avclub-935f361fa2c753a8b94f28f3f94914cf--disqus
Garaks Forehead Thing
avclub-935f361fa2c753a8b94f28f3f94914cf--disqus

Is this a porn?

My favorite line in this review: "Plowing through Bigelow’s filmography isn’t all that daunting, really."

Bacon pancakes, makin' bacon pancakes.

Yeah, my point isn't about Girls, but about the strange selective empathy of internet critics.  They have a nearly unlimited sympathy for the trivial problems of wealthy white women, but when a movie comes out that mines the most fundamental violation of humanity imaginable for cheap pathos they are strangely

Yep.  Good link.

I'm really glad someone (outside of the New Yorker and NYRB) has noticed this.  Beneath their 'gritty,' 'real' and 'journalistic' veneer, Bigelow's last two movies have been little more than warmed over Hollywood cliches grafted onto current events.

It's shot on 35mm?  Really?  You sure it's not shot on studio cameras at 24 fps?  Or maybe a large sensor d-cinema camera?

@avclub-489acfbfa4d2424403acb81699170ac2:disqus I didn't sense any malice in your question, I hope that's apparent in my reply.  This is something that really merits discussion and I'm happy to discuss it with anyone.

@avclub-0d4efaa2c9d1041eb9b8b5319eec8531:disqus Titanic is a very useful example, and I'm happy to run with it.  First, a clarification: the issue at hand isn't whether ZDT is better than Titanic or more 'important,' but rather that ZDT implies realism in a way that Titanic does not, that could end up really confusing

I have, I regret patronizing the film immensely and I don't agree with that statement at all.  I found that while the presentation of torture in the movie had the general appearance of a fair and balanced debate, it diverged from the historical record in some very important ways, making it the most damaging sort of

@avclub-0d4efaa2c9d1041eb9b8b5319eec8531:disqus I think I get what's pissing you off, but I also think you've chosen the wrong target.  There absolutely exists a certain self-aggrandizing, pseudo-intellectual tone that online critics employ to inflate the value of their work (example A: 90% of everything Todd

Challenge 1: don't sensationalize torture, implying effectiveness where none existed.

Just discovered Adventure Time (thanks to Makin' Bacon Pancakes) and holy fucking shit am I happy as a pig in clover.

@avclub-bbb3af3d466d7231aa738ff95762091d:disqus That tension is well documented, but out of date and often exaggerated to make the creative intentions of people in production look good. Certainly, most folks on the production side don't always see eye-to-eye with programming and sales.  But at this point, this long

@avclub-bbb3af3d466d7231aa738ff95762091d:disqus That tension is well documented, but out of date and often exaggerated to make the creative intentions of people in production look good. Certainly, most folks on the production side don't always see eye-to-eye with programming and sales.  But at this point, this long

Interesting thoughts, but I don't find them convincing.

Interesting thoughts, but I don't find them convincing.

@avclub-e3f5ab7f02122f95b801e13e2c586d6a:disqus Oh I'm not saying that cynicism doesn't exist in those other mediums.  Certainly, it does.

@avclub-e3f5ab7f02122f95b801e13e2c586d6a:disqus Oh I'm not saying that cynicism doesn't exist in those other mediums.  Certainly, it does.

There's an important difference.  In the case of, say, movies, literature or music, the intention of the creator is to sell media/entertainment/art/whatever directly to you.  They're in the business of making media for your consumption.