Skip to main content

Posts

Recent posts

Review of "the Snowman"

I wasn't familiar with the director. It's about a repeat predator, so certainly timely. But also about a very circumspect, coifed and careful one, so inverse. Relates it all to childhood trauma; taking revenge for childhood abandonment: revenge on other girls for the crimes of the mother. I still insist that's where we need to look to get at Weinstein's illness. We think we reach brave, but there's always a higher level of brave -- what nobody else wants to touch right now, now that the proper decorum is simply to admonish both oneself and the behaviour of others: we've been bad; no excuse, we'll do better.

A lot of people may very well hate this film, but I found it a bit of a jack-of-the-box in terms of surprises: within each scene the director seemed to want to focus on something to show that, in this light, isn't this beautiful. So a human head on a top of a snowman, so a curated snowman, so landscapes of pleasantly loped seaside towns full of manage…

Conversations about Harvey Weinstein at the New Yorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.
There's an ugly aspect of misguided Hollywood mythology and self-mythologizing in Harvey Weinstein's grotesque abuses of power, both intimately and professionally:https://www.newyorker.com/…/harvey-weinstein-and-the-illusi…

Harvey Weinstein and the Illusion of the Vulgar But Passionate Old-Hollywood Studio Boss Weinstein’s methods as a producer were based on a damaging idea that old-fashioned behavior is part and parcel of an old-fashioned love of the movies. NEWYORKER.COM https://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/harvey-weinstein-and-the-illusion-of-the-vulgar-but-passionate-old-hollywood-studio-boss Top of Form

Comments
Andrew Kay<

Review of "Black River Chronicles"

This is a well written book which I enjoyed reading. Tight, effective prose throughout much of it. (Spoilers ahead) I wonder if the writers are aware, though, that the greatest genuine adventure in their book is what they might be up to when they suddenly decide that what they're describing is worthy enough to demand the narrator really work at being precise, to nail the experience down, particularly... to the point of risking mistakes, seeming sloppy, seeming ridiculous. "Slabs of stuff" (i.e.muscle) end up matching with "elegant legs," in a description of a unicorn which also involves the "leaking" of its moon-white radiance, which is quite a confabulation, but somehow much more exciting -- adventurous, for the reader -- than much of the rest of the descriptions, which are exact, perfectly chosen, but also -- expected. As well, count me amongst the readers who delight when an author is "absent-minded" enough to use words that are precise t…

Acknowledging all we have, and all whom we are supposed to admire, don't actually have, in "Blade Runner 2049"

Ryan Gosling is a replicant who is probably the most important police officer working for the order-that-be's police force. His job is to take out, to chase down and kill, the previous models of replicants, who are awry in the world in that they have been programmed with too much free will. As he goes about his business, probably for the fact that he could rip their arms off if he ever wanted to, people feel free to sneer at him for his non-human status but they don't dare touch him, so he more or less goes about the world as if he's got effective people repellent on him. That's on the streets. In the air, he's king, as he glides his vehicle through ample, uncrowded, city-scapes, like a drone providing us with Apple TV city vistas. And in the office, he reports direct to the police chief, who doesn't quite see him as human, doesn't see him as her level, but who clearly respects and likes him; takes more than a casual interest in him. And he never has to pre…

Conversation around Richard Brody's argument that Aronofsky is quite wrong concerning what his movie is about, at the New Yorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · September 21 at 12:18am Mother! has inspired a surprisingly divergent range of responses regarding the simplest questions of all—what it's about—and the most surprising of those responses are from Darren Aronofsky and Jennifer Lawrence themselves. I tried earlier today to get at why the interpretive variety strikes me as odd, why the director's and star's views strike me as odder, and where, in general, filmmakers' ideas about the meaning of their work fits into the movie-viewing experience: https://www.newyorker.com/…/darren-aronofsky-says-mother-is…