criterionforum.org

Hi person who joined the forum 18 minutes ago.

I didn't dislike this - I agree with all that say it opens up a new world for the audience, and the touches of noir and homages to Greek tragedy were interesting (doesn't the stiltedness of the dialect here make a nice stand in for the operatic, mythic dialogue of classic drama?). The problem I have with it is, I guess, a pacing one - there's a steady sustained tension to the entire thing that makes the early scenes pop but this level of tension is so constant and unmodulated that for me it became rather dull after a while. The players tap in to this same steady buzz; I found everyone capable but no one particularly noteworthy.

I was a bit underwhelmed but there's plenty to admire here.

jwilhelm wrote:For the most part, I happen to agree with James Mills. I have been trying to figure out the appeal of this film. I cant. Ive watched it twice now and i have to say i think its one of the worst films of the year. It has nothing to do with any agenda. Lets not resort to name calling. I could just as easily say that enthusiasts of the film are those who tend to look way too deep into something that isnt there so they can claim there artistic eye is better developed than others. We all know people who claim to love a film because they think they are supposed to and people who dislike a film that is popular, because its popular. But, we can agree, im sure, that we dont always have to see eye to eye with regards to likeing a film or not.

This is an even worse "arguement"-- I and others like me here have no problem admitting we don't like something that others love. Casting aspersions on those who love the film as being sheeple congregating close to the flock is absurd and insulting. Welcome to the board.

jmills wrote:This is the worst feature film I have seen all year. The worst production design, the worst editing, worst stage direction, and the worst lighting of anything I've seen in 2010, and it isn't even close. I'm not sure I could have made a worse film with no budget.

No one has to like this film, but if you're going to criticize it, it's not much use unless you provide some arguments that might engage those who disagree with you. Part of this involves avoiding absolute terms like "worst" which don't translate because a) we don't know what your criteria are for making this assessment; b) we don't know what other films you've seen to compare to; and c) just using the term at all (let alone six times in a row) implies that you are exaggerating to call attention to yourself.

domino harvey wrote:This is an even worse "arguement"-- I and others like me here have no problem admitting we don't like something that others love. Casting aspersions on those who love the film as being sheeple congregating close to the flock is absurd and insulting. Welcome to the board.

By no means was i implying this. I appologise if it seemed so. I dont often speak in generalizations as you thought so im a bit surprised that that is how it came off. I was making the point that calling James Mills immature for not liking the film was uncalled for. Having read swo17 post, which i feel was better articulated, i can understand peoples frustration/annoyance with James Mills post.

There does seem to be a prediliction towards positivity in this forum. I'm not sure why negativity gets such short shrift, as it seems just as valid a reaction. The petty jabs seem pretty consistent on both sides. In any case I will cast my vote on the side of thumbs down on this one. It is a hillbilly exploitation picture, and doesn't really have a lot to say. Reminded me a little of Wendy & Lucy or George Washington, and those also seemed pretty contrived and "manafactured" to me. I don't think that will go over well, so I'll just stop there.

James Mills wrote:This is the worst feature film I have seen all year. The worst production design, the worst editing, worst stage direction, and the worst lighting of anything I've seen in 2010, and it isn't even close. I'm not sure I could have made a worse film with no budget.

I think you might be selling yourself short, James.

Also, could you please explain what, specifically, you found lacking in the production design, editing, stage direction, and lighting? None of these elements stood out as particularly good or bad or bad to me. I felt that they were all competent and professional enough, that they did not call any attention to themselves whatsoever.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, what makes the film work for me is its evocation of a particular place. That's largely due to sharp location cinematography a script that emphasizes fully-developed characters. Jennifer Lawrence, John Hawkes, and Dale Dickey in particular develop characters that are complicated and multi-dimensional, and that I completely believed as inhabitants of this culture.

James Mills wrote:Please, tell me Debra, what inspired you to make this film from your sweet home in the suburbs of Massachusetts, or your cozy college dorm at Tisch? What exactly are you trying to say about these people from the South? That many are addicted to drugs? That they're poor? Is that really all they are?

Ms. Granik went to Brandeis, so if she lived in a dorm, it was probably there. I don't really have any knowledge on the coziness of her dorm room. That was over 25 years ago, so she might not remember much about it either. She got her MFA at NYU (Tisch), so I don't imagine a dorm was involved. I am not aware of her living situation while attending NYU, nor am I privy to the "sweetness" of her current residence. In any case, the story and its setting can be largely credited to the Daniel Woodrell novel the film is based on. Woodrell grew up in the Ozarks, and most of his noir-styled novels are set there. Debra Granik enjoys reading Mr. Woodrell's novels. I suspect that, like me, she enjoys reading and watching films about people from cultures different than her own. Woodrell knows this type of community very well, and I see no reason to question the authenticity of its depiction. As someone with some extended family in the rural south, I find nothing particularly unusual about family members living in close proximity to one another and having very complex relationships which involve both loyalty and extreme animosity. I can only imagine how complicated these relationships might become with drugs and enormous amounts of money involved.

I've heard the argument before that this film belittles people from the American South -- that they're all poor, on drugs, and miserable. The thing is, this film is not about "the South." These people do not live in a southern city, or suburb, or even small town. They live in a particular rural area of the Missouri Ozarks. A specific, definite place. There are plenty of real communities like this one where abject poverty is simply a fact of life. That's not a judgment, it is a depiction of reality. The movie is specifically about the meth problem in the Ozarks. One of the aims of the novel (and, I assume, of the film) is to call attention to this problem. Meth cooking in the Ozarks is a major epidemic, which is destroying communities there. So this movie is not an indictment of people from the South. We all know that there are plenty of amazing, wonderful people in a variety of different communities throughout the American South -- communities full of prosperity, charity, and joy. Many books and films have been made about these people. Winter's Bone, however, is not a film about those communities and never claimed to be.

***
As I'm sure Armond White could attest, reflexive contrarianism is not impressive to anyone here. Like Ree Dolly's community, there is a well-defined sense of place on this forum. We have our own rules, both written and unwritten, that govern membership here. In general, the members of this forum have experience with a broad range of world cinema, both classic and contemporary. We certainly don't agree on everything, and find plenty of members who don't often agree with the critical consensus. In order for any such opinion to be taken seriously though, a cogent, reasoned argument is expected. Many of us enjoy reading the opinions of others that make us question our own take on a film. Making bold declarations about the "worst" of this and that and declaring that admired films are "awful" without sufficient explanation will not ingratiate you here.

Zot! wrote:There does seem to be a prediliction towards positivity in this forum. I'm not sure why negativity gets such short shrift, as it seems just as valid a reaction. The petty jabs seem pretty consistent on both sides. In any case I will cast my vote on the side of thumbs down on this one. It is a hillbilly exploitation picture, and doesn't really have a lot to say. Reminded me a little of Wendy & Lucy or George Washington, and those also seemed pretty contrived and "manafactured" to me. I don't think that will go over well, so I'll just stop there.

The fact that there are more positive impressions of films than negative ones here probably has something to do with the fact that the Criterion Forum was built around the classics that make up The Criterion Collection. As we expanded into discussing classic and current cinema in general, we continued to focus on films that were generally perceived to be of a certain quality. There are only a few threads for films that would be generally derided. As previously stated, alternative takes on films are welcomed and appreciated when they are based on thought, reason, and cogent explanation. Negativity for its own sake, however, has no more value than positivity for its own sake does. Nobody is interested in which direction your thumb is pointing, we only want to know why.

Oh, and correct spelling is encouraged.

I would definitely love to read an explanation on the topic of George Washington and Wendy and Lucy being "manafactured". (sic)

I have mixed feeling about the film as a whole, but as someone who has spent a fair bit of time in the Ozarks I'd like to defend how it represents its locale. First of all, this film does not take place in what is, at least to me, recognizable as The South. This is a very distinctly Midwestern film, with a distinctly lower-Missourian character to the both the consistently gray skies and the subtle curves that attend its particular brand of poverty, especially in the more drug-ravaged areas. For me this:

JamesMill wrote:Unfortunately, we're supposed to believe that her entire family lives within walking distance from her yet they're not only entirely estranged

is one of the most astute insights the film has into this distinctly southern-Missouri sort of poverty, where the family is present and at close quarters but potentially hostile, and when you throw the meth trade into the equation, this:

JamesMill wrote:but that they would inexplicably kidnap and try to kill her.

doesn't strike me as particularly far fetched at all. Of course, this is all just my experience and so I may be overstating the extent to which these dynamics are unique to the area--I haven't lived everywhere, after all--but I can say that shivers of recognition crawled down my spine more than once over the course of the film.

mfunk9786 wrote:And to call it the worst feature film you've seen all year speaks to an immaturity that I hope you're someday able to shake. No one is shocked, impressed, or titillated by your attempt at dismissing a film that was clearly well made from a technical standpoint as if it wasn't, and calling the authenticity of its filmmaker into question as if you're the only person enlightened enough to see through her. We're just all sort of looking at your post, glad our little brothers have matured past that level of 'look at me!' proclamation.

Please, this has nothing to do with petulance or ostensibility, so save me your condescensions.

To Jeff and whomever asked for examples, I'm not sure if you all are purposely looking past them, but they are ridiculously abundant. Perhaps they're more apparent to me because I am a filmmaker, but still, I really feel like you'd have to be wearing some rose glasses not to notice some of these:

Lighting: not only do interior shots have the most blatant use of three point lighting I can remember seeing, but they're actually different temperatures and not balanced well! Look at every interior scene and the differences between warmth from not only the intended light sources on the filmic (lamps, outside windows, etc.), but from the actors themselves! Some exterior scenes are equally laughable, as one of the worst is when they're looking through the graveyard for her father's name and all we can see from their subjective shots is the flashlight, with everything around it being completely black. But it constantly cuts back to them looking where it is obviously being lit up by an ulterior light source, and nothing is dark at all! How does one not notice these types of things?

Production design: all the clothes and props are brand new. They took no time in weathering any of the props, and when they did it was so half assed that it made it worse (slab of dusty dirt on a mint condition 90's truck). To punctuate this lack of professionalism, for instance: during the silly torture/kidnapping scene or whatever, rain is audible (though very poorly, as all the other sound design in the film, but I won't even get into that). When you look outside, however, "Teardrop's" mint condition truck has rain drops on it, but there is no rain. Yet it is raining. About three shots later when they arrive back, not only is it still "raining", but Teardrop's car is now completely dry and no rain is visible outside. Again, how is this excusable?

Editing: These huge flaws all have editing in common, but there are also fundamental errors throughout. Cutbacks between dialogue NEVER happen, whoever's talking is given the screen right when they start their sentence, thus continuity errors show up at least once per interaction. To make it worse, she actually cuts from the same angle at times to a mere medium shot from a flat two shot, which in filmmaking terms means you're admitting to have not got enough good footage of one interaction and are forced to break the cutting rules (30 degrees or extreme distance changes in every cut of dialogue) because of your poor direction.

Stage Direction: and on that note, Debra's stage direction also makes this film feel unauthentic and more like a student thesis film than a professional feature. She has her characters remain eye to eye throughout long interactions without either ever even looking away; hell, once Bree doesn't even blink when she first admits to her father being dead. She doesn't even get a crease on her face over the thought. Hell, evenwriters that favoraby reviewed the film had reservations about the cast's acting in these regards, as little emotion is ever shown from any of their faces and only Hawkes has the talent to convey emotions through the eyes. It is also funny that Hawkes is the only actor to take it upon themselves to not remain in direct eye contact through every interaction, yet he is supposed to be the baddest crackhead of them all; I doubt he ignored her stage direction however, as it appears that she never even mentioned this to any of her actors. Also, having been raised by a meth addicted mother, I can assure you that meth addicts don't act like anyone in this film. They don't stare each other in the eyes and make coherent sentences, or talk in clever prose, let alone readily offer meth to each other in every scene (effusive reminders that "there's drugs here!"). It's actually quite the opposite in every instance. The use of drugs in general is played as more of a tool for justifying the ridiculous repugnances of the characters, not as a legitimate asset to their functioning. Then there's the more obvious errors, like allowing Bree to just stand up and pretend to be carried away from the torture scene, and again when she's leaving the truck with Teardrop. A good director would not only A) notice that she's acting awful and tell her to not stand up and walk on her own (as she is supposed to be carried), but B) realize that being carried goes against her character's physicality in the first place, as we've spent the entire film trying to develop her as an arduous, stern youth that is unwanting of help from her repugnant surroundings ("Don't ever ask for something that should be offered!").

I could go on about the sound design and the poor white balancing and the annoyance of its expository script and the lack of actual talent within the cast, but I feel like it's futile. Most of you claim a film is "excellent" and give no reasoning to back it up. That is your opinion, and I wish I felt the same way. I don't call you a conformist for having a different opinion than I do, the popular one, so claiming that I'm just trying to be contrary to get some attention is unfair, as is referencing my recent join date as if it makes my opinions and reservations any less relevant. I didn't make these things up, the proof is in the pudding: the film is extremely, extremely unprofessional in all areas of technical aesthetics, and that is undebatable. If you're able to overlook all of these things, more power to you.

From this post it seems like you just have very different critical values than what is usual on this board. If you have a problem with films that don't seem completely "transparent" you're going to end up missing out on a lot of films that this board holds in high esteem, which isn't usually very "point out all the visible booms" in its interests.

Alan Smithee wrote:I would definitely love to read an explanation on the topic of George Washington and Wendy and Lucy being "manafactured". (sic)

I'm going try not to take the discussion off topic, but I feel like all these films all use a certain authentic milleau as a backdrop for an inauthentic story. I like the setting of Winter Bone, but

Spoiler

I don't think that the violent conclusion makes any realistic sense and is used for only cheap shock value.

Foam wrote:From this post it seems like you just have very different critical values than what is usual on this board. If you have a problem with films that don't seem completely "transparent" you're going to end up missing out on a lot of films that this board holds in high esteem.

Obviously I'm a fan of formalism and intended self reflexivity, but this is a realist film that never tries to break from its world with the viewer. It is intended to be a "gritty" dive into the world of the Ozarks, thus transparency breaking is a no-no.

This is a cheap defense, as it allows you to pull the subjectivity card whenever something doesn't add up. For instance, if I am shooting a film that takes place in medieval times yet some areas of my production design are blatantly modern, it can be assumed that I am not intentionally trying to draw the audience's attention to this to break their transparency and make them think of it's symbolism and significance. On the contrary, I simply fucked up. I made a mistake and thus your viewing experience is compromised.

I will also assume that you didn't even read my entire post, as it goes much deeper than just "visible booms".

James Mills wrote:Please, this has nothing to do with petulance or ostensibility, so save me your condescensions.

Foam is spot-on - the observations you've laid out are on very "you can tell it's a rubber shark in Jaws!" plane, and are totally unconnected to the quality of the film. It would be no better or worse a film if some production designer took some of the kids' clothes outside and hit them against a dirty rock a few extra times.

Also, I don't mean to be too confrontational on this point, but what the fuck is the deal with the hostility towards the director of this film re: the use of her first name? "Oh, and another thing Debra screwed up is ____ - hey Debra, way to screw ____ up!" - I mean, holy shit man, you yourself said you're a film student at USC - this woman made a film that is going to be nominated for Academy Awards, and she's not worthy of even a little bit of respect from you? Her last name is Granik, and since I'm guessing you've never met (if you did, it sounds like it ended badly), it lends a lot more credibility to any given writeup of a film to refer to the artist(s) involved by their last name. Unless, you know, they're old college buds or something.

mfunk9786 wrote:

James Mills wrote:Please, this has nothing to do with petulance or ostensibility, so save me your condescensions.

Foam is spot-on - the observations you've laid out are on very "you can tell it's a rubber shark in Jaws!" plane, and are totally unconnected to the quality of the film. It would be no better or worse a film if some production designer took some of the kids' clothes outside and hit them against a dirty rock a few extra times.

Also, I don't mean to be too confrontational on this point, but what the fuck is the deal with the hostility towards the director of this film re: the use of her first name? "Oh, and another thing Debra screwed up is ____ - hey Debra, way to screw ____ up!" - I mean, holy shit man, you yourself said you're a film student at USC - this woman made a film that is going to be nominated for Academy Awards, and she's not worthy of even a little bit of respect from you? Her last name is Granik, and since I'm guessing you've never met (if you did, it sounds like it ended badly), it lends a lot more credibility to any given writeup of a film to refer to the artist(s) involved by their last name. Unless, you know, they're old college buds or something.

You mind explaining to me where I used words out of context, as your image obviously implies?

Again, you obviously didn't read my entire post if you think it's as surface level as "they look rubber!". I went into multiple flagrancies in its editing and stage direction. If none of these count (acting, thematics, production design), what does count? If all of these deteriorate my connection to the film, am I simply wrong for not overlooking all of these errors?

I wasn't intending to be patronizing or disrespectful in those regards, but I can see how it would appear that way. I often reference directors by their first names, but in this case it reads as a pejorative of sorts. I apologize for my disrespect.

James Mills wrote: I could go on about the sound design and the poor white balancing and the annoyance of its expository script and the lack of actual talent within the cast, but I feel like it's futile. Most of you claim a film is "excellent" and give no reasoning to back it up. That is your opinion, and I wish I felt the same way. I don't call you a conformist for having a different opinion than I do, the popular one, so claiming that I'm just trying to be contrary to get some attention is unfair, as is referencing my recent join date as if it makes my opinions and reservations any less relevant. I didn't make these things up, the proof is in the pudding: the film is extremely, extremely unprofessional in all areas of technical aesthetics, and that is undebatable. If you're able to overlook all of these things, more power to you.

You have given reasons why Winter's Bone is an awful movie. Fair enough.

But as a spectator (I'm not a film maker), I never once noticed all the technical problems you note. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, since you are a film maker, maybe those problems are there...but your's is the first critique of the movie I've read anywhere that condemns it because the props didn't look used enough, for example. I'd assume these technical points would be fairly obvious and someone else would have caught them.

James Mills wrote:I will also assume that you didn't even read my entire post, as it goes much deeper than just "visible booms".

I did read your whole post and I'm actually not criticizing it (the visible boom example was meant in a more analogous way and I hope you didn't interpret it as a dig), just pointing out that a lot of sorts of things that you consider fatal flaws for the film I usually don't see mentioned as such on these forums, and so that's why you probably feel like an "alien," as you put it. In fact, your post reminds me a lot of a series of posts I made on here in my salad days about what I felt was the intrusive use of digital video for Mann's Public Enemies, so I'm sympathetic to where you're coming from, though I can't relate to it in this particular instance. For what it's worth, I find your more production-centered take an interesting change of pace and hope you keep doing what you do ("what you do" meaning in your more detailed moments as opposed to the "worst this/worst that" steamrolling mode).

Tribe wrote:But as a spectator (I'm not a film maker), I never once noticed all the technical problems you note. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, since you are a film maker, maybe those problems are there...but your's is the first critique of the movie I've read anywhere that condemns it because the props didn't look used enough, for example. I'd assume these technical points would be fairly obvious and someone else would have caught them.

Even if I was the first to catch them (which I highly doubt; we haven't had the privilege of reading through every professional review, let alone unprofessional ones like my own), does that make it any less real? Should I ignore something that irks me simply because others don't notice it?

You guys write as if I'm going out of my way to poke holes in this film. I actually referenced Winter's Bone as a film that was perhaps deserving of more awards/list love in an earlier post I made before I had even seen the movie, as I had already assumed it was a solid effort from the consensus on these boards and the reviews I had read. Trust me, I wanted to enjoy this movie.

Jeff wrote:

Zot! wrote:There does seem to be a prediliction towards positivity in this forum. I'm not sure why negativity gets such short shrift, as it seems just as valid a reaction. The petty jabs seem pretty consistent on both sides. In any case I will cast my vote on the side of thumbs down on this one. It is a hillbilly exploitation picture, and doesn't really have a lot to say. Reminded me a little of Wendy & Lucy or George Washington, and those also seemed pretty contrived and "manafactured" to me. I don't think that will go over well, so I'll just stop there.

The fact that there are more positive impressions of films than negative ones here probably has something to do with the fact that the Criterion Forum was built around the classics that make up The Criterion Collection. As we expanded into discussing classic and current cinema in general, we continued to focus on films that were generally perceived to be of a certain quality. There are only a few threads for films that would be generally derided. As previously stated, alternative takes on films are welcomed and appreciated when they are based on thought, reason, and cogent explanation. Negativity for its own sake, however, has no more value than positivity for its own sake does. Nobody is interested in which direction your thumb is pointing, we only want to know why.

To second Jeff, I think it's sensible to have a 'positivity bias', if only because it's a challenge to make constructive and substantiated negative arguments, and unsubstantiated negative assertions come off as simple trolling. Unsubstantiated positive assertions are sort of pointless and can get to be mind-numbing after a while, but they don't lead to rancour.

That said, I really appreciate the effort James Mills has put in to explaining his position and it would be nice if the film's supporters could greet that (which is what they asked for) without defensiveness and snark. Mature, well-argued disagreements are something this forum could do with more of. It's only movies, after all.

James Mills wrote:

Tribe wrote:But as a spectator (I'm not a film maker), I never once noticed all the technical problems you note. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, since you are a film maker, maybe those problems are there...but your's is the first critique of the movie I've read anywhere that condemns it because the props didn't look used enough, for example. I'd assume these technical points would be fairly obvious and someone else would have caught them.

Even if I was the first to catch them (which I highly doubt; we haven't had the privilege of reading through every professional review, let alone unprofessional ones like my own), does that make it any less real? Should I ignore something that irks me simply because others don't notice it?

No, if it irks you, it irks you.

My point is that folks who know a lot more about movie-making than I, and potentially more than you as well, would have pointed out these technical problems if they were as glaring as you say they are. After all, you cite these as reasons the movie was virtually unwatchable for you.

Still, if the movie sucked for you, so be it.

"Authenticity" seems to be a modern entitlement in some art house cinema circles (and its often grounded in youth), as though cinema itself were intended to replicate life rather than offer a take on reality as we and others know it. John Mills, if you object to the film from a production standpoint, as a small little indie film that cost nothing and has found much acclaim regardless, then I guess I can't argue with your own personal take regarding perceived technical objections but I can't say I envy you your hangups either. You're going to be pretty miserable, I think, the more you get into cinema until you either completely pigeonhole yourself ala Ray Carney or loosen up.

domino harvey wrote:"Authenticity" seems to be a modern entitlement in some art house cinema circles (and its often grounded in youth), as though cinema itself were intended to replicate life rather than offer a take on reality as we and others know it. John Mills, if you object to the film from a production standpoint, as a small little indie film that cost nothing and has found much acclaim regardless, then I guess I can't argue with your own personal take regarding perceived technical objections but I can't say I envy you your hangups either. You're going to be pretty miserable, I think, the more you get into cinema until you either completely pigeonhole yourself ala Ray Carney or loosen up.

=

James Mills wrote:Again, you obviously didn't read my entire post if you think it's as surface level as "they look rubber!". I went into multiple flagrancies in its editing and stage direction. If none of these count (acting, thematics, production design), what does count?

Is every retort to a counterargument going to be "U DIDNT READ MY POST"?

John Mills, I suspect Mfunk is right and you're overreacting to gain attention as some sort of filmmaking saviour sent down to correct the heathens ("I MAKE MOVIES, I UNDERSTAND THEM BETTER THAN U"). Most of us when we dislike something don't make an argument against a film that boils down to "I dare you to defend this!" That's just confrontation, no matter how "nice" you try to walk it back after the fact. You've shaken a fist at us and we flinched. You "win."

zedz wrote:I really appreciate the effort James Mills has put in to explaining his position and it would be nice if the film's supporters could greet that (which is what they asked for) without defensiveness and snark. Mature, well-argued disagreements are something this forum could do with more of.

Agreed.