Care about the first part, wonder about the second.
First off:
This encapsulates everything wrong with Fox News in a mere 60 seconds.
Their steadfast belief that they are unassailable. “HOW DARE YOU MAKE FUN OF FOX NEWS! WE”RE FOX NEWS!
The whole Moral Majority/ Christian Right defense for anything that they deem inappropriate: “Think about the children.” This is of course the network of Bill O’Reilly who last year defended the Nazi’s. On three separate occasions.
The denial of culpability. Fox is airing this bit, and when something goes wrong, they are not to be lumped in with the failure. Iraq is not going well, we have nothing to do with this. That failed attack on camera due to Geraldo giving out troop position was due to the evil terrorists, not to their idiot compromising our troops.
And finally, the effort to instill fear in viewers in every situation possible. Here is how a vagrant steals your bike.
Just evil, evil stuff.
What’s the answer? I’ve got my own opinions, but why not listen to Gore Vidal.
++++Movies and TV bits.
Flipping through the dreck that is late night Sunday cable last night, Steaze and I came upon Ocean’s Twelve.
Before getting into this, I’d like to bring up a storytelling point, a little bit of Literary Theory from the Dave school of structure. When writing a plot arc, it is essential that the climax or major plot point has to be believable or to a level where it’s not so jarring it takes the reader or viewer out of the media.
The two most egregious examples:
Superman (1978): Superman can’t save Lois, so he flies around the world and puts the Earths orbit in reverse to turn back time. Even if he could do this (all physics notions implies this would kill everything on the planet), it still fails because: THAT’S NOT HOW TIME WORKS. The Earth isn’t a record, and spinning it in the opposite direction would only make the Sun rise in the West, not cause time to replay in the reverse direction. The first time I watched this, I shut off the movie. It wasn’t the story of an alien coming to Earth and having Super powers, nor the fact that nuclear bombs would blow California into the ocean, nor how dated the SFX are twenty years later. You can’t make a movie where the plot point defies everything the audience has come to know about a subject, and when you do so about an act that is theoretically impossible, and still get WTF’s from the audience, that’s a failure.
Bartleby the Scrivener: Herman Melville
From Wikipedia (I have been forced to read this short story twice, so I know this isn’t a complete factual inaccuracy)
The narrator of the story is an unnamed lawyer with offices on Wall Street in New York City. He describes himself as doing "a snug business among rich men's bonds and mortgages and title-deeds." He has three employees: "First, Turkey; second, Nippers; third, Ginger Nut," each of whom is described. Turkey and Nippers are copyists or scriveners while Ginger Nut does delivery work or other assorted jobs around the office, and the lawyer decides his business needs a third scrivener. Bartleby responds to his advertisement and arrives at the office, "pallidly neat, pitiably respectable, incurably forlorn!"
At first Bartleby appears to be a competent worker, but later he refuses to work when requested, repeatedly uttering the phrase "I would prefer not to." He is also found to be living in the lawyer's office. Bartleby refuses to explain his behavior, and also refuses to leave when dismissed. The lawyer moves offices to avoid any further confrontation, and Bartleby is taken away to The Tombs. At the end of the story, Bartleby slowly starves in prison, finally expiring just prior to a visit by the lawyer. The lawyer suspects Bartleby's conjectured previous career in the Dead Letter Office in Washington, DC drove him to his bizarre behavior.
It’s that whole “I prefer not to” statement. Screw the whole notion about this being one of the first existential stories in literature; At least Kafka created believable scenarios. This doesn’t work. On any level. How does a guy get this far in life by never eating or doing work. By all reasoning, he should be dead many time over. Melville is making a point about defying cultural conventions, but his message is pointless, because the vessel he chooses DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!
Anyway, Ocean’s 12 has two of these plot points, first being the “steal the egg, even though you stole it before this whole charade starts” the second being the “Julia Roberts (the actress in the movie) dressing up as Julia Roberts (the movie star) to steal said egg.”
Both are so bad, I figure that they were so far along in the production and still hadn’t come up with an ending and were forced to go with the first thing that came to their mind that was somewhat feasible to avoid racking up huge production delay costs. Maybe the Julia Roberts thing would work in a more Meta film, but not in a caper film, and not with the whole “why not” air around it. Same with the egg twice over part, but after the brilliance of the first film’s setup and execution, it’s a huge letdown, and in almost any film, this doesn’t work because the audience should be let in on the secret, otherwise it is a double whammy in it’s reveal and guise of cleverness, this isn’t strong enough to be a plot twist (see every M. Night Shyamalan film after the Sixth Sense, Signs not included) because it’s too flimsy.
But I’m writing about the film because, up until the Julia Roberts moment, it’s a very fun film. And what really sticks out is the direction of Steven Soderbergh, it’s a hell of a job. There are no redundant moments in information, no over or re-explained plot points, and Soderbergh gives the audience credit to figure out what is happening.
The dialogue matches too; watching stars like Pitt, Clooney, Damon, and Cheadle saying as little as possible (opposed to them yammering on with long lines for screen time) is a hell of a good time.
There is the scene where Damon, Clooney, and Pitt meet with Robbie Coltrane, and everyone but Damon are speaking in riddles:
If all the animals on the equator were capable of flattery, then Thanksgiving and Hallowe'en would fall on the same date.
Rusty Ryan (Pitt): A doctor who specializes in skin diseases will dream that he has fallen asleep in front of the television. Later, he will wake up in front of the television, but not remember his dream.
Matsui (Coltrane): [to Linus Caldwell] Would you agree?
Damon attempts to keep up, and with his first entry, he offends Coltrane and he storms off. Pitt and Clooney later tell Damon:
Danny Ocean: You called his niece a whore.
Rusty Ryan: A very cheap one.
Danny Ocean: She's seven.
Of course, they later admit that the whole thing was just hazing, and none of the riddles meant anything, they were just gibberish.
Later on, Pitt and Clooney are sitting in front of a TV watching dubbed Happy Days re-runs and drinking wine. Pitt is wistfully wondering how he wronged his relationship with Zeta-Jones. During the whole conversation, neither of them take their eyes of the screen, causing Clooney to miss Pitt’s wine glass on a refill, and after Pitt finishes, all Clooney has to say is: “That guy doing Potsie is unbelievable.” I don’t know if it’s the less is more approach, or that they are talking to each other, but are more-or-less speaking in soliloquies, or it’s goofy joy of watching two of the more likeable movie stars of their time just acting like normal, drunken, lazy idiots entranced by a dubbed over version of a classic American show.
Much of the film’s potency and joy is how little is said, both in the unconventional manner of speaking and in the splendor of silence, as demonstrated by the Pitt – Zeta-Jones flashback. The flashback is narration/ off screen dialogue heavy, and the action on screen, such as Pitt’s introduction to Jones where he is running from the cops, is fleeting, upping the emotional quotient of a lost relationship. The makeup artists here should get serious dap for making two aging stars look convincingly younger, by about five years or so, because what helps sell the relevance of the story is the notion of the past, comprised of two people on opposite paths, one trying to capture the criminal, the other trying to evade the authority, and for all of the clairvoyant portents of the reality grounded mindset, one can’t help but wish for the amicable, even if it’s retread of the director’s masterpiece “Out of Sight.”
While the first film was all about the glam and wealth that is Las Vegas (even taking detours in a groggy Chicago, glitzy LA, and desolate Utah to highlight the difference) this film shot in a way to emulate the art house films of the Euro cinema post the new wave. Exteriors are slightly over-exposed, interiors lush and warm, and always in crowded town squares. It’s easy to capture the essential Euro feel on film, but it’s done here in throwaway fashion, exposition shots never seem to be last too long, and yet, as with the entirety of the film itself, the information given is deft, quick, and surprisingly complete in establishing the details of the moment needed.
Indeed the film falls apart at the end, and I am not here to cry salvo over a lost masterpiece or call the film criminally underrated (if this can happen for Heaven’s Gate, god knows it’s not a long shot) nor to opine for what could have been (I’ll save those when/if I ever get to writing about the Star Wars prequels. While I have read many posts and articles about loving a film in spite of the enormity of it’s flaws, and could surely copy them here, I just implore you, next time Ocean’s 12 comes on, watch the first %70 of the film and see if there isn’t an inkling to defy your previous convictions. It’s the closest experience I can think of, media wise, to drinking. It always ends in misery, but for the first part, it’s a hell of a good time. This time, the high of the film is so splendid, it’s only natural to succumb against better impulses.
(NOTE: there was a large section removed after this part. It got a little long - Dave)
In failure, Soderbergh cemented his place in the shortlist of great filmmakers. He did an amazing job in a film that couldn’t hold up to the predecessor, in a time when sequels are the most profitable film around, and despite the ending and final result, crafts a ¾ of a film majestically when it should have been unwatchable. Even knowing that his story was incomplete and ridiculous, Soderbergh does all he can to make the film worthwhile. In witnessing a great artist overcome boundaries is when true talent is proven. It’s not his best work as a director, but in his worst film, he has the ability to make the film his own, and watchable despite the failure of all others (himself included) involved seem like a wasted chance instead of a needless retread. That’s directing.
This encapsulates everything wrong with Fox News in a mere 60 seconds.
Their steadfast belief that they are unassailable. “HOW DARE YOU MAKE FUN OF FOX NEWS! WE”RE FOX NEWS!
The whole Moral Majority/ Christian Right defense for anything that they deem inappropriate: “Think about the children.” This is of course the network of Bill O’Reilly who last year defended the Nazi’s. On three separate occasions.
The denial of culpability. Fox is airing this bit, and when something goes wrong, they are not to be lumped in with the failure. Iraq is not going well, we have nothing to do with this. That failed attack on camera due to Geraldo giving out troop position was due to the evil terrorists, not to their idiot compromising our troops.
And finally, the effort to instill fear in viewers in every situation possible. Here is how a vagrant steals your bike.
Just evil, evil stuff.
What’s the answer? I’ve got my own opinions, but why not listen to Gore Vidal.
++++Movies and TV bits.
Flipping through the dreck that is late night Sunday cable last night, Steaze and I came upon Ocean’s Twelve.
Before getting into this, I’d like to bring up a storytelling point, a little bit of Literary Theory from the Dave school of structure. When writing a plot arc, it is essential that the climax or major plot point has to be believable or to a level where it’s not so jarring it takes the reader or viewer out of the media.
The two most egregious examples:
Superman (1978): Superman can’t save Lois, so he flies around the world and puts the Earths orbit in reverse to turn back time. Even if he could do this (all physics notions implies this would kill everything on the planet), it still fails because: THAT’S NOT HOW TIME WORKS. The Earth isn’t a record, and spinning it in the opposite direction would only make the Sun rise in the West, not cause time to replay in the reverse direction. The first time I watched this, I shut off the movie. It wasn’t the story of an alien coming to Earth and having Super powers, nor the fact that nuclear bombs would blow California into the ocean, nor how dated the SFX are twenty years later. You can’t make a movie where the plot point defies everything the audience has come to know about a subject, and when you do so about an act that is theoretically impossible, and still get WTF’s from the audience, that’s a failure.
Bartleby the Scrivener: Herman Melville
From Wikipedia (I have been forced to read this short story twice, so I know this isn’t a complete factual inaccuracy)
The narrator of the story is an unnamed lawyer with offices on Wall Street in New York City. He describes himself as doing "a snug business among rich men's bonds and mortgages and title-deeds." He has three employees: "First, Turkey; second, Nippers; third, Ginger Nut," each of whom is described. Turkey and Nippers are copyists or scriveners while Ginger Nut does delivery work or other assorted jobs around the office, and the lawyer decides his business needs a third scrivener. Bartleby responds to his advertisement and arrives at the office, "pallidly neat, pitiably respectable, incurably forlorn!"
At first Bartleby appears to be a competent worker, but later he refuses to work when requested, repeatedly uttering the phrase "I would prefer not to." He is also found to be living in the lawyer's office. Bartleby refuses to explain his behavior, and also refuses to leave when dismissed. The lawyer moves offices to avoid any further confrontation, and Bartleby is taken away to The Tombs. At the end of the story, Bartleby slowly starves in prison, finally expiring just prior to a visit by the lawyer. The lawyer suspects Bartleby's conjectured previous career in the Dead Letter Office in Washington, DC drove him to his bizarre behavior.
It’s that whole “I prefer not to” statement. Screw the whole notion about this being one of the first existential stories in literature; At least Kafka created believable scenarios. This doesn’t work. On any level. How does a guy get this far in life by never eating or doing work. By all reasoning, he should be dead many time over. Melville is making a point about defying cultural conventions, but his message is pointless, because the vessel he chooses DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!
Anyway, Ocean’s 12 has two of these plot points, first being the “steal the egg, even though you stole it before this whole charade starts” the second being the “Julia Roberts (the actress in the movie) dressing up as Julia Roberts (the movie star) to steal said egg.”
Both are so bad, I figure that they were so far along in the production and still hadn’t come up with an ending and were forced to go with the first thing that came to their mind that was somewhat feasible to avoid racking up huge production delay costs. Maybe the Julia Roberts thing would work in a more Meta film, but not in a caper film, and not with the whole “why not” air around it. Same with the egg twice over part, but after the brilliance of the first film’s setup and execution, it’s a huge letdown, and in almost any film, this doesn’t work because the audience should be let in on the secret, otherwise it is a double whammy in it’s reveal and guise of cleverness, this isn’t strong enough to be a plot twist (see every M. Night Shyamalan film after the Sixth Sense, Signs not included) because it’s too flimsy.
But I’m writing about the film because, up until the Julia Roberts moment, it’s a very fun film. And what really sticks out is the direction of Steven Soderbergh, it’s a hell of a job. There are no redundant moments in information, no over or re-explained plot points, and Soderbergh gives the audience credit to figure out what is happening.
The dialogue matches too; watching stars like Pitt, Clooney, Damon, and Cheadle saying as little as possible (opposed to them yammering on with long lines for screen time) is a hell of a good time.
There is the scene where Damon, Clooney, and Pitt meet with Robbie Coltrane, and everyone but Damon are speaking in riddles:
If all the animals on the equator were capable of flattery, then Thanksgiving and Hallowe'en would fall on the same date.
Rusty Ryan (Pitt): A doctor who specializes in skin diseases will dream that he has fallen asleep in front of the television. Later, he will wake up in front of the television, but not remember his dream.
Matsui (Coltrane): [to Linus Caldwell] Would you agree?
Damon attempts to keep up, and with his first entry, he offends Coltrane and he storms off. Pitt and Clooney later tell Damon:
Danny Ocean: You called his niece a whore.
Rusty Ryan: A very cheap one.
Danny Ocean: She's seven.
Of course, they later admit that the whole thing was just hazing, and none of the riddles meant anything, they were just gibberish.
Later on, Pitt and Clooney are sitting in front of a TV watching dubbed Happy Days re-runs and drinking wine. Pitt is wistfully wondering how he wronged his relationship with Zeta-Jones. During the whole conversation, neither of them take their eyes of the screen, causing Clooney to miss Pitt’s wine glass on a refill, and after Pitt finishes, all Clooney has to say is: “That guy doing Potsie is unbelievable.” I don’t know if it’s the less is more approach, or that they are talking to each other, but are more-or-less speaking in soliloquies, or it’s goofy joy of watching two of the more likeable movie stars of their time just acting like normal, drunken, lazy idiots entranced by a dubbed over version of a classic American show.
Much of the film’s potency and joy is how little is said, both in the unconventional manner of speaking and in the splendor of silence, as demonstrated by the Pitt – Zeta-Jones flashback. The flashback is narration/ off screen dialogue heavy, and the action on screen, such as Pitt’s introduction to Jones where he is running from the cops, is fleeting, upping the emotional quotient of a lost relationship. The makeup artists here should get serious dap for making two aging stars look convincingly younger, by about five years or so, because what helps sell the relevance of the story is the notion of the past, comprised of two people on opposite paths, one trying to capture the criminal, the other trying to evade the authority, and for all of the clairvoyant portents of the reality grounded mindset, one can’t help but wish for the amicable, even if it’s retread of the director’s masterpiece “Out of Sight.”
While the first film was all about the glam and wealth that is Las Vegas (even taking detours in a groggy Chicago, glitzy LA, and desolate Utah to highlight the difference) this film shot in a way to emulate the art house films of the Euro cinema post the new wave. Exteriors are slightly over-exposed, interiors lush and warm, and always in crowded town squares. It’s easy to capture the essential Euro feel on film, but it’s done here in throwaway fashion, exposition shots never seem to be last too long, and yet, as with the entirety of the film itself, the information given is deft, quick, and surprisingly complete in establishing the details of the moment needed.
Indeed the film falls apart at the end, and I am not here to cry salvo over a lost masterpiece or call the film criminally underrated (if this can happen for Heaven’s Gate, god knows it’s not a long shot) nor to opine for what could have been (I’ll save those when/if I ever get to writing about the Star Wars prequels. While I have read many posts and articles about loving a film in spite of the enormity of it’s flaws, and could surely copy them here, I just implore you, next time Ocean’s 12 comes on, watch the first %70 of the film and see if there isn’t an inkling to defy your previous convictions. It’s the closest experience I can think of, media wise, to drinking. It always ends in misery, but for the first part, it’s a hell of a good time. This time, the high of the film is so splendid, it’s only natural to succumb against better impulses.
(NOTE: there was a large section removed after this part. It got a little long - Dave)
In failure, Soderbergh cemented his place in the shortlist of great filmmakers. He did an amazing job in a film that couldn’t hold up to the predecessor, in a time when sequels are the most profitable film around, and despite the ending and final result, crafts a ¾ of a film majestically when it should have been unwatchable. Even knowing that his story was incomplete and ridiculous, Soderbergh does all he can to make the film worthwhile. In witnessing a great artist overcome boundaries is when true talent is proven. It’s not his best work as a director, but in his worst film, he has the ability to make the film his own, and watchable despite the failure of all others (himself included) involved seem like a wasted chance instead of a needless retread. That’s directing.
posted by Indiana at
11:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home