criterionforum.org

Mr Sausage wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 1:11 pm Unless I’ve missed something, Blus doesn’t say the performance is “fully authentic”, he says it’s “authentically fantastic.” And there is nothing contradictory in his post. A character can be both flattened and subject of a great performance. Blus even says how: through a projection of energy and momentum. And that’s how I would describe Hackman’s performance: he doesn’t draw you into the depths of this character, he sweeps you away with him. That’s crucial, too, because Popeye Doyle is not a likeable person, so there has to be something to keep you watching him. Hackman finds that in momentum.

Calling Blus pretentious would be wrong on any post, but this small, off-the-cuff thing? Baffling. You haven’t contributed a tenth of what he’s brought to the forum, Olmo. You should show him more respect.

I don't frequent the board very often so it's a fair point and may I correct you on a small but significant point, I didn't call the poster pretentious I called the specific post pretentious.

There's a world of difference. As I've already pointed out this wasn't a personal attack but rather a request for clarity as I found the post to be contradictory & confusing.

domino harvey wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 1:36 pm I like that someone coming in here and throwing a fit with their extremely fresh and novel take on the Oscars (an awards show many of us follow for various reasons but which not one of us on this forum, to my knowledge, views as an ultimate arbiter of value) is accusing someone else of making a pretentious post

My confusion with the post was why even invoke the Oscars in conveying the merits of a performance, knowing full well that it isn't viewed with any importance on here as an indicator.

You haven't thought this through.

I mean, it’s obvious you are just looking for an argument, so I don’t have anything else to offer you here. If it validates your need to make waves in an ocean no one is surfing, I guess I can throw in a “How dare you” or something?

olmo wrote:

Mr Sausage wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 1:11 pm Unless I’ve missed something, Blus doesn’t say the performance is “fully authentic”, he says it’s “authentically fantastic.” And there is nothing contradictory in his post. A character can be both flattened and subject of a great performance. Blus even says how: through a projection of energy and momentum. And that’s how I would describe Hackman’s performance: he doesn’t draw you into the depths of this character, he sweeps you away with him. That’s crucial, too, because Popeye Doyle is not a likeable person, so there has to be something to keep you watching him. Hackman finds that in momentum.

Calling Blus pretentious would be wrong on any post, but this small, off-the-cuff thing? Baffling. You haven’t contributed a tenth of what he’s brought to the forum, Olmo. You should show him more respect.

I don't frequent the board very often so it's a fair point and may I correct you on a small but significant point, I didn't call the poster pretentious I called the specific post pretentious.

There's a world of difference. As I've already pointed out this wasn't a personal attack but rather a request for clarity as I found the post to be contradictory & confusing.

It’s a distinction without a difference.

What you did was plainly an attack. You weren’t ‘requesting clarity’—people who do that just ask a benign question or two. You were using the perceived lack of clarity in order to criticize. Your aim was not for clarity but to rebuke someone for being unclear. That you chose to do it over a post that isn’t unclear (and also has no pretence to anything) is just weird.

domino harvey wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 3:42 pm I mean, it’s obvious you are just looking for an argument, so I don’t have anything else to offer you here. If it validates your need to make waves in an ocean no one is surfing, I guess I can throw in a “How dare you” or something?

Nope. Just responding with a reiteration of my point in the face of your sarcasm.

I don't want an argument either.

Mr Sausage wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 3:51 pm

olmo wrote:

Mr Sausage wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 1:11 pm Unless I’ve missed something, Blus doesn’t say the performance is “fully authentic”, he says it’s “authentically fantastic.” And there is nothing contradictory in his post. A character can be both flattened and subject of a great performance. Blus even says how: through a projection of energy and momentum. And that’s how I would describe Hackman’s performance: he doesn’t draw you into the depths of this character, he sweeps you away with him. That’s crucial, too, because Popeye Doyle is not a likeable person, so there has to be something to keep you watching him. Hackman finds that in momentum.

Calling Blus pretentious would be wrong on any post, but this small, off-the-cuff thing? Baffling. You haven’t contributed a tenth of what he’s brought to the forum, Olmo. You should show him more respect.

I don't frequent the board very often so it's a fair point and may I correct you on a small but significant point, I didn't call the poster pretentious I called the specific post pretentious.

There's a world of difference. As I've already pointed out this wasn't a personal attack but rather a request for clarity as I found the post to be contradictory & confusing.

It’s a distinction without a difference.

What you did was plainly an attack. You weren’t ‘requesting clarity’—people who do that just ask a benign question or two. You were using the perceived lack of clarity in order to criticize. Your aim was not for clarity but to rebuke someone for being unclear. That you chose to do it over a post that isn’t unclear (and also has no pretence to anything) is just weird.

Ok, the contradiction I'm referring to (which I've already pointed out) is the poster's apparent expectation for more 'dramatic narrative & characterisation' thus implying that the film lacks a certain action & dialogue which are the archetypes of dramatic narrative. I'd counter that The French Connection has nothing but.

You're completely overreacting in accusing me of attacking someone so I'll leave it.

Okay, let's clear this up

therewillbeblus wrote: Thu Feb 27, 2025 4:19 am I never loved this growing up, but revisited it recently and was completely won over by its sheer grit, forsaking stock expectations for more dramatic narrative or characterization.

I didn't say I expected more of that, I said I admired how the film didn't play into a route of "stock expectations" that the masses hold for developing an overly dramatic narrative or character and pitched its focus on a mood. That's not to say it doesn't have those things. It's just not contrived. That's also why I was surprised at Hackman's win - because he actively does not fit the bill for a winner in that category. My post aimed to express how, as an adult, I realized that The French Connection is much more novel and nuanced than I remembered as a child. For context, I followed and memorized awards winners when I was a kid, and so my musing on Hackman's Best Actor win was directly related to being sober to reasons for his win that I couldn't access back then, and can today. It was a very personalized measure thrown casually into a leisurely post, not to indicate some Big Idea others should engage with. Hopefully that makes more sense. I'm pretty sure we agree on things.

Thank you.

I meant no offence.