Sofia Coppola?

[mattias]

I don't think an artist have any responsibility towards whatever directions their artforms are taking in their countries. It's not even close to fair to judge people's work based on that. And why the angst of growing up would be less "important" than socialism or whatever is actually beyond me. /m

.....not sure who these comments are pointed towards

no who, a what. it seemed like you guys were discussing sofia coppolas role in the suggested "dullness" of american cinema. you all had different opinions but it seemed like none of you questioned whether she had a role or not and if she had one if it could be held agains her when critiqueing her work. so i did. ;-)

/matt

[mattias]

Kieslowski in particular was masterful at working with a theoretical structure which was built and suggested completely *through* the film but not *in* it.

my point exactly. i feel the same way about lost in translation. not as theoretical and intellectual perhaps, but that's beside the point.

(sorry if the rhetorical nature of that post didn't come through. i love the work of these directors for these reasons)

/matt

[mattias]

Teen angst isnt something that takes place against an abstract, movieland backdrop but is usually connected to time, place and class.

i diasgree. i'm familiar with the school of thought you adhere to, and it's not mine. time and place (class? i don't even know what that means) are unavoidable in my opinion, always implied by the things taking place in a story. i have similar ideas about character.

/matt

[steve hyde]

I agree that films have been infantilized to a degree in the US, and the target audience seems more and more to be teenage males. Has all adult dramatic programming moved to cable? And re: what seemed to be comments about Crash, I completely agree. I never seen a more self congratulory film about race and racism or one that had less to say about how the races actually interact. I would really like to go on a diatribe but...

Yes. "Crash" is one that I had in mind. Perhaps your "diatribe" will generate some story ideas... :idea:

Steve

[CDI]

Don't wanna completely hijack this thread but...

There are the obvious problems with Crash. Overdetermined characters, ridiculous coincidences/serendipity. Does every debased character have to be redeemed and every good character corrupted? What a stupid formula. So everyone's equally capable of good and evil. Does that tell me anything?

To me, the bigger problem is that it looks at racism as largely an individual problem, when it's just as much (if not more) societal and institutional. It's the ultimate can't we all just get along movie. It seems to be saying that if people stopped spouting racist vitriol at every social interaction, racism would disappear, when in fact racism is just as much a systemic problem, with schools and media etc. These things are not completely separate, but arguing that it's largely an individual and mental problem (we just need to stop stereotyping) will not solve it. It's about questioning stereotypical assumptions and seeing how they manifest in institutions.

I think at this point a lot of people don't have out and out racist views in this country, but racism still persists, and for a lot of people that's confounding, as evidenced by debates on affirmative action or reparations for slavery. I don't think Crash even conceives of this. And from my experience, it's not that people get in car accidents and spout racism, but the more the subtle assumptions and interactions. I think Crash does a disservice by showing racism as some big conflagration and not something small and somewhat insidious. MTV has a show on now, Rob and Big, where the black character doesn't have a name, but a physical description. He's called Big Black. I don't think it's a big deal, but it's somewhat ridiculous. (I'm thinking of Chris Rock's monologue at the Oscars about black films being solely locations Soulplane, Barbershop...)

And in terms of Crash, why is the latin character the only pure one? Why does he not have a fall or experience redemption like all the others? Also, Matt Damon's character gets redeemed, but Thandie Newton's doesn't.

Anyway, back to my original reason for posting earlier in the thread, if anyone can tell me the interiority or stakes they felt for marie antoinette's character, I'd be interested to hear it.

[mattias]

There are the obvious problems with Crash.

crash is just a bad film. is the fact that "people" seem to like it reason enough for us to discuss it? i'm not so sure.

/matt

[mattias]

i like the theory that people crash cars because that's the only way to actually interact with people though. la is a truly weird place and that has always been my lasting impression when i've been there. in a city with 20 million people or whatever, is it reasonable that you only meet a dozen people at the most each day? ;-) to me that's what the film was really about, and the reason it sucked was because they lost it completely.

ok, now i'm the hijacker, but i think the thread was dead already.

/matt

[Evan Kubota]

i like the theory that people crash cars because that's the only way to actually interact with people though.

Yeah. I think it's a good idea too. Good thing Cronenberg already did it eight years earlier in his "Crash," a marvelous film, where people instigate or watch car wrecks in order to get off. It takes place in a decontextualized Los Angeles that is simultaneously post-apocalyptic and current.

I agree that a lot of the discourse surrounding the later "Crash" is unnecessary considering how bad it is. Anyone who needs to expound on that point is only preaching to the converted, so to speak...

[mattias]

Yeah. I think it's a good idea too. Good thing Cronenberg already did it eight years earlier in his "Crash," a marvelous film, where people instigate or watch car wrecks in order to get off.

yes. almost forgot. that's a very good one, even though it has flaws as well. as we know it's easier to get away with flaws is a more arty context. ;-)

speaking of which, i just saw shortbus. absolutely wonderful film. i so much hope that the current trend of sex on film is more than just that. i'm jc mitchells "guest host" when he comes to the stockholm film festival next week. he seems like a cool person and i'm sure we'll have fun.

there's an american director for you to check out nathan. then follow his six degrees through the imdb and you'll find a dozen more. that should at least give you a view of gender and sexuality that you don't usually see in american films.

/matt

[CDI]

Know I was probably preaching to the converted. Thought Steve was maybe interested in the diatribe. Anyway, for me Crash (Haggis) is a terrible movie about an interesting issue, and the discourse around it was really interesting, specifcally how it showed what kind of movies about race people are and aren't willing to accept. And I understand what you're saying re: bad movies, but it's interesting to me why and how they work for people sometimes. Granted this discussion is probably a year too late.

[steve hyde]

....LOL

Okay, this is getting good. We have gone from Marie Antonetta to Crash and now Shortbus!....Well, I have a lot to say about Crash and Shortbus and not time to do it now, but will in the next couple of days.

CDI, I have enjoyed reading your "diatribe" and think you raise many excellent points that should be discussed. I will prepare a response to your thoughtful comments.

Steve

[mattias]

haha, i looked up the word diatribe. it mean pretty much what i thought but the definition was still hilarious: "a bitter, abusive denunciation".

/matt

[steve hyde]

Don't wanna completely hijack this thread but...

There are the obvious problems with Crash. Overdetermined characters, ridiculous coincidences/serendipity. Does every debased character have to be redeemed and every good character corrupted? What a stupid formula. So everyone's equally capable of good and evil. Does that tell me anything?

I agree about the overdetermined characters. Overdetermination and coincidence equals dumbed-down drama in most cases and it is a problem in Crash too. My feelings about Crash are quite conflicted actually, and for this reason I give it credit for what it is: a film that inspires a discourse on racism. I admire that because I think it is an issue that is ignored.

To me, the bigger problem is that it looks at racism as largely an individual problem, when it's just as much (if not more) societal and institutional. It's the ultimate can't we all just get along movie. It seems to be saying that if people stopped spouting racist vitriol at every social interaction, racism would disappear, when in fact racism is just as much a systemic problem, with schools and media etc. These things are not completely separate, but arguing that it's largely an individual and mental problem (we just need to stop stereotyping) will not solve it. It's about questioning stereotypical assumptions and seeing how they manifest in institutions.


I think at this point a lot of people don't have out and out racist views in this country, but racism still persists, and for a lot of people that's confounding, as evidenced by debates on affirmative action or reparations for slavery. I don't think Crash even conceives of this. And from my experience, it's not that people get in car accidents and spout racism, but the more the subtle assumptions and interactions. I think Crash does a disservice by showing racism as some big conflagration and not something small and somewhat insidious. MTV has a show on now, Rob and Big, where the black character doesn't have a name, but a physical description. He's called Big Black. I don't think it's a big deal, but it's somewhat ridiculous. (I'm thinking of Chris Rock's monologue at the Oscars about black films being solely locations Soulplane, Barbershop...)

And in terms of Crash, why is the latin character the only pure one? Why does he not have a fall or experience redemption like all the others? Also, Matt Damon's character gets redeemed, but Thandie Newton's doesn't.

Anyway, back to my original reason for posting earlier in the thread, if anyone can tell me the interiority or stakes they felt for marie antoinette's character, I'd be interested to hear it.

Lots of important points here. This past week we had "Kramer" flying into a rage colored with racial epithetes and worse. We actually don't see this much in the United States these days (a public figure shouting racist vitriol and so on.) This is the individual variety of racism: when someone feels threatened and they jump at the first chance to point out differences. e.g. different shades of skin color and cultural differences etc.

The bigger racism problem, I agree, is institutional. Racism is no longer about shouting vitriol (although it is still part of it). Since racism is more of an institutional problem it bares its ugly face in institutional settings: The resegregation of public schools, getting loans at the bank, the prison system, juvenal detention system and so on.. and also cultural and religious institutions. (marriage comes to mind) I think these are some of the themes that filmmakers should pick up and I agree that the filmmakers for Crash fell into the old school views on racism. We are living in a different time and racism is still with us, but as a culture, I think we are losing sight of what an anti-racist discourse might look like...The "can't we all just get along" kinds of stories just don't pose the kinds of questions that need to be posed in 2007.

...anyway, I think this is a good discussion to have. I still haven't seen Sofia's new movie and I have sworn off going to see films for a while so that I can focus on finishing some short films of my own..

Racism is a tough theme because it is a difficult process to map. I have a story on my pallette at the moment that deals with it quite a bit actually.

Steve

[Evan Kubota]

I admire that because I think it is an issue that is ignored.

I can't say I entirely agree with this. America is acutely aware of race, and I don't think it's "ignored" in the sense that you might be implying. Not to say that awareness equates to a coherent dialogue. And in that sense, 'Crash' (the Haggis one) is utterly useless at performing anything.

Kobayashi's "Ningen no joken" (The Human Condition is the more common translation, although 'Conditions for being human' is more accurate in terms of intent) is one of the best films directly addressing race that I have seen. The first part involves a Japanese student who is drafted in the 1930s and sent to Manchuria where he manages a mine staffed by Chinese laborers. Unfortunately the DVD is long out of print and it's not directly relevant to American race issues, but it's still a fantastic film.

[Super8rules]

I don't have much more to say than has already been put more eloquently in a number of reviews of the film.

But I do have a number of points:

1) This film is by an American and seems to be much more popular among Americans than it does here.
2) I attribute this to the following reasons:

A) The general banality of US cinema
B) The aesthetic distancing from the reality which the film attempts to show (you never did or still have despotic monarchies)
C) The lack of any form of socialism or questioning of your own capitalist monarchies.

3) Therefore, films about the most amazing period of European history being reduced into a high-school teen drama probably don't bother you as much as they do me or many people in Europe.
[/b]

wow, and people say Americans are arrogant.

Remember, we broke away from a despot back in 1776 and socialism doesn't work.