heartbeatocean said:

You have no idea how wrong you are about my friend wanting films that make her feel good. She is possibly the only person I know who is more cynical than me. That's probably one reason we're friends (and I *hate* when films have happy endings.) Anyway, I haven't seen the film, don't intend to, couldn't care less about the ending---I was just trying to help sextonseven out and I knew she had written about it on her blog.

I can't speak as to whether her assessment of the film was good or not (and you seem to think it's off base), but I will stick up for her and say she is absolutely NOT the type of person who needs a happy ending, nor is she into "feel good" movies, or mainstream expectations. You are way off base with your interpretation of her. And I don't think she intends her blog to be any ground breaking film criticism...she likes to write, so I think it's almost a form of practice for her...

Fair enough. I'm just projecting my frustrations with people's attitudes toward challenging films in general. It's like people want to take a pill and forget about life by watching movies, so they miss out on the value of a movie that makes them think. I do think her critique is off base though, and from reading it, it does seem that the film did not fulfill her expectations. So she judges it according to her expectations, rather than on its own terms.

I saw Michael Clayton last night. EXCELLENT.

I saw Juno on Tuesday. It was very good. It got better in the second half. There were too many zingers in the dialogue in the first half--it was hard to keep up. Or maybe I just got used to it after awhile.

Now that I've seen all the best picture movies, I can concentrate on other categories. Four of the five films in the foreign category haven't opened in the states yet.

sextonseven said:

Damn, you've seen them all? There is a theatre in downtown Chicago showing all five movies tomorrow for 30 bucks. If I wasn't so swamped with homework, I'd do.

Stymie said:

I was on a serious mission this month. Before the nominations were announced, I had only seen:

American Gangster
Elizabeth: The Golden Age
I'm Not There
La Vie En Rose
Sweeney Todd

Since then, I've seen the following nominated films:

Across The Universe
Atonement
Away From Her
Beaufort
The Bourne Ultimatum
Charlie Wilson's War
The Diving Bell And The Butterfly
Eastern Promises
Gone Baby Gone
Into The Wild
Juno
Michael Clayton
No Country For Old Men
No End In Sight
Once
Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End
Persepolis
The Savages
Sicko
Surf's Up
There Will Be Blood
3:10 To Yuma
Transformers

I'm gonna try and watch The Assassination of Jesse James, In The Valley of Elah and Ratatouille this weekend before the awards on Sunday night. Then I will sleep for a week straight.

spelling
[Edited 2/22/08 14:28pm]

sextonseven said:

The awards are Sunday?

I won't be home.

Stymie said:

I'm sure it will be a big bore anyway.

sextonseven said:

I like movies that have major events happen off-camera. I see your point, but that's why I think the film is ultimately about the sheriff and the perpetual cycle of violence. The sheriff is the real counterpoint to the psycho. He's contemplative, ineffective, retiring. My friend and I discussed at length the scene where the sheriff goes back to the motel and looks around the room in the dark. The psycho is supposedly behind the door, but doesn't kill him. The scene is very mysterious.

Llewellyn is a less complex character than the sheriff. He keeps chasing money when it obviously leads to his own doom and everyone else's around him. Though seemingly benign, he is heavily caught up in the violence, almost to the point of abetting the psycho. Look at how many people get killed because of him dragging that suitcase of money around. He's a foil that helps play out the extreme violence of the psycho, but the film is not about him.

An apt comparison is one of the greatest films ever made, Psycho, by Alfred Hitchcock. Hitchcock kills off the main character, played by Janet Leigh, in the first act. She is the only point of identification for the audience and no one had ever done this before in a film. It broke all the rules and is supposed to be frustrating. From that point on, the only point of identification we have is with Norman Bates. We have to identify with him from that moment on and the film ends on him alone in an insane asylum. It's a pretty queasy feeling when that's all we're left with. The whole thing is chilling, and killing off the character we liked most was a great way to achieve that affect.

Also, by ending on a description of the Sheriff's dream, I find the film suddenly launches into a spiritual realm. By ending that way, it leaves us there, teetering between life and death. He is telling a dream about his father, and it has an ancestral, timeless, primordial feel to it. The movie itself feels like death, because it suddenly turns its back on its own story, a string of torrid events, which are part and parcel of the earth's existence. As the world writhes perpetually in its endless chase and emptiness, the sheriff is approaching a state of transcendence...which will only come about by his own death.

That's one interpretation anyway.

heartbeatocean said:

I agree with you.

Does that make us film snobs?

Stymie said:

I was on a serious mission this month. Before the nominations were announced, I had only seen:

American Gangster
Elizabeth: The Golden Age
I'm Not There
La Vie En Rose
Sweeney Todd

Since then, I've seen the following nominated films:

Across The Universe
Atonement
Away From Her
Beaufort
The Bourne Ultimatum
Charlie Wilson's War
The Diving Bell And The Butterfly
Eastern Promises
Gone Baby Gone
Into The Wild
Juno
Michael Clayton
No Country For Old Men
No End In Sight
Once
Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End
Persepolis
The Savages
Sicko
Surf's Up
There Will Be Blood
3:10 To Yuma
Transformers

I'm gonna try and watch The Assassination of Jesse James, In The Valley of Elah and Ratatouille this weekend before the awards on Sunday night. Then I will sleep for a week straight.

spelling
[Edited 2/22/08 14:28pm]

heartbeatocean said:

Interesting interpretation! I need to see it again because I knew that I was missing key elements when I couldn't hear Tommy Lee Jones' dialogue because of the crappy audio at the theater. It's definitely a movie you have to see more than once.

My second fave this year: This Is England.

greenpixies said:

Regarding the sheriff, Cormac Mcarthy's book from which the screenplay was adapted gives more insight into his character. The sheriff serves as narrator, so the whole book is told from his point-of-view. It's a very quick, short read if any of you are interested and the screenplay--the plot at least does follow the book generally speaking. But in the book, the sheriff's narration sort of drives the plot... a bit more.

I hate Clooney..........his girlfriend is too

What's going on with Travolta's hair!!??

abierman said:

Why do you hate him? He seems like a nice, cool dude.

I don't find him attractive, though.

Tough decision on Best picture..!!

i hope there will be blood wins it.