B Machete
A- True Grit
B The Town


and reconsidered Amelie, moved it up from B+ to A-

Regarding the payoffs in Coen films...

Keep in mind that Roger is available to answer questions.

Thank you JC!!! Somebody asked him a question about the sequence with the horse at night that I didn't like. His answer is quite interesting and I wish they hadn't gone for the "stylized sequence" like they did.

I loved that sequence. I thought the hyper real stylized feeling perfectly fit that moment of exhaustion and delirium. That is how you might remember a night like that 25 years later as Mattie is telling us the story.

I hated that sequence (surprise surprise). The entire movie is her recollection of 25 years ago and the rest of the movie is remembered/shown as very gritty and realistic. This one sequence undercuts all that and minimizes the pathos and extreme struggle of that night by being so stylized and surreal. It stuck out like a sore thumb to me and pulled me out of the movie abruptly. Blech.

Well said. I felt this fueled their decision to make a Western. Similar to my post in Zeno's thread on the characters of True Grit, the Coens could have made a movie more in keeping with the legends so common they've become the assumed real history. Instead, True Grit shows the west for the mostly hard and disappointing life it afforded. People lived on dreams, but rarely fulfilled them.

Sorry if I am beating a dead horse, but I find the Black Swan debate interesting and am glad that Clovis is offering a different view. Here's my elaboration of my ideas. I know it's long, but I just didn't feel like editing it. Sorry.

To say that Nina is not complex and that her sole goal is to become multi-dimensional seems like a misreading of the film. Or maybe you're right, and the film is just silly. It seems that you're saying that Nina recognizes her one-dimensionalness and is actively searching for personal growth. Aside from one scene where she takes Thomas's tip and touches herself in her bedroom (and omg, her mother is sitting right there! barf), she does not try to expand her horizons. Thomas pushes her endlessly but she never catches on. In fact, Nina's big self-discovery -- her night out with Lilly -- only even happened because Nina wanted to spite her mother. She did not go out that night in an effort to search for personal growth. She didn't even got out to search for her dark swan.

When Nina finds her black swan and dances perfectly, is she now a diverse, complex, multidimensional person? Can't it easily be argued that her search for multidimensionalism, as you put it, is simply a perpetuation of her narrow-minded, one dimensional desire to dance ballet at the highest level? Her night out is purposely unremarkable, and Aronofsky does a good job of not overdoing it -- it's just enough to get us to understand that Nina lives in a completely insulated world and is just out of place in this environment (not that that wasn't obvious already).

Black Swan also fails from not providing any backdrop to the story. The only moment in Black Swan where Nina is not going crazy is the very opening scene. Nina starts to lose it right after her opening dream dance. I say this because we never learn anything about Nina before she starts her hallucinations. What caused Nina to get like this? As with The Wrestler, we're forced to learn about Nina's past through dialogue, but Black Swan barely even gives us a glimpse of Nina, the individual, and what caused her to get here. We don't know. In fact, in a way that I can't quite put my finger on, Black Swan almost insinuates that Nina is to blame for her own demise.

But placing that idea aside, Black Swan expects us to jump into the beginning of a psychological freefall without understanding why the character has this struggle. Well, hell, she's an 80-pound sexually repressed balerina with a pink room, so she must be going bat**** insane, right? I'm sure there are plenty of ballerinas or gymnasts that don't have the competitive desire that Nina has. Is it because they didn't have pink rooms and an overbearing mother? Probably not. Are there ballerinas that strive to be the best at all costs? Probably. But there a multitude of forces that probably play a role in what develops that persona. Black Swan does not put us in one of those situations. Black Swan simply takes every single cliche and puts them together to create an empty film. Just as we assume the truth of the cliche that a young ballerina must be going bat**** insane, we then assume that every little cliche played a role in this psycholgical state that we, the audience, must just presume for her to be in? Or, sorry, we don't presume; there are the endless cliches in the film that are supposed to illuminate the path that Nina traveled to get here. Please.

Also, when you say that she is not a complex person, I really believe that you are saying that precisely because of this film. Why does Nina behave the way she does? What is she searcing for? She wants to be loved, accepted and praised. OK. But in Black Swan, you get the sense that she is simply selfish. She wants the Swan Queen role so, so badly because it's her sense of meaning in the world. She thinks so little of herself that she needs this role for her to meaningful. She needs this praise to validate herself. I have to say that I agree that the scene when she learns of her role is incredibly well-done and performed by Natalie Portman. But that moment -- where I could feel like her wolrd was transformed and her identification of herself immediately changes - is quickly yanked away to return to this nightmare (in this case, so that she can say "sorry" in a soft voice when her mother throws away a pink cake).

Another problem with this film is that we can all say "yeah, I get that," but we never feel the real inner struggle that is going on inside Nina because Black Swan spends two hours in this tangential, horror, cliche. Black Swan is just a diversion. Look at it this way: Say Nina Sayers doesn't die and 20 years later has transformed into a strong, healthy, middle-aged person...what changes would Nina need to make? You just don't know by watching Black Swan. Can you really get Nina her own non-pink, stuffed animalless apartment, a cheeseburger and a vibrator and then, poof, she's cured? Doubt it.

Also, there is this sense throughout Black Swan that Nina is obvlious to herself, that she thinks she's normal. A good example was at the bar when she honestly offers Tom and Jerry ballet tickets when it is obvious that they have no interest. In my experience (and I am not psychologist), these people often recognize their insecurities and understand that they are different. In fact, I've read that the self-discovery can actually perpetuate the mental illness because they feel even more imprisoned by their own psyche. The feel even weaker because they recognize their illness but can not muster the strength to do anything about it. The illness has beaten them when they looked it in the eye, and that can make somebody with incredible self-confidence issues feel even smaller and worse about themselves. My point is that this scene, just like many others, is just a superficial pop psyche cliche. Black Swan itself is actually perpetuating a stereotype, albeit unintentionally. It has gotten you to say that Nina is not complex. Can you image the struggle that someone in that position is going through? But that's not complex? Basically, you can argue whether she recognizes her one-dimensionalness, but she doesn't search for personal growth and development; she's only searching for the black swan.

Also, with regard to the thesis that she is not complex, the irony is that, with all the crazy mind**** hallucinations that we experience in Nina's mind, we don't ever examine how Nina really feels. The film makes her out to be cold and numb. And that, again, is probably because of Aronofsky's encountering of women like this. Cold and numb is a cliche, but hey, the cliche comes from somewhere. I can respect that. But cold and numb is how other people, like Aronofsky, perceive Nina. The genre of this film has the benefit of being able to put us in Nina's mind, so really put us there. There is girl there with a working brain, so bring us there. In The Wrestler, Randy sits with his daughter and we see a part of Randy that the viewer doesn't see when we watched him wrestle in the earlier frames. Maybe Nina is more battered than Randy and can't open up so easily (for instance, it's obvious she could never truly open to her mother). But we're already in a film that can show us this part of her even without her being able to express it to another character. So take the viewer there. Are the stuffed animals really more important than this? And I'm sorry, Clovis, but I think you, and possibly Aronofsky, are just flat out wrong if you say that nothing is there.

Joan Rivers doc - pretty good....she comes across as fairly sympathetic.

The Five Obstructions - interesting as a film exercise, but I can't see any non-film student enjoying this.

Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy - a four hour doc on The Nightmare on Elm Street franchise. I know, right? But it was very entertaining and watchable.

That Roger Deakins forum is awesome.

Trailer for The Illusionist, a new animated feature from Sylvain Chomet who made the delightful The Triplets of Belleville. And even better news: the film is based on the original story by Jacques Tati who also made an appearance in Triplets.

Someone on my other movie forum pointed out how similar that scene was to one in Night of the Hunter which heavily influenced the film including the hymn which permeates. I had not though of that but now it makes perfect sense.

As I pointed out earlier, without realizing it's genesis, that surreal technique was commonly used to illustrate delirium in classic films.

Nice post, fds, and just what the Lounge is made for.

I haven't seen the movie, but I would like to offer a couple general comments about characters in film or at least begin to think about characters in film. Who are they anyway? Some directors handle characters in very different ways. Mike Leigh, for example, is famous for allowing his actors to rehearse and play the characters months before filming begins so that the actors have fleshed out an entire backstory for the characters whether or not that story is used in the film. Other directors simply do not care about character motivation; they just want the actors to play the scene. Picture an actor quizzing Kubrick, or more famously Bresson, about the character's motivations, for example. Bresson assiduously chose non-actors for major roles and stifled any desire they may have had to act.

Aside from directors, though, I'm never quite sure what I want to respond to in a film. I think of the kind of reviewer (read the abominal Michael Medved) who complains in review after review "I couldn't understand the characters." Well, maybe we're not supposed to understand the characters beyond what the film makes available to us (provided, of course, we're in the hands of a competent director).

Hobby mentioned Hamlet earlier, and I think that character might serve as a good example. But I think of a characters in literature such as Ahab or Moses. What drives Ahab? Well, ostensibly, he's driven to revenge because Moby-Dick bit off his leg, but this barely begins to explain his mania. Instead, we can connect Ahab with other archetypal characters driven to revenge if we so desire, but we'll never quite get to the heart of what motivates Ahab completely--and Melville has the "sea room" to explain if he chooses.

Film works differently than literature because so much more can be suggested through image, editing, cinematography, and sound. And we process the information differently too. One point of view shot might tell us all we need to know. But we also rely, in part, on film history to make sense of characters. We've seen characters driven to succeed in film after film, but do we need to know what--explicity--allows these characters to succeed and causes others to fail? That is, do we know the individual or the type?

Although I do enjoy films that could be labelled as "character studies," I almost never see a film expecting characters to be explored in the sort of detail that can be found in a biography, memoir, or novel.

All this is, btw, a response to your asking for the director to "take the viewer there." I'm not sure it's necessary, even if I wouldn't agree that "there's no there there."

One director whom I felt always started and ended with character was Kieslowski. Even if they were enigmatic at times, they were always multi-dimensional.

A Serious Man certainly didn't warrant a payoff. It was a perfect ending.

True Grit is a story that, by its very nature (a hunt), will have the viewer hoping for a payoff of some kind. To have not one but TWO fizzled payoffs seems odd at best.

Fargo had a payoff.

The Big Lebowski had a payoff (kind of).

Miller's Crossing had a payoff.

I can see your point, but I don't think it was warranted here. If the point is that it was a down and dirty western and we shouldn't expect a payoff, then why create such bloated characters. Don't get me wrong--I had fun watching them, but surely nobody here thinks this is some sort of documentary.

Thanks, John. I do appreciate that. I was pretty sure that my lack of film experience/knowledge easily gleams through my posts.

Basically, my point with "take the viewer there" is that I believe that there is more to Nina than what is portrayed in this film. And I have no idea if Aronofsky made an intentional, conscious effort keep that from the viewer. According to Clovis, the thesis is that there is nothing to take the viewer to, so it at least can be argued that that was Aronofsky's intention. If that is the case, then I simply disagree fundamentally with his view. That's fine.

Edit: I know you haven't seen the film, John, but just a point about this idea (somebody who has seen it can chime in, or John seems like a smart enough guy to possibly figure it out without even seeing it): All the numerous cliches in the film are there for a reason, and isn't a significant, if not the most important, reason to show us all of them (her bedroom, the stuff animals, her mother, etc. etc. etc.) to illuminate Nina's life before the beginning of the film so that we may understand how she got here. I understand if Aronofsky purposely keeps her past from us, but he doesn't.

I think we are viewing the film from fundamentally different places and that is fine. We will have to agree to disagree on this one I think.

An interesting and worthwhile discussion nonetheless.

Good review, Dom. It's def a film that you have to be in the mood for, and when you are, it's really beautiful and touching. Tilda Swinton is amazing in it; she plays one character, but that character transforms (almost expectantly so) to hold many roles in that family.

Ok, I will definitely watch Night of the Hunter to see what you're talking about. But...that's a different type of film, correct? Such conventional techniques are not used in Westerns (or at least not any that I've seen).

Rushmore, don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not sure you do see Clovis' point. He didn't say the Coens chose this "fizzled payout" for the sake of "down and dirty reality". He said they did it to play with audience expectations (i.e. torture them) and to inject their own personal philosophy into the story: namely, life is disappointment OR things never work out the way you planned. As you said before "they can do whatever they want here" and this is conscious effort on their part to show you how they see the world.

If I could take Clovis' analysis a step further: the Coens are constantly exploring the absurdity of making plans in the first place, as many of their films center around a carefully orchestrated plan that blows up the main character's face. Fargo, the Big Lebowski, Raising Arizona...many of their protagonists can be seen as "the fool who tried to control his own world". The Coens like to laugh at the silliness and futility of "best laid plans" (Bunny's anti-climactic return in The Big Lebowski, or Chief Gunderson's speech to the Swede at the end of Fargo -- what was the point?). They believe in the power of chaos and variance which, by nature, runs antithetical to audience expectations/narrative structure. Their "payoffs" are illustrations of this controlling idea.

That said, although my response above may suggest otherwise, like Clovis said before: True Grit is not a film rife with existential undertones. I loved it, but it was just a fun romp through the Western genre for the Coens. They were just playing around, but if you really love cinema, it's so much fun to watch them play.

much better said than my attempt.

Only caught this this week over here in Ireland, but this is a really, really good review.

I really enjoyed it, but I think alot of people will despise here. I suppose it could be sort of described as a Lost In Translation for the MTV/The Hills generation. As Ryan said it's beautifully shot, and the soundtrack by Phoenix is a hipster's dream, but it does lack a little something in that it's so hard to actually feel empathy for the lead character who is basically living the dream life for most young males.

The King's Speech - what a great movie. Everyone in it is superb.

Lovely, Still, 2008, Nicholas Fackler. I loved this film until about 2/3 of the way through. I don't want to give anything away, but the final 1/3 just doesn't work imo. Martin Landau and Ellen Burstyn carry the film on their shoulders and make the film worth watching. The movie actually starts off as a romantic comedy, senior citiizen-style, and I really enjoyed it. Seeing these seniors get the puppy love was fun and actually pretty moving. But it starts turning down another road, and I think it should have been content where it was.

Apparently, the director was only 23 when he filmed this, which is pretty impressive given the senior subject matter.

Available on Netflix Watch Instantly.