I really like this movie. I think it's really fun to look at, a great record of an era and place. It's an awesome archival document, much like 'The Knack,' but with an engaging story to boot. I love the atmosphere and the style.
The editing and cinematography are innovative and jarring/interesting/challenging to this day. In this day more than ever.
Julie Christie has gross tan-face make-up, then gross bruise face, then gross pregnant white-lip make-up. Yikes. And that Dad, what an asshole.
Once again, it has the Lester touch for ADR (dubbed people in the background, much aped by and attributed to Altman) and gadgets. Lots of gadgets this time around: the escalator, the indoor greenhouse, the futuristic hotel room, medical doo dads, fake TVs, fancy cushions that don't crunch eggs . . . in this way I think Lester was a big influence on Gilliam . . . which will become very clear in next weeks installment!
the style and the look were engaging, that's true. i just didn't buy the movie all together. which is unfortunate because i had heard a lot of good things. i had high hopes. i guess that's not a good way to go into a movie, high hopes. julie christie is totally uncharming and annoying. why should i care about her trying to be weird all the time. shes not even that weird. george c scott's motives are never justified beyond gimmicky character development flashes like him wandering around at hippy freakouts. it would have worked if he just murdered everyone at the end. plus his hands are not pretty (petulia's fixation). so why should i care about these people. i actually find myself caring more about the characters in bad timing even though they are far more despicable. at least in bad timing there is something to grab on to. even though it is totally wrong and fucked up there is some truth in garfunkel's character. the background story about the mexican boy and the husband was weak and didn't save it for me.
don't get me wrong, the gross make-up is pretty cool. an you know how much i love ass-hole dads. and yes, the cinematography and gadgets were neat and innovative (even though i feel like the earlier sixties were more his time to shine with this, and now he's just morphing into late sixties hippy-ness in a zabriski point over-the hill kind of way). i just felt like the main characters didnt hold water, and i like the my characters good and juicy.
still all said and done.. i am glad i saw it. i had to see it sometime, and what can i say, i love george c scott's face.
Most harsh. Over the hill? Shit, he still has most of the films he'll make to go, including those regarded as his best. This predates Zabriskie Point by two years, he is defining the zeitgeist of the era not aping it. This film was being shot during the summer of love, that's pretty on top of things.
I don't care for Julie Christie either, but I don't think you are supposed to. I feel the genre of listless, mid-life crisis cases has EXPLODED since the late 90s and we are pretty much immune to what such a work is trying to say - but this film predates all that stuff by 30 so years.
Everything from American beauty to Madmen is totally indebted to this. Once again, the characters are cyphers - but that doesn't get me, I'm fine with that - I don't mind basking in vapidity because that is the point of the film and these characters lives.
I don't see the difference between this and The Wild Bunch, they are all films about people wresting with the futility and pointlessness of their lives - they are all about validating ones existence. This one doesn't offer up a convenient answer though . . . and no fantastical bloodbath.
I guess what I'm trying to say, upon stewing in my thoughts for a spell, is that the film is about the theme and mood . . . not plot or character. Novels frequently do this and it is acceptable, even encouraged. In a film it is unorthodox.
Existential crisis in an environment that is becoming exponentially disconnected and vacuous. Like I said, this is pretty standard stuff now, way overdone . . . but novel for the time, striking a nerve.
In The Wild Bunch we have men facing extinction in the face of a changing world where honor doesn't exist, here we have people trying to find substance in relationships in a world where depth and sincerity are obsolete. I think the look and these themes keep it afloat, but once again, only in film historical perspective. Always in perspective.
i liked it. as always i was annoyed by the "wild girl" but i just thank god melanie griffith was around back then to play the part all too well. really though, i didn't understand julie christie's wildness/weirdness. or, i didn't see what her fascination with george c scott was. either way i enjoyed the film, no doubt. there was only maybe one moment when i thought it dragged and i can't even recall when that was. but i am just a simpleton and enjoy looking at weird candles and shit. that's why i like your movies, matt; because you're into freaks and weirdos. btw did you ever get my script about the man with an invisible metabolism?
I do not 'make films about weirdos and freaks' as you say!
One thing can be said, Julie Christie is in a severely abusive relationship but she still loves her fucked up husband. I think her outbursts are an attempt to ignore the fact that her life sucks. She is also a spoiled rich girl with a lot of baggage, at least that much is assumed.
I think she is into G. C. Scott because he is the opposite of her dainty, boyish husband. He is manly and serious. So he sort of becomes her salvation, only it doesn't work out.
I really like this movie. I think it's really fun to look at, a great record of an era and place. It's an awesome archival document, much like 'The Knack,' but with an engaging story to boot. I love the atmosphere and the style.
ReplyDeleteThe editing and cinematography are innovative and jarring/interesting/challenging to this day. In this day more than ever.
Julie Christie has gross tan-face make-up, then gross bruise face, then gross pregnant white-lip make-up. Yikes. And that Dad, what an asshole.
Once again, it has the Lester touch for ADR (dubbed people in the background, much aped by and attributed to Altman) and gadgets. Lots of gadgets this time around: the escalator, the indoor greenhouse, the futuristic hotel room, medical doo dads, fake TVs, fancy cushions that don't crunch eggs . . . in this way I think Lester was a big influence on Gilliam . . . which will become very clear in next weeks installment!
the style and the look were engaging, that's true. i just didn't buy the movie all together. which is unfortunate because i had heard a lot of good things. i had high hopes. i guess that's not a good way to go into a movie, high hopes. julie christie is totally uncharming and annoying. why should i care about her trying to be weird all the time. shes not even that weird. george c scott's motives are never justified beyond gimmicky character development flashes like him wandering around at hippy freakouts. it would have worked if he just murdered everyone at the end. plus his hands are not pretty (petulia's fixation). so why should i care about these people. i actually find myself caring more about the characters in bad timing even though they are far more despicable. at least in bad timing there is something to grab on to. even though it is totally wrong and fucked up there is some truth in garfunkel's character.
ReplyDeletethe background story about the mexican boy and the husband was weak and didn't save it for me.
don't get me wrong, the gross make-up is pretty cool. an you know how much i love ass-hole dads. and yes, the cinematography and gadgets were neat and innovative (even though i feel like the earlier sixties were more his time to shine with this, and now he's just morphing into late sixties hippy-ness in a zabriski point over-the hill kind of way). i just felt like the main characters didnt hold water, and i like the my characters good and juicy.
still all said and done.. i am glad i saw it. i had to see it sometime, and what can i say, i love george c scott's face.
Most harsh. Over the hill? Shit, he still has most of the films he'll make to go, including those regarded as his best. This predates Zabriskie Point by two years, he is defining the zeitgeist of the era not aping it. This film was being shot during the summer of love, that's pretty on top of things.
ReplyDeleteI don't care for Julie Christie either, but I don't think you are supposed to. I feel the genre of listless, mid-life crisis cases has EXPLODED since the late 90s and we are pretty much immune to what such a work is trying to say - but this film predates all that stuff by 30 so years.
Everything from American beauty to Madmen is totally indebted to this. Once again, the characters are cyphers - but that doesn't get me, I'm fine with that - I don't mind basking in vapidity because that is the point of the film and these characters lives.
I don't see the difference between this and The Wild Bunch, they are all films about people wresting with the futility and pointlessness of their lives - they are all about validating ones existence. This one doesn't offer up a convenient answer though . . . and no fantastical bloodbath.
Who recommended this aside from me?
I guess what I'm trying to say, upon stewing in my thoughts for a spell, is that the film is about the theme and mood . . . not plot or character. Novels frequently do this and it is acceptable, even encouraged. In a film it is unorthodox.
ReplyDeleteExistential crisis in an environment that is becoming exponentially disconnected and vacuous. Like I said, this is pretty standard stuff now, way overdone . . . but novel for the time, striking a nerve.
In The Wild Bunch we have men facing extinction in the face of a changing world where honor doesn't exist, here we have people trying to find substance in relationships in a world where depth and sincerity are obsolete. I think the look and these themes keep it afloat, but once again, only in film historical perspective. Always in perspective.
Maybe this is a San Francisco vs. Oakland argument? I liked it, but I like Golden Gate Park...
ReplyDeletei liked it. as always i was annoyed by the "wild girl" but i just thank god melanie griffith was around back then to play the part all too well. really though, i didn't understand julie christie's wildness/weirdness. or, i didn't see what her fascination with george c scott was. either way i enjoyed the film, no doubt. there was only maybe one moment when i thought it dragged and i can't even recall when that was. but i am just a simpleton and enjoy looking at weird candles and shit. that's why i like your movies, matt; because you're into freaks and weirdos. btw did you ever get my script about the man with an invisible metabolism?
ReplyDeleteI do not 'make films about weirdos and freaks' as you say!
ReplyDeleteOne thing can be said, Julie Christie is in a severely abusive relationship but she still loves her fucked up husband. I think her outbursts are an attempt to ignore the fact that her life sucks. She is also a spoiled rich girl with a lot of baggage, at least that much is assumed.
I think she is into G. C. Scott because he is the opposite of her dainty, boyish husband. He is manly and serious. So he sort of becomes her salvation, only it doesn't work out.