tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13095695.post5865282357965227418..comments2023-10-22T17:40:51.323-04:00Comments on Tativille: The 2008 Best Picture NomineesMichael J. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12333893240336518881noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13095695.post-58063342662915086922009-02-24T12:29:00.000-05:002009-02-24T12:29:00.000-05:00From a writer's POV, I have to say I found Wendy a...From a writer's POV, I have to say I found Wendy and Lucy's lack of backstory really refreshing. It's nice not to be spoon-fed and to make up my own mind about how I feel toward a character. She was by turns endearing and frustrating and I thought it was a very subtle and effective combination.Andrea Janeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00489014081664216407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13095695.post-52105417363455381182009-02-21T13:26:00.000-05:002009-02-21T13:26:00.000-05:00It's unfortunate that this conversation is occurri...It's unfortunate that this conversation is occurring on the Oscars post rather than the WENDY AND LUCY piece; I guess the comparison - not actually the statement of quality for which it has been taken - was the mortal sin.<BR/><BR/>It seems that we're at loggerheads re: the issue of the central conceit's believability. I continue to insist that the film needed to explain the why, much as De Sica's films do, even though they were located in a much more precarious economic situation than that of the US in 2008. I think without this the spectator is left to wonder how, unless they (wishfully) insist on the film's socio-economic critique. I say wishfully as WENDY AND LUCY veers toward a certain confirmation of what is fundamentally an anti-capitalist, life-without-a-safety-net anxiety rather than a true analysis of what is, clearly, an exceptional situation. The film stipulates, it speaks in the declarative - this happens in a free market - without actually making the case that it does. This only becomes a problem if one believes as I do that the situation posed is far from normative. My experience tells me that it is. <BR/><BR/>I think you do, however, successfully illustrate the fictive relationship between Wendy and Lucy.Michael J. Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12333893240336518881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13095695.post-48655829460178829272009-02-20T21:28:00.000-05:002009-02-20T21:28:00.000-05:00"Does homelessness really occur to reasonable inte..."Does homelessness really occur to reasonable intelligent (and responsible), beautiful young women without being mentally ill or suffering from substance problems?"<BR/><BR/>Well first of all, yes. I think it's pretty naive to think that only people with "problems" become homeless or have extreme trouble with money. I also think you're giving Wendy more credit than maybe she is due. As much as I feel for her and her plight, how do we know she's "reasonably intelligent" or "responsible" -- in fact, her activities seem pretty wreckless and at times downright dumb, however well-intentioned they are. I also think there is a suggestion that she's going to Alaska for more than a job, she's running from something, perhaps even abuse of some kind.<BR/><BR/>Regarding Wendy's relationship with Lucy, most dogs in movies are pretty obviously stage dogs. You can see that they're performing tricks for the benefit of a trainer off-camera. The relationship between the dog and the character onscreen is completely manufactured by careful cutting between owner and pet. You rarely see them together and when you do, you can often see the dog looking somewhere off camera for their commands.<BR/><BR/>In contrast, the scenes between Wendy and Lucy are done in long take. We see their relationship and -- at least to me -- it does not look like one faked for the cameras. Their bond feels real. I think of the scene very early in the film where Wendy is awoken in her car by the security guard who wants her to move her car. In one unbroken shot, while Wendy speaks with the security guard, Lucy wanders in and out of frame, and barks repeatedly at the security guard until Williams yells a single "LUCE!" at which point the dog immediately quiets down for her owner. I realize this is a pretty miniscule moment, but it really brought into focus how tight the bond was between girl and dog, while enhancing Reichardt's unvarnished aesthetic. I have a feeling Lucy's "role" in this scene wasn't even written; she was permitted to do whatever she wanted and Williams simply had to react to whatever the dog did. The approach is unusual and, I think, deeply rewarding.Matt Singerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09435763315169249477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13095695.post-24362610217464396962009-02-20T19:22:00.000-05:002009-02-20T19:22:00.000-05:00Matt,Does homelessness really occur to reasonable ...Matt,<BR/><BR/>Does homelessness really occur to reasonable intelligent (and responsible), beautiful young women without being mentally ill or suffering from substance problems? Does it? Sure young adults make bad choices, but why is she in the position she is, and moreover, why would she, so unprepared, go to Alaska? The more reasonable choice would be that crappy retail or fast food job in rural Missouri. Other than being a part of a faltering economy - are we to assume she defaulted on her predatory mortgage? - where is the reality here?<BR/><BR/>I apologize for not talking about performances, which is admittedly a critical weakness of mine. How should I have qualified her performance? Also, what makes her relationship to the dog in any way remarkable, from the perspective of their performances?<BR/><BR/>Lastly, I do apologize for comparing this critical sacred cow to that piece of trash THE READER. Then again, I was only pointing out that they suffer - at least in part - from the same problem. (Why is someone with real abilities and an interest in literature illiterate in a highly literate society? You see the comparison.) Of course, THE READER does have many more.Michael J. Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12333893240336518881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13095695.post-9109523160458922092009-02-20T17:38:00.000-05:002009-02-20T17:38:00.000-05:00Mike-I can't believe you would compare WENDY AND L...Mike-<BR/><BR/>I can't believe you would compare WENDY AND LUCY and its "implausible, unexplained characterization" to THE READER. Having read this snarky, out-of-left-field jab and your original review, I still don't quite understand why it bothers you that they don't explain the specific circumstances of Wendy's plight. Why is that so important? And why is it so implausible that a young person might make some dumb decisions, a few well-intentioned mistakes, and wind up in severe money troubles? In today's economic climate it feels reasnably plausible to me (in retrospect, the domino-falling doom that befalls Wendy also resembles the slow inexorable collapse of the entire nation's financial system).<BR/><BR/>Your original review of WENDY AND LUCY focuses on this one point for several paragraphs yet makes no mention of the remarkable performances -- and in particular the incredible relationship between Williams and her dog (played, I believe, by Reichardt's own pup). I guess you were not absorbed by Wendy's struggle, but I was, in a way I was by few movies last year.<BR/><BR/>I concur THE READER is a mess and a most unworthy Best Picture nominee. But I would have had no problem slotting WENDY AND LUCY into its place.Matt Singerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09435763315169249477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13095695.post-800766032628490892009-02-16T11:15:00.000-05:002009-02-16T11:15:00.000-05:00Pam, this is one of those years in which somebody ...Pam, this is one of those years in which somebody at some point has to just say: no, I'm not going to watch every film just because they're nominated. I would suggest that begins with you and <I>The Reader.</I> Basically, I went to it in order to write on the five films, having seen the other four. In many respects it was an unfortunate decision; I hope my readers won't feel the same pressure to suffer for their sense of completion. <I>Slumdog Millionaire</I>, too, was really awful, but in its case at least it has its defenders. Then again, I feel confident enough in my position to encourage anyone reading this not to see it. However, it is going to win 'Best Picture,' so if you feel it necessary to see every top-prize Oscar winner, I suppose you will have to. <BR/><BR/>At the same time, this feeling has in recent years led me to see <I>A Beautiful Mind</I>, <I>Chicago</I> and <I>Crash</I>, so again I ask, is it worth it?<BR/><BR/>See <I>Ben Button</I>: you may or may not like it; not everyone does. What an inspiring year!Michael J. Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12333893240336518881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13095695.post-23862596721492719342009-02-15T23:56:00.000-05:002009-02-15T23:56:00.000-05:00I'm frustrated because I have not seen every Oscar...I'm frustrated because I have not seen every Oscar nominated flick yet; and I'm frustrated more because, especially after reading this, I have so little urgency to. It is such bad practice to judge movies before you've seen them, but I have to say, of those that I have not seen (Ben Button, The Reader, Slumdog), there is only one I am truly looking forward to (Ben Button).<BR/><BR/>As per Milk and Frost/Nixon, which I have seen, well, let's just say I'm not surprised at the nomination pics. They are all very predictable and I think self-congratulatory. <BR/><BR/>Then again, don't we have the same despondency every Oscar year? I'm just so apathetic!P.L. Kerpiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01900654913394790511noreply@blogger.com