Heh. Looking forward to hearing the podcast. But the fact that Bowling of Columbine is the display pic makes me think you guys are begging for more complaints about politics talk. I love it!
How can anyone hate Branded to Kill? It is an absurd comedy film (which the famous cheeks helps to establish the film’s absurd tone. In my opinion, comedy is so subjective that I can )only hate a comedy if it is offensive in a pointless manner, such as making fun of homosexuals or ethnic groups. There is none of that in Branded to Kill.
Branded to Kill is also a well crafted and acted film. The cinematography is outstanding. Joe Shishido is a cinematic icon.
Furthermore, do not disrespect Seijun Suzuki — he is a true auteur. Tokyo Drifter, which is also in the Criterion Collection has a similar vibe to Branded to Kill: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGg_k8Cai6Q (trailer)
Lastly, I much prefer Suzuki’s absurd, cinematic comedy over the Tim and Eric’s school of comedy ( i do not hate, but I really dislike).
It’s also worth noting that Suzuki’s feelings towards his patron studio caused him to go completely bananas with the project, knowing it would get him fired. He purposefully made an aggressively uncommercial, pointedly incomprehensible film, which is different than purposefully making a BAD film. Indulgent? Sure, but I’ll take that indulgence any day.
David, you are being too reductionist when it comes to the relationship between laws and freedom. For example, The USA Constitution, Civil Rights Act, and Roe vs Wade can be all interpreted to protect, guarantee, and extent the freedom of individuals.
There is also multiple interpretations of freedoms. Plato, Marx, Foucalt, Mills, and Friedman all have different visions of freedom.
Yeah, I definitely didn’t make it clear that I was putting on my libertarian hat for that section of the podcast. My full feelings on the subject are, I assure you, more nuanced.
Yea they have some weird assumptions about ethics/politics I think. Just because you apply Bentham/JS Mill’s Harm Principle to helmet laws doesn’t mean you are a “Libertarian,” it just means you agree with a certain conception of Utilitarianism in a certain situation.
I think David/Tyler are convinced that people are getting riled up over politics just because they disagree about it, or have another dog in the race, when the reality is people are annoyed that such a nuanced/sophisticated show about film devolves into boring, mainstream, unsophisticated politics that makes it tonally jarring and takes time away from things the hosts could be speaking insightfully about.
Regarding what we can speak insightfully about, I (Tyler) find it frustrating when we talk politics on the show. I’ve had hours-long discussions about politics, and they were both invigorating and enlightening. However, because the show is about movies, whenever we dip our toes into politics, I feel like we can’t go too far, or the episode winds up being more about that than about movies. So, for myself, I do it cautiously and wind up not saying even 20% of what I really think and feel. I can understand that this could seem frustrating, which is why, last week, I swore that I’d try to be better about not bringing in politics at all. Either go all in, or not at all, seems to be the mantra here.
Of course, when the conversation turns to Michael Moore, that’s going to muddy the waters a little bit.
There is a conservative thinker named Bill Whittle that has an interesting theory about liberalism and government intervention. It looks like a bell curve, in which government and laws are needed in order to ensure that everybody has an equal level of opportunity and there is no discrimination (Civil Rights, women’s suffrage, etc.). He considers this a classical type of liberalism. So, at the very top of the bell curve, you have the optimum amount of liberty and freedom. However, as more laws are put in place (even with the best of intentions), sooner or later, you’re going to actually cause optimum liberty to decrease. It is here that you find people becoming conservative, not because they are against progress, or even against liberalism, but because they believe that too much legislation is more limiting than freeing.
I think that most people would agree with that assessment, because we’ve seen governments that are completely involved in their citizens’ lives and we see individual freedom drop to zero.
I think the disagreement comes with where we are on the curve currently. Some would say that we are only halfway to the top, some think we’re there now, and others think that we are halfway down, already on the decline.
This is something I’ve been meaning to bring up ever since the episode with Hulk…
I honestly don’t think Quentin Tarantino was saying to filmmakers “every movie is a good movie” but rather “a terrible film shouldn’t be offhandedly dismissed.” Sure, there are those movies made with ZERO artistic merit (something like Epic Movie comes to mind) but if there’s an artist behind the camera it’s probably worth at least exploring the reasons why the film didn’t work.
I think he’s also saying that figuring out why things didn’t work, as a filmmaker who does not want to repeat someone else’s mistakes, should be an enlightening and invigorating process.
And that’s what you do in this episode: dismiss non-cinema, explore why certain movies didn’t work, and ultimately gain a better understanding of what -does- work.
David, I really do not hear your mumbling. It must be self-criticism thing.
I’m a little choosy about movies I watch, so I don’t have many hated ones, but a few years ago I was in Manhattan with time to spare before leaving on a bus. A movie theater was nearby and I decided to watch Splice. I enjoyed Natali’s ’97 film Cube, and thought ‘hey…why not support a fellow Canuck’.
A few hours later I left the theater feeling angry and insulted. Yes it’s pretty much a b-movie, but the level of suspension of belief required – not for the science mind you, but the stupidity of the characters required to keep the plot moving – was just too much for me.
I think some of the positive reviews (notably /Filmcast) may have also contributed to my anger.
Heh. Looking forward to hearing the podcast. But the fact that Bowling of Columbine is the display pic makes me think you guys are begging for more complaints about politics talk. I love it!
I went through several options and went with this one, because, somehow, photos from THE LIFE OF DAVID GALE just didn’t have the oomph that we wanted.
How can anyone hate Branded to Kill? It is an absurd comedy film (which the famous cheeks helps to establish the film’s absurd tone. In my opinion, comedy is so subjective that I can )only hate a comedy if it is offensive in a pointless manner, such as making fun of homosexuals or ethnic groups. There is none of that in Branded to Kill.
Branded to Kill is also a well crafted and acted film. The cinematography is outstanding. Joe Shishido is a cinematic icon.
Furthermore, do not disrespect Seijun Suzuki — he is a true auteur. Tokyo Drifter, which is also in the Criterion Collection has a similar vibe to Branded to Kill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGg_k8Cai6Q (trailer)
Lastly, I much prefer Suzuki’s absurd, cinematic comedy over the Tim and Eric’s school of comedy ( i do not hate, but I really dislike).
I (Tyler) certainly agree with you on Tim and Eric. While I find them occasionally funny, I feel like it’s hard to laugh while your nauseous.
It’s also worth noting that Suzuki’s feelings towards his patron studio caused him to go completely bananas with the project, knowing it would get him fired. He purposefully made an aggressively uncommercial, pointedly incomprehensible film, which is different than purposefully making a BAD film. Indulgent? Sure, but I’ll take that indulgence any day.
David, you are being too reductionist when it comes to the relationship between laws and freedom. For example, The USA Constitution, Civil Rights Act, and Roe vs Wade can be all interpreted to protect, guarantee, and extent the freedom of individuals.
There is also multiple interpretations of freedoms. Plato, Marx, Foucalt, Mills, and Friedman all have different visions of freedom.
Yeah, I definitely didn’t make it clear that I was putting on my libertarian hat for that section of the podcast. My full feelings on the subject are, I assure you, more nuanced.
– David
Yea they have some weird assumptions about ethics/politics I think. Just because you apply Bentham/JS Mill’s Harm Principle to helmet laws doesn’t mean you are a “Libertarian,” it just means you agree with a certain conception of Utilitarianism in a certain situation.
I think David/Tyler are convinced that people are getting riled up over politics just because they disagree about it, or have another dog in the race, when the reality is people are annoyed that such a nuanced/sophisticated show about film devolves into boring, mainstream, unsophisticated politics that makes it tonally jarring and takes time away from things the hosts could be speaking insightfully about.
Regarding what we can speak insightfully about, I (Tyler) find it frustrating when we talk politics on the show. I’ve had hours-long discussions about politics, and they were both invigorating and enlightening. However, because the show is about movies, whenever we dip our toes into politics, I feel like we can’t go too far, or the episode winds up being more about that than about movies. So, for myself, I do it cautiously and wind up not saying even 20% of what I really think and feel. I can understand that this could seem frustrating, which is why, last week, I swore that I’d try to be better about not bringing in politics at all. Either go all in, or not at all, seems to be the mantra here.
Of course, when the conversation turns to Michael Moore, that’s going to muddy the waters a little bit.
There is a conservative thinker named Bill Whittle that has an interesting theory about liberalism and government intervention. It looks like a bell curve, in which government and laws are needed in order to ensure that everybody has an equal level of opportunity and there is no discrimination (Civil Rights, women’s suffrage, etc.). He considers this a classical type of liberalism. So, at the very top of the bell curve, you have the optimum amount of liberty and freedom. However, as more laws are put in place (even with the best of intentions), sooner or later, you’re going to actually cause optimum liberty to decrease. It is here that you find people becoming conservative, not because they are against progress, or even against liberalism, but because they believe that too much legislation is more limiting than freeing.
I think that most people would agree with that assessment, because we’ve seen governments that are completely involved in their citizens’ lives and we see individual freedom drop to zero.
I think the disagreement comes with where we are on the curve currently. Some would say that we are only halfway to the top, some think we’re there now, and others think that we are halfway down, already on the decline.
This is something I’ve been meaning to bring up ever since the episode with Hulk…
I honestly don’t think Quentin Tarantino was saying to filmmakers “every movie is a good movie” but rather “a terrible film shouldn’t be offhandedly dismissed.” Sure, there are those movies made with ZERO artistic merit (something like Epic Movie comes to mind) but if there’s an artist behind the camera it’s probably worth at least exploring the reasons why the film didn’t work.
I think he’s also saying that figuring out why things didn’t work, as a filmmaker who does not want to repeat someone else’s mistakes, should be an enlightening and invigorating process.
And that’s what you do in this episode: dismiss non-cinema, explore why certain movies didn’t work, and ultimately gain a better understanding of what -does- work.
David, I really do not hear your mumbling. It must be self-criticism thing.
I’m a little choosy about movies I watch, so I don’t have many hated ones, but a few years ago I was in Manhattan with time to spare before leaving on a bus. A movie theater was nearby and I decided to watch Splice. I enjoyed Natali’s ’97 film Cube, and thought ‘hey…why not support a fellow Canuck’.
A few hours later I left the theater feeling angry and insulted. Yes it’s pretty much a b-movie, but the level of suspension of belief required – not for the science mind you, but the stupidity of the characters required to keep the plot moving – was just too much for me.
I think some of the positive reviews (notably /Filmcast) may have also contributed to my anger.