|
|
 |
Saffeau |
+ |
Tuesday, June 22, 2004 at 1:03 PM I just watched the DVD of Clint Eastwood's brilliant film Mystic River. I'm surprised Drew and Adam never talked about it on Loveline. It's quite profound on the subject of child sexual abuse: how it haunts the victim's entire life, how its subtle but traumatic effects get passed down to the next generation, how others react to the victims (not very nicely). Very powerful stuff. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
Agent 007 |
+ |
Tuesday, June 22, 2004 at 1:40 PM I'm almost positive they did talk about it. As I recall, Drew loved the movie. —Agent 007 |
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Tuesday, June 22, 2004 at 2:26 PM Yeah, remember? They talked about it -- "Mystic River" was the movie that Drew watched on the plane that had him crying like crazy. He told the story about how the flight attendants were freaked out by him. Adam said they were probably turned on by him showing his "sensitive side", but Drew insisted that he cried so much, it had to be a turn-off. "Mystic River" was also the movie that Drew thought people were calling "Mister Groover" before he actually saw it. —steve |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Tuesday, June 22, 2004 at 2:36 PM No, that was In America that Drew saw on the plane and made him cry like a baby. Are you pulling my leg, steve? —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
horndog |
+ |
Tuesday, June 22, 2004 at 3:13 PM Mystic River was boring. I figured out who did it in the first twenty minutes. Every character acted like an idiot. —horndog |
|
|
|
|
hick truck |
+ |
Tuesday, June 22, 2004 at 3:46 PM I think you missed the point of the movie. It wasn't a straightforward murder mystery. It was an exploration of the longterm effects of child abuse on the victims and the community. The whodunnit format was just a convenient framework for deeper issues. Tim Robbins and Sean Penn gave the best performances of their lives. —hick truck |
|
|
|
|
roadrage |
+ |
Tuesday, June 22, 2004 at 11:55 PM Steve may have described the wrong incident, however, I remember Drew briefly mentioning Mystic River. I remember, because I had not seen the movie nor heard many details about it. From the previews, I had wondered if sex abuse was part of the plot. Drew's comments about Mystic River confirmed my thinking. I don't remember the exact comment, but it was very brief, and only the one time. BTW, I still haven't seen the movie so please don't give too many details in this thread. —roadrage |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 1:51 AM Drew said it was an excellent portrayal of the repercussions of sexually abused children. He was particularly enamored with the Robbins character's references to werewolves and how a cycle is birthed. I thought the film was great. The real strength is in the way they illustrated the effects of child abduction and sexual abuse on generations. It isn't entirely perfect. But it is well done. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Saturday, June 26, 2004 at 2:01 PM Last night I saw another great movie about the long-term, generational effects of child abuse: Affliction (good title!) starring Nick Nolte, Willem Dafoe, and James Coburn. Bleak and grim and so tragic you want to weep, but absolutely true to life. I've known a few basket-cases like the Nolte character, utterly defeated and self-hating from all the years of bullying and beatings by a "hearty" sadistic father. A few of them took their own lives. Devastating stuff. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
Ogm |
+ |
Sunday, June 27, 2004 at 2:37 PM No, Sean Penn's best performance was in Fast Times at Ridgemont High. —Ogm |
|
|
|
|
dr ipod |
+ |
Sunday, June 27, 2004 at 3:18 PM Did he ever attack a reporter? In one Simpsons they do a mock ET and Sean Penn is attacking a camera man. I was wondering if it ever actually happened in his wilder tying up Madonna days. —dr ipod |
|
|
|
|
hick truck |
+ |
Sunday, June 27, 2004 at 4:55 PM Yeah, Penn did a month in jail for punching out a British photographer who tried to snap a picture of his then-wife Madonna. That was back in 1987 or thereabouts. —hick truck |
|
|
|
|
dr ipod |
+ |
Sunday, June 27, 2004 at 5:33 PM Interesting. I'll have to read up on that. My favorite paparazzi violence is the clip of Kid Rock wrestling with some guy and he tosses him into the busy PCH street and the guy is about 2ft from getting creamed by a speeding car passing by. It would've been real sad and all, but having it on tape and seeing the headline "Kid Rock Kills Papparazi by throwing him into traffic" would be a touch humorous. Plus Kid Rock would be in jail for at least two lifetimes. And he'd be more broke than me!!! —dr ipod |
|
|
|
|
Faygo |
+ |
Tuesday, June 29, 2004 at 2:26 PM this movie was slow and stale.there was really no point to it at all. clint eastwood sucks, very good performances though. —Faygo |
|
|
|
|
Trees Lounge |
+ |
Tuesday, June 29, 2004 at 3:18 PM WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS Mystic River is a misunderstood masterpiece. Almost every critic hailed the film as a modern Greek tragedy, but at its core it is really an opposite kind of tragedy. The protagonists of Greek tragedies were punished by the gods for the sin of hubris. Overweening pride and arrogance caused their downfall. The characters in Mystic River, however, especially Dave, are punished (and punished repeatedly) for being weak and lacking self-confidence. Worse, the punishment is passed down to the next generation of innocent children, through no fault of their own. Witness Dave's son, portrayed as a timid little stripling, exactly the type of child who gets picked on by everyone and victimized by pedophiles, who is left fatherless at the end, to be raised entirely by the weak, anxious, stupid Celeste, the only woman the ruinously victimized Dave could find for a mate. You just know that things are going to turn out badly for this child. His only sin was having Dave and Celeste for a father and mother. Mystic River is more accurately described as a Darwinian tragedy, much bleaker and far more pitiless than anything dreamed up by Aeschylus or Sophocles. If critics found any fault at all, it was in the coda that showed us Laura Linney's Lady Macbeth speech and the depressing little neighborhood parade. Most critics thought the film should have ended with that scene of Jimmy and Sean standing in the street, recalling their friend's abduction twenty-five years earlier. This would suggest that perhaps they sinned by not protecting their weak friend. But no. Eastwood's ending reinforces the film's pitiless Darwinian ethos: Jimmy's momentary guilt at murdering his innocent friend Dave is dispelled by his wife's passionate sociobiological sermon, so he can go back to being the dominant alpha male of the tribe; Celeste is left wandering lost and forlorn among the tribal gathering, shunned for being weak and stupid; and then these contemptible figures recede into ant-like insignificance as the camera moves away from this cruel spectacle and sinks into the river (a mystic river) that flows on forever heedless of human suffering. Fade to black. Such a cheery little movie. I'm surprised it did so well in tragedy-denying America. —Trees Lounge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 at 1:34 AM Welcome back, Trees. We missed you. It's good to have your insightful comments here. You make some very perceptive observations about the meaning of Eastwood's brilliant film and have opened up a whole new approach to it. You're right. It's like a Loveline Thomas Hardy. By the way, what's behind your moniker? I know it's a Steve Buscemi movie, but why did you choose that as your account name? —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
Trees Lounge |
+ |
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 at 7:00 AM Thank you, Saffeau. I chose the name Trees Lounge because it was the best film I ever had the privilege of working on. Steve is a hell of a nice guy, and smart as a whip. Everyone in the business will tell you that. The moniker is my little tribute to him. —Trees Lounge |
|
|
|
|
sprewell |
+ |
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 at 11:00 AM I haven't seen Mystic River but I highly doubt that Trees Lounge's review is accurate. No high-profile movie would get away with a theme like that. Although most viewers are too dense to grasp the point (or at least not articulate enough to be able to verbalize it, though they may unconsciously feel it), there are a few critics or social commentators who would have pointed out such supposedly stark darwinian themes. I have a feeling Trees is reading his own themes into the movie. On the other hand, I was surprised after watching Kill Bill Vol. 2 that it could receive the kind of critical hype that it did. It felt like the slow, establishing-scene refuse from the first movie had all been trimmed out and put in Vol. 2 in an explicit strategy to make money (ie release an action-filled intro that gets the popcorn audiences, then sucker them and everyone else into the theater for the remaining twaddle by promising them some character development). That critics almost universally praised the result proves that the Tarantino bandwagon has gotten so overstuffed that the momentum alone pulls everyone along. Eastwood gets a lower-grade version of this type of respect. btw, I enjoyed A Perfect World a lot. I wonder how it'll hold up to a second viewing. —sprewell |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 at 2:35 PM
Edited Wednesday, June 30, 2004 at 2:44 PM If you haven't seen the movie, you are in no position to pronounce on it. When you've seen the movie, then let us know if you think TL's analysis holds up and why it does or doesn't. As a matter of fact, TL's description of the last scenes is quite accurate (I went back to the DVD and checked) and his explanation is very plausible. It is unusual for such a cold, pitiless film to garner such widespread critical praise and some of that may be due to Eastwood's reputation (which is why TL noted that fact and expressed surprise at it). Some critics may be sucking up to a big Hollywood figure, others might be genuinely surprised that Eastwood could actually show some talent and courage as a director. Trees Lounge, how wonderful to be able to work with such talented people. I also like Buscemi's film. It was very truthful and funny (in a dark way). —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
Joy |
+ |
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 at 5:11 PM
Edited Wednesday, June 30, 2004 at 5:13 PM I love Steve Buscemi beyond all description. I have never met him, but a close friend of mine has, and by all accounts he is a tremendously good person. I never saw Mystic River---I will, eventually, because I like Tim Robbins' acting. I tried to read the book and couldn't get into it (and I am a reader---just didn't like the writing style.) I know it's about abuse and honestly, I am sick of abuse being the "big secret plot twist" in every book. But TL's post about the movie makes me want to see it right away. —Joy |
|
|
|
|
hick truck |
+ |
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 at 5:32 PM "Well, looks like we got ourselves a READER!" --Bill Hicks —hick truck |
|
|
|
|
hick truck |
+ |
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 at 6:04 PM Sprewell: If the film critics and social commentators are so fucking sharp and attuned to nuance, how come only Stephen Hunter of the Washington Post noticed that that stupid Tom Cruise movie "The Last Samurai" was proto-fascist? I mean, COME ON! A pro-Satsuma movie glorifying a bunch of aristocratic samurai who were attempting to maintain their feudal privileges by overthrowing a modernizing democratizing government? I don't think the director Edward Zwick meant to make a pro-warlord movie. He's just too fucking ignorant and dim to realize what he had created. To anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with Japanese political history, it was glaringly obvious. And yet NO ONE except Stephen Hunter noticed the obvious. So much for our vaunted intellectual media elite. —hick truck |
|
|
|
|
Trees Lounge |
+ |
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 at 8:56 PM Well spotted, hick truck! I too wondered at that Last Samurai idiocy. Zwick is a well-meaning fellow, but not the sharpest tool in the shed. I think the main problem is that Hollywood is filled with people who know a great deal about the technical and financial aspects of moviemaking, and very little about anything else, especially history or politics. That's why I choose to work mainly on the east coast, with independent directors. —Trees Lounge |
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 at 9:18 PM Wow Trees Lounge -- You worked on Trees Lounge! That's awesome -- offically one of my all time favourite movies. Ironically, a few months after I saw the movie, I ran into Chloe Sevigny at a Pavement concert. She was super cool -- and surprisingly tall -- I expected her to be like 5'5" or someting, but nope -- much taller. —steve |
|
|
|
|
Pan Pan |
+ |
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 at 11:24 PM Why is that ironic, steve? —Pan Pan |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 at 11:44 PM Critics are those people who write their personal taste in magazines and newspapers. I respect them like so much. Even more if they are on tv or the radio.
Kill Bill Volume 1 is all I've seen. The acting was this, the action was that. The picture quality was first class, no doubt. My brother kind of summed it up: Quentin Tarantino likes to write the worst possible lines he can then get really good actors and torture them by making them try to deliver the lines believably. I love David Carradine's cock.
How could anyone be surprised that Eastwood is a really cool director? Unforgiven came out ages ago and everyone saw it and liked it. Got some trophies like a soccer player.
I don't like Bill Hicks. He was such a dopey pussy.
Oh my god, a Tom Cruise movie is fascist! Oh my fucking god!
Pavement concerts would be big on rock music. Yuck. Much taller than 5'5? So Chloe Sevigny is 6'2, that's cool. Keen.
I've never ever seen Trees Lounge. It sounds and looks boring but if Steve Buscemi is all over it it might be cool. He was so awesome in Billy Madison and The Wedding Singer, and also Big Daddy. Who isn't awesome in Adam Sandler movies?
I'm dancing in mud wondering why my feet are dirty...I like mud but there's often sharp metal or deep holes, tetanus and sprained joints are awful. —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 at 11:45 PM See, I was right. Pan Pan suddenly seems butch and tough now that it is not referencing itself in the third person. —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
Pan Pan |
+ |
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 at 11:54 PM
Edited Wednesday, June 30, 2004 at 11:55 PM Sweetums, Pan Pan is like Saint Paul: All things to all men. Do you want a lover who is tender and yielding and simperingly girlish? Then Pan Pan is your man! Do you need a stern father figure to punish you for all your bad bad thoughts and dirty dirty deeds? Then Pan Pan is the Avenging Angel and the Wrath of God come to earth! Choose and enjoy, my little buttercup! —Pan Pan |
|
|
|
|
Persona #27 |
+ |
Thursday, July 1, 2004 at 12:41 AM Closeted Gayboy Tom Cruise making a pro-fascist movie, Pan Pan babbling about leather fetishes.... Somehow, this recent article seems germane to this thread:
—Persona #27 |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Thursday, July 1, 2004 at 1:35 AM
Edited Thursday, July 1, 2004 at 1:36 AM P27, that's a disturbing article for more than one reason. I'm aware that Johann Hari is a left-wing gay writer and I don't doubt he makes some valid points. But although a small subset of gay society might be attracted to the extreme macho militancy of fascism, the movement wasn't founded by gays (Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco were all straight as arrows) and most of its leaders and followers are drawn from straight society. Hari asks some valid questions, but he needs to be more careful about his speculative correlations and tentative conclusions. The last thing we need is people thinking gays are a bunch of masochistic fascists. hick truck, your analysis of The Last Samurai is deadly accurate. It explains what has been bothering me about that movie besides just the slick sentimentalism and the trite screenplay. You nailed it. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
hick truck |
+ |
Thursday, July 1, 2004 at 12:45 PM Interesting article about gay fascists. I wonder what Pan Pan has to say about the topic. More important, What Would Stephen Baldwin Do about it? —hick truck |
|
|
|
|