I'll set aside any deep dives into my own personal tastes. Let's just say I find watching a Greenaway film to be one of the most grueling spectator experiences imaginable.* But I don't quite follow that claim. Is this some sort of post-structuralist nod? It seems utterly implausible given Greenaway's specific aesthetic and cinematic philosophy. As for the idea of being "anti-narrative"... That's a very hermetic, academic way of looking at it, and it’s easily debunked by one simple observation: a film is defined by its duration in time. Ideas need dialogue to actually survive the ninety minutes it takes to run a feature film. To me, those two concepts are incompatible, and the end result—at least in P.G.'s case—is exactly what the director intended: tedious, hyper-intellectual masturbation. Then again, Tarkovsky managed to craft films that bypass narrative tropes entirely, though perhaps that's because he followed the dynamic structure of poetry rather than the static model of painting. Of course, I'm writing this from a completely naive and uninformed perspective. Gerald Barrett25 and Jose Miller17, please feel free to drop links to some Greenaway Quotes, preferably ones without background noise. 😁
parliament said:5. project C-90 (a page featuring the ultimate collection of blank C-90 tapes—a true collector's dream, especially those rare vintage plastic shells)
What an incredible page! You just can't beat tapes; they’re so perfectly compact. Plus, I actually took Russian in school, so I can pick up a bit of what's being said.
Revisiting the Wake-Up Call - my definitive list of worst albums to use as an alarm clock, tried and tested:
1. XTC - English Settlement 2. Pere Ubu - New York City Time 3. The Fall - band Sinister 4. Mance - blue bar / Man from Katanga 5. Kinks - any standard compilation
I drifted off during the movie again. Maybe it was that sense of déjà vu? I know the Dahl enthusiasts will point out how the songs actually use lines from the book—unlike that first version—and claim the sets were modeled directly after the original illustrations. But despite all that attention to detail, the film just felt like some watered-down Burton film rather than a true adaptation. They hired the wrong person for this project. They should have brought in Wes Anderson; not just for the set design, but to inject some actual soul into the acting.
By the way, is it just me, or do Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham-Carter look like they were separated at birth?
Pale Blue Eyes said:What does it even mean to be overrated?
Is it that some group of high-brow critics all agreed that Pacino and De Niro are great actors, or is it just that the masses love them... and you happen to disagree? 😕
If you aren't on their level, why give them so much weight as if their opinion actually matters? 😕
Just say it straight: "I don't like either of them because... this, that, and the other."
Back to the point... Jack Nicholson 😁
He’s overrated in every sense of the word, not just according to the critics. Dustin Hoffman, despite being a bit hammy at times, is a far superior actor from that generation and school of acting.
The film is just your typical, megalomaniacal, mediocre effort from Michel Hazanavicius—tedious and overly sentimental. Jim Carrey isn't bad, per se, but he’s nowhere near his peak performances, like in The Truman Show or Me, Myself and I. Honestly, the only decent moment in the entire movie is that first TV appearance featuring the record player. It actually lands.
I think we could actually dive into a film by Jacques Tati. It’s from the sixties. I saw it ages ago, though I can't recall if there was even an American release—in English, it's titled Playtime.