Third Eye Film Society ~ View topic

Author

Message

< Third Eye Film Forums ~ Current Film Talk

whiskeypriest

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:27 pm

Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 6916 Location: "It's a Dry Heat."

bartist wrote:

Well, the caring aspect arises from the deplorable state of science education in this nation, which by all measures lags way behind other developed nations. So you have impressionable minds whose science vacuums are being filled bt the mindsmog of most sci-fi films.

A propos of your analogy to legal movies...there is probably a similar deficit there, too, in terms of what used to be called Civics.

So getting the science right might be nice once in a while, esp. in a film that seems to be promoting its plausibility and attendant message that we should be getting into spacefaring in a big way. Agree or disagree, it would be nice to have the younger viewers excited about real science and not confused mixes of science and fantasy. As Sagan used to point out, real science is exciting enough and sufficiently generative of wonder that we shouldn't have to whore it up with pseudoscience nonsense.

so, while I normally agree that realism isn't vital to a popcorn movie, this time I would take exception to that.

Cheers.

None of what you posted about science knowledge makes any difference to the quality of the movie.

The fact is that a movie creates its own reality. If it works in that reality that is enough.

_________________
I ask you, Velvel, as a rational man, which of us is possessed?

Syd

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 10:02 pm

Site Admin Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 12929 Location: Norman, Oklahoma

Nightcrawler's quite good, with Jake Gyllenhaal joining Kirk Douglas in Ace in the Hole and Boris Karloff in Five Star Final (and Tony Curtis and Burt Lancaster in Sweet Smell of Success)among the devil's pantheon of creepy newsmen. (Karloff's the creepiest, but hardly anyone living's seen that movie.) Gyllenhaal's Lou Bloom isn't tremendously deep, but I could see him becoming one of those characters like Travis Bickle who becomes a sort of icon, in this case the epitome of unethical news photographers. Very good directing job by Dan Gilroy (it was his first directing job.)

_________________
Rocky Laocoon foretold of Troy's doom, only to find snaky water. They pulled him in and Rocky can't swim. Now Rocky wishes he were an otter!

billyweeds

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 6:34 am

Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 20618 Location: New York City

If I were voting for the Oscar, and voting simply with an eye to art with no humanity attached, I would vote for Gyllenhaal hands down. Michael Keaton (Birdman) still gets my vote because I want to see his blazing talents recognized at long last, but Gyllenhaal's performance is really something (Of course I still haven't seen Steve Carell in Foxcatcher, which I understand is quite marvelous as well. That will be seen next Tuesday.)

bartist

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 9:59 am

Joined: 27 Apr 2010 Posts: 6961 Location: Black Hills

whiskeypriest wrote:

bartist wrote:

...getting the science right might be nice once in a while, esp. in a film that seems to be promoting its plausibility and attendant message that we should be getting into spacefaring in a big way. Agree or disagree, it would be nice to have the younger viewers excited about real science and not confused mixes of science and fantasy. As Sagan used to point out, real science is exciting enough and sufficiently generative of wonder that we shouldn't have to whore it up with pseudoscience nonsense.

so, while I normally agree that realism isn't vital to a popcorn movie, this time I would take exception to that.

Cheers.

None of what you posted about science knowledge makes any difference to the quality of the movie.

The fact is that a movie creates its own reality. If it works in that reality that is enough.

When the movie is presenting itself as based on real science, then I think getting the science right is important. Think about other genres where they are based on certain political or sociological realities....viewers tear them to shreds when they stray from key facts and those errors glare. ]

_________________
He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days.

whiskeypriest

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:31 am

Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 6916 Location: "It's a Dry Heat."

bart -

I saw The Verdict fresh out of classes on Civil Procedure and in the middle of Evidence. Gritty amd realistic they all said. Copety off fucking base legally, I said. Made no differemce to anyone witbout specialized knowledge. Nor should it have. The same with my screaming, "Hey, wait, mistrial! Mistrial! at 12 Angry Men when Fonda whipped out the duplicate knife and stuck in the jury table. To the annoyance of my date. Accuracy in technical matters is irrelevant to the quality of a movie.

Now if a movie claims to be accutate and is not, it is fair game for.experts to pick it apart for that claim. Which I will doubtlessly do if I am ever unfortunate enough to see Anonymous. But my point is, that is absolutely irrelevant to the quality of the movie.

_________________
I ask you, Velvel, as a rational man, which of us is possessed?

yambu

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:35 am

Joined: 23 May 2004 Posts: 6441 Location: SF Bay Area

whiskeypriest wrote:

Name me a film that is true to courtroom procedure, and I'll rent it today. Last night I re-watched Kramer v. Kramer. As always in court procedurals, the lawyers got practically nose to nose with the witnesses, yelled at them, lead them, and cut off their answers repeatedly.

Seriously, I would like to watch a courtroom drama that is true to itself.

_________________
That was great for you. How was it for me?

billyweeds

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:09 pm

Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 20618 Location: New York City

yambu wrote:

whiskeypriest wrote:

Possibly the most ridicuous of them all is A Place in the Sun, where a lawyer literally smashes a rowboat to smithereens in the courtroom to make a point. And this is in the middle of a movie that's generally regarded as excellent.

billyweeds

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:12 pm

Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 20618 Location: New York City

whiskeypriest wrote:

"Hey, wait, mistrial! Mistrial! at 12 Angry Men when Fonda whipped out the duplicate knife and stuck in the jury table.

What would constitute a mistrial about a jury member coming up with a duplicate knife? He's not a prosecutor or a defense lawyer or a judge. He's just a jury member.

whiskeypriest

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:13 pm

Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 6916 Location: "It's a Dry Heat."

Conducting a private investigation. Bringinv outside information ito the jury room. Bringing in the k if. Jurors.are charged to decide to make tneir decisions based solely on what is presented to them. Much of what Fonda does in tbe movie is in direct viotation of that charge, but the knife business is a clear violation. Assuming the alternate jurors had been diamissed the judge would have no choice but to declare a mistrial.

Do not let that trouble you. The movie has no duty to conform to technicalities. It needs to work as drama.

_________________
I ask you, Velvel, as a rational man, which of us is possessed?

bartist

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Joined: 27 Apr 2010 Posts: 6961 Location: Black Hills

I wouldn't mind seeing a film that gets courtroom procedure right, though it would take some serious compression, which moviemakers know how to do. I would agree that accuracy as to facts matters only in films that are presented as realistic. I guess "hard" sci-fi is like that, where it is extrapolating from known science and saying "this could be where we are in 30 years," e.g. Interstellar.

IIRC, the Grisham adapt with Matt Damon as a newbie attorney, got some kudos for showing a courtroom where the procedure was somewhat more real...I recall MD getting chided by the judge for not asking permission to approach the witness. And
various other rookie mistakes. I'm sure it was still far too histrionic to really be called realistic. And who doesn't enjoy drama? I guess a reasonable mix is what most people like, e.g. Julia Roberts can be Erin Brokovich, but she has to get the facts about the well water contamination essentially right. Not everyone would notice or care, but the integrity of a true story film demands it.

_________________
He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days.

whiskeypriest

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:17 pm

Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 6916 Location: "It's a Dry Heat."

yambu wrote:

whiskeypriest wrote:

Even the truly excellent Anatomy of a Murser does that, along with argumentarive questioning, speaking ojections, leadinf your own witnesses, allowing a doctor to testify on mntal atatus without ever examining the pafient.

A movie that conformed to actual courteoom drama wojld SUCK. It would bore the piss out of everyone.

_________________
I ask you, Velvel, as a rational man, which of us is possessed?

bartist

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:21 pm

Joined: 27 Apr 2010 Posts: 6961 Location: Black Hills

WP, I look forward to your review of Anonymous. Very Happy

_________________
He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days.

yambu

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:36 pm

Joined: 23 May 2004 Posts: 6441 Location: SF Bay Area

In the Dreiser book, An American Tragedy, much of the police effort was in seeking the murder weapon. They finally salvaged from the lake a camera with her blood and hair on it. The movie's boat had her blood and hair on it's gunwhale, but that could have happened when it capsized. They ignored the camera, which means Montgomery Clift should've walked.

Instead, Raymond Burr, before the jury and without warning, takes an oar to the boat and smashes it with one blow. So what. The oar hadn't figured at all. In real life, the Court would issue a Directed Verdict for Defendant, for the Prosecution's failure to establish the murder weapon.

_________________
That was great for you. How was it for me?

whiskeypriest

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:59 pm

Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 6916 Location: "It's a Dry Heat."

bart -

The Rainmaker. The accurate slap downs of Matt Damon were ot really a stab at accurqcy but a way of showing Da.on's awkward nexperimce. Elzewhere it was as inaccurate as any movie. The voir dire scenes were particularly egregious.

_________________
I ask you, Velvel, as a rational man, which of us is possessed?

whiskeypriest

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:01 pm

Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 6916 Location: "It's a Dry Heat."

bartist wrote:

WP, I look forward to your review of Anonymous. Very Happy

If I get to see it for free. That will be the test of my conviction.

_________________
I ask you, Velvel, as a rational man, which of us is possessed?

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

View next topic View previous topic Page 3009 of 3196 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 3008, 3009, 3010 ... 3194, 3195, 3196 Next Third Eye Film Society Forum Index ~ Third Eye Film Forums

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum