Controversial Cinema-Related Opinions

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

Phoenix talk(s) about "pussy"

Cool, a broad judgment based on a clip shorter than 90 seconds, which represents .01% of the movie's run time and was specifically selected to play to the rambunctious audiences at the Alamo Drafthouse which would particularly appreciate such a clip. And when we get into the fact that the clip in question is reportedly both longer and different in dialogue and editing from the version of that scene that made it into the movie, we underline and highlight and bold and italicize the problem with judging the movie based on such a short clip.

Now: we can look at this clip and see what the hell it's telling us. What we learn from the dispassionate disposition of the examiner, what we take away from Phoenix's vulgarity. Yep, he's saying 'Pussy' a lot. Why is he saying that? He's in some kind of psych exam, taking a Rorschach test or whatever. He doesn't seem into it, and his responses to the images are probably him trying to take the piss outta the whole thing. But of course that this is the way he decides to fuck around—seeing sexual imagery in everything and being so explicit about it—does in fact tell us about him, not just his attitude toward the test but what kind of person he may be that he responds this way. That's not a lot of information, nor is it even all that can be drawn from the short scene, but it's not bad for just 82 seconds.

Or we can write it off as PTA showboating, which says more about you than it does the movie.

As for "There Will Be Blood," it was a story that could have been told in 1/2 hour: Did we really need to see a long, drawn-out introduction of a man's obsession with an oil well (representing absolute power) by showing him break his leg and drag himself out all while going as long as possible without any dialogue?

Yeah, certainly. One good analysis of the movie shows it as a five-act film, rather than three, with the prologue and mansion coda as existing outside the three core acts while crucially buttressing their story and structure. The opening scene shows us a decidedly un-corrupt, at this point, isolated, hard-working man in his (literally) blue-collar beginning, introduces H.W., and creates a contrast with what follows. Without this sequence, we immediately enter into Daniel Plainview, cunning businessman, and it fundamentally changes the character and how the audience approaches him.

There were countless examples where scenes went overboard, establishing certain characters: Okay, we get it, Dano's preacher is a religious ham. PTA is becoming increasingly guilty of dragging out scenes

Again, it's character-building, showing us not only Eli as a Charismatic, but as charismatic, with his relationship to Little Boston's people, something we don't really experience elsewhere in the film but for the baptism scene, which would without the earlier bit would play quite differently. We'd not have the contrast in setting, from the dingy chapel to this bright new one, and at that point Eli's performance would come off as strange at a moment we're intersecting story/character threads and not trying draw them out anew.

So the scene ran too long for you? That's too bad. The whole performance is actually significant, and it's greatest weakness may be that Dano may have been trying to carry more than he could handle, as an actor, though I feel he did well enough. In fact, the sort of unconvincing performance there actually helps the scene and character by presenting him as a shyster, a detail not lost on Daniel watching from the door. Dano's not obviously 'over-emoting' if you have any experience with real tent preachers that work off essentially the same MO, today.

using cheap film tricks for their own sake ("look what I can do!") and is in need of a good editor.

Yeah? Examples?

I dislike pretty much everything David Lynch has done. From miniature old people, to "The Wizard of Oz" metaphors: Another guy who seems like he merely wants to be weird for its own sake.

He's not. He's, like, what you call an artist, and I'd direct your attention to two different but each very good (and long) write-ups on Lynch, among many:

David Foster Wallace, writing in orbit of the production of Lost Highway, discussing, primarily, that movie, plus and especially Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks, and what it means to be 'Lynchian': http://www.lynchnet.com/lh/lhpremiere.html

This is one of the unsettling things about a Lynch movie: You don't feel like you're entering into any of the standard unspoken and/or unconscious contracts you normally enter into with other kinds of movies. This is unsettling because in the absence of such an unconscious contract we lose some of the psychic protections we normally (and necessarily) bring to bear on a medium as powerful as film. That is, if we know on some level what a movie wants from us, we can erect certain internal defenses that let us choose how much of ourselves we give away to it. The absence of point or recognizable agenda in Lynch's films, though, strips these subliminal defenses and lets Lynch get inside your head in a way movies normally don't. This is why his best films' effects are often so emotional and nightmarish.

Film Crit Hulk types in all-caps. It's just a thing. I'd like to say you'll get over it, but your takes on film suggest to me that you have trouble getting past the surface of material and grasping the substance beneath. So: you may not be interested in this one (not that I expect you to read either). http://badassdigest.com/2012/03/04/f...holland-drive/

THERE IS A POPULAR CONCEPTION THAT DAVID LYNCH JUST THINKS UP WEIRD SHIT AND PUTS IT IN HIS MOVIES. THERE IS ALSO A (FAR WORSE) POPULAR CONCEPTION THAT PEOPLE WHO LIKE HIS MOVIES EMBRACE THIS RANDOM WEIRD SHIT AS SOME SORT OF PRETENTIOUS RUSE TO SEEM SMART... IF YOU THINK EITHER OF THESE THINGS THEN HULK HEARTILY ENCOURAGE YOU TO KEEP READING. HOPEFULLY YOU WILL GET A CHANCE TO SEE WHAT LYNCH IS ALL ABOUT.

THE FIRST PROBLEM IN PROVING THAT DAVID LYNCH ISN'T JUST DICKING US AROUND IS THE FACT THAT HE ACTUALLY PROPAGATES THIS "MY MOVIES ARE JUST WEIRD SHIT I THINK OF!" CONCEPTION HIMSELF. HE OFTEN TALKS ABOUT THE MOST STRANGE METHODS OF INSPIRATION AND EXTRAPOLATION. BUT THIS IS JUST BECAUSE HE NEVER, EVER WANTS TO DIVULGE HIS INTENTION. THIS SERVES THE VERY IMPORTANT PURPOSE OF LETTING HIS FILMS' INTERPRETATIONS "LIVE FOREVER" SO TO SPEAK. IT GREATLY ENCOURAGE DISCOURSE AND AFFECTATION. IT EVEN ALLOWS HULKS TO WRITE COLUMNS ABOUT IT! AND WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT, HE JUST WOULD NEVER DO SOMETHING SO REDUCTIVE AS TO SAY "THIS IS WHAT I ACTUALLY MEANT."

BUT THE TRUTH IS THAT DAVID LYNCH, FOR ALL HIS TANGIBLE WEIRDNESS, IS ACTUALLY A PRETTY SMART AND SELF-AWARE FELLOW. ONE WHO IS CLEARLY WELL-VERSED IN PSYCHOLOGY, SYMBOLOGY, DREAM INTERPRETATION AND CRAP LOAD OF SEMIOTICS. HOW DO WE KNOW THIS? WELL, FOR ONE, HE WENT TO PRESTIGIOUS PENN ACADEMY OF FINE ARTS IN PHILADELPHIA AND HULK PRETTY SURE THESE CONCEPTS MIGHT'VE COME UP A FEW TIMES.

BUT FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE STUFF THAT ENDS UP ON SCREEN IS JUST TOO VIBRANT AND SYMBOLICALLY CONCRETE TO IGNORE. THERE IS A THROUGH-LINE OF LOGIC THAT PRESENTS ITSELF IN EARNEST. AND A MOST BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF COMMON LYNCH TROPES LENDS ITSELF ENDLESSLY TO INTERPRETATION... WHICH MEANS, NO, HIS FILMS ARE MOST DEFINITELY NOT A BUNCH OF WEIRD STUFF UP ON SCREEN.