Haha! Kind of an important distinction there.Gort wrote:Now, that's an engaging film. {Or, perhaps the encroaching of senility.}

Haha! Kind of an important distinction there.Gort wrote:Now, that's an engaging film. {Or, perhaps the encroaching of senility.}
The whole film seems to emerge from that sentiment, the notion that Eisenstein feels embodied by Mexico, that his psyche had failed to reach its fullest expression until he immersed himself in Mexico and its culture.Sergei Eisenstein wrote:I think that it was not that my consciousness and emotions absorbed the blood and sand of the gory corrida, the heady sensuality of the tropics, the asceticism of the flagellant monks, the purple and gold of Catholicism, or even the cosmic timelessness of the Aztec pyramids: on the contrary, the whole complex of emotions and traits that characterise me extended infinitely beyond me to become an entire, vast country with mountains, forests, cathedrals, people, fruit, wild animals, breakers, herds, armies, decorated prelates, majolica on blue cupolas, necklaces made of gold coins worn by the girls of Tehuantepec and the play of reflection in the canals of Xochimilco.
I think there's more actual Mexico in that one quote than in Greenaway's whole film. It's startling when the film-Eisenstein mentions at the end having shot 50 miles of film (or something like that) when we haven't seen him work at all. It's Greenaway pointing to the divergence of his film from reality.Sergei Eisenstein wrote:I think that it was not that my consciousness and emotions absorbed the blood and sand of the gory corrida, the heady sensuality of the tropics, the asceticism of the flagellant monks, the purple and gold of Catholicism, or even the cosmic timelessness of the Aztec pyramids: on the contrary, the whole complex of emotions and traits that characterise me extended infinitely beyond me to become an entire, vast country with mountains, forests, cathedrals, people, fruit, wild animals, breakers, herds, armies, decorated prelates, majolica on blue cupolas, necklaces made of gold coins worn by the girls of Tehuantepec and the play of reflection in the canals of Xochimilco.
Macrology wrote:That climactic shoot-out is probably the second most poetic gunfight in the history of Westerns, after the gunfight at the O.K. Corral in Ford's My Darling Clementine.
Wish I could recommend GR. I'm not smart (or cynical) enough for that one, maybe. But the childrens' lit/romance/international intrigue of Against the Day was just right for me!Beau wrote:I have, like, three unread Pynchon books, V., Gravity's Rainbow, and Against the Day, all sitting on my bookshelf. I'll get around to them someday.
Mmm, you've sold me! Just ordered it from the library. I'm not sure how "sprawling" it'll seem after Against the Day, though. Think all books will seem focused and concise to me now.Meanwhile, damn, American Pastoral floored me. The Roth book. Not sure about the movie. It'd take a Resnais to get the meta-layers down. Instead it's Ewan making his directorial debut with an adaptation of an ambitious, sprawling, canonical modern novel. I applaud his chutzpah, but he's got his work cut out for him. And I have no idea what he'll do with the "anticlimactic" non-ending, which works swimmingly on the page but can't see being reproduced in a mainstream movie.
Thanks!Eminence Grise wrote:Welcome back, Maiden
Same! My movie watching tempo has slowed dramatically. However, I am watching Arrival on Saturday so if you see it, we may be able to discuss it!Shieldmaiden wrote:Thanks!
Wish I could say I've watched some movies, though...
yeah the first of his I read was South of the Border and a lot of the time I dont need him to get weird, even if I usually enjoy it, this one was especially great, loved FinlandShieldmaiden wrote:Murakami's "controlled, melancholy" mode
Good point.Shieldmaiden wrote:Wish I could recommend GR. I'm not smart (or cynical) enough for that one, maybe. But the childrens' lit/romance/international intrigue of Against the Day was just right for me!
Mmm, you've sold me! Just ordered it from the library. I'm not sure how "sprawling" it'll seem after Against the Day, though. Think all books will seem focused and concise to me now.
Thanks for the motivation. I watched this, finally.Eminence Grise wrote:However, I am watching Arrival on Saturday so if you see it, we may be able to discuss it!
I read it! See the Literature thread.Beau wrote:Meanwhile, damn, American Pastoral floored me.
This reminds me that I'd meant to call attention to some similarities between Against the Day and The Tulse Luper Suitcases. They're both playful, raunchy, historical escapades drawing heavily on the idea of childlike imagination. Both play at corrupting their genre origins, but a certain innocence (of stubborn hope and decency) remains. Both start in a disappointingly corrupt American West, then zigzag around an even more corrupt Europe in the shadow of fascism and world war. Both end up as rather heartfelt meditations on the horrors of warfare, placing their slender hopes in a few individuals in the face of man's terrible inhumanity. Both would be solid additions to my 'angry optimism' list (if AtD were a film, that is).Shieldmaiden wrote:childrens' lit/romance/international intrigue
I've been meaning to get around to this!Macrology wrote:Have you read the story ("Story of Your Life") that Arrival is based on? It's reeeaaal good. Takes the linguistic aspect much further, and in ways that seem much more intuitive than the film. Structurally seamless.
Any extent thoughts on it? Reading a synopsis of the source material gave me the impression that there may be a bit more to gab about after watching it, but sadly, I didn't give it much thought beyond the parking lot!Shieldmaiden wrote:Thanks for the motivation. I watched this, finally.
Ooh, good point! I was so enamored of the sets and effects that I didn't really consider the story till later. But it does work extremely well in retrospect, more than living up to its Shakespearean roots. Such a pleasant surprise! And, yeah, I loved it.Beau wrote:The premise is one of those mysteries that, like in The Invention of Morel, grows more intriguing after you've been told the solution.
Reading your old post, I laughed at the never-seen-the-movie loveliness of the poster. That kind of thing is even more common in science fiction literature, especially with older printings from the 70s or 60s. The covers will often be stock images of alien invasion or intergalactic civilizations, and will often have nothing at all - or very little - to do with the novel. Case in point: my Ballantine Books edition of Childhood's End (an amazing classic, let it be said) has this weird image of civilians running from a flying saucer streaking over a city, which I guess is something that could have happened somewhere within the narrative's timeline, perhaps very early on when the Overlords first arrive, but it's not actually a scene from the book and it doesn't exactly capture the complicated nature of alien-human relations imagined by Clarke. And this cover, mind you, belongs to the Twentieth Anniversary "Special Edition," which one would assume would at least try to capture the general vibe or gist of what it's commemorating. No such luck, though!Shieldmaiden wrote:Ooh, good point! I was so enamored of the sets and effects that I didn't really consider the story till later. But it does work extremely well in retrospect, more than living up to its Shakespearean roots. Such a pleasant surprise! And, yeah, I loved it.
Well, sometimes they include the horrible cover as the opening "location," like my edition of Solaris, but I guess it's still easier to ignore once you click past it!Shieldmaiden wrote:Oh, yeah, book covers are exasperating, and it's not just science fiction. Respectable kids' books are disguised as teen romances, serious novels get their mass-market thriller treatment. Another problem ebooks solve, I guess.
I really enjoyed it! I haven't read Lady Susan, but the vicious humor was fun, and it was perfectly cast. Speaking of which, wasn't Tom Bennett (the idiotic Sir James Martin) great? The role didn't require him to be subtle (à la Tom Hollander in Pride & Prejudice), but he was very, very good in this.Eminence Grise wrote:Any thoughts on Love & Friendship?
Nor have I read it. But, yes, he was great! It's so easy to be put off by so much by an overt character, but he really nailed it! I also really loved the character introductions. That's perhaps the first time I've seen anything like that and the sheer number of introductions adds a nice comedic touch right off the bat.Shieldmaiden wrote:I really enjoyed it! I haven't read Lady Susan, but the vicious humor was fun, and it was perfectly cast. Speaking of which, wasn't Tom Bennett (the idiotic Sir James Martin) great? The role didn't require him to be subtle (à la Tom Hollander in Pride & Prejudice), but he was very, very good in this.
Haha, yes. Especially since all the men looked so much alike at first glance. To have to be told one which one was "extremely handsome," etc. was pretty funny.Eminence Grise wrote:the sheer number of introductions
I don't see any of them underlined. At least, until I place my cursor over the titles.Shieldmaiden wrote:Hey, can anyone look at my original post and tell me why my links from 2015 (and before) are not underlined? They're still links, but you don't see that until you scroll over them. (It's really neat, but I didn't know we could do that.) I only noticed because there's something weird going on with font size in that post, and I'm guessing it might be related to this other weirdness...?
That's the point. How does that happen? I just used "[url]."Beau wrote:I don't see any of them underlined. At least, until I place my cursor over the titles.
Lucky. (I had to buy it to see it.) It's sooo great, though. Enjoy!Oh, and American Honey is available on Argentina's Netflix, in what is surely an epochal miracle. (It's pretty bad when it comes to film and non-Netflix content.) So I'll report back when I watch it!
Ditto. I didn't think much of it when I was watching its press conference at Cannes (although the naivete of the new/non-actors was a breath of fresh air at Cannes), but it did look intriguing. The Love Witch I've been looking forward to for some time.Colonel Kurz wrote:You've got me real hyped lately for American Honey for when it comes out here.
I hope I haven't overhyped (but I really don't think I have.)Colonel Kurz wrote:You've got me real hyped lately for American Honey for when it comes out here.
Eminence Grise wrote:Also, Sofia Bohdanowicz has been on my radar for a while. I've heard a lot of positive talk about Never Eat Alone (2016), but I've yet to see it.
Thanks! I'll watch for both of these.Beau wrote:By the way, y'all need to see Incident Light.
So I saw this (Arnold's Wuthering Heights). I've never read the book 'cause it sounds so bleak, and the film totally confirms that. It's devastatingly bleak, too much to take, but also beautiful and sensual and powerful. I really loved the look and the structure and the sound—but, still, I almost turned it off several times. So much cruelty and hate! But, Arnold is very, very good, for sure.Colonel Kurz wrote:My favorite so far, outside some of the music scenes in Fish Tank.
Oh, yeah, about this. I found the code mistake in the original post and decided I like it! So I used it to make all the links invisible till you scroll over them.Shieldmaiden wrote:Hey, can anyone look at my original post and tell me why my links from 2015 (and before) are not underlined? They're still links, but you don't see that until you scroll over them. (It's really neat, but I didn't know we could do that.) I only noticed because there's something weird going on with font size in that post, and I'm guessing it might be related to this other weirdness...?