tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post6579870946979124755..comments2024-01-30T04:32:47.585-05:00Comments on The Cooler: Devil in the Details: CarlosJason Bellamyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-58852203994283246172010-12-10T12:00:47.702-05:002010-12-10T12:00:47.702-05:00Nice review; I'll be sure to keep an eye out.Nice review; I'll be sure to keep an eye out.Josephhttp://www.cinexcellence.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-28643137994058152332010-12-07T00:37:17.068-05:002010-12-07T00:37:17.068-05:00"Truly, I enjoyed the film. But artistically ..."Truly, I enjoyed the film. But artistically speaking I didn't think more was actually more."<br /><br />Jason, I felt precisely that way after seeing Soderbergh's CHE, which I am not sure if you liked or not. Hence I do agree that more is not always more.<br /><br />As far as that brief discussion I had with Assayas (I must say I pushed hard to get brief audience on the way out) I would also say that it was a poor example for me to use, as of course a director of a longer version will ALWAYS say the extended version is more legitimate and artistically complete. I know Assayas wouldn't exactly talk down the shorter version, but he'd strongly promote the one he invested the most time and energy into.Sam Julianonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-65524963345934599752010-12-06T23:32:56.309-05:002010-12-06T23:32:56.309-05:00I think it's a film that's partly about th...I think it's a film that's partly about the passage of time, and that, yes, it needs that time to stretch out, to convey the sense of a life stretching across decades, and the ways in which the world changed around this man. I think Assayas is also establishing patterns and rhythms in the purposeful repetitions of the plot, and the way the same events keep playing out, with slight variations, both in Carlos' personal dealings and in the political machinations and negotiations that go on in various contexts. By the end of the film, we've seen Carlos' initial radical idealism give way to pragmatism, disillusionment, rationalization, and eventually paranoid delusions, and for me, anyway, I feel like the film's length contributes to the sense of these transformations happening naturally and fluidly.<br /><br />Could this be done in a shorter time frame? Sure, it's possible. But I think the use of duration in cinema can impart a sense of time's scope that you just don't get in the standard 2 hour movie. Just ask Rivette...Ed Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18014222247676090467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-84979173125564881182010-12-06T21:20:47.390-05:002010-12-06T21:20:47.390-05:00Ed: Looking forward to reading your take. Though I...Ed: Looking forward to reading your take. Though I'm sure you're right that you liked the film more than I did, don't get me wrong: I liked it. I just don't think it justifies its length.<br /><br />Now, that doesn't mean that the length isn't functional or effective. You write: <em>"I think it needs to be epic to convey that sense of a man thinking he's at the center of world events, only to discover that he's tangential, a footnote that will be forgotten once the violent initial rush of his activities has passed."</em> And indeed, the epic scope of the film helps achieve that.<br /><br />But let's back up a minute. You're a fan of Assayas. Do you really think he "needs" an epic to convey those things? You don't think he could just as easily convey Carlos' self-delusions in a still-meaty 2.5 hours?<br /><br />I don't want this to sound belittling, but, yes, with the 5.5-hour cut, Assays successfully 'passes the time,' if you will. As I said in my review, there isn't a single lousy scene in the film, and that's impressive. But I think there has to be a higher standard than that. And while I enjoyed the experience enough, I just don't think that the 5.5 hour cut is of such great depth or complexity that Assayas couldn't have done just as well in half the time.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-85183700885840089462010-12-06T21:10:28.564-05:002010-12-06T21:10:28.564-05:00Sam: So you saw the movie with Assayas, and I saw ...Sam: So you saw the movie with Assayas, and I saw the movie with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Lesko" rel="nofollow">Matthew Lesko</a>. Clearly you're jealous.<br /><br />But seriously. The only thing that has me curious about Assayas' comment is: truly, how many people have actually seen both the long and the "short" version? I mean, I suspect there are a number of critics who have, but beyond that I expect the number is quite low. I'm not trying to prove any point with this observation. I'm just guessing that it's probably a small and very specific sample size that can actually speak to both cuts.<br /><br />Anyway, I'm glad you were able to understand my reservations. Truly, I enjoyed the film. But artistically speaking I didn't think more was actually more. I happened upon Owen Gleiberman's capsule review after posting this last night and as he says, "<em>Carlos</em> doesn't go deeper, it just gets longer." I agree with that.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-54066283637441945942010-12-06T07:29:05.565-05:002010-12-06T07:29:05.565-05:00I've got my own review of this forthcoming; I ...I've got my own review of this forthcoming; I liked it much more than you do. I think one of its strengths is how attentive it is to the details and the seemingly prosaic moments. And as you admit, even in its repetitions, it's never boring - it had me enthralled for over 5 hours straight, and that's no small feat. It's viscerally exciting, at least in its earlier parts, and then it slowly declines into stasis and frustration as Carlos and his ideas about the world get left behind in the new world order. Assayas has always been a director who's interested in the way the world works more than he's interested in characters, and here he's ostensibly delivering a character study but is really examining, meticulously, the way this character fits into the world, the webs that tie this terrorist to other terrorists, to politicians, to changes shaking the world throughout the 70s, 80s and early 90s. I think it needs to be epic to convey that sense of a man thinking he's at the center of world events, only to discover that he's tangential, a footnote that will be forgotten once the violent initial rush of his activities has passed.Ed Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18014222247676090467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-42687979294736932082010-12-05T18:23:20.965-05:002010-12-05T18:23:20.965-05:00I spoke with Assayas in the lobby of the IFC Film ...I spoke with Assayas in the lobby of the IFC Film Center, and I asked him directly about the legitimacy of the shorter version, and he strongly felt the 319 minute version (which I had watched that same afternoon) was more than strongly preferred, and that the shorter version would indeed lessen the impact.<br /><br />Regardless, you have made another masterful contribution to the CARLOS literature here, and while I like the film substantially more (it's one of my top films of the year) I can fully understand the rewservations your bring to the table here. I would like to see this again at some point in the near future.Sam Julianonoreply@blogger.com