Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26383 |
Re: for paint: i watched chasing amy! (spoilers!!)
quote:
Originally posted by Buddha's Penis!
- the acting was terrible. absolutely fucking terrible. ben affleck and joey lauren adams should still be trying to shout over a chorus of boos (see: love-revelation in the rain, the big fight, proposing a threesome scene). affleck has his place, he's not worthless or anything, but his place is certainly not showing any emotion besides maybe anger and smart-aleckiness. joey lauren adams should stick to playing "cute girl with few lines". she was great in mallrats. well, no. she was bad, but i saw her tits. or, as her agent should refer to them, her "talent".
Here we might have to chalk it up to "agree to disagree". I will agree that Kevin Smith has no great talent with actors, and this movie is one of the only ones he's done where the acting ITSELF is passable (and we disagree about the degree of passability, it seems, in regards to Chasing Amy. I would say this is the only WELL acted movie he's ever done). Part of it may be that his writing consists of lines that are very difficult to deliver convincingly (as you say, sort of), but I DON'T think that makes said lines less authentic, or, more to the point, effective. And, as far as that's concerned, look at Banky or Hooper in the movie. But I didn't get the impression at all that Affleck or Adams were anything less than, at the very least, "good". This is Adams' best movie by far, and Affleck's best since Glory Daze, and while comparisons won't do anything but open myself up to smart aleck remarks, I'll say that here, Adams gives a performance that is honest and, at the same time, comfortable (btw, as a point of trivia, the script was written by Smith based on his real life relationship with Adams, they were together at the time, and she is a lesbian (also, remember her lesbian lover when she sang at the club (the one she made out with that caused klaxons to sound for Banky? That's Jason Lee's (Banky) real life wife, but I digress)). And Affleck, I thought, was totally convincing as a self-assured, at times clueless, and at times really sympathetic character. But there is obviously no way for me to convince you that it was well acted, that's just a matter of taste.
Doesn't stop me from invoking Ebert, however:
"As Alyssa, Joey Lauren Adams is a discovery. She has the kind of deep voice and conspiratorial smile that make you think she could be a buddy as well as a lover. Ben Affleck's role is tricky--emotionally, his character makes the biggest changes--and he always makes us believe him. Jason Lee's sidekick is good at not showing us all his cards; at the end, when it's important to know how he really feels, he doesn't make it easy for us. And Kevin Smith himself appears as Silent Bob, the character he's played in all three of his films. This time, Silent Bob opens up, with a heartfelt parable that explains who Amy was, and why she was being chased."
I thought the acting in the movie was just fine. But, that's not the real story of the movie. I think the fact that the actors could convincingly give lines of great dialogue that would make lesser actors come across as hacks (see: Mallrats), and carry their performances in that context so well, makes them great performances. The dialogue in all of Smith's movies carries the picture, I think. This was the first time said dialogue was not just spouted, but given with zest, and an emotional understanding of the material. That the scenes are written in a way that is very difficult for actors to successfully deliver, and that it was delivered even COMPETENTLY in Chasing Amy, is an acting achievement. And I would rate the performances as far above just competent, but that's me.
But, as I said, great performances are not what this movie is about.
quote:
Originally posted by Buddha's Penis!
- the writing in general was also terrible. the dialogue is unnatural and unnecessarily verbose (hoho), which is okay if you happen to like how it turns out. matter of taste and all that. i don't like how it turns out much at all. everyone talks like kevin smith's idea of a witty individual. if just the protagonists spoke in a certain manner, i would be able to accept it as mr smith acting out his frankenstein leading-man fantasies by putting his mind in a handsome man's body, but it's every character.
but this is a matter of taste, as i said.
I'm half inclined to agree with you here. And there are certainly times when the dialogue does lapse into things that look great on a page but not necessarily when read aloud. But, here, I'll say what I said of Clerks. It worked, not because the dialogue was delivered well or was even conducive to effective delivery, but what the dialogue SAID, in and of itself, made it work. In Clerks, I don't think anybody much gave a shit HOW a thing was said, so much as WHAT was being said (anybody that says Clerks was well acted is a fool; anybody that says the dialogue wasn't kick ass, is also). I'd hold that the same is true for this movie, though to a lesser degree, AND, in this movie, the WAY it was said was done well enough to not only convey the dialogue's impact, but also to give it an emotional and contextual investment. I am not a great fan of clunky dialogue, myself, but there are times when it works, and most of the time, in Chasing Amy, it does. I can't help but thinking of Pulp Fiction here. Do you think the dialogue, written, is something easily done by an actor? Do you think that Sam Jackson and John Travolta acted naturally and not unnecessarily verbose when delivering the lines that made it famous? You may very well think both things, I have no idea of your opinions on that movie, but my opinion is that the answer to both questions is "no", but even considering that, the scenes were still pulled off by competent delivery, yes, but also, because it wasn't how it was said that would make the scenes work, but WHAT is being said. All this leads into a discussion of film criticism in general, the discussion of dialogue, that I'm not prepared to get into, but for me, the dialogue worked, and it was given extra momentum by the acting, and thus, what I heard on screen came off just fine. I thought that the actual thoughts and ideas expressed were good, and that the delivery came off great in the context of the scenes.
BUT, I think your real problem with the movie is in terms of the plot, so let's go there.
quote:
Originally posted by Buddha's Penis!
what really bothered me was plot-related (as you already know o paint). okay, bear with me. this is sort of minor*, but irritating as hell.
alyssa, the "lesbian", leads holden to believe that she has never been with a man. she does this numerous times, more through not revealing it when given the opportunity than by lying, during conversations regarding sex.
You're asking for two different things, now. On the one hand, you're faulting the acting and dialogue for not being natural, but on the other, you're asking for human behavior to be totally rational, black and white, and ethically clear cut. I agree that Alyssa could have mentioned she fucked guys in the past on any number of occasions. I'm not sure why the fact that she didn't is such a hang up for you.
NOW, I'll invoke Salon:
That's why Kevin Smith's ragged and affecting "Chasing Amy" is such a relief. "Chasing Amy" isn't going to single-handedly save romantic comedy, but Smith ("Clerks") has made the only romantic comedy in quite a while that acknowledges, even celebrates, the fact that love and sex are emotional anarchy. One of the most enjoyable things about watching "Chasing Amy" is knowing that it's going to piss off a lot of people. It could prove to be as bad a date movie for some couples as it might be a real turn-on for others. Anyone with set ideas about sex roles or orientations is likely to get steamed. But if you've ever wound up in bed with someone, asking yourself, "How the hell did this happen?" this movie is likely to affirm the wisdom of the '50s pop music duo Mickey and Sylvia: Love is strange.
You're asking people to behave, in romance, as if in a court of law. One of the themes of the movie, I thought anyway, is insecurity and emotional anarchy in the context of love and sexuality. Is the fact that a self-proclaimed lesbian doesn't admit to having had sex with guys what you take umbrage too? On what grounds? That to not do so is unnatural and unrealistic? That it makes her less of a sympathetic character (I agree there, but that's also sort of the point, in that there isn't a good guy / bad guy here, just situations and romances). Why does that matter? She never out and out lied, but she never admitted to it either. That's how I present a few of my own sexual exploits as well. Simply put, that's how people act.
We had this conversation many months ago, and then, I accused you of taking issue with the movie because you yourself were fooled, on this point, and were annoyed because of that. Well, welcome to Holden's world.
quote:
Originally posted by Buddha's Penis!
THESE TIMES ARE THUS:
they discuss "why she is a lesbian" and she does not mention that she fucked guys. her statements do not in any way even hint at her actual history, leading me to think it's either a) deliberate covering-up of facts by the character or b) bad writing
I'll agree with A. My response: So?
Chicks do this. Even straight ones.
quote:
Originally posted by Buddha's Penis!
.
they discuss virginity, and how she is not a virgin because she has been fisted and such, and she does not mention that she has fucked guys. she instead points out the foolishness of holden's ideas of virginity, that being penetration by a man, but it's all irrelevant because she is not a virgin in that sense either. mr smith chooses a witty banter-moment over logical plot, i think.
You missed the entire point of that whole exchange, I think. Alyssa wasn't answering to provide a full and clear picture of herself. She wasn't answering at all. Every question Holden gave her, she shot right back with one of her own, to challenge his perspective on sexuality and virginity and whatnot. Sure, that's irrelevant if Alyssa's entire purpose in the discussion was to prove what a virgin she was, but that wasn't the point at all, she was having a conversation with somebody who might be a romantic prospect. So, instead of having to provide papers about how she's never been penetrated by a man, she instead needled out his own worldviews on sex. I never took this conversation as being akin to a courtroom drama in line with "you either did or you didn't!". It was two people talking.
A logical point? Do you really think that exchange was meant to be a logical proof? Or was it a human conversation between two people that may or may not have feelings for each other. And, she DOES have logical points, at least in the general sense of what being a virgin means. That those points may be irrelevant to her specific case for being a virgin, is itself irrelevant to the conversation. In writing, it's referred to as a deeper meaning. On the surface, it was just a conversation where Holden tries to determine if Alyssa's ever been really fucked before. Alyssa doesn't counter on that level, she instead turns it into a conversation about Holden's perceptions of sex and sexuality. She certainly doesn't lie, she instead distills the conversation into what it's really about.
quote:
Originally posted by Buddha's Penis!
they discuss "why she is no longer a lesbian" and she still fails to mention, in her speech about how she lost sight of why she became a lesbian in the first place, that she sampled dick a tad before coming to that conclusion.
How is that relevant to why she is currently a lesbian? If you are annoyed because you thought you (and Holden) were tricked into thinking she had never been with a guy before, then fair enough. That's part of the point. But also part of the point is how her past actions don't necessarily make up who she is today, or how she perceives things. And thus, saying she has been boned before doesn't necessarily even come into the conversation.
quote:
Originally posted by Buddha's Penis!
also, alyssa tells her lesbian friends that she is with a man, and they are shocked to the point of being appalled. so i guess they don't know about her gangbang-related stories either. that or they think saying you're a lesbian is a sacred oath.
The latter guess is the entire point of the scene. The movie was, by some crowds, largely criticized by the perception that it said that lesbianism is something that could be "cured". Most of that criticism came from hard core lesbian feminists. That scene that you mention is one in which Smith was turning it around on them, that some hard core lesbian feminists consider you a traitor if you sleep with a man.
quote:
Originally posted by Buddha's Penis!
this all leads to my main problem(unless this is all a joke i do not get). when holden finds out that she used to be kind of a slut, he gets all insecure because he's less experienced. he doesn't get mad because she led him to believe all this stuff (which isn't a huge deal to me, of course, but there's at least a lead-in to this conflict within the plot), he's insecure.
I don't think it was ever denied that she was a slut. The only thing that was ever evaded (difference) was which sexes she was a slut with. On that point, I would guess that an obvious question would be "What does it matter what sex she was a slut with, if you know she was a slut?".
quote:
Originally posted by Buddha's Penis!
this, again, leads to a pretty fucking ridiculous conclusion. because he is insecure about his relative lack of experience, and because they have determined (without real development, as far as i'm concerned) that banky is in love with holden, holden decides that the best thing to do is to propose a threesome. again, if this is supposed to be funny i guess i'm just not getting it. it's given a weird gravity, and indeed ends up separating the three. okay.
The whole point of that conclusion is that Holden was missing the whole point. I have avoided thusfar getting into what I think the "message" of the movie was, and only commenting on what I think certain things suggest. It is indeed a pretty fucking ridiculous conclusion. That is the point. It wasn't meant as a joke, nor was it meant to be an obvious logical conclusion.
And as far as Banky goes, I don't think he was in love with Holden, or at least, I don't think it was as clear cut as you seem to think it was. And, I don't think the movie meant to suggest either.
quote:
Originally posted by Buddha's Penis!
- kevin smith doesn't direct very much. he lacks any sort of personal style as far as i can tell, except maybe the hockey-rink scene in which he times the emotional situation with a hockey fight. a masterstroke. and as paint points out, he's hardly wringing the best from his actors.
this works when the plot is working. see above.
Yeah, I liked what Ebert said about Smith's directing style: "Smith's direction is clunky and basic: He tends to arrange his characters, aim the camera, and let them talk. Visual grace is not yet his strong point, but in a movie like ``Chasing Amy'' that is absolutely all right. His strength is the ability to create characters and give them dialogue that's alive and charged. "
quote:
Originally posted by Buddha's Penis!
- jay and silent bob. good in his other films, and a hunk of deus ex machina shit in this one. their scene, and the use of these characters in this movie, is gimmicky and pointless.
Agreed on gimmicky, not on pointless.
quote:
Originally posted by Buddha's Penis!
on top, maybe despite, of all that i didn't find any humour in it.
That's because you're a virgin with no sense of humor.
Anyway, on the whole, I think that your qualm is that you wanted it to be logical and consistent, and human relationships don't work like that at all, and this movie reflected, as Salon said, the anarchy of love. That, plus matters of personal taste, is why you are wrong.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
![[new thread]](/images/vb/button_newthread_off.png "Post New Thread")
![[post reply]](/images/vb/button_newreply_off.png "Post A Reply")
05-08-2003 01:53 AM
