|
Post by sgev1977 on Oct 18, 2020 0:36:48 GMT
What do you think about it?
I really enjoyed it but I have seen a lot of people on (Film) Twitter claiming it's the best thing they have watched this year. It's good but it's not exactly something , you know, really cinematic! Someone said it reminds them to 90s court dramas and I think that's spot on. It feels like a good 90s movie without not too many ambitions beyond explaining some historical event to the kids. The ending was very corny! It easily could be made for TV and I'm thinking in something for HBO but again, in the 90s! Today TV stuff is much more daring and ambitious!
Seriously, why they aren't calling it a Dad Film?! Maybe they think dads can't be revolutionaries but those guys are from the generation of a lot of today people's grandpas generation! It could be a Grand Dad Film!!!
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Oct 18, 2020 3:13:22 GMT
This is on my watchlist. I don’t really know what it’s about, but love Sacha Baron Cohen so I can’t wait to see him in this. But first, I need to finish watching Dix Pour Cent - it’s so addictive!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Oct 18, 2020 3:32:10 GMT
He is very good in this. All the actors are great. It's a very "literary" movie with a strong script and strong performances. I don't know, if I had to choose a favorite performance probably I would go with Frank Langella in the "bad guy" role but all of them do a great job with their characters.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Oct 18, 2020 14:25:17 GMT
We're going to be watching this tonight. It's nostalgic for us - we lived through that era. Dan's reading a very interesting book ATM by US historian Michael Beschloss about "War Presidents" and he gives me daily summaries of the content - right now he is about to get to the part covering the Johnson years and the Vietnam War.
Should be an interesting tie-in.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Oct 19, 2020 4:31:57 GMT
Really enjoyed this one. I agree with Sgev that it wasn't innovative but then it didn't have to be in my book. Just being straightforward was powerful enough for the story it had to tell. And with the shout at the end when it went to black it also hit the target of relatability to today's political milieu.
The whole world IS watching today as the fate of US democracy hangs in the balance. I remember back then - it was a VERY scary time to live through. I absolutely remember hearing about the race riots in Detroit (back in those days the Windsor radio station was just a Detroit station in reality, so ALL we listened to was the "Motor City" news) and thinking that Americans society was on the verge of implosion!
I was 14 when the trial was on and I came from a very politically aware family where discussions about politics was greatly encouraged. My mother supported my sister and I to participate in political protests.
All the performances were excellent but I do think the characterization of David Dellinger was rather inadequate and perhaps they could have added just a bit of how greatly he admired Fred Hampton.
I'm not a big fan of Eddie Redmayne but I thought he was a standout as Tom Hayden. And so was Joseph Gordon-Levitt! As was Mark Rylance!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Oct 19, 2020 12:24:13 GMT
I think it's an excellent movie but I'm perplexed by the there-is-anything-worst-than-old-time-style-conventional-films Film Twitter claiming this is the best film of the year! Again, it's really good but even in the 90s it wouldn't had been considered revolutionary at all!
I really think they confuse theme with actual filmmaking. I also think most new critics and Film Twitter in general are pretty ahistorical and "uncultured". It seems to me that a lot of them doesn't watch films older than 20 or 25 years old. Maybe they know about some 1980s blockbusters but nothing more. Probably that's why they think a well-written 90s style court drama is something "revolutionary" or maybe they just want to be seen as "revolutionaries" claiming that a film about some revolutionary icons is actually revolutionary even when it's actually pretty conventional.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Oct 19, 2020 13:25:29 GMT
I definitely do think a straight forward approach was the narrative path that works best with this kind of film.
I can't see how being nonconventional would have improved this story.
On the other hand, I don't see either how anyone could claim this film was anything except conventional in its storytelling.
I am not on Twitter so maybe you can supply some concrete examples from those commenting of just how they thought this piece broke the bounds of conventionality?
But back to the actual film - I did like how they blended actual live footage of the riots with the reenacted scenes by the actors. It was done very seamlessly. There were also some lovely POV shots - especially during the remembrances of the fomenting of the violence scenes.
But none of this is "revolutionary" filmmaking!
I looked on Wikipedia and found some summarized accounts of some professional reviews -
"John DeFore of The Hollywood Reporter wrote: "Sorkin has made a movie that's gripping, illuminating and trenchant, as erudite as his best work and always grounded first and foremost in story and character. It's as much about the constitutional American right to protest as it is about justice, which makes it incredibly relevant to where we are today".
IndieWire's Eric Kohn gave the film a "B", saying Sorkin "directs his own blunt, energetic screenplay with the convictions of a storyteller fully committed to the tropes at hand" and that Sacha Baron Cohen "steals the show and transforms an otherwise stagey period piece into something far more compelling."
Also -
"Owen Gleiberman of Variety praised Cohen and Redmayne's performances and said, "Sorkin has structured The Trial of the Chicago 7 ingeniously, so that it's never about just one thing. It's about the theatrical insanity of the war in the courtroom, about how the government would stop at nothing (including flagrant attempts at jury tampering), and about the politics, at once planned and spontaneous, of how the Chicago protests unfolded."
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Oct 19, 2020 13:54:17 GMT
TBF they aren't saying it's "revolutionary" filmmaking just that it's the best film of the year or the best thing they have watched this year. I think it's ironic because Film Twitter tend to be very cynical against conventional narrative/Oscar baity movies and I think this one fits the mold even when it's really good. IMHO the "difference" it's the progressive message but having the "right" message doesn't equals unconventional filmmaking!
Agree that it's not surprising that the style is conventional because it's mainly a scriptwriter movie. It was directed by Aaron Sorkin.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Oct 19, 2020 14:51:11 GMT
It will be interesting to see what David Fincher makes with Mank. David Fincher is undoubtedly a much more cinematic filmmaker. The trailer already is trying to visually recreate Welles style in Citizen Kane. But he is also telling a real life story about Freedom of Speech and artistic liberty although in his case the characters aren't fighting against a repressive government but against a powerful man who had a monopolistic control over the press. So the theme could be even more fitting and maybe daring for today's mood than just a story about good revolutionaries vs. bad establishment. It could be much more complex! It depends of how they portray Hearst and especially Marion Davis. I remember that the very conventional HBO's movie RKO 281 did actually great job in not portrayed them as nasty people. They had a good reason to feel violated and abused by those artists! Especially, Davis! The way Welles presented her in his movie was brutal! Also Mankiewicz was a close friend so he was betraying her! They were fighting the powerful but they were also humiliating (and remember that according to Welles himself, "rosebud" had a sexual connotation so part of that humiliation was indeed sexual) not just the power man but indirectly and still more poignantly a woman. But freedom of speech and artistic liberty should be more important than any personal offense and using your influence trying to "cancel" someone who offended you it's never good!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Oct 19, 2020 21:40:17 GMT
OK I searched on Twitter and found the "it's a bad Oscar baity movie with awful performances and a cheesy ending" takes. Or the backlash just began or the people I follow are nice positive people!
The ending was cheesy, tho.! But actors and the script are good. It's very simplistic (these are the bad guys and these are the bad ones) but it's witty in the way some cable scripts by talented people were in the 90s.
|
|