tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post7999910543936843294..comments2024-03-25T21:14:21.671-04:00Comments on Listen Eggroll: My top 101 films of the decade.md'ahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06055853987416332662noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-87137833043913077342010-01-22T09:42:29.575-05:002010-01-22T09:42:29.575-05:00Will you not be tweeting/blogging about those rece...Will you not be tweeting/blogging about those recent repeat viewings of older films? I'm curious to know why your opinion of Bug's Life lowered so much.Atli Sighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09542195031294304732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-87702672712964671422010-01-07T13:35:25.711-05:002010-01-07T13:35:25.711-05:00I must have missed this somewheres: What was the f...I must have missed this somewheres: What was the film you realized you'd left out, Mike?BTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-35162863730499262432010-01-05T16:08:11.038-05:002010-01-05T16:08:11.038-05:00Continuing Mike's "lol bud" post, ju...Continuing Mike's "lol bud" post, just imagine that, instead of matter duplication, it was any other now-mundane 20th century technology. Let's say he invented the transistor radio. Such a film would bore us because, even though it's science fiction to the characters, it's science fact to us. Priest and Nolan's trick is keep it "science fiction" for us while requiring us to demystify it.<br /><br />Granted, it would be hard to come up with a trick based around transistor radios that has the same awesome moral weight as Angier's cloning/drowning apparatus, but it's perfectly reasonable in the story world to think that Angier would capitalize on the tech simply to outdo Borden rather than become a technology magnate.<br /><br />Mike, thanks for the great list; it's time for me to get my Netflix account.Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16944875991712695886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-59837732054360958712010-01-04T13:37:25.971-05:002010-01-04T13:37:25.971-05:00Maybe I can get you the '90s in five years...
...<i>Maybe I can get you the '90s in five years...</i><br /><br />That's cool; I can wait.<br /><br />In the meantime, I don't suppose there's any chance you'd want to at least share your Best-of-the-90s Skandies ballot...?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-58042823864684955632010-01-04T04:25:21.971-05:002010-01-04T04:25:21.971-05:00Came here via /Film. A lot of agreement on my part...Came here via /Film. A lot of agreement on my part, as well as a hell of a lot of stuff I need to check out. The very best kind of list.BenVhttp://controlex.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-31713056635222861082010-01-03T18:16:02.517-05:002010-01-03T18:16:02.517-05:00No 140 character summary for #69?
It precedes the...<i>No 140 character summary for #69?</i><br /><br />It precedes the entry rather than follows it. Really just an acknowledgment that it's the consensus choice for the Coens' masterpiece of this decade; I have two of their films ranked higher so including <i>No Country</i> as well felt oddly grudging.md'ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06055853987416332662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-250769128900424952010-01-03T17:36:42.947-05:002010-01-03T17:36:42.947-05:00No 140 character summary for #69?
As end-of lists...No 140 character summary for #69?<br /><br />As end-of lists go, this one is pretty good. I've seen roughly half of them. My Netflix list just grew a whole bunch.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-80694112301576355062010-01-03T17:19:31.950-05:002010-01-03T17:19:31.950-05:00"I don't know, I be more amazed by seeing..."I don't know, I be more amazed by seeing and knowing an actual matter cloning device that worked than a simple magic trick."<br /><br />Well yes... and I suppose that's sort of Victor's point (although not really much of a counterargument against Mike's). A sceptic in the audience might believe it's Angier who 'simply' has a twin brother.Farmboynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-38509171718020270672010-01-03T10:43:45.734-05:002010-01-03T10:43:45.734-05:00I don't know, I be more amazed by seeing and k...I don't know, I be more amazed by seeing and knowing an actual matter cloning device that worked than a simple magic trick.Bergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09213260380203964632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-62484148032556060582010-01-03T09:24:02.552-05:002010-01-03T09:24:02.552-05:00I'm with Mike on PRESTIGE. Of course the film ...I'm with Mike on PRESTIGE. Of course the film is to some extent about the two different approaches to The Transported Man. But the difference clearly isn't that Jackman's approach is in some way supernatural, or immaterial. On the contrary, the film goes to great lengths to posit it as rooted in science. I'm sure the famed Arthur C. Clarke quote about science and magic sprang to most minds here. <br /><br />Were the point of the film that 'real magic' existed, then Jackman's quest might have ended in him discovering that Bale actually, inexplicably, teleported himself (or he simply would never have found out how he did it, thus somewhat more subtly/elegantly implying that he somehow wielded true magic). On the contrary, every trick in the film has an ultimately mundane - if, in the case of Jackman's Transported Man, science-fiction - explanation that is expressly hidden from the audience - because they want to believe that magic exists. <br /><br />This is also why you can't possibly maintain that the Baurdrillardian "All reality is, in a sense, an illusion" is anywhere close to the film's main theme. I've always thought of Nolan as more of a radical Modernist than a post-modernist anyway: Memento's theme, too, is more about taking epistemological queries to such extremes that they may fracture/call into question the nature of identity, but stops short of doing the same to reality itself. To simplify: worlds may collide, but in the end they are little more than different interpretations of the same consistent reality. <br /><br />As Mike says, if Jackman's version of Transported Man constituted 'real magic', he wouldn't need to dress it up in any way. He could simply state "Look folks, this machine and what it does to me... it's actual, real, man-made magic!" (And yes, in the Arthur Clarke sense, he'd be kind of right).Farmboynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-8241055563286015642010-01-03T07:34:29.477-05:002010-01-03T07:34:29.477-05:00I cheered when I saw Kairo(Pulse) so high, I usual...I cheered when I saw Kairo(Pulse) so high, I usually have to defend myself when I list it as one of the best films of all time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-23954221851274425122010-01-03T03:25:56.334-05:002010-01-03T03:25:56.334-05:00At least this list didn't include Juno.At least this list didn't include Juno.TheMusketeerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08728635926765385069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-31297107622920260892010-01-03T02:16:48.717-05:002010-01-03T02:16:48.717-05:00Of course you realize that now people will start p...<i>Of course you realize that now people will start pestering you to tweet Top 100 lists for previous decades.</i><br /><br />That would entail rewatching a whole lotta films. I was only able to do this list because I started using the retarded 100-point system in mid-2002. Maybe I can get you the '90s in five years...md'ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06055853987416332662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-815964578309529912010-01-03T01:52:04.152-05:002010-01-03T01:52:04.152-05:00Of course you realize that now people will start p...Of course you realize that now people will start pestering you to tweet Top 100 lists for previous decades.<br /><br />This comment being first instance of said pestering.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-84602659391635880942010-01-03T01:00:18.558-05:002010-01-03T01:00:18.558-05:00To the extent you insist on this understanding, it...<i>To the extent you insist on this understanding, it weakens THE PRESTIGE as a work of art, because the film then would have cheated by introducing, while blessing via science, something impossible according to science.</i><br /><br />Lol bud. Cheated? A movie does not constitute a scientific theorem. Obviously it doesn't <i>prove</i> anything; that's just what the film is <i>about</i>. The fact that Tesla's machine is (currently) not something science can achieve is irrelevant—in the world of this film, that machine was created, very explicitly, by a scientist. It clearly does not represent anything supernatural. In fact the theater owner, after being awed, tells Angier that he'll have to "dress it up...give them reason to doubt it," i.e. create the illusion that it's an illusion. (That line makes zero sense otherwise.)md'ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06055853987416332662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-63499478086132573172010-01-03T00:20:37.041-05:002010-01-03T00:20:37.041-05:00Part II
"The audience knows the truth: The w...Part II<br /><br /><i>"The audience knows the truth: The world is simple. And miserable. Solid all the way through. But if you could fool them, even for a second...then you can make them wonder." No matter what your personal beliefs, I really don't see how you can interpret this climactic speech as anything other than what I said</i><br /><br />Simply that Tesla's machine is impossible if the world is solid all the way through.<br /><br />Keep in mind also Tesla's note to Jackman, which seems just as plausible a thesis statement (on the down side, it's not a main character's dying words; on the up side, Tesla hasn't driven himself mad like the two magicians). Paraphrasing, he says, "in science the extraordinary is simply not allowed" (indeed, his science is crushed by a lynch mob, not a scholarly paper) "but in the field of entertainment, it is." He also advises de-facto that science be restricted on moral grounds -- that his machine be destroyed because it will bring only misery. A prediction the rest of the film's events definitely backs up and a reaction that is the eventual denouement.Victorhttp://vjmorton.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-9966966165877630002010-01-03T00:20:06.835-05:002010-01-03T00:20:06.835-05:00Part I
If you say you went into this on MNDG in 2...Part I<br /><br />If you say you went into this on MNDG in 2006, then it slipped my mind (tho IIRC we both required multiple viewings to see THE PRESTIGE as great). And let's not assume I have any desperate need to understand a movie I love in philosophical terms I accept as themselves, mmmkay.<br /><br /><br /><i>Because the film distinguishes between ordinary magic, which is an illusion, and what several characters term "real magic," which is not (and which is created by science).</i><br /><br />Except that this distinction is itself an unscientific one, untenable if materialism be true. Your bud Dawkins would be the first to insist on this (and rightly, as far as that goes). If materialism is true, there is no "real magic," only "illusion" (itself created, demystified and explained by "science"). <br /><br />To the extent you insist on this understanding, it weakens THE PRESTIGE as a work of art, because the film then would have cheated by introducing, while blessing via science, something impossible according to science. Any game can be won if you can cheat by stipulating the impossible (indeed, "cheating" doesn't mean anything under those terms).<br /><br /><br /><i>Because the film has Angier desperately searching for some elaborate explanation for Borden's Transported Man ("the prestige is the same man") only to have Cutter repeatedly insist that the simplest and most mundane explanation is the true one, which is in fact revealed to be the case.</i><br /><br />That's not relevant. Yes, Caine says the simplest explanation is true, i.e. that there are two Christian Bales. And he is correct with respect to Bale's trick. But that has nothing to do with Jackman's trick, which is really what is problematic for your take on the film.<br /><br />Indeed, if one were to push this, Jackman discovered "real magic" precisely because he DIDN'T accept the simplest explanation. And he accordingly found something true, both greater than materialism and impossible according to it. Further, it is actually Bale's (Bales') naturalistic way of doing the Transported Man trick that exacts the (definitely) more-elaborate and (arguably) more-costly ruse, though both create misery for both men.<br /><br />What Tesla's machine does is make the whole science-vs.-magic an illogical way of approaching the film. Which man's way of doing the Transported Man trick is scientific? Bale's at least is physically possible, given what we know of the material world, but it is the one that is wholly illusion. Jackman's is impossible, but it is the one that is a product of science and is a genuine transportation of matter (if memory serves, Jackman at one point even barks out to the audience,"this is not magic, this is science").<br /><br />It's now coming to me why I never bought your take -- I don't see how one can say that THE PRESTIGE sets up any kind of conflict/polarity between "science" and anything else, with one character or event, etc. representing "science." It drives one into too many antinomies like that.Victorhttp://vjmorton.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-55192867822715004832010-01-02T19:17:10.271-05:002010-01-02T19:17:10.271-05:00How can a film be about "the truth *of materi...<i>How can a film be about "the truth *of materialism*" when its very premise depends on magic really being true, and not an illusion or trick.</i><br /><br />Because the film distinguishes between ordinary magic, which is an illusion, and what several characters term "real magic," which is not (and which is created by science). Because the film has Angier desperately searching for some elaborate explanation for Borden's Transported Man ("the prestige is the same man") only to have Cutter repeatedly insist that the simplest and most mundane explanation is the true one, which is in fact revealed to be the case. I went into all this on the Movie Nerd Discussion Group at the time.<br /><br />"The audience <i>knows</i> the truth: The world is simple. And miserable. Solid all the way through. But if you could fool them, even for a second...then you can make them wonder."<br /><br />No matter what your personal beliefs, I really don't see how you can interpret this climactic speech as anything other than what I said: a statement about both the truth of materialism <i>and our desperate need to reject it</i>. (As you're doing now.)md'ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06055853987416332662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-72276395765194249102010-01-02T18:56:11.462-05:002010-01-02T18:56:11.462-05:00I agree 101% with every one of these, in that exac...I agree 101% with every one of these, in that exact ranked order. High fives!ptatlerivhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07570950256657235397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-2594009221243383792010-01-02T18:55:30.296-05:002010-01-02T18:55:30.296-05:00OK, I've never asked you this explicitly, bu t...OK, I've never asked you this explicitly, bu this formulation is nuts. <br /><br />How can a film be about "the truth *of materialism*" when its very premise depends on magic really being true, and not an illusion or trick. THE PRESTIGE has a profound critique of truth, like much of Nolan's work. But where, exactly, does the film state or show that materialism is true.Victorhttp://vjmorton.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com