criterionforum.org

domino harvey wrote: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."

When did I dare anyone to defend it? One time I stated that I'm interested in hearing what people liked about it, if that's what you mean. You guys are the ones that challenged me to elaborate on why I didn't like it. So I elaborated, and what do I get? You misquoting my posts and misspelling my name, while claiming that my reservations are pedantic and only inteded to show that "I MAKE MOVIES, I UNDERSTAND THEM BETTER THAN U". So remind me again how exactly I "won"?

zedz wrote: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.

I think what everyone took umbrage with initially was Mills' criticisms of the plot -- which Jeff calmly and rationally responded to much earlier in this thread -- as well as Mills' various ad hominem attacks on the director. Mills’ list of technical "worsts" about the film was fleshed out later, and can continued to be debated by those who care, but it was largely a diversion from what most people found egregious about his first post: the personal attacks he made against the filmmaker and his dismissive, condescending attitude that sure as hell looks like attention seeking from where I’m sitting. Anyone should feel free to disagree with whatever critical consensus there is here or elsewhere about the merits of a given film. But I don’t think there would be the kind of reaction we are dealing with right now if what Mills had done was merely lay down some sort of gauntlet about the technical competence of the film.

Tom Hagen wrote:I think what everyone took umbrage with initially was Mills' criticisms of the plot -- which Jeff calmly and rationally responded to much earlier in this thread -- as well as Mills' various ad hominem attacks on the director. Mills’ list of technical "worsts" about the film was fleshed out later, and can continued to be debated by those who care, but it was largely a diversion from what most people found egregious about his first post: the personal attacks he made against the filmmaker and his dismissive, condescending attitude that sure as hell looks like attention seeking from where I’m sitting. Anyone should feel free to disagree with whatever critical consensus there is here or elsewhere about the merits of a given film. But I don’t think there would be the kind of reaction we are dealing with right now if what Mills had done was merely lay down some sort of gauntlet about the technical competence of the film.

I stated that it was the worst feature I had seen all year because it is the worst feature I've seen all year. It's that simple. I didn't go into the more intricate details of its lackluster production design and editing because I figured you guys were already aware of it. I didn't go into the stage direction details because most don't notice it or really care about it. As for my disdain for the director's intentions, you're exaggerating my comments. I called her out for her lack of authenticity, and I called her by her first name. Make what you will of that, but that's it. I am not going to apologize for my opinions conflicting with yours, if that's what you're hoping for.

The fact that you all assume someone adamantly disagreeing with you must mean they're simply seeking attention says more about your own xenophobias than anything else. It's not as if I made my original post with any intention of being incendiary, it was simply how I felt. Perhaps you should question why my opinion offends you so much before assuming that my opinion must have ulterior motives.

James Mills wrote:The fact that you all assume someone adamantly disagreeing with you must mean they're simply seeking attention says more about your own xenophobias than anything else. It's not as if I made my original post with any intention of being incendiary, it was simply how I felt. Perhaps you should question why my opinion offends you so much before assuming that my opinion must have ulterior motives.

If it weren't for the fact you have at least one other polemical thread going on, I'd advise you to stop playing the victim and carry on. You obviously can express yourself clearly when you want to. But judging from the other threads where you are pretty much at the center of flaming similar to this one...I think you like being argumentative.

If you looked earlier in the thread (or in the one for Uncle Boonmee) I had some disparaging comments on the film and the reaction was at a minimum and pretty understanding because my comments were of the same level of respect. You complain that the film lacks authenticity and people rightly question why that is a virtuous quality. If it wasn't for you hyping your posts into this circular sort of thing the angry comments would have died out and a few with genuine curiosity to your point would have engaged you. If you can't handle that this is not the forum for you.

I do appreciate James Mills taking the time to describe the problems he had with technical aspects of the production. I've watched the film twice now, and when I watch it a third time, I'll surely be looking for the continuity and stage direction errors he describes. I doubt that the props not being roughed up enough will bother me. If I haven't noticed it after two viewings, it's probably just something that just isn't going to register with me. I'm more surprised about the lighting complaints. Michael McDonough's cinematography has been praised in most quarters, and it struck me as particularly beautiful. I am not a filmmaker, so perhaps I'm not looking for the right things, or viewing it correctly. I do think that it is incredibly unfair to claim that those of us who have viewed the film without citing these flaws are "purposely looking past them" or that the flaws are "incredibly abundant." As has been pointed out, these supposed flaws have not apparently been written about elsewhere. That doesn't mean that they're not there nor does it diminish Mr. Mills perspective. However, it does mean that claims that the film is "extremely unprofessional in all areas of technical aesthetics, and that is undebatable," are unwarranted. It clearly is debatable since no one else is seeing these things and the vast majority of professional critics and filmgoers find the piece to be of considerable merit.

I appreciate James Mills elucidating his initial post, but I must say that this was not my impression at all. Much of the "production design" was taken from the actual locations, so I don't know how you slam the entirety of that department. Certainly, the props and wardrobe looked sufficiently "lived-in" for me. If you were paying attention to the layer of dust on Teardrop's truck, however, then obviously all the combined aspects of the film weren't engaging you to an adequate degree.

Lawrence, as Ree, I thought had a very effective performance. As a 17 year old girl, she had to put on an air of confidence when dealing with a much older and much more dangerous crowd. If her strategy to maneuver through this world was to display bravery, as her actions suggest, then looking people in the eye seems to be the most direct way to demand answers. The choices Lawrence made were perfectly congruous with her character's actions.

As for stage direction, perhaps I am more lenient than you, but none of it seemed false. I would have to rewatch the film with an eye for blocking, since I can't really argue this point from memory. Same for editing. There's nothing as egregious as a gun appearing in one hand and then disappearing in between cuts. Every film has continuity errors. Where this becomes a distraction for you is a personal thing. I was never bothered in Winter's Bone. On the other hand, The Departed drove me mad with all its discontinuous edits.

Now, look at any screengrab of Winter's Bone. You're probably looking at 75% blue (note: statistic made up). Unless the Ozark mountains are actually blue, then the film isn't going for full authenticity. This also means a lot of work went into the production design, cinematography, and color timing to achieve the look. No microbudget film with zero artistic value ever has this much control over the mise en scene. To decry color temperature mixing as a huge flaw is, to me, to miss the point. The film has a cohesive "look," which sets the tone of an earthy chill. The entire film is comprised of blues, greens, browns, and blacks. If you go to Cinematography.com and make a post about you can never mix color temp, even when achieving your desired "look," you'd surely get torn apart by professional cinematographers (albeit in a polite manner.)

I mentioned in my post on page one, before this ruckus, that the film is not cinematographically perfect. If you want to criticize something, this is a film that would've thrived on actual celluloid. Instead, they shot on the RED, and it shows in the loss of detail and overly-crunched contrast. Still, again in my initial post, I mention how such technical imperfections really don't matter that much because the film has an overall look that sets the tone for the film.

Responding to technical notes, from one filmmaker to another:

James Mills wrote: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!

I swear I'm not trying to be snarky, but I'm honestly having a little trouble understanding what you're saying here because there are some grammatical problems with the last sentence. But if you're saying what I think you're saying (that the color temp of the actors' key lights is not balanced with the practicals?) I can only say I didn't notice it at the time. I haven't seen the film since I watched it in its theatrical run months ago, and it's entirely possible that if you pointed out specific shots I might see what you're saying and agree, but my immediate reaction is to say that having multiple color temperatures may actually be more realistic than a perfectly balanced lighting scheme. I do a lot of documentary work and event photography, and I know from lots of frustrated experience that most buildings actually do have lights with wildly variant color temperatures, very often in the same room. But again, all I can say is that nothing looked out of the ordinary to me at the time.

James Mills wrote: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?

I remember this scene well, and you're right about how different the shots are. I noticed it at the time, and I didn't think it was intentional. But the difference between you and me is that I noticed it and moved on, because I was more interested in what was going on than I was in what "mistakes" the cinematographer may or may not have been making. Would you have liked the film any more if this scene or others like it had not contained such flaws? That's the key question. I think there are some truly great films in the history of cinema that have "terrible" lighting on a professional level; it doesn't make them less great. Moreover, I have a tendency to use the word "professional" as a pejorative and I shudder a bit when someone uses it to describe my work, because I always get the feeling it means I was concentrating on the wrong things. This is my long-winded way of saying, "Yes, the lighting in that scene was unprofessional, and you're right, I didn't care, even as a cinematographer."

Incidentally, you didn't mention the only scene that consciously bothered me, from a technical standpoint: in the climax on the pond, there were some shots where it looked as if the shutter speed had been altered, probably in order to gain an extra stop or so of light. If this had been happening throughout the film, it wouldn't have bothered me, but when it cropped up all of a sudden toward the end it felt to me like an outsider's intrusion into the very self-contained world of this film, and at one of its most intimate moments. This differs for me from the lighting problems of the graveyard scene, which don't feel like a violation of the aesthetic environment that has already been established.

James Mills wrote: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?

I think you're wrong about the clothes and props looking too new, but I can't mount a serious defense with the film not fresh in my memory. As to the problem you've mentioned with the rain and the truck, this sort of thing happens all the time in movies, old and new, and people have been excusing it for decades. As a filmmaker you probably would have noticed this no matter what, but I doubt it would have bothered you if you weren't already uninterested in the film anyway.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about with the sound design, but I think the sound design in most modern (Hollywood) films is very overwrought and bombastic, so maybe this is a question of taste.

James Mills wrote: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.

It can also mean that you rightly believe these "cutting rules" are mostly arbitrary and need not be followed if the scene is still intelligible (or if it's important that the scene not be entirely intelligible). I'm actually kind of confused seeing this argument come from someone whose avatar is a shot from The Conformist, a film that flagrantly and gleefully breaks such rules.

I can't argue with your personal experience with meth addicts, but I will say that I thought the dead-eyed and sort of flat manner of most of the characters in the film was all part of an intentional direction towards an aesthetic whole. The film itself has a cold, estranging character, as if the environment itself is staring you down with knives in its eyes, and the manner of acting from most of the characters is a key aspect of this effect. Indeed, it is precisely because Jennifer Lawrence remains steely and unphased throughout the film that she becomes compelling, since it contrasts sharply with what is otherwise an obvious physical and circumstantial vulnerability and brings her to the same level as her enemies in terms of the power she can wield.

James Mills wrote:the film is extremely, extremely unprofessional in all areas of technical aesthetics, and that is undebatable.

It's not at all undebatable, but even if I agreed with this assessment, why would that necessarily be a bad thing? Abbas Kiarostami's Ten truly is "extremely unprofessional in all areas of technical aesthetics," and that fact is key to its brilliance. Most Hollywood films are highly professional, but it doesn't make them good. Professionalism is no guarantee of quality, value, ideas, or significance, and unprofessionalism is most certainly no indication of a lack of any of these things.

I think most of this discussion is beside the point, honestly, and I would be curious to see as detailed and thorough a response to Jeff's and Foam's counterarguments re: the film's authenticity, or to Domino's first reply to your post, the first two sentences of which very neatly capture what makes this film special, in my opinion. For what it's worth, I think you're wrong about Winter's Bone and I have an initial impression that you and I approach cinema in general very differently, but I don't agree that you're whining for attention or being contrary just for the hell of it, and I don't think you've really earned the pile-on you've received.

Grand Illusion, I didn't want to go into the stage direction and really any performance direction because my opinion of acting is oftentimes fastidious in comparison to a large majority of other cinephiles. I went into some of my qualms about it earlier and don't care to elaborate any further, as I'm not sure my complaints are tangible (or memorable off the top of my head) enough to be explained more diligently. As for the cinematography, I wasn't complaining about the color temperatures outside, which did seem to emphasize an array of browns, blues, and greens. I had some real problems with the interior off-balances and lighting that was made to mimic the filmic light sources yet shed obviously different colors.

Kirkinson, it sounds as if you were aware of a lot of the things that irked me, but as you stated: they wouldn't have been so egregious had I been more attached to the film's plot. It goes much deeper than the things I expressed, but I wanted to make it clear that I was only describing the things that are indisputable and can be visibly proven. You see, me describing my severe issues with the acting and expository dialogue are obviously more detrimental to my connection with the film than the editing (which is intentionally broken in The Conformist, and I don't think the same can be said here), production design, or lighting (which was so flagrant to me in the interior scenes that I'm amazed you didn't also get irritated with it). It's just that nobody at a film forum that enjoyed the film at hand is going to take me saying "The dialogue was expositional, strained, and felt forced" with any seriousness, just as when I don't care at all when I read one of the countless posts stating something like "This was an excellent film, one of the best of the year."

You claim that issues happen all of the time along the lines of the cemetery lighting and magical rain of the torture scene, but I don't think that's true. Keep in mind that the cemetery scene was directly subsequent to the torture one, and at this point I had lost so much interest to the plot (as againn, Ree somehow doesn't even care to ask why her family members are torturing her, just simply says "Kill me"; I am still curious as to why nobody has commented on this absurdity thus far) that I started noticing these things. For all I know, equally outlandish errors could have been elsewhere, yet I don't remember the last time I saw something as blatantly unbelievable in another film. The only thing that comes to mind in recent times is Maddi being magically dry when she gets out of the water in the maudlin scene of her crossing the river on the horse in True Grit. Are you sure that things like this are that common? I'm interested in hearing other examples, as I can't think of any films that I really enjoyed that had errors so... I don't know, so stupid.

To answer your question about Domino's initial response, I don't care to enter a world that is entirely fantastical yet pretends to be realistic. As I stated earlier, meth addicts don't act this way, and not all people in the South are addicted to it and plot up ways to ruin their family members' lives. Moreover, even if the film's depiction of this separate world was more thematically accurate and enlightening, I would have a very hard time absorbing it with its abundance of technical shortcomings. There isn't a single thing in this film that felt real to me, so I could not possibly agree that the film allowed me to witness a reality of the world outside my own.

James Mills wrote: a world that is entirely fantastical yet pretends to be realistic.

Haha, isn't that a thumbnail description for cinema as a whole?

James Mills wrote:not all people in the South are addicted to it and plot up ways to ruin their family members' lives

I agree with Foam that this is a distinctly Midwestern film, but whether or not you consider Missouri part of the South the movie itself is focused on a rather small and insulated community not an entire region of the country. I think many people who have lived in or around deeply rural areas will experience the same "shivers of recognition" that Foam mentioned earlier and by contrasting Ree's seemingly average and suburban high school with the reality of her home life, the filmmakers seem to be going out of their way to show that all of Missouri is not like this.

Elmyr wrote:

James Mills wrote:not all people in the South are addicted to it and plot up ways to ruin their family members' lives

I agree with Foam that this is a distinctly Midwestern film, but whether or not you consider Missouri part of the South the movie itself is focused on a rather small and insulated community not an entire region of the country. I think many people who have lived in or around deeply rural areas will experience the same "shivers of recognition" that Foam mentioned earlier and by contrasting Ree's seemingly average and suburban high school with the reality of her home life, the filmmakers seem to be going out of their way to show that all of Missouri is not like this.

Not to mention the script is based on a novel and has been approved by its author Daniel Woodrow, who grew up in the Ozarks.

James Mills wrote:I wanted to make it clear that I was only describing the things that are indisputable and can be visibly proven

I understand that you think these things are indisputable, but many of them are not. For instance, as someone else pointed out (and you can read about it here) interiors were filmed in actual Ozark residents' houses, which the crew left mostly untouched, with all of the property inside and outside the house being used in the film. Moreover, the costume designer actually gave residents in the community new clothes in exchange for old, lived-in clothes they could give to the actors to wear. These facts most certainly dispute your claim that the clothes and props were brand new, a claim which your own observation cannot adequately support against evidence to the contrary (unless you think Granik is making that up).

And neither of us can say indisputably that editing rules were broken intentionally or unintentionally.

James Mills wrote:You claim that issues happen all of the time along the lines of the cemetery lighting and magical rain of the torture scene, but I don't think that's true.

I wasn't including the cemetery lighting as a common issue (or I didn't mean to) but the "magical rain" doesn't strike me as being any different from errors like candles or cigarettes changing length during a scene, cars doors being suddenly opened or closed, or characters changing position during cross cutting, etc. I'm just talking about the kinds of things that show up on IMDb "goofs" pages. That's all I was talking about. Perhaps you think this rain was a more egregious example.

James Mills wrote:To answer your question about Domino's initial response, I don't care to enter a world that is entirely fantastical yet pretends to be realistic. As I stated earlier, meth addicts don't act this way, and not all people in the South are addicted to it and plot up ways to ruin their family members' lives. Moreover, even if the film's depiction of this separate world was more thematically accurate and enlightening, I would have a very hard time absorbing it with its abundance of technical shortcomings. There isn't a single thing in this film that felt real to me, so I could not possibly agree that the film allowed me to witness a reality of the world outside my own.

Fair enough. But I'd like to stress (as a couple of other people have tried to) that this film is not about "all people in the South." No one here thinks it is. Nor is it even really about what is generally referred to as the South. As Foam said:

Foam wrote:This is a very distinctly Midwestern film

and I think he's right. I have never even visited the South and wouldn't pretend to know what it's really like. I do know the Midwest, and rural Missouri, and the film rings true from my limited experience even though I've never had a bad encounter. In any case, I would have to bow to Daniel Woodrell's knowledge of the Ozarks and the people who live there (which still includes him) rather than either yours or mine, and I would encourage you (and everyone here) to read his essay, How Much Ozarks Is In Me? It can't answer for the film's portrayal of meth addicts, which ultimately goes back to Granik (and as I said, I think the acting style had aesthetic motivations anyway) but it would be strange to deny that the story comes from an authentic place.

James Mills wrote:You claim that issues happen all of the time along the lines of the cemetery lighting and magical rain of the torture scene, but I don't think that's true. Keep in mind that the cemetery scene was directly subsequent to the torture one, and at this point I had lost so much interest to the plot (as againn, Ree somehow doesn't even care to ask why her family members are torturing her, just simply says "Kill me"; I am still curious as to why nobody has commented on this absurdity thus far) that I started noticing these things.

You've harped on the bit about "torture" and the "kill me" comment quite a bit. You probably didn't "get it" because, as you mention, you had lost interest. Her family members were beating her (I call it a beating, you call it torture...I suppose a beating can be torture) because she was asking way too many questions about her missing father. This is indisputable. Ree knows this is the reason, the audience knows...so no need to ask. Part of her reaction is to say "kill me." Not an unreasonable one....especially where you call the beating torture. Indisputable.

The only thing that comes to mind in recent times is Maddi being magically dry when she gets out of the water in the maudlin scene of her crossing the river on the horse in True Grit. Are you sure that things like this are that common? I'm interested in hearing other examples, as I can't think of any films that I really enjoyed that had errors so... I don't know, so stupid.

True Grit is a different thread. So you should have posted the remark referencing that movie in the appropriate thread. In any event, we must have seen different versions because Maddi is never "magically dry" when she gets out of the water. This is indisputable.

While I was willing to give your arguments the benefit of the doubt regarding all the glaring so-called technical errors, since you've made clear you are a film maker, after reading comments from others in response to this....I think it's indisputable that, as others noted earlier, those don't have any basis in fact aside from your views.

EDIT: And yeah, as I'm sure you can note, I'm being deliberately snarky pointing out what is indisputable. After all, you haven't hesitated to point the indisputable out to the rest of us. And there are other members who are on shaky ground in this forum, who also bandy about their credentials as being involved in the actual film-making process, who tend to constantly point out the indisputable.

I went to film school briefly and dropped out many years ago specifically because of this kind of filmmaking as a definable science sort of attitude. If I had to hear one more macho dude-bro get delighted because he spotted a continuity error, and that obviously makes the film bad, I was going to kill myself.

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.

if this is a "hillbilly exploitation picture" then it is simply impossible to make a film set in Appalachia or the Ozarks, etc. without being labeled as such. Frankly, the criticisms here are about as lazy as any this board has ever witnessed.

Mind you that I stated I was a filmmaker in one, I repeat, one sentence throughout this entire thread. Moreover, it was solely for the purpose of trying to reason why I may have been more bothered with these technical flaws than most.

Also keep in mind that I only said the word "indisputable" twice in this thread; one in reference to the technical aesthetics of the film, which I will adamantly stand behind with the aforementioned errors as support, and secondly as an explanation for why I mentioned only things that can be proven rather than my own less tangible faults with the script and direction. It was in reference to the continuity errors that are entirely indisputable, not to my predisposed preferences and personal style. Tribe seems to think I used the word more indulgently, but I fail to see how.

Kirkinson, I've appreciated our discourse on the matter, as we both seem to be hearing each other out quite well. However, I don't understand why you think that link involving Granik's exchange of new clothes for old ones goes against my argument. I stated that the clothes were new, not weathered and thus inappropriate for the surroundings, and the article seems to corroborate my theory in explaining that she purposely exchanged new clothes for old ones to be shot in. What am I missing here?

Lastly, I'm not sure where you coined the phrase of "hillbilly exploitation," HistoryProf, as I don't think anybody has specifically stated that (I could be wrong, too lazy to search). I also don't see how you could find my criticisms of the film to be "lazy" in the slightest sense, as I've diligently explained some specific areas that I found unrealistic and gimmicky.

I wasn't going to respond to this thread anymore, as I feel like people on this board don't care much to listen to anything that challenges their own sentimental connections to a particular film, but I'm drunk so fuck it.

James Mills wrote:Kirkinson, I've appreciated our discourse on the matter, as we both seem to be hearing each other out quite well. However, I don't understand why you think that link involving Granik's exchange of new clothes for old ones goes against my argument. I stated that the clothes were new, not weathered and thus inappropriate for the surroundings, and the article seems to corroborate my theory in explaining that she purposely exchanged new clothes for old ones to be shot in. What am I missing here?

She gave residents new clothing in exchange for old clothing. Then she gave the actors the old clothing to wear in front of the camera. Thus, if you're saying the wardrobe in the film is too clean, then you're projecting a mythological status of filth onto the clothing that isn't authentic. In fact, one could argue (but I won't) that you're condescending to the Ozarkians by saying their real life clothing isn't dirty enough.

Lastly, I'm not sure where you coined the phrase of "hillbilly exploitation," HistoryProf, as I don't think anybody has specifically stated that (I could be wrong, too lazy to search).

It's in the post he quoted. Directly above the comment that you're ostensibly replying to.

Grand Illusion wrote:She gave residents new clothing in exchange for old clothing. Then she gave the actors the old clothing to wear in front of the camera. Thus, if you're saying the wardrobe in the film is too clean, then you're projecting a mythological status of filth onto the clothing that isn't authentic. In fact, one could argue (but I won't) that you're condescending to the Ozarkians by saying their real life clothing isn't dirty enough.

Ok, that all makes sense then. I actually didn't have any problems with the clothes of the extras and secondary characters inside the random interior shots, but rather the main characters'. I specifically remember Ree's neighbor having a mint conditioned car and fresh set of clothes from one of the first few shots of the film, and that incited my curiousness to other similar mishaps throughout the film (which unfortunately wasn't disproved as it continued).

It's in the post he quoted. Directly above the comment that you're ostensibly replying to.

Doh.

James Mills wrote:Lastly, I'm not sure where you coined the phrase of "hillbilly exploitation," HistoryProf, as I don't think anybody has specifically stated that (I could be wrong, too lazy to search).

It wasn't you, but there was at least one other poster who used the term.

but I'm drunk so fuck it.

Finally! Something we can all relate to! In all seriousness though...Happy New Year! \:D/

James Mills wrote:I specifically remember Ree's neighbor having a mint conditioned car and fresh set of clothes from one of the first few shots of the film, and that incited my curiousness to other similar mishaps throughout the film (which unfortunately wasn't disproved as it continued).

Yes, the idea that someone from the southern midwest would pay undue attention to the upkeep of their vehicle is totally unbelievable.

domino harvey wrote:

James Mills wrote:I specifically remember Ree's neighbor having a mint conditioned car and fresh set of clothes from one of the first few shots of the film, and that incited my curiousness to other similar mishaps throughout the film (which unfortunately wasn't disproved as it continued).

Yes, the idea that someone from the southern midwest would pay undue attention to the upkeep of their vehicle is totally unbelievable.

Was about to comment on this, but domino beat me to the punch. I've had a lot of interaction with this type of person, more in appalachia than the Ozarks in my case. I had a brief stint doing door-to-door selling coupons for a local car wash, and did quite poorly because so many of the people I talked to simply refused to let anybody else touch their car. They washed it once a week, put two coats of wax on in the winter, etc.

I recall so many people who lived in trailers, but had a low-rider w/racing decals, tricked-out rims, etc. In many cases, it was the only nice thing they had, and it showed in the care they gave to it.

HistoryProf wrote:if this is a "hillbilly exploitation picture" then it is simply impossible to make a film set in Appalachia or the Ozarks, etc. without being labeled as such. Frankly, the criticisms here are about as lazy as any this board has ever witnessed.

What the hell is wrong with brevity? I don't think I need to explain an opinion like this, but ok. I think the movie uses its locale and residents as exotica rather than treat them with sensitivity or respect. Do you really think you would agree with me more if I wrote half a page about how I feel? I'm more apt to agree with the below.

James Mills wrote:I feel like people on this board don't care much to listen to anything that challenges their own sentimental connections to a particular film.

Zot! wrote:I think the movie uses its locale and residents as exotica rather than treat them with sensitivity or respect. Do you really think you would agree with me more if I wrote half a page about how I feel?

No, I wouldn't necessarily agree, but I'm interested in what you have to say about it. I'll bet you could do it in a paragraph or two at most.

I'm more confused at how treating its subjects as exotic means it does not treat them with respect. Those aren't opposing concepts