Something new at The Auteurs

For the past couple of weeks I've been contributing a new column, a sort of that-was-the-week-that-was (in miniature) in film and blogging, in the interest of fostering discourse. Not, I am quick to point out, discourse of the lowest kind, but also not, given my occasional tendencies towards impishness, that of the most unfailingly high-minded and spiritually pure sort either. Among other things, it features my "Armond White-ism Of The Week," which, believe it or not, is not always intended in the spirit of mockery. But judge for yourself. The column's called "Topics/Questions/Exercises Of The Week" and the latest one is here. Which is where you should also join the proposed discussion, should you be moved to. As always, thanks for your support.  

Comments

[Max]

Is Bruno cinema? Interesting question. Personally, I'd love to hear YOUR take on it.

However, will it be hilarious and brilliantly pointed, much like its predecessor? If the trailer is an indication, I'm fairly certain.

And I hear what you're saying about Public Enemies; I thought Miami Vice was among the worst pictures in recent years by a respected director, and wins the prize for worst movie coming from most awesome trailer. But I do enjoy the period details reflected in digital photography, which is the main reason I want to see it.

[John Svatek]

Max wrote:

"But I do enjoy the period details reflected in digital photography, which is the main reason I want to see it."

Yes! I've been wondering why the trailer interested me since I've never had much interest in Mann, and that's why the shots looked gorgeous and strangely reminded me of "Zodiac." Are they using the same camera? Any technical people know why digital--in the right hands--has this effect on the "past"?

(Plus, what else is out there this summer [when you don't live in the big city, and the Landmark taking over the Ritz in Philly has really lowered your trips into town]?)

[Tony Dayoub]

Vacuous as it may seem, Miami Vice still has a visually satisfying quality that seems to be inherent to Mann's digital photography. While I would never rank it among 2006's best offerings, like other Mann films the movie grows with repeat viewings.

Like a Rorschach test, Vice is a film that supports different readings depending on what you bring to it, due in no small part to its very blankness. And as usual, Mann puts enough work into the throwaway details that the film starts revealing hidden layers when one is attuned to those points.

[Max]

@Tony: Really, while I did like the visuals of the film, I found it just incredibly boring. It was just Farell and Fox standing around waiting a lot, looking brooding and saying things like "Don't worry, I know which way is up." But I knew there was an action sequence, and it was all I could do to stay awake; this movie had to have SOMETHING redemptive about it. But the gunfight arrived, and it was so incoherently edited that I didn't know, at any given time, who was shooting at who. I just think it's a tremendous waste of time and Mann's talent on a script not worth its weight.

@John Svatek: I'm technically unsavvy, so from Wikipedia:

"Fincher decided to use the digital Thomson Viper Filmstream camera to shoot the film (Zodiac) ... Contrary to popular belief, Zodiac was not shot entirely digitally; traditional high-speed film cameras were used for slow-motion murder sequences.[12] Michael Mann's Miami Vice, as well as his previous effort, Collateral (a co-production of Paramount and its current sister studio DreamWorks, and which also starred Mark Ruffalo), were also shot with the camera but mixed in other formats.[13] Once shot on the Viper camera, the files were converted to DVCPro HD 1080i and edited in Final Cut Pro. This was for editorial decisions only. During the later stages of editing the original uncompressed 1080p 4:4:4 RAW digital source footage was assembled automatically to maintain an up-to-date digital "negative" of the movie."

So, in short, yes, probably. If he used it for Vice and Collateral, there's a damn good chance. Good eye!

[Lou Lumenick]

I thought the fanboys who attacked the critics who failed to recognize the brilliance of THE DARK KNIGHT in advance of the fanboys seeing it were pretty rabid, but Wells has aroused an auteurist lynch mob in his comments section.

[lazarus]

I'm a huge Mann fan who loves Miami Vice AND Ali (though I'd only rate Collateral as "good"), but I'm not very excited for Public Enemies either. I don't necessarily want him locked in the modern urban setting, but seeing him try to top The Untouchables (not much of a challenge) isn't something I'm interested in. It also may have something to do with my distaste for Disney's newest whore Captain Jack Tonto, whose mannered acting style does nothing for me.

[Jeff McM]

Wells wouldn't be Wells if he wasn't getting people pissed off for no good reason about something.

[JC]

Don't worry, Lou. This was all blow over, and you'll be back to being most remembered for whacking Ebert with a program. All in due time. ;)

[JC]

Crap, typo..this will all blow over, that is. ;)

[aion kinah]

Don't worry, Lou. This was all blow over, and you'll be back to being most remembered for whacking Ebert with a program. All in due time. ;)