Saturday, August 27, 2005

Palindromes

On Codex Blogspot Tyler Williams comments on Palindromes, the latest film by one of my favorite directors Todd Solondz. Tyler’s reaction parallels some of the more hilarious comments of other critics here. He says: "my primary thought while watching the film was one of surprise -- surprise at the shots Solondz took at both sides of the abortion debate (among other things). This film is not subtle, many scenes hit you like a two-by-four". This is the beauty to Solondz' stories, in which pretty much everyone is a hypocrite and ultimately in the same mess no matter how they fit on the moral compass. I'm as pro-choice as they come, but I'm under no delusion that my position is unassailable; and I'm certainly not pro-choice for the some of the reasons other people are.

I review the film thoroughly here, noting similarities between Solondz' cynical worldview and that of Eccelesiastes.

UPDATE: Ken Ristau strongly objects to Solondz' amoral worldview and approach to filmmaking in general, suggesting that "popcorn movies are even better than art-house". See his comments and my reply under Tyler's post. [Edit: I probably should have quoted Ken with more precision. He wasn't saying that popcorn films are generally better than art films, only that they can be better, particularly in this case. See his remarks below in the comments section.]

UPDATE (II): Tyler Williams has followed up his post with further analysis of the film. He considers some dialogue which damns the pro-choice cause (ouch), and also lines from the character Mark -- which on closer inspection confirms what I think about Ecclesiastes being in the background. Good work!

UPDATE (III): Ken Ristau explains his late dissatisfaction with art-house films here. He too works Ecclesiastes into the discussion.

6 Comments:

Blogger Ken said...

Well, that was a disingenous excerpt from my comments, which you've horribly ripped out of its original context.

8/27/2005  
Blogger Loren Rosson III said...

Ken, there is nothing horrible or disingenuous going on here. Your comments on the other blog (to which others are directed) clarify in any case.

8/27/2005  
Blogger Ken said...

You've quoted me so as if I claimed that popcorn movies were better than art-house period. But, that is not what I claimed nor would I. Rather, I claimed that popcorn movies are often better than art-house in providing a more optimistic/positive/hopeful resolution that is forward looking rather than endlessly navel-gazing concerning the human condition. Your quote is therefore irresponsible because it attributes to me a claim that I did not make. Not everyone is going to follow the link or even look at this comment thread. I would never knowingly quote someone in this manner, except in jest (as I did of Mark Goodacre in my post on consensus, which was obviously intended as humour).

8/27/2005  
Blogger Loren Rosson III said...

Ken, I will be careful about how I quote you in the future. Thanks for pointing this out.

8/27/2005  
Blogger Ken said...

I appreciate that but no correction in this post?

8/27/2005  
Blogger Ken said...

Thank-you.

8/27/2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home