Can I just say how stoked I am for the new Foo Fighters album that came out today? The new effort, Echoes, Silence, Patience & Grace, is being called the best since The Colour and the Shape, which therefore means it’s a masterpiece. And now means they’re going on tour. Which means I now need to figure out which part of my mind I’ll want to lose when I go. Dave Grohl, in person, in concert, is a GOD.
For anyone who’s had the delight to listen to it already, let me hear your thoughts.
“For all their skill with actors and knack for filming Manhattan burnised in a radiant glow, the filmmakers don’t feel nearly the same affinity for this tony crowd as they did for Harvey Pekar and his scrappy Cleveland cohorts..” – Pitch Weekly
Ah yes, this tactic. The above review excerpt for ‘The Nanny Diaries’ illustrate one of the exasperating annoyances I have with film reviewers: disliking a movie because it isn’t just like the filmmakers’ predecessors. Films should be reviewed with a fresh, unbiased set of eyes, as if this is the first and last film you’ll see by this filmmaker. I know that’s a bold theory, but it’s only fair.
Not to harp on about ‘Nanny Diaries’, but I thought it was brilliantly done. It wasn’t at all cliche, and the filmmakers wove some delightfully entertaining and creative perspectives and angles into a film full of insight and good performances. Granted, it’s my opinion, but I really get ticked off reading all this critics sulk about how it’s not ‘American Splendor 2′, and how they should’ve used more elements from AE in their follow up film. Dislike is fine, if it’s justified by reasons unrelated to how much you liked their last film.
Isn’t it a filmmakers duty to create something fresh, say something new, try something challenging, as opposed to just retreading the same trusty film tactics that worked in their last critic success? I applaud any director that’s willing to leave behind the genre, the approach, the cast, the perspective, etc, that worked for them in their last film, and be bold enough to take on a project that isn’t at all what they’ve already done.
Example: Danny Boyle. Brilliant director, and his films since ‘Trainspotting’ have suffered from the films success. ‘A Less Ordinary’ and ‘The Beach’ was damned before the lights even dimmed. Everyone had their tongue firmly planted in their cheek after the cold-water comedy of ‘Trainspotting’, expecting his follow up film to be some British scallywag jaunt like ‘Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ and the like. Instead, they got DiCaprio, brilliant DiCaprio, in a film that drank in the notion of self-destruction and one’s descent into darkness and madness. ‘A Life Less Ordinary’ also demands a watch. It too, relishes in Boyle trademark of dark comedy and bizarre visual epiphets, and it’s delicious. I digress – the point is, that Boyle has managed to focus more on his own development as a filmmaker, and not focus on what the critics are saying. Each project has been hugely different than the last, and they are each successful and worth discussion on their own grounds. I’m just coming off the mad happiness I was in last night, after finishing ‘28 Days Later’. Again, another totally different film, another totally awesome film in its own right.
By comparing movies with each other, you’re essentially just being closed minded. Each movie is (or should be) made in its own particular way, and must therefore be viewed that way. It’s our duty as filmgoers to accept the creative threshold of the filmmaker, and respect what they are trying to accomplish for that film, and that film alone.
Naturally, directors adopt a definitive visual and storytelling style, just like any author or musician. Anderson, Luhrmann, Crowe, Ghondry, Tarantino all have fallen in love with certain trademarks of their own. One cannot imagine a Wes Anderson movie without one of the Wilson brothers, a theatrical setup, muted colors, narration, Bill Murray, or that 70’s font. However, like Hitchcock, Jeunet, Ghondry, Luhrmann and others, Wes Anderson has approached each film originally and imaginatively. That’s what makes them so good (in my opinion).
I’ve obviously found my way onto a soapbox. I’m just asking that filmgoers respect the filmmaker’s efforts with a little more patience and consideration, and stop asking the black-sheep youngster why they can’t be more like their older brother. Otherwise, perhaps it’s best to go find a corner to pout in.
Categories: key-lashing · talkies
A friend asked me about Kansas City the other night, and half an hour later I finally finished my answer. I immediately went on the defense; no sleek urbanite was gonna look down on my beloved Cowtown. Yes, I said beloved. I’ve often thought about how we are all quick to gripe about our hometown, its ticks and irks and the-ways-it-could-be-so-much-better-if-onlys, and we oft forget about the things we love about our stomping grounds, the things that make it worth defending. So behold:
The Things I Love About Kansas City
I keep thinking of more and more things. In short, KC is pretty damn nifty. Give it 20 years, and it’ll really be something to toot about. Of course, I could list a million things that bug the hell out of me, but for now, I’m gonna subside the gripe. (Ask me again in 3 months.)
*One teeny-weeny gripe
Categories: mootown
Does it save gas to drive with the overdrive function on or off?
Categories: gump
|
nuts Crazynorseman
