Resurrecting the Movies thread...

[oilgun]

Well, "when they work" is the key phrase there, I think.

Maybe she just thought it was a good part.

Accusing her of immorality for taking a role in this movie seems a bit harsh, don't you think?

It is harsh but she should choose her roles more carefully. Especially, considering that she is unionized herself.

[serious crayons]

Well, "when they work" is the key phrase there, I think.

Sure. And they both seem to work frequently enough that their millions should tide them over from one project to the next without their having to desperately take any old crap role, or morally questionable role, just to get by.

Maybe she just thought it was a good part.

Well, I assume she did. I'm not saying she took it because she secretly subscribes to the movie's right-wing agenda.

The character is described as (and can be seen in trailers as) a feisty, working-class single mother, which seems right up her alley. Maybe she didn't look much past that.

Accusing her of immorality for taking a role in this movie seems a bit harsh, don't you think?

I haven't seen the movie, only criticisms by those who have, so I can only go by those. But no, I don't think it's harsh to expect people to consider the moral and social consequences of their career decisions, especially if they have the luxury of choice.

Even Maggie herself seems to agree:

http://observer.com/2012/09/films-stars-dont-back-down-from-films-politics/

The film’s stars, wearing grave political faces in addition to red carpet gowns, were ardent about education reform but wary of appearing anti-union. Ms. Gyllenhaal said that she came from “the most progressive left. I wouldn’t be allowed to go home for Thanksgiving if I made an anti-union movie.”

So see? I'm not even as harsh as the Gyllenhaals -- I'd still serve her Thanksgiving dinner!    But as I passed the mashed potatoes, I'd ask her what the hell she was thinking when she took that role.

Here are excerpts from a review on Salon (by a writer who, BTW, homeschools):

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/26/wont_back_down_why_do_teachers_unions_hate_america/

Wednesday, Sep 26, 2012 06:45 AM CDT
“Won’t Back Down”: Why do teachers’ unions hate America?
"Won't Back Down" is an offensive, lame, union-bashing drama, which somehow stars Viola Davis and Maggie Gyllenhaal
By Andrew O'Hehir

So teachers’ unions don’t care about kids. Oh, and luck is a foxy lady. This is what I took away from the inept and bizarre “Won’t Back Down,” a set of right-wing anti-union talking points disguised (with very limited success) as a mainstream motion-picture-type product. Someone needs to launch an investigation into what combination of crimes, dares, alcoholic binges and lapses in judgment got Viola Davis and Maggie Gyllenhaal into this movie. Neither of them seems likely to sympathize with its thinly veiled labor-bashing agenda and, way more to the point, I thought they had better taste. Maybe it was that actor-y thing where they saw potential in their characters – a feisty, working-class single mom for Gyllenhaal, a sober middle-class schoolteacher for Davis – liked the idea of working together and didn’t think too much about the big picture.

Perhaps that was a mistake, because the big picture is that the movie is unbelievable crap ...


... As presented in this script (written by Barnz and Brin Hill), the Pittsburgh teachers’ union has no goal beyond protecting the status quo at all costs, and no interest whatever – no altruistic interest, no self-interest and no public-relations interest — in improving the quality of public education. Most people still understand, I believe, that teachers work extremely hard for little pay and low social status in a thankless, no-win situation. But this is one of those areas where conservatives have been extremely successful in dividing the working class, which is precisely the agenda in “Won’t Back Down.” Breeding hostility to unions in themselves, and occasionally insinuating that unionized teachers are a protected caste of incompetents who get three damn months off every single year, has been an effective tactic in what we might call postmodern Republican populism, especially in recent battles over public employee contracts in Wisconsin and elsewhere. It works something like this: 1) Turn the resentment and frustration of people like Jamie – people with crappy service-sector jobs and few benefits, whose kids are stuck in failing schools – against the declining group of public employees who still have a decent deal. 2) Strip away job security and collective bargaining; hand out beer and ukuleles instead. 3) La la la la, tax cuts, tax cuts, I can’t hear you!

 

[Jeff Wrangler]

Actually, when it comes to teachers' unions, I'm inclined to agree with the Right on the problem. I just disagree with the Right on the solution. But this isn't the place to discuss that.

[serious crayons]

Actually, when it comes to teachers' unions, I'm inclined to agree with the Right on the problem. I just disagree with the Right on the solution. But this isn't the place to discuss that.

I'm more or less with you there. Unions can sometimes benefit bad teachers at the expense of good ones. But the fact is, there are plenty of talented and dedicated teachers, and unlike some people like to portray it, it's not a cushy job. From what I've read and seen in the trailer -- and again, I have to caution that I haven't seen the movie -- the movie portrays teachers unfairly.

Plus, I'm sorry, but I was turned off by Maggie's over-the-top "I'll lift a car for my kid" spunkiness. Watching it, I felt like Lou Grant ("Kid, you've got spunk. I hate spunk!").

[Jeff Wrangler]

There are plenty of talented and dedicated teachers, and unlike some people like to portray it, it's not a cushy job.

Agreed, hunnerd percent.

[oilgun]

I caught the last 30 minutes of Robert Bresson's PICKPOCKET (1959) and that's all I needed to rate the film a 10!  I'm ashamed to say I have never this or any other of his films.  The bright side is that I a lot amazing viewing ahead.  (It helped that I fell in love with the lead "model" (Bresson's word) Martin Lasalle.  There is a pickpocketing scene near the end that is positively erotic.  The pickpocket's hand slowly moves up the jacket lapel of a mark standing behind him, just barely touching it, making its way to the inside pocket, had me breathing heavy.  I couldn't believe it. Wow!

James Kendrick's review:
In a 1960 interview on the French television program Cinépanorama, writer/director Robert Bresson openly stated, “I’d rather people feel a film before understanding it.” This is a crucial sentiment and one that should be kept in mind when approaching Bresson’s work, which is often discussed in haughty academic terms as “austere,” “difficult,” and “minimalist.”
Yet, the fact that Bresson’s films tend to be intimate character studies of isolated human beings struggling with the world around them suggests that he is aiming primarily at the viewer’s emotions. He wants you to feel what it is like to be a young priest struggling in a rigid, isolated community in his first masterpiece Diary of a Country Priest (1954), and in Pickpocket, which many argue as the pinnacle of his art, he wants you to experience the life of a lonely thief whose self-imposed isolation and criminality are one in the same.

Pickpocket is certainly one of Bresson’s most readily accessible films, at least at the narrative level, because it takes the basic plot structure of a crime thriller and intertwines it with a redemptive love story. Martin La Salle plays Michel, a young Parisian who has turned to thievery as a means of survival. At first operating completely on his own, he later teams up with two other professional thieves, working complex sleight-of-hand jobs in which they nimbly pilfer wallets, cash, watches, and the contents of purses all over the city.

It is a profitable life of crime, and one that brings a kind of sly pleasure to Michel; it’s not for nothing that the scenes of thievery have been described by critics in sexual terms, with the final lifting of the wallet standing in as a kind of orgasm. Yet, it is ultimately an empty life, one that pays, but doesn’t fulfill. Michel’s real redemption lies with Jeanne (Marika Green), a young woman who lives next door to Michel’s dying mother. The love-as-redemption trope is certainly an old and arguably overused one, but Bresson breathes new life into it by setting it in a bleak, existential realm that turns love into the only true salvation. Bresson heightens the film’s prison ending into a moment of genuine transcendence; Michel’s body may be imprisoned, but his spirit is finally let free.

Pickpocket is arguably the film in which Bresson perfected his singular style, which at the time was so unusual that he felt the need to put a disclaimer at the beginning the film explaining it. Bresson eschewed traditional acting and referred to his actors as “models.” He did not want them to emote or express anything directly, but instead just go through the physical motions, thus becoming blank slates onto which the audience could project their own meanings. It is an amazingly effective approach that works only because it’s not as extreme as it sounds; even though the actors are certainly passive, they never come across as wooden or false. Perhaps this is just because the film invites so much projection from the viewer, but it may also be because the very nature of the material infuses itself into the actors’ words and actions, giving them a sense of life despite the lack of conventional “acting.”

Bresson also eschewed psychological explanations. Although there is an explanatory voice-over narration, we never know much about Michel’s past or why he turned to pickpocketing or even why he does certain things in the film itself. Like the flat acting style, Bresson wants us to fill in the gaps, to create our own meaning. In a way, this makes Pickpocket a highly personal film, not just for Bresson, but for each individual who sees it. Bresson’s style is certainly challenging and perhaps not even for all tastes, but for those who are willing to give themselves to it, it can be an immensely rewarding experience, as close to transcendental as the cinema could be.

http://www.qnetwork.com/index.php?page=review&id=1572

[southendmd]

Wow, those eyes!  Those lips!  Those nose! Thanks, Gil, for the recommendation.

Meanwhile, tonight, for Halloween, it's time for Donnie Darko and The Rocky Horror Picture Show!

[Penthesilea]

Meanwhile, tonight, for Halloween, it's time for Donnie Darko and The Rocky Horror Picture Show!

Good choices!
Chez nous, it'll be MIB III. Aliens are halloween-ish, no?

[oilgun]

My Halloween viewing:





And the end of:

[oilgun]

Here's an 12 minute clip of PICKPOCKET. Just because:

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd77TaeSjSU[/youtube]