Slashdot Mirror
Holiday Movie Thread
"Ripley" could have been a few minutes shorter, but about the only negative thing to say about it is that you might get depressed that you don't live in Italy.
Any Given Sunday "Any Given Sunday" is Oliver Stone's take on the NFL as well as on media and culture (his twin obsessions). Through his eyes and perspective, this is much more than a sports movie, but a blunt look at race, celebrity, money and the high-cost gladiator mentality present in athletes, (and many Slashdot posters).Stone is watching too much MTV. Too many ominous clouds are moving, and it sometimes seems as if even drunken fans are having sepia-toned flashbacks. Robbie Robertson's soundtrack is outstanding, but mournful Native-American chanting doesn't always mesh with pro football.
Still, this film strikes home on several levels. It presents a blunt look at how race permeates football, and how an increasingly corporatized sports culture has overpowered ethics, sanity and tradition, putting almost unbelievable pressure on the participants - owners, coaches and players alike.
There are few heroes or villains here, something of a step forward for Stone, who is definitely your most-issues-are-black-and-white kind of director.
Al Pacino plays an aging coach whose young new owner - played by Cameron Diaz - doubts his will to win. He can't communicate with his star quarterback, who is black. Obnoxious, blow-hard ESPN-inspired reporters drive him nuts.
By Oliver Stone standards, this is an almost gentle movie about money and sacrifice. Some of the camera work is amazing, and "Any Given Sunday" is cinematically dazzling at conveying the banging and crunching of pro football, something that doesn't come through nearly as well on TV.
Those are my opinions. Jump on in.
(Holiday Movies, Round Two: Magnolias, Man On The Moon, Cradle Will Rock - coming soon.)
Hmmm...this is a good opportunity to bring up something that's been nagging me for a few months now. Jon Katz tries really hard to be subversive and underground and never misses an opportunity to demonstrate how some subculture will triumph over the corporate masses. He rah-rahs Linux, never misses a swipe as Microsoft, immortalizes lifeless geeks and DVD crackers...well, you get the idea.
What's odd in that light, though, is that he repeatedly talks about mass market, mass culture films as if they're some sort of inside secret that he's privy too. He tried to pin down The Matrix as some sort of little known art film that only hardcore geeks would seek out, for example. And while I enjoy film criticism, it doesn't work when coming from Mr. Katz. It's like listening to a zen buddhist go on about the joys of Wal-Mart.
And this same "Ripley" novel was made into a film once before -- in 1960, it was released as "Purple Noon," a French-Italian thriller starring Alain Delon and directed by Rene Clement.
Hope this helps.
Mr. Katz has one advantage over all those other writers: he has the power to publish immediately. Apparently there is no editorial review, or if there is, it's amateur.
I'm not a Katz basher; I've enjoyed almost all his previous columns. It bothers me that I have to become a Katz nay-sayer. But I have to say it; after this second batch of reviews, and pending the third batch, these review columns are inappropriate and unnecessary.
They detract from Slashdot's strengths, fail to give any insight, and draw large amounts of flamage. I would probably even excuse it all if they served to build community, but they do not.
At the very least, create another topic for these sorts of things so that advanced users can skip them. I do want to read about things like Toy Story and digital projection systems, so I don't want to skip the "movies" category. Maybe there should be a topic called "off-topic" or perhaps "diversions", specifically not relating to News for Nerds?
> The most clear evidence for me is the way his
> articles tend to ramble on and on and on. It's
> as if there was no thought of how to make the
> writing more concise, which would help
> illustrate his point to the reader much
> more effectively.
Which is one of the reasons I like katz.
However...I like it because _I_ ramble on
once Igat on a subject. I don't know if katz is
like me or not, but I have no concept of how to
recognize how to make things more concise.
I just naturally ramble. Its how my thought
processes work.
I supose its why I tend to draw discussions off
topic, because my mind tends to wander and draw
connections from one thing to another. I enjoy
conversations that do the same, it fits well in
with my line of thinking.
I realize now, that if one were to look back at
all of my posts and discussions, I tend to harp
on back to my own pet peves and interests. At the
time it seems perfectly natural, its only in
hindsight that its noticable.
> he just turns the story around 180 degrees and
> stereotypes the players from his perspective. I
> doubt he's dumb, so he's got to realize that
> he's doing this
Stereotyping is very hard to avoid. It is, IMHO,
a product of the way humans naturally organize
information. It is very easy to stereotype without
realizing you are doing it. In fact it is often
hard to have a meaningful discsussion (esp a
discussion about things relating to society and
people) without some small level of stereotyping.
However stereotypes do often hold at least some
nugget of truth in them. Afterall, they are based
on patterns that people experiance (the human
mind is a very good pattern matcher)
let me take an example from my experiance:
I was once visiting a cousin of mine way out in
"Hicksville". We met up with a friend of his who
goes by the name "Zep". It was decided that we
would all go out for a drive to get some beer.
When we pulled up to the liquer store, zep saw
some black fellows in the store. He made some
remark about niggers to us, then he went inside to
get the beer.
On the way back, he expounded on his ideas about
"Niggers" and he made a statement that was really
quite interesting, almost insightful (playing on
my own stereotype I have the urge to qualify that
by saying "for a redneck"). He said:
"I don't dislike blacks in general. Hell I have
had some black friends. One on one they are fine.
However when they are in groups, they change.
their whole attitude towards you changes when they
are with other blacks. Thats when they are
niggers"
It touches upon something interesting. People in
groups act differntly. People in groups of others
who are percieved as in some way "alike" tend to
act differntly towards others who are not alike in
that way.
People naturally take on differnt personality
characteristics in differnt situations. As such
many stereotypes do have some validity to them.
They are basically an exxageration (sometimes
slight, sometimes great) of an observed pattern.
In a way it seems that stereotypes are
self-perpetuating, as people are products of
society in many ways, and as such act in the ways
they feel they are expected or suposed to act.
In any case I just mean to show that just because
something is a stereotype doesn't mean it is
useless. However, yes, it is good to be aware
when we are using them and that we should not
expect any individual from a group to act
wholly like the stereotype.
hmmm see...I said I ramble.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"