tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post7699587255260431219..comments2024-03-24T13:26:57.317-07:00Comments on Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule: LET'S ALL GO OUT TO THE MOVIES!Dennis Cozzaliohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-90119219781598140872010-11-19T16:34:40.458-08:002010-11-19T16:34:40.458-08:00But the fact that it would have occurred even once...<i> But the fact that it would have occurred even once leads me to some pretty depressing conclusions about the way we seem to have lost touch with common sense courtesies when it comes to interacting with others in public situations, and it’s not unreasonable to presume that much of this ineptitude can be traced to how much more easy it is in the 21st century to experience films and other arts and entertainments in a solitary fashion, where it doesn’t matter if you burp or fart or snore or check your phone every five minutes, where you can rewind to catch a piece of dialogue you might have missed whilst snoring, or punch up the display function to see how much more this boring art snoozer you feel obligated to endure has left to go before the merciful end. Then again, there’s always the possibility that home theater convenience is less to blame than we’re willing to concede. Maybe these people are just self-centered assholes.<br /></i><br /><br />I think what would help is a two or three assassinations of these assholes so people would "think twice."Dick Cheneynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-8753442255754697612010-11-13T15:14:16.506-08:002010-11-13T15:14:16.506-08:00Dennis, too many things to respond to, so I'll...Dennis, too many things to respond to, so I'll just pick two things and try to be quick about it ...<br /><br />1) I've done that stare-at-the-cellphone trick. I've also just turned and looked directly at the person looking at their phone. It never works the first time. Seems to always work the second. I will never understand why people go to the movies in the first place to not actually watch the movie, never mind the rudeness of opening up a box of light on the lap. One of these days I promise you I'm going to go to the theater loaded with a flashlight, and if someone opens their phone, I'll shine my flashlight in their eyes (presuming I'm relatively confident they can't beat me up, of course).<br /><br />2) Herzog. He's a character, and I love him for that. But who gets away with more because of his personality -- Herzog or Eastwood? It might be Herzog, because he has a reputation for being something of a lunatic, and yet we still love the guy.<br /><br />I can't get over the way that the audience member is actually SUPPORTING Herzog by saying that it's "the lie that tells the truth," but Herzog somehow refutes that, which only make his cinematic lying feel more deceitful. In a nod back to a post on this blog earlier this year, can you imagine what people would do to James Cameron if he (a) made a movie in 3-D and then said he didn't like the format and then (b) made shit up in a documentary and then (c) jumped down the throat of a guy who verbalized that he made shit up? Cameron would be crucified for it. But with Uncle Werner everyone just accepts it and tries to justify it. I still love me some Herzog, don't get me wrong. But the double-standard drives me fucking crazy. <br /><br />Herzog refuses to acknowledge that the deceitfulness of his uses of "artistic license" is related to his intended effect. That is, his lies create depth that often isn't there -- which means that the audience member was actually being too flattering, because often Herzog is telling lies that tell lies, and nothing more. That he refuses to acknowledge this only makes his tactics seem more suspect. He seems to have decided that anything he can get within the frame is "true." His mind works in mysterious ways.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-4920056872451572332010-11-13T11:32:48.802-08:002010-11-13T11:32:48.802-08:00Great post. I can't wait to see what I make of...Great post. I can't wait to see what I make of "House."<br /><br />That Godard incident makes me feel a little less bad about not being able to get down their Wednesday.<br /><br />Ooh. A "Kwai" restoration. The one time I saw it at the Cinerama Dome, I wasn't too impressed with the rather grainy print. Looking forward to that.<br /><br />And, boy, oh boy, will I have to go out of my way to see that "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" print. Wow.Bob Westalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17515868620255715845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-74034074636527882122010-11-13T09:00:06.344-08:002010-11-13T09:00:06.344-08:00Did you have a chance to see RUBBER?Did you have a chance to see RUBBER?Robert H.http://mimezine.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-48637262757386341782010-11-13T08:35:28.440-08:002010-11-13T08:35:28.440-08:00Great and timely piece, Dennis. Earlier this week ...Great and timely piece, Dennis. Earlier this week I watched the restored "Bridge on the River Kwai" at the new IU Cinema, a gorgeous print and a gorgeous theater. Yet right behind me, a 50-ish gentleman squeezed a water bottle *loudly* throughout the first half of the movie. (Blessedly, he left early.) What got me was he seemed completely oblivious to his own behavior; not even turning around and giving him the stinkeye helped. Cell phones and texting are certainly issues when watching a movie in public, but I've seen moviegoers come up with all kinds of creative ways to be a nuisance, and it's not just the purview of the younger generation.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-16769658642386141262010-11-13T05:34:08.757-08:002010-11-13T05:34:08.757-08:00You're far too kind, Dennis. Thank you very m...You're far too kind, Dennis. Thank you very much for the link, and for making my post look brainier than it was. And incidentally this:<br /><br /><i>And I don’t think that ambivalence, especially in this case, is necessarily cleaved to a connotation of negativity.</i><br /><br />is spot on. Just as you wouldn't trust someone who didn't have some ambivalence towards HOUSE, I'm not sure I could trust someone who couldn't find some pleasure, even ironic pleasure, in it, either. It's too loony-bird to not find something appealing about it.<br /><br />Peter's comment about seeing HOUSE in the theater did spark something, because I would have very much liked to have experienced the film for the first time in a theater, with an audience. Ideally, someone would have said to me "We're going to see a Japanese movie called HOUSE. You've never heard of it. Let's go."<br /><br />That's a pretty unlikely scenario, at least for me, unfortunately, but I still wasn't quite prepared for HOUSE. And I was left curious -- Netflix has one other Obayashi film available, and I will absolutely be checking that out.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.com