Jackie Brown -- Awesome Movie Clip

[bleeding heart]

I have seen more than one poster remark recently that there is no good acting in the movies. I think they tend to have a romantic view of the "Golden Age" as opposed to more contemporary stuff.

In this funny clip from the underappreciated Jackie Brown, we can see the excellent interplay between the characters. De Niro especially knows how to work dialogue and body language.

(Anticipating August's remarks: save it, brother. )

Note: rough language

Edited August 4, 2013 by bleeding heart

[kimmy]

I certainly agree with the part about the romanticized idea of how great "the Golden Age" was. I have long maintained that people who talk about how great film or TV or music used to be compared to now have a very selective memory about how things used to be.

I am also anticipating Augusts remarks, and am writing a parody as we speak.

-k

[bleeding heart]

I certainly agree with the part about the romanticized idea of how great "the Golden Age" was. I have long maintained that people who talk about how great film or TV or music used to be compared to now have a very selective memory about how things used to be.

Yeah...and the more sober of the Golden Age aficionados will be the first to point out that the percentage of dreck in the major releases was not different then than it is now.

[August1991]

I have seen more than one poster remark recently that there is no good acting in the movies. I think they tend to have a romantic view of the "Golden Age" as opposed to more contemporary stuff...

Is 1973 the "Golden Age"?

The Jackie Brown scene was filmed with blue screen and the lighting is wrong. The context is a throw-away. Compare it to these two scene's dialogue, acting, direction, production - and plot set-up:

Edited August 15, 2013 by August1991

[cybercoma]

I certainly agree with the part about the romanticized idea of how great "the Golden Age" was. I have long maintained that people who talk about how great film or TV or music used to be compared to now have a very selective memory about how things used to be.

I am also anticipating Augusts remarks, and am writing a parody as we speak.

-k

Nope. The best cinema was between early 70s and mid 80s.

[Moonlight Graham]

Nope. The best cinema was between early 70s and mid 80s.

I liked the 90's. But that era was good too. I don't really see a break in overall quality after the mid-80's

The 2000's was unparalleled in terms of good blockbusters (LOTR, Harry Potter, Batman + other superhero flicks etc), but seemed to cut back on good dramas.

[cybercoma]

Yeah. I suppose it's tough. Films were just different in the early 70s to mid 80s. What I enjoyed best about them is that they were forced to overcome their limitations when telling the stories. Some movies today rely too much on CG and they lose sight of the fact that movies are first about telling a compelling story. A lot of blockbusters these days are like junk food. All flash with no substance. Too many films are like that. There's fewer limitations, which forced them to be more creative in the past. Oddly enough the film Hugo is about this. It's an argument that filmmakers should always stretch out to the limitations of their craft. Pushing against the boundaries of our capabilities is what helps us grow and makes us more creative.

[bleeding heart]

Is 1973 the "Golden Age"?

If you can't keep up with a relatively easy discussion, based on terms that are conventionally understood (and have zero to do with my personal assessment)...then why bother responding at all?

The Jackie Brown scene was filmed with blue screen and the lighting is wrong. The context is a throw-away. Compare it to these two scene's dialogue, acting, direction, production - and plot set-up:

Well, Chinatown is a classic, a fantastic film. One of that pederast's finer works, in my view.

Other than that...."context"? The discussion directly precedes (and directly causes) the murder of one of the characters, and is the beginning of the ultimate downward spiral of the other, as every ally is now dead; further, arguably at least, the volatile situation also helps enable Jackie to get away with stealing the money.

So, by definition, you don't know what you're talking about.

A circumstance which I suppose is as familiar and comfortable for you as an old pair of slippers.

Edited August 17, 2013 by bleeding heart

[kimmy]

Is 1973 the "Golden Age"?

The Jackie Brown scene was filmed with blue screen and the lighting is wrong. The context is a throw-away. Compare it to these two scene's dialogue, acting, direction, production - and plot set-up:

I realize that Chinatown is regarded as a classic, and that what I'm about to say is sacrilege... ...but I think that clip you provided kind of sucked.

The confrontation in the first part seems improbable, forced, contrived... and in the second part we see a tired old trope, the guy running his mouth while unaware that somebody is watching disapprovingly right behind him. Standing with his back directly to the door, steadfastly refusing to ignore the warnings of the guys he's talking to until he's finished embarrassing himself. I suspect that I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners had beaten that sight-gag to death long before 1973.

But of course, I haven't actually seen Chinatown, so maybe I don't have adequate information to appreciate how awesome this clip actually is. A situation I think Bleeding Heart was alluding to.

-k

[August1991]

Other than that...."context"? The discussion directly precedes (and directly causes) the murder of one of the characters, and is the beginning of the ultimate downward spiral of the other, as every ally is now dead; further, arguably at least, the volatile situation also helps enable Jackie to get away with stealing the money.

So, by definition, you don't know what you're talking about.

Uh, I disagree.

I generally dislike Tarantino because I see him as a fraud. But I was impressed with Jackie Brown until I discovered that it was based on a half-way decent novel. IOW, I was impressed with Jackie Brown not because of Tarantino but because of the plot.

I can't remember now exact details but the girl getting shot in the shopping mall was not critical, and it didn't advance much of anything. The dialogue in the clip in the OP was a throw-away. At most, it was "cute and amusing" for the gun-loving, blow-em-away crowd.

Edited August 18, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

I realize that Chinatown is regarded as a classic, and that what I'm about to say is sacrilege... ...but I think that clip you provided kind of sucked.

The confrontation in the first part seems improbable, forced, contrived... and in the second part we see a tired old trope, the guy running his mouth while unaware that somebody is watching disapprovingly right behind him....

Frankly, I was looking for the clip "She's my daughter, she's my sister... " but google/youtube gave me the clip cited first and I was lazy and despite the Polish subtitles, I reckoned that it made my point.

I agree, Kimmy, that the first part of my clip above seems "forced". When Nicholson steps out of the barber's chair, he appears to be a 1930s LA private detective, rather than making us believe that he is one.

-----

Nevertheless, the two Chinatown scenes are remarkable examples of dialogue, production, direction and acting all used to move a plot along. IMV, any artistic effort should help the audience understand better. For example, Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper has hands pointing to Christ.

The Jackie Brown clip in the OP is none of that - it only has De Niro's amusing, laconic delivery. And I suspect that De Niro's acting (not the movie) is why Bleeding Heart chose to create a thread. The thread's title should be: Robert de Niro -- Awesome Actor.

But of course, I haven't actually seen Chinatown, so maybe I don't have adequate information to appreciate how awesome this clip actually is. A situation I think Bleeding Heart was alluding to.

You haven't seen Chinatown but you know about it. Have you seen Casablanca? In 2053, will people know about (or even have seen) Casablanca, Chinatown or, uh, Jackie Brown?

Edited August 18, 2013 by August1991

[bleeding heart]

I generally dislike Tarantino because I see him as a fraud.

How so, exactly?

I have a few minor quibbles with a few things Tarantino does, but for the most part I find his movies engaging.

But I was impressed with Jackie Brown until I discovered that it was based on a half-way decent novel. IOW, I was impressed with Jackie Brown not because of Tarantino but because of the plot.

Plot is almost literally, and almost always, more or less irrelevant. Delivery is everything. Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code has an interesting and very well-delineated plot....and it's a terrible novel.

Whereas Maugham's The Painted Veil (I bring it up because you said you liked it)...well, let's look at the plot of this fine novel:

Kitty and Walter get married, though kitty doesn't love him. She has an affair. Walter finds out, and offers an ultimatum, which leads her to the East during a cholera epidemic. She discovers that the cold and austere Walter is a man of great compassion who is loved and respected. Growing as a person, she actually falls in love with him before his death. Oh, and she's pregnant.

That's the plot, August. It's not much...but it doesn't matter that it's not much.

I too have heard good things about the Elmore Leonard book upon which JB is based...but again, it's Leonard's style, his dialogue, his use of time, place and character that make him good. "Plot" is little more than a coat-rack upon which excellence (or its lack) rests.

I can't remember now exact details but the girl getting shot in the shopping mall was not critical, and it didn't advance much of anything. The dialogue in the clip in the OP was a throw-away. At most, it was "cute and amusing" for the gun-loving, blow-em-away crowd.

I disagree. The murder is offscreen...we don't really see her get shot, so I don't think there's much "blow-em-away" satisfaction to be found there.

It does advance the story, despite what you say; first, "nice-guy" Louis is, as we see, not some affable and addle-minded petty thief as he appears, but a cold-blooded killer, and totally remorseless. It's a matter of character. Further...well, I already pointed out why the murder matters to the story.

Similarly, I don't quite see what is "throwaway" about the dialogue, and I've already pointed out why.

And yes, one of the arguments against Tarantino is the matter of excess dialogue that doesn't clearly add to the story. Like Bruce Willis and his girlfriend in bed in Pulp Fiction. Personally, I'm on the fence about such bits. Occasionally I'm even slightly irritated, though not much.

But either way, I don't think that criticism applies in this particular case.

[dre]

I agree with August to some extent about modern movies. I think that many strive to be visual masterpieces and lack story, characters, and acting. And I cant help but notice that half of them are remakes of older movies with fancy effects.

But I agree with BH too... there was just as much garbage during the "golden age". I think about 9 out of 10 movies are terrible, and I thought the same thing 20 years ago. Maybe 1 in 50 is "really good" and 1 in 100 is "great".

When I think about my favoriate movies of all time... they are about evenly split between "newer" and "older".

Scarface, Full Metal Jacket, Clockwork Orange, Platoon, State of Grace, the LOTR Series, Good fellows, The dude, Army of Darkness. Just my taste I guess but they seem to be scattered across the last few decades.

[sharkman]

I have seen more than one poster remark recently that there is no good acting in the movies. I think they tend to have a romantic view of the "Golden Age" as opposed to more contemporary stuff.

In this funny clip from the underappreciated Jackie Brown, we can see the excellent interplay between the characters. De Niro especially knows how to work dialogue and body language.

(Anticipating August's remarks: save it, brother. )

Is this thread nothing more than a troll attempt on August?

What is your view of the acting in movies from the "golden age"?

[Guest Derek L]

Is this thread nothing more than a troll attempt on August?

It appears as much....

[bleeding heart]

You fellows are evidently unaware of the history of my discussions with August about movies.

It goes like this:

1. Bleeding Heart offers some thoughts on this or that movie;

2. August comes along, informs me that I am clueless about movies, and opines that the internet is the wrong place for movie reviews at any rate;

3. He then later offers a movie review.

So that's the history behind my remark...which, by the way, was an afterthought designed in the way of a friendly and amused jab at a person I like.

Glad to educate you two on yet another subject.

Edited August 19, 2013 by bleeding heart

[cybercoma]

of course, I haven't actually seen Chinatown, so maybe I don't have adequate information to appreciate how awesome this clip actually is. A situation I think Bleeding Heart was alluding to.

-k

See Chinatown. It's important for many reasons, the least of which being that it was a throwback to film noir.

[cybercoma]

I generally dislike Tarantino because I see him as a fraud.

A fraud? Tarantino is one of the most well-respected directors in Hollywood. Guys like Scorcese have said that Tarantino is the guy you go to when you have a question about film theory or history. I'm baffled as to why you would think he's a fraud, whilst some of the biggest names in Hollywood think he's the real deal. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend watching Tarantino's interview with Charlie Rose. You're selling him way short.

[August1991]

Guys like Scorcese have said that Tarantino is the guy you go to when you have a question about film theory or history.

Mark Steyn knows alot about the history of Broadway musicals but that doesn't mean he knows how to produce or direct a good one. (And unlike Tarantino apparently, Steyn seems to understand this point.)

[bleeding heart]

Mark Steyn knows alot about the history of Broadway musicals but that doesn't mean he knows how to produce or direct a good one. (And unlike Tarantino apparently, Steyn seems to understand this point.)

Yes, but Mark Steyn is a writer with flair, but with monumentally-stupid ideas. He adds nothing to the world of political punditry, or even to polemics. Quentin Tarantino is an uneven, but nonetheless accomplished filmmaker, and has done some stuff definitely worth looking at..

So there's another difference between the two entertainers.

[August1991]

Yes, but Mark Steyn is a writer with flair, but with monumentally-stupid ideas. He adds nothing to the world of political punditry, or even to polemics. Quentin Tarantino is an uneven, but nonetheless accomplished filmmaker, and has done some stuff definitely worth looking at.

"Adds nothing?"

I'm no fanboy of Steyn, nor Tarantino. I neither choose one, nor the other.

Yet bleeding heart, I fear that we increasingly live in a world of "teams".

For example, you're on the team that hates the "Steyn team", whatever it says. And apparently. you're on the "Tarantino Team" while you believe that I am not.

Team? How about cool? ("Signal" might be a better usage.) At present, among some people, Tarantino is "cool". Steyn is not.

To carry on this mistaken analogy of teams or "coolness" - In the 1920s, Winston Churchill was not cool either. Then he was, like Adolf Hitler, for a short period. They were really cool.

----

I object to the fanboy adulation of coolness, and the young girl obsession with neatness.

It is longevity that intrigues me.

I suspect that the name Shakespeare will long survive Churchill, and Sun Tzu's name will survive longer than Mao Zedong.

Tolstoi certainly longer than Lenin, and Hugo longer than the Sun King.

In 2349, which names will people know: Jean Valjean, or Winston Churchill.

Edited October 4, 2013 by August1991

[bleeding heart]

"Adds nothing?"

I'm no fanboy of Steyn, nor Tarantino. I neither choose one, nor the other.

Yet bleeding heart, I fear that we increasingly live in a world of "teams".

For example, you're on the team that hates the "Steyn team", whatever it says. And apparently. you're on the "Tarantino Team" while you believe that I am not.

Team? How about cool? ("Signal" might be a better usage.) At present, among some people, Tarantino is "cool". Steyn is not.

To carry on this mistaken analogy of teams or "coolness" - In the 1920s, Winston Churchill was not cool either. Then he was, like Adolf Hitler, for a short period. They were really cool.

----

I object to the fanboy adulation of coolness, and the young girl obsession with neatness.

It is longevity that intrigues me.

I suspect that the name Shakespeare will long survive Churchill, and Sun Tzu's name will survive longer than Mao Zedong.

Tolstoi certainly longer than Lenin, and Hugo longer than the Sun King.

In 2349, which names will people know: Jean Valjean, or Winston Churchill.

I don't really disagree with your final thoughts here.

But my distaste for Mark Steyn is certainly not based on some ethereal "cool factor" which I think he lacks.

It stems from the fact that I have average intelligence and normal moral inclinations, unlike Steyn's inferior admirers.

[overthere]

too have heard good things about the Elmore Leonard book upon which JB is based...but again, it's Leonard's style, his dialogue, his use of time, place and character that make him good. "Plot" is little more than a coat-rack upon which excellence (or its lack) rests.

I'm a hardcore moviegoer, and coincidentally a big Leonard fan. The best part of his books is the dialogue, he has a great ear for how everyday people speak. He has had had limited luck in movie adaptations of his many. many books. The better ones are Jackie Brown(based on Rum Punch), Get Shorty and Out of Sight. 3:10 to Yuma is a good flick based on a short story. The TV series Jusitified is based on a few of his books. I liked it to begin with, but have lost interest. I reckon Tim Oliphant can't carry the role adequately, and the snappy dialogue of the books is lost in the TV series.

Speaking of the Golden Age of film, I think it is right now.

There are countless decent movies, and plenty of excellent movies, made without CGI or resort to visual trickery. Nearly all older movies from years ago were made by tightly wound Hollywood studios with stables of actors and directors on short leashes. If they weren't made within those constraints- there was almost no way to a movie get produced or distributed.

It's very different now. There are tons of producers and directors working outside or with less interference from studios, and that means what is produced is far more differentiated than what happened in previous generations.

There are far, far more independent and often wonderful movies produced than ever before. Hits and misses, for sure, but there is a lot of quality. We also see far more foreign movies than ever before, movies that simply would never be seen outside their country of origin anytime before p[erhaps the 90s.

It's all good!

[bleeding heart]

I'm definitely inclined to agree with you. Television is also far superior to what it once was. The notion that I Love Lucy or Jackie Gleason were so impossibly good that television must by necessity be now an inferior product is a silly argument. Of course there has been good television, and good movies.

And now there is more good television and (as you say)more good movies.

You're right: it's all good!