14 Comments


  1. Andrew James says:

    My bad. Jonathan GLAZER did the Dead Weather video; not Jonathan Demme. Which makes sense actually. I was just tired.

  2. Kurt Halfyard says:

    Glazer is one of my favourite new British directors. I wish he more prolific, but he is batting “one-thousand” with Sexy Beast and Birth, the latter of which is one of the best unheralded films of the aughties.

  3. David Brook says:

    He did a load of classic British music videos and ad’s back in the 90′s and early 00′s too. I love his Unkle ‘Rabbit in The Headlights’ video especially. You’ve probably already come across the ‘Work of Director’ DVD series, but if not check out the ‘Work of Director Jonathan Glazer’ DVD, it’s awesome: http://www.palmpictures.com/film/the-work-of-director-jonathan-glazer.php
    Skip to 1.47 for Glazer’s bit on the video.

  4. Emma says:

    Andrew, I was gonna call you on the Dead Weather Video, but glad you caught it. Props to Kurt for pointing out that NO, Carroll’s work is not just gibberish for a child’s whimsy. While I’m not sure if either Carroll or Burton meant to create a commentary on feminism, as Carroll was a Mathematician (Alice is imbued with mathematical symbolism) and priest, among other professions; but that’s the beauty of good art- it allows you to see what it might be for the creator and what can be for you as the viewer…”curiouser and curiouser” said Alice.

  5. Jandy Stone says:

    re: Oscars – I like Kurt’s POV on the what the Oscars should be, but I’d be very surprised if that kind of film history-centric show turned out as popular as we’d like it to be. Unfortunately. I guess the conceptual thing there is, do you see the Oscars as celebrating this year in film and the current spate of movies and stars (which is what they tend more and more to do each year), or celebrating the addition of a new year’s worth of films into the Academy’s 80-something-year canon of films. I like the second one, but I’m curious how many general moviegoers care? This year’s ceremony was a debacle no matter which view you take, though – it wasn’t about the films, the stars, or anything at all, really. And of course, even if you take the “Oscars should celebrate the whole history”, the Academy has always been an obviously US-centric affair, so you’d still only be celebrating the history of Hollywood.

    re: Alice – Just to clarify, I think the White Queen is better for Underland than the Red Queen – at least under her all the villages weren’t heaps of rubble and the kingdom wasn’t a wasteland. But as far as queens go, she was pretty damn weak and still had a disturbing cruel streak. It might’ve been interesting to follow through on a conflict that wasn’t really between good and evil, but between evil and lesser-evil, or evil and meh, but they really didn’t. It felt like we were supposed to root unequivocally for the White Queen, and I just couldn’t.

  6. Kurt Halfyard says:

    “the Academy has always been an obviously US-centric affair,”

    Well, it is the AMERICAN ACADEMY OF MOTION PICTURE ARTS AND SCIENCES” so American-Centric is fair game, they throw a few bones acknowledging foreign langague cinema, but really, it is indeed about HOLLYWOOD and AMERICA first. No issues with that.

    As Andrew is fond of saying, CANNES and the Palm D’Or is the better measure of world-quality (although admittedly, they are only judging the Palm on a few competition films….)

  7. Kurt Halfyard says:

    @Jandy, “follow through on a conflict that wasn’t really between good and evil, but between evil and lesser-evil,”

    Well said. Well Said. And that, is indicative of the ‘coming of age’ life thing that is going on with this new 10-years-older Alice. Evil and Lesser-Evil choices are pretty much the bulk of what we are left with in life! Yay, Cynicism!

  8. Kurt Halfyard says:

    Besides, Underland is really Alice working her shit out at a subconscious level – her dream if you will. It does not literally exist in Tim Burton’s film. My take on things, anyway.

  9. Jandy Stone says:

    Right, that’s why I said “obviously.” I don’t have a problem with it, either – there’s a whole lot to like in the history of Hollywood. Just pointing that with things like the horror montage, even if it were well-done, I wouldn’t have really expected it to include foreign horror (some critiques I heard were arguing that it should’ve had [rec] and Argento and stuff). I would’ve been pleased if it had included more than token nods to pre-1980s horror and given some real time to, say, Lon Chaney’s silents and Val Lewton’s 1940s films. They did have a few of the Universal monsters, I think, but only a couple of the really well-known ones.

  10. Jandy Stone says:

    Back on Alice, yeah, I’ll buy the subconscious thing (although that renders her “it’s not a dream, it’s a memory” revelation into nonsense), and I do think it’s interesting and plays into the growing-up themes that the White Queen isn’t a paragon of goodness, but I think if that was intentional, it should’ve been highlighted a little more. Not that things have to be intentional to be valid – I’ve had too much litcrit to think that. ;)

  11. Kurt Halfyard says:

    @Jandy, “Not that things have to be intentional to be valid ”

    Wheee! I’ve had that arguement with so many folks, I think we even get into it on the cinecast. Yes, sometimes an unintentional theme by the filmmakers is fantastic, and once the film is done and everyone has put it out into the wild, the creators yes, become just another viewer at that point.

  12. rot says:

    for once I am in entire agreement with Matt, the lone voice of reason on R3. The esteem for Alice in Wonderland here ranks, to me anyways, as the very highest WTF in these last couple of years.

  13. Mike Rot says:

    I really enjoyed Demme’s Neil Young Heart of Gold doc and that is just performance but it jumps off the screen.

Leave a comment