The Criterion Collection

[llj]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

you all can throw tomatoes if you'd like, but I hate that line. I like the movie ok, but a lot of the dialogue that is so celebrated is just a bunch of gobbledy-gook, IMO.

Billy Wilder often liked writing lines like that too. The Apartment has a bunch of them too, as well as yet another (in)famous cookie metaphor. There's a reason why still so many people seem to think Sweet Smell was either written or directed by Wilder because it sounds so much like what he would have done.

I like flashy writing in spurts, but not to the point where it overshadows humanity and sincerity when there needs to be some. That's my biggest problem with Aaron Sorkin by the way.

[jshaide]

Originally Posted by llj

I like flashy writing in spurts, but not to the point where it overshadows humanity and sincerity when there needs to be some. That's my biggest problem with Aaron Sorkin by the way.

Sorkin's problem is that his characters all become the same character. And I don't quite understand why he keeps writing biographical pieces because there is no difference in the verbal tics of Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. He's far too in love with his dialogue, which is over stylized and feels always inherent towards himself and not the characters he is writing for.

And as far as The Newsroom is concerned, I feel like I'm watching a sermon by Captain Hindsight.

[demonknight]

Saw The Lure last night. I absolutely loved it. There are a few issues, sure. But I absolutely vibed with it. My personal favorite film released this year as of this point. Will buy the Criterion when it gets released.

[llj]

Originally Posted by jshaide

Sorkin's problem is that his characters all become the same character. And I don't quite understand why he keeps writing biographical pieces because there is no difference in the verbal tics of Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. He's far too in love with his dialogue, which is over stylized and feels always inherent towards himself and not the characters he is writing for.

And as far as The Newsroom is concerned, I feel like I'm watching a sermon by Captain Hindsight.

I think you got it. Because the dialogue is basically self masturbation, there's something inherently phony and insincere to me about every line he writes.

Joss Whedon is also accused by many of writing dialogue where everyone sounds the same too, by the way.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

you all can throw tomatoes if you'd like, but I hate that line. I like the movie ok, but a lot of the dialogue that is so celebrated is just a bunch of gobbledy-gook, IMO.

I'm all for realism in movies, but I also appreciate the classic Hollywood films where the characters (at least the leads) are more beautiful, more clever and better dressed than the rest of us. I love the dialog in The Sweet Smell of Success. It may not be real, but it's right. I also think that you could take almost any line of dialog from the screenplay and know whether it was written for J. J. Hunsecker, Sidney Falco or some other character.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by llj

I think you got it. Because the dialogue is basically self masturbation, there's something inherently phony and insincere to me about every line he writes.

Joss Whedon is also accused by many of writing dialogue where everyone sounds the same too, by the way.

Early Kevin Smith films are the absolute epitome of nearly every character sounding the same, outside of Jay and a few others. In "Clerks", many of the characters that come into the store speak in the same way as Dante and Randal. Both Dante's girlfriend and ex-girlfriend speak in the same way he and Randal do. Re-watch that scene where Dante is talking to his ex-girlfriend about her marrying the Asian design major. It's cringe-worthy. Same thing applies to "Mallrats" and "Chasing Amy".

[Helikaon]

Originally Posted by jshaide

Sorkin's problem is that his characters all become the same character. And I don't quite understand why he keeps writing biographical pieces because there is no difference in the verbal tics of Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. He's far too in love with his dialogue, which is over stylized and feels always inherent towards himself and not the characters he is writing for.

And as far as The Newsroom is concerned, I feel like I'm watching a sermon by Captain Hindsight.

You said it, mate. Also, he can't write a compelling female character to save his life.

[oildude]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

you all can throw tomatoes if you'd like, but I hate that line. I like the movie ok, but a lot of the dialogue that is so celebrated is just a bunch of gobbledy-gook, IMO.

Now don't kid a kidder. You're walking around blind, BW, without a cane.

What you do now, Mr. Dowiak, is crow like a hen. You have just laid an egg.

I love this dirty town.

[20th Century Boy]

Originally Posted by jshaide

Sorkin's problem is that his characters all become the same character. And I don't quite understand why he keeps writing biographical pieces because there is no difference in the verbal tics of Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. He's far too in love with his dialogue, which is over stylized and feels always inherent towards himself and not the characters he is writing for.

But enough about Quentin Tarantino...

[jshaide]

Originally Posted by 20th Century Boy

But enough about Quentin Tarantino...

I can see why people are bothered by the dialogue in Tarantino movies (or Smith movies, as mentioned above). These work more for me unlike the Sorkin efforts.

There is something about the rhythm of the Tarantino dialogue that really works for me. Whereas Sorkin writes a line and pats himself on the back (and don't even think about changing a word of it, according to actors), Tarantino's scripts work in tandem with the performer, with their relationship with the other actor, and their character. The pacing of the entire film seems to work alongside the meticulous writing. And yeah there are times when a line is a little eye-rolling (and I will fully admit to giving Tarantino a pass when he is self-absorbed and a bit of an ass in an interview and I won't for many others (though he is really really knowledgable about this stuff, absolutely), but I also get so engrossed in his narratives and storytelling that sometimes it doesn't feel as apparent (in contrast with Sorkin's "walking and talking" trademark. . . and don't even get me started on that love story in The Newsroom between Gallagher and Pill. . . blech).

And I CAN see differences in the characters . . . take a film like INGLORIOUS BASTERDS which is all about different types of language, different styles in speaking. Tarantino manages to have it clearly be words written by him, but the manner of speaking, usage of slang, word choices, language spoken by all of the different characters, etc. is really interesting and really well executed. Beyond the homages inherent to his works, his films are often about language, the way it divides and the way it connects.

I also think he's a great director, and gets better and better. And really great with actors.

Smith is a tougher sell, and he is full of ups and downs. I think a film like CLERKS is a great example of what to do with a microscopic budget, with limited time, with basically fresh actors, and an inexperienced guy helming it. It has its faults, but the writing is crisp considering the guy is like 22 when he writes the thing. I feel he's become a better director than a writer over the years (I feel its been a steady decline in screenwriting since ZACK AND MIRI), but he can clearly work with a larger budget, I just don't think his writing is what it once was, not even close. So without a strong script, he's flailing.

A film like CHASING AMY works for me because the emotion really feels there. I didn't like that film when I saw it in high school, but really saw the pain in Affleck's characters yearning, his own realizations of the way he works in relationships. I also thought it funny as hell.

The abundance of pot doesn't help.

To go back slightly, the Sorkin films putter out for me because all I can really see are the words on the page. They are very cold exercises because he is too committed to every tic, every small word, everything. There is clearly no dialogue with the person spouting them, or even sometimes with the character they are written for. This works at times and in specific scenes (for instance, the back-and-forth between John Slattery and Phillip Seymour Hoffman in CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR or even the whiskey bottle camera set piece in that same film, or the opening of THE SOCIAL NETWORK), but by the time we get to STEVE JOBS its basically Sorkin playing Sorkin in every single character (Stulhbarg somehow comes away unscathed, Fassbender kind of good too).

But this is waaaay off topic, except for the CHASING AMY bit.

[jshaide]

To be fair to Sorkin, I've only ever seen like two episodes of WEST WING.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by 20th Century Boy

But enough about Quentin Tarantino...

Frankly Tarantino is a genius as far as I'm concerned and I love all of his films except Death Proof.

I've always loved Kevin Smith's Jersey series (or Jay and Silent Bob series) but I haven't watched them in quite some time. I'll need to revisit those here soon.

[dancerslegs]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

you all can throw tomatoes if you'd like, but I hate that line. I like the movie ok, but a lot of the dialogue that is so celebrated is just a bunch of gobbledy-gook, IMO.

In some respects, I agree with you. The dialogue is a bit overly-stylized at times. As with All About Eve (a much worse offender, IMO), you need performers with the timing and panache to pull them off. With a few exceptions (looking at ol' Marty Milner especially), Sweet Smell of Success has them in spades.

Whaddya mean this lousy kid will give up my sistah?

That's fish four days old. I won't buy it.

FWIW, these are the only two lines that truly make me cringe.

[jshaide]

Originally Posted by MassiveMovieBuff

Frankly Tarantino is a genius as far as I'm concerned and I love all of his films except Death Proof.

I've always loved Kevin Smith's Jersey series (or Jay and Silent Bob series) but I haven't watched them in quite some time. I'll need to revisit those here soon.

I love DEATH PROOF so much.

[20th Century Boy]

Originally Posted by MassiveMovieBuff

Frankly Tarantino is a genius as far as I'm concerned and I love all of his films except Death Proof.

I've always loved Kevin Smith's Jersey series (or Jay and Silent Bob series) but I haven't watched them in quite some time. I'll need to revisit those here soon.

I respectfully but soundly disagree. I'd put up Death Proof and Hateful Eight as his most egregious ego tripping.

Pulp Fiction was fun when it came out.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by jshaide

I love DEATH PROOF so much.

I thought the first half was pretty good but the second half ruined it for me.

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by jshaide

I love DEATH PROOF so much.

The version of Death Proof in Grindhouse was better, but I still see why people get sick of it. When I saw it in the theater, everyone just got silent when it became clear it was not going to be nearly as fun as Planet Terror and got increasingly more bored and restless as it went on with the endless self-involved dialogue of the mostly unlikable characters. However, as soon as it neared the climax, everyone got REALLY into it and we were all outright cheering by the end. It has one of the greatest smash cuts into credits I can recall. It ends RIGHT at the very height of the movie.

[mja345]

Tarantino's writing became a problem for me in "The Hateful Eight". I've seen the film twice and thought the dialogue was unbelievably obtrusive and repetitive. Tarantino has always teetered on that, but that film really rubbed me the wrong way. I think it's an awful film to be honest.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by mja345

Tarantino's writing became a problem for me in "The Hateful Eight". I've seen the film twice and thought the dialogue was unbelievably obtrusive and repetitive. Tarantino has always teetered on that, but that film really rubbed me the wrong way. I think it's an awful film to be honest.

I don't know I think The Hateful Eight is probably the best film I've seen in quite a few years. I think it's an absolute masterpiece and it's 70mm Roadshow was probably the best experience I've ever had at the cinema. His dialogue to me is the best part about his films. He literally makes films of people just conversating and it is thrilling to watch. For me anyways.

Pulp Fiction is his masterpiece for me but Inglorious Basterds comes very close to being tied with it. That film is mindblowing to me and I can't believe it lost to The Hurt Locker (which I hated) for best picture.

[theater dreamer]

One of my favorite posts ever on this forum. Tip of the cap, Great Owl. I am ashamed to admit that I have yet to watch The Sweet Smell of Success. I know, I know. What's wrong with me? I shall remedy that this weekend. I've had it, just haven't gotten to it yet.

I was born in September of 1971, so I recall exactly the same things you do. I remember the television in the family room with the Atari 2600, and the gargantuan top-loading VHS player (complete with wood paneling) with a remote control. The remote had about a ten foot cord, and the sofa was nine feet from the tv at its closest. So, if I wanted to re-watch a movie on VHS (one of the five we owned that we paid like $100 each for), I had to press the big rewind button, and wait until my next birthday for the movie to get back to the beginning. At least there were no trailers you had to then fast forward through. People didn't know what "director commentaries", or "extra features" were. There were no trailers. Nothing. It was bare bones. Just the movie you bought. What a concept! And, damn if rewinding the tape didn't wake up everybody in the house. The TV was on the ground floor, and the bedrooms were all on the second floor. Yet that thing was so damned loud! Somebody had the brilliant idea of creating a "VHS rewinder", because you could rewind like twenty movies before the VHS player blew a spring, or something. And then you had to take it in for repairs. You had to unplug everything ("are these the wires for the VHS, or the rabbit ears sitting on top of the tv?"), and then take it in to the repair shop. The damned VHS player weighed like 100 pounds, so not only did you have a repair bill, you now had to pay the ER for the hernia you suffered carrying that behemoth out to the car.

And the VHS players were hardly user friendly by today's standards. Careful ejecting the tape from the player. That thing pops up, and if you're not careful, it might take out an eye, or you could lose a finger pushing the tape in. The remote had a stop button, a play button, fast forward and rewind. And a big "pause" button that you had to push up or down. Nothing to turn the TV or VCR on or off. Nothing to adjust the volume. And certainly, nothing to flip through the four channels on TV. There was ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS. That was it. No FOX. No TBS. And if you caught a film halfway through, tough noogies. You couldn't hit the rewind button to start the movie over. There was no "CBS West" that would be showing the film again two hours later. And there was certainly no on demand. Sounds terrible, right? Oh yeah? We had the original Star Wars on VHS, back when it was still only Star Wars. None of this A New Hope BS. And, Han shot first, damn it!

If you stayed up too late, after Elvira was done playing her two hour-long B horror flick that lasted four hours with commercials, they played the National Anthem. When you saw the jet fighters flying over the Grand Canyon, that was NBC's way of saying, "you have to get up for school in three hours, stupid, go to bed!"

You didn't fall asleep watching TV back then. Heaven forbid you try to recline on said couch to relax. I mean, what if you wanted to lie on one side, and rest your head on the end of the sofa? The damned cord was only ten feet long, and it wouldn't reach that end of the sofa. So you had to drop the remote, and invariably the cord snapped the remote back about two feet. If you wanted to rewind, you had to get your butt off the sofa, and go retrieve the thing, being careful not to trip over the Defender or Space Invaders cartridge that your younger cousin left out in the middle of the floor. The Atari had wood paneling, too. Everything had wood paneling. The stereo? The giant Magnavox stereo was a giant wood panel! It took up like half the damned family room. It was this giant box: the front was a speaker. You slid a door open on the top, and there was a record player. If you were lucky, an 8-track player. And lots of records. I think the records had wood paneling, too. No? Opportunity missed.

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I was born in 1972, so I caught the end of those days.

I remember a time when, if you missed seeing a movie at the theater, then that movie was gone forever. There was no Blu-ray, no DVD, no VHS, and not even HBO or pay cable, so there was no way to catch a movie again after it left the theater. If you were extremely lucky, then you might catch a pan-and-scan edited-for-television version of a favorite movie on Sunday night on ABC, CBS, or NBC two or three years after its theatrical run, but that was all that you could hope for.

This is why I sometimes want to throat-punch people on this site who complain repeatedly about compression artifacts or edge enhancement on Blu-ray releases of insanely obscure 1970s drive-in flicks that we're lucky to see on home video in the first place.