Jump to content

Glóin the Dark

Members
  • Posts

    3,725
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    11

Posts posted by Glóin the Dark

  1. No question which comes first on my list. I haven't seen The Color Purple or Empire of the Sun for more than three decades and have lost any clear idea of what I felt about them, so I've left them off. Any others not on the list I haven't seen at all. Green and red indicate strong impressions, positive and negative respectively.

    1. Jaws
    2. Raiders of the Lost Ark
    3. Schindler's List
    4. Close Encounters of the Third Kind
    5. Duel
    6. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
    7. E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial
    8. Lincoln
    9. Jurassic Park
    10. Saving Private Ryan
    11. Bridge of Spies
    12. War of the Worlds
    13. A.I. Artificial Intelligence
    14. Munich
    15. Catch Me if You Can
    16. The Fabelmans
    17. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
    18. Minority Report
    19. Always
    20. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
    21. Hook
    22. Ready Player One
    23. The Post
    24. War Horse
  2. 1 minute ago, Marian Schedenig said:

    It seems to me that was at least partly her point though. If there were plenty of other films with such a setting, I imagine she wouldn't object to one of them vilifying its subject.

     

    I agree, and, conversely, if there were half a dozen film portrayals of female conductors, all of them predominantly negative, that would surely reflect some sort of worrying underlying prejudice. But when there's only one, it can't be expected to be representative, and shouldn't be required to be. It would be absurd to insist that, for every group X, a negative portrayal of a character included in X is only permissible once a sufficient number of positive ones already exist.

     

     

    11 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

    That's what I said myself, and why I don't think it's a valid reason to generally condemn the film.

     

    I know - I repeated it only by way of expressing what it is about Alsop's apparent attitude that I object to. 

     

     

    19 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

    It's a quote copied from Wikipedia, which likely took it from a longer source...

     

    There's a bit more of it here

     

    Quote

    “All women and all feminists should be bothered by that kind of depiction because it’s not really about women conductors, is it? It’s about women as leaders in our society. People ask, ‘Can we trust them? Can they function in that role?’ It’s the same questions whether it’s about a CEO or an NBA coach or the head of a police department.”

     

    Alsop added that there “are so many ... actual, documented men” Lydia Tár emulates with her problematic and cruel behavior, yet the awards-season darling “instead ... puts a woman in the role but gives her all the attributes of those men.”

     

    “That feels anti-woman,” Alsop continued. “To assume that women will either behave identically to men or become hysterical, crazy, insane is to perpetuate something we’ve already seen on film so many times before.”

     

  3. 19 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

    ...as long as it is virtually the *only* film centred on a world-famous, female, lesbian conductor, it's arguably at this point that *every* film with such a character is portraying it as a villain...

     

    Yeah, but only because there's only one such film, so the word "every" isn't signifying much.

     

     

    32 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

    Rejecting it as entirely reprehensible seems about as extreme to me as generally rejecting the film because of her view on it.

     

    Maybe - I'm happy enough to have my views called "extreme"! Moderation is overrated, and I wasn't criticising Alsop's comments for their extremeness...

     

    All the same, I think the comparison is a poor one. There's nothing in Tár to suggest that the makers intend us to extrapolate Tár's negative traits (to women in general, or to lesbians, or to conductors), and I haven't seen Alsop argue otherwise; it's just an individual who happens to belong to those groups. As such, Alsop's castigation of the film for failing to use the opportunity to portray such a character in a positive light amounts to a prescriptive attitude to the purpose and function of films (or some of them), and that is what I find reprehensible.

  4. It's always understandable and perfectly legitimate for someone to hate a portrayal of themselves, or even one which is suggested to be partially based on or vaguely inspired by them (whether the suggestion is correct or not). But Alsop's complaint about the offensiveness of Tár (the implied unacceptability of depicting such a character in a negative light) is truly reprehensible, and absolutely shameful coming from someone working in the arts.

  5. On 07/03/2024 at 6:23 AM, A24 said:

    It's a smart decision. It's better to quit while you are still at your peak.


    Then again, if he’d stayed quit first time around, nobody would have known that he wasn’t yet at his peak, and he wouldn’t have made LincolnGangs of New YorkPhantom Thread or There Will Be Blood.

     

     

    On 12/03/2024 at 7:22 PM, Edmilson said:

    Not what she meant.

     

    What exactly did she mean?

  6. 8 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

    When that movie's name was announced, the camera showed James Cameron and some other guy who seemed to be his producer (Jon Landau?) lying down on the stage playing with some action figures of US Marines, apparently recreating with toys the scenes of soldiers infiltrating the Pandora jungle.

     

    A cut to Christopher Nolan gleefully setting off a firecracker on the stage would have been way better than some boring speech. You should direct next year's ceremony.

     

    10 hours ago, King Mark said:

    But for years they complain that women directors aren't nominated, then this year a woman directs the most popular movie of the year that gains multiple awards nominations...and she  didn't get a nomination!

     

    Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but to me it reads as though you're suggesting that the second part of your sentence somehow undermines the first, whereas I would think that  (if anything) it reinforces it. That's to say, if the director of the most financially successful film of the year, which is also one of the biggest critical hits, doesn't get a nomination, then people who have been alleging an anti-female bias could say that just proves their point, no?

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.