|  | 
        
         |  | 
        
         |  recycle
             from Where is Phobiazero (Lincoln) (United States) on 2003-07-29 08:19 [#00798235] Points: 40935 Status: Regular
 | 
| 
     
 
 | i need to see this movie soooooooo bad 
 http://movies.go.com/movies/S/seabiscuit_2003/index.html
 
 i like you horsie
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  afxNUMB
             from So.Flo on 2003-07-29 08:22 [#00798242] Points: 7099 Status: Regular
 | 
| 
     
 
 | There has to be something else you might want to see so bad. 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  The_Funkmaster
             from St. John's (Canada) on 2003-07-29 08:22 [#00798243] Points: 16280 Status: Lurker
 | 
| 
     
 
 | I hate toby maguire! 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  Quernstone
             from Padova (Italy) on 2003-07-29 08:40 [#00798301] Points: 1826 Status: Regular
 | 
| 
     
 
 | Oh, I thought this might be similar to an airbiscuit. 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  Jarworski
             from The Grove (United Kingdom) on 2003-07-29 08:42 [#00798312] Points: 10836 Status: Lurker
 | 
| 
     
 
 | This is one more the more interesting reviewers at IMDB - he's reviewed an awful lot of movies and has a very unusual
 viewpoint on movies. I've read a lot of his stuff and while
 I don't always agree with him he usually interests me
 somehow. Here's what he thought:
 
 Spoilers herein.
 
 Post 9-11 effects are nowhere as profound as in the wave of
 movies just hitting the theaters. This week, I have seen two
 films whose foundations are the upswelling of national
 identity since the attacks. But they are quite different.
 The first was "Red, White and Blond" which is lightweight,
 celebrates the simple platitude as truth, and has that
 respect for the stupid but well-meaning that characterizes
 Republican strategy. Enormously endearing, and I cried at
 all the patriotic parts.
 
 And then there's this. Strong metaphors for a broken country
 given a second chance. A morality tale about the little guy
 against moneyed interests, about healing, about real
 compassion. In this case, the metaphor is made plain:
 history's popularizer David McCullough does a faux "Ken
 Burns" documentary within which we peer into this story of
 America revitalization from the destruction of greed. This
 is the other side of the patriotic coin, and we all cried at
 the patriotic parts here too.
 
 Both of these are extremely well engineered, almost
 overengineered. In this one we have one of the simplest
 devices in the book, the rule of twos:
 
 We have two men in whose hands this healing is wrought. The
 heart of the project is the heart of these two characters.
 They sought out two of the three male actors capable of a
 certain technique for this: the ability to anticipate the
 next scene. Acting is not the challenge of creating a
 character at all, it is the challenge of doing things that
 induce you as the viewer to create a character. That means
 that the actor has to create and maintain a channel between
 himself and the viewer; there are different styles,
 techniques and philosophies to do this. One -- rare but
 effective -- technique is to anticip
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  Jarworski
             from The Grove (United Kingdom) on 2003-07-29 08:43 [#00798313] Points: 10836 Status: Lurker
 | 
| 
     
 
 | anticipate the future; it is what Chris and Jeff know how to do.
 
 In this game, they each create two persons, the character
 who lives in the now of the story and the actor who knows
 that something is coming -- that it will all turn out all
 right if only the being of the actor can get past the flaws
 in the being of the character. The expose both of these
 beings to us and we watch them both. When we see Jeffs face
 in closeup -- and he literally tells us its all about the
 future -- we see half of him really does live in the future.
 These are superb actors, chosen because they each bring this
 linkage to the next scene. Cinematic storytelling, folks.
 Which, it must be said, has something to do with the
 strategy of racing that is described in redundant detail:
 let him see the partner so that he can race ahead.
 
 Pairs throughout: we have the pair of the damaged: horse and
 rider, both as metaphor for the nation. This is so heavily
 and obviously pounded in, that it threatens the movie and
 only by repeated tests did they fine tune it: pushed only
 precisely so far and no further. "Bagger Vance" is an
 example of one that went over the line. Robert Redford.
 
 The viewers have to be represented: here we have a pair of
 designated viewers -- standing in for us of course. The wife
 and the radio announcer. The wife duly soaks in the sweet
 platitudes and the radio guy (in addition to providing comic
 relief) provides an equally heavy metaphor for our own
 voyeurism. These bookends define the space for us to feel
 comfortable in. This announcer bit is also an example of
 repeated audience testing. It derives from the
 reporter-voyeur of the screwball comedy era, filtered
 through dozens of comedic versions in mostly baseball movies
 -- but with defining bumps in "Best in Show" and "Major
 League." Again it was pushed precisely as far as audiences
 could take before they had a reaction. An example of too far
 is Jennifer Leigh's reporter in "Hudsucker.
 
 Pairs: the pair of patriotic approaches, the pair for us as
 Americans, the p
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  Jarworski
             from The Grove (United Kingdom) on 2003-07-29 08:43 [#00798318] Points: 10836 Status: Lurker
 | 
| 
     
 
 | Pairs: the pair of patriotic approaches, the pair for us as Americans, the pair for us as patient husbanders of the good
 (each as the actor/character pair), the pair for us as
 moviegoers. Its called bracketing and is engineered
 cinematic storytelling at its finest.
 
 Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.
 
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         | Messageboard index
 
 
        
 |