The Pitters' Place

Started the year off with a bunch:

Hoosiers - Formulaic and predictable, but well done. Dennis Hopper was terrific.

Taken 3 - Not as good as Taken, but not bad. Seemed really weird that someone we've known through 2 other movies would suddenly be evil.

Slumdog Millionaire - Easy to see why it won so many Oscars. I've said before that I'm not a big fan of Danny Boyle's style, but it really seems to work here.

The Giver - The story really doesn't lend itself to film, but for the most part they did ok. Jeff Bridges was good.

The Weatherman - Not sure how I feel about this one. It was ok I guess.

Hateful 8- 7.5 of 10

Babel - One of those intertwined multiple stories movies. Which wasn't at all what I thought it was going to be. But it was good. Quite slow-paced, but it worked.

Edge of Tomorrow - Groundhog Day but with aliens. Good sci-fi action movie.

Holes - A surprisingly good mystery by Disney.

The Weatherman was largely portrayed/advertised as a comedy, but I found it pretty depressing.

Monk wrote:The Weatherman was largely portrayed/advertised as a comedy, but I found it pretty depressing.

I never saw a preview for it before. Can't remember why I was interested enough to buy it in the first place. But speaking of what you just said, there's this poster for Slumdog Millionaire:



Um what?? I can't tell if this is actually just meant to be a joke. It was a great movie. It was also the exact opposite of a feel-good movie.

I've never seen it, but I was reading something about how that movie romanticized poverty....which is something the rich/privileged often do to undermine their own feelings of guilt. Much like the way whites might romanticize the "savage" Indian or African as being close to nature.

Cassius Clay wrote:I've never seen it, but I was reading something about how that movie romanticized poverty....which is something the rich/privileged often do to undermine their own feelings of guilt. Much like the way whites might romanticize the "savage" Indian or African as being close to nature.

Wow I didn't see that at all. It romanticized poverty about as much as City of God did.

I haven't seen City of God in ages, but I remember liking it.

I think I can see how it romanticized poverty though.

Cassius Clay wrote:I've never seen it, but I was reading something about how that movie romanticized poverty....which is something the rich/privileged often do to undermine their own feelings of guilt. Much like the way whites might romanticize the "savage" Indian or African as being close to nature.

I haven't seen it in years, but I don't recall it being that way at all. Hell, it portrays orphaned kids being intentionally blinded by adults so that they can get more pity money as beggars.

Yes...but like "Beasts of the Southern Wild" and other popular movies about how rough the poor/oppressed people have it, there is kind of a subtle message of "no matter how bad it gets, it's never really bad." The main characters transcend the brutality with "love" or "spirit" or some other cheesy shit like that.

And is that very message not in the title itself? He's a "slumdog" but he is really a "millionaire" on the inside/in spirit?

I know he was on the show 'Millionaire' but I'm referring to the deeper theme of the film.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

The film is about a poor person who has some good things happen to him amidst many bad things. In no way is there a message that him being poor was a good thing because of this. Especially when it shows many other poor people who do not get the same good things.

I'm saying something a bit more complex than "being poor is a good thing".

Edit: It's much like how White folks that romanticize Native Americans as being "close to nature" wouldn't want to be Native American...it does not mean they see being "Native" anything is a "good" thing to them. Though many disingenuously claim Native heritage(or appropriate), while wanting to maintain whiteness. It's an insidious mentality, and the point is that it mitigates guilt.

The romanticization of poverty is a mentality that pervades culture in numerous subtle ways, and one of the main reasons for that is that it mitigates guilt. Movies that do so don't need to simplistically portray poverty as a "good" thing to send that message. In fact, it would be silly for them to do that 'cause everybody knows poverty is bad(that would be easily dismissable/difficult to swallow). The smarter and more insidious thing to do(and this is where double-mindedness comes in) is to portray poverty as brutal(so we can pat each other on the back for sympathizing with the poor), while subtly sending the message that no matter how brutal things are, those rich in spirit will thrive/transcend...and love conquers all...and other classic, moral overused, empty, feelgood, universal/transcendent themes about the power of the human spirit...and blah blah blah. And, often, there's also a message that says that the source of the characters powerful spirit is poverty itself! So as brutal as poverty can be, as we all pat ourselves on the back for facing that uncomfortable truth, poverty has an upside!! Yeeaaahhh!!

Cassius Clay wrote:Yes...but like "Beasts of the Southern Wild" and other popular movies about how rough the poor/oppressed people have it, there is kind of a subtle message of "no matter how bad it gets, it's never really bad." The main characters transcend the brutality with "love" or "spirit" or some other cheesy shit like that.

Ah, yeah. I suppose there's that...to a degree. At least, at the end.

This notion also feeds into the shaming of poor, black people(and Native Americans) for being capitalistic in any way. Any celebration of wealth is seen as particularly tacky when people who are supposed to be "poor, savage and close to nature" do it.

That's even more bizarre because one of the ways we demonize Black Americans is portraying them as particularly materialistic.

Cassius Clay wrote:I've never seen it, but I was reading something about how that movie romanticized poverty....which is something the rich/privileged often do to undermine their own feelings of guilt. Much like the way whites might romanticize the "savage" Indian or African as being close to nature.

Wait...you mean Pocahontas couldn't talk to trees?!?!

As long as the tree is Native American.

If I remember correctly, Jamal literally wins a million dollars and is no longer poor and is now very happy. The brutality of poverty is transcended by becoming rich, not through "spirit". His experiences as a slumdog allowed him to answer the questions on the game show correctly except for the very last question, which is guessed correctly.

I think a far more effective propaganda tactic, and one that is used far more often, is to broadcast the message that poverty is indeed bad, because it obviously can't be denied, but that it's only bad in a superficial material way. That if you think about it, suffering through poverty deepens and strengthens your character, it helps you grow and mature as a person, it imparts values and virtues in you that you wouldn't otherwise have, and that when you get right down to it money doesn't even really mean very much anyway. (I just re-read your post and you basically said this at the end, but it deserves to be stressed I think.) It's all pure bullshit, of course, but it's a really popular message, as it helps make the poverty-stricken feel better about their lot and staves off class consciousness. It has basically the same function as old-timey religion (and modern religion).

Haven't seen Slumdog Millionnaire.

Derived Absurdity wrote:I think a far more effective propaganda tactic, and one that is used far more often, is to broadcast the message that poverty is indeed bad, because it obviously can't be denied, but that it's only bad in a superficial material way. That if you think about it, suffering through poverty deepens and strengthens your character, it helps you grow and mature as a person, it imparts values and virtues in you that you wouldn't otherwise have, and that when you get right down to it money doesn't even really mean very much anyway. (I just re-read your post and you basically said this at the end, but it deserves to be stressed I think.) It's all pure bullshit, of course, but it's a really popular message, as it helps make the poverty-stricken feel better about their lot and staves off class consciousness. It has basically the same function as old-timey religion (and modern religion).

Haven't seen Slumdog Millionnaire.

Yes. I was gonna stress that you also see the bible romanticize poverty and suffering. And Mother Theresa has been criticized for causing people unnecessary pain and suffering because of this attitude.

sikax wrote:If I remember correctly, Jamal literally wins a million dollars and is no longer poor and is now very happy. The brutality of poverty is transcended by becoming rich, not through "spirit". His experiences as a slumdog allowed him to answer the questions on the game show correctly except for the very last question, which is guessed correctly.

You're being too literal. There are multiple ways a film can send a message. And it is not always through dialogue or narrative. Mad Max was criticized for having explicitly feminist themes/messages while contradicting these more explicit themes with subtle imagery that glorified violence and objectified women(not sure how much I agree with that particular example, but the point is a film can easily contradict itself).

https://whatshouldbeworryingus.wordpres ... llionaire/

Although Slumdog was filmed in actual slums outside of Mumbai, it artfully manipulates to construct a desired vision of the slums. In the opening scene, the police chase Jamal, his brother Salim, and their friends through their slum after finding them illegally playing cricket on a landing strip. The children easily navigate the maze-like alleys, while the police blunder through, other children throwing trash at them from the cramped roofs. The scene is comical; the music, up-beat. The slum is riddled with vibrant colors - everyone is bustling about their morning business, carefully avoiding the children dashing through their legs. The camera zooms out and the audience sees increasingly more rooftops - an impossible number of people must live there. We are appropriately awed by the unimaginable life taking place in these areas of destitution: Boyle makes the slums a spectacle.

http://www.socialworkdegreecenter.com/r ... g-poverty/

https://medium.com/life-tips/why-the-ri ... .rj8t50qcr

While I think I somewhat get the point (not fully grasping it yet), this makes me wonder how a movie can ever portray such things without romanticizing/glorifying them.

The gift (released 2015) - decent dramatic suspense film. Fitting ambiguos conclusion. 8/10

I understood about 1 in every 10 words out of Bridges mouth in that film. I liked the Giver even though it was a film dedicated to teens and all that. The concept was interesting.

Gypsy-Vanner wrote:I understood about 1 in every 10 words out of Bridges mouth in that film. I liked the Giver even though it was a film dedicated to teens and all that. The concept was interesting.

Have you not read the book? Read the book. I mean people always say that the book was better, but this story really just doesn't work as well on film. One major example, which would be a spoiler if you hadn't seen the film or read the book:

In the book, you have no way of knowing that the people don't see color. You are told that Jonas has the ability to "see beyond", but no idea what that means. It explains how sometimes when he looks at something, that thing seems to change for a moment, but no idea what that means. It's a big reveal in the book when it's finally explained that no one can see color, and the "change" that Jonas is seeing is seeing the color of the object.

sikax wrote:If I remember correctly, Jamal literally wins a million dollars and is no longer poor and is now very happy. The brutality of poverty is transcended by becoming rich, not through "spirit". His experiences as a slumdog allowed him to answer the questions on the game show correctly except for the very last question, which is guessed correctly.

Not exactly...he was willing to throw it all away at the end with the last question (which he didn't know) because he was happy that he finally won the girl, despite the fact that he'd be poor as shit

Ah, OK. Well, I should watch it again. And Troy and DA should watch it for the first time so we all can know what we're talking about.

I've seen enough and read enough about it to know what I'm talking about.

Man, after a great start, I've found myself having seen almost nothing since that first weekend. Hopefully I'll find more time soon. Anyway...

Elysium - I liked this. Nothing new or groundbreaking, but fun action sci-fi. The bad guy (the agent dude) was a whole lot of fun.

Creed - Very well done.

Maggie - Boring. A unique concept at least. But nothing happens. I thought Schwarzenegger was surprisingly good, for Schwarzenegger.

Ted 2 - Pretty funny. Not consistently; but multiple jokes had us laughing.

The Judge - Wow, this was as good as I expected, which was a high bar from the previews and the starring actors. Amazing story and amazing performances.

I found Ted 2 to be terribly predictable in its attempt to outdo the shock value of its predecessor. Though to be fair I had just seen a far superior movie and simply walked over to the next theater in the cineplex, soaybe my mind just wasn't in the right state. That said, I didn't hear one chuckle from the audience.

As for watching movies...

Gendo wrote:Man, after a great start, I've found myself having seen almost nothing since that first weekend. Hopefully I'll find more time soon. Anyway...
.

This is a time when a lot of big theaters show oscar nominees or seeing late December releases. That's the only way I've been able to do it

Hateful 8 - Jan 2
Concussion - Jan 9
Revenant - Jan 16
The Big Short Jan 16


I plan on seeing Spotlight today and the Oscar Nominated animated shorts next week

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes - Very good, as expected. Not sure if I liked it quite as much as Rise. Oldman was surprisingly not impressive.

Captain Phillips - Good; but not as good as I'd hoped. The previews all made it look like it was all about the pirates attacking the ship, but that's less than the first half. I didn't find the other parts as interesting; though it was still good tension-building.

Birdman - Easy to see why this won so many awards. I didn't like the ending.. an ambiguous ending is one thing, but this one gives no real clue at all as to what happened. But other than that, it was great.

Paranormal Activity - Well made for what it was, I guess. But mostly boring and not scary. It built good suspense early on though.

I don't know if you ever looked at this one, but we tried to figure out the ending to Birdman a while back.

http://www.robert-and-maggie.com/forum/ ... fc83cad20b

Great movie. Second best of 2014.

Are you using robert-and-maggie.com? I wouldn't have expected that to work properly... the forum url should be forum.pittersplace.com. The other url does point to the same actual hosting, but since the forum settings include what the correct url is, I thought the other one would cause problems.

Anyway thanks, I hadn't read through that because at the time I didn't want to spoil it. Will check it out.

*Edit* It appears that "remember me" login doesn't work for the other url, so are you re-logging in every time you visit the site?

True Grit (1969) - first John Wayne movie I've seen. Not a huge fan of westerns in general. But this was great. The characters, humor, and story all worked so well together.

Now off to watch the Coen Bro's' version.

Gendo wrote:Are you using robert-and-maggie.com? I wouldn't have expected that to work properly... the forum url should be forum.pittersplace.com. The other url does point to the same actual hosting, but since the forum settings include what the correct url is, I thought the other one would cause problems.

Anyway thanks, I hadn't read through that because at the time I didn't want to spoil it. Will check it out.

*Edit* It appears that "remember me" login doesn't work for the other url, so are you re-logging in every time you visit the site?

I dunno man, I just copied the URL that was up there. I do have to sign in every time, yes. Even if I don't log out but close the tab or whatever, the next time I come around I have to log in.

Yeah that url wasn't intended for this forum. I may have given it out a long time ago before I got pittersplace.com. I recommend switching to that one.

True Grit (2010) - Not bad. I think watching both versions back to back was a mistake, because it makes the second one feel a little boring and repetitive. Bridges and the girl were both great. I dunno if I felt as much of a connection between them, though. This version was a bit faster-paced, to the point that it felt a little rushed. Quite different from most other Coen stuff.

Outbreak - Not bad, not good. Over-the-top fun, but unfortunately one of those that doesn't know that it's over-the-top.

The Hurt Locker - Interesting. A different kind of war movie in terms of its style and directing. But like Fury, it's ultimately just a series of disconnected things that happen to people; no real goal or continuous plot. Probably one that will stay on my mind a bit though.

I found Fury to be a bit more dynamic than The Hurt Locker.

It's ridiculous that John Wayne won an Oscar for True Grit and not for The Searchers or Rio Bravo.He should have won Best Supporting Actor for The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

CashRules wrote:It's ridiculous that John Wayne won an Oscar for True Grit and not for The Searchers or Rio Bravo.He should have won Best Supporting Actor for The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

I read somewhere that the True Grit Oscar was something of an "you're overdue so here you go" award.

sikax wrote:I found Fury to be a bit more dynamic than The Hurt Locker.

Explain "dynamic"?

The Last King of Scotland - Excellent, brilliant, amazing.

Pan: Why the fuck are they singing "Smells like Teen Spirit"? Pretty much sums up the terribleness of the move

The Visit - An entertaining Shyamalan movie, which is more than I can say for most of his endeavors.

The Wind Rises - Hayao Miyazaki's last film...for now. Highly fictionalized story about the chief engineer of many WW2 Japanese fighter planes. If you don't mind the blatant fictions & just accept the art of it, it's a decent film paying homage to guy who just wanted to create. Good English dub voice cast: Joseph Gordon Levitt, Emily Blount, John Krasinski, Martin Short, Stanley Tucci, & Mandy Patinkin.

Total Recall (2012) - Not as good as the original, which was what I expected. It had some neat changes though. The Fall was a cool idea. And it had a couple good nods to the original. But even more changes to the plot would have been better.