[redshifter]

dan, although i can tell you're not a big fan of spielberg or cruise, i think spielberg is a much better director than you give him credit for. you may disagree with his style, but he loves to make movies and it shows in his films.

i disagree with some of your views on kubrick. most of kubrick's films are shot through with dark humor, and are sexualized in a somewhat dehumanized way. "a clockwork orange" is perhaps his funniest film, although the humor is often not seen for the shocking violence in the story. the "portrait" of alex delarge in "a clockwork orange" is one of kubrick's most compelling and memorable characterizations. he took a character that should be the most repulsive animal masquerading as a human even filmed, and makes him at times almost sympathetic. and the "kubrick stare" that mcdowell gives the camera in the milk bar is perhaps kubrick's most well-known images.

as for "a.i.", the jude law character was supposed to be much more lewd, but was toned way down by spielberg's script. also, the "sin city" (i forget what it is called) was also supposed to be much more graphic, with enourmous phalluses for buildings and vaginal tunnels. again, toned down by spielberg. and considering kubrick's sly sense of humor, i would not have been surprised to have seen more black comedy than spielberg included.

 

[kelly]

I think Philip K. Dick's actual intention is to leave open endings. Was the ending real or just as hallucination? Dick doesn't want you to be able to answer that question absolutely, he wants you to question it because in this you question all things in reality. You're right to say that Total Recall does the same thing but I think Blade Runner (Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep) is an even better example. Is the main character an android with no expiration date and false memories or a real person? It it this sense of nihilism that make these works inspire the imagination. I disagreed with Ridley Scott (director of Blade Runner) when he said that the main character was an android. It was not Dick's intention to reveal whether this was true or not and I felt Scott betrayed both the original work and his film by giving his fans an easy answer.

 

[Duncan]

I agree Red,

It does seem a little strange that everything had that fairytale completenes at the end...

I've only seen it the once, so maybe I just missed it ~ but when Anderton got his eyes changed over, and was told that he'd go blind if he uncovered them before 12 hours were up...

When the spiders scanned the one eye, with there still being six hours left of his recoperation... what happened there?? where there any after affects, or was the crook that did the operation just pulling his leg to keep him in the apartment??

(also... major gross out when Anderton bit into the mouldy sandwich, and drank the mouldy milk... I nearly threw up!

)

 

[redshifter]

duncan,
"fairy-tale completeness"? absolutely! all that was missing was "and they lived happily ever-after". re: the eye transplant, well, anderton did take off the bandages over his eye for just a few seconds. i figure he had to risk it, even if he went blind. i'm sure if he'd taken the bandages completely off within a few minutes he probably would have lost his sight.

"mr" did have some of spielberg's best gross-out scenes. being a little kid in an adult body, he likes to put things in his films that appeal to the 9-year-old in all of us: "then he took the skull off and ATE THE MONKEY BRAINS!!!" "EWWWW!"

kelly,
you're absolutely right, dick had great distrust of identity and reality. his stories had less to do with nihilism, rather solipsism: the view that the self is the only reality. my favorite pkd stories about the sometimes tenuous nature of reality are "a maze of death", "radio free albemuth", and "i hope i shall arrive soon", the last being closest to my theory about "mr". "do androids..." and "imposter" are good examples of his distrust of the concept of identity.

pkd's take on reality can be summed up with his quote: "reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

 

[DLP]

Kelly, I was going to bring up Blade Runner myself, but you beat me to it. I really liked that story, but I felt that the movie didn't explore the character enough because it left out much that was in the original story.

Redshifter, my thought is that in Philip K Dick's stories where not only do we not know what is reality but the main character does not know, is that it's not about reality, it is about identity. I have not read many of his stories, but in Blade Runner, the question of identifying empathy and understanding human emotions and feelings is more about discovering what humanity is rather than discovering what reality is. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong.

 

[chadbang]

What would have AI been if Kubrick had directed it? That question will follow Kubrick fans to their grave (myself included) I believe I first heard rumors of his AI project at least 18 years ago (I forget now). It was to have been Kubricks first sci-fi film since "2001" (although "A Clockwork Orange" is also sci-fi, albeit the finest kind in my opinion - the kind where the "sci-fi" element is so downplayed that you forget your watching "the future". I think the original Fareheit 451 accomplished this, Alphaville (heh, heh. God I love that movie, so funny) and also "Solaris" (which is such a strange film - it bores you into its halucinegenic dream, perhaps why its envitable comparisons to "2001". Anyway, Kubrick not making AI is one of the great cinematic tragedies of all times. I think he would have brought that to the film. Making it play like Ibsen rather than Joel Silver. Quite frankly all the parts Spielberg wrote were quite bad (Kubrick almost had completely written out the film's beginning and end. Spielberg filled in the mid-section. And the action sequences (that horrific motorcycle chase and the poorly directed "Flesh Fair" are the film's weak points. (The older I get, the less "action" interests me. I felt the same about the jet pack chase and the Lexus factory chase in Minority Report. They're supposed to be the "exciting parts". To me, they're tedious and unnecessary and slow the film down. It's the story and characters that interest me, not some lamebrained stunts. Of course the kids...

Funny someone mentioned how the critic disliked "Eyes Wide Shut" because it didn't have the usual Kubrick feel. A friend of mine said the same thing. "It didn't even look like a Kubrick film. Where were the tracking shots?!" How strange people overlooked what a very good film it was because they didn't get what they had come to expect from Kubrick. Tennesse Williams said the the critics love you when they get to know your work and can write about your style, then if you try to change it - they turn on you. I think that was what happened to some people with "Eyes Wide Shut".

It's really hard to believe people calling Spielberg a "lousy filmmaker". He can be inconsistent, but come on.. "Jaws" "Close Encounters" "ET" "Raiders of the Lost Ark" "Schindler's List". A few nice efforts there! Because Scorcese made "The King of Comedy" "The Age of Innocence", "Cape Fear" and that latest one with Nicholas Cage as an ambulance driver (all fairly mediocre films) does anyone call him a lousy filmmaker. I think Fellini made a couple films that reeked, but that doesn't knock him from the pantheon of "greatness" and I think Spielberg (far more so than some hack like Frank Capra) deserves a ranking among the best.

Personally, I feel from a purely filmic viewpoint that "Schindler's List" is right up there with "Citizen Kane" as being a "perfect film". Acting, direction, editing. The whole thing is ****ing brilliant! I never get tired of watching that film. It's seamless. I think that is his masterpiece. (although Jaws is a classic "movie". Funny story, here in Thailand they sometimes do cheap language dubbings of movies, really bad jobs where the soundtrack and music drops out and three guys in a room play all the parts. Well, and it's a crime, they gave "Jaws" that cheap treatment. But the really crime is, when it came to Quint's monologue about being onboard the USS Indianapolis (that monologue was written by John Milius of "Apocolyse Now" fame, BTW), the dubbers must have thought all that excessive "talk" was too much and they cut out the entire scene! I couldn't believe it!!

 

[DanG]

Quote:

Originally posted by redshifter dan, although i can tell you're not a big fan of spielberg or cruise, i think spielberg is a much better director than you give him credit for. you may disagree with his style, but he loves to make movies and it shows in his films.

I don't think I can agree or disagree with anyone's style. It's just that whatever Spielberg's style is, it is rarely successful at giving a movie any depth. I loved the Indy Jones movie, and I just watched "Catch Me If You Can" tonight and thought that was a fun movie too. Clearly Spielberg loves to make films; he doesn't make any more money by directing his movies as he produces and executive produces all of them already -- he just enjoys doing it. But that doesn't mean he's good at it, though I would certainly say he's proficient.

Quote:

redshifter says i disagree with some of your views on kubrick. most of kubrick's films are shot through with dark humor, and are sexualized in a somewhat dehumanized way. ...as for "a.i.", the jude law character was supposed to be much more lewd, but was toned way down by spielberg's script. also, the "sin city" (i forget what it is called) was also supposed to be much more graphic, with enourmous phalluses for buildings and vaginal tunnels. again, toned down by spielberg. and considering kubrick's sly sense of humor, i would not have been surprised to have seen more black comedy than spielberg included.

Now that I think of it, I think you're right. But I personally found Clockwork Orange to be Kubrick's weakest movie (aside from perhaps the second half of Full Metal Jacket). Maybe it's because he put too much humor into the movie, too much of the super-phallic stuff. This was one case where I enjoyed the book a whole lot more than the movie -- there's no way Kubrick could really convey the violence and the horror of the book in his movie.

In AI I think it over-the-top humor might have detracted from the point, which is to focus on the boy. Obviously it's important that both of the robots that cling to David (first the nanny, then Law) are also made to love (one in a motherly way, the other in a sexual way). So maybe if the sin-city were more of a sex city (it was only clear in AI that it was a decadent city) it would again add to the image of different kinds of love, but I doubt it would have been of much use.

 

[jlo mein]

Quote:

Originally posted by redshifter did anyone else think that george lucas ripped off the lexus assembly line scene from "minority report" in his "attack of the clones" assembly line scene? lucas even ripped off the scene where the hero gets his arm stamped under a metal part.

Not trying to act like a know it all or anything, and no offense to redshifter, but i don't think thats true.

As andrzejpw said, these were released the same season, Ep II in may, MR in june. These both would have been in production at the same time. I'm not sure how long it took MR to produce, but i'm sure its around 2-3 years, and ep II took 3 years.

 

[chadbang]

"I think Philip K. Dick's actual intention is to leave open endings. Was the ending real or just as hallucination? Dick doesn't want you to be able to answer that question absolutely, he wants you to question it because in this you question all things in reality. You're right to say that Total Recall does the same thing but I think Blade Runner (Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep) is an even better example. Is the main character an android with no expiration date and false memories or a real person? "

I still don't see where people are drawing these assumptions from. Where in Blade Runner is there even the hint that Harrison Ford's character is an android? And in Minority Report, the point is never raised: "Is it real or a hallucination" How can you ask an audience to ponder a question, if you never raise the question? This sounds too much like a posting on the "Sci-Fi channels' website by a stoned 18 year old whose had a "revelation". And again, writers write to achieve and "effect" (okay, go back to your American Lit 101 Class and read E.A. Poe's theories). You can't have create an effect or get your point across WITHOUT clueing in the reader at some point. I'm sorry, Philip K. Dick was an okay writer, but he wasn't working at the level of a James Joyce. These guys weren't crafting complex allegories, they wrote short stories for cheap magazines with aliens dissecting buxom blondes on the covers.

I worked in Hollywood for six years and for a year of that I worked for Michael Phillips who produced "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (in additon to "The Sting" and "Taxi Driver"). I had a friend who insisted for years that Richard Dreyfus was transformed into an alien at the end of the special edition of "CE". He bugged me to ask Michael if that was true. Like a dope I finally consented and when I asked Michael, he looked perplexed and a bit uncomfortable. He said: "Oh, no. No he didn't. There must have been some problem with the way that scene was done if he didn't understand that." I felt bad because Michael felt hurt like he screwed up or something making things clear. My point is, these movies are made for mass audiences and to tell their stories clearly. They don't hide their message and intentions. The worst sin you can do is make something hard to understand. You go through a zillion story meeting to make sure everything is clear and logical (someone was right. That eye scan and the "set up" of not removing the bandages "you'll go blind" was a ****-up along the way. Down the road you'll find out something was cut).

Foreign art films can leave things vague and misty for effect, hollywood films do not. The rest is mental masturbation by viewers looking for more than is there. No offense.

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by chadbang "I think Philip K. Dick's actual intention is to leave open endings. Was the ending real or just as hallucination? Dick doesn't want you to be able to answer that question absolutely, he wants you to question it because in this you question all things in reality. You're right to say that Total Recall does the same thing but I think Blade Runner (Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep) is an even better example. Is the main character an android with no expiration date and false memories or a real person? " I still don't see where people are drawing these assumptions from. Where in Blade Runner is there even the hint that Harrison Ford's character is an android? And in Minority Report, the point is never raised: "Is it real or a hallucination" How can you ask an audience to ponder a question, if you never raise the question? This sounds too much like a posting on the "Sci-Fi channels' website by a stoned 18 year old whose had a "revelation". And again, writers write to achieve and "effect" (okay, go back to your American Lit 101 Class and read E.A. Poe's theories). You can't have create an effect or get your point across WITHOUT clueing in the reader at some point. I'm sorry, Philip K. Dick was an okay writer, but he wasn't working at the level of a James Joyce. These guys weren't crafting complex allegories, they wrote short stories for cheap magazines with aliens dissecting buxom blondes on the covers. I worked in Hollywood for six years...

You have to love Hollywood people.

Here's a good summary of the Deckard is a Replicant angle.
http://www.brmovie.com/FAQs/BR_FAQ_Deck-a-Rep.htm

 

[chadbang]

I'm missing the defense the owner of the website is putting up. I quote from the page.


"Even the director coming forward and stating Deckard is a replicant (which he has done on several occasions) has done little to stop the ongoing debate. As he plays with our memories and questions what is real during the movie, some see the wicked gleam in his eyes when he makes the statement as indicating that he knows it will make no difference to the debate. In a 1982 interview, Scott says things like, "the central character could in fact be what he is chasing", "The innuendo is still there" and "I think it's interesting that he could be." All these suggest that the original intent was to get the audience to ask the question, but not necessarily to confirm it either way.

Either way, here are some of the facts...

Director Ridley Scott wanted the audience to find out that Deckard is (or, at the very least, might be) a replicant himself. (In Dick's original book the possibility was hinted at, but Deckard was eventually tested and was human.) However, it was a passage in an early version of the script that gave Scott the idea, even though this "We were brothers, Roy Batty and I!" passage was intended to be metaphorical, not literal.) This is still hinted at when Roy grabs Deckard as he's about to fall and says "Kinship!"

To this end, he put a few "clues" in the film.

The 2 most important ones are the following:

1. The unicorn "dream", coupled with the origami unicorn, was meant to strongly "suggest" (at the very least) that Gaff knows Deckard's memories, like Deckard knew Rachael's, by having looked at her files, evidently containing detailed information about her memory implants...

2. In one scene, you can see Deckard's eyes glow briefly, in a similar way to the replicants' eyes."


Oh wow.
I'm, like totally convinced, man.

A). In Dick's book Deckard is proven not to be an android. Okay. The author's intent was NOT to leave the possibility open.
B). When an artist (Scott) says something to the effect: "I think it's interesting that he could be." that's a polite way of saying, "whatever you say, man."
C.) His eye's glowed! Your honor, I rest my case! (er, can you say aberation, Johnny. Blade Runner was famous for layering film stocks to achieve its gritty look).

High school students shouldn't really try to write a thesis. At least wait till you're in college (a few years).

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

I'm sorry, Philip K. Dick was an okay writer, but he wasn't working at the level of a James Joyce.

i don't know. i've read portrait of an artist as a young man, and it's no valis.

 

[chadbang]

On the whole, I rather be reading James ELLROY.

 

[grinch]

Quote:

Originally posted by DanG If you want to attempt an exegesis of anything written/directed/produced by Spielberg, think of the explanation that would allow the most melodrama, forced emotion, and string-pulling and you'll hit the nail straight on the head. After watching Spielberg ruin a Kubrick movie (AI) recently, I've just lost all patience with the guy!

you forgot "would make the most money." i hate how hollywood's concept of making a great movie nowadays is throwing a ****load of money at it and saying "here! this movie can't possible be bad, we spent $100 million making it!"

i gave up on spielberg after sitting in the theatre for three hours watching a.i. talk about pathetic. kubrick is rolling his grave everytime that damn film is watched. the only thing i liked about it was the teddy bear, and at least that person kid stepped up his acting a bit from his other atrocious movies.

i watched minority report tonight because somebody bought it for somebody else in the family for christmas (my family has horrendous taste in movies, last week it was "sum of all fears") and it was okay. the only thing it had going for it was the fact that for a change, the plot was somehow decent (thanks mr. dick). all of the dream sequences of the precogs felt so poorly dark, and dream-like. when i see a scene like that, all i can think of is how much better it would look if david fincher would've done it. overall, the movie was better than i expected it to be, but it wasn't that great. i certainly won't buying it and wouldn't recommend anybody to.

i think i'd rather watch pulp fiction for the 8923879432th time instead.

on kubrick: i agree that the second half of full metal jacket drags a bit, but it's tough to beat the boot camp stuff. it's like he did too good a job making gomer pyle a main character, and then when it switches 100% to the other guy it just feels wrong.

i also agree that "a clockwork orange" is a bit over the top in the phallicisms and other things, but i feel it was part of attempting to overdose the audience with extremes. i generally consider it to be the best movie version of a book ever, although i think high fidelity is really good too (but that's a whole different kind of thing). this probably has something to do with how it became one of my favorite movies for years, before i took the chance to read the book. the final chapter is certainly a cool twist. although, i swear there are few better-delivered lines than when in the beginning and alex sticks the old guy in the stomach with the cain and says,

"ooooh? and what's so STINK-IN' about 'tit?"

i ****ing LOVE it.

i think pretty much all of kubrick's films have a dark-angle to them compared to "normal" movies. i'm not sure if this has to due with sense of humor or sexuality though, but moreso with perhaps kubrick's outlook on life or his feeling on how films should be made. i just think it's sick bastards like me who find that subject matter utterly hysterical.

redshifter: dick might've meant some sort of open ending, but i highly doubt it ever entered spielberg's money-grubbing mind. if you want to talk about "mulholland drive" though, that's where i'll be interested in some discussion.

 

[chadbang]

Grinch,
If you watch the "bonus" material section, you'll see that the pre-cog visions were created for Spielberg by the same two guys who did the title sequence for David Fincher's "Seven"!


"Redshifter: dick might've meant some sort of open ending, but i highly doubt it ever entered spielberg's money-grubbing mind."

Exactly, though I don't think "money-grubbing" is the motivation, I think it simply pandering to the good ole Hollywood "happy ending". Personally I would have gone for the "Brazil" ending. But then people would just say: "Spielberg ripped off 'Brazil'!" Every plot twist, surprise and idea has been done so many times, you can't win.

"Mullholland Falls"? - unfortunately I felt it was a mediocre rip-off of "Lost Highway" (same eternal reoccurance theme). I had such high expectations for that movie and then I was really disappointed. Later, I wasn't suprised to learn that Lynch shot it as a pilot for a tv series that never came to fruition, then shot some more footage to release it as a film.

There were one or two classic Lynchian moment (loved the "cappuccino " bit) but I think its worst failing was that there were no standout performances - think Willem Dafoe in "Wild at Heart" Robert Blake in "Lost Highway". Dennis Hopper in "Blue Velvet"!!!! I don't think "Mulholland Falls" had the same kind of amazing performance in it that helped propel those films to classic status.

But as far as interpretation goes, I felt that "Mulholland Falls" was mostly a lot of "sound and fury".