To Sleep with Anger (1990)

[demonknight]

Teased in today’s newsletter:


Being that it’s been a long teased title, this isn’t much of a surprise.

[Jexes23]

[tomkatholic]

I pity anyone who would yawn at the overdue release of this important and incredible film

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by tomkatholic

I pity anyone who would yawn at the overdue release of this important and incredible film

He's a troll, ignore him.

[See Rad]

A masterpiece and one of the greatest films about black America. Ten minutes of this film is worth more than all of Spike Lee's noxious, derivative and fraudulent career.

[Cremildo]

Originally Posted by See Rad

Ten minutes of this film is worth more than all of Spike Lee's noxious, derivative and fraudulent career.

So rad.

[See Rad]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

So rad.

Yes, it is "rad" to have seen thousands of films, including hundreds by black filmmakers other than (and before) Spike Lee, who is a shameless huckster, a millionaire who begs for money to re-make another black man's film (without ever mentioning the film he was remaking, or who made it) and a near-criminal doxing agitator (re: Elaine and David McClain).

But hey, I guess it's even "radder" to post a glib retort and reduce the discussion to an "emoji."

[Scottie]

February 26

https://www.criterion.com/films/2956...eep-with-anger

[Dragun]

I hope they'll also release Killer of Sheep at some point.

[DVD Phreak]

Charles Burnett receiving an honorary Oscar in 2017:

Charles Burnett receives Honorary Award at the 2017 Governors Awards - YouTube

[drb124]

I was not familiar with the movie before I saw Criterion’s announcement, but upon reading about it, decided to blind buy it during the flash sale. I had a chance to watch it tonight and I was engrossed throughout. Danny Glover turns in a great performance and I guess he is the “name” in the film, but the principle cast are all very good. A very well made and from what I gather, under appreciated movie. The restoration looks great as well. The one thing I don’t love is the cover art as it makes Danny Glover look like Tony Todd. I think the original poster art is quite good, but criterion does not use original posters very often.

[ThatKieslowskiHaze]

From the review: "There are no drive-by shootings or drug dealings in the shadows of unknown streets or desperate friends backstabbing each other while trying to survive, but To Sleep with Anger is a much bigger eye-opener than so many overhyped films about the ongoing struggles of the African-American community. It is because Charles Burnett gets right to the bottom of the issue that has been breeding the misery -- the weakening and ultimately the eradication of the cultural values that once protected the African-American family. Burnett and his film reveal the truth in a very unique way, but it is exactly what various social studies have confirmed in recent years as well."

What about systemic racism? The family in the movie does not erode on its own. Its erosion is spurred by Harry, a remnant of their rural, Southern, barely post-slavery roots. A history of racism haunts this film as much as it does the U.S. In light of that, blaming this family--and, by extension, blaming black people in general--for their own problems is a problematic read of this movie. It's seems too close to the simplistic, conservative talking point that black family dissolution is the root of inequality for POC, a talking point transparently manufactured to downplay or deny the role systemic racism. It's hard to imagine Charles Burnett endorsing this view.

[I KEEL YOU]

When I read some of the impressions about this movie with regards to the life of a black family in L.A. (no crime, overly dramatic gang shootings in an attempt to sell the movie), I was intrigued. But after watching the movie, I wasn't expecting it to be so much in the opposite direction and be this tame. A lot of the movie felt like an episode of Full House. I had a hard time believing that this was a more "realistic" portrayal of a life of a black family. For example, there is no profanity whatsoever in the movie. Not that I wanted every other word to be the F, S, or N-word, but it's kind of hard to believe that profanity wasn't used whatsoever within a black family, even though it's a Christian one. Even the movie's dark, violent moments are stylized and shot in such a way that they didn't really leave an impact, on me at least.

With that said, Danny Glover's character is somewhat interesting and really funny at times. He definitely makes this movie, and lifts it to being a solid rather than a completely forgettable movie.

[dancerslegs]

Originally Posted by ThatKieslowskiHaze

From the review: "There are no drive-by shootings or drug dealings in the shadows of unknown streets or desperate friends backstabbing each other while trying to survive, but To Sleep with Anger is a much bigger eye-opener than so many overhyped films about the ongoing struggles of the African-American community. It is because Charles Burnett gets right to the bottom of the issue that has been breeding the misery -- the weakening and ultimately the eradication of the cultural values that once protected the African-American family. Burnett and his film reveal the truth in a very unique way, but it is exactly what various social studies have confirmed in recent years as well."

What about systemic racism? The family in the movie does not erode on its own. Its erosion is spurred by Harry, a remnant of their rural, Southern, barely post-slavery roots. A history of racism haunts this film as much as it does the U.S. In light of that, blaming this family--and, by extension, blaming black people in general--for their own problems is a problematic read of this movie. It's seems too close to the simplistic, conservative talking point that black family dissolution is the root of inequality for POC, a talking point transparently manufactured to downplay or deny the role systemic racism. It's hard to imagine Charles Burnett endorsing this view.

It's Svet. I wouldn't expect any different. Trash reviewer, IMO.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

It's Svet. I wouldn't expect any different. Trash reviewer, IMO.

The most shocking review I've seen is for the movie I, Daniel Blake. The movie shows that the welfare-based systems of Europe aren't flawless, but somehow the review turns the message of the movie into a pro-right wing rant as proof that any involvement from the state to help its citizens doesn't work, rather than a message that the state should take care of its citizens better than what the movie shows.

Even though the movie is directed by Ken Loach, who is basically a leftist activist that also happens to be a film director.

It's literally as bad as if someone claimed that Triumph of the Will is an equal celebration of all human races on earth.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

It's Svet. I wouldn't expect any different. Trash reviewer, IMO.

I certainly don't always have the same opinions as Svet, but he's a trash reviewer because he has a different opinion than yours?

[dancerslegs]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

I certainly don't always have the same opinions as Svet, but he's a trash reviewer because he has a different opinion than yours?

Pauline Kael had many different opinions than me, but she was an excellent critic. But Svet is no Pauline Kael. In fact, he's more on the level of Richard Roeper, but with an obvious political slant that results in quite a few hare-brained, tortured interpretations delivered with the subtlety of a ballpeen hammer. At least Glenn Erickson, for his flaunted political leanings, has a vast knowledge of cinema and writing skill Svet could only sniff at.

[Cremildo]

Is Svet disliked by some because of his alleged poor writing skills and lack of knowledge about film or because his politics don't lean to the left?

[format916]

Just watched this on the criterion channel. not bad. great to see so many actors together. very slow burn. i might have to give this a watch again someday.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

Is Svet disliked by some because of his alleged poor writing skills and lack of knowledge about film or because his politics don't lean to the left?

It would seem to be the latter.