Comments for What I Watched Last Night...

Comment on Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb by tashpix

tashpix — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 19:11:26 +0000

Well, I actually like �late� Kubrick, but I certainly agree that blanket acceptance of everything he did just because it bears his name is not terribly meaningful. It�s the same way I feel about Hitchcock or any artist for that matter. I can acknowledge their gifts, but that doesn�t mean I�ll uncritically accept everything they do.

Comment on Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb by chandlerswainreviews

chandlerswainreviews — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 19:05:33 +0000

I enjoyed your comments very much. Kubrick has become a beacon of “brilliance” to which few seem willing to question the credibility of such a claim. Your observation of the split in his career is very astute, and is even borne out by the increasing infrequency of films by the man. He simply over thought everything. Interestingly, especially in the post-”2001″ phase of his career, his films were openly criticized on their release, only to gain stature with the passing of time (as if the addition of cobwebs imbues a film with greater meaning). His films became increasingly pretentious and deliberately obscure to elevate his own intellectual stature. Outside of obvious uses of technological advances (highly sensitive film stocks in “Barry Lyndon” or the overuse of Steadicam in “The Shining”), there is actually little that is new in his later films. A useful comparison to “Strangelove” is to place it against the same year’s “Fail-Safe”, made on a shoestring and far more effective (though Kubrick worked to have the release of that film squashed as well).

Comment on 2001: A Space Odyssey by Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb | What I Watched Last Night…

Sat, 01 Jun 2013 12:43:58 +0000

[…] oeuvre is sometimes divided into two periods, pivoting between Strangelove on one side and 2001: A Space Odyssey on the other. Watching it again recently, I was struck by how much a product of the “early” […]

Comment on 1900 by Heaven’s Gate | What I Watched Last Night…

Heaven’s Gate | What I Watched Last Night… — Sun, 19 May 2013 17:18:34 +0000

[…] how bravura the treatment. Like another overwrought, politically ambitious failure, Bertolucci’s 1900, aspiration exceeds achievement (and intelligence) in Heaven’s Gate. There just isn’t enough to […]

Comment on Bad Timing: A Sensual Obsession by dontdigonswine

dontdigonswine — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:50:43 +0000

Understood. And regardless of differing opinions about the worth of the film, your thoughts did inspire a greater understanding for me about my own. Cheers to that.

Comment on Myra Breckinridge by Valley of the Dolls | What I Watched Last Night…

Valley of the Dolls | What I Watched Last Night… — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:16:57 +0000

[...] of the Dolls provides the queasy pleasure of watching Tinseltown rot from within. It makes Myra Breckinridge look positively [...]

Comment on Bad Timing: A Sensual Obsession by tashpix

tashpix — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:31:58 +0000

Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed response. I hope it's clear that I don't think BT is a bad or stupid film. There's a lot in it to like. I just feel that, for all the reasons I state, it founders on its ambitions.

Comment on Bad Timing: A Sensual Obsession by dontdigonswine

dontdigonswine — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 04:54:54 +0000

I love your analysis even though it is one of my favorite of all films. I’m considering using a non-linear narrative for a story I am constructing and doing a bit of my own personal investigating. Your thoughts are very eloquently expressed, some of the most evocative I have found so far. Especially your sentiments on associative logic inherent in editing and narrative flow.

Though, I must voice my own perspective on the film – it’s these contradictions you’ve mentioned, a lack of clear psychological diagnosis, that make the movie all the more complete in my opinion. Garfunkel’s character is a psychologist. He’s magnetized to this woman because she is unknowable. To know her would be to “have” her. Her identity shifts to evade his possessiveness. Keitel is an investigator. Garfunkel’s perspective is elusive and incomplete. Everything is constantly shifting, every notion of identity reacts once it has been observed. I believe the form and the content here are perfectly singed together, making the statement that the objective and subjective worlds are in an eternal battle, but will always belong to the same inseparable organism of experience.

Comment on Conversation Piece (Gruppo di Famiglia in un Interno) by tashpix

tashpix — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 12:06:26 +0000

Comment on Conversation Piece (Gruppo di Famiglia in un Interno) by Miss Bossypants

Miss Bossypants — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 04:10:21 +0000

Wow, fantastic.