TV/Movies Megathread

[Ideologue]

He also did Fog of War, which, as noted, I really, really liked.

McNamara.

You're liking it for the wrong reasons.     

That is almost certainly true.

[Capetan Mihali]

Yo, Mihali, you might be interested in The Unknown Known.  That's Morris' new joint, about (obviously) Donald Rumsfeld.

Yeah, I saw that was playing in Boston.  Ended up opting for "Big Trouble" that night for fun and other person's taste, but I'd still like to see it.

[Admiral Yi]

I saw a bit of Fog of War and thought it followed a very predictable, Michael Mooresque template.

They need to invent a new category of films other than documentary to describe this type of work.

[celedhring]

An oldie, but really impressive one is "Les maîtres fous" by Jean Rouch, about a sincretic cult in Niger where its practitioners are possessed by the spirits of the British colonial administrators and even Western pieces of technology (really).

[Capetan Mihali]

It was a while ago, but I recall not liking Fog Of War that much, I think because I felt McNamara's "lessons" were pretty pedestrian and the movie let him off too easily since he was on "our side" now (then).

But I'd need to revisit it.  One I definitely want to revisit soon is Capturing The Friedmans, that was great.

[mongers]

The Atlantic had an article contrasting Fog of War and Known Unknowns:

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/04/the-true-subject-of-errol-morriss-donald-rumsfeld-doc-smugness/360344/

"The True Subject of Errol Morris's Donald Rumsfeld Doc: Smugness"

Thanks for that.

[The Minsky Moment]

I saw a bit of Fog of War and thought it followed a very predictable, Michael Mooresque template.

?
It was nothing like Michael Moore, in content, style approach, messaging, or anything else
Mihali's criticism is more apt, but I also think is misplaced.   I don't think EM was trying to let him off easy, I think he was stringing out rope for McNamara to ensnare himself on.
What I got from FOW was that McNamara basically has learned nothing, he still has the same intellectual arrogance that leads him to believe he can understand the complexities of the world and reduce them to basic maxims.  He doesn't get that the real problem was not failure to take into account his "lessons"  but the arrogance that led him to discount the possibility he could be wrong.

[Razgovory]

I saw a bit of Fog of War and thought it followed a very predictable, Michael Mooresque template.

They need to invent a new category of films other than documentary to describe this type of work.

Movies Yi dislikes?

[Capetan Mihali]

I saw a bit of Fog of War and thought it followed a very predictable, Michael Mooresque template.

?
It was nothing like Michael Moore, in content, style approach, messaging, or anything else
Mihali's criticism is more apt, but I also think is misplaced.   I don't think EM was trying to let him off easy, I think he was stringing out rope for McNamara to ensnare himself on.
What I got from FOW was that McNamara basically has learned nothing, he still has the same intellectual arrogance that leads him to believe he can understand the complexities of the world and reduce them to basic maxims.  He doesn't get that the real problem was not failure to take into account his "lessons"  but the arrogance that led him to discount the possibility he could be wrong.

I ought to watch it again.  I think my recollection of the film is colored by my experience of the political atmosphere surrounding its reception, which as I remember it, was basically that McNamara was a brave pentito who should be welcomed with open arms in the argument against the Iraq War.  Morris's captioning of the "lessons" also probably confused me as to whether they were being endorsed as good ideas, silly clichés, or what exactly.

[mongers]

I saw a bit of Fog of War and thought it followed a very predictable, Michael Mooresque template.

?
It was nothing like Michael Moore, in content, style approach, messaging, or anything else
Mihali's criticism is more apt, but I also think is misplaced.   I don't think EM was trying to let him off easy, I think he was stringing out rope for McNamara to ensnare himself on.
What I got from FOW was that McNamara basically has learned nothing, he still has the same intellectual arrogance that leads him to believe he can understand the complexities of the world and reduce them to basic maxims.  He doesn't get that the real problem was not failure to take into account his "lessons"  but the arrogance that led him to discount the possibility he could be wrong.

I ought to watch it again.  I think my recollection of the film is colored by my experience of the political atmosphere surrounding its reception, which as I remember it, was basically that McNamara was a brave pentito who should be welcomed with open arms in the argument against the Iraq War.  Morris's captioning of the "lessons" also probably confused me as to whether they were being endorsed as good ideas, silly clichés, or what exactly.

Yes, I think I'll watch it again.

I'll try to make up my own mind, but I think JR has nearly hit the nail on the head, from what I recall a certain pride remained in own special intellect.  Though from what I recall, he had some interesting things to say about war making in foreign policy today.

[jimmy olsen]

Sounds terrible! 

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/04/draft_day_movie_kevin_costner_and_roger_goodell_star_in_the_nfl_s_version.html

[The Minsky Moment]

McNamara is a very smart guy and he did have a number of interesting thing to say.
I think it was intention that the movie be received in the way that Mihali describes it was received by some at the time and that is why he did the project.
But he just can't help himself.
What I don't know is whether Morris was intentionally (if subtly) trying to frame the message that McNamara didn't really learn from his mistakes.  It really doesn't matter though, because it succeeds in that sense, at least it did for me.

[Sheilbh]

It has a fair point, but I thought it was exploitative and too ready to indulge its monstrous subjects.  It doesn't help that they're so morally stupid that they're hard to relate to as human at all.  But documentaries are a hard branch of film to review.

There have been some outstanding documentaries in the past few years. It feels, maybe a bit like Mihali's point about Ebert in the 80s, that they feel able to be a bit more interesting in style.

A couple of the best I've seen recently are sporting ones like Senna and Fire in Babylon - the latter is particularly outstanding.

[Ideologue]

I'm not saying I dislike documentaries--well, actually, I might be, since 99 times out of a 100 (or at least 97 times out of a 100 ) I'll choose the narrative film.  But my main contention is that they are hard to set beside narrative films in terms of quality, because the subject dictates their content and to a certain degree even the style.  A fair number of folks agree with me (including the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences ).

I do still need to see Senna.  I've wanted to do a feature on racing movies, Rush, Senna, Le Mans, Driven, Speed Racer, Talladega Nights, and, of course, Tony Scott's masterpiece, Days of Thunder and the one truly epic racing film, the three-hour, continent-spanning powerhouse that is Grand Prix.  Open to other suggestions on that count as well, from the before times (Sav? any silent racing pictures I should watch?).  I am also open to your vitriol for kind of liking Driven.

[Ed Anger]

Wait.... Days of Thunder. Masterpiece.