criterionforum.org

Hm. I think this is just a major league case of missing the entire point of the film.

I'm really sick of things being dismissed with the single word 'hipster' as well. Given all of our proclivities for at least metaphorically digging through record bins I think every person on this forum is a bit of hipster.

I didn't like this movie because of the same reasons that a lot of people didn't like Scott Pilgrim. I couldn't stand the characters. JGL is a whiny bitch and I absolutely understand why Summer wouldn't be with him and Summer is self absorbed and oh so convinced of her own quirkiness. I think Scott Pilgrim had a few characters who were likable and when they weren't, there were creative things happening around them and lots of humor. It makes more of an effort to get you into the mindset of the characters. In both films the main character lives in a fantasy world but only Scott Pilgrim admits just how juvenile that fantasy is.

If the characters weren't flawed, there would be no movie.

mfunk9786 wrote:If the characters weren't flawed, there would be no movie.

This x1000. You're supposed to think JGL is a douche because he is a douche until he finally takes a hard-nosed look at himself and roots out all his inner romantic delusions; c'mon, he goes from working at a greeting card company to becoming an architect, literally making his own life plans. The writers made sure to leave enough blunt, overt, mind-numbingly obvious tell-tale signs in case the audience got lost along the way and we have an argument about the inner logic of hipsterdom? If you hated this movie because of how it approaches "hipsterdom," whatever this is, chances are you also have a hard time looking in the mirror. Pass the PBR and Parliaments, please!

mfunk9786 wrote:Hm. I think this is just a major league case of missing the entire point of the film.

Do explain! Probably I did miss the point, and maybe there's much of value in the film that I overlooked. Maybe there's even something that torpedo my entire reaction, like a big reveal at the end where he gets Summer's yearbook and fully two thirds of the senior class has also chosen Belle and Sebastian quotes for their pictures.

I apologize in advance for overuse of the h word, but given the way this film is engaging, for better or worse, with a cultural stereotype for which there is no other name, I think it's unavoidable.

I really did get the sense from what I watched that hugely popular music which happens to be enjoyed by (among other people) "hipsters" was being passed off as if it were itself somehow obscure or hip. This seemed to me to suggest implicitly that hipsters are elitists who hate anything popular, that they only like what is off the radar of the entertainment industry, and therefor if hipsters like something it must count as obscure (no matter how many Starbucks registers its actually stocked next to). Either that or the more anti-hipster version of that: that hipsters are elitists who wrongly think that the bands they like are obscure, when actually those bands are sold at Starbucks nation wide and listening to them does not require any particular passion for or outlook regarding music.

I found this sensibility, as presented in the first part of the film (maybe it was more like 20 minutes) just unwatchably icky. IMO the hipster-bashers are really wrong about hipsters, but they are right to attack the elitism, superficiality, and self-congratulation they (wrongly) think hipsters are guilty of. Those aren't hipsters. Those are assholes. Every subcultural group has some.

500 Days seemed to be endorsing this caricature of the elitist hipster and then to make matters worse passing it off as cute rather than awful. Somebody earlier said it was like a racist being called out as racist, but -- with much less politically at stake, obviously -- it struck me as more like a hipster minstrel show. I just kept thinking "Is this what people think I'm like? God, if I were actually like this I'd hate me too!"

I don't have a hard time looking in the mirror, but it makes me sad and angry that other people could think that what I see there is the dude from 500 Days of Summer.

You're like that, trust me.

mfunk9786 wrote:You're like that, trust me.

Well, I'd just like to say for the record:
1) You don't know anything about me.
2) None of this, on my end, is the least bit personal. I'm happy for you that you like this movie, and would never post a critical response to any film in public unless one were asked for specifically. I'm new to this forum, so maybe I was supposed to take your question less literally than I did, or to expect ad hominem attacks as thanks for answering it. You'll have to excuse my naivety.

Sam T, you're contributing a lot of interesting points in a well-argued fashion, but I think there's some piling-on because it's really not fair to judge a film you haven't finished. Sit through it and come back and I bet you could win the argument

Don't you guys know? Hipsterism is defined by a self-loathing at our own collective shallowness. That's while people hate hipster art, and hipsters hate other hipsters: we dislike anything that reminds us of that shallowness and punctures the delusion.

That's why people dislike films like this: they're shallow films (as opposed to films about shallowness), a whole lot of quirk and cultural markers signifying nothing, a corporate rom-com dressed up in vintage tees and Converse sneakers.

That line of argument is sooo deck

Cold Bishop wrote:a corporate rom-com dressed up in vintage tees and Converse sneakers.

Ah, the Juno phenomenon

domino harvey wrote: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)

This.

I don't mind being winked at. I don't even mind being nudged. I just felt like a lot of it was used here in a superficial manner, rather than to develop the characters.

And yes, I did get that some of it was integral to the film. He's basing their relationship on some of these little things, like how they both love The Smiths. I just don't get why flaunting a copy of The Architecture of Happiness is necessary. It felt like hipster product placement that took me out of the film.

For the record, I enjoyed the film quite a bit. Found a lot of it relatable, and actually enjoyed plenty of the "indie" aspects of it. Just felt like it was trying to buy my love a lot of the time, rather than earn it.

This is out of control. A 20something character in a movie listens to the Smiths and FUCK everything else, its a commentary on hipsterism and nothing more. All from people who have seen less than 10 minutes of the film, apparently. Are music tastes that narrow? If I listen to the Smiths, do I get that undefined term labeled on me? What if my iPod shuffles The Smiths and Metallica back-to-back, does a black hole open up?

Everyones so obsessed with themselves nowadays they can hardly accept that people don't fit into perfectly defined squares, if a character in a movie doesn't jive with you, ITS BULLSHIT DEMO TARGETING THEY DON"T GET ME WAH WAH WAH. That person may exist, even if they don't in your ideal universe. Man, this fucking board sometimes...

I actually can't even tell which of us you're decrying

I normally don’t like to be specific with my scumbagginess, but since you queried. Your initial review was totally fair enough, but I’m not sure how it possibly condescends to its audience in a way that’s worse than any other bildungsroman. I love the film, but all your other points make sense to me, I totally see how someone could walk out with that opinion (that the jokes are too broad, the style too “loose”). I just don’t see what’s condescending about it, even if you think the humor sucks and the style is flawed. Meanwhile, I did find it a bit ridiculous you thought JLG was too “good looking” for his role, considering the whole point of Zooey’s character is that she’s unattainable to anyone and everyone. The character (JLG) has clearly had no problem getting laid his whole life, his issue is idealistic romanticism, so I don’t see why it’s a necessity he be a geek or something.


Doinel’s 'winking at its audience' comment, I mean, c’mon. Is “Taxi Driver” winking at sociopaths? That’s nitpicking. That’s going into a movie looking for a reason to dislike it, not the other way around. And then you’re going to shit on the film for flaunting a book you already knew about? What makes that different from any other literary or cinematic reference in any film ever, from Bergman to Tarantino, other than the fact that it happens to be something you’re aware of? I mean, if this is your real issue, that the characters interests and details are similar to people in real life that you know (or may be), then I’d suggest sticking to Kiarostami, Panahi, et al.


Ditto knives’ comments… with all the shitty rom coms shoveled out yearly, your going to accuse the one with an intelligent, bitter resolution of “only wanting success”? That’s unfair. And “not treating it's audience as being able to like anything beyond a mirror” – that doesn’t even make sense unless you personally identify with the characters. Unless you’re saying romcoms are only aimed at these hypothetical hipsters, in which case you’re simply misinformed. I won’t justify Sam T’s post with a response, he didn’t see the film, so he doesn’t have a relevant opinion. Mfunk responded to Alan Smithee with my exact thoughts. I totally disagree with Cold Bishop that this is a shallow film (though Bishop never elaborated on that point, only going on about hipsterdom). I think this film is no more or less “deep” than something like “The Graduate”, and for what it’s worth I think “500” has the more deceptive fake happy ending. It may be shallow in regards to the Summer character, but that’s the whole point. As for the main character, I’m not sure I’ve seen a romantic comedy with a character as fleshed out as JLG in a while. Maybe I missed some Katherine Heigl classic or something.

There's one thing in particular that confuses me most regarding the accusations of pandering to its target audience in order to exploit it: Does everyone think that this film was written and directed by a NewsCorp exec? Or that the producers supplied the filmmakers with copious notes reading "more IKEA!" and "how about some Belle and Sebastian?!"?

I say, who gives a fuck who came up with it! A good character detail is a good character detail once its on screen, no matter the source. Is the film any better or worse because of the demographic of man who directed it? If that's where the autuer theory has gotten us, I don't think people understand it right. The way I see it, it's like when Tarantino uses something like the 'Danger' cue from "White Lightning" in a scene. It works for everyone, but it works for me on another level. The IKEA works and is clear to those with no connection, and it means even more for those who do.

In a way yes. I find that Webb's script is going by the logic of putting things in exclusively because he thinks it will work as cat nip for his audience. It's like he saw the success of Juno, Garden State, and all the rest of that ilk and just decided to run with that style. It feels like the work of a committee rather than the storyline it treats itself with of an artist nakedly revealing his emotions through a nasty relationship. It comes across wholly artificial.
That's not the worst of the film's problems though as it's empty headedness to the problems it brings up are much more obnoxious and disturbing. As Dom said it's not the worst, but that's not reason to defend it since it still manages to be bad.

knives wrote:In a way yes. I find that Webb's script is going by the logic of putting things in exclusively because he thinks it will work as cat nip for his audience. It's like he saw the success of Juno, Garden State, and all the rest of that ilk and just decided to run with that style. It feels like the work of a committee rather than the storyline it treats itself with of an artist nakedly revealing his emotions through a nasty relationship. It comes across wholly artificial.
That's not the worst of the film's problems though as it's empty headedness to the problems it brings up are much more obnoxious and disturbing. As Dom said it's not the worst, but that's not reason to defend it since it still manages to be bad.

How is that possibly a valid assumption to make about someone's first film, which they've stated was based upon their life experiences? Why go to the trouble of writing and directing a movie whose sole purpose is capitalizing upon the success of other recent films and pandering to a group of people? Even Tyler Perry has more passion behind his work than you're accusing Webb of having.

JMULL222 wrote:Meanwhile, I did find it a bit ridiculous you thought JLG was too “good looking” for his role, considering the whole point of Zooey’s character is that she’s unattainable to anyone and everyone. The character (JLG) has clearly had no problem getting laid his whole life, his issue is idealistic romanticism, so I don’t see why it’s a necessity he be a geek or something.

This puts a whole new spin on his French New Wave output.

http://www.instantrimshot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Easily the most delayed rimshot in history.