Last movie you watched......

That was what I heard. Poor Terry just felt like he should have felt worse than he did about it, and KEPT ASKING if he felt bad about it. It was painful to listen to.

"Your audience isn't seeing two kinds of violen..."

"Oh yeah they are. Sure they are. Absolutely. Of course they are."

 

"Citizen Kane."

The first time I've watched it in about a decade, but I decided to pop it in to cap off my 2012 movie-watching.

On a purely surface level, I think the stuff about the newspaper industry is interesting, particularly in the first half of the movie. And I thought that the way he used his papers to promote his wife's opera career reminded me a little bit of the way that the Rupert Murdochs of the world tell their own truths, damned be the evidence. It almost reminded me of the 2012 presidential election coverage, to tell you the truth. Although in "Citizen Kane," audiences weren't buying it. They knew better.

I'm interested to hear what others on this thread think of it. Perhaps we should have a stand-alone "Citizen Kane" thread at some point, kind of like Double Down's "Cheers" thread. The discussion would be interesting and enlightening. One blasphemy on my part: Although the beginning news reel is a trademark of the film at this point - you almost get chills when it comes on after you start the movie - and is the framing device for the whole movie, in a way it harms the rest of the movie because we know pretty much where it's all headed. (I understand that this is no different than, say, "Romeo and Juliet." At its heart, "Citizen Kane" is a tragedy. And, classically, we know where tragedies are headed and we watch to see how they get there.)

 

Overall, it was a decent interview but the worst part was when she tried to engage him about his movie violence vis-a-vis Sandy Hook and he pretty much got pissed and shot her down, so to speak.

Because this is another revenge fantasy flick, she could have talked to Tarantino a little more about Django with respect to how black audiences are accepting the movie, the same way I would love to know how Germans and the French and older Jews felt when they Basterds opened overseas.

So in his last 2 movies he has taken on Hitler, slavery ... seems like he should complete the triumvirate with one more revenge fantasy. What might that story entail?

 

I guess I blocked out Terry.

These are the parts I remember hearing

"Now, I wasn't trying to do a Schindler's List you-are-there-under-the-barbed-wire-of-Auschwitz. I wanted the film to be more entertaining than that. ... But there's two types of violence in this film: There's the brutal reality that slaves lived under for ... 245 years, and then there's the violence of Django's retribution. And that's movie violence, and that's fun and that's cool, and that's really enjoyable and kind of what you're waiting for."

I don't think of myself as waiting for the payoff of movie violence but maybe I am when I see his movies.

 

Personally, I don't see a relevance in a discussion of 'Django Unchained' within the Sandy Hook context.
I didn't see any relevance in the context of Columbine or the DC snipers or Virginia Tech or Kaczinski or Ruby Ridge or H.H. Holmes or any other instance of real world violence. It's not relevant unless you're making a movie about that specific occurrence.

I haven't listened to the interview, but Taratino is definitely correct about the differences in the violence within the movie.
There's a difference between the runaway slave being torn apart by dogs and the stylized movie violence of the big shootout in the mansion.

The same was true with 'Kill Bill.' Some people clucked about the violence, but it's stylized movie violence.

It's a pretty clear difference.

 

Start that shit, Dick. Would be interesting.

 

Saw Django Unchained tonight. Once again, Tarantino can't escape his influences, nor form them into a coherent whole. Entertaining in its way, but a mess at other times, and way too damn long for no discernible reason. Apparently, a lot was left on the cutting room floor ... lord.

Acting is great, especially Samuel L. Jackson. There are scenes that stop the movie in its tracks, most notably the hood scene, which is humorous, but sticks out like a sore thumb as far as the rest of the movie is concerned.

I've seen a lot of mention of cameos by Jonah Hill (adds nothing), Franco Nero (the original Django), Don Johnson (who was great) and Tarantino himself (whose cameo isn't as bad as some of his other appearances), but no mention of Tom "Luke Duke" Wopat? Tom Fucking Wopat! That was inspired.

And, in a moment of cinematic history, I don't recall a single scene where Tarantino sated his female foot fetish. A step forward!

 

Agree that a standalone thread would be interesting and worthwhile.

I'd also assert that the framing device in 'Kane' doesn't much matter to the 'story,' because everyone in the original audience already knew the story of William Randolph Hearst, and knew it in some (scandal sheet) detail.

 

Saw Django also. I loved it. A little long, yes and probably a few scenes that are a bit incoherent but it's everything I love in a Tarantino movie and my favorite effort of his since Pulp Fiction. A great cast but Waltz stole the show for me once again. You can't go wrong with any of the performances, though, really.

I haven't seen all of the movies likely to be nominated for the Oscar (no Zero Dark Thirty, no Silver Linings, no Les Mis) but I still think Argo is my favorite movie of the year. I'd go Argo, Django, Life of Pi as my top three.

 

What framing device are we talking about? Let's be specific.
If you're talking about the use of the news reel, I think you're letting your own historical perspective jaundice your assessment.
At the time the movie was made, using the news reel as an expository device in a movie was a clever idea.
The fact that you find it boring or hackneyed 60-plus years later isn't Wells fault.

 

Buck - I don't mind the news reel itself too much as an expository device. I get that it wouldn't have been a cliche then. Hell, "The Natural" used it in 1984. I'm talking more about knowing in general what the story was going to be. But certainly counter-arguments are possible - probably even correct, because it's not really meant to be a pot boiler.

I'm get that stand alone thread going tonight after the kids are in bed.

 

Remember that when Kane was released, Hearst hadn't yet quite reached the sad end (accurately) envisioned for him by Welles. That's why the Hearst papers (and Hedda Hopper) went batshit attacking the film. So the newsreel use was more daring than it appears in retrospect.