Cinecast Episode 287 – Respect the Cock (2012 in Review)

 
Of course one of our longer episodes of the year. This is the year that was 2012. Top Tens. Trends. Stars. Fuck yous. Themes. Box office. Mesmerized. Cinematography. So much to hash over. With surprisingly very little fighting this week, it seems it was a fairly good year in motion pictures. We hash it all out – and there is a lot to hash over. Including penis. Enjoy.

As always, please join the conversation by leaving your own thoughts in the comment section below and again, thanks for listening!


show


show

 


 

Here is the Music Player. You need to installl flash player to show this cool thing!


DOWNLOAD mp3 | 165 MB

 

You can find the VIDEO VERSION of the show at this following URL

 

To view/edit the full show notes, please visit the Wiki:

 

24 comments

  1. Walt Shipiro

    Indie Game: the Movie is the best doc of the year. Far over The Imposter any day. Good lists guys although I can’t get behind Compliance as much as everyone else. Didn’t think it presented the material in any interesting way especially once we cut to the culprit. Diggin the podcast and looking forward to 2013.

    • I aint even gonna bother with that idiot.

      • Just pointed out, to see the other side, because most people who dislike the film talked about the bad direction, but did not articulate why they thought it was bad direction, except this guy.

        I am starting to dislike his shtick of starting an article by saying he does not like writing confrontational pieces, and then he proceeds to write a more than thousand words, confrontational piece.

        • Ryan McNeil’s wife is an editor, and we had a long discussion about it at the last Toronto pub night. That’s about all I needed. I get her points as an editor. When i read the first paragraph and Hulk is saying “he doesnt know where to put a camera”, I stop reading, because I just plain disagree and don’t need to read further. Not because I want to shut debate out, but because it’s Hulk and its going to be extremely confrontational, and it’s going to be in all caps.

          Also I read another snarky and very patronizing anti-Les Miz piece the other day bout how there’s still time for us to repent for our sins as ignorant casual film goers so I’ve had about enough of that today.

          I know why I like the way Hooper uses his camera, and obviously he has been successful in getting positive emotional responses from a large percentage of the audience each time. I respond to it for the way it ties to the relationships between characters and its confrontation with the audience, whether its the tight shot/reverse shots in Damned United to tense up the two coaches, or whether its shoving pure emotion in your face for several minute stretches, I dig it. I don’t need someone to tell me how their film school said how composition x and lens variety y says he’s wrong.

          • I didn’t get a chance to talk about Les Mis on the show, but eventually it will come out of me. I really enjoyed the hell out of it though. Hooper’s camera direction style still does irk me at times though. I thought it was dreadful in King’s Speech. Here it isn’t as bad, but I can only take so much negative space in every single character shot. It gets distracting after a while.

            Oh – and YAY! to Hathaway for her Oscar nod.

          • I don’t know what to say other than that some people like negative space! Some painters use a lot of negative space, with a figure only in one corner or the other. Hooper uses it often but I don’t find it distracting because I like the shots.

            Just as I like Wes Anderson’s style, which other people pick on too as being distracting.

            I’m not even trying to make the case that Hooper has THE BEST SHOTS. I’m just trying to say that I like ‘em, and I say Let Hooper Be Hooper as I would say to the people wishing Anderson would change or evolve his style, Let Anderson Be Anderson.

          • Hooper does make “UGLY” movies. As much as I enjoyed The King’s Speech, aesthetically, I was made more than a little ill during my screening.

          • Oh God, didn’t mean to imply Les Mis is “ugly.” Quite the contrary; it’s really really beautiful – particularly the opening and closing sequences (also that hospital are is really cool looking). I just took issue with some weird frenetic editing problems and some of the decisions of where to aim the camera – the latter of which is mostly a personal aesthetic choice. I think I took the same issue with McQueen’s Shame. Otherwise I really really enjoed Les Mis. I think I have it somewhere close to #15 on my list for the year.

          • The only thing I will say is that while would take Hooper’s canted angles over the use of them in say, Thor, any day of the week – I still find them distracting. For Les Miz, I can at least say I would notice them only thankfully in scenes without any emotional importance that it could deflate.

          • I really liked Les Mis, but yeah, Hooper is the weakest part of the film.

          • OK, against my better instinct I read a bit more of the link. He says that Les Miz overuses close-ups.

            He’s an idiot.

            Les Miz is essentially save a few numbers, a series of monologues. Considering that there’s a song that takes place in a car, one just standing on an edge before death, one of a woman alone in the rain, another of a woman alone having a breakdown, what is Hooper supposed to do? use multiple angles, just because? or block out more movement and actions that are unnecessary or have nothing to do with the characters thoughts or situation? This isn’t Sweeney Todd where they can sweep up the pie shop or cut off some heads while they sing.

            And besides, Hooper has publicly been discussing the testing process, that some scenes were shot with multiple angles and then the reaction he got from showing longer unbroken takes, and ones close-up, was far more emotional and that people ended up far more connected with the characters. Hooper elected what works emotionally, and by the reaction Les Miz has been getting, it works LIKE GANGBUSTERS for a lot of people (better for a general audience than for critics), and doesn’t connect with others. I applaud Hooper for realizing he’s making an emotionally bombastic film and putting the emotional effect of his work as first priority.

  2. FYI The Ambassador is opening Friday at the Bloor Cinema. I plan on checking it out based on all the raving Kurt has been doing about it.

  3. Rick Vance

    I don’t see where the ScarJo is a positive character in Avengers is coming from, her ass gets more screen time than she has speaking parts I am pretty sure.

    To stay on the Whedon tick I recalled during your talks of Cabin in the Woods something else that irked me. It spends 2/3rds of the film making fun of tropes and then the instant they break through into the ‘other side’ the black guy in the control room is the first to die when the shit hits the fan, reaffirming the tropes they have spent an hour making fun of.

  4. I saw Zero Dark Thirty last night. It would NOT have been in my top ten.

  5. My distaste for Amour comes from a few different places:

    1) I think his aesthetic is… fine… but overrated. There’s only so much of it I can take. I’m frequently interested in his shots for a while and then get extremely tired of them, especially when they stay long, so when Amour is getting around to chasing pigeons I’ve tapped out.

    2) Principle. Seeing this the same day as Stories We Tell, which tells you that with age you can be renewed with new creative vigor, and then going to Amour, the ‘this is not why i go to the movies’ thing pops up. I can see bleak movies with the inevitability of death as a theme. In Amour it’s the main course and there’s no meat around it to chew on. Which brings me to

    3) These characters fucking suck. Haneke wastes so much time doing pretty much nothing, to the point that you can’t tell me five things about these characters. What makes them unique, something about their relationship that is worth taking a hold of and being invested in as they waste away. The relationship isn’t even subtle, its just not there. There’s nothing in their eyes, no sense of something falling away from them. At most they touched hands once, and LATE in the film. He may have kissed her forehead long after I gave up on Amour, I don’t recall now. The build of his arc to where he makes his decision is just not there because there was no gradual breakdown of him taking on this task. He’s pretty much muted and just seems old and apathetic rather than heartbroken or burdened. When you compare this to…. and I’m going back to Polley again… Away From Her, and try to tell me it has the same emotional effect, and I can only shake my head.

    Ultimately, I think Haneke is a nihilistic filmmaker whose attempts at humanism are like Pat Boone trying to make heavy metal covers. Haneke is no Polley, he’s no Egoyan. His attempts at warmth are shit, and there’s more true love between those characters in the shot/reverse shot poster than the whole movie.

  6. When you kept on saying Her Magisty’s Voice in reference to Her MASTER’S Voice, I thought for a second I made a typo (thankfully that was not the case).

    BTW, I saw the film at Hot Docs and I don’t think it surfaced since (I later saw it listed on The Movie Network, so I don’t think it received theatrical deistribution).

  7. The original Silent House is twice the film the US remake is, though I still didn’t rate it that highly. It builds a nice atmosphere but throws it away with a ridic ending.

    The remake is the usual blank-eyed remake and Elizabeth Olson deserves better.

    Best horror of the year is probably Excision.

  8. love the irony that in a 4+ hour podcast there is some time set aside to bitch about the extended length of movies in 2012.

    Also just watched Seven Psychopaths, that is such a lazy piece of shit. Plays like a rushed composition of half-baked ideas in a screenwriter’s notebook, just hamfisted together in the hopes of making anything of these ends that fit nowhere else – and meta that shit up so it is bulletproof.

    • Agreed on 7 Psychopaths, Rot. I certainly enjoyed watching the performers perform and throw out amusing dialogue or physical comedy, but the overall aspects of the story/theme/plot is pretty darn saggy.

      • also incredibly unfunny. Andrew mentioned the cemetery scene, that was it, the only time I laughed.

        • While it was in all the trailers, the ‘eye-for-an-eye’ conversation was really well done.

  9. Watched one of Gamble’s best films of the year, My Sister’s Sister. The first two acts I was loving the shit out of this movie, it was funny and touching and Duplass comes out of nowhere as this incredibly engaging onscreen presence, but, and a big but, the second the hijinks are over and it gets serious, ugh, it is a downward spiral. So, so disappointing, I almost agreed with Gamble. I would still give it a 3.5/5, and tell people to see it.

    It was the second Rosemarie Dewitt film I watched where something great dies in the third act (The Promised Land is solid for its first two, also).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


8 − = two

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>