DISQUS

It looks like the party is over. I sort of feel like one of the wedding guests watching as th e bus drives away, but I'll throw in my $.02 about a few things.

I only discovered this film as a teen in the 1980s, but I think I related to its critique of conformity, the restless energy that made the film feel "new" even though it was--at the time--about 20 years old. But that probably says something about growing up in Reaganland.

That being said, certain scenes in The Graduate teach beautifully. the sound during the scuba scene really captures Hoffman's isolation brilliantly. It's an incredibly seductive film in so many ways.

I do think the comments about Nichols' female characters make a lot of sense. In fact, I found Closer somewhat troubling for that very reason.

More later if others join in again...

I'm pretty convinced that it's the same music. I teach The Conversation twice a year in my Intro to Film classes, so I *should* know. That being said, my confidence in recognizing film scores is a bit dicey.

Tom K., I'd say that you're basically right--the film is clearly sympathetic to the Dems narratively and emotionally. I think it underplays that sympathy to some extent, but had Gore won Bush v. Gore, I think we would have had a much different movie.

The cough as he introduces the song is what puts it over the top. That's my new favorite video of the week.

I realize it has its origins in Robert Altman's movie, but I've always admired the theme from M*A*S*H. It helped encapsulate, for me at least, the social importance of the show in a way that would be hard to describe.

Tom W, I think you're right about the film's treatment of Harris. She received far worse from the press and, to my chagrin, many liberal bloggers who mistook criticizing her politics for making fun of her appearance.

And I think you're right that the film very clearly distances itself from Gore's "good of the country" rhetoric. The visuals there completely undercut any belief the Dems might have had about Gore's language in his film concession, and certainly our knowledge of how the last eight years have turned out should inform us of how hollow those words actually are.

I wonder if TK's "blandness" comment might have something to do with the film's relatively "invisible" visual style. There were, of course, some significant visual and aural flourishes (the costuming of the two parties' leaders; the ubiquity of TVs; the various board rooms and other settings where the two sides operated). The "blandness" of the film's look was in some sense necessary to the story.

Well, John Edwards is apparently gunning for Parker's money. After all, he wants to make all rich people give all of their money to poor people and become garbage collectors or something. Sheesh. Her loathing of Edwards borders on insane.

I keep wavering back and forth on Speed Racer. I saw it in an empty theater (like I was literally the only person in the theater), so it was hard for me to develop a lot of the excitement for the film that some people have described.

But when I hear someone like Armond White say that Speed Racer is "killing cinema," then I have to wonder if it's not actually reinventing it. I actually appreciated the avant-garde elements of the visual design--it was as if Peter Greenaway had made an action film--very strange, very surreal, and I think my ten-year old self would have appreciated the aesthetics as well.

Hi Mike. As my comments hopefully suggest, I'm basically in agreement with you on this point. In fact, I genuinely loved the ending.

When you put it in those terms, I feel like I should have been much harsher on Fujishima, and I'm a little disappointed that I wasn't more critical.

In fact, as I had an hour's drive from the screening, it gave me plenty of time to think about how troubling it is that we're even in a position where we are forced into debating both the ethics and effectiveness of torture.

I can't believe that it took five years to reach this decision. It's getting to the point where some people will be shocked to learn that NYPD Blue was even on in 2003--I was.

But you're absolutely right about the absurdity, or at least the hypocrisy, of those who would protect us from this stuff while indulging in it themselves.

My condolences, Dennis. I'm deeply sorry for your loss.

There are a few moments where the filmmaker questions whether he should be exploiting the controversy, but merely by telling this story, the filmmaker is clearly making a decision.

The mother is somewhat ambivalent about her role in placing her daughter in the public, asking whether Marla will want to have had these experiences (appearing on the Today show, having all of these art openings, etc) when she's 18.

But these ethical issues are important (and they are addressed in the film), and I probably shouldn't have underplayed them.

I should check out the Duchamp interviews. I have a couple of long drives coming up over the holidays and a new iPod with plenty of memory.

The film is definitely worth tracking down. My initial review conveyed a lot of frustration with the film, but I think that's actually a sign of the ways in which it was tapping into these issues in fairly subtle ways.

I should have mentioned F for Fake. My review of Kid was almost entirely shaped by my appreciation of Welles' more reflective take on these issues.

I'm not sure that I've heard the Duchamp quote, but I like your connection between his critique of the museum and Benjamin's observation that the mechanical reproducibility of art serves as a direct threat to the museum.

I do think there are some insightful readers (and readings) of abstract art, but it's clear from the film that the people who purchase Marla's art are projecting their own readings (and desires) into the art, that people's fantasies about art, genius, and childhood innocence are being sold back to them.

I've stuck with "Chuck" even though it seems a bit thin, if only because "Heroes" remains essential viewing for me. I tried "Journeyman" because I'm a sucker for time travel narratives (I even wrote my dissertation on time travel movies), but never really got beyond the first episode.

But what I really wanted to mention (and complain about) is the sheer number of movie and TV shows either featuring characters named "Chuck" or "Chuck" in their titles. I'd be fine with it, but two of those movies feature Dane Cook and Adam Sandler.

Not sure I have much to add here, although I wrote about this same topic a few days ago.

I think it'll be an interesting film, and the "documentary" issues are especially interesting to me.

Californication was supposed to be funny?

And now on to The Daily Show....

The drinking scene with Don Draper was a nice bit...but I guess I'm drawn to characters talking about existential angst and such things.

Still a rather flat episode in general.

If the WASP dad was having an affair with Cheever, that would make things at least a little more interesting.

Maybe a little of both, but it's hard to play someone who is supposed to be that repressed and to make her interesting.

Blue girl, agreed on the baby-faced dude. Not working for me at all.

The lonely divorcee angle seems a little overplayed, too.

Steverino, that's what I was starting to wonder. This episode is making me wonder why I liked the earlier shows.

I recovered from jogging just in time. I missed last week's episode, but I'm guessing I'll be able to catch up.

I was thinking that th sexism feels like a Neil LaBute movie without the profanity.