Film Buffery

[Gillianren]

Apparently, Olivia de Havilland is "shocked and saddened" at her sister's death. Or at least she felt it was appropriate to say so. I had long believed that they were both going to live forever, because neither one would die first.

[Noclevername]

I don't think this one really works as Nazi propaganda. Too much Jesse Owens.

You can never have too much Jesse Owens! "And for my next impression..."

Maybe the film reflects' Riefenstahl's actual admiration of Owens; she always claimed after the war that she only went along with Nazism to save her own neck. (I know little about her personally, so I can't say for sure)

[geonuc]

Apparently, Olivia de Havilland is "shocked and saddened" at her sister's death. Or at least she felt it was appropriate to say so. I had long believed that they were both going to live forever, because neither one would die first.

According to Wikipedia, de Havilland should be 'livid' that her sister beat her to another milestone in life.

[Gillianren]

Maybe the film reflects' Riefenstahl's actual admiration of Owens; she always claimed after the war that she only went along with Nazism to save her own neck. (I know little about her personally, so I can't say for sure)

She also claimed she didn't know she was using slave labour, so there's only so seriously you should take her claims about what happened during the war. I'm pretty sure she knew exactly what was going on and just didn't want to think about it. After all, she had plenty of time to get out, and she didn't try. Marlene Dietrich was asked by Hitler to come back and be the face of Nazi film, and she told him no. (Given Dietrich, probably in a way that isn't safe for work.) Fritz Lang got out, and his wife was actually a leading light of the Party. Peter Lorre got out, but of course, he was also Jewish and wouldn't have survived the war if he hadn't. I don't doubt that she admired Jesse Owens, and I don't think she was actually ideologically a Nazi--but I think she liked the honours and privilege the Nazi Party gave her and didn't worry too much about the details.

According to Wikipedia, de Havilland should be 'livid' that her sister beat her to another milestone in life.

I was talking to Graham about it last night, and he pointed out that we both have siblings we don't really talk to, that we wouldn't talk to at all if our mothers weren't forcing the issue in one way or another. But I pointed out that, by all accounts, neither sister was actually a bad person. They just didn't get along and apparently never had; Joan Fontaine remembered an incident from when she was four and Olivia was five. Sometimes, you're just allowed to not like someone, even if you're related, but if you're related and famous, expect it to be blown all out of proportion, is my guess.

[geonuc]

Two recent films have me encouraged that seemingly played out genres can still be worked well: Under the Skin and Only Lovers Left Alive. The former - alien seductress preys on humans - is wonderfully opaque. By the end of the film, you're left with questions that only your imagination can answer, and that after watching two hours of a mesmerizing Scarlett Johansson.

The latter is an excellent rendition of the disaffected vampire theme. No horror and gore here - or worse, sparkly vampires. Rather, you get plenty of angst and stellar performances from Tilda Swinton and Tom Hiddleston as their characters (particularly him) try to find meaning in their long lives amidst modern humanity.

[Gillianren]

I don't find Scarlett Johansson all that mesmerizing, honestly. She's pretty enough, but I'm still not sure if she can act. She's seldom called on to do so, I will say. Tilda Swinton? Tilda Swinton is mesmerizing. I may have to check out Only Lovers Left Alive.

[geonuc]

To be clear, my characterization of Johansson's performance as mesmerizing wasn't rooted in her physical appearance. I thought she acted the role exceptionally well.

[Gillianren]

Most of the movies I've seen her in seem to involve her staring blankly into space.

[parallaxicality]

Just saw X-Men: Days of Future Past. Definitely reaped what the franchise has sown as regards nabbing brilliant actors before they hit the big time (see Hugh Jackman, Michael Fassbender, Anna Paquin, Ellen Page, Jennifer Lawrence, heck, even Ian McKellen, for all the time he's in it) but threatened to crush itself under its own weight at the beginning. Regains its feet toward the end though. I also have to give Kelsey Grammer serious props for his commitment to the franchise. I can't say why, but you'll understand when you see it.

[Gillianren]

So I watched Rocky for the first time the other day and liked it more than I was expecting to. In that I didn't completely hate it. Someone I know elsewhere suggested that what I want to do is watch Rocky Balboa, which he claims is the only other bearable Rocky movie and the most like the first, and compare them without the baggage of having seen any of the others. I, on the other hand, kind of lean toward "and now, I don't have to watch any more boxing movies!" Opinions?

[DonM435]

Rocky was a good Cinderella story before it became a franchise.

I think you'd like Requiem for a Heavyweight, a Rod Serling script directed by Ralph Nelson -- twice. Both the original (live) TV version and the later movie are hard-hitting drama.

[Gillianren]

Yeah, but how much actual boxing is in them?

[geonuc]

Why would you want to exclude boxing movies? While you may not like the sport itself, there are probably plenty of movies that would interest you that have boxing themes, such as Million Dollar Baby.

[Paul Beardsley]

I think you underestimate how off-putting boxing is to a certain kind of film watcher. There's no way I could sit through Rocky, even after Gillian's lukewarm non-anti-recommendation.

[DonM435]

Yeah, but how much actual boxing is in them?

It (the film) begins with a subjective knock out, and no real ring action (except for some depiction of pro wrestling!) after that. I don't think the live version shows any boxing onstage. Someone looking for boxing action might be disappointed, though it pervades the narrative.

[parallaxicality]

What about Raging Bull?

[Gillianren]

I have seen both Raging Bull and Million Dollar Baby; they are alphabetically before Rocky. The thing in all three cases was that my interest faded pretty much to nothing the minute anyone actually started boxing; my review of Ali had been "Did you know this movie about a boxer has boxing in it?" It's not that I don't "like" boxing. It's that I find it barbaric. I don't like watching even a minute or two of it, even when the rest of the movie is fascinating.

[Heid the Ba']

Why would you want to exclude boxing movies? While you may not like the sport itself, there are probably plenty of movies that would interest you that have boxing themes, such as Million Dollar Baby.

I thought Million Dollar Baby was a terrible film, with a pantomime villain.

I can't get the "spoiler" cover to work, so I'll only say the writing was someway beyond heavy handed.

[Jeff Root]

I suspect that the main appeal of boxing is its barbarity.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[parallaxicality]

Keep in mind, our combat sports are actually LESS barbaric now then at any point in our past: go back 20 years- bullfighting. 200 years- bear-baiting. 1000 years- jousting. 2000 years- gladiators.

[DonM435]

"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?"

[Paul Beardsley]

Keep in mind, our combat sports are actually LESS barbaric now then at any point in our past: go back 20 years- bullfighting. 200 years- bear-baiting. 1000 years- jousting. 2000 years- gladiators.

And anaesthetics are far, far better than they've ever been, but I still don't enjoy having dental surgery.

[starcanuck64]

I have seen both Raging Bull and Million Dollar Baby; they are alphabetically before Rocky. The thing in all three cases was that my interest faded pretty much to nothing the minute anyone actually started boxing; my review of Ali had been "Did you know this movie about a boxer has boxing in it?" It's not that I don't "like" boxing. It's that I find it barbaric. I don't like watching even a minute or two of it, even when the rest of the movie is fascinating.

Especially when you consider how much more we understand now about the long term effects of serious concussions. It's sobering to think as you watch two people box, that it's quite possible that one or both are going to suffer some level of brain damage during the match.

[grant hutchison]

Keep in mind, our combat sports are actually LESS barbaric now then at any point in our past: go back 20 years- bullfighting. 200 years- bear-baiting. 1000 years- jousting. 2000 years- gladiators.

I'd like to comment on this, but I feel I'm perhaps not tracking your argument. Why did you point this out?

Grant Hutchison

[parallaxicality]

I'd like to comment on this, but I feel I'm perhaps not tracking your argument. Why did you point this out?

Grant Hutchison

That barbarity is relative. We live in a particularly non-barbaric time, so considering boxing barbaric is really more a reflection of when we're living than personal preference.

[profloater]

Especially when you consider how much more we understand now about the long term effects of serious concussions. It's sobering to think as you watch two people box, that it's quite possible that one or both are going to suffer some level of brain damage during the match.

This is quite true but we allow rugby and american football and horse riding all of which have a percentage of brain damage from impacts. It is still a career path for poor kids to escape poverty and maybe the rules and the technology can be improved.

Ironically I heard the gloves intended to reduce skin damage, increase the brain damage. Change is needed. Boxing remains a highly skilled sport in which avoiding being hit is a central skill.

[grant hutchison]

This is quite true but we allow rugby and american football and horse riding all of which have a percentage of brain damage from impacts.

The perceived barbarism of boxing isn't because of the brain damage itself, but because that brain damage is inflicted deliberately as the prime focus of the sport.

It is still a career path for poor kids to escape poverty ...

So is drug dealing and armed robbery. Poor kids are faced with horrible choices - maybe we need to do something about widening their options, not championing the limited options available to them at present.

Grant Hutchison

[grant hutchison]

That barbarity is relative. We live in a particularly non-barbaric time, so considering boxing barbaric is really more a reflection of when we're living than personal preference.

Well, there's an argument to be made that you'd get exactly the same audience today if you reinstated gladiatorial combat or public executions. And we know it was dangerous to express disapproval of gladiatorial combat in Roman times, because the arena was a political tool, and Roman politicians were dangerous enemies to make. So the only voices of disapproval we now hear were both powerful and circumspect, like Seneca and Marcus Aurelius.

That said, I don't see "not as barbaric as it might be" as offering a compelling argument for me to start watching boxing or boxing movies. In general, I just dislike movies in which violence is the prime purpose of the narrative - if the object of the exercise is to punch someone really hard in the head, or to force someone to saw off their own leg, or to stab a Roman emperor with a short sword, or to gun down violent criminals on the subway, I'm going to give it a miss.

Grant Hutchison

[Gillianren]

Film buffs take note--Barnes and Noble is having a sale on Criterion Collection starting on the thirtieth online or the first in stores. I have enough disposable income for July to buy something, at least!