The Criterion Collection

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Marion Cotillard deserves to win.

She's the only nominee in any of the big four categories I really care about, I thought that was one of the very best movies of the year easily and she was by far the best thing about it. I know she also doesn't have a chance cause it's not oscar-bait like playing an alzheimer's victim or someone with lou gehrig's disease or whatever, but I'm just glad she got nominated. I didn't really like a single one of the nominated actor performances and while I really liked Rosamund Pike in Gone Girl, Marion Cotillard in Two Days One Night is one of my favorite performances in anything, ever. It's up there with Sally Hawkins in Happy-Go-Lucky (who didn't even get nominated, obv).

[captveg]

I find it hilarious when people try to criticize the technique/process of uniquely made films like Boyhood, Memento, the Artist, etc., as gimmicky. It's part of the point of those films to be made in those particular ways. Boyhood is mostly about the passage of time, and the real time construct of it is purposefully drawing attention to itself to contextualize the whole. Of course it would be more shallow and mundane if done in two months with makeup and several kid actors. Doing that would remove the primary element of time that is keystone to the entire film.

[Ausjdm]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

I liked Birdman, but didn't love it. The style really started annoying me after a while. I'd have to watch it again to really give it a fair shot, I'll probably get the bluray when it inevitably ends up at clearance prices in a few months (the same way similar prestige movies like American Hustle, Gravity, etc did).

Whiplash was idiotic and actually offended me, but that's because I've been around jazz musicians all my life and seeing a movie present such an insane portrayal of jazz that so completely misses the mark in every single respect actually angered me in a few scenes, especially the climactic drum solo, which was absolutely tone deaf garbage that would cause ANY jazz audience to throw stuff at the stage or just walk out, it was like something from a Dream Theater concert. However, I still sorta enjoyed it as a cartoony thriller, cause I'd seen the writer's previous movie, "Grand Piano" (which is about Elijah Wood as a concert pianist who must play an insanely difficult piece perfectly or else John Cusack will shoot him with a sniper rifle) and thus went into this with that movie in mind instead of with it in mind as a best picture nominee. The fact people seem to be taking it seriously or thinking it's realistic in any way, shape or form in its depiction of jazz music really blows my mind.

I can understand that if your heavy into jazz it being offensive. My knowledge is lacking with Jazz in general. But whiplash does deal with more topics than just that. All good though

[jmclick]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Marion Cotillard deserves to win.

I haven't seen Two Days, One Night yet, so I can't comment on that particular performance, but I can tell you that she is an actress whose presence in a movie guarantees that I'm going to want to see it.

In fact, I can even go further and state that I've never seen her give a bad performance. She and Matthias Schoenaerts were both magnificent in Rust and Bone, and should have been nominated that year; while Schoenaerts might not have deserved to win over Daniel Day-Lewis in Lincoln, I much preferred Cotillard to Jennifer Lawrence in Silver Linings Playbook.

One film I would love to see Criterion release is La Vie en Rose, the film for which Cotillard did win the Oscar; I think it's incredible that it's never been released on blu-ray in North America.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by captveg

I find it hilarious when people try to criticize the technique/process of uniquely made films like Boyhood, Memento, the Artist, etc., as gimmicky. It's part of the point of those films to be made in those particular ways. Boyhood is mostly about the passage of time, and the real time construct of it is purposefully drawing attention to itself to contextualize the whole. Of course it would be more shallow and mundane if done in two months with makeup and several kid actors. Doing that would remove the primary element of time that is keystone to the entire film.

Well it may be hilarious to you, but for me it was a gimmick and it didn't make the film any better, that is my opinion. I wouldn't really call Boyhood 'Unique' though....?

[captveg]

Every film style is a gimmick.

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by jmclick

In fact, I can even go further and state that I've never seen her give a bad performance. She and Matthias Schoenaerts were both magnificent in Rust and Bone, and should have been nominated that year; while Schoenaerts might not have deserved to win over Daniel Day-Lewis in Lincoln, I much preferred Cotillard to Jennifer Lawrence in Silver Linings Playbook.

I unfortunately first discovered her through Inception, Midnight in Paris and Dark Knight Rises, and thus had a bias against her, I just kind of found her annoying. I then saw Rust and Bone and was floored and she immediately became one of my favorite actresses. I think it probably had something to do with her accent when doing a movie in English. I had a similar experience with Penelope Cruz where I saw Vanilla Sky and was like "what an annoying person, I can't stand her voice" and then saw Volver and Vicky Cristina Barcelona and loved her.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

I unfortunately first discovered her through Inception, Midnight in Paris and Dark Knight Rises, and thus had a bias against her, I just kind of found her annoying. I then saw Rust and Bone and was floored and she immediately became one of my favorite actresses. I think it probably had something to do with her accent when doing a movie in English. I had a similar experience with Penelope Cruz where I saw Vanilla Sky and was like "what an annoying person, I can't stand her voice" and then saw Volver and Vicky Cristina Barcelona and loved her.

She's better in foreign speaking roles tbh, although I didn't mind her in Inception.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by captveg

Every film style is a gimmick.

What the difference between a gimmick and a device or a technique?

I like devices and techniques.

[SammyJankis]

Oi. I think it's telling that much of the praise worth reading for Boyhood doesn't revolve around its so-called gimmick. It's an easy thing to criticize without putting it in its context, similar to Birdman's technical approach. Ignoring the fact that the structure essentially corresponds with the films thematic spine strikes me as lazy.

Frankly, the "dullness" of the film is what I loved the most, and it has been apparent from the beginning of Linklater's work. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that he attempts to subvert expectations for this approach by focusing on the moments in between the milestones and how we may or may not take them with us as life goes by. The film's production helps accentuate the passing of time, probably better than any of Linklater's past films (yes, even the Before films.) We see the little moments, we hear about the moments we didn't see (which works greatly to its benefit, particularly when they're going out to the grandparent's place for the kid's birthday), and we almost see something that becomes dramatic. It amounts to something something of an epic, in a sense, one that manages to something that an notable filmmaker has been building towards all along.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

Oi. I think it's telling that much of the praise worth reading for Boyhood doesn't revolve around its so-called gimmick. It's an easy thing to criticize without putting it in its context, similar to Birdman's technical approach. Ignoring the fact that the structure essentially corresponds with the films thematic spine strikes me as lazy.

Frankly, the "dullness" of the film is what I loved the most, and it has been apparent from the beginning of Linklater's work. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that he attempts to subvert expectations for this approach by focusing on the moments in between the milestones and how we may or may not take them with us as life goes by. The film's production helps accentuate the passing of time, probably better than any of Linklater's past films (yes, even the Before films.) We see the little moments, we hear about the moments we didn't see (which works greatly to its benefit, particularly when they're going out to the grandparent's place for the kid's birthday), and we almost see something that becomes dramatic. It amounts to something something of an epic, in a sense, one that manages to something that an notable filmmaker has been building towards all along.

It DID revolve around the 'gimmick' all the audience attention was on seeing the actors grow before them because it was drilled into them by the advertising and it was so distracting and annoying.

If they had;t used it as the selling point of the film and drawn so much attention to it then it probably would have worked a bit better but it was so in your face.

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

It DID revolve around the 'gimmick' all the audience attention was on seeing the actors grow before them because it was drilled into them by the advertising and it was so distracting and annoying.

If they had;t used it as the selling point of the film and drawn so much attention to it then it probably would have worked a bit better but it was so in your face.

That's a fault on the viewer, not the film. It's not substantial criticism when the viewer doesn't understand why the process is out of the norm to begin with.

[cakefactory]

How would they have drawn less attention to it? The movie already doesn't use a single title card or caption going "X YEARS LATER" or anything, it's very much just a big series of slice of life scenes that IMO added up to a much greater whole.

[Polaroid]

I don't get why you can't accept I don't like the film and didn't think it worked lol - I respect your opinion and if you like it then great, I'm not trying to change your opinion lol

Also you don't need to spoon feed audience and displaying X YEARS later, there are many ways they can show time changing... I hate when films display X YEARS LATER or 'LOCATION' lol...

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

I don't get why you can't accept I don't like the film and didn't think it worked lol - I respect your opinion and if you like it then great, I'm not trying to change your opinion lol

Also you don't need to spoon feed audience and displaying X YEARS later, there are many ways they can show time changing... I hate when films display X YEARS LATER or 'LOCATION' lol...

Right, I'm saying that they didn't, my question was how could they have done it more subtly since you said they were "drawing way too much attention to it." Are you just referring to the marketing?

[Rich Pure Doom]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

Oi. I think it's telling that much of the praise worth reading for Boyhood doesn't revolve around its so-called gimmick. It's an easy thing to criticize without putting it in its context, similar to Birdman's technical approach. Ignoring the fact that the structure essentially corresponds with the films thematic spine strikes me as lazy.

Frankly, the "dullness" of the film is what I loved the most, and it has been apparent from the beginning of Linklater's work. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that he attempts to subvert expectations for this approach by focusing on the moments in between the milestones and how we may or may not take them with us as life goes by. The film's production helps accentuate the passing of time, probably better than any of Linklater's past films (yes, even the Before films.) We see the little moments, we hear about the moments we didn't see (which works greatly to its benefit, particularly when they're going out to the grandparent's place for the kid's birthday), and we almost see something that becomes dramatic. It amounts to something something of an epic, in a sense, one that manages to something that an notable filmmaker has been building towards all along.

It's dull but it's also formulaic. I've seen every scene in the film before in bad films and sitcoms. Many of the segments are like episodes of Boy Meets World. The scene where the girl walks in on him and his GF in the dorm? What on earth does this scene have to do with ANYTHING other than yet another cliche moment for us to endure? The whole movie is basically this ad nauseam.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

Right, I'm saying that they didn't, my question was how could they have done it more subtly since you said they were "drawing way too much attention to it." Are you just referring to the marketing?

I was referring to the marketing - but the film felt really rushed, I didn't feel scenes were given a chance to develop or draw you in - there was a couple but I cant think of many off the top of my head, its a very forgettable film (in my opinion).

I do respect that the cast was so loyal and stuck with it over 12 years and put a lot of work into it, I just don't think it worked.

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by Rich Pure Doom

It's dull but it's also formulaic. I've seen every scene in the film before in bad films and sitcoms. Many of the segments are like episodes of Boy Meets World. The scene where the girl walks in on him and his GF in the dorm? What on earth does this scene have to do with ANYTHING other than yet another cliche moment for us to endure? The whole movie is basically this ad nauseam.

I've seen every scene before in good films, too. That's not proving a thing. You're taking little snippets out of context to prove something that doesn't amount to much to begin with.

It proves that he just slept with her.

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

I was referring to the marketing - but the film felt really rushed, I didn't feel scenes were given a chance to develop or draw you in - there was a couple but I cant think of many off the top of my head, its a very forgettable film (in my opinion).

I do respect that the cast was so loyal and stuck with it over 12 years and put a lot of work into it, I just don't think it worked.

Fair enough. I sorta had that feeling for the first hour or so of the movie. I can't exactly articulate why it started working for me. I felt sort of like I did the first time that I watched "Life and Times of Colonel Blimp" where I was enjoying it alright, but as it got back to the present day in the last act all of a sudden everything that came before coalesced into a greater whole that suddenly hit me and made me feel like I was suddenly watching something truly great. Boyhood's definitely not as good and its structure is much more piecemeal, but it was a similar sort of reaction where the individual bits aren't really anything special but taken as a whole they really became something for me.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by octagon

What the difference between a gimmick and a device or a technique?

I like devices and techniques.

Like any language, every choice in vocabulary creates a different impression.

Color? Black and White? Tinted?

Live action? Animated?

Drawn? Computer? Stop Motion?

2D? 3D?

Quick cuts? Long takes? Shot/Reverse Shot? Montage?

Score? Songs?

Dialogue? Text? Voice over? Silent?

On and on.

When someone like Linklater or Nolan pushes one element to an extreme it doesn't cease to be a device or technique. What it does is create a paragraph of film language for that work that dominates the context. It's like the Preamble to the Declaration if Independence - that paragraph so dominates and colors the context of the whole that to remove it would be to have the remainder collapse.

Birdman is similar in that removing the seamless shot style would remove the tone of audacity and over wrought pre-planned craftsmanship, which goes a long way in coloring the story that film tells in regards to reaching for an expressed identity in an art form that can also be dominated by commercialism.