Posts by bluecobra9

No, my friend... genre serves as a sort of pardon—it excuses all the missed opportunities, the blunders, the mistakes, and ultimately, the very concept of the film you're watching.

Genre is an argument, not the foundation of your judgment. That's what I'm telling you.

vividmason5 said:Just because the episodes were filmed over several years doesn't mean I can conclude whether this is a "real" movie or not. Honestly, formal criteria like that have never really moved the needle for me.

Besides, Lars von Trier spends every year filming a tiny snippet of some future project he won't finish until he's elderly (though I hope both he and the actor survive that long).

Oh, really?
The point is that Jim Jarmusch treated those conversations as distinct pieces; in fact, he even picked up a Golden Bear for Best Short Film for some of them. Bundling them into one cohesive unit just means he found a better way to present high-quality material to the public (which isn't really an option when you're dealing with short films, which there are as many of here as there are conversations).

And the idea that von Trier is doing Trier planning—working through sequences with the intention of finishing them one day—is a slightly different (albeit equally eccentric) concept.

I mean, when you sit down to watch a film, you generally take certain things into account. If nothing else, you look at the genre label and judge it accordingly.

Look, I’ve never been a massive Jim Jarmusch fan, but calling this a "film" feels wrong, doesn't it? It’s more like a cinematic mosaic assembled over the course of seventeen years...

Anyway, there are some great conversations in here—personally, I loved the one with Tom Waits, and the bit with the more benign characters, too...

I actually sat down and watched Broken Blossoms, and honestly, until my second viewing, I felt pretty indifferent toward it (aside from a fantastic Bill Murray and the soundtrack). Who knows? Jim Jarmusch follows a strange path...