Be Kind, Rewind - What it Means to Be an American?

Podly

So I saw Be Kind, Rewind last night, and it was probably the best cinematic experience I've ever had. Not gonna lie - I was crying the whole second half of the movie. The reason: Be Kind, Rewind, better than any other film, captures what it means to be an American, and, more importantly, what it means to be part of a community. (Pretty good, coming from a Frenchman) Despite what the trailers have lead everyone to believe, the film is not about Sweding films at all; it is about how community and art is already there, it just needs someone to bring them together.

Any other director would have simply used this film as a vehicle to make recursive and reflexive witty, ironic statements at their favorite films. (for instance

there could have been a great play on danny glover / morgan freeman

) Which would have been very entertaining, but Gondry has said before that he isn't a very big film buff. Gondry isn't interested in film as much as he is pure creation, and that shines through here.

Everyone was just waiting to be part of something. When it comes together 2/3 of the way through, it is quite possibly the most magic moment in film. The ending was so perfect that it really made me want to go start preaching brotherhood in the streets or something like that.

I'd say it's the best film I'm ever seen in theaters, and it really hasn't set in yet, but DEFINITELY in contention for my favorite film.

RandomEngy

It was an alright movie. Loved the Robocop parts and how they glued DVDs to the VHS boxes (while cutting off the sides).

As for the "this is so heartwarming" part about it, I guess it was just a little too difficult to believe people would get that excited over bad videos.

Gosling

I want to see this film.

It is not anywhere RESEMBLING here, at least this week. You people all need to go see it so they'll carry it here so I can see it.

thanimations

RandomEngy wrote: »

It was an alright movie. Loved the Robocop parts and how they glued DVDs to the VHS boxes (while cutting off the sides).

As for the "this is so heartwarming" part about it, I guess it was just a little too difficult to believe people would get that excited over bad videos.

It's about a community coming together and believing in something together, the mythical idea of an America where people were proud of their town and their neighborhood.

It's also about the power of film, about how much fun it is to simply act and out and make terrible movies that only you and your friends enjoy because you're in them.

Walrus

The sentiment may be a good one, but it's so poorly executed that the point is moot. The ending has a bunch of people who have had nothing to do with the rest of the film just turn up for no reason - not really an effective evocation of community.

moniker

mtvcdm wrote: »

I want to see this film.

Same. Jack Black + Mos Def seems like it should end well. The man is a frood.

thanimations

Walrus wrote: »

The sentiment may be a good one, but it's so poorly executed that the point is moot. The ending has a bunch of people who have had nothing to do with the rest of the film just turn up for no reason - not really an effective evocation of community.

I might not be remembering it correctly, but it seemed like everyone at the end was someone already established previously. Everyone involved with the film we had been introduced to, even if we didn't know their name, except for perhaps the pastor.

redfield85

It wasn't that bad of a movie. I enjoyed it.

"Whatcho gonna do about it? Ghostbussstaassss." Haha.

About the ending

I agree that having all those people there that weren't really a part of anything in the movie standing there in the end. And I don't get how they watched that whole movie they made with no volume. I am not trying to get all in-depth and analyze everything, but I thought that was kind of dumb. And was there a band standing out there or was it just me?

It was enjoyable. Worth viewing.

Walrus

thanimations wrote: »

Walrus wrote: »

The sentiment may be a good one, but it's so poorly executed that the point is moot. The ending has a bunch of people who have had nothing to do with the rest of the film just turn up for no reason - not really an effective evocation of community.

I might not be remembering it correctly, but it seemed like everyone at the end was someone already established previously. Everyone involved with the film we had been introduced to, even if we didn't know their name, except for perhaps the pastor.

The people sitting inside who paid were all involved, but the people outside was just a mass of faceless extras (I thought). Having said that, even the people involved with the film making were basically just there in the background except for annoying Mia Farrow.

thanimations

Walrus wrote: »

thanimations wrote: »

Walrus wrote: »

The sentiment may be a good one, but it's so poorly executed that the point is moot. The ending has a bunch of people who have had nothing to do with the rest of the film just turn up for no reason - not really an effective evocation of community.

I might not be remembering it correctly, but it seemed like everyone at the end was someone already established previously. Everyone involved with the film we had been introduced to, even if we didn't know their name, except for perhaps the pastor.

The people sitting inside who paid were all involved, but the people outside was just a mass of faceless extras (I thought). Having said that, even the people involved with the film making were basically just there in the background except for annoying Mia Farrow.

Yeah, that's true. I won't go so far as to say the movie is a definitive portrait of community in America, but I guess I liked it enough to block out some of the inconsistencies.

Like when

the lawyers show up.

Fats

I keep hoping Mos Def's movie career crashes horribly, so he can return to music.

But I'll probably see this anyway.

redfield85

thanimations wrote: »

Walrus wrote: »

thanimations wrote: »

Walrus wrote: »

The sentiment may be a good one, but it's so poorly executed that the point is moot. The ending has a bunch of people who have had nothing to do with the rest of the film just turn up for no reason - not really an effective evocation of community.

I might not be remembering it correctly, but it seemed like everyone at the end was someone already established previously. Everyone involved with the film we had been introduced to, even if we didn't know their name, except for perhaps the pastor.

The people sitting inside who paid were all involved, but the people outside was just a mass of faceless extras (I thought). Having said that, even the people involved with the film making were basically just there in the background except for annoying Mia Farrow.

Yeah, that's true. I won't go so far as to say the movie is a definitive portrait of community in America, but I guess I liked it enough to block out some of the inconsistencies.

Like when

the lawyers show up.

About that

I just figured since they crushed all the tapes that that case was solved.

Shinto

I refuse to see another Jack Black movie after that mexican wrestler thing.

Wonder_Hippie

Shinto wrote: »

I refuse to see another Jack Black movie after that mexican wrestler thing.

You're making the incorrect choice here. I mean, I haven't seen it yet, and I'm dying to see it, but I've learned numerous times that the worst performers can come out of that funk a few times in their careers. That's not to say that all of those are bad performers, but they've had some real stinkers before.

This is doubly true when you've got wonderful directors behind the camera.

gtrmp

Shinto wrote: »

I refuse to see another Jack Black movie after that mexican wrestler thing.

If this was a Jack Black vehicle, I'd back you up on that, but it's not; it's a movie that happens to have Jack Black in it.

For that matter, if you boycott movies with Jack Black in them, you'll never get to see Walk Hard.

whitey9

gtrmp wrote: »

Shinto wrote: »

I refuse to see another Jack Black movie after that mexican wrestler thing.

If this was a Jack Black vehicle, I'd back you up on that, but it's not; it's a movie that happens to have Jack Black in it.

For that matter, if you boycott movies with Jack Black in them, you'll never get to see Walk Hard.

You say that like he's going to missing something great. Walk Hard was average at best. I used to be a big Jack Black fan when he had his Tenacious D show, some Mr. Show and an occasional movie, then he just started making the biggest piles of shit. School of Rock? Blarf. I'm not saying the man is beyond making a good movie, but I no longer think "Hey, Jack Black is in this? COOL!".

Michael Gondry is pretty hit and miss as well. Science of Sleep was the movie equivalent of a tech demo, and Human Nature was.. how do you put it lightly.. total dog shit.

moniker

Fats wrote: »

I keep hoping Mos Def's movie career crashes horribly, so he can return to music.

But I'll probably see this anyway.

I'd rather he start rocking them both. Actually, he should become a triple threat. Rapper, actor...figure skater?

METAzraeL

I enjoyed this movie thoroughly, but I wasn't amazed by it.

whitey9

moniker wrote: »

Fats wrote: »

I keep hoping Mos Def's movie career crashes horribly, so he can return to music.

But I'll probably see this anyway.

I'd rather he start rocking them both. Actually, he should become a triple threat. Rapper, actor...figure skater?

I think he could be rapper, actor, tractor.

Podly

On the ending

The movie was very much a magical-realism one in the vein of Gabriel Garcia-Marquez. The fact that there were hundreds of people watching the silent movie was both real and metaphorical.

On acting: guys, come on. Not seeing a movie because of acting while disregarding who's directing (i.e., one of the greatest directors of the past 50 years) is pretty stupid.

Walrus

I get that and that would be cool except for the fact that the rest of the film has been so disjointed that it feels forced rather than heartwarming.

The whole movie's kind of a funny one for me. I find myself not too fussed about it; I found it a sporadically very funny, pretty charming and harmless film, but whenever I have to actually say anything specific I find myself unable to do anything but attack it. It doesn't seem right because it's so well-meaning and had such a good premise and I was keen to see it, but it boils down to the fact that I just didn't enjoy watching it - the feelgood stuff just felt unconvincing.

Maybe there's something wrong with me, I don't know.

Podly

The community was always ready to be united. When they talked about knowing Black's character, but only for bad reasons, then the Lion King, etc. I thought it was pulled together brilliantly.

For example, when Glover's character is bummed about the money made from the Fats film, but also terribly proud, it is subtle in its true complexity, but very cohesive.

The film also brilliantly analyzes culture and community. Culture qua culture is ALWAYS created, so when we realize that we are not dominated by our history and our past, but rather that we control it, is when progress is made. We make who we are, as people, and as communities. I do no think it had a pleasant message; rather, I think it is a very harsh criticism of society. The community that Gondry depicts is very hard to get. Nor do I think it is a "nice" message, because I don't think it's a message at all -- it is the truth.

whitey9

Podly wrote: »

On the ending

The movie was very much a magical-realism one in the vein of Gabriel Garcia-Marquez. The fact that there were hundreds of people watching the silent movie was both real and metaphorical.

On acting: guys, come on. Not seeing a movie because of acting while disregarding who's directing (i.e., one of the greatest directors of the past 50 years) is pretty stupid.

That's a bold statement sir. Not everybody thinks Michael Gondry is that great. What I see is a movie with Jack Black (meh) and Mos Def, who's been in mostly garbage, directed by someone who has a pension for artsy bullshit. Science of Sleep seemed like a bunch of his music video ideas loosely strung together, and I've heard similar comments about this movie. It's not a ridiculous concept to avoid movies with actors and directors you don't like, or to seek out movies with actors and directors you do like.

Podly

whitey9 wrote: »

Podly wrote: »

On the ending

The movie was very much a magical-realism one in the vein of Gabriel Garcia-Marquez. The fact that there were hundreds of people watching the silent movie was both real and metaphorical.

On acting: guys, come on. Not seeing a movie because of acting while disregarding who's directing (i.e., one of the greatest directors of the past 50 years) is pretty stupid.

That's a bold statement sir. Not everybody thinks Michael Gondry is that great. What I see is a movie with Jack Black (meh) and Mos Def, who's been in mostly garbage, directed by someone who has a pension for artsy bullshit. Science of Sleep seemed like a bunch of his music video ideas loosely strung together, and I've heard similar comments about this movie. It's not a ridiculous concept to avoid movies with actors and directors you don't like, or to seek out movies with actors and directors you do like.

Well when someone I respect thinks Michel Gondry isn't that great I'll reconsider my statement.

deadonthestreet

Eh, once you're involved with Charlie Kaufman you pretty much lose any claim to being "great."

Podly

deadonthestreet wrote: »

Eh, once you're involved with Charlie Kaufman you pretty much lose any claim to being "great."

Are you saying this because Charlie Kaufman is one of the alltime great screenwriters, or that he sucks. Because Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind disagree with the latter proposition.

deadonthestreet

Yeah I pretty much hate all of those, so...

I mean Eternal Sunshine was pretty great for the first half but then it went all Charlie Kaufman on me.

Being weird doesn't mean you're good. I'd classify him as one of the alltime directors of pretentious films. I can see why people like him, but it is a position I strongly disagree with.

Podly

deadonthestreet wrote: »

Yeah I pretty much hate all of those, so...

I mean Eternal Sunshine was pretty great for the first half but then it went all Charlie Kaufman on me.

Being weird doesn't mean you're good. I'd classify him as one of the alltime directors of pretentious films. I can see why people like him, but it is a position I strongly disagree with.

Right... so you didn't get what was going on (which is pretty sad on your part) so you label it as weird.

Next mongoloid, please.

deadonthestreet

First off, stop using racist language.

Second off, no, his movies aren't hard to understand. It isn't like they confuse me or anything, they just don't offer a whole lot of enjoyment. He's kind of a one trick pony and I don't particularly like the trick, is all.

Podly

I wouldn't call Gondry a "one trick pony." Indeed, both Kaufman and Gondry have specific themes which interest them greatly. This isn't a thread for aesthetics, so I won't question the integrity of your judgement, though I do find it suspect. I would say that Gondry is very concerned with the notion of identity. ESotSM was about interpersonal intention, SoS was about personal(1), and BK,R about community identity. Gondry is not aggressively creative -- a fault of both directors with artistic pretensions and many truly great directors. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly let it's desire to be artsy and creative get in the way of the harmony of the film. I think that Kar Wai Wong, one of the most brilliant auters of the last 25 years or so, does this as well. Gondry is concerned with creation -- creation of identity, creation of relationships, creation of art, and creation of purposeless machines. The piano with the white and black hands or the crazy organ with all the people are quintessential Gondrian creations, but they serve a purpose within the film and are highly synoptic in their vision. Gondry is a one trick pony in the same way that Proust or Mondrian were one trick ponies in that they so assaulted their themes that they could not help but be generative of both genius and similarities within their ouvre.



(1) SoS was also a very personal film for Gondry. Unlike many great artists, I don't think that Gondry does personal introspection and investigation very well, as evidenced by the very ambiguous nature of Science of Sleep and its lack of genius along side ESotSM

deadonthestreet

I was calling Kaufman a one trick pony, not Gondry.

Podly

deadonthestreet wrote: »

I was calling Kaufman a one trick pony, not Gondry.

ahh..ok, I can see that.

whitey9

Podly wrote: »

deadonthestreet wrote: »

I was calling Kaufman a one trick pony, not Gondry.

ahh..ok, I can see that.

Can I go ahead and call Gondry a one trick pony? I'm glad you liked this movie and all; shit, you're positively in love with it, but that doesn't mean that anybody who slightly disagrees is totally in the wrong. You have to realize that your views are a little on the fringe. Go suggest that Gondry is one of the best directors in the last 50 years to a group of anybody and I'm sure you'll get a few raised eyebrows.

Well when someone I respect thinks Michel Gondry isn't that great I'll reconsider my statement.

Seriously? I have a feeling you're not going to search around too hard to find this person, because that's a totally ridiculous statement. Ever single person you respect thinks Michael Gondry is great? Seriously?

For the record, I like Charlie Kaufman movies. Except Human Nature, which was shit.

Podly

Whitey, you must know know who I am.

UnbreakableVow

Michel Gondry? Is that you?

Feral

Gondry's and Kaufman's libraries are too small to be called the greatest of anything. I have trouble calling an artist "great" when they've only produced three or four works.

That said, Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind was a sublime masterpiece. It's one of the best, if not the best, movie(s) of the new century. That's an objective fact and anybody who disagrees with me is plainly wrong.

Anyway, I do plan on seeing Be Kind, Rewind though I might wait until it's on DVD because I have an allergic reaction to theaters. I see the ever-rising ticket prices and I get all anaphylactic and shit.

Podly

What do you know? Feral, one of the people I deeply respect on this board, agrees with me. I do not agree with Feral because we share the same views, but rather we both agree because we are sapient.

whitey9

Podly wrote: »

What do you know? Feral, one of the people I deeply respect on this board, agrees with me. I do not agree with Feral because we share the same views, but rather we both agree because we are sapient.

If you're joking, this is absolutely hilarious. If you're not, holy shit, you're an asshole. You're laying it on so thick that I'm hoping that it's the former.

Feral

Eternal Sunshine isn't just a movie about memory or love. To call either Kaufman or Gondry a "one trick pony" doesn't ring true because there are no tricks in Eternal Sunshine - everything has a purpose and the characters are amazingly real. But if there were "tricks," there are certainly far, far more than merely one, because every time I watch it I find new layers of depth and meaning, new themes at interplay, that I didn't catch before.

I keep watching it looking for a fault; in the music, the dialogue, the pacing, the framing of shots, hell even the blocking of actors within a frame; and I can't find any that are more than the most nitpicking quibbles.

Podly

Feral wrote: »

Eternal Sunshine isn't just a movie about memory or love. To call either Kaufman or Gondry a "one trick pony" doesn't ring true because there are no tricks in Eternal Sunshine - everything has a purpose and the characters are amazingly real. But if there were "tricks," there are certainly far, far more than merely one, because every time I watch it I find new layers of depth and meaning, new themes at interplay, that I didn't catch before.

I keep watching it looking for a fault; in the music, the dialogue, the pacing, the framing of shots, hell even the blocking of actors within a frame; and I can't find any that are more than the most nitpicking quibbles.

Exactly. It's one of my three favorite films. Feral, you are so gonna love Be Kind, Rewind.

Feral

I'll be honest though that I really didn't like Science of Sleep. I don't think it ever reached a cohesive narrative and I don't think any of the themes really came together at all.

And Be Kind Rewind looks like it's being marketed as a typical screwball comedy, but I'll withhold judgment until I see it.