<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>




































































  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
      <title>Comments On: No place of grace
    
      by Pat Graham</title>
      <link>http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace</link>
      <atom:link href="http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/Rss.xml?oid=946036&amp;id=comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />      <description>Comments On: No place of grace
    
      by Pat Graham</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2009 Chicago Reader. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Chicago Reader readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Chicago Reader.</copyright>
      <webMaster>wil@desert.net (Chicago Reader Webmaster)</webMaster>
      <pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0600</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:00:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Foundation</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#966515]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#966515]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Yazdi= Idiot]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[P Yazdi do us all a favor and kill yourself. You know-nothing hack.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Yazdi= Idiot]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:32:58 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#969876]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#969876]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[P Yazdi]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Did you read his review from here? That is a pretty hard slam job if you ask me. Wasnt Dargis the same film critic who Godard basically said to her face she wasnt a film critic and only a reviewer? Not trying to be a jerk with that one just curious. I remember reading it and Laughing my ass off. 
    
    Look. I have read film comment and it doesnt do much for me. I find some blogs with no name cinephiles to be more insightfull than some of those film critics. Honestly, I find you to be more insightful and having a better understanding of the cinema than most of the guys walking around calling themselves film critics. There are really only two current american film critics i greatly admire in Rosenbaum and Kehr. Outside of that the best pieces of current film criticism i can find is by no name cinephiles on the web and certain people who mainly freelance or write books.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by P Yazdi]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:22:00 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#968476]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#968476]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[kfoutah]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[America has more than one or two film critics, and one simply has to look a the staff of film comment to see that. Rosenbaum, Hoberman and Armond White also qualify. So would Manhola Dargis, to name a few. 
    
    Rosenbaum also commented how No Country "is a very well-made genre exercise" then gave it 4 stars in the film comment poll of that month, so no he didn't slam it as hard as you.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by kfoutah]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2008 01:11:13 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#948734]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#948734]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[P Yazdi]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[For the best analysis on Dead Man I would point you to Rosenbaum's wonderful book on the film.
    
    As for the douche above, or should i call you josh, a consensus opinion doesnt make it the right one. During the 1950s the majority of film critics thought that Alfred Hitchcock and Howard Hawks were bad directors and laughed at Godard, Rivette, and the rest of the Cahiers gang for being the only ones who gave those directors their due. Well no one is laughing anymore. 
    
    Also, lets get serious about this. America, minus one or two excepions, doesnt have film critics. THey have film reviewers. A bunch of brainless retards who just regurgitate what he marketing department tells them to. It makes me more than pleased that real american film critics like Rosenbaum and Dave Kehr slammed No Country as much as I did.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by P Yazdi]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:30:32 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#971032]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#971032]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[kfoutah]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I agree whole heartedly with you Wes, I don't think it laughs at the lesser educated characters as their other films do (but also, remember in Fargo the hero is a local police officer). And the suspense is top notch, especially compared to the recent films that have been coming out that are supposed to be suspenseful or horrific.
    
    David-I think there is tons to engage the viewer on a moment to moment basis  in Dead Man, a film which I think is a masterpiece, and saying that the the films subtext is the text, isn't a bad thing to me. I think as a western made in the 90's its an original and visionary piece of work, especially on the big screen. I think the narrative of the film is quite strong and the story's emphasis on challenging the existential reality of the character as the story progresses makes for a fascinating, complex and hallucinatory experience.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by kfoutah]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:43:16 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#961601]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#961601]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Wes]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I am surprised with how many people on this blog who hate "NO Country." While I don't think the film is on the level of Still Life, I still think it's a very good film. Any movie that asks Javier Bardem to wear a Prince Valiant haircut is begging for laughs. But what if he's killing almost every one he meets while he's wearing it? The hair is only a little funny in No Country for Old Men. Gruesome, comic, and awesomely eloquently as it was, nothing about McCarthy's book said "Coen brothers," but the staggering movie they've made is very much the precision thriller of "Blood Simple" and "Fargo"'s comedy of the broken law. But "No Country" contains very little of the regional mockery that characterizes a lot of their recent movies. Even the yokels here have a serious streak. The acting is superb across the board, from Jones and Bardem to the locals in bit parts to Kelly MacDonald as the sort of supportive wife (Brolin's) who would make Tammy Wynette proud. (Beth Grant is a riot as Brolin's nattering mother-in-law.) I love the movie's visual contours, too, the way the photography and editing perfectly dramatize McCarthy's prose and poetically blunt dialogue, a lot of which shows up here. The scale and scope are perfect. And the suspense here surpasses most horror films.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Wes]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:22:56 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#971066]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#971066]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[David]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[This is in response to P Yazdi. Why is Dead Man in the top 3 3 American films of the last 30 years? IMO, the film has has no subtext -- the subtext is the text, and the film's intentionally ludicrous and anachronistic world set my teeth on edge from the get-go. 
    
    Unless you find the notion of 19th-century characters speaking in modern vernacular inherently funny (I don't), or are amused by the notion of a "stock" American Indian character dispensing absurd homilies and saying things like "What is your name, stupid fucking white man?" (I wasn't), there's little to engage you on a moment-to-moment basis. Your only recourse is to try to determine what everything means -- what genre conventions are being subverted; what aspects of contemporary society Jarmusch is using the Old West to criticize; why the protagonist is named William Blake, and his faithful Indian companion known as Nobody (lots of "Who's on First"-style gags, as you might have guessed); and so forth. Dead Man is a film that cares more about impressing the audience with profound ideas than about its narrative. You can wrestle with semantics all you want but it doesn't make for a very compelling movie.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by David]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:10:23 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#955915]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#955915]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Kfoutah]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA["Pretentious asshole?" "jerkoff?", why are you guys getting so bent out of shape?
    
    P Yazdi's Nightmare:
    "The whole argument about stealing styles is bullshit. Everybody has there influences."
    
    Josh:
    "Kfoutah's argument is stupid and could be made against any filmmaker. Every filmmaker has their influences."
    
    Josh! a pleasure for you to join us again, apparently your arrogance has gotten so intense, that you've actually started plagiarizing yourself now!
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Kfoutah]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:39:06 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#965849]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#965849]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[P Yazdi's Nightmare]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[P YAZDI is another pompous film elitist. So you know more about film than every American critic, right? If you know so much, why aren't you making movies and witing reviews? Who do you like besides Godard and Jia an Jim Jarmush. The whole argument about stealing styles is bullshit. Everybody has there influences. You're just a condescending, pretentious asshole. As if Jarmush didn't rip off people in films like Ghost Dog. NCFOM is one of those movies I think provides a critical litmus test. You can quibble about it all you like, but if you don't get the artistry at work then, I submit, you don't get what movies are. Jerkoffs like yourself, can disapprove of the unsettling shifts in tone in the Coens' work, or their presumed attitude toward the characters, or their use of violence and humor -- but those complaints are petty and irrelevant in the context of the movies themselves: the way, for example, an ominous black shadow creeps across a field toward the observer, or a phone call from a hotel room that you can hear ringing in the earpiece and at the front desk, where you're pretty sure something bad has happened but you don't need to see it; or the offhand reveal of one major character's fate from the POV of another just entering the scene; or... I could go on and on. To ignore such things in order to focus on something else says more about your values than it does about the movies. It's like complaining that Bresson's actors don't emote enough, or that Ozu keeps his camera too low.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by P Yazdi's Nightmare]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:26:06 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#959417]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#959417]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[P Yazdi]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Oh BTW kfoutah beside our obvious differences on No Country and TWBB we are in perfect agreement on your other arguments. Especially your attack on the whole bs indie cinema thing and Juno.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by P Yazdi]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 05:00:19 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#965026]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#965026]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[P Yazdi]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I couldnt disagree with you more on the Coen brothers. To me they are nothing more than just plain garbage at this point. Them and spielberg are the devil incarnate as far as im concerned. 
    
    As far as im concerned i dont want to waiste any of my time talking about something as horrible as No Country. To me TWBB is far superior picture but neither one is even worth mentioning in the same breath as a Godard film or Still life. 
    
    as Rosenbaum has so perfectly put it, im paraphrasing here, when godard steals a shot from another film he uses it as point of film criticism. He doesnt simply steal for the sake of stealing something and making it his own. It isnt one of these asanine hommages that scorcese, the coens, pta, or tarantino do. When in Le Mepris he steals the pan shots around the greek statutes from voyage in italy what he is actually doing is using it as a point of criticism about the end of classic art in the modern world. This is in direct contrast to Tarantino ripping off the dance sequence in Pulp Fiction. In which it serves no purpose but to just steal it. I dont see how the Coens are any different. They borrow or steal things from others, and while they change thing slightly, how are they changing our fundamental understanding of the original? Its not. Hence why Rosenmbaum refers to this as post modernist appropriation. 
    
    I do realize that the rig exploding sequence is very similar to or probably stolen from days of heaven. But i didnt think it was as big a theft as you do apparently. to me it was changed enough that it was just similar and not a straight ripp off. furthermore, besides demonstrating his lack of caring for his so, the scenes imagery is quite powerfull in that the burning of the oil is the only source of light by the end of the scene. everything else including the characters are literally and figuratively covered in darkness. that was different than how malick did it. 
    
    to me by letting the camera play at a distance from the reunion is the exact reason why you are so convinced that he doesnt care about his son returning. anderson is using cinematic space, or more appropriately attampting to, in order to distance us the viewer from this part of the story. as to why that is left up to the viewer. but this is a type of mis en scene that you simply do not find in most american films. at least anderson is attempting to make a great work of art. 
    
    The coen brothers, just like spielberg, are great masters at telling their story succinctly and drawing in the viewer for maximum affect. But neither one is an artist of the cinema IMHO. Both also have a propensity for not trully respecting the power behind the cinematic image and cinema in general. Paraphrasing Sarge Daney, he once talked about how he wished some teenager would rebel and be upset over the images in the we are the world music video. the audacity of mixing in images of poor starving african children and rich musicians. I actually share the same sentiment. I am disgusted when Spielberg rebuilds auschwitz and turns the entire holocaust and the life of a great man like schindler into a childlike speech about saving another life just so he can blast the john williams music and turn on the waterworks so that he can give his movie a great ending. I am disgusted when the coens think its funny to life at midwestern (fargo) or now western hicks right before they get brutally murdered. Look at how Hitchcock treated his murderers and how the coens do. Anton's whole existent on the screen seems to be in order to create shock and awe among the audience. He is the bad ass that we all want to be according to the coens. Yes i am disgusted at the herofication of a serial killer. Simply put i have an ethical as well as artistic problem with the coen brothers. PTA while not being that original, at least to me has always been honest with himself and has always tried to make films that attempted to be great and outside the current state of hollywood. 
    
    To me there are american directors worth watching and great. Among them the most notable today i believe to be jarmusch. Whose Dead Man is probably one of the 2-3 greatest american films of the last 30 years. Eastwood made some good films. I will watch any wes anderson film, but he seems incapable of reduplicating rushmore at this point. Scorcese seems to be getting more childlike and infantile per picture at this point.I still cant believe the same man was capable of making a masterpiece like King of Comedy.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by P Yazdi]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:56:12 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#968086]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#968086]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[kfoutah]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Well, I guess I'm not as cynical as you are, but nonetheless I appreciate your seriousness, although I have some problems with a few of your points
    
    as for the scenes you cited
    1)"Anderson uses a long take to shot this scene and while his characters are about to have a very important and emotionally filled encounter he keeps his camera away from them."
    
    -There is nothing emotional about this scene, even in its subtext. The movie makes very clear, in the very next scene I believe, that the return of the son is purely for personal gain. And even if this wasn't the case, whats wrong with showing an emotional scene if it can amount to something substantial? my problem with the film in general is that I never felt that I was watching something of substance, these scenes show me why.
    
    2) This scene is a dull rehash of the locust attack in "Days of Heaven", and I'm stunned that few have has pointed this out. Right down to the red light on the silhouettes.  Only in Days of heaven the scene heightens the emotions of the characters- illuminating them- while dramatically and stunningly foreshadowing the finale of the picture, and simultaneously expanding on Malick's investigation of the relationship between man and the environment. In There Will Be Blood the scene only shows us how little he cares for his son. You could argue that the red explosions represent his greed, but isn't that a bit sophomoric? 
    
    Secondly, there is nothing "post-modern" about theft. Paul Thomas Anderson doesn't "appropriate" other people's works, he steals things out right, Im not gonna give you the laundry list here as you probably know it, but if you're curious.... The Coen's are genuinely post-modern, as was Godard, Scorsese etc. Anyway there was no point in No Country where the Coen's actually do make you laugh at violence, its all taken very seriously. 
    
    "What makes NO Country's editing so perfect? Its ony function is to propogate the story structure, characters, and dialog." - don't forget about ACTION, and yes, this to me is exactly what makes it perfect, in the sense that Dial M for murder is perfect. The camera is always in the right place, it cuts at the right time for maximum impact, and the emotions and tensions are heightened when they need to be. I found nothing like a "cum shot" in the film, so maybe you're a bit more skeptical towards violence in movies than I am, which is fine, but I simply don't find anything distasteful.
    
    say it is a rip off of Polanski (im not totally convinced of this), its still using the cutting style of a great technician. Sound technique, even as simple and academic as No Country's is a rare, rare, rare, thing these days. Especially in suspense scenes (compare No Country to Disturbia, can you then tell me that you can't appreciate how sound it is, even at a basic level?).And even so taking a sound filmmaker's editing scheme is not that same as lifting entire set pieces (and in some cases, entire story lines) from recent films of the past like PTA does. And when the Coen's do borrow they bring something else to it (hudsucker proxy/metropolis). Anderson usually just waters the things he steals down.So I don't think I'm using a double standard at all. 
    
    The mise en scene in There Will Blood to me is rather bare. Pierrot Le Fou, now thats a film with a mise en scene', and you know what I'm talking about. Still Life too. Lets not waste anymore time defending this picture (There Will Be Blood). 
    
    You write just fine. But I don't think American Cinema is "Dead" (Im quite partial to Michael Mann, Scorsese, Van Sant, the Coen's and even.......... Michael Bay and Speildberg! among many others .  I do think that Cinema in general may not be what it used to be for a variety of reasons, but I still find exciting things to see that are new, Still Life being a perfect example.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by kfoutah]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:28:21 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#951611]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#951611]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[P YAZDI]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[For me if the film does not follow a classical idea of what cinema is: montage and mis en scene it aint worth the film stock it was shot on. 
    
    IMHO No Country is nothing more than a script with pretty frames around it. The modern equivalent of the cinema of quality that Cahiers so rihtfully bashed 50 years ago. 
    
    Whatever the problems with TWBB, and your right about his post modernist appropriation of others films, it still is a much better film than No Country for two reaons. 
    
    First, it attempts to at least make an attempt at mis en scene. For me there are two primary examples i will cite. The first being the scene where his son comes back to visit him after being sent away. Anderson uses a long take to shot this scene and while his characters are about to have a very important and emotionally filled encounter he keeps his camera away from them. We are not put right into he action. A jackass like Speilberg would have had use right there. He would have blasted the emotional John Williams music and turned on the waterworks for cheap affects. Anderson at the very least has the understanding that this moment is such an emotionally charged one that he is really incapable of showin this to us up close. The Shot hence creates a commentary by Anderson on how he doesnt think we should be right in the middle of such a moment. 
    
    The second scene that comes to mind is the rig explosion sequence. While the scene is in many ways stolen from previous films, anderson still brings something unique and exciting to the sequence. In his film the shot structure and lighting almost come to symbolize the pivotal moment in the film where we are fully aware of the evil within the plainview character. The darkness of the shots, the muddy filled characters, the long tracking shots back and forth, and the fact that the burning of the oil is the only source of light all are used by anderson as a statement on this film and america. The burning of the oil and the fire become the only source of light while all the characters and the settings are in darkness and not to be seen. While this is a very simple idea and Anderson doesnt make profound statements about america that havent been done numerous times before, he at least attempts to make these statements through what makes cinema unique as an art form: Decapogue, montage and mis en scene. For this i commend him and i thoroughly enjoyed the film.
    
    What makes NO Country's editing so perfect? Its ony function is to propogate the story structure, characters, and dialog. It never even attempts to use montage or mis en scene as a way of telling us anything. Furthermore, the coen brothers numerous attempts to make us the viewer laugh at simple folks, murder, and to be in awe of their supposed audacity in the violence makes me want to puke a disgust. They are nothing more than pornographers giving the cinematic equivalents of the cum shot. Furthermore, their entire editing structure is nothing more than a rip off of Polanski. So i dont see why you are giving them a free pass and bashing Anderson for the same use of this disgusting and morally reprehensible use of post modernist appropriation that is so prevalent in american cinema. 
    
    I apologize in advance for my inability to write better. Nonetheless, I hope that you can at least partially understand my argument against No Country and in favor of TWBB. In the end, though neither film or director is worthy of carrying still life or a director like Godard's jockstrap. American Cinema is dead. Lets bury the sucker and appreciate the masters from other countries. Even the freaking Renessaince only lasted 50 years. You dont see the italiens thinking that they have the market cornered on painting today.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by P YAZDI]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:41:17 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#949446]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#949446]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Kfoutah]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Correction end of second paragraph add -is why I g0t so pissed off, not because I simply didn't think it was good.- I got too carried away and couldn't finish a sentence, embarrassing.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Kfoutah]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:41:11 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#954771]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#954771]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[kfoutah]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Excuse me Jane, but Josh set the rules of engagement when he proclaimed that I (and those who agree with me) are "dickless", I made a personal attack on Josh because he was being rude, and consequentially phony (his comments we're plagarized), not because he liked "There Will Be Blood" and hated "Still Life" (which he probably didn't see) . I never made a personal attack on anyone simply because they didn't agree with me and never would.
    
    The fact that this movie was so widely praised AND so widely written about in comparison to other films which I think are much better. 
    
    Why should I care either way if the  Chinese deputy director of the film bureau under the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT) has to say about the film? I want to know what you have to say about it?
    
    I'm the reason people hate film critics? I'm not a film critic in any capacity, and I don't see why my opinions would make people hate film critics......but anyway, if you have something to add about the film, I'd love to discuss it with you.
    
    P Yazdi- If we're going by orthodox definitions of Mise en Scene and Montage ( or defined by either Bresson or Eisenstein), I don't think too many American films of the last 40 years would be considered masterpieces either, but I don't agree that there is a definition of what cinema is, or what it ought not to be, films work by themselves or they don't and its a matter of the pleasure derived from the viewer anyway. 
    
    No country is filled with nothing but well thought out angles and perfect (yes, forgive me, Im using the word perfect), editing. While the shots themselves may not amount  to much in terms of information illuminating the psyche's of the character's etc. the film does this in other ways (lighting, dialog, tone etc.) I don't think that it has to conform to an idea of cinema that was conceived eons ago to be "great" or a "masterpiece".
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by kfoutah]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:38:52 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#948593]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#948593]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[P Yazdi]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[OH btw Josh is symbolic of the stupidity of most film goers in this country.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by P Yazdi]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 07:18:59 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#955975]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#955975]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[P Yazdi]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[anyone who thinks No Country was a masterpiece has no idea what the cinema actually is. Someone give me one good example of great mis en scene or montage from that film? Its impossible because there is none!
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by P Yazdi]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 07:15:59 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#965719]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#965719]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Pretty Tony]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Not engaging in discussions of why people hate film critics etc. but just because the majority of critics like a film doesn't make it good (this is said in general), but that discussion has occured a million times without a resolution. More to the point of the above, is the " deputy director of the film bureau under the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT)" really the best source for film criticism? PArticularly from a country as open to its own artists being allowed to express themselves as they see fit, and to be alowed criticism of said country, as China?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Pretty Tony]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:26:58 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#969130]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#969130]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Jane]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Kfoutah is the reason why everybody hates film critics. You seem to make personal attacks on people to whom you disagree with. A great number of the best American Critics loved TWBB, J Hoberman, Mike Atkinson, Wes Morris, Ty Burr, Amy Taubin, Denis Lim, Manohla Dargis, etc. I think the movie top the Village Voice list of alternative critics and Film Comment's list as well. Sorry it didn't work for you, but you come off as the epitome of a smug film snob. 
    
    Also, it seems that Josh isn't alone in his opinion.I found this article on Chinese film Chief Zhang Hongsen. Zhang said that Still Life 'is a movie without love and not worth watching."
    
    Zhang, deputy director of the film bureau under the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT), said Jia's movie is set to be a loser in the box office and it cannot draw eyeballs of Chinese film viewers.
    
    "I don't deny that the movie is good. But it lacks love and care to working classes," Zhang said, adding young directors, including Jia, are easy to set their love and the movie apart.
    
    "These directors neglect a fact that the movie is histrionic. This raises the likelihood of turning the movie into a kind of absolute realism. Their movies are inanimate and hard to drag views into cinema."
    
    Jia Zhangke, is urged by Zhang to learn how to care for others.
    
    "I have discussed with Jia. Although their movies depict the struggling working class, they are 'cold' to viewers."
    
    Zhang's words raise speculation that 'Still Life' poses a lackluster performance in the box office despite its acknowledgement by the international film community.
    
    "Still Life" (Sanxia Haoren) set against China's colossal Three Gorges Dam and was shot in the village of Fengjie, which has made way for the Three Gorges Dam.  is a movie without love and not worth watching.
    
    Zhang, deputy director of the film bureau under the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT), said Jia's movie is set to be a loser in the box office and it cannot draw eyeballs of Chinese film viewers.
    
    "I don't deny that the movie is good. But it lacks love and care to working classes," Zhang said, adding young directors, including Jia, are easy to set their love and the movie apart.
    
    "These directors neglect a fact that the movie is histrionic. This raises the likelihood of turning the movie into a kind of absolute realism. Their movies are inanimate and hard to drag views into cinema."
    
    Jia Zhangke, who is acknowledged for his favor in portraying the struggles of the working class in China amid a rapid social and economic changes, is urged by Zhang to learn how to care for others.
    
    "I have discussed with Jia. Although their movies depict the struggling working class, they are 'cold' to viewers."
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Jane]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:12:41 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#971961]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#971961]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Pretty Tony]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[As Pat said, just plug 'em into google.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Pretty Tony]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:51:12 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#970672]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#970672]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[kfoutah]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[wow. Well its nice to see an example of PTA's most devoted fan base.
    
    Well thats a cheap shot, but goddamn, what a fool.
    
    Digital- Still Life is definitely worth tracking down if you can, and while I strongly dislike there will be blood its definitely worth seeing and I'd appreciate your thoughts on it if you get around to seeing it
    
    Good Job Tony! way to get down to business, how did you track those down?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by kfoutah]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:01:44 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#963167]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#963167]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Pretty Tony]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Crap, accidently erased an earlier version but to sum up:
    
    TWBB = http://www.boston.com/movies/display?display=movie&id=10610
    (Boston Globe, Wesley Morris)
    +
    
    http://zeroforconduct.com/2007/12/16/there-will-be-blood.aspx
    (Michael Atkinson)
    
    Still Life = http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117931509.html?categoryid=31&cs=1
    (Variety, Derek Elley)
    
    Though I think the last few sentences on TWBB and the last two paragraphs, plus the "little DICK" coments are "Josh"'s. So we got a few foolish reviews plagarized/copied/whatever by one bigger fool. Ah, the internet. Thanks for continuing a responsible, inciteful high-lebvel discourse! I'm sure "Josh" is laughing his ass off somewhere, petty minds enjoy petty tricks.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Pretty Tony]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:04:41 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#947653]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#947653]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Kifah Foutah]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Also, thanks for the support and for beating me to the punch, pretty tony(big ghostface fan myself). I'm wondering if that is plagiarized after all.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Kifah Foutah]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:44:54 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#955474]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#955474]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Kfoutah]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Josh-
    
    A little dick? how civilized of you. I'm sure Pat Graham, Rosenbaum and J.R Jones would love to show you theirs if you show yours. What exactly do you get out of posting here?
    
    Also I'd say anyone who tries to impress strangers on the internet by posting irrelevant and poorly written film reviews that have NOTHING to do with the conversation we we're having, and didn't address any of the criticism that has already been laid out against it, is the one.... no, I'm not gonna stoop to your level. But my god, are you an ARROGANT ASSHOLE. 
    
    
    this fucking asshole actually wrote
    "The filmmaker, Paul Thomas Anderson, puts us right up close to this mustached oilman. His name is Daniel Plainview," as if he was writing for the life size cut out for variety. Are you serious? outside of being a corny, corny writer, Josh is just full of himself enough to try to pass off his pathetic film review on a comments section of a blog where we were having a CONVERSATION. AFTER I told him repeatedly that we already went over this. Do you think we don't know who Daniel Plainview is?  what a prick.
    
    I defy you to tell me what "easy answers" Jia comes up with, and you know what response I get?
    
    "Resolution of both stories is downbeat and emotionally inconclusive."
    
    You seem to not understand your own arguments, so it makes sense why you would be trying out your Entertainment Weekly rejection piece on us. 
    
    "Show me a man who thinks pretentious, subtle, slow movies are art, and I'll show you a man with a little DICK. " excuse me for liking slow and subtle movies. Since there is absolutely subtle or nuanced or even remotely interesting in There Will Be Blood it should be no surprise that a vain asshole like yourself would like it. Are you the Plainview of film criticism? A lame imitation of of your fore fathers A.O Scott and David Denby? a little Rex Reed thrown in there?
    
    I think all movies are art thank you very much, and you've probably never seen seen Citizen Kane, Days of Heaven, Mccabe and Mrs. Miller, or Greed to understand why There Will Be Blood is bad art
    
    and no, you can't make that criticism about other filmmakers, because other filmmakers don't steal hand over fist entire plotlines, characters and small details the way Anderson does without admitting it. There is no content in there will be blood, only the pathetic imitations of other great films (even the Johnny Greenwood score is a lame imitation of the more dissonant passages in the 2001 Score. Anderson has nothing but other people's idea's. The main scene in the movie, the oil derrick burning is almost EXACTLY the same as days of heaven..............you know what, im breaking my own rules for even engaging with you, because we've already been over this ON THE DESIGNATED THERE WILL BE BLOOD POST. 
    
    sell your bullshit, sub Richard Roeper film reviews somewhere else. We dickless slow movie fans like to talk TO each other, as opposed to trying to impress each other with our lame copy writing, you arrogant, vain, asshole.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Kfoutah]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:39:02 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: No place of grace]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#955081]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/03/05/no-place-grace/#955081]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[pat g.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[PRETTY TONY--easy way to find out: just google a couple lines and see what shows up ... though i'm pretty much in agreement with you there, about the "thesps" et al
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by pat g.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:35:53 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
      
    </channel>
  </rss>




