…on the latest piece of euthanasia agitprop that is bravely facing the enthusiastic applause of the Manufacturers of the Culture of Death at the Oscars.
Her comments are great as always.
But I can’t help but think this is kind of like spending time sharpening your dragonlance. This is one of those movies that critics and the arts crowd will see and mass audiences completely ignore. If it sells 2,000 tickets in the U.S., I’ll be stunned.
So a film has to cost $100,000,000 and be seen by zillions of people to be any good. Anything less, regardless of how well-acted or well-written it might be, is just a “teeny-weeny movie”. Good to know.
Wow you really misunderstood. I didn’t comment on the quality of this movie in particular or small movies in general. I pointed out that this kind of movie (small art house French cinema) doesn’t have mass appeal. If it’s that bad, just ignore it. It will soon disappear.
More people probably saw Django Unchained last weekend in one city than will see Amour during its entire domestic run.
The Globes and the Oscars are to the future output of Hollywood as fashion shows are to what you will find for sale in target in 6 to 18 months. It is important.
She’s right about ‘Amour’ and completely wrong about Tom Hooper. Les Mis succeeds in spite of Hooper’s direction, not because of it. I mean, honestly, how much artistic vision does it take to shoot every single singer close up for 2 and a half hours?
Do you also wonder if it takes any particular skill to saw into a man’s skull and perform brain surgery, or is it just movie direction that receives your contempt for its perceived ease of execution? Tom Hooper’s direction in “Les Miserables” was nothing short of brilliant, especially when compared to the highly flawed direction of Steven Spielberg in “Lincoln,” but I’ll grant that it might take some knowledge of film to figure that out.
Having spent several years working the film industry, I think I’m capable of discussing a director’s work intelligently. Hooper’s direction of Les Mis was neither creative nor inspired. I’ll grant he had a good idea in having the performers sing live, but the unimaginative camera work and other choices took away from those performances. I didn’t say anything about ‘Lincoln’ so I’m not sure why you brought it up.
Sorry, I was annoyed over something else and took it out on you. My apologies for the sharpness of my remarks. Nonetheless, I do maintain that you are mistaken in this case about Hooper’s direction. And the reason I brought up Spielberg was for comparison purposes since Spielberg got an Oscar nomination and Hooper did not.
It’s picture-shows, ya’ll. It’s not real art, but a distraction. Now shake hands, be friends, and hate me instead. 🙂
Forgiven and forgotten, Michelle. 🙂
Hezekiah, done. 😉
Eve Tushnet has a very different take: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/amour-the-family-plot/
I haven’t seen it yet, so I don’t know who is right. I could end up agreeing with Nicolosi, but I don’t think the case is as clear cut as she made it out to be.
I want to see a Tushnet-Nicolosi title fight as much as the next red-blooded male, but c’mon. Tushnet is as out of touch with normal people as Rod Dreher, apparently.
Though I admit I haven’t seen it (I don’t watch picture-shows, and didn’t unless it was going to get me ‘intimate’, which explains why I have seen “The Notebook”, “Crazy beautiful” AND “You’ve got Mail!”), average moderns, the ones who watch arthaus shadows on the cavern wall anyway, are going to walk away ready to valiantly put the pillow to Mom’s face themselves.