catapult magazine

Lynch’s MULHOLLAND DRIVE comes out on DVD and to rent on VHS on Tuesday. The Coen’s THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE comes out on the 16th. I’d be very eager to discuss either of those. Or would Mulholland Drive be biting off more than we can chew?

As seconded nominee to choose a film, I’d like to put THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE on the list for April 16, as it was my favorite movie of last year. I don’t think I can find HAPPINESS around here, though I have seen it and it is a good choice for now.

Other movies from last year I would highly recommend, but that we can get to later:

SEXY BEAST (L-O-V-E-D it!)
AMORES PERROS
A.I.
GHOST WORLD

Let’s start with HAPPINESS… Watch it ASAP, if you’d like to participate.

I’d second a nomination of AMELIE. The way the sound and video editing worked together was quite exciting. The sound score was also the most sincere I’ve heard in a long while. A refreshing shift from the hyperprocessed and ego driven holleywood scores.

Disagree with you there, Space. Though the sound of “Amelie” may have seemed sincere to you, the whole movie gave me a “Forrest Gump” feeling. Sweetly sentimental, but in a French way.

I also wondered about the feeling of Amelie when I was recieving it. It was perhaps a little tainted by sentimentality but there was tenderness and wonderfulness in the feeling as well. It also wasn’t cryptic or subtle. It was wholeheartedly embarassing. (Very unlike Lynch and Kubrick)

It is possible for the score to save or break a film. The score for Lord of the Rings for example seemed to attach a semi-mystical New Age feel to the grit and earthiness of the visual imagery.

The story and the music score are tied together in Amelie but is it possible for one to be sincere and the other sentimental?

I’m for the mainstream (but not crappy) movie, just because it is more acceptable and probably will work better for future purposes. Less-known movies are grand and should be occasionally done but mainstream . . . it’s less clique-ish. But hey if you want clique-ish I shall indeed shut my mouth and silently pine for the rejuvinating warmth of conversation in the corner by myself.

Sorry to interrupt the flow, but a couple of Days ago, Samiam asked what i meant when I said that I loved to hate the movie AI. I was impressed with the quality to the film, and with the way that Spielberg followed through on Kubrick’s (and Philip K. Dick’s) vision, but, I thought the movie’s message was wrong — not as in morally wrong — but in terms of it’s understanding of the world. It seemed to me that the overall message of the movie, as revealed in the robot boy’s final choice, is between a painful but true reality, or a virtual existence in which he thinks he has returned to his long-dead mother. It seemed to me that, at its root, the movie was emphatically affirming the 20th century fallacy that virtual reality is far better than actual reality. It was interesting to me that Kubrick worked with the Pinochio storie, but in the end, the robot’s wish to be real is ultimately unfulfilled, except in his own mind. The viewer, I think, is meant to agree that his virtual reward is as good or better than the real thing. The film portrayed that message well, but I think the message is warped. And so it is a movie I love to hate.

A.I. is definitely worth spending lots of words on. But I was wondering what Godrama meant by saying mainstream movies would be better to focus on since focussing on lesser- known movies seems “clique-ish”?

not to get back on track or anything (heaven forbid..no offense to anyone, everything else has been interesting, too), but is it happiness or amelie?

i’m going to make the decision and say happiness, since that was the first one “decided” on before things digressed.

can i make this decision even though this is only my fifth or sixth or seventh offical post? okay, great. watch happiness this weekend. i vote we all begin at 7:34 p.m. central time, and respond shortly after watching. or something.

I hope it’s not too late to warn everyone about “Happiness”. It’s really really rough, excessively cruel to the viewer. Several of us just saw it, some for the first time.

In the context of this website, we said that maybe this wouldn’t be such a good movie to START with. Sure, it would spark some great discussion, but might not set the right tone for this particular group. Though I would hope my article would make it clear why it’s important for every film-goer to see it eventually, I think we might warm up with other films first.

A good test for if you’re ready to see this film might be your feelings about sickly sweet garbage like “American Beauty”. If you think “American Beauty” did a great job of finding beauty and goodness even in America’s suburbs, you need to see “Happiness”. It will set you straight about a few things.

“I love New Jersey”

How about “The Man Who Wasn’t There”? Everyone get out Plato’s Republic. Turn to the part about the shadows on the wall of the cave and let’s get started.

OKAY!! I’m seconding that and calling it:

THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE

(written/directed/produced by Joel and Ethan Coen, starring Billy Bob Thornton, Frances MacDormand, James Gandolfini, and Scarlett Johansson (the girl from Ghost World))

is the film. It’s out now in a video store near you. The first person to watch it should start a new topic in the FILM section and thus will begin the online discussion. Go watch and let’s light this candle!!!