Rez
Sidekick
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 2,073
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I've posted at length about it in other threads and don't want to go around repeating my level of apathy about most of these films like a broken record
But I will say, that, on the whole- you can match up these films and this year with the films of each respective former year and they just don't at all hold up. It's not that all of these films you're talking about are bad, it's just that they aren't that good. Just elaborating on the 2 films I already mentioned- American Gangster? What is so grand about this film? It's three hours long, it has some nice production values and decent acting. The script though is all over the place, stuffed to the brim with too many characters that get no characterization. Even with a better script, it doesn't change the fact that it's nothing more than The Wire put to the big screen. I like to see films nominated and win that try new things, that really up the bar. Last year, you can see this all over the place. Like you said, Children of Men. You can't put a description on a movie like that. It's not "Mad Max saves a baby" or "Blade Runner for the new millenium." Any time it's easier to describe a film with references to other films(or in this case, tv shows), I just don't think there's much we should be awarding it for. Because it's already been done, and if any film should have gotten awards for it- it's the one that did it first. And American Gangster... it's just The Wire on the big screen. Literally.
And 3:10? Forgettable shlock. Sure, a decent way to kill a couple hours, but nothing amazing. The one thing the movie had going for it- the "complexity" of it's two main characters, seems extremely forced and just overall poorly written. For example, we're told Crowe is supposed to be some supremely evil badass. But he's not. Time after time he's shown not killing someone, not doing something evil when he could. And yet a whole group of crazed killers respect him.... why again, exactly? It would be one thing if he was just a misunderstood "bad" guy, but the fact that he has a whole posse of trained killers that respect the hell out of him attempts to suggest otherwise. Yet, the entire movie we know he's just another one of the good guys. Sure, he kills off some of the "good", but only after we're shown that they are just a bunch of scumbags. The scene near the end where he finally "decides" to help Bale get him to his death on the train is rediculous- because the speech Bale gives him is rediculous. It isn't emotional, it isn't powerful, hell, it barely makes sense. But because the music swells up and they give eachother a look, we're supposed to buy that he changes his mind and helps shoot his way to the train. I could tear this film apart piece by piece, but I'll just save myself some time and sum it up with: Luke Wilson. Wtf?
Ignore the rest of this, its for school:
My name is Dan Suarez, and I’m here to talk to all of you about Chivalry.
The Question is, is Chivalry Dead?
The answer is no, it’s just shot and bleeding out slowly on the side of the road.
Remember that Mel Gibson movie from a few years ago called What Women Want? I know I don’t, but the title alone makes me laugh. How could they make a movie about a man knowing what women want when women don’t even know themselves?
I’m conflicted. On one hand, there is the way of chivalry. The other, equality. The problem is that all I keep hearing is women asking for both. Unfortunately, they are the exact opposite. Chivalry asks for special treatment, equality obviously does not.
Should women be treated specifically? If my answer were to be aligned with all my other views, it would be no. But what about manners? I find myself naturally inclined to give extra sensabilities to women. I might offer my coat to a lady who’s cold, but how would a man react to such an offer? Probably not too well. He might think I’m pitching for the catcher, if you know what I mean.
The modern interpretation of chivalry (which is actually a meshing of medievil ideals of chivalry and courtly love) deals with men’s ettiquette and politeness towards women. Part of the reason we’ve seen a decline in this behavior is because American socitey in general is moving away from the traditional/old-fashioned forms of ettiquette and politeness. Manners just aren’t held to be as important as they once were, and so less and less men are raised to treat women in a chivalrous way.
Chivalry is also caught up in sex and courtship. Another reason for the decline in modern chivalry is the “nice-guys-finish-last” mentality that I know a lot of men subscribe to. The common complaint of “why do the jerks get all the guys?” makes a lot of the nicer guys jaded towards what they know to be the correct way to treat ladies. To be blunt, if you ain’t getting laid or loved, what’s the point?
I hold the door for everyone. If my friend was cold, I’d give them my coat regardless of gender. But then again, they know me well enough(hopefully) to understand that I’m not making a pass at them. When I’m out to dinner with a girl, I’ll offer to pick up the check, but won’t be offended if she wanted to go Dutch, and I wouldn’t be dissapointed if she didn’t offer to pay. The politeness and courtship of chivalry don’t demean or belittle anyone, they formalize and enhance the way we interact.
So it comes down to a choice: chivalry vs. equality.
The first choice is a lot more romantic and adds some magic to life for those who embrace it. It also robs women of a little dignity, I think. It’s almost demeaning to think that women would need your damn coat, anyway.
The second view is a dull, but more realistic and fair. If I were historically a second class citizen (and I’m trying to avoid writing “If I were a woman...”
, I would sure want to be seen on a level equal to those around me.One thing’s for sure, having both chivalry and equality in play warps the social dynamic, and is no way to run a railroad. Getting off the fence and picking one way or the other is the only way to go.
t:
