The Counselor

This topic contains 8 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  topperph1 4 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts Mark Topic Read  | 
  • 18 Oct 2013 at 4:57 am #4163

    The Tramp
    Member

    ‘In aristocracies, readers are demanding and few in number. In democracies they are less difficult to please and their number is prodigious.’ Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville.


      Quote
    • This topic was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by  The Tramp.
    27 Oct 2013 at 8:40 pm #4367

    topperph1
    Member

    Funny Cormac McCarthy waited so long to start being motivated by a desire for “cash.” I mean, honestly: this is a unique example of that: He waited to lust after lucre until he had lots and plenty to spare, of it.

    You know, it is nonetheless incumbent on to admit: Self-serving pretentiousness is absolutely, but altogether, unheard on the part of English Journalists and writers. They simply don’t do it.If he has the courage to toss around the characterization, “filth,” then he must know what he is doing, and it is inconceivable, (again–can’t over-emphasize the high-bar ethical standards of the British press), that a critic, of all variety of literary sort, might assume a pretentious moral high-ground to buttress otherwise meaningless and empty arguments. I don’t think I have every encountered any such thing.

    I apologize if I compromise your tremendous love and respect for your indicated, and quoted, English,Brain-Dead Ass.


      Quote
    27 Oct 2013 at 9:05 pm #4368

    topperph1
    Member

    Sir, not with, (at least, not, singularly with), the intent to deliver to you emotional distress for the purpose of having that distress prod you towards less pretense and greater acumen for distinguishing–and respecting–truth, I articulate this:

    A “flop” may nonetheless be a masterpiece. You don’t need examples, there are as many as “hits’ which are dog-crap, and both phenomena indicate the perfect lack of significance or relevance imparted to any work in any discipline just by virtue or dis-value of being “flop,” or “hit.”

    I have never read any of the men you mention speak about film, not Chaplin, not Bergman, not McCarthy: (I tend to credit McCarthy with a capacity for stunning depth of insight, and would anticipate this, then, in what he says on film). When and if McCarthy can speak as well as, for your money, the other two giants, will “The Counselor” then be worth study and consideration? Will it acquire truthfulness and relevancy as a result of that?

    What was your damned purpose in posting? Are you a troll?


      Quote
    28 Oct 2013 at 10:29 am #4376

    Candy Minx
    Member

    Ha ha ha awesome!

    Yes Francois is a troll…I recognized them immediately. Grammatical fingerprints everywhere!

    Topper, you reminded me of something… This criticism about mccarthy writing to make a quick buck has been a nasty one for the last few years. It is a case of you can’t suck and blow at the same time. I think it’s unlikely he’s trying to make cash…. He had a while lifetime pattern of doing the work he wanted to do doggedly to the point of losing relationships… And not sell out. He had a family and he still didn’t write work to make money and he probably could have.

    There are some people who are addicted to arguing by using a double bind. And so now mccarthy is damned if he does or damned of he doesn’t.

    The counselor script was not a script that was constructed in order to make money. Everyone along the way knew it a movie that would be difficult to get an audience to see. In order for that script to have sold the company that bought it knew they had to get big stars on board. Ridley scott said he is in a business he had to put bums in the seats. He knew the story and script didn’t have was blockbuster movies have in it. The actors took massive cuts in pay. ( they probably would have done it for free but union rules they’d have to get at least scale).

    This was an attempt at making a labour of love…they all took a risk to make the movie to its writers vision. That is highly unusual in Hollywood movies….where “the writer is dead”.

    The whole thing is pretty interesting business versus art wise.


      Quote
    28 Oct 2013 at 10:36 am #4377

    Candy Minx
    Member

    So here we have this situation topper where you are correct that a hit movie can be dog crap. And a flop can be a masterpiece.

    And along comes the counselor…. This is why it is so interesting to me to try….try to look past whether something is high brow, low brow, artsy, if I like it or don’t like it… I want to see what it has to offer…art is out there and everywhere but it’s always being labeled…. But what can be learned by a “flop” like the counselor? Should be never take a chance on difficult scripts?

    People say they are sick of Hollywood formula movies…. Yet the counselor breaks every rule of film making… And it still fails art wise?

    The structure, dialogue, pacing of the counselor is experimental at one end and defiant of the formula for making a Hollywood movie.

    Isn’t that a “good thing”… Even if it fails?


      Quote
    28 Oct 2013 at 10:54 am #4378

    The Tramp
    Member

    ‘Despotism of the majority.’ Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville. No criticism allowed. These pages are for worship only.


      Quote
    • This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by  The Tramp.
    28 Oct 2013 at 11:41 am #4380

    Candy Minx
    Member

    Get over yourself…. Everyone here didn’t like the screenplay or the movie. No ones arguing with you… You’re not saying anything that hadn’t already been said by forum participants when the bootleg surfaced originally. We heard you you don’t like the script by mccarthy. Get in line because there are many more ahead of you.

    Oh god anonymous posters are so tiresome thinking they are so clever….trolling is so 1998….


      Quote
    28 Oct 2013 at 11:43 am #4381

    topperph1
    Member

    Candy,

    Thanks for your responses. Your bio-info on McCarthy’s commitment to craft, in spite of everything it costs him, has real value to me: I don’t know as much about him as most posters here: I have read NCFOM, seen that as film, and also seen The Road, (which I thought was revelatory and incredible, New Yorker Magazine calling it ‘boring’–well, maybe post-apocalptic life IS boring!–and not many liking it notwithstanding) and then The Counselor.

    I am becoming an excited, serious fan.

    I agree with you that it is keenly interesting as business-versus-art phenomenon. A very deft example of that, maybe in this: as thriller, it more than, but not grossly more than, satisfies the demands of contemporary audience regarding thriller devices: gun fights, car chases, sexy women, romance as part of life on the edge and so on: it just has a realistic, versus happy and let’s-keep-bein-cool-shall-we-dig-it-baby, ending.

    I like what you say about breaking with convention in film-making. Still, I have to take moderate issue with a few things you say:

    1. I don’t feel The Counselor breaks every film-making rule–even if you qualify that to say it breaks those rules intended to meet au courant taste and expectations, it satisfies more than it breaks. The medium is so invisibly rendered by this that the message is easier and less murkily delivered, I think.

    2. I don’t feel like every break with form has merit, then, just for breaking with form. I am a musician and songwriter, and, these very sad days, what even respected, well-paid rock critics frequently now hail as groundbreaking is, often, nothing of the sort, and is merely distinguished by an awkward idiosyncrasy or two, and is such breathtakingly vacuous, offensive, nonsense, puke that anyone sensitive to the possibility of not seeing that the Emperor is naked is at serious risk of shooting his or her mouth off to no positive effect, thinking they have experienced and processed art, and lessening, thereby, the measure to which they can, at all, legitimately claim to exist.

    Our age is quite distinguished by the incredible number of walking, talking homo sapiens whom are boasting grandly if they say, “I have legitimate right to say that I do indeed exist, beyond the physical sense, and rather meaningfully.” So many, in so many life-styles, truly do not, and never know it.


      Quote
    28 Oct 2013 at 11:58 am #4382

    topperph1
    Member

    Bergman remains unknown in contexts where Hanna Montana is loved and admired. To an extent, I sympathize. My dad was a theology professor, (won awards, was, in academia, widely published etc.), at a good liberal arts college, and raised me on, (along with Truffaut, De Sica, Fellini, Hitchcock, Allen, Peckinpah, Griffith, Kurosawa, and many other greats), Bergman. He used Bergman films in teaching his students, more than any other name I list above. I don’t know about Bergman’s popularity in Europe–I always thought he was huge, there. I am, though, unsympathetic, insofar as: for me, his films are like awesome, beautiful, dead-sober, nightmares/dreams, and each a potential life-lesson. If I benefit, (and think I do, yes), from attention to and a love of Bergman work, then I care not so much if the larger world is rather oblivious.


      Quote
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.