The last movie you saw Thread

[Alatar]

I don't feel I'm being elitist Brigand. This is something that used to only happen in the US, but has started to creep in to the West End also. Its normally precipitated by "star" casting. Fortunately, this is rare enough in London, but Amber Riley's performances in Dreamgirls were marred by audience members standing up and whooping during her key changes like they were in an X-Factor audience instead of attending a piece of theatre. Again, I'll cheer like a maniac at a Rock concert, but I won't do it at a dramatic piece of theatre. Its simply inconsiderate to the performers. Its a matter of courtesy, not snobbery.

[Jude]

This was at the end of Dvorak's Stabat Mater, a long meditation on Mary's grief over the death of Jesus that the composer wrote after a year in which two of his very young children had died.

Incidentally, did I ever tell you why there's a section in Dvorak's Stabat Mater where the tenors and sopranos have to really struggle to keep a straight face, or was that on b77?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Not here.

http://board77.org/viewtopic.php?p=367463#p367463

[Primula Baggins]

Yeah, I think "fac" is in the word filter here.

[Lalaith]

Generally, in a movie, if the moment is one that demands silence, everyone feels it and is silent. In symphonies and long choral works, though, some people feel the social obligation to applaud ahead of, or instead of, any actual response to the music.

Whereas, yesterday, when I took Sarah to see Hidden Figures we experienced the opposite, thanks to two old men sitting behind us. Keep in mind that there were 6 of us in the movie theatre: 2 old ladies, Sarah and me, and the 2 old men. The 2 old men were so rude. They were talking during the movie, belching, and then...

Hidden text.

...in the critical moments of silence where Ground Control has lost contact with Glenn and the SILENCE is the very thing that builds the suspense and drama of the climax of the movie, they were rooting around in their popcorn bags like damn pigs snorting around for truffles! I could NOT believe how rude they were. The belching took the cake. I mean, COME ON!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That's incredible, Lali. And awful.

[eborr]

Caught an interesting if slightly unsatisfying documentary on netflixs last night, "I am your Father" which was a crowdfunded film about the life of David Prowse, focusing unsuprisingly on his time as Darth Vader. The thesis of the film on which I was sold was that Lucas had treated Prowse very shabbily, and despite compellingly evidence to to contary from the journo who released the story still blsmes Prowse for revealing that Darth Vader was goingto die in film 3. Lucusfilm still ban Prowse from attending any official star wars events, which is both an injustices and spiteful. It seems that George had something else to apologies for in addition to episodes I,II and III

[N.E. Brigand]

I've been lucky enough to be part of an audience so well trained that they did not begin to applaud at the very end of the work until the conductor (Helmuth Rilling in this case) lowered his baton. And he didn't do it for a loooong time. This was at the end of Dvorak's Stabat Mater, a long meditation on Mary's grief over the death of Jesus that the composer wrote after a year in which two of his very young children had died. I'll never, never forget that moment, and one unthinking person could have shattered it. Two thousand people were there, and no one did.

I'm not really making a judgement one way or the other. But I wonder how Dvorak himself would have reacted to your silence. Wikipedia says that the trend toward less applause happened over the course of the 19th Century, but also that sacred works were always treated differently.

On the opposite end of the classical spectrum, this sure seems like a fun time:

[Túrin Turambar]

Gettysburg (1993). It’s interesting as an example of a case where film-makers have put authenticity to the source material above conventional cinematic considerations.

I recently read the novel on which the film is based, The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara, which won the Pulitzer Prize. I had seen parts of the film, but after reading the book decided to watch the whole thing.

Personally, I think it works. It sprawls across four hours and dozens of characters, but it follows Shaara’s original viewpoint characters, and they are all sound choices from a dramatic perspective. The human interest comes from the travails of Colonel Chamberlain on the Union side (a great performance by Jeff Daniels) and the complex relationship between Generals Longstreet and Lee on the Confederate. It’s an interesting look at the interactions between superiors and subordinates – I could see extracts being played at management consulting seminars.

I like the visuals. There is just something about hundreds of extras that looks more real than CGI, even by today’s standards. That said, either through limitations in the special effects budget or a desire to keep a low rating the battle comes across as oddly bloodless. Men fall down (as Ax once noted here, carefully, as to not damage their vintage muskets) but no-one is actually visually harmed.

Of course, the indulgence towards the source material is justified by the popular enthusiasm for the American Civil War, mostly within the United States but also overseas. So you have thousands of people willing to pay to see a blow-by-blow re-enactment of the most famous battle. That approach might not work in all cases, but it’s good to see it done well here.

[Sunsilver]

When our family visited the battlefield at Gettysburg, our tour guide said you could have walked from one side of the battlefield to the other, without touching the ground once. That's how many corpses there were.

To hear that this battle was portrayed as bloodless on the cinema screen outrages me! No, I don't want to see blood spurting every time a bullet strikes, but out of respect for the men who lost their lives, I want to see SOMETHING that gives the viewer a sense of the huge scope of the carnage!

But the cinema in the U.S. has too often tried to glorify the wars their country has fought...

[Túrin Turambar]

To hear that this battle was portrayed as bloodless on the cinema screen outrages me! No, I don't want to see blood spurting every time a bullet strikes, but out of respect for the men who lost their lives, I want to see SOMETHING that gives the viewer a sense of the huge scope of the carnage!

But the cinema in the U.S. has too often tried to glorify the wars their country has fought...

As I said above, I think limitations in the special effects (technology and budget) were more responsible for the limited blood on camera than any desire to glorify the battle. The scenes where blood is shown are obviously those where they had the chance to make up the extras with wounds beforehand. For example, those involving casualties in field hospitals.

[yovargas]

Get out and go see Get Out. Soooo good! Best new movie I've see in months!

[Lalaith]

I've never even heard of it. What's it about?

[yovargas]

I've never even heard of it.

It's been the #1 movie two weeks in a row. Clearly you need to get out more.

It's about a white girl who's bringing home her black boyfriend home to her parents for the first time for the weekend. He's a bit nervous about that but the parents seem nice, if a bit lame. But as the weekend progresses, things around the house start to get a little weird. Very a little weird. Maybe he was right to be nervous.....


It's getting billed as a "horror" movie which I don't think it's accurate. It does get quite creepy and there is a small amount of (largely non-gratuitous) violence, but I think "psychological thriller" is a much more accurate tag. And it's at 99% on Rotten Tomatoes!

PS - Don't watch the trailer, it spoils so many of the surprises!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Interestingly, it is directed by Jordon Peele of the comedy duo "Key and Peele" though it certainly is not a comedy (although from what I understand it does have some comedic bits).

[axordil]

Really want to see Get Out this week. Just saw Logan, which was pretty intense. Someone should strap Zack Snyder down and make him watch how to do a "serious" superhero movie.

[Lalaith]

Ohhhh, yes! I saw the previews for that. It looked pretty good! I just forgot the name.

[Alatar]

So I watched the Extended Edition of King Kong over the weekend with the kids. I really don't see why its so maligned. The CG work is stellar, the characterisations are great, and all in all its a damn fun ride. It really doesn't take itself too seriously, which is something I miss in modern movies. I do think its better suited to the armchair than the cinema though.

I was reminded of this post when I read the following review:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-v ... vie-983493

In other news, I saw Logan. It deserves a post when I have time to gather my thoughts properly.

[Maria]

We've watched "Dr. Strange" twice in the past couple of weeks. It was just as good the second time.

[yovargas]

So I watched the Extended Edition of King Kong over the weekend with the kids. I really don't see why its so maligned. The CG work is stellar, the characterisations are great, and all in all its a damn fun ride. It really doesn't take itself too seriously, which is something I miss in modern movies. I do think its better suited to the armchair than the cinema though.

I was reminded of this post when I read the following review:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-v ... vie-983493

I remember quite liking King Kong - I think I even saw it twice in theaters - but though I found it likeable, I think it's hard to argue against accusations of it being bloated, messy, and self-indulgent. That old PJ problem of never knowing quite when enough is enough which led in most all his movies to have some high highs mixed in with a fair share of low lows.