Squirrel God

The thing with Glengarry Glen Ross is that it effectively amounts to a play that is captured on film. Much of Mamet's best work is like that, cf. Oleanna, House of Cards, The Spanish Prisoner. As is typical of a play, the dialogue is paramount and in Mamet's films, the rhythm and tempo of the dialogue delivery is particularly crucial. Although Mamet didn't direct Glengarry, it's still apparent. Someone's enjoyment of Glengarry will therefore always stand or fall on whether they like this 'play-on-film' style or not. Some do, some don't. As you say, it just didn't do it for you, and that's fair enough.

Filmmaker

Wow. Well, then, I guess my work here is done.

Ambassador

What?! Not even another one of these:

NatrlBornThrllr

Read the last paragraph of my last post. It was for you.

DoubleDownAgain

Up next Say Anything....

Filmmaker

No, I'm thinking of a different gesture altogether for you...

NatrlBornThrllr

Hey now...there wll be none of that in my thread, goddamnit.

Filmmaker

eh... *shrugs*

Carry on; I've no other recommedations to make here, so since NatrlBornThrllr has given his opinions on my one recommendation, I need no other feedback from any members of the peanut gallery...

X

Just as none of us needed any from you about our opinions earlier in this thread. Your comments were particularly insulting as they attacked our competence and sanity just because we disagreed with your opinion.

Filmmaker

So you mean to really make the case that nothing more than the use of the smiley represents an all-out "attack" on your "competence and sanity"? Wow, sorry if I really offended anyone that bad, but I respectfully beg for a little perspective from our administration. If that one smiley is so innately offensive, perhaps it should be removed from the site's offerings...?

Ambassador

Hmmm, I didn't really mean to bait Filmmaker with my previous post, though that seems to have been the effect. I thought that his curt dismissals of my and X's criticisms of the movie ("whatever"; ; etc.) were meant to be humorous and warranted a response in kind. I didn't take his earlier post as an insult, and I certainly didn't mean mine as an insult, either. (I'm not sure whether or not to take the "different gesture" comment as an insult, though, since I'm not sure exactly what motivated it.)

What's really puzzling to me, however, is that Filmmaker doesn't seem interested in responding to my or X's or NatrlBornThrllr's objections to Glengarry Glen Ross in any sort of open exchange, which I thought would have been tempting to a person who had never before encountered a human being "who didn't immediately fall in love with this film." (Granted, both X and I were fairly sweeping in our criticisms, but NatrlBornThrllr has made some very intelligent comments.) I wonder if Filmmaker's use of the smilie above wasn't just an expression of the cognitive dissonance s/he might be experiencing now that s/he's met three people who haven't fallen in love with the film.... In that case, the implication that we're all insane would be apt from his/her point of view, which is why I didn't take that post as an insult to begin with.

Anyway, we seem to be going off topic and are perhaps on the borderline of actually hurting somebody's feelings. Would it still be appropriate to engage in a discussion of the merits of Glengarry Glen Ross here, or has this thread pretty much run its course?

Filmmaker

Ambassador, my honest apologies--I totally misread your comments to me, as X seems to have done for mine. Please forgive my defensiveness (I do so wish the internet had better ways of conveying tone of voice). I haven't entered into discussion regarding the virtues, or lack thereof, with GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS because, though I disagree with him, NatrlBornThrllr was rather effective at making his complaints clear and understandable, if arguable.

Ambassador

No harm done. I probably should have included an extra smilie to indicate sarcasm or humor. As you say, it's difficult to convey tone sometimes, and I guess I'm more used to other, smaller forums I post on, where members' distinctive senses of humor are better known. Anyway, it doesn't sound like anyone's been seriously offended, so all's well.

Filmmaker

Well, technically X hasn't chimed in with his threat or actual intention to suspend or ban me, so we're (I'm) not out of the woods yet, he he...

NatrlBornThrllr

Not to speak for anybody, but I think that's definitely the case. There are quite a few films that I love, and that a relatively wide selection of people don't seem to care for. The first example that comes to mind is Buffalo '66: it's one of my very favorites...but to some it's merely a pretentious, uninspiring waste of celluloid. When I hear a negative take on any of my favorite titles, I look at the person with a " face," simply because I can't understand how they didn't appreciate the film in the same way that I did. I mean, we both watched the same movie, right? So how is it that I connected with the film, while you found it tedious?

When somebody calls a film essential, as "Filmmaker" did (side note: bah, I hate using internet usernames when attempting personal and sincere discourse), it's obvious that they had a very pleasant experience with their viewing(s). So, when somebody else comes along, post-glowing recommendation, and basically says "meh," the natural reaction is one of dismay.

That's the very intentional point that I tried to convey in the last paragraph of the post that I made commenting on Glengarry: I totally understand that "Filmmaker" (damnit, I wish I knew your name) and many others adore the movie, and that it must be entirely frustrating when you offer your highest recommendations for one of your favorite films, only to be met with an entirely unenthusiastic response after the person's watched it. I've had it happen time and time again, and it's a very aggravating situation when somebody's perspective of a movie that you deem brilliant comes nowhere near the pedestal on which you've placed the work. It makes you...errr, me at least, want to scream, "my two hour filmgoing experience was euphoric, and you're calling the movie mediocre? The fuck?"

Anyway, I feel like I'm rambling...so to the point: I totally understand where the dude's coming from. I've been there many a time. Honestly, I'm totally disappointed that I didn't see the same movie that the Glengarry supporters did. I love discovering new personal favorites that I can't wait to rewatch over and over, or to share with others. That's why I blind-bought a dozen or so DVDs and started this thread. Example:

I go on such a high each time I discover a new personal favorite. I believe the most recent was Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, back in October '05 at an Austin Film Festival advanced screening. After that screening I had to wait a month or so for it to hit, what, like a half a dozen theaters nationwide? It breezed in and out, and then I had to wait months and months for it to finally hit DVD so I could share it with everybody I know. The vast majority concurred, "that movie was awesome!" However, every once in a while there was somebody who was unimpressed by the film, and their response left me saying the exact same thing as Filmmaker:

Dude's not trying to be rude or argumentative, he just (rightfully) doesn't understand how we can both watch the same movie and walk away with entirely different opinions. All I can say is that, even though I love slice of life films, as well as dialogue-heavy screenplays, Glengarry just wasn't my cup of tea.

Since I'm as conceited as they come, I have no problem saying that this is my goddamned thread. Given that, I also have no problem saying this: go as far off topic as you please. I started this as a solution for too many blind buys to choose from...but if it evolves into a discussion about one film or another...kickass. To some extent, that's what I was going for. One thing is for sure, though...I definitely don't want the phrase "run it's course" to peek it's nasty head into this innocent lil' thread.



-JP

Filmmaker

My name is Travis, and I am funky! My name is Travis, the one and only! Hurt me!

It was intended exactly as that, yes--not an insult, not an attack, just a "damn, you guys are nuts!" kind of thing like you'd say to any given buddy who said something you couldn't wrap your head around. I've always been very dejected that many of the administrators here seem to immediately assume the worst intentions in these kind of cases, especially when I'm involved. I, for one, have been a contributor to this forum for years, and have not only enjoyed and participated in hundreds of different conversations, but actually been a proactive source of help, advisement and information to countless fellow DVDTalkers in need, so why administration continues to view me as a destructive influence that may be better suited off these boards, I just can't grasp. Any view of my history shows how meaningful my contributions here are, so I remain frustrated, insulted and hurt that I am consistently denied the benefit of the doubt; that being said, I'm glad the three of us got so quickly back on track. In regards to GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS, I'll snidely, but with a wink and a smile, say "your loss", and ask you, were you not able to appreciate it solely on a performance level, if no other?

X

Did I say anything about suspending or banning you? I had no interest in pursuing this but since you're going on a rant about the administration of this site...

There is no doubt about your history of insulting posts, many administrators and moderators agree about that. There's only so many ways to interpret statements you make to other members, such as "Where the fuck do you get off? I was asking from people in the know before I laid down my own money--that's research, pal" and "I'm sure it's no secret I like you about as much as a scrote rash..." and "that's why I've been asking questions here, bright boy."

And you certainly whine quick enough when you think someone hasn't addressed you they way you like...
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread....05#post7168805

You've even been warned recently and admit to your abrasive posting style and say you're willing to accept the future consequences...
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread....83#post7140783

Your last suspension was for two months due to your repeated insulting and attacking posts toward other members. Your history shows you aren't due any extreme efforts at interpreting your posts as "sarcasm or humor" and if you keep complaining about the administration of this site we'll be perfectly happy to put you out of your posting misery.

Filmmaker

I'll ask a single question (well, with two parts), X--do you feel you can discuss this issue with me in a rational, non-defensive, open manner with an assumption of positive intent on both our parts and, if so, would you care to conduct such? Let me know and, depending on your answer, we can maybe make some meaningful headway on how myself and the administration here can better "connect" (which I'm rather desperate for) or I'll drop the issue and we will continue to fail to see eye to eye, to the possible unfortunate and arguably unnecessary future exclusion of my meaningful contributions to this forum (which I hope even my most vocal adminstrative detractors can recognize and admit to).

gryffinmaster

Delicatessen's an awesome flick.

-runs away-

tommyp007

Reading this made me put in GGR again. STILL a great flick, but I can see how some may not like it. Lots of great dialogue from great actors, but not so much plot. Baldwin's shining moment tho.

Ambassador

To return more seriously to GGR, since Tommy has singled it out again, I guess my major problem with it is the stylization of the acting/diaglogue:

I'm as big a fan of stylized acting as the next person. (Heck, I love my fair share of silent movies, stylization and all.) For some reason, however, it seems to me like all the actors in the film are using the exact same approach. To be blunt, it's one of those movies where the writer, director and/or the actors seem to equate loudness with good acting and profanity with profundity. (I have the same problem with Magnolia, another sacred cow that I just can't connect with.) So although I realize that we're watching some great actors in the film, their stylized/exaggerated approach tends to render them all more or less the same -- to me. In other words, I just can't perceive enough of a difference among the different characters to actually care much about any of them.

I must say, however, that I find that GGR works much better on the stage. I've seen it both ways, and the acting that the dialogue require just seems far more successful in a theatrical venue. The "bigness" of the characters is necessary there, whereas it just seems strident or "one-note" in the more intimate medium of movies.

On a side-note, I think that's why Jack Lemmon's character makes such fertile ground for satire/parody, as in the character of Gil in some of the more recent Simpsons episode. In the movie, he's on the verge of becoming a caricature, which is what the Simpsons turn him into.

NatrlBornThrllr

I'm not going to get wrapped up in the conversation right now for one reason: I'm in the mood to watch movies. So, first recommendation from my list, post-this-post picks what I watch.

-JP

Squirrel God

The Weather Man

NatrlBornThrllr

And so it shall be done.

Ambassador

Be sure to watch Grizzly Man, too. A fascinating documentary from a fascinating filmmaker.

There! I've actually contributed to this thread as it was originally envisioned.