Beltmann

Seconded.

I finally got around to picking up De Nova by the Redwalls. I really like their sound.

Sheesh, if I don't love this movie I'm going to feel like a pariah.

One-upmanship has never sounded more appealing.

Pretty sure that was from a Woody Allen flick... maybe Crimes and Misdemeanors? Or maybe it was The Aristocrats. I dunno.

I haven't seen the trailer yet, but when they announced the project I was pleased to see the pedigree... I'd go see a Scorsese movie even if all I knew about it was that it was a Scorsese movie. EDIT: Just checked out the trailer. Looks like he maintained the main premise of the original, but amped it up considerably. Hopefully he also kept the psychological aspects (which, I'm guessing, was probably the appeal for him in the first place). Can't wait. If I remember right, your scene was on a subway, wasn't it?

I've got the DVD!!! (I actually really love Jackie Chan. I heard Chan and Jet Li are planning a movie together, so that's pretty rad.)

That's an American remake of the Hong Kong flick Infernal Affairs, which is really good. Have you seen it, SS?

I think there is a difference between those terms, but also that they are not mutually exclusive. But we've already been down this path a few times too many. Flick, I agree about U-Turn... definitely one of Stone's worst movies, in my opinion.

I'd guess that Oliver Stone is not a particularly strong marketing point for the flagwaving audience this movie courts. He's probably more of a liability. If his interviews are to be believed, they didn't tap him, he asked for the gig. Apparently he read and loved the script. The studio was hesitant at first, but he persuaded them he wasn't interested in veering from the script and into "Stone" mode. It definitely seems like an odd choice for him to make, but by all accounts he appears to have believed in this project as is. (Plus, I'm sure he recognized that after Alexander, such a fi

Sure, of course... which is why WTC got the greenlight instead of a more controversial take on the subject: The zeitgeist right now is only ready for a movie that takes few chances, which gives the studio the best chance at recuperating their investment and maybe turning a nice profit. I mean, you could argue that WTC pretty much turns a blind eye to the dire consequences that have resulted from the kind of rah-rah jingoism it celebrates. It's true that Hollywood financed JFK, but that kind of money isn't going into that kind of 9/11 film any time soon. After 30 years have passed, maybe the

Nice.

Certainly every filmmaker wants to make money--no one tries to lose money on a production--but especially when we step outside of Hollywood (which only represents a tiny fraction of the movies made around the globe), I think there's a relatively high percentage of filmmakers who actively strive to reconcile business realities with their desire to self-express. In many, many cases, I think art is at least on an equal footing with commercialism. I also think that big budgets are often the enemy of art--the more the financiers risk, the less chances a filmmaker gets to take. Allowing for exce

Wouldn't giving that glimpse qualify as one possible function of art? To me, narrative is a kind of art, especially when filtered through the POV of the filmmakers, since it carries their personal imprint of what this story ought to look, sound, and feel like. This same story told by another crew, led by another director, would probably be a very different movie.

Aw, do you need a hug, A-man? You know I'm here for you.

The primary system is essentially the way the two major parties hoodwink Americans into thinking we actually have real choice among candidates. Truth is, the major parties--in conspiracy with corporations and the media--anoint their two guys and we get to pick from that. And their choices are those that will guarantee their current stranglehold on real power. When the media can control the dialogue about a candidate (evidenced by the hatchet job on Howard Dean's last campaign), that's not democracy, it's mediocracy.

Well, I'm all for simplicity--I even love "We're Just Friends," which gets booed around here a lot--but I also really respond to abstraction, perhaps even more so. The lyrics to "I Am Trying To Break Your Heart" rank among my very favorite Tweedy lyrics ever, partially because the feelings they rouse in me are very real. Mainly, I just wouldn't call those lyrics any less "real" than any other kind.

It's related to how those scenes are used in relation to a tone or point-of-view. Content is neutral. In the case of World Trade Center, you could argue that Stone's decision to film the attack entirely from the POV of those first-responders on site--we never see the planes hit either building, for example--illuminates a specific point-of-view in an artful way. I'll let others decide whether he was successful, but to me his decision was at least valid and not exploitative.

So YHF and AGIB aren't real? EDIT: Just checked my shelf. They're still there. Whew.

For me, though, one of the most important functions of art is to deal with contemporary issues in a timely and relevant manner, so making these films now fulfills a necessary obligation of the artist. In my eyes, when artists shy away from such material they are neglecting a responsibility. For me, it is never too soon for artists to grapple with important events and their consequences. That said, I can totally understand and respect why many people would not want to deal with 9/11 at the movies yet. While World Trade Center was a little too conventional for my tastes, I'm also open to t

To the man trapped, it makes no difference. For a viewer like myself, who had hoped that Stone would use this event to pinpoint the political or metaphorical meanings behind the experience, it makes a world of difference. As you said, "Seems to me that's a theme that folks who weren't trapped beneath rubble on 9/11 would struggle with." That's it precisely--I'm one of those folks, and so are most of those in the audience. By refusing to place this event in a larger political or metaphorical context, Stone gives us only a fairly routine rescue movie, one that might have been set anywhere,