucking hate you guys. I quit.
An unabashed lover of Rules of Attraction here. The movie is damn near perfect at what it does.
Again, Matt, you are obsessed with how a story is told, how complex it is, how things look, rather than what is being looked at. If you started with what is being looked at, the how and why of the design of the film makes perfect sense, it does not aspire to be a great documentary, it aspires to recreate the awe and grief of someone encountering these events. It keeps its eye on the ball. Kurt (the director) did not know his best friend took photography, so he integrated that into the story (the story which is ultimately an intimate one from his perspective) and he repeated it ONCE for dramatic effect. How does that not make sense? If you had a story with so many strange legal quirks to it, and you were bombarded with this information, doesn’t it seem an expected way to communicate that experience in film by presenting as a bombardment, with things being held up (like the therapist) until later on?
Your criticisms of Dear Zachary are fucked, Matt, because you are critiquing outside of its intent, like there is this ideal documentary filmmaking and the film is deviating from it in x,y and z ways. The film is carefully constructed to recreate the experience Kurt felt as these events happened around him… its about his effort to memorialize his best friend and as things changed, it became about him as subject encountering the events and the style of the documentary is geared towards embodying that experience. Its not verite, nor does it intend to be, its a carefully crafted recreation of the experience.
I would like to have seen the judge violently murdered onscreen but we suffice with her being ridiculed through the puppeting of her judgment, my god that is the least she deserved. There is nothing extraneous in this film because the emotions it conveys are justifiably indulgent. If this was about the food industry and the same indulgences were used it wouldn’t make sense, they work here because this is a very personal document.
I suppose Tarnation was indulgent as well?
Gamble should be watching THE STAIRCASE, (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388644/)because it avoids all of these criticisms, however it has 6+ hours to do its job, whereas Dear Zachary has only 100 minutes.
Still haven’t seen Zachary. May have to pick it up this weekend.
Love the love for Role Models. That sort of came and went with little fanfare but I liked it more than most of the other comedies I saw last year (including Forgetting Sarah Marshal & Pineapple Express). And I’m not surprised at the women cooing at I Love You, Man. There’s a reason he made my Hot list. Yum.
And huzzah for Samberg love! I don’t watch SNL but the guy is fucking gold.
I can’t find the staircase anywhere, Bay Video doesn’t even have it.
Sounds like it’s worth the purchase. Amazon’s
got it for $20.
where did the time stamps go???
by the way, ROLE MODELS was good. very unexpected since i hate sean william scott. paul rudd and the Mclovin kid stole the show.
“paul rudd and the Mclovin kid stole the show.” Agreed. And Scott has moments when he’s good – mostly when he’s not *trying* to be funny.
He’s pretty good in “Walking Tall” too.
i don’t remember sean william scott in WALKING TALL???
My bad. I meant “The Rundown”.
The Rundown. Rules
We agree on something? OMG.
Seriously though, my apologies. I saw both and Walking Talk is pretty craptacular compared to The Rundown.
Too tired to read Gamble’s post, and if I feel like being a spiteful awful person (which I tend to be from time to time) I’ll just ignore it.
Basically checked in to add on to the love for Role Models. It starts off kind of as you’d expect, a meh sex comedy, but it builds over time and has a proper payoff. A lot of modern comedies from the extended Apatow family (it’s already too big to call it that at this point) start great and gradually kind of either get less funny, or maybe its better to say that they get a little more serious and/or sappy. Role Models doesn’t do this, it gets better as it goes along.
It doesn’t really match the Stella/State/Wet Hot/The Ten humor that Wain normally does, but that’s not a bad thing. He does a good job here. Love the Stella guys.
Of the 3 stella guys though – who have strangely all been given a crack at directing a movie, I’d go with the Baxter by Michael Showalter first. Its less funny than Role Models, its very dry and the humor comes from how lame and straight a person can be, but Showalter is so lovable and good at that character, and Michelle Williams is too goddamn great. Michael Ian Black’s Wedding Daze however… um…
I’m very surprised he wrote AND directed that movie, and then put fucking Jason Biggs and a bunch of other douches in it. Isla Fisher though, not bad. Yet as horrible as the movie seems to be on the package, its not as bad as I’d expect. Not good, but better than expected.
The Rundown is also good.
Seann William Scott is in a bunch of bad movies and may never get over the Stifler character, but I can see that he really is a pretty damn good actor – between especially Role Models and Promotion, you see he does that poor straightman schtick far more effectively than a Ben Stiller, and unlike Stiller, can actually be a jackass but still seem like an actual human being in the same movie.
Sean William Scott = another Minnesota boy. Just up the street actually.
Good call on The Promotion Goon. I wasn’t a huge fan of the movie but I did like the performances from both Scott and Reilly.
And I’m glad you brought up David Wain. I’m sure you remember my huge hate on “The Ten” which I couldn’t even finish but I loved Role Models to the point where I’m really interested to check out Wet Hot American Summer.
agree. Scott is better suited in a role like THE PROMOTION rather than the bad boy, jackass type that people know him for.
Do not buy the Let the right one in Release. The subtitles are really f… up.
http://iconsoffright.com/news/2009/03/let_the_wrong_subtitles_in_to.html
Everything Gamble says about Dear Zachary is absolutely correct. It is almost the opposite of The Staircase for me. The Staircase is around 6 hours long and it is one of the best edited ANYTHING I have ever seen – Dear Zachary is nothing BUT editing, raping the entire story, its technique over trauma – its the documentary version of Crash as far as I’m concerned.
There’s embracing sentimentality, and then theres abusing it. Dear Zachary rapes sentimentalities corpse and then signs its name on it with its sperm, it has that little regard for common sense.
Spare me this bullshit about ‘preconceptions about craft’, rot. It’s a decent movie on fast forward, an annoying child screaming “watch me dive!”. I want to slap Kurt (the director) in the face and tell him to calm the fuck down, that his story is interesting but not interesting enough to demand that panic attack pace. he’s a step away from getting the Micro Machines guy to narrate.
It really brings to mind immediately how I hate the editing pace of A Mighty Heart too, another movie rot loves.
I can deal with editing rhythms and pacing, but you have to earn it. Neither of these films does. I’m not attacking the technique, I’m not pooh-poohing a certain style of storytelling, I’m saying the choice to use it for THESE particular stories goes beyond simply incorrect into pure obnoxiousness at how much the directors insist on doing it this way.
I will take a step back and let you question everything I have written here by saying bluntly I did not watch the whole thing – I turned it off halfway through and I may not ever finish it. And I sit through everything. This director is so smarmy and childish and demanding every second is urgent and interesting that it made me dislike him more than the person who killed his friend. This isn’t a person in shock, this is a person making conscious decisions with that narration and editing, and he’s a douchebag for doing it.
“technique over trauma” – what in the world, Goon…
I think most people will admit that it isn’t that well made of a documentary. It’s downright sloppy (and maybe even obnoxious) at times. I think that has been discussed here on numerous occasions, although the fact that you are targeting in on that so much is almost comical in your excessive disdain for it.
The greatness of Dear Zachary lies in the story alone, which you don’t understand because you didn’t stick around to see how it all played out. You simply dipped your toes in the water. Despite what you say, to the majority of those who watched it, the story is interesting enough. You can ramble on about how you hate the editing and how it is like Crash or whatever nonsense, but since your stubbornness wouldn’t permit you to sit through it to experience the entirety of the story, all I can say is that you really have no idea. Could it have been told as a short nonfiction piece instead of a documentary? Definitely, and it would have been just as effective, I think, because again, it is the story itself that really tugs on those emotional strings.
“The greatness of Dear Zachary lies in the story alone, which you don’t understand because you didn’t stick around to see how it all played out.”
If someone took the Godfather and put a soundtrack of a baby screeching underneath it, you may not sit through the film. And its not your fault for not sticking around.
When Kurt wrote his review he wrote – “Kurt Kuenne has assembled it together with satisfyingly visceral editing techniques that should land him a job with Tony Scott some day.”
Is that supposed to be a compliment?
anyways the point I’m trying to make at 7am in the morning is that it doesnt matter how great the story is – if someone puts enough obstacles in your way from enjoying it you’re not going to finish it, and it may not be your fault.
It may be a pure matter of taste – “I dont like quick editing!” “I dont like horror movies!” “I dont like shakey cam!”
it may be a matter of developed opinion of how something like this is done right, or how often the technique is used…
I was pissed off last night because a hyped up movie I paid for sight unseen turned out to be something I couldnt even sit through. I tried to keep going after my rampage and its just not taking. The story isnt interesting enough to constantly barrage me with its technique.
I had a friend in art school who combined painting with collage, in a not entirely subtle, but controlled yet effective method. But compliments on this technique turned his style from a careful, considerate use of that style into a clusterfuck. I have to wonder if the director had a better documentary, but started messing around with editing, got some compliments, and then went crazy with retarded ambition.
Seriously though, what within the first half of this movie is tugging at you strongly enough to keep watching – simply to see what happens to the woman in Newfoundland, or do you actually have some heartstrings connection to the victims or the director?
Every time the director directly talks to Zachary, using clips of the kid asking why soandso has died, the way its cobbled together, I’m not feeling anything FOR these people, I’m only thinking about how calculatedly shrill the director is being, how much he’s shouting at you what you’re supposed to be feeling, to the point its actually disingenuous and even at times feels like phony outrage – even though its probably not! When you’re this coldly manipulative, I picture the guy editing thinking more about how each decision will make his point or tug at people… when I can sense this is going on, my connection is just fading away, there’s a distraction put up from the actual feature, the actual story, it becomes all about the director and his smarmy rage.
Perhaps I have ranted and been enough of an asshole for people on here to at times picture me behind my keyboard spazzing out my bullshit – well this is what I sensed about the director of Dear Zachary while watching it.
isn’t that what documentaries are supposed to do?
@Goon – “When Kurt wrote his review he wrote – Kurt Kuenne has assembled it together with satisfyingly visceral editing techniques that should land him a job with Tony Scott some day.Is that supposed to be a compliment?”
A little of A, a little of B, I generally disdain Tony Scott’s Avid-wankery, but when it takes it to the extreme, a la DOMINO, I can get on board. It becomes such an integral part of the story telling in spite of its speedball ADD. In Dear Zachary, it is that extremity in the face of the story that makes it work. As you say, it isn’t professional and smooth, it is its willingness to say ‘look at me!’ and ‘I’m outraged’ etc. etc. that makes it endearing (obviously your milage will vary). Unlike The Staircase which works as an intellectual exercise as it indulges in the lurid, Dear Zachary is going for the emotional response every time, keeping things moving and ‘at 11′ for the entire run-time. I had no issue with it, for this story that style works.
Taking Kuenne to task for ‘making conscious decisions in the editing room is baffling’ – isn’t that what the editing of any film is? As pissed and sad as Kuenne was with the incidents, after spending hundreds of hours, I’m sure the craftsmen part of the filmmaking had to come into play as you saw the footage hundreds and hundreds of times while assembling. Weird criticims, Goon.
“Taking Kuenne to task for ‘making conscious decisions in the editing room is baffling’ ”
I’m saying so often the choices are at odds with what he’s presenting, that he does his editing goofarounds so frequently that instead of ingraining itself into the film naturallly, everything felt so amateurishly plastered on. I keep trying to come up with teh best possible analogy…
Its like someone handed me a very good album, but all the tracks have a person I know singing over top of it, or pause mid track and say ‘here comes the good part’… Kuenne could have still used this style of editing throughout this movie and I would have been fine with it, but his decision to just throw everything anywhere, was so annoying that I shut off his movie.
Since my rampage last night i watched another 30 minutes, so I’m around 2/3 done – I know its near impossible to expect after that I was going to backtrack or admit anything, but either way I’m still just watching this thing completely disconnected from his story because he’s more concerned with showing me how he can edit. he’s made it a bigger priority than the story. there’s ways to make your “expression” and opinion of whats going on known without ruining your movie, and this isnt it. At least when Morgan Spurlock obnoxiously makes himself the focus, he seems to be able to make that obnoxious glamorization of self seem like it was part of the point. Kuenne maybe was trying to make his self insertion part of the point, but at best its a gimmicky sideshow that is diverting your attention from the main attraction. Even American Teen’s tacked on sideshows werent this grating.
Bottom line – the craft of this film annoyed the everylivingfuck out of me, and I’m doing my best to explain why. The director came across as whiny, self absorbed, shallow, attention starved, exploiting his friend and his friends son in ways that didnt affect me whatsoever. I felt Kuenne was insisting how I was supposed, to the point I was actually turned off and felt being spoken down to as a viewer.
If I liked this movie, I’d probably be put off at the angry guy who didnt even finish it too, but sorry – maybe you have a movie that just rubs you this way too, I dont know. This is it, I cant sit through this crap.
” The director came across as whiny, self absorbed, shallow, attention starved, exploiting his friend and his friends son in ways that didnt affect me whatsoever.”
dude, what movie were you watching, this is beyond baffling to me… whiny? what does he do that is whiny, and let’s not forget this is a real event, his best friend was murdered, and he is making a film about him, these indulgences of sentimentality are 100% deserved.
I will admit the emotional punch doesn’t actually hit me until midway through the film, that you are thrown in the middle of a relationship and there is naturally going to be a point of adjustment, as you learn about who died and what it means to the director.
and I will defend the craft of the film, as I did before, it is exactly what it needs to be. Dear Zachary recreates the experience of horrific events for people who knew the deceased, the story carries you along, words and images overlay each other all building upon an idea of a person (like Tarnation) and you stay focused because of the story (which frankly you didn’t get to the best part of Goon).
“these indulgences of sentimentality are 100% deserved.”
There’s a limit – ever been in a political argument when you’re talking about rights and someone wants to pull some trump card of a personal tragedy… or you’re trying to tell someone at work they did something wrong and they pull out something tragic as a dramatic excuse? – “But my uncle is dead!”
But more specifically, the way he presented everything like I said, abused any right to sentimentality by overdoing the editing. the way he presented things made him look more like a phony drama queen putting on airs – than a genuinely sad person expressing himself on a genuine level.
With that in mind, I can’t necessarily judge how people grieve, but I reserve the right to be annoyed by how people do it.
“Dear Zachary recreates the experience of horrific events for people who knew the deceased”
That didn’t come through for me based on what I watched, it seems like it was more concerned with Kuenne’s experience, which again, didn’t seem real under the weight of all that editing. I dont like throwing the word ‘self indulgent’ around because in a lot of cases, I dont think its a fault. I think its a fatal fault here.
I can get to the ‘best part’ on wikipedia apparently, without Kuenne’s bullshit. For a good crime documentary that is meant to make you mad, I still recommend people hook up with the Staircase or Murder on a Sunday Morning instead.
Dear Zachary is first and foremost a eulogy from a best friend. so again, this idea that it whiny, its not whiny, its earnest. there’s a difference…
maybe you could walk into a eulogy in a church or funeral parlor and take your schemata analysis and go to town on it, I see it as a priviliged place to emote, to indulge, and it can never be TOO indulgent, because it is a personal expression between intimates.
This is why I keep calling out bullshit with regards to these craft first observations… you misunderstand what Dear Zachary aims to be.
if it is overly sentimental, it is SUPPOSED to be, thats not a cheat either… fuck everything has to live up to this textbook idea of what film should be and I am so tired of hearing this brought up, you need to appreciate that this is not like Super Size Me, it has a different aim, you can’t equate the two anymore than you could equate the sentimentality between a political speech and a eulogy… its meaningless punditry.
Goon, would you accept any eulogizing documentary that was overly sentimental? Is it about how badly this film did its eulogizing, or does the whole idea of a film that so relentless aspires to give a personally indulgent account of events repel you?
this is a dumb argument. it barely is even making sense. you don’t feel any emotions because of his editing style? because his particular editing makes you think he cares more about himself than his dead friend?
it is meant to be a tear jerker.
of course, it has an agenda too, but it is a movie that can make a guy cry and feel okay about. how this movie plays out it ever man’s worst nightmare.
“Dear Zachary is first and foremost a eulogy from a best friend.”
I have to go back again to simply stating that his editing makes everything else seem like a hollow gimmick. if its a eulogy, its putting on a show and doesnt feel right… again… i guess its a judgment or at least an annoyance with the way this guy grieves. the way me grieves makes me think he’s a douchebag, and he doesnt get any privilege out of it because he’s still making a film and he’s still telling a story.
so as much as im poking fun of the sentimentality, maybe if it actually DID feel earnest and not just drama queen douchey, i’d forgive it? I dont know, but that editing obscures everything… soo…
“Goon, would you accept any eulogizing documentary that was overly sentimental?”
The Lila Lipscomb parts of Fahrenheit 9/11 are ridiculously sentimental as they trumpet her son and her pain. Without some of the war footage and those scenes I dont think the movie would have had any acclaim even then. Her scenes are easily the best part of the movie to me. I’d have to think a bit to come up with another documentary that eulogizes anywhere. Capturing the Friedmans could draw some comparisons, but its not the same.
“Is it about how badly this film did its eulogizing, or does the whole idea of a film that so relentless aspires to give a personally indulgent account of events repel you?”
I’ve said before that I embrace bombast, so that should go for a film eulogy as well. I can only believe at least today that it was this particular case, and that a more adept filmmaker could have put together an aggressively edited eulogy film.
I guess it comes down to, a film isn’t manipulative if it works. and in your case Goon, something in your psychosis is at odds with the story and how it is told. I suspect there is a type of person that doesn’t like to be coaxed to feel or think things (the first whiff of being coaxed and his/her mind can only focus on the effort). This film doesn’t shy away from its effort, it doesn’t try and conceal what it is doing, you say its calculated but if it was, wouldn’t it try and hide these indulgences? no, it says fuck it, this is what I felt, this is the people that felt things to, this is our story and this is our experience and every single filmmaking decision is dictated by that… when they are sad, you see it, when they are angry, you see it, when they are lost and hopeless, you see it.
I could give a shit about the techniques that get you there, and I don’t mind someone putting their hand on my shoulder as they try and convey their loss, my psychosis doesn’t flare up, its not a competition, the film gods need not be offended, I just listen to the story, and everything else is atmosphere.
This conversation is ridiculous. The impact of the story doesn’t happen until the final 30 or 45 minutes. Because Goon hasn’t seen it, a lot of his argument is invalid. If you don’t like the editing style, fine. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but to say it is “wankery” or “gimmicky” couldn’t be further from the truth. This is heartfelt drama; he just chose to do it in an interesting way. If you don’t like that technique, that’s fair enough. But he didn’t make the movie for personal gain, so it can’t be a gimmick.
Just say, “I hated the editing technique” and leave it at that. Attacking the filmmaker as drama-queen douchery is part of this cold weather entering your heart.
“you don’t feel any emotions because of his editing style? because his particular editing makes you think he cares more about himself than his dead friend?”
Pretty much.
I’m not saying he doesnt care about his dead friend, but at some point theres a gimmickiness that ruins everything. I mean, again look at Morgan Spurlock, Super Size Me has an agenda, but Spurlock makes himself enough of a show that you can question how deeply he cares about the issue.
the Kurt film recommendation I do take issue with somewhat is Time Crimes.
caught it last night and was underwhelmed. Will do a capsule review probably but in the arena of time travel stories it doesn’t break much ground, and actually doesn’t make much sense if you think about it. as an independent genre film it I guess is better than normal but still, Kurt you are not seeing the right Time Travel stories.
you may have skipped past it Andrew, but since my first blowhard rant I watched the 2nd third. I know what happens, and it didnt change anything for me, if anything, it made me more strongly believe the setup was crass, gimmicky, douchey.
Giving extra credit to indie genre is part of Kurts m.o., rot, you know it
I just know if I make a low budget comic book movie that has “ideas”, I’m gonna get a pass from Mr. Halfyard, even if I rip off Robocop, have my villain have the same powers as the protagonist, and am an hour too long.
I will admit you can’t really rip on someone outwardly grieving and not get some douche on yourself as well.
I think that is why I was dubious at first at Kurt’s constant praise of Let the Right One In, because he has blinders for that kind of film, but he was right on that one.
indie is a genre? Who knew?
If it seems I praise Indie films just for the sake of them being small and struggling, allow me to illuminate on the fact that all the tiny little movies that I see and don’t like, I simply don’t write about or talk about. So, hmmm, what you see splashed on blogs is the stuff worth mentioning. Not quite the same thing as praising ONLY due to indie.
I’m not going to throw out a big list of indie flicks I’ve seen at festivals and whatnot that are absolute garbage, but I assure you the list is long.
no, indie + genre films, essentially anything from Fantasia film festival… but like I said, you were right about Let the Right One In, so our tastes match up occassionaly in this area.
most of that is teasing Kurt, but I think you can be swayed by things more easily depending on the environment it came from.
I’ve heard you nitpicking on major movies over things that indie genre films get away with in spades. The bad CGI in LTROI would not go unscathed if it came from a studio, even if it were a mediocre budget
– I remember you hyping up Right At Your Door and Behind the Mask when they came out… man, those were both pretty brutal, its hard to imagine what you saw in those.
“Right At Your Door and Behind the Mask when they came out… man, those were both pretty brutal…”
Huh? I think those are both pretty great, little movies that have a lot to say in terms of what they’re going for.
Since I’m somehow waiting for Jay to show up and tell me why I’m an idiot about Dear Zachary, I’m hoping he’ll doubleshot in and rip on Behind the mask, because if I remember right he was not impressed whatsoever either. I’m not the best to comment in general since I dont care for horror movies usually anyways.
RAYD was rather boring in general and the execution seemed pretty amateurish.
No one who saw Behind The Mask outside of some “fun” festival environment likes it. Literally, no one. It’s an awful film borderline unwatchable film. You should be embarrassed for liking it.
“No one who saw Behind The Mask outside of some “fun” festival environment likes it. Literally, no one.”
That’s an interesting fact. Where did you see that? I suspect it might actually be close to accurate, but not sure how one can tell that for sure. Rot Tomatoes has a pretty decent score for it, so someone liked it. Maybe they were all festival go-ers. Dunno. Likewise with Right at Your Door. In fact I just showed RayD to a couple of people on Monday night; they both really liked it. The ending kind of sucks, but everything until then was pretty riveting I thought.
I saw it outside of a festival environment… the 6 or so people that I showed it to liked it so there!
Actually pairing up RayD and BtM is interesting because I believe they interact in a fun ‘think-about-it’ way while you are watching it. It is as much about ‘what would I do’ as it is about ‘what is going to happen next’ – Not enough movies do this. TIMECRIMES is another one of these ‘interacts with the audience in unique ways’
There is your answer, of sorts.
Love the kind of movies that present a scenario (usually original) and make me think, “What would I do?” Usually the answer on screen is not the same as my personal answer, but often more entertaining.
Blindness had a lot of that element to it. A movie Kurt and I loved, but everyone else hated.
I believe the phrase for being ‘swayed’ by the festival atmosphere is also called “Breathing the Park City Air”
We’re all agreed on pi & primer though. Smart and crafted indie genre flicks. Are we?
yeah but Time Crimes makes no sense, or I am missing something… which I think I must be because the opening scene goes absolutely nowhere from my reading.
Primer and Pi are great.
Time Crimes is like a really great Twilight Zone episode, character stuff don’t matter, it’s all about the premise and the execution of the premise.
I’ll have to sit down with that one again, as I don’t recall the opening, other than the main character coming home with groceries or something…
this is NOT a Time Crimes spoiler:
the film begins in a parking lot, driving up to the house and the groceries fall out… that whole credit sequence, I got to wonder what that was there for.
everything else is self-contained but it makes no logical sense, I know why narratively it was done, but its pretty sloppy, more pulpy than something like Primer for sure.
“We’re all agreed on pi & primer though. Smart and crafted indie genre flicks. Are we?”
Saw Pi almost 10 years ago now on VHS and dont remember anything about it anymore. Need to revisit that.
Primer is boring as fuck if you don’t care about the work they put into the time travel theory. That’s all the movie is – theory, the story supporting it is not there.
@ That’s all the movie is – theory, the story supporting it is not there.
That’s what’s cool about it. It’s a movie about physics by engineering nerds, the type of people who are usually complaining that a movie doesn’t make sense (I usually loathe those types) step up and make the film they’re always advocating for. Their single-minded pursuit of sound time travel principals borders on autism and demands an unhealthy amount of concentration by the audience. But if you put in the effort it succeeds at being the time travel movie no hollywood screenwriter ever would have even attempted.
It’s a classic case of outsiders re-inventing the wheel because they didn’t know any better.
re: podcast.
Goon’s right, Matt talks himself full circle on Watchmen. He goes from “all the deviations are bad” to “they should’ve deviated more”.
It’s because it’s an unfilmable movie and should never have been made. By all accounts from EVERYONE so far on this site talking about it, it is mediocre at absolute best and shitty shitty bang bang at worst. Yet people can’t stop fucking talking about it. It’s been out for a month now, everyone hates it, but keeps talking about it. I honestly can’t wait for the DVD to see what all the fuss is about.
@ everyone hates it,
Kurt liked it. And Goon loved it. Is this part of your April Fools joke?
“Is this part of your April Fools joke?”
Wrong thread. And to say Kurt “liked it” is a bit of a stretch. It didn’t sound much that he liked it. Goon loved it? Fine I stand corrected. They are in a pretty distinct minority.
“By all accounts from EVERYONE so far on this site talking about it, it is mediocre at absolute best and shitty shitty bang bang at worst.”
Sorry, to say I really enjoyed it also. I’ll watch it again before I watch The Dark Knight again.
@ “I’ll watch it again before I watch The Dark Knight again.”
I didn’t love Watchmen but I complete agree with this sentiment.
I watched DK twice this weekend. Hadn’t seen it since it was in the theater. It is a great film, my esteem of it has only increased.
Even the kind of shakey bits work well in context. The stuff on the boat is an obvious canidate for something to cut. But I love how the movie manages a transition from super hero antics to a film about the soul of Gotham City. From Batman, to his inner circle, to the everyday citizen of Gotham; the scope of the story continually expands. The boat stuff definitely slows the pacing of the final action sequence, but it cements this important thematic transition.
As an action film (it’s the best action film of the past ten years or so). As a film about human beings and how they react in times of uncertainty and in pretty much every other imaginable way DK is far superior to Watchmen.
I just listened to the podcast dude. He raved about Jackie Earl Haley, raved about the opening credits. Overall he was pretty forgiving of the flaws (much more so than I). He was ready to see it twice.
You’d have to parse his review through a pretty opaque filter to deny that it’s overall positive.
So the Bill Murray thing was your April Fools joke.
@ I didn’t love Watchmen but I complete agree with this sentiment.
You people are all outa yer fuckin’ minds.
“Goon loved it?”
There is no true consensus on Watchmen, except for universal love of the intro and Jackie Earl Haley. From person to person there are different kudos and complaints.
I bought the Tales from the Black Freighter DVD, even though the pirate comic is my least fave part of the graphic novel. I got it more for Under the Hood, which is actually live action with the same actors of the film, runs 40 minutes. Under the Hood on the other hand is one of my favorite parts of the graphic novel. Looking forward to that. Fans of the movie say its pretty damn great, and seeing as I’m a fan… sold.
@ There is no true consensus on Watchmen
It was an odd point for Andrew to make. Or at least an odd way of making whatever point it was. “Most people didn’t love it… so it shouldn’t have been made… and it’s unfilmable… so everyone should stop talking about it”
Complaining that it’s unfilmable is particularly odd since he hasn’t seen the movie OR read the book. Which part that he’s unfamiliar with did he hear second hand was translated poorly?
But I guess we’re supposed to stop talking about it.
God help us if it gets a criterion release.
When I said Kurt liked it… for some reason I remembered him giving it 3 stars. But I just looked it up and he doesnt assign it a rating at all. I guess I overstated his regard for it.
But he did have a lot of positive things to say about it. And Andrew is overstating this site’s low opinion of it. I think Gamble and I (the biggest fans of the comic) are the only people who really came out against it.
To clarify on Watchmen, I’m exactly 50% on it. Lots of stuff to like in there, some real stuff to loathe, but I’ll agree that it is one of the major film-cultural touchstones for 2009, and Andrew is a fool for ‘completely writing it off’ – I’d take 1000 Watchmens over 1 Ironman.
I don’t think I ever said people should stop talking about it. I was merely suggesting that it’s weird that it keeps coming up even though it doesn’t seem to strike a lot of chords with people. The “unfilmable” comment doesn’t start with me. That phrase was used a lot around the web to describe the movie before (and even after for a bit) it was released.
As far as “writing it off” goes, which part of “I honestly can’t wait for the DVD to see what all the fuss is about,” doesn’t make sense? I just don’t need to pay ten bucks and make a trip to the theater to see it when other, better things are being shown.
I’m just paying you back in kind for the Bill Murray poking in the other thread. Watchmen will play better in the theatre than on the small screen though.
Pretty late to this one.
Goon…you are an idiot. Get your head out of your ass.
Regarding Behind the Mask…probably my least favourite film of that year. It’s the kind of ‘intelligent’ filmmaking that’s easy to do. It’s the slasher equivalent to Fanboys. (Full disclosure: I haven’t seen Fanboys.)
I don’t get yer Bill Murray joke at all. It’s exactly the same sort of shit we all get into every day on here.
I didn’t find it to be any more outlandish than loving BTM or anything you’ve said about Watchmen. I mean, complaining that I book you haven’t read is “unfilmable”? That’s actually funny, but apparently you were being serious.
Hey Rusty, do a quick Google search for me:
“Watchmen unfilmable”
then do this search:
“Iron man unfilmable”
then simply type this:
“unfilmable”
Tell me what you see. AGAIN, I didn’t make the comment. This remark has been made THOUSANDS of times long before I had ever even heard of Watchmen. It may be funny to you, but about 1000 other sites seem to mention it as well. So yes, I was being serious and just saying what I had heard about the movie from other sources.
@ I didn’t make the comment.
your just wrong.
@ It’s because it’s an unfilmable movie and should never have been made.
see.
Congratulations on paying attention.
Instead of trying to correct me (or whatever it is you’re doing), why is it outlandish (or “funny”) that the story was considered unfilmable? I’m just reiterating what I’ve heard (LOTS of) other people say. Why are you attacking me about it? It’s like you’re trying to prove something to yourself about Watchmen. Since you really need to feel good about yourself, yes I said “I didn’t make the comment.” What I should have said (which I did earlier actually) was that I didn’t start the idea of Watchmen being an unfilmable movie.
So I guess I just don’t see what the big deal is about making that statement just because I haven’t seen it. As you mentioned, Gamble chases his own tail a bit in the podcast. This lends a little bit of credence to the idea it’s unfilmable. So again, instead of attacking me for no reason, tell me why the idea is “funny” that I brought up the idea mentioned by hundreds of others that Watchmen is unfilmable. I’d be much more interested in that rather than you going back over my comments with a fine tooth comb to find holes to prove me wrong on something I’m not even trying to prove in the first place; it’s just something I’m pointing out.
Andrew, you’re the only person I know who complains that people take your words in context.
If you have a problem with any of that please google “pulling shit out of your ass” + “unfilmable”
Are we still talking about Watchmen? When are people going to start talking about it as the first bomb of this year?
It’s stupid to say that the book is unfilmable, especially when the book is in a visual medium, but I’m guessing people were thinking that the film would be around 90 minutes. The book is very filmable indeed and probably should have been done as a TV series instead.
It will be very interesting to see the even longer version on DVD.
“Are we still talking about Watchmen?” – exactly.
But yeah that’s kind of what I gathered from talking to people (mostly Gamble in person) who had read the book: they all said it was so deep with lots of threads and backstory, that to make a 2 hour movie out of it just wouldn’t work. And I think you’re right swarez, in all likelihood from what I’ve read in most places about Watchmen, a TV mini-series would’ve worked much better for this. Of course, I’ve never seen the movie or read the book, so what I’ve read in other place around the web and heard from talking to other people apparently doesn’t really mean anything.
BTW, when I say “unfilmable,” I mean one feature length film. i.e. “LOST” is unfilmable. oooooh.
watched “Under the Hood” from the Watchmen disc. It was solid, done as a fake old news program you’d see on PBS, well done, takes care of the ‘unfilmable’ sidebars of Watchmen creatively. But I can see why its a feature on a disc that is focused more on the animated pirate comic. It’s not a standalone ‘short film’ – its just a damn good bonus taking care of the rest of the comic with the same sort of ‘canon’ film techniques of the movie.
So if you at least found the movie interesting, you could find worse ways to spend your time than with that 40 minute feature
Instead of buying several discs to get the stuff, I recommend you buy the book and just read it, since you will get everything they’re overcharging you for on the discs, plus whatever they couldn’t push.
Thanks for assuming I don’t have the book. Don’t be an ass.
Oh I didn’t mean to address you personally, just in generel. I would take you for someone who had the book already.
Besides, with all the printing of Watchmen’s Trade Paperback edition for the movie, it is pretty easy to find it for sub $20. So yea, Agreed with Henrik.
But I must admit, for the strangeness of the overall Watchmen thing, I’ll but the fully loaded Special edition which will include the Pirate stuff and Under the Hood, all in one (probably cheap) package, at some point…
Now the longer cut of the film, does anyone know what they intend to put in it, are they going to put the Black Freighter in?
^ I don’t think so… I would imagine they would pad a bit more of Silk Spectre and her mom, more of Rorschach’s back story (as it is, the uninitiated may think his mask is made out of magic and not a specific cloth) and for me, I want a bit more time over at the New Frontiersman..
doh – also, spending more time with Dr Manhattan alone on Mars as he ruminates about time would be good.
I want the ending to make sense. I would also like Rorscach to make sense. And I would like for Dr. Manhattan to have a conversation with Veidt at the end, instead of his stupid girlfriend.
Now, where could I get all this? Hmm…
I can’t wait for Andrew to state that Watchmen is one of Moore’s minor works. Or that From Hell is his masterpiece, or even that MiracleMan was the filet of his earlier works.
“I can’t wait for Andrew to state that Watchmen is one of Moore’s minor works. Or that From Hell is his masterpiece, or even that MiracleMan was the filet of his earlier works.”
Thus far I have seen two of Moore’s film adaptations: From Hell and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. To say I was underwhelmed would be a bit of an understatement.
I’ll but the fully loaded Special edition which will include the Pirate stuff and Under the Hood, all in one (probably cheap) package, at some point…
Same here. I think the full length “Director’s Cut” or whatever they will call it stands a good chance of being a pretty decent film. It’ll be interesting to see if they still release it in theaters as well.
I’d say chances of a real theatrical release (i.e. greater than 100 screens) of any lengthened version of Watchmen fall around the snowball in hell variety. But, there may be a few prints struck that travel to comic book conventions and some rep cinemas and other bookings of that type.
There were some prints struck of the Japanese Batman: Gotham Knights, and the one I saw looked great on the big screen.
Yeah, I doubt it sees much of a release either. But even if their are a few prints struck it is movie I would definitely go see in theaters without a second thought.
Yea, it is a strange beast.
But having sat down with Blade Runner last night, I can comfortably say, it ain’t no blade runner. Not by a mile.
Is From Hell not his masterpiece? I think it’s the best of the ones I’ve read.
Blade Runner sucks by the way.
I’m talking about his books, not the crappy films that are barely based on them, Andrew.
From Hell and Watchmen are the two that are typically considered his best books, though MiracleMan is great and I am partial to Swamp Thing myself. I also was very impressed by Lost Girls. The guy has a real talent in taking perceived low grade fare (Watchmen/superheores, Swamp Thing/b-level horror, Lost Girls/pornography) are elevating it into art.
I knew what you were talking about, but having not read any of them, and no plans to, I had to offer up something since you brought my name into it.
@ The guy has a real talent in taking perceived low grade fare (Watchmen/superheores, Swamp Thing/b-level horror, Lost Girls/pornography) are elevating it into art.
The very notion of their being a difference between Low art and high art is wrong*. It’s a fabrication made up by authoritarians and self appointed culture guardians.
*as opposed to good art vs bad art. that distinction is very valid.
It’s probably too late, but I wanted to address this.
My comments didn’t start out as an attack. I asked you if your remarks were a joke (and you had left jokey / insincere comments in another thread. So it was a valid question) and then refered to them as “odd“.
I think “odd” is a fair description. Maybe you disagree.
“Which part that he’s unfamiliar with did he hear second hand was translated poorly?”
Thats why I think it’s funny. It’s funny that you’ve adopted someone else’s opinion as your own. It’s funny that you think a movie that you haven’t seen shouldn’t have been made because it does a bad job adapting a book you haven’t read.
It’s funny that you think a bunch of people saying something on the internet gives the opinion more validity. Are you also concerned about Obama being a muslim sleeper agent born in Kenya? If so, that’s hilarious. Your comment is a lolercoster of hilarity and I don’t wanna get off.
The conversation only turned into an attack when you insisted you never said something that was presevered in writing a few posts earlier?! As if there were no way to check on that!
When I pointed out the clear cut error of your claim you insisted that the problem was that I wasn’t paying attention!
Then you demanded I google Ironman and Unfilmable which was the what-the-fuck non sequetor of the day. The only way I know how to respond to ridiculousness is with ridicule.
For a counterpoint to your actions look at the comment were I claimed Kurt gave a positive review to Watchmen. It turned out I’d misremembered the review. I acknowleged my mistake and then moved on. I didn’t deny making the claim and I still defended my larger point but not by stamping my feet in defiance of the evidence.
So I apologize if I was harsh. But you tried to pull some serious bullshit.
I won’t address all your points here, but:
I didn’t insist you weren’t paying attention. I said congratulations on paying attention and reworded what I meant to say.
Is it funny that “Tristram Shandy” also had the label of being unfilmable? I guess I don’t understand the problem with bringing up a point about a movie that it is generally regarded as unfilmable (or ANY descriptive word for that matter) by a lot of people that isn’t really disputed or accepted; it’s just a topic of discussion.
I “demanded” that you Google Iron Man and unfilmable together because what pops up is about 100 hits that “Watchmen” is unfilmable. Thus proving that it isn’t just a quirk. Which is why I also asked that you simply Google “unfilmable” without even mentioning Watchmen and see what comes up.
I’m pretty sure Obama is a practicing Christian.
And I don’t deny making any claim. I’m simply saying that in general around the movie blog-o-sphere, that is how the movie was characterized – a lot. So I think it’s fair that I bring it up when I feel like facetiously bashing a movie – even one I haven’t seen. It would be like you getting upset about me praising something like Primer as “groundbreaking” or “gutsy” even if I hadn’t seen it. That is how the movie is characterized EVERYWHERE. So if I said in comment that people are still talking about Primer as groundbreaking, would that be equally hilarious because I haven’t seen the movie; but only read that characterization all over the internet?
The very notion of their being a difference between Low art and high art is wrong*. It’s a fabrication made up by authoritarians and self appointed culture guardians.
I’d agree that there isn’t a difference, art is art. But I think you might be limiting those who disagree with that belief. Comics are pretty much universally considered a lesser medium, and Kurt and Andrew typically fall into ad hominem complaints about the films that are adapted from them, especially when it comes to “superhero” based films.
I think the vast majority of people believe that comics are for kids, pornography for perverts and horror for gore hounds and are thus incapable of having artistic works come out of them due to the inherent “low brow” nature of those mediums/genres. And Moore seems to have a similar belief, as he routinely points out that he likes to work in mediums that people think are beneath them, and then prove that art can come from anywhere.
The very notion of their being a difference between Low art and high art is wrong*. It’s a fabrication made up by authoritarians and self appointed culture guardians.
“Which one is Logjammin’?”
Hitchcock, apparently, always took middle-of-the-road novels to make into great films, rather than ‘great’ literature. Worked for him.
finished Dear Zachary…
…I just ended up hating it even more, and the icing on the cake about “I realized that this movie is really about Andrew” that he says, this line from rot that “Dear Zachary is first and foremost a eulogy from a best friend”
…is bullshit. It’s a PR retcon to justify a revenge movie that screams to the world that this particular woman is the devil. There is no movie without the murder and anger it caused. It’s not about Andrew Bagby, its about Kurt Kuenne, a first rate douchebag.
But I suppose I’ve come to realize a personal bias and experiences may effect how I look at this movie – when you look past my complaints about the editing, if someone i loved was murdered and one of our relatives or friends started making a movie like THIS, I would not speak to them for the film nor to them ever again. I could possibly be moved to violence myself over them making a smarmy revenge film dressed up as a ‘tribute’ – and I guess the reason I can put myself in those shoes is because, well, some stuff that I wont get into has happened to my family isn’t that far removed from some of the events in this movie. I guess some of that bias and consideration lingered below the surface before, but it really became more clear to me as I sat down with it again to finish it off.
Either way I can only end up going with my gut that tells me that this is an awful movie and I hate the person who made it.
One thing I will say is I believe now it was wrong to question the sincerity of his anger. But I think its fair to question his earnestness when the director bluntly lies to the audience for so much of the movie with his narrative structure, the films title, everything, in order to get his big shock in later. Its such a tabloid move and goes right to the heart of how I can find it so coldly exploitative, not just of his own family but of the viewers emotions by misleading them for over 60 minutes in the middle of a true crime story. Seriously, I don’t feel bad calling this guy out as a douchebag for thinking this was a good idea. Maybe you find it entertaining or good storytelling, but I think it transcends this sort of thing and crosses right into distasteful trash.
wow, you are something Goon. I will just reiterate again, the director is recreating the experiences he and those close to the deceased experienced in the way he structures his narrative… lest you forget the documenting began prior to events that happen, and so I do not see how it is remotely deceitful for the director to sustain the sequence of what is known in the film as it happened. You keep missing the point that he wants you to feel the sadness and feel the anger, and feel the loss from his perspective and from those closest to the deceased. how is it misleading, its a document of what happened to him!
SPOILERS on DEAR ZACHARY!!!!!!!***********SPOILERS*************
when the baby dies, it happened in real time to him during the filming, how on all that is sacred can that be coldly exploitive or misleading for him not to tell you what happens until it happens in sequence of his OWN STORY!!!!!!!???? KURT IS RECONSTRUCTING THE GRIEVING EXPERIENCE, is it how it was the second he began editing, no, nor is any film, but are you going to say he has no right to try and reconstruct the experience?
another great documentary Errol Morris’s Thin Blue Line does the same thing, it threads the information along as it serves the immediate knowing of its subjects… in fact most documentaries do this, is Touching the Void a piece of shit because it withholds information about what happens on the mountaineering accident until it happens at the appropriate time of the storytelling? I mean this is some stupid shit you are saying Goon.
now as far as it being bullshit that it is a eulogy… I said eulogy for the Deceased, and that meant for Andrew and Zachary and again a eulogy is a heartfelt personal account, how exactly is this not that? Because he includes the details of the crime story? I wonder if the deceased would seriously object to that ‘coldly exploitive’ and ‘distasteful’ intrusion into the story of his life… yeah god forbid you shed light on the injustice at the center of the issue of the murders and maybe cause some positive change for the future. and what do you just gloss over the murder, and the anger towards the judge and towards the murderer, and over the legal system? what kind of honest personal expression is that? Like I said before, the film attempts to reconstruct the feelings of the events as they happen, using every technique possible to draw you into the experience…
“if someone i loved was murdered and one of our relatives or friends started making a movie like THIS, I would not speak to them for the film nor to them ever again. I could possibly be moved to violence myself over them making a smarmy revenge film dressed up as a ‘tribute’ ”
a smarmy revenge movie… holy fuck man, holy fuck. not to mention that the grieving parents are entirely involved participants in this film and become championed in the story, and you know what they have every single right to be angry, and bitter, and frustrated, and how you could have the audacity to suggest they don’t have that right is bordering on the insane. first of all, Dear Zachary is not all angry, it has so many moments of loving adoration for Andrew, Zachary, his parents, the community of friends they live in. But they don’t shy away from the anger or the central part of the story because to do that would be insincere, would be dishonest, would be a disservice considering the political significance as well.
You know what Goon, when your son is murdered, and his grandson is taken by the murderer, and then murdered too, and the justice system turns a blind eye, I would love to see what kind of film you would make, glossing over feelings for the purity and sanctity of what people may think of you.
Dear Zacahary Spoilers*************************************************
***********************************************************************
I have seen the film twice and I can say without any hesitation that it focuses disproportionately more on love and loss than it does on anger, and what you call it being a ‘smarmy revenge movie’. And in fact one of the times that I cried (on both viewings) was not out of anger and sadness of the events before me but from the overflowing love onscreen… this was the point when the family members were talking to the camera about the prospects of seeing Zachary, and it was so sincere, and so beautiful (and way before any hint of something happening to the baby) that I just cannot conceive how anyone can overlook this.
one of the cut scenes is of the parents confessing that they have not forgiven and believe will never forgive the murderer, and they go on about how impossible that is for them to do. Now that could have been in the movie, and if it was this revenge movie you speak of I guess it should be in the movie, but it was cut, as was long scenes describing the background of the murderer, and events leading up to the killing of Zachary.
the angry aspects which I say are both earnest and sincere because the anger is entirely valid, but even if you wanted to get all high and mighty and say it is distasteful to do, than fine, on the advocacy issue that is tagged on at the end in the celebration of the parents (I suppose that is distasteful to do too?) the angry aspects function to advocate a change in legislation so that another Zachary doesn’t happen again. Like I said, it doesn’t need to be justified that way but it could be, even if you thought it was distasteful in the context of grieving.
I know that from watching Dear Zachary I got a sense of who Andrew Bagby was, at least from Kurt’s perspective, there is an inordinate amount of time recreating his character, even delving into blemishes of character, and then when Zachary comes into the story there is an inordinate amount of time of gushing over him. You cannot cancel out the woman in this story, she is there every step of the way, hell at one point the parents are going to movies with her. Now your approach, Goon, I guess is to gloss over how Kurt and the parents and friends feel about her, its distasteful to talk ill or, of even the judge, mock her decisions, no matter what kind of pain and suffering their actions caused upon our protagonists in the story.
You have got this saintly view of the world. I don’t know where it comes from because you are quick to antagonize and be blunt in your communications here, but other people need to be cool and composed and just the facts?
The father in the story calls the murderer the devil. he feels that, I don’t think it was staged, I don’t think in any of those bursts of emotions onscreen they were edited that way to get to a particular false impression. You seem to say you don’t challenge the sincerity of the feeling but how they are staged, and I don’t get that at all, they are staged as if from someone who loves the deceased and family very much, who painstakingly tries to recreate the experiences as they were happening of the grief and loss, and who unflinchingly looks at who caused the deaths, and as with most grief tries to find some good out of it (advocating new legislation).
Wait, so am I a collateral asshole for *not* wanting to see this movie at all? Christ, this thread turned toxic in a hurry.
huh?
“…is bullshit. It’s a PR retcon to justify a revenge movie that screams to the world that this particular woman is the devil. There is no movie without the murder and anger it caused. It’s not about Andrew Bagby, its about Kurt Kuenne, a first rate douchebag.”
I got to focus on this, because this is where Goon goes totally off the rails…
first of all, when was there ever a case when this was going to be a movie without the murder involved? THE MURDER WAS ALWAYS INVOLVED! In your skewed perspective Goon you seem to think it is okay and in fact RIGHT to edit out the feelings about the murderer, that somehow having anger over the deaths is un-eulogy like, whereas as I see a eulogy speaking from the heart, and clearly their hearts are still burning with pain over the loss, and over how the loss occurred. its called grieving, you want to rationalize it, and its mindboggling.
also a eulogy is partially about the person eulogizing, they usually share intimate experiences with the deceased, they share their perspective… again I get the feeling he is not entitled to an opinion because I don’t know it breaks the laws of documentaries? Its not like his opinion is out of keeping with anything the parents feel, will you admit that?
I thought Kurt was restrained in talking about himself, he never said what he feels about the woman, how he is coping about her, how he has moved on, his focus in the last chapter was on the parents, a deluge of praise about them.
y
“how on all that is sacred can that be coldly exploitive or misleading for him not to tell you what happens until it happens in sequence of his OWN STORY!!!!!!!????”
Because he recorded all his narration after the fact and misleads everyone watching it into thinking he’s talking to an actual child who is alive, who turns out to be dead. he uses true movie trickery to get a big shock out of the audience. he holds the viewers hand the entire time dictating how you should feel, not only how he feels. Reptition. repitition. repitition. Condescension. Condescension. Condescension. And then the twist happens and its like “well, not only were you a douche the way you were sarcastically talking the whole time, but now you’re a tabloid level bullshitter to boot”.
“KURT IS RECONSTRUCTING THE GRIEVING EXPERIENCE”
He’s mixing his grieving experience with movie storytelling, and crossing lines that I don’t think should be crossed. This is not Errol Morris talking about some other story, this is a person using his own family and friends and exploiting them for entertainment, with a dishonest after the fact “this is about the guy who was murdered” bullshit line. If he had commented about how his own story for Andrew Bagby went off the rails, if he was more honest about how the focus of his film shifted, maybe it would have alleviated a lot of this garbage, but he didn’t. The lines about this being a true eulogy for a friend, is absolute bullshit. And I believe Kuenne knows it too. A lot of the film is his honest emotions, but I don’t buy his ‘dedication’ for a second. I will bluntly call that segment a lie… for the audience. To have his cake and eat it to.
“I wonder if the deceased would seriously object to that ‘coldly exploitive’ and ‘distasteful’ intrusion into the story of his life.”
I can only speak from myself, but putting myself in those shoes, as best as I can, I would say that the deification of Andrew and the demonization of Shirley is extreme and dishonest. Andrew fucked up, he stuck it in crazy, and he paid the price. Shirley is portrayed as an absolute demon, when I think she was merely sick. I can see why someone grieving would be angry and see things in more extreme terms, but that doesn’t mean I don’t get to say its obnoxious and dishonest.
“yeah god forbid you shed light on the injustice at the center of the issue of the murders and maybe cause some positive change for the future.”
It didn’t do that all that well to be honest, and that dishonest angel/demon thing plays a part in that. It doesnt properly explore how things can fail, how people in the system who make these decisions are human beings with their own biases, because it would get in the way of being a revenge film against the demon woman.
And thats fine. The movie isnt really trying to be about victims rights, thats just a chapter in what happened, and he’s explaining what the parents did.. But to trumpet it as shedding light on issues is horseshit, because its entirely incidental.
“and what do you just gloss over the murder, and the anger towards the judge and towards the murderer, and over the legal system? what kind of honest personal expression is that?”
Judging by the editing, its childish personal expression. Personal bias here – I have the utmost respect for defence laywers – they defend the rights of the worst in society so you can have your own. That bullshit with the talking mouth – a great example of his smarmy douchebaggery.
“Like I said before, the film attempts to reconstruct the feelings of the events as they happen, using every technique possible to draw you into the experience…”
You dont get to write off every problem with this movie with ‘feelings’, that’s a cop out. The technique is a fault, not a feature, because he’s bad at doing it, and does it when its completely unnecessary for a sense of rhythm that he’s not capable as a filmmaker of delivering.
“a smarmy revenge movie… holy fuck man, holy fuck. not to mention that the grieving parents are entirely involved participants in this film and become championed in the story”
yeah, they’re just part of the revenge. Revenge and self deification of all the ‘good guys’
“Dear Zachary is not all angry, it has so many moments of loving adoration for Andrew”
And Kuenne wraps up true respect and love for Andrew in sarcasm, smarm and shitty editing. Good job.
“You know what Goon, when your son is murdered, and his grandson is taken by the murderer, and then murdered too, and the justice system turns a blind eye, I would love to see what kind of film you would make”
Once again, I would not make such a film, and if I did, I hope someone would have the good sense to stop me.
“I have seen the film twice and I can say without any hesitation that it focuses disproportionately more on love and loss than it does on anger, and what you call it being a ’smarmy revenge movie’.”
And yet when I was 30 minutes in, and simply saying the movies editing was bad and that the narration was kind of whiny, I was told to wait for the twist and that it was all about the story. Make up your mind, people.
“…but from the overflowing love onscreen…”
Call me a douche all you want, but the tributes to me were standard boilerplate respect for the dead, even boring. I don’t think its heartless to look at someone elses home movies and not particularly care when people are only talking you up – even if it is sincere and earnest. When you’re dead, they talk about you in the highest regard, you never did anything wrong, your questionable behavior gets retconned, such as his decision to stick in crazy being retconned into “oh he just didnt think he could do better. so humble”. Sorry, but if I dont really know the person at least in some fashion, I dont get moved by that sort of thing.
There are some pro wrestlers that died whose tributes on WWE television certainly moved me more – even Chris Benoits, who turned out to have killed his wife and child under some weird circumstances. I had watched these people on TV, I had seen their career retrospective documentaries – when these big galoot wrestlers got on screen to read poems to the dead, to only speak as if they were the greatest people who ever lived, I could buy into it because I had something to work from.
So sorry, dead roided up wrestlers 1, murder victim 0
“one of the cut scenes is of the parents confessing that they have not forgiven and believe will never forgive the murderer, and they go on about how impossible that is for them to do. Now that could have been in the movie, and if it was this revenge movie you speak of I guess it should be in the movie, but it was cut, as was long scenes describing the background of the murderer, and events leading up to the killing of Zachary.”
There are enough scenes of them calling her the devil and a bitch to make up for it, a little stronger than saying you’ll never forgive them. come on man, thats a poor argument and you know it.
“I know that from watching Dear Zachary I got a sense of who Andrew Bagby was”
I simply don’t know how you could. But then again, I was paying enough attention to how annoying the editing was to soak everything in properly. And once again, I was pretty much assured this didnt even matter because it was all about the story that happens later.
“You have got this saintly view of the world. I don’t know where it comes from because you are quick to antagonize and be blunt in your communications here, but other people need to be cool and composed and just the facts?”
Listen, I can be a douche and can be quick to temper when on the Internet, I know it, everyone knows it. I’m pretty composed and Obama cool in real life, and everyone I know personally knows that. If you want to make a judgment of how one treats people as a whole, then thats one thing – and you can take that to extreme lengths and then think about all the people in South America are suffering for the sake of a bottle of Dasani water you may be drinking – I mean really. But if I can bring it back to the microclimate my issues stem more of how people treat those who they are closest to and respect the most. From my perspective this film falls into my zone of utter exploitation and disrespect. Even if an outside observer was filming this whole thing to serve an agenda or just serve as entertainment, it is less offensive and exploitative than Kuenne doing it himself. perhaps this is why Lipscomb’s scenes in F911 are Ok with me and this is not. Why Capturing the Friedmans is moving for me and this isnt, why Hoop Dreams is captivating and frustrating and this is not. So maybe you want to reward this take from someone in the inside as fresh and new and unique, but I just cant accept it, at least in the way Kuenne has presented it. If someone else pulls it off, we’ll see. I open the door to having my supposed hard set belief in this crossed line being challenged.
Now you may disagree with all this but you have to at least acknowledge I’ve given this some serious thought and consideration, and I plowed through with a movie that wanted me to not finish it so I can continue discussing without having my thoughts written off as an “incomplete” – I didnt even bother rating it on here for the sake of avoiding whatever stigma or anger a bad rating would invoke.
I want you to ask yourself this:
If your mother or wife or whoever was murdered, and lets ignore the film thing – say at her funeral, someone who is close to the family but not kin, gets up on stage and begins speaking nicely of the dead but then rages with intensity and anger about the system, about the murderer, and all that – would you not be upset, would you not think it was bad tact, that someone should not maybe calm that person down or something like that? would you let them keep going, even if it was sincere and made that person feel better?
Let me open up a bit here about a specific thing…
Look, I had a friend, not the closet friend, but close enough, who killed himself when he was 18. he was kicked out of the house by his parents, who were not actually the worst parents in the world, but as parents can be sometimes, not understanding, or overly strict.
That friends wake, oh man, that was a show. First off since he was Catholic and they dont let suicides have regular funerals in the church, that came up and there was a show about injustice and all that, but the big show among our friends was a girl we knew who did the “how could he be so selfish as to take his own life?” angle.
Now… I can completely sympathize with this line of thought, I can rationalize the anger of those left behind and how much that anger can be spread around. We all were expressing love for this friend even though we were all also angry at what he had left behind. But that doesnt mean making such an outward expression of it was exactly fair – the expression may be earnest, but its also deliberately showy and kind of selfish as well – her pain was more important at that moment than my dead friends…
So between this and other things I will NOT share, I can picture myself, either dead and having others make a show, or having a dead loved one and someone else making a show, and being infuriated, even if that person was earnest and had good intentions. It does indeed offend me.
Here I open up again more than I should:
My mom like a lot of people, had a cancer scare a couple years ago. You start thinking about whats going to happen.
I know that if my mom dies before a number of my other relatives, a few of them are doing to do some nasty shit – I know them, how they are, and what they have done in the past with dead relatives, both of natural causes and yes, murdered ones – its absolutely insane – and I personally am going to have to face down my desire to keep it together and keep a cool head for my mom’s sake, vs. a natural instinct to physically get in an altercation with certain people who will exploit this death for their specific ridiculous cause. I’m hinting at too much already, its putting a lump in my throat, I’m just asking for someone to chime in and push my buttons and I’m doing exactly what I hate – citing personal experiences as a trump card.
But since we’re getting angry with each other I’m going there – yes, I have developed opinions on exploitation of grief and family tragedy, that I have used to comment negatively on how Kuenne grieved. It’s a huge catch 22 for me, its a bit like being intolerant towards intolerance.
So maybe unless we can maybe have a more constructive discussion about grief and the lines to cross, maybe this about as much as I should say on the topic.
If I had any prizes currently, I would award Goon with one for what has got to be the longest comment ever on R3.
Basically – I was annoyed with Kuennes style and annoyed by what I see as exploitation in general, I openly called him a douchebag…
but I dont have the strength or will to call anyone here a douchebag or an idiot for not being offended by it.
Its not black and white, its not so simple. I mean when I think about it right now… if Kuenne had made a fictional fake documentary that was BASED on what he went through here, I’d probably have no problem with it on any ethical grounds.
Two last points
1) I would not tell anyone to avoid this movie – too many people are getting something positive out of it to act as if my view is some absolute truth
2) Despite my troubles sitting through it, I dont (at least for now) regret watching it whatsoever. For all I know this thread may go further off the rails, I hope not, but it did make me re-explore how I think about tragedy and the lines to cross, and even if I think the film is shit I can credit that in the long run it made me think more than a lot of movies that I actually do like.
******Dear Zachary spoilers**********************
******Dear Zachary spoilers**********************
******Dear Zachary spoilers**********************
******Dear Zachary spoilers**********************
““You know what Goon, when your son is murdered, and his grandson is taken by the murderer, and then murdered too, and the justice system turns a blind eye, I would love to see what kind of film you would make”
What a fucking horrible thing to say to someone. That’s what I meant by toxic.
has anyone ever broken the comment box before?
than I accept you have your reasons for prejudging what Kurt does with his film but I see no indication in the film or have I heard any indication from any of family involved that they are anything but supportive of this film. I say again you blow the Shirley and judge anger out of proportion, it is 20% if that of the entire run of the film, its like a eulogy where the person breaks off script and gets angry about what has happened… I would not in the least judge them for that emotion in this situation.
“If he had commented about how his own story for Andrew Bagby went off the rails, if he was more honest about how the focus of his film shifted, maybe it would have alleviated a lot of this garbage, but he didn’t”
What part of RECONSTRUCTION are you not understanding? or are you saying the director made-up the scenario where he was making a film about his dead friend’s life before the death of Zachary and all the scenes with Kurt and Zachary were taken out of context? If that is the case, the problem is with you not the film, because you are reading into things and unless you have evidence to contrary, it has no substantiation in the film.
1) Kurt films footage for a eulogy of his best friend
2) he travels to England and then to Newfoundland and film himself with Zachary
3) as he is visiting other relatives Zachary dies
that is the sequence he is RECONSTRUCTING. how is it false to not tell you how the story goes beforehand? its not a gimmick, its exactly in the sequence he experienced it.
“And Kuenne wraps up true respect and love for Andrew in sarcasm, smarm and shitty editing. Good job.”
I will accept you have thought about this, you have written more about it then most but this ‘smarm’ I just do not see it, the film ends with such love, he keeps repeating the line “play it again” as they are hugging, and when you see baby Zachary, he breaks into stills and silence, there is a reverence (and you can say it is sanctifying one and demonising another but it is very easy to judge not being the person in that position)… and the position is being the parents, more so than Kurt, and he then turns the show over to them in the last part (very smarmy isn’t it?). The father calls Shirley the devil, and I ask you to put yourself in her shoes before you judge him.
as for the defense lawyer being ridiculed, it was a very fast way of expressing the frustration of a family that is not having closure over the death of their son, over a process without end and without reason, that is again an expression of the grieving experience, the reconstruction you refuse to accept anyone being entitled to. since when does grieving have to be mature and sober? How would it make sense narratively to cut out all of the emotion around the trial and just say this happened, and then this happened, and then this happened? you might as well say you want Benjamin Button to be gritty realism, its the same unprovoked expectation… from shot one Kurt announces this is a personal evocation of his and Andrew’s family’s grieving. There is a moment in the film where Kurt is reading a police report of Andrew’s death and he breaks up in narration. You would have it that it is staged, but I see it as genuine, I don’t see how one can even conceive otherwise.
as for apologizing for Shirley, you can sit outside of this, not being directly involved, but how dare you judge how wrong it is for Andrew’s parents to demonize her? morality is lived in, you want to talk ethics go ahead, but when you are in that exact situation, you tell me if they overreacted. That to me is the most egregious thing you have said here, its this sense that you think you know what they should feel, that what they feel is wrong, that it shouldn’t be staged the way they feel because that is also wrong. bullshit. you don;t need to like them, although I cannot possibly see what in this film you could dislike them for, but this notion that they overreact and the film is one big overreaction… Christ couldn’t get away with that kind of patronizing, even the priest in the film when asked about forgiveness, puts his hands up in the air and admits its not his place to judge… a priest! but you do judge them, Goon.
I accept you not liking the way its shot and edited, and not liking the characters for whatever personal reasons you have, but to judge them for their decision to not forgive, to judge the film for reconstructing that animosity (20% if that), is astounding to me. You clearly are someone who feels things, who has empathy and thinks ethically but this is something I cannot fathom. Its the equivalent of condoning the death penalty because an outside party thinks they know what a person should or should not feel in the grieving process and how that grieving should be actualized.
I suppose the family of the victims of Paul Bernardo have no right to demonize Bernardo in their thoughts or speak ill of him on camera?
to keep with my Christ complex on the Lost thread:
He who is free of sin shall cast the first stone.
and
first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast out the mote out of your brother’s eye
um, Dave, the situation I posed for Goon is from the film and the people he is calling ingenuine… the exact situation… is it wrong to have Goon confront directly the very situation he waves off as being an overreaction?
damn you, I was about to watch Rogen on SNL. Just when I thought i was out, you bring me back in. Listen, I’m only going to cover certain things, because I’d be readdressing some of the same arguemtns I thought I hit already, and I’m not sure you touched on the hypothetical I want you to think about.
“I suppose the family of the victims of Paul Bernardo have no right to demonize Bernardo in their thoughts or speak ill of him on camera?”
There is a difference between a public comment what Kuenne has done – Kuenne has structured a story, specifically designed to manipulate a viewer through a particular experience, even intentionally deceiving them for additional impact, with ostentatious editing. When you assemble this collection of speakers, when you make those edits as a documentarian like this, you’re not just letting people speak on their own behalf anymore – thats the thing about documentaries, you cant hide the personal biases, every cut is a new distortion.
…and thats fine, we’ve had this discussion a zillion times on varoius sites about what makes a documentary, what is the line to cross… but something like this, with each cut you are speaking more and more on behalf of other people in your family, your friends, you are using a dead person and a dead child to… well..
if you die tragically, do you want to become famous for it? do you want to be more famous for how you died than for how you lived? because sorry, even with however much Andrew is lionized, he and his child are more famous for being dead than alive, they are famous and known because Kurt needed to express his anger. and to me thats low, tabloid level exploitation, no matter how many family members are misguided enough to sign off on it.
I remember a couple weeks ago how annoyed I was with the Natasha Richardson post-death hype. It may have been crass, but its rooted in some of these same ideas – she is now more famous for how she died than for her actual career, because the media had to soak everything out of it. That’s pretty fucking sad, man, thats heartbreaking. She’s going to end up replacing Sonny Bono in certain tasteless jokes, that’s her new legacy. That’s what’s going to happen. Even if you want to point out any positives of the coverage, like changes in helmet laws or awareness of some of her films, the balance is severely offset.
“the film ends with such love, he keeps repeating the line “play it again” as they are hugging”
See, sorry, but thats a guy in an editing booth putting together something in order to look touching. Think some ‘play it again’ thing just came off the cuff? Its calculated, just like the flashes of red and the flapping mouths. Specific decisions. I think you are caught up in that experience of the moment whereas I see the planned experience he’s trying to deliver, and in that planning I see his use of editing stripping away the real anger and earnest love he has, cheapening it, and thus acheiving the inverse effect. Its like how when Creed plan so hard to be manly that they just look gay. It’s a lie, its a fraud, thats why I cry bullshit at his faux-dediciation, this eulogy that is actually in large part, an elegy, and like the girl at my friends wake, putting the expression of his experience at a higher value than the dignity of a dead man and his child.
It really seems sometimes that a lot of people feel that in the face of tragedy, the best way to preserve someone’s memory is to make that person as famous as possible, to make something out of their death, that it will bring meaning or closure or something like that. Even if good work can spring from tragedy, I find something very (unintentionally perhaps) demeaning and wrong about that. I’d be embarrased to unwittingly be the face of some random cause.
Goon’s post didn’t look that long to me. Some of my comments have been huge. And over in the LOST thread things have turned epic. We could probably edit it into book.
But I did a word count; Goon’s post is 2300 words, about 9 pages. To put it in perspective; Rot’s back to back posts only add up to 1200 words.
I can’t find one in the LOST thread that breaks 1000.
Congradulations Goon.
You should probably get help.
The background broke at about 2000 words.
Is that number with or without the huge chunks of quotes from other people?
I wanted to comment, but I have absolutely no interest reading through this. I might be restating things that have been said or cleared up.
While skimming, I saw was RECONSTRUCTION in bold…If Dear Zachary is a manipulative lie because of its construction, then maybe The Staircase should’ve started with the verdict just as to not give the impression that the filmmakers are deceiving the audience in any way. Or maybe The Thin Blue Line should’ve started with the taped confession Morris so deviously held on to till the end of the film. In short…it may be non-fiction, but it’s still filmmaking. It’s unfortunate whenever I see someone slap a documentary filmmaker back in line for attempting to actually create a cinematic experience.
Exploitation is a funny thing. I sincerely think the term gets thrown around way too easily and too often (especially in regards to documentary filmmaking). The main problem I have with this is in many cases the people calling ‘EXPLOITATION!’ seem to be undermining the intelligence/opinions/ethics of the people they’re representing. Goon, you’re going to speak on behalf of Andrew Bagby, his entire family and all of his friends involved in this film by saying it was simply an opportunistic attempt at exploiting this horrible situation? Well we might as well never film and distribute ANY film that deals with any sort of horrible situation.
I might be wrong, but it seems as though this all stems from the fact that Dear Zachary is presented in a non-traditional way, and you don’t handle real life stories of pain and suffering in a non-traditional way. I just have to strongly disagree.
Jay, since you skimmed you did miss my addressing of this. It’s not a black and white issue, and Kuenne’s direct line to the family and direct involvement plays a part in me trying to suss things out.
I picture a tragedy happening and an outside person coming in saying they want to make a movie about it. If I somehow end up having a problem with that, its much different than if that documentarian was close to the family – that just adds a whole other level of drama and mess, and makes every thing we talk about documentaries obscuring seem umpteen times more questionable and wrong when they themselves are making these cuts and edits for the sake of entertainment. If you recall the short in This American Life about how making videocameras out of boxes removed oneself out of the reality of the situation, well in this case I see Kuennes editing style and narrative choices cheapening and devaluing his own words.
Look, you dont need to mention Staircase or Errol Morris or Capturing the Friedmans to me, I know those movies, I love them, and I’ve already mentioned how they are easier to swallow with a layer of outside disconnection from the director. Look at CTF specifically, he cushions the creepy voyeurism of the home movies with his own material and observations that he himself filmed, and the way he even came upon that story further insulates him from calls of exploitation. Dear Zachary by comparison is nothing but those home movies, which for me is almost too far already, but then he goes and scribbles all over them with his calculated drama, which makes it even worse for me.
I picture Kuenne taking his home movies and handing them over to another director to sew together and narrate, and I think you immediate have a much better film, even if it is a less personal one.
“you’re going to speak on behalf of Andrew Bagby”
No. Andrew Bagby never had a choice, and thats just one part of the problem.
Look, list off any other crime movie, like Murder on a Sunday Morning for example. Great movie, it has a specific point to make and it makes it, and it does indeed make certain people look stupid, even the husband of the deceased. Look at Paradise Lost, IMO maybe among the best documenaries of all time, or Brothers Keeper, which deals with people probably not smart enough to figure out the reality of what they’re agreeing to or letting in. We could call those exploitative I suppose, but each of those, and especially the Staircase, besides that first person disconnection and cushion, are also giving us something greater, a deeper understanding of the system that failed, and a full gamut of the grief and family drama that comes out of it.
DZ has elements of fighting the system, but its really all incidental to just telling a story of what happened, there’s little exploration or anything to be learned beyond this woman = evil, this guy = angel, and that they are very much in pain. I dont need this movie to tell me that victims go through hell, and I’m not sure why anyone else does either.
The other family in the Staircase could have made a movie like this and if the verdict had gone the way it SHOULD HAVE, based on actual rights and the actual process of law, that family probably could have made their own movie about how broken the system is and complained and made Peterson out to be the devil, and the children who supported him out to be witches.. And that movie would NOT be the flipside of the Staircase, the Staircase gives you enough time to judge Peterson for yourself, his demeanor, his own explanations, and even with the directors own agenda theres simply way too much time spent within that family with long takes, uncut, to deny the humanity there. With Kuenne’s editing style, who knows what sort of grief we’re missing. That first person connection is filtering everyone elses words down into Kuennes deification of the dead, which you normally get from documentaries however 2 second sound clip assemblage collage ‘hip hop editing’ is taking that to an extreme that I detested. “Almost honest” is not honest, and the Staircase may as well be the opposite of Dear Zachary.
“dont need this movie to tell me that victims go through hell, and I’m not sure why anyone else does either.”
I’m actually going to retract this line, with an asterisk.
More specifically, I have meant to say that the films main focus is on recreating that grief, but I don’t think you can successfully do that through 2 second overlapping soundbites and shaking the camera and turning the screen red like you were splicing a horror film. I just don’t relate to the experience of grief Kuenne is trying to present with this editing style, I was only annoyed by it and found it showy to a fault, and I just don’t understand how the editing style managed to convince anyone else, to become such a crucial part of the storytelling.
The only person who has addressed my funeral question is rot, and he did it before I even asked it (which i did not realize):
“maybe you could walk into a eulogy in a church or funeral parlor and take your schemata analysis and go to town on it, I see it as a priviliged place to emote, to indulge, and it can never be TOO indulgent, because it is a personal expression between intimates.”
Obviously as I eventually wrote, I strongly disagree. While the saying is that the funeral is for the living, not the dead, theres a line of showiness and self-indulgence that should not be crossed, and that some things are not all about YOU. Kuenne doesn’t seem to get that. Dear Zachary is all about himself, and it doesnt matter to me that its a ‘cinematic experience’ – I don’t see it as slapping down a filmmaker for trying something new, I see it as getting the bloviating uncle off the pulpit, that I can forgive him and feel bad about judging the way he grieves, but that I just can’t keep allowing him to make a fool of himself, that he needs to remind himself its not just about his pain.
But that spectacle is private and a spontaneous moment expression of pain and grief. This is a film – its is crafted and calculated and put together and edited day after day after day. Kuenne had a zillion chances to rein himself in, but he still pushed forward and never realized at any point that his film is more about hismelf than it is about Andrew or his parents or the dead child he put in the title and used as a gimmicky narrative device to shock people 60 minutes into a film that does indeed still intend on being entertaining.
So seriously, when I spell things out like this I dont see how I’m crazy here.
(I’m breaking these up to avoid killing the bounding box again)
I read a Q&A with Kuenne to try and get a better understanding of what he was trying to accomplish, and to me he just seems even more blind to what he made:
“It actually kind of surprises me that people don’t immediately guess where the movie is going, because if Zachary was living I never would have released this project to the public. He would have had enough issues to sort out when he learned that his mother killed his father without his Uncle Kurt putting his private life all over the media.”
“In my personal opinion, our media gives far too much attention to killers and their thought processes. It makes me fairly ill that so many people can name killers by name, but no one knows the names of their victims. I had hoped that this film might begin to even up the score a bit, by being one of the first crime documentaries made from the point of view of the victim, where you came away remembering the life force that was taken, not the cloud that took it.”
Come on, seriously?
What about plastering Andrew’s private life all over the media? its okay if they’re dead? And David Bagby’s book is called “Dance with the Devil” – are they both blind to what they created? Even a lot of the most positive reviews first call the film ‘a document of evil’ before they even move on to Andrew’s bio.
Like I said before I forgot that grief and the expression of grief needs to be edited properly, needs to fulfill what some stranger in the audience thinks is necessary for decorum, needs to not be considered and arranged for narrative effect, because thats some transgression of how it SHOULD work… all these rules Goon, they are insane.
you keep speaking for the family and I say over and over again, show me evidence that the family was anything but supportive about the film. To speak for Andrew is a total cop-out, and that is why I equated it with people for capital punishment, assuming things on their behalf… just admit you do not know what the family wants.
as far as this being tabloid, this event was already national news, and legislation was changed to protect the world from another Zachary incident happening. The frustration directed towards Shirley and the legal system, like I said before, if you require purpose, actually served a positive advocacy force, getting other people angry about this kind of misstep of justice. but it doesn’t have to be about that either, because the family has every fucking right to be angry.
the difference with your pulpit analogy is like I keep saying too, 20% if that is spent with snide remarks about Shirley and the Legal system, so someone at the pulpit who is so loving about the deceased, about the parents of the deceased, about the family of the deceased, and retells their experience (god forbid anything personal is allowed in a pulpit speech) and then they break up emotionally in anger… how someone can judge a person for doing that, this is what I can’t fathom with you, Goon.
Something bad happened to my brother, and it was a delicate issue, but the way my dad told me what happened was not and here are the facts, x, y, z… no, he told me in story format, the events leading up to the event, as they occurred for him. how is that distasteful? How is it distasteful for someone grieving to reconstruct their grieving as a kind of memorial to the deceased? I suppose no one should write poems about their experiences either, or write songs, all of that is distasteful?
What I got from the film was a feeling of who Andrew was (tons and tons of footage of the guy speaking in his own words) and that Kurt cared very much for him, and that Kurt is part of his family and accepted as such. And as the story goes on he dedicates the film to Andrew’s parents… at what point is this spirit of Andrew looking down and saying Geez, thats distasteful… all those nice things said about me, and that effort to change legislation that killed my son, and all the support and strength it gave to my grieving parents to have a platform to speak, yeah really, you offend me.
so yeah I still say you are crazy Goon.
“all these rules Goon, they are insane.”
are they rules, or is just merely another element of personal taste? You’re not leaving any leeway for this sort of thing, but I think I am, which is why I’m not calling anyone a douche for liking it, and yet everyone is telling me that I’m insane for not wanting to sit through an hour and a half of this guy’s expression of anger and pain the way he presented it. And Dave feels like he’s being called a douche for not wanting to see it at all.
“you keep speaking for the family”
I have done absolutely no such thing, and have at most only said what I would do in the situation, and that this effects my view of Kurt Kuenne. It doesnt matter what percentage of the Bagby’s support it. Andrew doesnt get a choice. I picture msyelf in this sitaution and its like “Gee, thanks for making me more famous for being dead, and slapping the name of my dead child on your movie!”
“as far as this being tabloid, this event was already national news”
1. So what?
2. if it was so well known, and this was all about the killed and not the killer, scroll back to when I had only watched 30 minutes and how everyone insisted i wait for the big twist!
“if you require purpose, actually served a positive advocacy force,”
As i have bloviated, that is not the real focus of the film, it is incidental. Under all that editing there is an advocacy film somewhere, there is a eulogy film somewhere, but as it is it does not exist – its Kurt’s filter of grief and anger first and foremost, and the editing makes it absolutely clear that we everything is being filtered through his emotions.
and again – so what? See my Natasha Richardson thing – even if some good comes from that about helmet laws and safety, the end result is still exploitation of her death to sell papers, making her more famous dead than she ever was alive. And that was kind of disgusting, this is a person doing that to his own best friend. Andrew and Zachary never got a choice about being the face of this issue. The Friedmans had a choice, Peterson’s family had a choice, the West Memphis 3 had a choice, and those choices insulate so much of that supposed exploitation.
The title of this film is “Dear Zachary: a letter to a son about his father” – How much more clear does that have to be? That narrative choice, setting up that it was meant to only be a eulogy and letting it go off track, and then not even acknowleding it and even insisting it was about Andrew all along? I’m sorry, but again, this is all bullshit.
And I’m not sure you’ve even read my long winded diatribes, because some of these things you’ve been asking have already been addressed
this is where i repeat myself several times, in shorter form…
“Something bad happened to my brother, and it was a delicate issue, but the way my dad told me what happened was not and here are the facts, x, y, z… no, he told me in story format, the events leading up to the event, as they occurred for him. how is that distasteful?”
You are comparing a private necessary divulging of information to an expressionistic public film that aired on national television. And its all moot because the person Kurt said he was telling this story to – is dead. And that if the child had lived, he would have not even made this, and that – bam – he would have found it distasteful. So if your dad had told that story to you through a film, apparently Kurt Kuenne has an opinion about that! Uh-oh!
“How is it distasteful for someone grieving to reconstruct their grieving as a kind of memorial to the deceased?”
Again, IMO Kurt puts his own expression of grief, anger and pain at a higher value than what he claimed he was going to do – talk about Andrew for Zachary.
“I suppose no one should write poems about their experiences either, or write songs, all of that is distasteful?”
As I’ve said again and again and again, there is a line. Private expression is obviously just fine, but if you are going to be public about your grief, do so with care and caution, because its not just about you – you owe something to the deceased. Some people are going to cross it and still succeed, some people should not cross it because they are not going to successfully or tastefully handle the material – some people are just not up to the task, and I feel Kurt Kuenne is one of those people. He did not intend to disrespect Andrew but from my perspective his handling of the film was embarrassing and loathesome to watch.
In summary, as a general “Rule” if you want to use that word, or as a matter of taste, I think people should take extreme caution with their public grieving. Most people are not Eric Clapton, and most people are not going to create a “Tears in Heaven” even if they are really really really really sincere. Most people are just going to make something technically questionable that cheapen the memory of the person they are trying to canonize, and to me that is exactly what Kuenne has done with Dear Zachary.
If this film was only about Andrew with no gimmick and completely life affirming, but still used that editing, it would merely be annoying to watch for me. But Kuenne’s editing style is a stab at controlled chaos, with intentions beyond memorialization.
“I suppose no one should write poems about their experiences either, or write songs, all of that is distasteful?”
Tell me something, when you 9/11 memorial collectors plates and T-shirts with slogans, how do you feel?
What do you think when you see this?
http://www.storesonline.com/site/1430703/product/32420
Even if the money towards those shirts and collectors plates are going towards some relief fund…
do you think in each case that the person selling them or buying them is just expressing their grief, or do you at least sometimes think to yourself “Hold on, this is cheap. This is cheesy. This is poorly made – you should be ashamed of yourself”
Dear Zachary is that 9/11 collectors plate for me. So you want to say that I’m just trying to slap an artist for expressing himself, then I guess you justify every piece of shit cheesy memorial of anything. Look, you and I obviously differ on the actual quality of the filmmaking, but lets say you didnt and thought it was amateurish, overly cheesy, lets say it had a side diatribe about politics you dont agree with and flag waving and nuke Canada, things that perhaps may offend you personally.
You would still excuse all of these things? You wouldnt have a line where you think the person is a douchebag, and stop giving a crap about how sincere the feelings are?
Keeping this movie related in that vein:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1239427/
This doc is coming out soon, and apparently takes you in with the troops, gets to know them and their pain and frustrations, but from a lot of accounts will offend some peoples politics, does a lot of flag waving, and is even cheesy.
This film is obviously a sincere dedication to those troops, but if you want to point out it being cheesy, you’re opening yourself up to being called callous and unpatriotic, just as by criticizing this film I’m opening myself up to being called judgmental of grief and expression.
I can see exactly why that happens, but I also think that’s an unfair and simplistic way to look at things.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/brothers_at_war/
I want you to take a look at the reviews of this very personal film from one brother to his two brothers making huge sacrifices by being in the military.
I want you to picture the possibility of you thinking this film is as some critics are saying, a vanity project, too personal, myopic, a harangue…
Because I know enough of your politics… Kurt, rot… that you could very well feel this way if what some of the negative reviews are saying is true.
I want you to picture yourself as the only person on a forum who dislikes a very personal dedication to the troops that the family are just fine with allowing happen, that inserts the director into the action. Maybe then you’ll get an idea of what its like for me arguing against the rest of you in regards to what bothers me about Kuenne’s editing and interjection.
could you go further off the rails, Goon… 9/11 memorial plates…
I indulged a personal example because you indulged a personal example, but fine let’s scrap all personal examples and furthermore let’s scrap anybody not directly involved in the death of Andrew and Zachary. Kurt and the parents are not like people hawking memorial plates, unless you are the widow of 9/11 victim, or unless you are the best friend of someone who was murdered, you have no right, not even about taste, to say what constitutes proper grieving. it is 100% self-serving bullshit, because you are not in that emotional state, you are not living every night with the nightmares of what happened, you are not scarred, you are not contemplating suicide, you are not struggling with the faithlessness, the lack of logic, the unending pain of that sort of existence.
YOU ARE NOT THEM. you want to say they have no entitlement to transgressing some arbitrary state of decorum, and I find that probably the most reprehensible thing you have said on this site (and you championed Iron Man lest we forget). You make this arbitrary division that if something is public suddenly all bets are off and YOU CANNOT GRIEVE THE SAME WAY, even though the nightmares have not ended, the suicidal tendencies have not stopped, the faithlessness continues, nothing has changed inwardly, but there is this social law that if you speak outside of your intimates about the events you need to use this sanitized language and sanitized expression because we are judging you.
shame on us for judging them, for thinking we have any right to know what these people should or should not say. There are laws enforcing them from doing anything illegal, they can’t kill someone, they can’t unduly slander someone, but there is no law about decorum, nor should there be.
what kind of police state are you concocting, I thought freedom of expression was tolerated? They are well within their means of expression and it is not in the least vulgar or distasteful. for it to be distasteful it would have to be
1) insincere – which I certainly believe it is not
2) illegal – which I certainly believe it is not
They could cry into a camera for four hours and it would still not be distasteful, because I don’t have the right to judge what that sort of pain is like. and this I say again is why I keep asking for your saint credentials, because even the priest in the film, who lives off the issue of making people feel guilty, refuses to say they should forgive the killer. He has the commonsense to know its only when you are in that situation that you can understand where the line of decorum lies.
this is not Victorian ethics here, should you curtsey in public or not, where all people are entitled to this objective decorum standard – how much of a socialist are you? – grieving decorum is inwardly established. Not everything is for the good of the sovereign, or to satisfy social law.
that some things are privately owned like grieving, it doesn’t mean you have to do it in private… there is no decorum law about that nor should there be.
I find it fascinating though that your anger is directed towards the grieving, not a word towards the person that DID actually break the law, and committed two crimes that are about as low as you can go. You apologize for her because of how you think she is portrayed in this film. you apologize for her even though THE FACTS are she murdered two people, whatever decorum issues are on the one side, the person causing the flare up of emotion took lives. you act as if that doesn’t matter, that the killings don’t factor into this equation, and all that matters is how well the mourners conduct themselves in public.
This is why I say again and again put yourself in their shoes, really imagine having a son and grandson stolen from you, dig deep into these feelings of helplessness and hopelessness, and then tell me what they ought to do.
morality is lived-in, ethics is theoretical. and that is the distinction here.
You’re putting words in my mouth at this point, but lets backtrack a bit.
“To speak for Andrew is a total cop-out, and that is why I equated it with people for capital punishment, assuming things on their behalf… just admit you do not know what the family wants.”
You’re claiming I’m speaking for Andrew, and yet you’re completely fine with Kurt and his family going ahead and making this movie and using Andrew and Zachary like this, just take it as a given that its okay and thats what Andrew would have wanted.
Do your parents know what you would want? I’m close with my parents, but not so close as to trust them explicitly with what to do. Its clear from these rants I would not want to be made an issue out of, but I dont know what they’d do. I wouldnt want a church funeral, but they’d probably try to push for one and my girlfriend would be the one speaking for me, and my parents maybe would think they knew better.
Based only on what Kurt presented, theres enough mystery about Andrew and his relationship with Shirley for me to sit back and question whether its a good idea. For all we know he could have said “Whatever you do, dont push a camera in Shirleys face, dont tape her calls, she’s paranoid, she’ll do something stupid”
Thats sensationalistic, but seriously – we dont know! This was a young guy attracted to an older woman who most people say was beneath him – seriously, we dont know.
And I can still say that even if they are acting on his behalf, even if they have a direct line to him through the afterlife or a will and know his wishes, I personally find it sad that he’s made more famous dead than alive, and that his son is dragged into it too. I’m allowed to have a personal opinion – I watched it, they expressed their grief to me, and yes, they are charging people money to watch it (regardless of where the money goes), so claiming they have some “private ownership” sanctity where if I dont like it – a negative comment is silenced, is a load of horseshit, rot.
“you want to say they have no entitlement to transgressing some arbitrary state of decorum,”
Strawman, I am absolutely not. I am declaring my opinion that there is a line of decorum that generally I do not like seeing crossed, and that their entitlement does not come without some entitlement to the deceased as well. This movie sure as fuck taught me I should draw up a will.
You’re ranting about freedom of speech and a police state but saying “I dont have the right” this, “I dont have the right” that. Get your act together, and I will remember this if you see Brothers at War.
“shame on us for judging them, for thinking we have any right to know what these people should or should not say.”
You’re wagging a finger at me for wagging a finger at Kuenne for wagging a finger at everyone he feels like wagging a finger at on behalf of people who have no say, explicitly using their name to make them a poster boy for the issue, giving them the right to decide what Andrew would have wanted.
“They could cry into a camera for four hours and it would still not be distasteful, because I don’t have the right to judge what that sort of pain is like”
If in the middle of grief you record a 4 hour tape of yourself crying, and stick it on youtube, I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO LAUGH MY ASS OF AT YOU FOR THINKING IT WAS A GOOD IDEA.
“I find it fascinating though that your anger is directed towards the grieving, not a word towards the person that DID actually break the law, and committed two crimes that are about as low as you can go.”
You know who you sound like here? Like the guy who says “Stop blaming America first and start blaming the terrorists!” whenever you criticize how the war is being fought.
Shirley deserves to be hated on to the nth degree as far as I know, but just because she deserves it (as far as I know, unlike Kuenne in his Q&A who just calls her a lying manipulator, I reserve the right to acknowledge the possibility she was as sick person who never got help. I reserve the right to abstain from calling her ‘evil’).
“again and again put yourself in their shoes”
Again and again – I have
Again and again – I have and I put myself in Andrews shoes as well, and in both cases I would wish this film not be made.
I even put myself in the shoes of Shirley’s family who probably will continue to love their daughter despite what she did. This is where the Staircase comes in yet again – most people who watched that trial via Nancy Grace on CNN think he was guilty and that the Staircase is an abomination and an apologetic for a cold blooded murderer. It may seem completely cut and dried from what Kurt has presented, but I know theres more to the story than this, how a judge could fuck up so bad. Its not an apology for anything, its just knowing that his grief is obscuring the facts. The facts arent necessary from an op-ed documentary per se, but you cant expect me to cry and wail and take everything at face value either.
I dont hate Shirley. I know Shirley about as well through this documentary as I know the guy who decapitated that dude on the bus through articles I’ve read, which is to say, probably not enough. Its hard to hate someone through such a filter. And she’s dead, so theres nothing to hate anymore but the consequences of her actions. Do you hate Hitler? I don’t hate Hitler, Hitler is dead. Hating him speficially is a waste of time. I hate that Hitler’s words and acts continue to inspire awful things throughout the world.
I hate what she did, I hate what she left for others to have to deal with, and I hate this documentary.
In that order. Okay?
If only these thoughts could actually be edited down and expressed in manageable comments; I would take part in this conversation.
Jay, there is no way for me to edit these things down, and if rot addressed each of my points the way I’m trying to address all of his, his posts would be just as long as mine if not longer.
In other words, I’m sorry I cant Twitter a complex conversation.
That’s fine. I’m not slamming you guys for your back and forth comments. I just don’t want to read all of it. If I didn’t know you, based on these comments I would say you are obsessed and insane. But I know you.
Either way, all I’ll say is 1. You’re not just speaking for Andrew, you’re speaking for his family, who in turn are now officially speaking for Andrew. Thus, you are speaking for Andrew. Do you really think if he were alive today that he would take the side of a commenter from Ontario over his best friend and family? As you said, you don’t know any of these people. If you hated the film, you hated the film. I just think you’re being extremely presumptuous and a little self righteous in your comments on the intentions of the filmmaker, the wishes of the victim and his family, and the telling of this story.
2. If It’s okay for you to bring up stories of loss in order to argue a case in an online comments section, I think it should be fine for Kurt to bring up a story of loss to argue a case in his film.
And I can only imagine what this conversation would’ve looked like on Twitter.
BTW, Goon; I might write a piece on exploitation for The Documentary Blog in the near future…I might take some of your comments. To exploit you of course.
Jay fine, I just wanted to make sure we’re not being scolded for putting time into addressing each other. If these comments were shorter, I think they’d actually be more likely to be more flamey insulty bad time fun.
“Do you really think if he were alive today that he would take the side of a commenter from Ontario over his best friend and family?”
I dont get how any of you think I’m speaking for anyone other than what I’d want if I were in this situation. I’ve been asked again and again and given the same answer – and that would be to be left alone in peace and not have my name plastered everywhere as a poster boy, and for my dead son to be famous as a twist in my story. Whats this about Andrew taking ‘sides’?
“If you hated the film, you hated the film.”
if you saw RowThree’s Lost thread, you’d know something as simple as that, or “What happened, happened” – just doesnt fly around here. i started off more or less just hating the movie the way I hate anything else, and if I’m pushed to defend why and if I feel I can explain so, I’m going to indulge and explore how I feel on the topic.
“If It’s okay for you to bring up stories of loss in order to argue a case in an online comments section, I think it should be fine for Kurt to bring up a story of loss to argue a case in his film”
I wont reiterate the same point, but see what I initially wrote to you in regards to other films’ handling of ‘exploitative’ events. Number two, I’m totally, TOTALLY holding back on this comments section from what I could personally say and cite. Three, again its not just if you do it, its how you do it. And again, I’ve covered that
Segue if you knwo what I’m talking about:
I want to ask rot if making fun of the way some people greive in public is so unforgivable, if he finds this sketch from Mr. Show in bad taste:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1mzDR3onnI
So… also…
Is it wrong to think that Puff Daddy’s eulogy to Notorious B.I.G., “I’ll be missing you”, featuring his wife, Faith Evans, is a terrible song, and that sampling the Police song was cheesy and cheapened the sentiment into just another pop song?
I’m not allowed to judge such grieveances apparently…
“I might write a piece on exploitation for The Documentary Blog in the near future…I might take some of your comments. To exploit you of course.”
I just hope if you’re going to take the time to rebut some of my arguments, you’ll actually take the time to read all my posts first, I dont want to be a strawman, thanks.
Did Dear Zachary get a theatrical release in Canada? Did any of you see it in the theater.
“I would like to have seen the judge violently murdered onscreen”
I never noticed this comment until now. You want to explain to me the level of which you are exaggerating for effect, rot? I want to know to what extreme degree you let Kuenne pull you around by your nostrils.
People make stupid decisions every day that end up with disastrous consequences, and those decisions run the gamut from innocently naive to callous and uncaring. I dont find the judge any worse than someone who works at HMO, who essentially sentence people to death every day by getting out of contracts. But I couldnt go around every day wishing every bad decision maker dead, so I have to know what degree you take it to.
“I want to ask rot if making fun of the way some people greive in public is so unforgivable”
but that is not what you are defending Goon, you are saying, or at least have said and not taken back, that the problem is with Kurt and his family, that THEY are douchebags for how they behaved.
now if you just want this to be your private opinion, and not make a crusade out of it, then you wouldn’t have wrote half of this stuff, you clearly think there is a very real boundary of decorum that grieving can be distasteful (and we are not talking about illegal, I want to emphasize that point before you take this somewhere else).
I can have personal feelings about people grieving and say yeah get over it (in my head) but I would never feel justified or morally right for thinking I know what is the appropriate kind of grieving a person should indulge in.
the difference between you judging and Kurt judging is he is personally attached to the events, he has more cache than you…
its like a politician a million miles away telling a foot soldier what he should or should not do or feel for that matter in the war zone. He, like you, is full of theory and opinion, but its not bound to anything directly morally there. its platitudes. The soldier has a moral dilemma, the politician has an ethical dilemma.
you are imposing your sense of an ethical dilemma upon the people who are having moral dilemmas… and their moral dilemmas trump your issues of decorum big time. you can still have your opinion, but don’t expect there to be any value to them in the court of law or court of ethics, its your own peculiarities.
Andrew is dead, so stop using him as a straw man, he no longer has a say about how he is viewed, in fact, he never had a say, none of us do, with the exception of slander, we are all up for interpretation.
the division is between people who were directly affected and people who were not. the people directly affected have every right to emote and grieve and express themselves in any manner legally they want, and I can respond according to my own values, but the difference is Goon you are not saying “its just my opinion”, you are making a case that they are truly despicable, that is your own psychosis getting in the way, and you say there is some line in the sand that has been crossed you can point to and I am supposed to look at and also see it. there is no line, the line is in your head, where it belongs.
obviously I don’t condone murder, that was a rhetorical flourish about the judge, but way to sensationalize me tabloid style
The decision by the judge is inexcusable though, and legislation has shown that to be the case apparently.
the twitter crux of our argument is:
Goon says there is a transgression of decorum in the way Kurt made his film, that it is not just a matter of opinion but something I and most everyone else ought to see.
I say there is no transgression of decorum because Kurt is reconstructing his grief with the documentary and grief is out of bounds of social mores. because grief is particular to the individual that the person judging has no understanding of…
its the guy telling the drunk to get up and be upstanding already, disregarding his condition.
its callous and frankly dangerous. its what starts wars, this lack of empathy. You have this sliding scale of decorum, and once you assume it trumps the grieving individual its just a matter of where you arbitrarily set it, suddenly you are not allowed to make films emoting about your feelings for the deceased, the next person envisioning the same entitlement of determining what ought to be, he says no tears at all, tears are outlawed, you must be happy and go on with your life. who sets the scale? who is the great judge of grief?
“that the problem is with Kurt and his family, that THEY are douchebags for how they behaved”
I’ll try to keep it shorter, I really do feel like I’ve made this clear but apparently not:
I can empathize with the family much more than Kurt, because the family and friends just spoke in front of the camera, and Kurt as I said before, went through all this work and still came out like such a tool to me through his editing and ‘self expression’
“now if you just want this to be your private opinion, and not make a crusade out of it, then you wouldn’t have wrote half of this stuff, you clearly think there is a very real boundary of decorum that grieving can be distasteful”
Well one, I am capable of making an overlong post about everything, and in this case I am in the vast minority opinion, and am being hit with accusatory statement after accusatory statement, by defending myself its going to take up even more space.
But I’ve insisted umpteen times already about blah blah general rule, trying to cite other examples where other people also have mocked personal stories if they offended their tastes, but you continue to insist i have a much harder line in the sand, and it feels more and more like you’re doing this so you can throw strawman arguments at me.
My posts to me are simply “I feel this, I feel that” and yours to me are simply “YOu are saying this, you are saying that” and I dont feel you are getting my point whatsoever…
and if you’d address stuff like that fucking Puff Daddy song, or the Brothers at War story and how your own line would be – if any – you can open up about this stuff without telling personal horror stories, I’d feel like you’re more interested in an actual conversation about these issues, rather than how it is, merely scolding me for having severe taste issues with how Kurt expressed himself, how he edited this film, and what value he placed his own anger over other things.
We had conversations before over ‘what is art’ and at what point something becomes art, subjectiveness, things that cross over, where you draw lines, I’m trying to get this out of you and you simply want to insist I’m saying things that I am absolutely not.
“the twitter crux of our argument is:
Goon says there is a transgression of decorum in the way Kurt made his film, that it is not just a matter of opinion but something I and most everyone else ought to see.”
NO.
I.
AM.
FUCKING.
NOT.
Maybe I’d write less of these posts if you’d actually read one of them without your “I’m going to have to rebut this, so what can I pick and choose” filter.
I’ve clearly said several times now that I’m not picking on anyone for liking it, that I simply dont see how people could like it. I’ve even said I dont want to prevent anyone from seeing it because its made me think. You’re acting now like its a war and that if I succeed at continuing to hold this opinion, that its going to prevent anyone reading this thread from seeing it. Back off this, man.
When I say I dont understand how anyone could like it, that is exactly that – I don’t understand, and you’re not helping me, because you’re just pointing at fingers at me and telling me what I already know – I don’t understand.
Instead you’re taking me saying “I dont get how you could like it” nad making this into “He’s saying we should not like it!”
I’ve gone through a lot of posts here of you yelling at me for not getting it, but I’ve just about had enough, please try to engage me as much as I’ve put up with your finger wagging. I mean you wagged pretty hard at Gamble over the editing and he actually LIKED the movie, so please. Come on, dude.
to put it another way: we can all have our opinions however warped, racist, prejudiced they may be… but none of us should expect an ethical ‘ought’ to behavior according to these opinions.
there is no transgression in Kurt’s film, because there is no ‘ought’ to transgress on the issue of decorum with grief. In your warped universe Goon, you perceive a transgression but at least admit its just your opinion, it has no weight anywhere outside your cranium?
to put an even sharper point on this:
I think the grief-stricken individual has every right to kill himself and not even that transgresses some rule of decorum. I believe our lives are ours to take. Now I admit that breaks with legality, and the impact would be profound probably on other people, but I still believe it.
we both have had friends commit suicide Goon, so I say this as someone on the inside of this moral dilemma.
if it is just your opinion, then we would have been done seventy comments ago?
you don’t like the film, done.
you were trying to convince me that Kurt is a douche, how can you convince me of that if you are going to revert back to the ‘just my opinion man’ position? you got into it about situations where decorum is allowed, etc., well that is you stepping into a place where evidence matters, not just opinions, you got into a debate, not of taste, but of ideas.
everything is an opinion, but on top of that when someone starts trying to prove something, and you Goon were clearly trying to prove something, well proving hinges upon demonstrable facts, common ground to debate, working with concepts, etc. That is where it seemed pretty clear to me you felt entitled to the RIGHT position, not just A position.
I guess next time I will get a sworn affidavit from you first that what you are saying is more than an opinion, its an argument.
“I think the grief-stricken individual has every right to kill himself and not even that transgresses some rule of decorum. I believe our lives are ours to take.”
I believe the grief-stricken individual has every right to kill himself, but that it is still a transgression against the people who love that individual. I can easliy empathize with a suicidal person, but I sympathize with the angry, broken person who they leave behind more.
Not every person who kills themself is simply trying to end their own pain, I believe many are intentionally inflicting pain on the people who they leave behind. Trying to teach a lesson, trying to communicate something through their death. There’s a reason we pay so much attention to suicide notes.
“In your warped universe Goon, you perceive a transgression but at least admit its just your opinion, it has no weight anywhere outside your cranium?”
I say it is just my opinion, but I’d be a lot happier if more people had that opinion. Isn’t that pretty much the essence of opinion? As for ‘weight’, sure there’s weight, opinions effect other people, even if its simply being upset that someone they respect doesn’t share it. How is that warped?
I know what you’re getting at Goon, but I think your accusing Kurt of being a bad person rather than a bad filmmaker. It’s his sincerity that’s in question, and once you start questioning that…you start getting in to things like exploitation. Thus, speaking on behalf of the family. You’re obviously allowed to question all of this, but I wouldn’t be shocked when people start accusing you of speaking on behalf of people you don’t know.
Here’s a review I wrote for a documentary called Marshall University: Ashes to Glory:
http://www.thedocumentaryblog.com/index.php/2007/01/24/marshall-university-ashes-to-glory/
A tribute to the dead football team that, In my opinion, was horribly cheesy, boring and just poorly made. Of course I was called out for being insensitive for judging the technical merits of a film about a tragedy. THAT is bullshit. It’s a film. Editing, cinematography and direction is up for criticism. The fact that you didn’t like the editing In Dear Zachary is a fair statement. Lots of people agree with you. I don’t. The difference with my review is I didn’t go a on a tirade calling the filmmakers douche’s because they didn’t ‘properly’ eulogize the dead football team in my eyes. I DID say that they could’ve made a much better film that paid better tribute to the story, but I don’t think their aesthetic taste is any less sincere than mine. It’s just not how I would’ve shot it.
“you were trying to convince me that Kurt is a douche”
I was never trying to convince you specifically of anything. This is going to sound pretentious, but I generally don’t try and convince specific people if they already hold an opinion. most of the time you’re not going to convince someone of anything, such conversations are more or less an exercise of developing and examining your own opinion further, and discovering whether you actually believe in it.
It may be rude, but I really dont give a fuck if you like this movie or the issues it champions. I don’t dislike you, but in this argument I care more about what your love for it can teach me, and if you have anything that can change my mind. I dont care about having to dodge through your accusations. When you do that you’re just throwing up a roadblock to me trying to get what I want out of a long conversation like this – an understanding – why the hell Kurt’s editing decisions, why their acting on behalf of Andrew, etc – doesnt bother you, and if you can explore for me situations where something similar…
WOULD.
Which is why the 9/11 plates come up, why that war movie came up, why Puff Daddy came up. I’m trying to get something out of you, not to ‘win’ or change your mind.
“and you Goon were clearly trying to prove something”
Nope. But I’m starting to prove we may be on the same webpage, but we’re nowhere near the same page
“I think your accusing Kurt of being a bad person rather than a bad filmmaker”
Rewind up the thread when I had only seen part of the movie, and I was commenting on the filmmaker being a douche in his style of narration and that kind of editing. I thought he was a douchey filmmaker. But I was immediately getting browbeatings and of course I understand now, they had more context of this man and what he was going through.
So I’m partially backed into a corner when later I have more information, and out of the gate I’m calling this guy a douchebag. Since then I bluntly admitted I was wrong to question his sincerity, but continued to state that his editing style, the amount of editing and craft that goes into this, made me think things were so cold and calculated… so douchey.
But being sincere doesnt forgive a lot of these other issues, its not enough for me.
“you start getting in to things like exploitation. Thus, speaking on behalf of the family.”
Again – I am speaking on how I would feel in that situation, and I am speaking of exploitation as this definition – “selfish utilization” – and I still feel this way, and so much of it still goes back to that editing, that this is all about Kurt’s expression, and that he is selfishly using all these people to filter out his issues, that he goes gone to extents that I would not.
“Of course I was called out for being insensitive for judging the technical merits of a film about a tragedy. THAT is bullshit. It’s a film.”
But the problem I hope you’ll understand Jay, is the editing and direction of this film is so directly tied to the content and expression of grief itself, when you criticize one, you are criticizing the other as well. The editing in Dear Zachary is tied closer to the intent and experience of the film that just about any other movie I can name.
“I DID say that they could’ve made a much better film that paid better tribute to the story”
And a lot of people will look at that and say that you are still saying they paid poor tribute, and they will take that personally.
ok let’s say this then:
you clearly stated it was your opinion, but your opinion had in it an ‘ought’ clause (that Kurt ought to behave a certain way considering the circumstances)… it being an opinion doesn’t negate what your saying does it? for something to be an ‘ought’ it means a line is drawn in the sand and other people need to recognize it.
I think what happened is it started as just an opinion but then you overextended it in your zealous attempt to challenge my rebuttals and before you knew it you were in argument predicated on facts, and proofs.
“I think your accusing Kurt of being a bad person rather than a bad filmmaker. ”
I dont think Kurt is a bad person. I do think he is a bad filmmaker. I”ve tried to say multiple times its not black and white, that there are intentional things going on and that there are unintentional things going on, that there are moments that are Kurt getting out his frustrations that seem selfish compared to other elements where at worst he comes across as cheesy or unconvincing…
and even ‘unconvincing’ – you’re going to see that word and jsut read it as ‘insincere’ again. oh fuck, can there be any seperation between how someone really is vs. how they come across via their film techniques, choice of words, intonation, subtle things? This whole thing is a mess, and my more emphatic statements have clouded other ones, I do acknowedge I’ve played a part in misunderstanding…
but seriously, you dont have to take every negative word against the film and apply it in its most extreme tense towards Kurt as a person in general beyond this film.
Worst case scenario of what I think: I think that that Kurt Kuenne comes across like a douchebag when he’s venting, even if the circumstances justify it, and that he made decisions to involve the family that I would not have made – even if the family dont mind – and would not want to have made on my behalf – even if Andrew wouldn’t have minded either. Furthermore, he has made statements discussing the movie that seem contrary to what is on screen. Is that Twitter enough? Still too long?
If you’ve never met a person who can come across like a douche even when they are justified, you havent met enough people
its like Kurt is painting his pain and you look at it and say “thats not how your pain looks, and those aren’t the techniques to make that pain look right”
that is my problem with your critiques, maybe it isn’t the best craftwise (but I disagree), but its intent cannot be really in dispute, unless you have handwritten letters by Kurt saying I made it for the cash, booya! It is what it should be, crafted according to his personal feelings on the topic, expressing himself.
I can stand back and say I don’t like it as a film, but I cannot intelligibly stand back and say he made the wrong film, or took wrong liberties with expressing his grief. there is no wrong in this narrative, anymore than a poem you write and value can be said to be wrong.
“you clearly stated it was your opinion, but your opinion had in it an ‘ought’ clause”
“or something to be an ‘ought’ it means a line is drawn in the sand and other people need to recognize it.”
1. Used to indicate obligation or duty: You ought to work harder than that.
2. Used to indicate advisability or prudence
I’m operating on plane number 2 here man, there was no militaristic line in the sand. Wasn’t using the word any different from ‘should’, ‘as a general rule’, its interchangeable, theres a strong opinion but theres room to be challenged….
so instead of parsing the meaning of the word ‘ought’, maybe instead pay attention to where I explicitly stated:
“I open the door to having my supposed hard set belief in this crossed line being challenged.”
So therefore…
“ou overextended it in your zealous attempt to challenge my rebuttals and before you knew it you were in argument predicated on facts”
No.
“its like Kurt is painting his pain and you look at it and say “thats not how your pain looks, and those aren’t the techniques to make that pain look right”
Do you like every expressionistic painting you see?
Ugh, still pointing fingers are we…
By this analogy – I simply said its an ugly painting and that through X X and X I dont see pain I can relate to, and that if it truly is the most accurate depiction of his pain he can show me, its not a painting I care to look at again.
now what i dont get is why you would say before that this was a eulogy for a friend – and now its a painting of his pain. You were upset at me saying Kurt put his own feeling as priority over everything else, and now you’re framing this in a device where its kurts own feelings as a priority over everything else.
“I cannot intelligibly stand back and say he made the wrong film”
I’m not sure I’m really saying this either. I’ve said I would possibly like a different film of this material better. And if you go by my angriest words I’ve said he made A WRONG film, not THE WRONG film
“you were trying to convince me that Kurt is a douche”
That was simply a bad choice of words. You weren’t trying to convince ME, you’d convinced yourself. You hadn’t even finished the film and you’d convinced yourself. Why? Because you automatically started comparing it to how you would’ve handled it and things that have happened to you. Relevant to you…not to me. Don’t care. (In the context of collective discussion of this film)
“It may be rude, but I really dont give a fuck if you like this movie or the issues it champions. I don’t dislike you, but in this argument I care more about what your love for it can teach me, and if you have anything that can change my mind.”
Very confusing. You don’t give a fuck what I or others think about the film or the issue, but you want people to try and change your mind?
And not to sound douchey back, but I don’t care about changing your mind about this movie either. This is exactly why I didn’t bother to read through your longwinded comments and respond to every single point. I really don’t care. Whenever I chime in with comments, it’s on behalf of the film and my opinion of it, not to change your mind.
“But the problem I hope you’ll understand Jay, is the editing and direction of this film is so directly tied to the content and expression of grief itself, when you criticize one, you are criticizing the other as well.”
If the editing is SO DIRECTLY tied to the content and expression of grief itself…doesn’t that mean it was a success? Even if you disagree with how Kurt grieved, it was still relayed to you in such a distinct manner that you feel you have him all figured out. You’re spending less time saying ‘I wouldn’t have edited the film like that’ and more time saying ‘I wouldn’t have grieved like that’. I have rarely seen a documentary that so viscerally captures the total mind-fuck that must have slowly hammered both Kurt and Andrew’ family. It’s like a fever dream. Fuck Kurt’s point of view…just look at the extreme moments of unabashed hatred coming from Andrew’s parents. This reminds me of Paradise Lost when Mark Byers wife says that if she ever saw Damien Echols again, she would eat the skin off of his face. These situations have such a powerful effect on people that you get a house mom talking about eating the skin off of somebody’s face. People grieve in many different ways.
You don’t like the editing and therefore you think Kurt grieves like a douche…because the editing is so distinctly connected to and so effectively represents the grieving process.
Done. Those who don’t grieve as you do are douches. Yes?
“but seriously, you dont have to take every negative word against the film and apply it in its most extreme tense towards Kurt as a person in general beyond this film.”
Isn’t that what you’ve been doing through most of this discussion?
“Either way I can only end up going with my gut that tells me that this is an awful movie and I hate the person who made it.”
“You hadn’t even finished the film and you’d convinced yourself. Why?”
I didn’t expect that narration or style to change, and it doesnt, if anything it becomes even more ingrained. The story changes, Kurt doesn’t, but the story changing changes how I see Kurt to at least some degree.
“Very confusing. You don’t give a fuck what I or others think about the film or the issue, but you want people to try and change your mind?”
I should have simply said that I don’t care if I convince you or anyone else. But even if I say that it sounds like I’m not trying. And if I saw that I am trying, it comes full circle and sounds like I’m trying to convince you. It is very confusing indeed. I’m excercising my own points, I am indeed trying to argue effectively, but its all the journey, not the destination.
“If the editing is SO DIRECTLY tied to the content and expression of grief itself…doesn’t that mean it was a success?”
That would be a better question to ask Gamble though, since he said he hated the editing but (on the podcast stated that he) loved the film, I hate the editing and that makes me hate the entire experience of the story.
But no – just because the editing is so directly tied to the story doesnt mean it effected me, doesnt mean it wasn’t annoying to watch, or a number of other things. To me its like saying that since Michael Bay is the perfect choice to direct Bad Boys 3, that Bad Boys 3 will be good.
“You don’t like the editing and therefore you think Kurt grieves like a douche…because the editing is so distinctly connected to and so effectively represents the grieving process.”
I’m sick and tired of everyone telling me exactly why I feel the way I do about the movie, taking any random line and jumping to conclusions with it. Look at this fucking thread, and how many times someone has dictated to me why I feel this way, and tell me where I ever said anything along the lines of “you only like this because you’re a sentimental sap who takes anyones assertions of grief at face value” or some other assumptious bullshit.
Even writing that line there and putting in quotes, I have to write this sentence right now to state that is just an example of a bad assertion and not my belief, and then I’ll get an asseration that it must be otherwise why would I choose that one, etc, etc. Quit the inquisition.
“Those who don’t grieve as you do are douches. Yes?”
Again, you’re making it black and white, when there are so many circumstances and elements, and proved EXACTLY WHY I cant Twitter this argument down into a paragraph like I atttempted.
I’ll ask it again though – you dont know anyone who comes across like a douche, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE JUSTIFIED? its as simple as that, transcending all other explanations, there will be some people who will completly rub you the wrong way, some of it which you can explain, some of it which you cannot, you’d have to overly examine everything involving tone, inflection, wording, everything.
And even though I already said that, I still get “So people who arent the same as you are douches?”
Good god.
“Either way I can only end up going with my gut that tells me that this is an awful movie and I hate the person who made it.”
Point taken, and I meant that about as much as rot wanted the judge to be murdered. It was an angry reaction to what I had just experienced, you took that from the post directly after I had finished watching it.
But I think to characterize that as my opinion of Kurt throughout this entire discussion since that is patently false. I’ve written a whole lot, so its not fair to say you wont read it, but throw back other selected words that have already been recanted or explained away.
I really wish we’d talk about that Puff Daddy song. I want to talk more about the lines between the technical craft and the motives behind it, how you can often not criticize one without the other. At this stage of the game I’m more interested in how editing fuels anger in a viewer, and frustrated to rehash the same points.
I keep trying to clarify everything so we can move on to a better conversation, but I suspect I’m not done with the assumptions and requests to repeat myself.
I may have to open up the floor myself – I want to know about movies where the editing drives you up the wall, frustrated to wanting to turn it off, or angry on a political or intellectual or moral level.
“I’m sick and tired of everyone telling me exactly why I feel the way I do about the movie, taking any random line and jumping to conclusions with it. Look at this fucking thread, and how many times someone has dictated to me why I feel this way, and tell me where I ever said anything along the lines of “you only like this because you’re a sentimental sap who takes anyones assertions of grief at face value” or some other assumptious bullshit.”
First off, I wasn’t assuming, I was attempting to summarize your stance. If that’s not your stance, then I don’t know what the hell you’ve been going on about. If it really is just a matter of you not liking the editing, then that’s one hell of a journey to come to that conclusion.
6000+ words later and you’re assuming that every single bit of writing you’ve done in this comments section has been clear and concise? You can’t throw out all of these comments and then chastise people for taking bits of them and attempting to interpret them. If you’re so tired of it, don’t comment!
“It was an angry reaction to what I had just experienced, you took that from the post directly after I had finished watching it.”
Jesus man. You spread out thousands of words of comments and you start criticizing people for quoting the wrong things at the wrong times? That’s what happens when you stop a movie 1/3 in and run to the computer rather then actually watching it.
Have you ever thought that maybe the reason you have to repeat yourself so much is because 1. Your comments aren’t consistent, 2. You keep shouting out grand hyperbolic statements that you then retract two comments later, 3. You get yourself worked up, comment from your gut, and then come back the next day and comment from your head after you’ve cooled down?
Don’t put all of the blame on the people trying to decipher what the hell it is you’re actually trying to say.
you meant ‘ought’ as in prudence… I love it
I mean I would think you were joking but you are dead serious.
so what you meant to say “it would be prudent for Kurt to have made a film that didn’t exploit the memory of his best friend and demonize the killer in the process”?
somehow I don’t see the word ‘prudent’ coming from you… if it was about prudence, then he really isn’t a douche, he is just misguided?
whatever.
“I want to talk more about the lines between the technical craft and the motives behind it, how you can often not criticize one without the other.”
Its an interesting question and we have been addressing it here but ok:
how do we discern motive if all you have is the artwork? If all you have is Dear Zachary, I don’t see how you could infer that he was being ingenuine with his feelings, even if he was not being prudent, sometimes allowing emotions to be sloppy, to be uncensored for the sake of craft is to be desired.
As Jay was saying, the motives can only be inferred as wanting to reconstruct his personal experiences, why else have heart beats sounds, and moments where information overload happens, and moments where there is just silence and stills, he is clearly trying to create a mental space where you are experience Andrew from Kurt’s perspective. Its intentional intrusion and some people have a distaste for that, so be it.
I will admit I didn’t like Tarnation that much, but I don’t think the guy who made it was a douche. Tarnation is Dear Zachary times 10 as far as how far can you force an artificial mental space on the audience.
but this issue with motives… thats a hang-up for you because you have it crystalized in your head what exactly Kurt is up to, and I don’t understand how you get to that motive from the film, AT ALL. If it was a matter of pointing to evidence than point away.
Motive is often this veiled spectre for your own bias, your own reading. Unless like in Dear Zacahary where he EXPLICITLY states what he wants to achieve in the film, and to the best of my perceptible abilities he did just that. no conspiracy, no ego run amok.
Thin Red Line, Terrence Malick, his motive is clearly to work you into a poetic fugue, where music, voice over ruminations and images float across and together set up this rumination about life. thats the motive I guess of the film, but to you its pretentious, and then maybe Malick’s ego is put into question, but isn’t really just that you didn’t hear the music properly? That the motive was genuine, and people like myself are connected to it and together art and audience become one in the experience, but you are left outside of it? and isn’t that the same thing with Dear Zachary?
you can tell us what it sounds like outside of the fugue, the clang of instruments, the choppy editing, the supposed ego indulgences, but you are describing something else altogether. and that was my point long ago with Gamble, if you come at this craft first, story second, than you pick things apart, but it was never intended that way, the craft is dictated by the emotions of the story, not a textbook of how documentary filmmaking should be.
You know what, I quit, I just see two more browbeating things asking me to repeat the same shit, with no attempt to work with me to make this constructuve. I quit. I’m sick of being told what I think by people who aren’t listening, admit they’re not reading, and then blame me when I have to repeat myself.
Thanks.
“I think that that Kurt Kuenne comes across like a douchebag when he’s venting, EVEN IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFY IT, and that he made decisions to involve the family that I would not have made – EVEN IF THE FAMILY DOESN’T MIND – and would not want to have made on my behalf – EVEN IF ANDREW WOULDN’T HAVE MINDED EITHER. ”
thats clear and concise. you have an opinion about how someone else should grieve, and express his grief, even if it goes against the circumstances pertaining to the individual. We don’t even need to get into the ethics territory of what ‘ought to be’…
I think holding that opinion based on your own psychosis, projecting yourself onto Kurt, is douchebag enough.
its still refusing to acknowledge the privileged space of grief (your claims of motives is predicated still on the fact that this is a person coming to terms with his grief through art).
Man, I wish I had seen Dear Zachary!
I (pure coincidence) started watching Thin Red Line tonight though. Stopped after 40 minutes. I felt that Malick was using a unique style to tell the same lame american war story. People playing music before going to war, talking about the life of all things while seeing their wives in flashbacks, old grizzled veterans putting young lieutenants in place harshly etc. etc.
Henrik, I am pretty sure you would hate Dear Zachary because from conversations we have had about other films you are strongly opposed to manipulative sentimentality.
just to be clear and concise, myself:
Whether Dear Zachary is a good film is up to personal taste, but what is not up to personal taste is whether it being indulgent makes it demonstrably a bad film. That argument (not just an opinion) holds no weight, because it neglects the intent of the film. One may as well accuse a black and white film of not having any colour, or like I said before, Benjamin Button for not being gritty realism enough… each film sets its own terms and to be critical of it in a public discourse you need to at least acknowledge that.
Kurt Kuenne never for a second wavered in his ambition of making a personal evocation of his grief and the grief felt by Andrew’s immediate family. He explicitly states it in the film and he follows through. He uses every filmmaking device in the book to reconstruct his grief, manipulates emotions, sentimentalizes, rages, goes through the whole experience, and the film works on its own terms. To nitpick the film for any other purpose than to describe your own personal taste (i.e. if one tries to argue that the film is wrong or flawed by its own terms) is in this case fairly absurd, because there is a privilege to grief, it is entitled to indulgence as part of its motive.
ok I am done with Dear Zachary.
The Thin Red Line… Henrik only you would say it is the same lame American story. First of all, this is the least American war film that happens to have Americans in it that I can think of. There is no Rah Rah America moments in it at all, its not about the importance of America winning a war. The whole film is about man vs. nature, or the beastly part of man vs the saintly. The war is a metaphor in the film for spiritual and existential conflicts.
Love that Henrik calls it a “lame american film” and Rot’s defense is “it’s not American”.
yeah well I thought it was obvious it wasn’t lame.
THE THIN RED LINE is a monster of a movie.
I only saw 40 minutes of it, told my friend what I have said here, and he says “You ain’t seen nothing yet. Later on Sean Penn saves someone and when somebody tells him he’s going to instate him for a medal, he says ‘IF YOU DO THAT, I’M GOING TO QUIT!!!”
My point was not that it was about america, my point was that it was stereotypically american. I have the same problem with Letters from Iwo Jima, it’s stereotypically american. It is a step above Saving Private Ryan I will give you that, but not enough for me to be interested.
The moment’s not played for patriotism thrills. It’s about Penn’s disdain for his commanding officer.
Anyways the movie’s based on James Jones’ experiences fighting in guadal cannal so to write it off as a hollywood contrivance is in poor taste. Show some respect.
take off your ‘everything is america’ glasses and maybe you will see that Thin Red Line strips away the patriotism, if anything its about individual men dealing with dying, and there is more Greek references then there are nods to Americana.
And I am pretty sure the pronounced spirituality of the film is not stereotypically American, stereotypical American would have been focus on race relations and emphatic focus on being American and the Christian faith… and instead its about mortality, people dying absurdly, and aspiring for some kind of unspecified solace.
if you are talking about how the characters behave is stereotypical, I still don’t see it. Even if they are giving off American vibes to you, what is American about how dumbfounded they are in the face of death, how they ache for purpose? thats universal.
No, the americanisms aren’t in american sensibilites, but in american devies, like grizzled veterans telling off young lieutenants “Stop whining, bitch!” and flashbacks of young, beautiful wives waiting for soldiers to come home.
so outside of America there are no grizzled veterans telling off young lieutenants nor young beautiful wives waiting for soldiers to come home?
dude you have Americitis, you need to get yourself checked out.
Not to mention the fact that the incident in question is a true event
I have no idea, but I know I have seen it countless times in bad american films. It is, no matter how you justify it, still a cliché, coming from american film tradition.
If I have Americitis, it is only because you send so many shitty movies to my theatres.