Comments on: Waffly Good

By: PooterGeek » Blog Archive » Life, Art, Chocolate

PooterGeek » Blog Archive » Life, Art, Chocolate — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:11:46 +0000

[…] When I was in Belgium last week, I was surprised to discover that it was just like the movies: […]

By: Watch Movies « The Wedding Photography Blog

Watch Movies « The Wedding Photography Blog — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 23:08:48 +0000

[…] I was recently surprised to learn a lot from the Criterion Edition(!) of Armageddon and even more surprised to find myself recognizing my own photographic traits in the approaches taken by the film’s director Michael Bay. When I saw the film at the cinema I remember thinking it was bad—and I am anything but an art house movie snob. One of the first questions on the commentary track is: “Why is there a Criterion Edition of Armageddon?” In the Criterion essay by one of Bay’s former tutor’s, Jeanine Basinger, she describes how she immediately admired his still photography: The first time I saw Michael Bay, he was a polite eighteen-year-old who stopped by my office at Wesleyan University to tell me he wanted to major in Film Studies. He also asked me if I would like to see his still photographs. As a teacher, I believe there is only one answer to that question: “Of course.” (It’s my job.) Over the years, I’ve seen a great deal of material from freshmen—short stories, novels, plays, ceramics, paintings, sculptures, prints, fashion designs, videos, computer art, movies in 8mm and 16mm, even recipe collections—but I have yet to see anything like Bay’s high school photos. They were astonishing—revealing an amazing eye for composition, an instinct for capturing movement, and an inherent understanding of implied narrative. […]

By: Volver

Volver — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 20:04:59 +0000

I already watch the movie Volver and the truth I like much

By: KevinG

KevinG — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:36:54 +0000

Oh come on - films that are box office successes in their own country, when they get a release here (with subtitles), then automatically they are art house. It makes no sense. Almodovar is not art house, he’s mainstream. Cinema Paradiso is art house? Of course it’s not. It’s such a patronising label - I think that is what was bugging me.

Anyway, I’ve got it out of my system now - ta for that.

By: PooterGeek

PooterGeek — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:13:01 +0000

At the risk of descending to Almodóvarian literalness, I’d say that a film that I saw at a place that describes itself in its advertising as an “arthouse cinema” probably qualifies as art house cinema.

By: PooterGeek

PooterGeek — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 22:18:14 +0000

I haven't got time to do this properly right now, but briefly: It was dense with clichés: dramatic and visual. (And they couldn't even get the visual clichés right: clutches of Mediterranean women in mourning and fields of wind generators are a gift to a half-way decent photographer.) It was deeply patronising about provincial life. It was poorly paced, unevenly acted---I can't deny some excellent performances of the terrible script---and I really couldn't give a toss about any of the characters, mainly because they were characters, not people. It was sexist, ageist, sentimental, and dull. (Of course being sexist and ageist aren't artistic failings, but if you have nothing of interest to say about the human condition and what little you do have to say is unpersuasive then you might at least be ideologically polite.) Worst of all, given the comedy potential of the farcical premise, it was deeply, deeply unfunny. Even the hordes of Guardian readers surrounding me quickly gave up trying to laugh at the sub-Benny Hill slapstick---ooh, cleavage!---shortly after it began. It stank in a way a big budget Hollywood picture would never have been allowed to: a script so flimsy and incoherent would never have been made or it would have been morphed by some bean-counter into a supernatural comedy and at least then we would have been distracted from its witlessness by special effects or cinematographic competence or the sense that some of the people involved in its making hadn't just left film school---mother of God, the washing-the-knife-in-the-sink-overhead! It was like somebody proudly reading a poem to you that begins: "Red: / Colour of death. / Colour of life..." . But of course it was made by Almodóvar, so it must have been a masterpiece. Peter Bradshaw*, the emperor wasn't naked; he was breakdancing in the town square, flayed to his skeleton. Sadly, even in this state, he wasn't thin enough to hide behind Penélope Cruz's breasts. *[I should point out that, as usual, I didn't read the Bradshaw review until after seeing the film and that I loudly expressed my derision at the very shot that Bradshaw gets so excited about immediately after I saw it.]

By: KevinG

KevinG — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:50:08 +0000

Why are you referring to Volver as art house? Does a film with subtitles automatically count as art house? (Warhol is art house - no subtitles) It has a beginning, middle and end. It draws, as most of Almodovar’s films do, on the Hollywood melodramas of the 40s and 50s. Of all directors Almodovar seems the most in touch with the history of a certain type of accessible Hollywood film (him and De Niro).

At a time when female actors of a certain age are complaining of a lack of roles, his are top heavy with them. One of the joys of Volver, for me, was the fantastic female characters.

Execrable? Really?

(yes, you hit a nerve!)

By: Tim Almond

Tim Almond — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:24:23 +0000

Do you count films like Oldboy, Run Lola Run, Cinema Paradiso or Downfall as “arthouse”? If you’ve not seen them, I recommend them.

And I say this as someone who likes films like The Quiet Man and Raiders of the Lost Ark.

By: PooterGeek

PooterGeek — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:35:38 +0000

Did you perhaps have a traumatic waffle-related experience as a child?

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:26:50 +0000

I know this sounds absurd, but I remember watching that film a few years ago. And the thing is, I remember a caravan, I remember the shaky cameras. But I don’t recall a single waffle. Were you watching the director’s cut? Perhaps the waffles were only inserted for the DVD release…

By: PooterGeek

PooterGeek — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:17:49 +0000

Before drawing the audience’s attention to the giant waffle, one must concede that, in the best tradition of such imagery, this starchy embodiment of crushing alienation was implied by the actions of the protagonists rather than depicted openly on screen. It is a mark of the creators’ mastery of their art that this generated a menace and tension that would have been dissipated by the actual appearance of the tasty, but terrifyingly oversized, snack itself.

Essentially, the pouring of hundreds of eggs and tens of kilos of flour into a rotating stainless steel vat was a prelude to and warning about rather than a realisation of la gaufre gigantesque. We were witness to the rolling thunderclouds rather than the flash of lightning, the behind-the-scenes documentary rather than the Broadway musical, the letting-stand-for-two-minutes rather than the freshly rehydrated chicken-and-mushroom Pot Noodle.

By: Vic

Vic — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:41:10 +0000

You’ve forgotten about the giant waffle. I can see it now, cartwheeling down the motorway towards the caravan park, decimating all bad knitwear in its path….Vic