criterionforum.org

anvilscepe wrote:

zedz wrote:I guess it depends whether he's talking about Hollywood's version of Los Angeles (about four streets, as far as I can tell) or the real thing.

I guess you're right zedz. I shouldn't have jumped to a conclusion. Still, not everything has to be European to be first rate. I mean c'mon!

I'm am done and moving on.

If you can get a hold of Thom Andersen's excellent Los Angeles Plays Itself, I'd highly recommend seeing it to get an understanding of how Hollywood uses the city it inhabits.

EDIT: That goes more to rohmerin than anvilscepe, sorry.

Los Angeles son extaños:
what I meant and I liked of L.A in the film is that the people WALK on the streets, even they take a train. If that is not weird in a film set in L.A, may be I'm wrong. I've never been there, but of course, after all our foreign lives watching L.A on hundred films, come on, I can say what I think about, ¿no?

To live in L.A will be interesting for a lot of people, but it's not my cup of tea although it's full of Art Deco, so it's worth a visit.

I agree the film is nothing close to Woody Allen. I had the feelings it was more under the Ally McBeal influence.

Still, not everything has to be European to be first rate.

Of course you're right. "European" it's a big label.

Finally saw this, mostly to finally get a handle on the references that kept popping up in my Tumblr Dashboard (Just kidding... I think). The film is frustrating, because while it does approach several topics of interest (unwise romantic attachments to flighty dreamboats, the nature of desire vs reality, &c), it does so in a mostly obnoxious, sitcom way. The film's dialog and "jokes" are atrocious, going for cheap laughs while pretending to offer honest insight. And the film's ADD aesthetic rarely works in its favor either, with no consistent employment other than to be "kitschy" and "totes indie." I can understand why someone would praise this film based on what it tries (and I think mostly fails) to address, but I suspect/hope once another, better film comes along that tries to tackle these same topics without the condescension to Sundance audiences, the memory of this one'll fade away from the memories of my clique.

I don't know it it's going anywhere, it seems to constantly be on television and I can speak to it improving vastly upon repeat viewings (my most recent one having been yesterday). LQ and I still have an ongoing debate as to whether Summer misled Tom, and when a film that could have been very shallow still has me talking and setting down the remote control, I'm forced to acknowledge that I love it. The quirks work without feeling forced (my favorite? The dance sequence, particularly Harrison Ford's appearance) and the party sequence late in the film is crushing and presented in an honest and truly original way.

Not to add insult to injury, but I feel far more comfortable aligning myself with this film than I do with something as gimmicky as Scott Pilgrim vs. the World when it comes to films about romance that may one day make a shortlist of the definitive ones of my generation. It really feels to me like a film that would have been a charming and enduringly adored Jack Lemmon-starrer if it were made in the late 50s and early 60s.

Oh, and if you watched it on telly: it's a 2.35:1 film, but they've cropped it to 1.78:1, so that might demand a repeat viewing to see the unexpectedly lovely cinematography the way it was intended.

I rented the Blu-ray. Turns out Netflix still has a couple of those sitting around

mfunk9786 wrote:Not to add insult to injury, but I feel far more comfortable aligning myself with this film than I do with something as gimmicky as Scott Pilgrim vs. the World when it comes to films about romance that may one day make a shortlist of the definitive ones of my generation.

I think they'll both be on the list, but that's a good (and interesting) comparison. However, I won't be surprised if you're the one vindicated as JGL is a better actor than Cera and a more acceptable audience proxy than Scott will ever be. I didn't care for the film in many of the areas that domino mentioned, but I have to say that I haven't been able to write this off completely due to JGL. (Mr. Christina Hendricks as the best friend stuck in my mind for some reason, too.) His performance really stayed with me and even if the character left something to be desired (in my opinion) it wasn't because Levitt undersold the guy and it makes me remember the film with a little fondness. And I forgot about the dance sequence, which still made me chuckle even now.

Well the problem with that is treating Scott Pilgrim as a traditional romance. It's seems to be more poking of their attempts at romance over nothing. Both characters are totally selfish and search out the romance as a status thing. In short they're idiotic kids.

domino harvey wrote: I suspect/hope once another, better film comes along that tries to tackle these same topics without the condescension to Sundance audiences, the memory of this one'll fade away from the memories of my clique.

Wasn't that film called Annie Hall?

I think Levitt has a strong screen personality, no doubt, but he's a little too good looking, well-dressed, and equally unattainable for his role here. Cera would actually probably pull this sort of thing off better, though I get the point raised. And for what it's worth, I think Scott Pilgrim is a film with a well-defined, consistent, and functional aesthetic, one the pic sticks to at the detriment of some viewers, obviously!

domino harvey wrote:And for what it's worth, I think Scott Pilgrim is a film with a well-defined, consistent, and functional aesthetic, one the pic sticks to at the detriment of some viewers, obviously!

This is a big reason why I keep watching (and enjoying) the movie. It's so compelling, visually. Whereas all I can find in (500) is emotionally compelling, thanks to Levitt.

Knives, the two films may differ in regard to how they tackle the genre (and I admit that SP's approach totally beats the "obnoxious sit-com" (per domino) template of (500) - even if SP's approach is as much from the book as from Wright himself), but I found mfunk's comparison apt in terms of "quirky films about this generation's twentysomethings".

domino harvey wrote: I can understand why someone would praise this film based on what it tries (and I think mostly fails) to address, but I suspect/hope once another, better film comes along that tries to tackle these same topics without the condescension to Sundance audiences, the memory of this one'll fade away from the memories of my clique.

Just wait 'til you see this year's Sundance American dramatic competition winner Like Crazy, which commits all of the same errors you describe here and is leagues more condescending than 500 Days at its worst.

I feel like the biggest problem with the film is it tries to wink to its intended audience (record shopping, ikea, joy division tees, etc), but goes overboard, and ends up looking like this...



Mediocre or not, I don't think I'll ever be able to escape this film, since the girl I saw this with pulled a Summer on me a few months later. Probably should have too her to see Ponyo instead.

How is accurately reflecting its audience winking at it?

So, more like this, then?

Pretty much, yeah. Just need someone to explain to me why hipsters find that so offensive

I didn't actually think it was as bad here as it was in other films of this ilk, but I think the criticism is that some members of the audience, rather then nodding with recognition at things they like, felt they were being pandered to by the filmmakers. Kind of like that Mr Show sketch where the Ben and Jerry's exec says people who love rock 'n' roll will love Rock 'N' Roll Ice Cream because it has the words "rock 'n' roll" on the label (or something like that)

I think Tom said it best

Tom Hagen wrote: By the time that I saw the Unknown Pleasures and London Calling t-shirts, watched the couple reading Taschen books in the park, and heard the Smiths, I began to have suspicions that I was a part of a target demographic.

And that is worthy of being a knock against the film because...

Sorry hipsters, you're a target demographic too. I hope that doesn't make your head explode too much. But I assure you, this film was not made to advertise the things you already buy/take part in to you.

P.S., hipsters: Please learn to get over yourselves.

It is an act of condescension and marketing gimmickry that seems to speak only for wanting success and not treating it's audience as being able to like anything beyond a mirror.

This is unbelievable. God forbid a character have realistic tastes. He shpould have been watching Bergman films instead! (Oh wait...)

I think the "hipsters" (hate that term) might just be a tiny bit annoyed that their super obscure tastes turned out to be wide enough to attach to a pseudo-indie success. Because it's condesending to even talk about such non-mainstream things in public, man.

Exactly. It's not something to be ashamed of to go to IKEA, listen to vinyl, and go to see screenings of old movies at an arthouse theater. But it makes everyone so angry, even if those are exactly the sorts of things that they take part in.

And it's not like this was written and directed by a 60 year old ad exec... it was made by a guy who was writing from his own experiences and wanted to make a movie. It's not like he was thinking "Hey, I know how to make a buck! Pandering to people like me!"

The reaction to this film is a lot like the reaction when someone accuses a racist of being a racist. They always tend to be a lot more defensive than someone who doesn't harbor those feelings. Despite the fact that some people want everyone to know how cool they are, they immediately get upset if anyone notices them on a large scale.

I don't see myself as a hipster, but I probably meet most people's idea of one. I only got through like ten minutes of this movie, but I can tell you why I turned it off in disgust.

The problem was not that they were revealing hipsters to be a target demographic, but that they were trying to treat them that way and failing (I'll not take a stand here on whether they in fact are or are not a target demographic). The movie's references to The Smiths or Belle and Sebastian (for the record I love the former and loath the latter) tried to pass these bands off as obscure or in some way privileged knowledge of like-minded misfits -- like if somebody else listened to them that might be the basis for a friendship or romance. People who are serious "hipsters" listen almost exclusively to music made by people who have day jobs, in some cases, yes, just to feel superior, but in some cases because of a genuine commitment to anti-commercial cultural politics. The standard of "selling out" in that subculture is set so that if a band is taking in more money than they are spending on sticks, picks, and strings -- essentially if their work as musicians is making them less poor rather than poorer -- they may remain good and worth listening to, but not "hip" as the term is generally understood. Most of these kids are only really passionate about bands whose records are bought by fewer people than get thanked in the liner notes.

I'm neither endorsing nor attacking that aesthetic. But what happens in 500 Days of Summer is that the genuinely powerful experience of meeting someone who happens to love the same weird-ass Flaming Interior Decorator cassette that you listened to all through college, when you know there were only like 50 copies of it made, is reworked to be palatable to the broad audience whose perceived lack of cultural passion is the thing against which hipsters most sternly define themselves. It's like the film makers wanted to show two people connecting over similarly obscure taste in music, but the idea of referencing some genuinely out of the way band that in real life you would be surprised to meet a fan of terrified them. The attitude seems to have been "Let's show the guy thinking Oh my god, you like (band)? I think you're my soul mate! but try to do so in such a way that (band) is a band every person in the audience has at least heard of, so that the audience doesn't feel alienated."

This creates a perfect storm of hipster rage, because it treats commercial music (that is, music by people who make their money as musicians) as if it had the same power to connect people in an us-against-the-capitalist-hellscape way as music that it genuinely underground. I wouldn't date or not date somebody based on musical tastes, but if I did I would be more seduced by somebody having never heard the smiths than by somebody who loved them as much as I do. "Oh, darling, could you ever trust me enough to let me into the private world of that rock you've been living under?"

I don't have a problem with commercial music. I love The Spice Girls and The Smiths; I also love The Old-Timerz. I liked Spice World because it presented The Spice Girls as huge pop stars, which is what they are. I hated 500 Days because it presented The Smiths not as the huge pop stars they are, but as if they were on the same economic plane as The Old-Timerz. This movie confuses boundaries that so-called hipsters, who are usually left wing and take the politics and economics of art very seriously, want to preserve. The film does so, furthermore, in order to flatter people who don't know anything about music, but who want to feel like they do -- people who sleep better at night thinking that there's no such thing as genuinely anti-commercial art, that if a band were any good you'd have heard of them, that the marketplace works. And it accomplishes this by profaning a fantasy -- trite and silly but still powerful -- of meeting somebody with whom, though music, you can share precisely your own sense of being out of step with the world.

Before the hipster bashing starts remember, you asked.

What.

I'd hate to see what he'd write if he saw the whole movie.

Sam T. wrote:I don't see myself as a hipster, but...

I love The Spice Girls and The Smiths

This post was just faxed to Morrissey, who promptly hung himself.

mfunk9786 wrote:What.

Ok, I'll try to explain this in film terms. Imagine there's a movie about how this girl is really cool. She's the coolest girl in town, because she's into really obscure movies, like our hero, and he's smitten. She's way into classic films; like, she doesn't just know about Toy Stories II and III, she's seen the original Toy Story -- Toy Story I! Also, for her yearbook quote she used a quote from some movie that WASN'T EVEN IN COLOR!

Wow, these two are really into film! They might even have seen a movie in a foreign language. On purpose! That's the kind of thing that happens when you're the most serious cinephile in your state. Isn't it crazy how some people have such rarefied taste? Let's just be happy these two found each other, and hope it works out for them, because he'll certainly never find another girl who knows who Humphrey Bogart is and can name two movies in which he appears.

I hope this isn't coming across as confrontational. It's true I'm a little tiered of all the hipster bashing that goes on on websites generally (not this one in particular by any means), even if your stereotypical hipster does dress horribly imo. It's a point of view - hipsterism - I share much with and think I understand well enough to speak for. When I saw somebody asking "Why do hipsters hate this movie?" I thought, "Hey, I hated this movie! Here I was thinking nobody actually cared what my reasons were!" Honestly, I am not trying to pick a fight, and would not have posted just to Summer-bash had I not thought people who liked the film were asking for somebody who didn't like it to step forward.

This post was just faxed to Morrissey, who promptly hung himself.

To be fair, he'd been feeling blue for a while now.