I went to the DGAs and had a lovely chat with Margaret Sixel and nothing that great is likely to happen to me for a long time, so I'm going to savor this for a while.

I mean, Tatum's number in Hail, Caesar is already halfway there.

Greenaway remains utterly foreign, never trying to graps what Mexican culture feels like.

Yeah, and I'd just sort of forgotten this, because I was remembering stuff like "pours molten silver down guy's throat" or "a forest full of blinded men" and thought, well, it's all fake, so it's not really a problem.

Is there a more common expression in Coens criticism than "[INSERT FILM] is one that when I saw it, I thought it was a lesser Coens film, but now I think it's one of their best." I think it has something to do with the ways they undercut convention, so that we sometimes feel unsatisfied at first, but eventually the…

Yeah, I like Nelson's O quite a bit.

Macbeth is the most consistently well-filmed of Shakespeare's plays. Between Kurosawa, Orson Wells, and Roman Polanski, it's an embarrassment of riches.

Yeah, I got in trouble for showing the movie to a class without warning them first. I'd somehow forgotten that scene was unsimulated and should have said something before screening it. Eh, well.

Throne of Blood is my favorite Shakespeare film, full stop. Even without the language it somehow feels more like Macbeth to me than any of the other (admittedly very good) versions.

Plus Clooney did some penance for that by being in Roseanne. One great sitcom neutralizes the stink of a lesser one.

The last DiCaprio movie where I think he was undeniably great - because he was well-cast and it suited his talents perfectly - was Catch Me If You Can. Leo the Charming Rogue is always more interesting than Leo of the Squinty Eyes, which is his default dramatic setting.

I do like that interpretation. I think it runs up a bit against two other scenes: Clooney's big crucifixion speech (where the crew seems on the verge of genuine conviction before having the rug pulled out) and the definitely genuine but misguided conviction of The Future. But still, you're right that the protagonist's…

No, you're totally right about that scene. What it means for his character, though, is more of an open question, and (if I'm remembering correctly) I think it depends a bit on how you interpret a later bit of information. Hard to explain without going full-spoiler here.

Nah, I think we may just be talking past each other. It's a complicated movie. There's a lot to chew on.

Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.

I understand what you're arguing, but I guess I don't understand why you're so insistent that this is very narrowly and specifically a focus on Hollywood representation, though. There's nothing in Ben Hur that explains, for example, their treatment of Mannix "fixing" ScarJo's problems - for that, we have to look…

Sure, although I think you could extend it past Hollywood - it's hard (I think) not to read whatever they say about Hollywood as equally applicable to the Gospels themselves (i.e. these things happen, but these are how the stories were repackaged to make them into a streamlined, somewhat artificial, uplifting…

I missed the first myself (it was pointed out in one of the reviews I read, then everything clicked into place.)

Blood Simple has one of the funniest shots they ever did shoot: the long tracking shot down the bar, where the camera has to move to avoid hitting a drunk patron.

Also, I am entirely behind using "Hollywoo" regularly as the correct moniker. Points for you, sir or madam!