Comments for Screen Machine

Comment on Shutter Island by Paul Martin

Paul Martin — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:49:15 +0000

Jessie, for me, no it’s not. I don’t see the point of The Aviator, Gangs of New York, Departed or Shutter Island. They’re all competent films, in their own way. But they offer me no reason to go see them, other than Scorsese’s name attached to them.

Comment on Shutter Island by jessie

jessie — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:47:21 +0000

That’s a fair enough call, and is partly what I mean- I’m not a huge fan of any of his films. I don’t hate him or anything, I recognise his significance etc. I just see it the same way I see Neil Young, or Bruce Springsteen or Elvis Costello: yeah, they’re still making music, people are still buying it. It’s technically proficient. They know what they’re doing. I don’t resent it’s existence, but is it anything to write home about?

Comment on Shutter Island by Paul Martin

Paul Martin — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:48:17 +0000

Jessie, maybe we’re still waiting for Scorsese to make Taxi Driver Returns or Raging Bulls, Casino II, etc when he’s moved on to a different type of film. Maybe we don’t get his intentions, because we’re stuck on this idea of what he was about. I prefer the Scorsese of last millennium, but something tells me he’s gone and never coming back.

Comment on Shutter Island by jessie

jessie — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:15:50 +0000

Thanks- I needed that clarification! Interesting discussion.
I enjoyed the film for some the same reasons you did (minues the terrible Magic Eye hallucination sequences), found the story a bit stupid, but I think it’s important to note that plenty of audience members, far from being cranky- seem to enjoy the shell game and experience Shutter Island roughly as “high level M Night Shayalaman”. I feel like it has been marketed that way, received that way, and I wonder to what extent Scorsese is playing on that too. I also agree that, contrary to a few reviews I’ve heard/read, I doubt Scorsese set out to make a film with a crap story.

I also have to say- where’s the line? Where’s the cut off? How many stupid movies does someone have to make before we stop making excuses?
Just askin’.
Gangs of New York…The Departed…Shutter Island…
I’ll get me coat….

Comment on Shutter Island by Conall Cash

Conall Cash — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:35:25 +0000

I wonder where Shutter Island fits according to that Transformers/Inglourious Basterds dichotomy – somewhere in between, clearly enough. As James has illustrated, there’s a great deal of formal complexity, or at least formal daring in this film, as in anything by Scorsese; and there is a rather frustrating, unsatisfying narrative (at least for most of us). So you could say it has the formal daring of the Tarantino and the narrative messiness of Transformers (not that I’ve seen it, but just playing along). But I think an important point to make is that Scorsese and everyone else involved in the film clearly believe in the strength and the power of the story they are telling; whatever we may think, I think it’s clear that Scorsese cares intensely about these more traditional, dramatic/literary qualities like story and character, and believes that the particular formal devices he uses serve to support that story (though at the same time a great deal of pleasure is clearly taken in the homages to other films, the appeal to old-fashioned cinematic devices, etc).

Now, intentional fallacy and all, I’m not suggesting this is a problem for James’ argument or that Scorsese’s intentions necessarily matter for our appreciation of the film, but I think it’s worth noting that when making this distinction between the ‘boring,’ dramatic elements and the ‘fun,’ formal elements of a film, it is not a distinction that can ever entirely hold, both because filmmakers rarely conceive of these things as completely separate, and because films just don’t function that way as we watch them – the two are always enmeshed.

Comment on Shutter Island by Brad Nguyen

Brad Nguyen — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:42:07 +0000

I really like this review. For me, it’s easier to appreciate film on a purely formal level in a movie like this where narrative logic begins to fall apart, where the holes and disjunctures force you away from viewing the film in the literal way that most criticism advocates.
This is also the reason I can enjoy a film like “Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen” but have no tolerance for a film like “Inglourious Basterds” even though Tarantino obviously has a greater command of cinematic language; because Tarantino’s formal prowess is enmeshed in the extremely problematic philosophy that informs the narrative. (I know you love Inglourious Basterds James!) Transformers 2 is such a mess that, for me, it can be appreciated as a poetic series of disconnected and ridiculous imagery. And it was all the more pleasurable because of it!

Comment on Shutter Island by James Douglas

James Douglas — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:47:04 +0000

I hope not. I’m suggesting that people who dislike the film, even for what I feel to be valid reasons, might be missing some important things. The film still has a lot to recommend it, despite the obviously unsatisfying elements.

I also think that the things people aren’t noticing, or are disregarding, about the film illustrates a broader problem with film criticism and, to some extent, film viewership.

I’m not suggesting that everybody who dislikes the film is wrong, or stupid. I do set up a kind of straw man viewer in the article, and it is perfectly reasonable that people would dislike the film for reasons outside what I address in the piece.

So I think I’m saying all that. Only more aggressively.

Comment on Shutter Island by jessie

jessie — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 02:42:08 +0000

So, are you pretty much saying anyone who disagrees with you about this film is a moron?

Comment on Shutter Island by Paul Martin

Paul Martin — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:57:23 +0000

I was disappointed with the film, and enjoyed reading such a considered post that helps me to appreciate what I may have missed. If I see the film again one day, I’ll try to look at it from a different perspective.

Comment on A Single Man by jessie

jessie — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:45:57 +0000

No, I really think there is.
Baz Lurhmann may have had an idea of “what he wanted” but he would have had several cameras covering the dance scenes, with a range of different shot lengths to give maximum options to the editor in the final cut. He probably didn’t draw the story boards himself- that “act” being more in Catherine Martin’s team’s purview. Even the script writing was shared with someone else- which itself defines so much of a film before the director ever gets their hands on it.

I know what Conall meant, and I know he knows the difference. It was a semantic point to which you have both gloriously over reacted.

Re: Mad Men. I take your point about history. Your “film theory 101″ text book definition of Melodrama is limited. BUT I cease and desist. You officially have the last word on Mad Men Criticism. Pat yourself on the back, counsellor.