18th Mofo Hall of Fame

I liked The Square because I didn't really even get a message from it. I honestly don't think there was even a message - unless the message is that everything is contradictory, and NOTHING is ever black and white.

For example, the scene where the main character gets asked by a beggar woman to buy her a sandwich. He apprehensively agrees, and you can see him kind of light up with feeling good doing service, but before he even gets to the counter the beggar woman demands that it have no onions on the sandwich, and she has this entitled and grouchy grimace on her face. So, the main character walks up to the counter, buys her the sandwich, and then gives her the sandwich while slipping in "you can pick your own onions off of it"

So a movie like The Square knows that there is good and bad in everyone, yet it doesn't force that obvious reality down your throat. It just plays out the scenes absurdly.

Absurdity like the fanatical woman who had a one night stand with the curator. As she tries to bring him down and control him, we hear the creaking of an uneasy stack of chairs posing for installation art in the gallery space behind them. This loud and obnoxious chair creaking keeps interrupting her soapbox lecture to her one night lover, and at the end of it all he gets her to admit she's even filthier than he is because she is attracted to his status and power, and that's why she slept with him, not just because she was horny like he was. He just didn't call her is all he's guilty of. So then we have an ugly ego on top of it. A nice little surprise twist that seemed to stifle out the raging fire we smelled the smoke of, taunting us from around the corner unseen.

I laughed plenty at this film. There's a lot to like about it. Structure and proper narrative? No. It reflects what art is in that, these rules and regulations for digestible linear-like explanations are really at the mercy of people who can get their own meanings out of them. In that regard the film excelled. Ironically, I shaved some of my score off for the lack of transcendence that the script could not deliver on. I was looking for a message, and I didn't get one, that is - until now, when I threw my thoughts down about the film again.

Good art always allows the audience to hold the brush and finish it off.

On topic / off topic here, who cares. Just some thoughts... I’m sorry for the length,

When people ask me what my favorite genre is, I say to them: cinema. And in no way do I mean that in an arrogant or snarky way, nor do I think everybody who loves to watch movies should say the same. Of course we all love movies here. I’m not thinking of myself as being “smarter” and “higher up” than anybody here. There are tons of people here who knows more than I do, have seen more movies than I do, etc.

But my point is just that when i watch movies, I watch them as “cinema”, and not what genre it falls in, not whether the character(s) are likable, not whether the style “appeals” to me. Of course, there will always be subjectivity. Always. Sometimes the personal view in me will contradict with this way of viewing movies. That can't be avoided. And I don’t purposely try to view a film objectively or talk about it objectively for the sake of objectivity. I love cinema and therefore I try to see it in context of that. How this certain scene, certain character or certain style works as a piece of cinema, and most importantly, how it works on the fundament it lays upon itself...

The last part meaning, that all films set out to say or do or create something and I weigh that higher than whether it is pure, unadulterated “cinematic quality", as they say, where the importance - to me is at least - is more whether a given B-movie homage is comfortable and successful being just that. I don’t compare said movie to The Godfather, for example. It's apples and oranges for one. But films should first and foremost succeed on their on premises. If a film wants to be all out action with little plot, but where the action drives the story forward, then I wanna look at if the action is good enough to carry it and if it works like the director intended. I always try to view a movie from the movie’s perspective - “try” being an important word here.

Anyways, of course some people just wants to be entertained by movies; some wants to be touched by them; some always wants characters that are interesting; some want it all. Some really wants movies to play after their head. Say, I personally don’t care if I like a character - I want to know and understand who that character is and how the movie presents him/her/them to me... I don’t care if a message in a movie appeals to me - I want to know how the movie brings it forward and talks about it/dissects it... I don’t care if a movie have story or structure or anything - I want to know whether the movie has a good reason for not having it/them (like weighing other elements more, for example) and if it works in its own terms and with the outline it works from. That's what's important.

I don’t know if it’s the movie critic or the film lover speaking here... perhaps it's both. I just know that I will always have a hard time viewing other people’s opinions on films when they are either too vague, too subjective, or too dismissive of what they see/experience. Strong subjectivity is one thing, but they have to come with proper points within them, meaning behind them, back-up references and so on. Or else they mean nothing. They stand as empty talk. Nothingness. At least to me.

And yes... of course this write-up here springs partly from pahaK’s reaction to The Square, but please know that this is in no way just directed at you or written with just you in mind. This is very general also and how I feel on this topic. Something I have always felt but seem to really want to have come out right now.

If I were to use an example close to heart and with purpose to you in particular, @pahaK, I would take Brimstone, for example. I could have reviewed it as “the film is far too violent and it gets monotone, boring and unbearably tedious to watch. You just keep waiting on when the film will kill another dude or girl in a grusome way. It’s 2.5 hours of a pretentious revenge flick trying to look slicker and act smarter than it really is, with it’s many storylines and themes of religion, morals and whatnot.”

^^That could just as well have been something I would have said. With a different mindset to movies, it could very well be the exact way I would have written things actually... But I viewed the movie from the movie’s point of view first. Then the inevitable subjectivity comes sneaking behind, sure, but I focused on it as part of cinema. As a piece of work, of thought, of creativity. "What does the director want to say or do with this film?"... I saw how clearly it presented its intent to be violent and use violence as a, admittedly bit cheap way, to enforce its themes, characters, story and whatever comes to mind. But it worked well enough for the movie and what it wanted.

Of course, there’s more general cinematic check points that a movie should cross off or at least turn around in a way, but mostly everything should have its starting point in the movie itself. No movie is the same so why should my viewpoint be? The broader you are able to expand your mind towards objectivity and the basis of cinema, the greater an experience you can have with a movie.


I hope there is something to take from all this for somebody. I’m sorry if it seems like a rant or something. I guess it kinda is. You are all welcomed to share your point of view, of course.

__________________
/watching movies for mark f/
MovieMeditation's Cinema Reviews // Film Diary 2015 // Letterboxd Profile // MovieMeditation's Top 50 Horror

Some good points there Joel, about The Square. I had similar thoughts (honestly!) while watching the film, only my no-recall memory forgot about them by the time I had wrote my review.

But yeah, I liked what you said about the beggar woman scene. It was well done. She was so damn picky about onions on her free sandwich...that when the museum guy buys her a sandwich and tells her to pick the onions off her self...it was so unexpected and realistic to the diversity of human nature. And yet it wasn't played big, it was done subtle and matter of fact. To me that's a hallmark of a good film, as it didn't scream the intent of the scene to the audience.

Oh, about the American woman who was trying to make a big stink about museum man not remembering her name...when she's just into him for his prestige. I heard those chairs crashing too! and that made a subliminal feeling to the scene. What was weird about the sex scene is we see the woman has this chimpanzee in the living room that's putting on lipstick...a representation of her true self? I don't know? I thought that was funny though.

The Square does NOT spoonfeed emotions and tell the viewer what to think, and I think that's brilliant. Compare that to Brimstone which within 30 seconds of the evil preacher guy giving his sermon I felt like I was watching an evil cartoon caricature.

A great director once said (I can't remember who?, maybe Kazan) that every antagonist should have a good quality that the audience can relate to, so as to understand the antagonist motives. Rubert in The King of Comedy is bat-ass crazy, a dangerous person and yet Scorsese and DeNiro imbibes him with enough humanity that we can see a bit of ourselves in his character and still get him.

Some good thoughts and points there, both Joel and Citizen. Very interesting reads

MM, just read your last post Interesting read and I admire your method for evaluating films. I'll try to come back and comment later. Right now it's off to work.

Can I still talk about Brimstone only 90 mins into it? I'm gonna anyway.

It's a long movie!

So far I can really appreciate some of what it has to offer. Actually, I'm not sure if I can.

Did you see how fast that happened?

For a low budget picture it has some things going for it. Some of the early set work is a bit shoddily constructed, like the aluminum looking support columns in the beginning church scene. One thing that usually gets me in old westerns is that the set design always looks about as old as the actual fictional life location must look now. This isn't an issue for Brimstone lol. It looks pretty spanky.

Some of the lighting seems a bit too LED and obvious. You know - the kind where you know a softbox is right out of frame right or something? It has that fax moonlight colder white temperature but it's too close and/or not powerful enough to give spot real distance from the frame and then throw that blue sheen on the back of a white dress getting into a horse cab.

Why am I talking about just lighting and sets, and do I have anything positive to say about the film so far?

I just got done complaining that I saw boo boo's on a low budget film, yet I can only really comment on the design, because in later scenes, it's places like the Harem and some open range locations - things start looking like a real western picture in the high B area.

As far as story, it has an interesting one in the way it tells it. The constant time shifting doesn't really have any obvious transitional elements (except for a wild strike of lighting twice in a row which was wild), at least none that I could spot. Dude, you just spotted one, what the hell are you talking about?

Well - back to the movie I guess.

The King of Comedy was a first time watch and the last Scorsese feature that I hadn't seen. It lived up to the hype in a big way. An excellent cynical satire on celebrity culture and recognition filled with so many quality dialogue exchanges. Massively impressive. In that sense this script would transfer really well to the stage though whether you would want to be confined in a room for a show with a pretend Rupert Pupkin is another matter.

Rupert is deranged and cringe inducing in a fascinating way. The film plays out like a series of awkward skits with Rupert dominating and each feeling important to the film's progression. It's fundamentally like a social horror that I suspect most people would want to turn away from. Ricky Gervais is someone who uses a lot of these scene setting techniques for his own brand of cringe humour in shows like The Office or Extras but this is more intense.

Where I think the script expands on that too is this exploration of relevant themes that push a tone focused on understanding the desire for personal celebrity and recognition. What would you do for fame or success? Where 'Anything' can be the motto. Despite Rupert's psychotic overbearing persona and desperateness I bought into his situation. He's such a well written character, detailed and complex, backed up by his fantasies of comedy greatness.

The straight performances offer an ability for Rupert to play off and the way they in turn interact with him is the crux of why it's so uncomfortable, I've only seen a couple of Jerry Lewis films prior to this, the one before this being The Nutty Professor which is a character so far off from what is here. I thought he was one of the highlights and his dialogue brings out a condescending and polite manner. Rupert is completely unwilling or too socially inept to pick up on this because of his stability when meeting someone that he idolises. People believe what they want to believe.

This will finish towards the top of my ballot.

OK, so there wasn't really anything for me here. It aimed high and failed because it was silly. I mean, how am I gonna put any faith into a film who has the dramatic moment played out with a guy's intestines wrapped around his neck, all the while this dude is acting like he has a broken ankle in the facial pain department? Tell me, huh?!

I also didn't like the underage girl whorehouse theme, they need to dial that shlt way back. Nasty and not cool in my book, like, at all.

It just felt way too bloated and self important.

I'm a person who enjoys a messy failure if it entertains me, humors me, or makes me think on some creative level. Brimstone does none of this, and while I appreciate its sometimes tough guy tone, I don't like to see stuff like this, thematically. The world is screwed up enough and since the dialog and acting were either second rate or uninspired respectively, I gotta give this thing like, I dunno..a star and a half or something.

Really good write-up, @Nathaniel. I also saw it for the first time and loved it. I haven't seen nearly every Scorsese picture. I'm impressed by that. But when I watch a Scorsese film I usually end up saying "Damn, I should really watch more Scorsese..."

And @Joel I completely understand the disliking of Brimstone. It's an unpleasant movie. One could make many points for its problems, but on some sort of guilty pleasure, high-art B-movie, 'Saw'-franchise-like-torture-porn-ish kind of level... it sorta worked for me haha.

And I don't fault you one iota for that because I enjoyed aspects of it, too...just not enough compared to the unpleasantness. I think it was the little girl so close to such graphic yet mindless sex, and the fact that the main father figure has his innards around his neck. I mean, just writing that out again kind of has me laughing I'm not gonna lie.

Yeah, especially that last scene you mention, was a little hard to digest.... wait, get it? Sorry, anyways. It was extremely graphic and violent on the verge to completely ridiculous and silly. Probably not even on the verge, but over the ****ing hill and down into the depths of shake-your-head-extreminess...

But yeah, it definitely pulled all strings possible to provoke you and make you uncomfortable etc.

Which is why I'm gonna finish the last hour right now!!

HAhaha!

Yes, this film gets three reviews..because it's so looooooong.

Fake review, fake review!

You wanna know what's nastier and crappier than Brimstone and has done worse things to intestines?

"Ain't dat da truth, dat da plain troof!"

oh god,..and remember Bone Tomahawk.

I liked that movie much better but still...ouchie.

Really like that film! Indeed a nasty scene though!

I have my nom picked out for the 19th. Just thought I'd say that. It's not like you guys can guess it

I don't know if it's a good or bad thing that I (not necessary my nomination but me) always seems to become a topic in these HoFs. I still think that more in depth discussion about my perception of movies and how I rate them would better fit in my own movie diaries but I still need to shortly reply here as well.

The most important thing you need to understand about me regarding movies is that my ratings are 100% subjective. Maybe, kinda like with you, there's always some objectivity to contradict and mess with my mind but my aim is pure subjectivity.

The other big thing is that I don't separate art and entertainment. To me they're the same thing. For me art that doesn't entertain in some way is just bad art (note: subjectively speaking).

So to decipher the important information from my reviews I'd suggest this.

1) Check the rating. The exact value isn't that important for understanding but the ranges for bad (-1.5), OK (2-3) and good (3.5+) are.

2) Remind yourself that the rating is based on my subjective feeling of being entertained (and I don't mean that in lighthearted and fluffy sense but as an idea whether the time was well spent while watching the film).

3) The written review is my attempt to rationalize the reasons that lead to the rating. As the rating is holistic, personal and based on interpreting a general feeling the write-up is often flawed as putting the intangible to words is difficult.

And I'll try offer some alternative thoughts to Brimstone in near future. It seems many people have issues with stuff I considered essential so I feel obliged to rationalize my opinion some more.

__________________

Brimstone (Martin Koolhoven, 2016)
Imdb

Date Watched: 2/17/19
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: 18th MoFo Hall of Fame, nominated by pahaK
Rewatch: No.

I had some very mixed feelings about this one. First, I thought the film looked great. The cinematography, sets, locations, and costuming were impressive. Second, I liked the premise of it and thought there was a lot of potential there for a truly gripping story.

Unfortunately, however, what the film delivered was an overly long, bloated, and rather disjointed tale that could have really used more editing. What even was the point of Kit Harrington's character? I mean, the man can't act so whatever, but there was zero chemistry between him and Joanna and I felt nothing when his character met his demise. That whole subplot with him was just wasted screen time.

Still, I did find myself at least moderately invested in Joanna's story - at least up until that final ridiculous confrontation with the reverend, which left me rolling my eyes - so I'll grant it an almost favorable rating.

__________________

@pahaK that’s cool and I’ll look forward to more in-deph stuff about your own nom.

I don’t know, I just feel like your reviews and ratings just comes off as too shallow sometimes. I feel like movies have a lot too offer in each department and entertainment can come in many forms. It just seems so basic the way you tackle a movie and it often sounds like you write off a movie really quickly or because of very few elements instead of trying to look at the bigger picture or try to understand the different sides to it. I might be wrong though, but that’s just sometimes how it comes off to me.

Some great noms in this HoF, I keep popping in to see how they are going. The Square and The Florida Project are favourites of mine from the last few years. Great films.