The WHF Film Club

[expat_mike]

It rained quite a bit yesterday afternoon/evening, so we spent time watching a couple of videos, Iron Sky (a parody of several SF films) and LA Confidential. Two completely different films, but we enjoyed them both.

I thought Iron Sky was pretty funny. Also shows you can do pretty decent effects on a shoestring budget.

I agree - we all found Iron Sky very amusing - there were many in-jokes, and the film did not pander to PC.

The CGI was quite good as well - I was told that the film was made on a shoestring, which I assumed meant something like $250k, but I have since read that it was $7M. I know that it is not a lot compared to the budget of a blockbuster film - but maybe I have got used to thinking about the truly shoestring budgets of some of the art house films that our club has watched.

 

[richardw42]

I've just ordered a DVD copy of Agnosia. It sounds like something I'd enjoy.

Anybody seen it ?

£2.28 inc P&P

 

[BenLaw]

I've just ordered a DVD copy of Agnosia. It sounds like something I'd enjoy.

Anybody seen it ?

£2.28 inc P&P

Never heard of it and I'm afraid 5.5 on IMDB isn't tempting me at the moment!

 

[BenLaw]

It rained quite a bit yesterday afternoon/evening, so we spent time watching a couple of videos, Iron Sky (a parody of several SF films) and LA Confidential. Two completely different films, but we enjoyed them both.

I thought Iron Sky was pretty funny. Also shows you can do pretty decent effects on a shoestring budget.

I agree - we all found Iron Sky very amusing - there were many in-jokes, and the film did not pander to PC.

The CGI was quite good as well - I was told that the film was made on a shoestring, which I assumed meant something like $250k, but I have since read that it was $7M. I know that it is not a lot compared to the budget of a blockbuster film - but maybe I have got used to thinking about the truly shoestring budgets of some of the art house films that our club has watched.

Hmm, I wasn't aware it was that much, not really a shoestring as you say. Also an early film to have simultaneous cinema and DVD releases.

 

[BenLaw]

Out of interest, did anyone else see 12 Years a Slave? If so, I'd be intersted to hear what you thought.

The Best Picture win perhaps suggests Academy voters were swayed by the film's "worthy" topic. I walked into the screening with that preconception, but left with a very different view.

Clodagh's seen it and thought it was great. I'll get it soon on lovefilm. It's a slightly sad state, but one I probably share, that we are suspicious of or view negatively the film the Academy thinks is the best of the year!

 

[BenLaw]

Anyone seen Grand Budapest Hotel?

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Anyone seen Grand Budapest Hotel?

Has anyone seen High Anxiety?

 

[strapped for cash]

Anyone seen Grand Budapest Hotel?

I have a Wes Anderson aversion.

A few students, whose declared favourite films have been "anything directed by Wes Anderson," have questioned my taste and judgement.

 

[strapped for cash]

Clodagh's seen it and thought it was great. I'll get it soon on lovefilm. It's a slightly sad state, but one I probably share, that we are suspicious of or view negatively the film the Academy thinks is the best of the year!

Having seen 12 Years, I'm annoyed by some (if not all) of the critical commentary.

Some reviewers describe the film as brutal (it isn't) and about race (this is at best ostensibly true).

This seems a one-dimensional reading, as if the film's purpose is to induce white guilt. In this sense, the more brutal the violence, the more effective the film becomes. (The Passion of the Christ beats audiences into submission for evangelical purposes; 12 Years is more complex.)

There's only one scene that's notably violent, and the violence is largely conveyed through character reaction. The scene is hard to watch, but it's also integral to Northup's story, since it demonstrates how his moral sense is compromised in the interests of self-preservation, and to prevent even more unspeakable horrors. Without getting into spoiler territory, there's greater depth here than some reviews acknowledge.

The film doesn't really play to sentiment, either. There were moments when this would have been the easy choice, and I admired the filmmakers' restraint. In this regard, while the story contains further violence, we often only see its after-effects (as fresh wounds and scars).

I read a good piece (I forget where) that seeks to distinguish 12 Years from other films about slavery, since it isn't told from a white perspective, and therefore isn't about white characters' transformations and realisations.

I'd say watch it on Blu-ray rather than Lovefilm. I'd like to hear what you think. It'd be easier to discuss then, without fear of giving too much away.

 

[BenLaw]

Anyone seen Grand Budapest Hotel?

I have a Wes Anderson aversion.

A few students, whose declared favourite films have been "anything directed by Wes Anderson," have questioned my taste and judgement.

I rather thought you might. I have mixed feelings. He seems to tread a fine line between forced quirkiness and genuine affection for his characters, and I find he too often falls the wrong side of the line. However, I do enjoy Royal Tenenbaums and I especially like The Darjeeling Limited, which I find has a real sense of quiet, private anguish. I haven't seen Moonrise Kingdom yet.

 

[BenLaw]

Clodagh's seen it and thought it was great. I'll get it soon on lovefilm. It's a slightly sad state, but one I probably share, that we are suspicious of or view negatively the film the Academy thinks is the best of the year!

Having seen 12 Years, I'm annoyed by some (if not all) of the critical commentary.

Some reviewers describe the film as brutal (it isn't) and about race (this is at best ostensibly true).

This seems a one-dimensional reading, as if the film's purpose is to induce white guilt. In this sense, the more brutal the violence, the more effective the film becomes. (The Passion of the Christ beats audiences into submission for evangelical purposes; 12 Years is more complex.)

There's only one scene that's notably violent, and the violence is largely conveyed through character reaction. The scene is hard to watch, but it's also integral to Northup's story, since it demonstrates how his moral sense is compromised in the interests of self-preservation, and to prevent even more unspeakable horrors. Without getting into spoiler territory, there's greater depth here than some reviews acknowledge.

The film doesn't really play to sentiment, either. There were moments when this would have been the easy choice, and I admired the filmmakers' restraint. In this regard, while the story contains further violence, we often only see its after-effects (as fresh wounds and scars).

I read a good piece (I forget where) that seeks to distinguish 12 Years from other films about slavery, since it isn't told from a white perspective, and therefore isn't about white characters' transformations and realisations.

I'd say watch it on Blu-ray rather than Lovefilm. I'd like to hear what you think. It'd be easier to discuss then, without fear of giving too much away.

I gather you don't listen to Mark Kermode? Is that a positive choice to avoid him? He seems to have got right a lot of his analysis based on what you say. I haven't heard before the point about whose perspective the film is from, that's interesting. Not that I can think of many films I've seen on the subject, with the exception of Django Unchained, which is a Tarantino film set in the context of slavery, rather than a film about slavery by Tarantino.

Given what you say about the depiction of violence (which Kermode had also pointed out), how in your view does that compare to the depiction of violence in Snowtown?

 

[strapped for cash]

He seems to tread a fine line between forced quirkiness and genuine affection for his characters, and I find he too often falls the wrong side of the line. However, I do enjoy Royal Tenenbaums and I especially like The Darjeeling Limited, which I find has a real sense of quiet, private anguish. I haven't seen Moonrise Kingdom yet.

I'm not very interested in upper-middle class existential angst, probably because I'm not from an upper-middle class background.

I'm arguably not even from a middle class background, for what such distinctions are worth. I've certainly never been middle class in material terms.

I guess Wes Anderson's films are formally interesting and expressionistic (through extreme attention to symmetrical framing suggesting constrained character psychology), though as I say, I struggle to empathise with his characters' "plight."

I can cope with Bottle Rocket and Rushmore, and The Royal Tenenbaums to some extent. And I thought Moonrise Kingdom was one of Anderson's best films. At the same time, I wouldn't go out of my way to watch them again.

I don't intensely dislike Wes Anderson's films. I'm just not hugely engaged by their subject matter. His films are distinctive at least, though perhaps less so now Richard Ayoade has established his filmmaking career.

 

[strapped for cash]

I gather you don't listen to Mark Kermode? Is that a positive choice to avoid him?

I don't purposefully avoid Kermode, and I probably agree with his appraisals more often than not.

I was gifted Kermode's autobiography one Christmas, in which he made a point of declaring his belief in a non-interventionist God. He's typically excited by religious iconography (which is possibly why he regards The Exorcist as the greatest film of all time). I generally tune out when he gets religulous, which he seems fairly inclined to do.

He seems to have got right a lot of his analysis based on what you say.

I should acknowledge that my view is just opinion, rather than necessarily "right."

I'd be interested to hear Kermode's view on 12 Years' depiction of scripture as justification for slave ownership.

I haven't heard before the point about whose perspective the film is from, that's interesting. Not that I can think of many films I've seen on the subject, with the exception of Django Unchained, which is a Tarantino film set in the context of slavery, rather than a film about slavery by Tarantino.

One could argue that Django Unchained is about Christoph Waltz's journey toward an abolitionist perspective. If I remember rightly, the author of the piece I mentioned makes this point.

Given what you say about the depiction of violence (which Kermode had also pointed out), how in your view does that compare to the depiction of violence in Snowtown?

Well, both films show less violence than the audience thinks. From what I recall of Snowtown, the bathroom scene's violence is largely conveyed through sound, while the camera lingers on a hallway and occasionally on character reactions.

I'm still not sure what function Snowtown serves, aside from recounting a series of particularly upsetting events. Whether this has some kind of cathartic effect, or helps us better understand a character's sociopathic and manipulative behaviour, I don't know.

I'm hesitant to dismiss Snowtown as torture porn, though I find it hard to recommend, for the reasons above. Perhaps it's simply about a test of stamina, or a need to confront gruesome realities.

 

[BenLaw]

I'd never really associated them with class, perhaps because I think of class in UK terms rather than US, but I can see where you're coming from. Do you like (early) Woody Allen films?

Have you seen Darjeeling Limited?

I didn't make the connection between Submarine and Anderson, maybe I would if I watched it again with that in mind. From what I've heard, his latest is more an amalgamation of Brazil, 1984 and The Trial.

Edit: posts crossed.

 

[strapped for cash]

I'd never really associated them with class, perhaps because I think of class in UK terms rather than US, but I can see where you're coming from. Do you like (early) Woody Allen films?

I'm not too crazy about Woody Allen, either. That's fighting talk in cinephile circles.

Have you seen Darjeeling Limited?

I have. I wrote about Wes Anderson a few years back, among several other Indiewood filmmakers, so I watched all of his films quite a few times.

I'd argue that it's about childish upper-middle class characters with mummy issues, and enough money to focus unhealthily on such things. In fact, all of Anderson's films are coming of age tales, though often his characters should have grown up long before we encounter them.

I didn't make the connection between Submarine and Anderson, maybe I would if I watched it again with that in mind. From what I've heard, his latest is more an amalgamation of Brazil, 1984 and The Trial.

As above, with regard to the whole coming of age thing, though I really meant stylistically, from extreme symmetry within the frame, right down to the typeface used for credits and intertitles.

I haven't seen Double, though the trailers and clips I've seen suggest more of the same, at least stylistically. Even the title and poster emphasise symmetry.

 

[BenLaw]

I gather you don't listen to Mark Kermode? Is that a positive choice to avoid him?

I don't purposefully avoid Kermode, and I probably agree with his appraisals more often than not.

I was gifted Kermode's autobiography one Christmas, in which he made a point of declaring his belief in a non-interventionist God. He's typically excited by religious iconography (which is possibly why he regards The Exorcist as the greatest film of all time). I generally tune out when he gets religulous, which he seems fairly inclined to do.

I'm quite surprised to hear he's anything other than an atheist. I hadn't particularly noticed any frequent excitation by religion, but I imagine it's one of those things you notice more when you're aware of it. The Exorcist is certainly a strange choice, although it's years since I saw it and I do intend to rewatch it.

I haven't heard before the point about whose perspective the film is from, that's interesting. Not that I can think of many films I've seen on the subject, with the exception of Django Unchained, which is a Tarantino film set in the context of slavery, rather than a film about slavery by Tarantino.

One could argue that Django Unchained is about Christoph Waltz's journey toward an abolitionist perspective. If I remember rightly, the author of the piece I mentioned makes this point.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Dr Schultz from the start of the film does not appear anti-abolitionist, and gives the slave drivers a hard time on his introduction to the film. I'm not sure that he ends the film with any great political views. From his perspective it's more of a road / buddy movie, forced together with his companion by circumstance and growing to respect and care for him.

Given what you say about the depiction of violence (which Kermode had also pointed out), how in your view does that compare to the depiction of violence in Snowtown?

Well, both films show less violence than the audience thinks. From what I recall of Snowtown, the bathroom scene's violence is largely conveyed through sound, while the camera lingers on a hallway and occasionally on character reactions.

Absolutely, which is the main reason I asked.

I'm still not sure what function Snowtown serves, aside from recounting a series of particularly upsetting events. Whether this has some kind of cathartic effect, or helps us better understand a character's sociopathic and manipulative behaviour, I don't know.

I'm hesitant to dismiss Snowtown as torture porn, though I find it hard to recommend, for the reasons above. Perhaps it's simply about a test of stamina, or a need to confront gruesome realities.

I'm not sure a film has to 'serve a purpose'; this seems at odds with how I've understood some of what you've said in the past. I'm also not sure how, given the restraint you recognise it shows in overt depiction of brutal violence, it could be described as torture porn. In my view, one of the successes of the film is making clear the violence and torture and inspiring only horror of it in the viewer rather than risking any perverse interest in it.

In my view, however, it does serve a purpose. I find many films show me things that I could not otherwise experience or have insight into. I wouldn't be terribly interested in a film depicting the ordinary existence that I lead, and I'm sure no-one else would either. Cinema can get me closer to understanding the human condition by exposure to filmmakers' views of aspects of humanity I might otherwise never experience. There is light and dark to that. For what it's worth, I'm more attracted to the 'dark' when it comes to films, but either way it seems to me there is no principled reason why a portrayal of the 'dark' is any less worthy. The depressing reality is people are capable of the most horrific acts, and portraying them is at the extreme end of 'dark'. But I don't see a problem with portraying something anywhere on that scale, as long as it doesn't become 'torture porn'.

I'd also slightly disagree with your suggestion of it helping an 'understanding' of a psychopath. When I watched the film I came away with the impression that the filmmakers had done an excellent job of showing you the actions of the individual and how others around him were influenced, without going as far as to suggest that his thoughts and behaviours could be 'understood', as they are frankly incomprensible.

For what it's worth, I find Cannibal Holocaust a much more troubling film, with its repeated depiction of sexual violence and animal cruelty.

 

[BenLaw]

I'd never really associated them with class, perhaps because I think of class in UK terms rather than US, but I can see where you're coming from. Do you like (early) Woody Allen films?

I'm not too crazy about Woody Allen, either. That's fighting talk in cinephile circles.

Fair enough. You can see why I asked. I hadn't watched any until very recently. Whilst retaining little or no sympathy for the characters (especially troubled by the arguably paedophilic relationship in Manhattan) I thought it was some very interesting and intelligent film making.

Have you seen Darjeeling Limited?

I have. I wrote about Wes Anderson a few years back, among several other Indiewood filmmakers, so I watched all of his films quite a few times.

I'd argue that it's about childish upper-middle class characters with mummy issues, and enough money to focus unhealthily on such things. In fact, all of Anderson's films are coming of age tales, though often his characters should have grown up long before we encounter them.

You may well be right, but I'm not sure how that's a criticism of the films as such. If such people didn't exist you could argue that the lack of reality was offputting, although as we've previously discussed even that shouldn't be a fundamental objection. However, clearly there are upper middle class people with a variety of relationship problems, who do obssess about them. I don't see how it's any more of a criticism to detail the characters who are portrayed than to say a kitchen sink film is no good because it portrays the whinging working class with too much time on their hands that all they do is talk uncouthly about having sex with their neighbours. If it's a subject matter you find distasteful it's obviously a reason personally to dislike the films, but as for whether they have merit the question is not what characters are portrayed but how well they are portrayed. As I say, I find Anderson to have mixed success in that regard. Interestingly while you found Rushmore one of his more watchable I was really turned off by it. I thought Submarine did a much more convincing coming of age story for that age protagonist.

 

[strapped for cash]

I'm not sure I agree with that. Dr Schultz from the start of the film does not appear anti-abolitionist, and gives the slave drivers a hard time on his introduction to the film. I'm not sure that he ends the film with any great political views. From his perspective it's more of a road / buddy movie, forced together with his companion by circumstance and growing to respect and care for him.

I'm not arguing that Dr. Schultz is pro-slavery at the start of the film and abolitionist by the end.

He's something of an opportunist to begin with, however, even if he respects Django and is sympathetic to his cause.

By the end Schultz takes a very decisive stance; he is so appalled by slave-owner practices and beliefs that he murders Calvin Candie, knowing well that he will pay with his life.

In other words, Schultz is the agent of Django's emancipation through ultimate sacrifice, and moves steadily toward this end. While not a volte-face transformation, Schultz undertakes a journey, nonetheless.

 

[strapped for cash]

I'm not sure a film has to 'serve a purpose'; this seems at odds with how I've understood some of what you've said in the past. I'm also not sure how, given the restraint you recognise it shows in overt depiction of brutal violence, it could be described as torture porn. In my view, one of the successes of the film is making clear the violence and torture and inspiring only horror of it in the viewer rather than risking any perverse interest in it.

I wasn't describing the film as torture porn (hence I said I was "hesitant" to describe Snowtown in this way). I'm still intrigued by the subject matter's appeal, to both filmmakers and audiences.

In my view, however, it does serve a purpose. I find many films show me things that I could not otherwise experience or have insight into. I wouldn't be terribly interested in a film depicting the ordinary existence that I lead, and I'm sure no-one else would either. Cinema can get me closer to understanding the human condition by exposure to filmmakers' views of aspects of humanity I might otherwise never experience. There is light and dark to that. For what it's worth, I'm more attracted to the 'dark' when it comes to films, but either way it seems to me there is no principled reason why a portrayal of the 'dark' is any less worthy. The depressing reality is people are capable of the most horrific acts, and portraying them is at the extreme end of 'dark'. But I don't see a problem with portraying something anywhere on that scale, as long as it doesn't become 'torture porn'.

I'd also slightly disagree with your suggestion of it helping an 'understanding' of a psychopath. When I watched the film I came away with the impression that the filmmakers had done an excellent job of showing you the actions of the individual and how others around him were influenced, without going as far as to suggest that his thoughts and behaviours could be 'understood', as they are frankly incomprensible.

And much of what you say may shed light on certain motivations.

I discussed Snowtown principally because you asked about the film as a comparison piece.

I still can't define what attracted filmmakers and audiences to this particular subject. Obviously conscious decisions were made, both to tell this story on film and to access it with prior knowledge of the (realist) horrors depicted.

I'm not passing judgement here. That would make me a hypocrite, since I made a decision to watch the film myself. At the same time, I'm trying to understand why the film exists (it didn't materialise from thin air) and a compulsion to watch it. (I don't think either can be easily explained and the psychology from all perspectives is extremely complex.)

 

[strapped for cash]

You may well be right, but I'm not sure how that's a criticism of the films as such. If such people didn't exist you could argue that the lack of reality was offputting, although as we've previously discussed even that shouldn't be a fundamental objection. However, clearly there are upper middle class people with a variety of relationship problems, who do obssess about them. I don't see how it's any more of a criticism to detail the characters who are portrayed than to say a kitchen sink film is no good because it portrays the whinging working class with too much time on their hands that all they do is talk uncouthly about having sex with their neighbours. If it's a subject matter you find distasteful it's obviously a reason personally to dislike the films, but as for whether they have merit the question is not what characters are portrayed but how well they are portrayed.

I stated that I have something of a Wes Anderson aversion. In this sense I was only ever expressing individual taste, undoubtedly informed by my background. I'm issuing a very personal critique and observing that Wes Anderson's films are "not for me."

Lots of people adore Wes Anderson's films, and they're perfectly entitled to. These fans may also feel attuned to Anderson's style and his characters' existential anguish.

 

[strapped for cash]

I'm not sure a film has to 'serve a purpose'; this seems at odds with how I've understood some of what you've said in the past.

Can you expand on this? (If only so I can understand any inconsistency of perspective.)

 

[Frank Harvey]

Given what you say about the depiction of violence (which Kermode had also pointed out), how in your view does that compare to the depiction of violence in Snowtown?

I'm hesitant to dismiss Snowtown as torture porn, though I find it hard to recommend, for the reasons above. Perhaps it's simply about a test of stamina, or a need to confront gruesome realities.

I recommend watching the documentary, "The Bodies In The Barrells" (on Sky recently as part of their "Crimes That Shook The World"). It makes more sense of the film in that you understand more of what you're seeing. The first time I watched it, I was like, 'WTF?! Whoever wrote this is one messed up puppy', but after the documentary, it made more sense in that it was pretty much telling it like it is/was, and also explained better the relationship between some of the characters, even if the film does gloss over the previous relationship between Gavin and Barry (if I've got the names right). There is a scene in connection with this in the extras.

Despite it being a pretty grim watch, I'd highly recommend it if you're a keen follower of serial killers. There aren't many movies in this genre that are fairly factual and up front with the fine details, and even less that are any good. The only other one that springs to mind is Zodiac, although Zodiac is less about the killer himself as it was an unsolved case. 10 Rillington Place was another decent one, but glossed over much of what John Christie actually did.

 

[strapped for cash]

I recommend watching the documentary, "The Bodies In The Barrells" (on Sky recently as part of their "Crimes That Shook The World"). It makes more sense of the film in that you understand more of what you're seeing. The first time I watched it, I was like, 'WTF?! Whoever wrote this is one messed up puppy', but after the documentary, it made more sense in that it was pretty much telling it like it is/was, and also explained better the relationship between some of the characters, even if the film does gloss over the previous relationship between Gavin and Barry (if I've got the names right). There is a scene in connection with this in the extras.

Sure, though I'm not arguing that the film doesn't make sense. Rather, I'm trying to understand the motivations both for making and watching the film.

Despite it being a pretty grim watch, I'd highly recommend it if you're a keen follower of serial killers. There aren't many movies in this genre that are fairly factual and up front with the fine details, and even less that are any good. The only other one that springs to mind is Zodiac, although Zodiac is less about the killer himself as it was an unsolved case. 10 Rillington Place was another decent one, but glossed over much of what John Christie actually did.

Assuming the film offers a largely accurate account, does this alone validate its existence? Would we be more critical if the filmmakers used greater creative license? I'm not expressing judgement in asking these questions; I'm simply thowing them out there.

Also, I'm not sure I'd want to encounter "a keen follower of serial killers."

 

[Frank Harvey]

Sure, though I'm not arguing that the film doesn't make sense. Rather, I'm trying to understand the motivations both for making and watching the film.

To tell the story? I wasn't inferring that the film doesn't make sense, just that it makes more sense after watching the documentary. It did to me anyway.

Assuming the film offers a largely accurate account, does this alone validate its existence? Would we be more critical if the filmmakers used greater creative license? I'm not expressing judgement in asking these questions; I'm simply thowing them out there.

I suppose it depends if it is a subject matter that the individual is interested in or not. Personally, I'm fascinated by serial killers. I want to know the details and the driving force behind their actions. To me it is incomprehensible how someone can carry out such a gruesome act against another human being, which is maybe why I'm so interested in the motivations.

Also, I'm not sure I'd want to encounter "a keen follower of serial killers."

I'd say don't worry about it, but if you see me on the news one day, then your concerns will have been warranted

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Despite it being a pretty grim watch, I'd highly recommend it if you're a keen follower of serial killers. There aren't many movies in this genre that are fairly factual and up front with the fine details, and even less that are any good. The only other one that springs to mind is Zodiac, although Zodiac is less about the killer himself as it was an unsolved case. 10 Rillington Place was another decent one, but glossed over much of what John Christie actually did.

Man Bites Dog?