I'm not suggesting that specific silent films be remade. I'd just like to see our best contemporary filmmakers make silents.

Nothing whatsoever. I'm just saying he's game for anything. That's not a criticism.

If I'm just trolling to badmouth Children of Men some more, I'm doing a piss-poor job, wouldn't you say? One offhand remark followed by a post semi-defending Wicker Man? I was just noting with amusement that I like one of their "best bad movies" more than at least one of their actual best movies—CoM happened to be the…

MoSam: It's definitely not-hate as opposed to like—I gave Wicker Man a C+ at the time. And I think changing the protagonist's, uh, status (trying to avoid spoilers; presumably you know what I mean) was a huge mistake. But the remake has a crazy, compelling conviction of its own, and imo even a lot of the classic…

Take your stupid mask.
I look forward to seeing how many of your decade top 50 I think The Wicker Man is really truly unironically better than. I know Children of Men is one…

> I guaran-fucking-tee you don't like irreversible either

I had heard in advance from some critic friends that there were several mindblowing single takes but didn't know the specifics. So it's not as if the scene began and I was instantly on the defensive somehow. I just began to get distracted when the camera kept moving into positions that should theoretically not be…

No, I don't see. I'm refuting an intellectual argument, not somebody's subjective feeling. People felt whatever they felt watching the film; I'm saying they may be mistaken about *why* they felt that way—that the argument that not cutting somehow more closely resembles reality does not hold water.

> It's his assertion that these shots are trying and failing to mimic the function of the
> human visual system

Actually I hate the Atonement scene way, way more. But a lot of people agree that that's pointlessly flashy—I felt there was more value and interest in criticizing a scene that garnered multiple cinematography awards the year it was released.

If you reread what I wrote, you'll see that I didn't in any way suggest that anyone who likes this scene and/or Children of Men is an idiot. I was referring very specifically to the friends with whom I've argued this subject in the past, around the time that the movie came out. I noted what *their* argument was (stop…

Guys, reading comprehension is your friend. I did not say that cutting from 1926 Paris to 2009 New York mimics an eyeblink. I merely pointed out that our visual field is by no means continuous, by way of refuting the common argument that *not* cutting more accurately mimics the way we see things. Right here in this…

I promise you I'm not making an argument I don't actually believe just to get a rise out of people. I really truly find these trick shots every bit as irritating as incoherent Bay-style rapid-fire edits.

I have no problem whatsoever with long static shots. I also have no problem whatsoever with many lengthy tracking shots, though that seems to have escaped almost everyone.

followup 2
Here's our fundamental disagreement:

followup 1
Obviously I was prepared for most people to disagree, since this is one of the most celebrated scenes of the past several years. Rather than try to address everyone's objections individually (especially since there'll be 50 more while I draft this), I'm just gonna use Tom Waits As Snowman's thoughtful post…

BAM! TRUTH BOMB! I stand oh so corrected.

Ironically, Crimson Gold was written by Kiarostami, who does continue to do fine work in films he doesn't direct himself.

I chose Manchurian Candidate without knowing for sure whether I'd go with the garden-club scene or the Sinatra-Leigh meet-weird. Watched both, felt like I had more to say about this one. But this is among my 20 or so favorite films of all time, so I could write about practically any scene in the whole damn thing.

No no. I was just riffing on the dialogue. (Every week I have to come up with a new way of saying "Here's the clip, watch it why don'tcha.")