Newest Major Reviews:.This Month's Most Popular Reviews: Best-Selling Albums:
. 1. Pinocchio
2. The Woman King
3. Samaritan
4. The Gray Man
5. Prey
. . 1. Dune (2021)
2. Spider-Man
3. Alice in Wonderland
4. Encanto
5. Batman
6. Wonder Woman 1984
7. No Time to Die
8. Ghostbusters: Afterlife
9. Murder on the Orient Express
10. LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring
. . 1. Space Battleship Yamato
2. John Williams in Vienna
3. Shang-Chi: Legend/Ten Rings
4. Glory
5. Superman (40th Anniversary)
  ScoreBoard Forum

  Admission of my Own Pretentiousness/Is Shyamalan a Pretentious Bastard??  
 
Return to Index
 
 


Timmy B.
(166.214.77.225)


  Responses to this Message:
Yavar Moradi
tromboja
C. Hook
Carlton
  Admission of my Own Pretentiousness/Is Shyamalan a Pretentious Bastard??   Monday, July 24, 2006 (10:16 p.m.) 

It’s hard to imagine that one’s self is pretentious… I have always suspected that I might be easily called pretentious but I could never let myself think much about it. That all was before some adjusted medication and new self-discovery. I realize now that I indeed have acted pretentiously for much of my life, not because of trying to appear important or excellent, but from truly *believing* that I was both important and excellent. In the most recent past years of my life I’ve started writing a book that I’ve truly believed could be the most important book in human history. Even more recently, though, I’ve realized that this is indicative of a messiah complex. Change in medicine and diagnosis of having psychotic disorder N. O. S. helped me see this. (Psychotic disorder has probably been the culprit in many of my tangents here comprised of clouded reasoning.)

So, I earnestly apologize for the annoyance and anger I’ve caused in others who have witnessed my posts here where I wouldn’t acknowledge the validity of opinions that differed from my “great mind”. (My book is about understanding other people, ironically, so I did try to understand others to some extent, but this was undermined by my grandiose sense of self.) I also apologize for all the negative speak I’ve directed toward others. Disrespect is never warranted (except when it would be disrespectful not to be “disrespectful”… ). I can say I’ve always had good intentions and never intended to be mean—meanness, when it was present, was only a symptom of not paying attention to how I affected others and probably was mixed with misdirected anger that found its way to the surface in the “safe” environment of internet communication.

I’m not saying that I’m “cured” of this messiah complex. I’m partly saying all this to help people keep this in mind in their interpretation of my posts; for instance, my style of writing developed out of myself being a snob, so I think it will always have that edge. A grandiose sense of self is a challenge that I think I will always face—but, this is no reason to give up, of course.

This all is way too personal, I know, but it’s the only way I can think of to try to make amends here. I can’t imagine another way to try to clear up resentment concerning me on this board.

In conclusion ( ), how can one imagine that they themselves are snobs? I’ve always known myself better than anyone and have always known the reasons why I act as I do… Yet this doesn’t excuse acting snobbishly… (By extension, I guess we should keep in mind that people always have their reasons for why they act as they do while we identify people as snobs (or identify people as anything else that’s negative).)

If you don’t know what all the above is about, check the archives…

Now for the second part of this post:

I just a little while ago looked back to see the reviews given to Shyamalan’s films and how they’ve changed over time. (I used rottentomatoes.com.) It seems that most reviewers think he’s becoming more and more pretentious as well as becoming less and less good. What do people think of this? I think he’s perfecting some things while losing other things… I think the Village was his best (and Howard’s best).

Speaking of scores for a change, I really am liking Howard’s Lady score… The only other score I’ve gotten this year has been The Da Vinci Code which I like as well. Any recommendations for other recent scores??

Tim



Threaded display

Yavar Moradi
(adsl-69-231-66-31.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net)

  In Response to:
Timmy B.

  Responses to this Message:
Southall
Jockolantern
Timmy B.
  Re: Admission of my Own Pretentiousness/Is Shyamalan a Pretentious Bastard??   Monday, July 24, 2006 (11:16 p.m.) 

Scott Bettencourt just wrote a good article on Shyamalan and all his films for Film Score Daily. You can read it for free right here:

https://www.filmscoremonthly.com/articles/2006/24_Jul---Movie_In_The_Crapper.asp

Yavar

P.S. I don't remember if we ever fought, so you can get all the forgiveness you want from me.

Threaded display

Southall
(webcacheb05a.cache.pol.co.uk)

  In Response to:
Yavar Moradi

  Responses to this Message:
Smalltown_Poets
  Re: Admission of my Own Pretentiousness/Is Shyamalan a Pretentious Bastard??   Tuesday, July 25, 2006 (9:10 a.m.) 

> Scott Bettencourt just wrote a good article on Shyamalan and all his films
> for Film Score Daily. You can read it for free right here:

>
> https://www.filmscoremonthly.com/articles/2006/24_Jul---Movie_In_The_Crapper.asp

I enjoyed reading that, as I always do with Scott's non-list columns. I don't particularly agree with him (I think Shyamalan started badly, and stayed as bad, rather than Scott's feeling that he lost his way) but I still liked reading it.


Movie Wave
Threaded display

Smalltown_Poets
(aca4a068.ipt.aol.com)

  In Response to:
Southall

  Responses to this Message:
Timmy B.
C. Hook
Yavar Moradi
Beavoid
  My problem with The Sixth Sense...   Tuesday, July 25, 2006 (2:50 p.m.) 

> I enjoyed reading that, as I always do with Scott's non-list columns. I
> don't particularly agree with him (I think Shyamalan started badly, and
> stayed as bad, rather than Scott's feeling that he lost his way)

On the other hand I feel it's been more of an unpredictable see-saw effect. What I especially don't understand is seemingly almost everyone's unbridled love for The Sixth Sense, contrasted with mixed views on Unbreakable and outright loathing for his latest efforts... I mean, Scott says:

"...the ending serves to make the film richer and more complex (...) seeing the film again after learning the twist is almost like seeing a whole new movie, and there are few films one can say that about."

*Spoiler Alert*, for the three people in Idaho who haven't seen this film:

I find it a whole new movie as well: a laughable one. While Willis and Osment give effective performances, I frankly find the The Sixth Sense absolutely ridiculous upon rewatching. How can someone think they are "alive" for long streches of their existence and never realize that they are never hungry, never bathe, never take a friggin crap, that, even though he thinks he lives in a city and thinks he is employed as a psychiatrist, NO ONE HAS ACTUALLY SPOKEN TO HIM FOR MONTHS, etc. He's either extremely stupid, or perhaps the least observant person in the history of man. Either way, not the kind of protagonist I can take seriously for a film that yearns for such dramatic moments.

The last time I watched The Sixth Sense, it became a total unexpected MST3K fest.

-Jon


Threaded display

Timmy B.
(166.214.117.215)

  In Response to:
Smalltown_Poets
  Very Incisive   Tuesday, July 25, 2006 (3:37 p.m.) 

> I find it a whole new movie as well: a laughable one. While Willis and
> Osment give effective performances, I frankly find the The Sixth Sense
> absolutely ridiculous upon rewatching. How can someone think they are
> "alive" for long streches of their existence and never realize
> that they are never hungry, never bathe, never take a friggin crap, that,
> even though he thinks he lives in a city and thinks he is employed as a
> psychiatrist, NO ONE HAS ACTUALLY SPOKEN TO HIM FOR MONTHS, etc.
> He's either extremely stupid, or perhaps the least observant person in the
> history of man. Either way, not the kind of protagonist I can take
> seriously for a film that yearns for such dramatic moments.

Very incisive. I never thought of those problems... I remember thinking of millions of plot holes with The Village after seeing it for the first time but don't remember them anymore for some reason. And, Signs, well I think that it takes someone with A LOT of faith to think that everything happens for a reason--what about all the people who died from the aliens and all the other horrible things that happened in the story? I have a problem with the phrase "everything happens for a reason" in a story *and* of course in real life: To say that everything can only be one way and it is as best as it can be is irrational in my opinion. Even worse than saying this is the denial of horror in our world by saying that all that is bad is actually good.

Tim


Threaded display

C. Hook
(200.122.153.38)

  In Response to:
Smalltown_Poets

  Responses to this Message:
Smalltown_Poets
  Re: My problem with The Sixth Sense...   Tuesday, July 25, 2006 (6:12 p.m.) 

> I find it a whole new movie as well: a laughable one. While Willis and
> Osment give effective performances, I frankly find the The Sixth Sense
> absolutely ridiculous upon rewatching. How can someone think they are
> "alive" for long streches of their existence and never realize
> that they are never hungry, never bathe, never take a friggin crap, that,
> even though he thinks he lives in a city and thinks he is employed as a
> psychiatrist, NO ONE HAS ACTUALLY SPOKEN TO HIM FOR MONTHS, etc.
> He's either extremely stupid, or perhaps the least observant person in the
> history of man. Either way, not the kind of protagonist I can take
> seriously for a film that yearns for such dramatic moments.

So? If we can make exceptions for people with mental disorders (real people) to deviate from the behavior and thought process you described, we can make exceptions for ghosts. It's only fair. I mean, the kid with half his skull blown off doesn't know he's dead, why should the good doctor? Throw-up girl does know, but hey, no two ghosts are alike. The assumption that Willis' character thinks and experiences the world the same way the living do simply because he does normal, living dude stuff from time to time was made by you.

I'm not a Shyamalan apologist, but I do kind of get hung up on people who: 1) Think the ending makes the movie and 2) Challenge what the movie does not say or explain and holds it responsible for it, even though it's not the point of the film (and its lack thereof does not interfere with the rest of the screenplay) and with a little imagination can be resolved.

Threaded display

Smalltown_Poets
(aca56627.ipt.aol.com)

  In Response to:
C. Hook

  Responses to this Message:
C. Hook
Josh
  Re: My problem with The Sixth Sense...   Tuesday, July 25, 2006 (8:21 p.m.) 

> So? If we can make exceptions for people with mental disorders (real
> people) to deviate from the behavior and thought process you described, we
> can make exceptions for ghosts. It's only fair. I mean, the kid with half
> his skull blown off doesn't know he's dead, why should the good doctor?
> Throw-up girl does know, but hey, no two ghosts are alike. The assumption
> that Willis' character thinks and experiences the world the same way the
> living do simply because he does normal, living dude stuff from time to
> time was made by you.

What? It's my problem that I can't accept the film's internal inconsistencies? Poison girl knows she's dead but he doesn't? He obviously thinks he's very real and alive or it wouldn't be a huge revelation to him that he's really dead! He's not just doing "normal, living dude stuff" but actively using his mental resources in a real world environment, observing and comprehending input as a frakkin' psychiatrist while trying to help the kid. I mean, he figures out he's dead by using his reasoning! Had his capacity for rational thought been faulty until that point? If you're a ghost for a certain amount of time your capacity to think comes back? Did his mind suddently "turn on?"

And another thing (perhaps this can be explained, but I don't remember how): why is it never cold or whatever when Bruce is around? Is it really the kid controlling the weather and since he thinks Bruce is real the temperature doesn't go down? Maybe this is an X-Men Prequel and he's a mutant. But now I'm just getting silly.

> I'm not a Shyamalan apologist, but I do kind of get hung up on people who:
> 1) Think the ending makes the movie and 2) Challenge what the movie does
> not say or explain and holds it responsible for it, even though it's not
> the point of the film (and its lack thereof does not interfere with the
> rest of the screenplay) and with a little imagination can be resolved.

No, you see I DON'T typically think that the ending makes a movie. But: 1) That is the way I definitely feel Night and co set up the movie, as evidenced by interviews with the filmmakers themsevles. I've not seen the special features recent enough to give specific quotes and examples, but I got the impression from the filmmakers themselves the movie is basically about the twist. When I first watched the movie on VHS there was an actual freakin' documentary at the end (on the VHS!) about how amazingly proud they were of the twist ending I had just seen. Right after the credits end, the filmmakers show up and barrage me about how they negotiated how many clues to leave, contrived around obvious problems like covering up Bruce's bullet wound, etc. THEY'RE the ones telling me how they want me to look at their film. And 2) what about looking at it without the twist? I think it's an okay supernatural thriller with good performances with a tad too much sap. With the twist, I feel one of the main characters is rendered an idiot upon subsequent viewings. Either way, it's not a great film to me.

I do want to say I actually agree with the you about the ending not making a movie, and think that perhaps more people would have enjoyed his films since if not so obsessed over "What's the twist? What's the twist?" I usually just sit back and take in a film without actively trying to forsee twist and turns. But you can't erase your memory (though maybe you can...if your a ghost!), and now upon viewing The Sixth Sense every time I see Bruce Willis I think "man, that's one daft fellow."

But I think that's all I have to say; I don't really want to continue into a longer debate about such a film. I doubt I'll see the film again (though if I do, I will try to be open-minded, as usual) and I am quite reticient to prod you too much as I've see how vehement you can get when defending films you like (cough *Spielberg* cough). Unless you've got a lot of stress you need to siphon off with a good rant, then by all means, let me have it. What are friends for?

-Jon

Threaded display

C. Hook
(200.122.153.38)

  In Response to:
Smalltown_Poets

  Responses to this Message:
Yavar Moradi
Smalltown_Poets
  Re: My problem with The Sixth Sense...   Tuesday, July 25, 2006 (10:55 p.m.) 

> What? It's my problem that I can't accept the film's internal
> inconsistencies? Poison girl knows she's dead but he doesn't? He obviously
> thinks he's very real and alive or it wouldn't be a huge revelation
> to him that he's really dead! He's not just doing "normal, living
> dude stuff" but actively using his mental resources in a real world
> environment, observing and comprehending input as a frakkin' psychiatrist
> while trying to help the kid. I mean, he figures out he's dead by using
> his reasoning! Had his capacity for rational thought been faulty until
> that point? If you're a ghost for a certain amount of time your capacity
> to think comes back? Did his mind suddently "turn on?"

I don't know. I'm not a ghost.

The film doesn't know either... that's why they call it "supernatural". I think it's silly to argue about such things, because what's next? For me, Cole's description of ghosts ("They see what they want to see") fits into the same category as ghosts existing at all. I don't want to be explained the nature of the unexplainable, those contrived analyses bad screen writers add to their movies in hopes of the audience "getting it". For me, it's perfectly reasonable for a fantastic creature (in this case, the kind-of-undead) to experience denial in fantastical ways, like forgetting the trauma of their own death and neglecting a big chunk of their environment.

The film, viewed as a whole, is really about coming to terms with life (and death). For Cole, it's about making his gift/curse a part of his life and using it for good, instead of trying the impossible, to make it go away. For Malcolm, it's about coming out of his denial and stop scaring the crap out of his wife. It's a good fantasy tale with some scares in between and I don't think it's necessary to understand that which isn't possible to understand.

> And another thing (perhaps this can be explained, but I don't remember
> how): why is it never cold or whatever when Bruce is around?

It is. His wife and Cole get the chills, which brings me to...

> Is it really
> the kid controlling the weather and since he thinks Bruce is real the
> temperature doesn't go down?

Cole knows Malcolm is dead. In a way, both are giving each other therapy.

> No, you see I DON'T typically think that the ending makes a movie. But: 1)
> That is the way I definitely feel Night and co set up the movie, as
> evidenced by interviews with the filmmakers themsevles. I've not seen the
> special features recent enough to give specific quotes and examples, but I
> got the impression from the filmmakers themselves the movie is basically
> about the twist. When I first watched the movie on VHS there was an
> actual freakin' documentary at the end (on the VHS!) about how amazingly
> proud they were of the twist ending I had just seen. Right after the
> credits end, the filmmakers show up and barrage me about how they
> negotiated how many clues to leave, contrived around obvious problems like
> covering up Bruce's bullet wound, etc. THEY'RE the ones telling me how
> they want me to look at their film. And 2) what about looking at it
> without the twist? I think it's an okay supernatural thriller with good
> performances with a tad too much sap. With the twist, I feel one of the
> main characters is rendered an idiot upon subsequent viewings. Either way,
> it's not a great film to me.

It's not a great film, period. I don't feel anything either way towards it, it's just that I believe the point you're trying to make could be used against most other films, literature, and even religion, where it's usally more at home with. Leaving all wonder and mystique out from the workings, if any, of the afterlife and trying to fit it into a concept of logic we can understand under our terms, that which we can see, test, and feel, merits the sole idea of exploring it (even in a modest Hollywood film) without meaning. That's how I feel.

> But I think that's all I have to say; I don't really want to continue into
> a longer debate about such a film. I doubt I'll see the film again (though
> if I do, I will try to be open-minded, as usual) and I am quite reticient
> to prod you too much as I've see how vehement you can get when defending
> films you like (cough *Spielberg* cough).

I don't usually try to convince others of measuring their tastes to mine -- except that time I tried to get Yavar to accept the only reason he thought Willow (the movie, not the hot lesbian) was better than Star Wars was because of his fond, childhood memories -- but to hear me out on the virtues I see and think are worthwhile in a specific work. However, I hate, I absolutely hate, the "interpreter", well beyond his impressionable college liberal years, the guy who's arrogance and ego are matched only by his cluelessness, the guy who... well, remember that scene in Annie Hall where Alvy and Annie are waiting in line for a movie and that guy's mouthing off on the subject of Fellini and then McLuhan only to be interrupted by Alvy and the real McLuhan from behind a movie poster telling him he doesn't know what he's talking about? That guy.

Threaded display

Yavar Moradi
(adsl-69-231-64-160.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net)

  In Response to:
C. Hook
  Did I really think Willow was better than Star Wars?   Tuesday, July 25, 2006 (11:19 p.m.) 

I must have been talking about the prequels. Or maybe the first film...that's about on par. I'd like Willow better except Willow has those three super-annoying flaws.

And Willow is dang hot, lesbian or werewolfian. I only wish Aly had something to do besides American Pie movies post-Buffy.

Yavar

Threaded display

Smalltown_Poets
(aca52e58.ipt.aol.com)

  In Response to:
C. Hook
  So, this isn't really about The Sixth Sense at all...   Wednesday, July 26, 2006 (10:14 a.m.) 

> It's not a great film, period. I don't feel anything either way towards
> it, it's just that I believe the point you're trying to make could be used
> against most other films, literature, and even religion, where it's usally
> more at home with. Leaving all wonder and mystique out from the workings,
> if any, of the afterlife and trying to fit it into a concept of logic we
> can understand under our terms, that which we can see, test, and feel,
> merits the sole idea of exploring it (even in a modest Hollywood film)
> without meaning. That's how I feel.

So this isn't really about the film, which you actually have about the same level of like/dislike as me towards, but how you perceive my criticism in regards to a strong philosophical view you hold of the world. The odd thing is, I hold a similar stance in regard to many things. It's about humility in the face of that which we do not understand, and not presuming that our logic is the be-all, end-all of human (and otherwise) comprehension (which is, actually, quite a concession for an INTP type). Actually, I think we are the same page here, or at least similar chapters...

> was because of his fond, childhood memories -- but to hear me out on the
> virtues I see and think are worthwhile in a specific work.

I do hear you, and will keep in mind your thoughts if/when I watch the movie again.

[Pulp Fiction]I ain't threatenin' you or nothin' alright. You know I respect you and all.[/Pulp Fiction]

> However, I
> hate, I absolutely hate, the "interpreter", well beyond his
> impressionable college liberal years, the guy who's arrogance and ego are
> matched only by his cluelessness, the guy who...

Understood, though I really hope you don't think I'm coming from anywhere near a similar perspective based upon my opinion to this one movie. INTPs sometimes come across as arrogant, but rarely are (people who aren't into Meyers Briggs may get annoyed that I so often reference it, but it really is a concise way to explain point-of-view and behavior). If you want to get inside my head, it's not very far from your own, of course.

-Jon

NP: Spartacus (Randy Miller)

Threaded display

Josh
(hlfxns01bbf-142177229239.ns.aliant.net)

  In Response to:
Smalltown_Poets

  Responses to this Message:
Smalltown_Poets
  My problem with Shyamalan...   Thursday, July 27, 2006 (10:31 a.m.) 

Shyamalan is an excellent director, an expert at evoking moods and imagery and, especially, at selling the film's plots, no matter how preposterous. That's why the Sixth Sense works - not because the ending makes sense - but because it *feels* convincing. At least, initially.

Of course, as time went on and Shyamalan's films, shall we say, "declined" in creative merit, one thing became apparent. However great a director he may be (and I think he is - I'd love to see him make a proper adaptation of The Time Machine), he's a horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE writer. The Village was my clearest clue - from the stilted dialogue to the incredibly pedestrian "twist" to the mixed message - it was an unmitigated disaster (well, the score was good, though...).

And now we have Lady in the Water - by most accounts another complete mess - in which Shyamalan literally casts himself as a writer who's work will change the world. I can think of nothing more self-aggrandizing. Hitchcock was happy with short, amusing cameos - and Shyamalan is no Hitchcock.

I think I will see Lady in the Water, though. From the sound of things, it will provide about two hours of unintentional entertainment.

Josh


Acadia Math
Threaded display

Smalltown_Poets
(ip70-179-215-216.dl.dl.cox.net)

  In Response to:
Josh

  Responses to this Message:
Josh
  I'd love to see him to a Harry Potter film (with JNH!)   Thursday, July 27, 2006 (12:43 p.m.) 

> Shyamalan is an excellent director, an expert at evoking moods and imagery
> and, especially, at selling the film's plots, no matter how preposterous.

I totally agree.

> Of course, as time went on and Shyamalan's films, shall we say,
> "declined" in creative merit, one thing became apparent. However
> great a director he may be (and I think he is - I'd love to see him make a
> proper adaptation of The Time Machine), he's a horrible, horrible,
> HORRIBLE writer.

Shyamalan recently mentioned being considered at one point to direct a Harry Potter and how he'd still love to do it. I personally think that would be fantastic. His direction with someone else's fascinating (and sound) ideas, story and script. And a Harry Potter score by JNH!

-Jon

NP: Laputa Castle in the Sky


Threaded display

Josh
(hlfxns01bbf-142177229239.ns.aliant.net)

  In Response to:
Smalltown_Poets

  Responses to this Message:
Smalltown_Poets
  Re: I'd love to see him to a Harry Potter film (with JNH!)   Thursday, July 27, 2006 (2:01 p.m.) 

> I totally agree.

Excellent.

> Shyamalan recently mentioned being considered at one point to direct a
> Harry Potter and how he'd still love to do it. I personally think that
> would be fantastic. His direction with someone else's fascinating (and
> sound) ideas, story and script. And a Harry Potter score by JNH!

Now *that* would be something to see!

> NP: Laputa Castle in the Sky

Have you heard about the latest Ghibli film, Tales from Earthsea? (https://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/earthsea/)

The trailer's here:
https://www.ghibli.jp/26trailer/

It's actually directed my Miyazaki's son.

Josh


Cognoscente... my wonderfully wonderful Live Journal! :D
Threaded display

Smalltown_Poets
(ip70-179-215-216.dl.dl.cox.net)

  In Response to:
Josh

  Responses to this Message:
Josh
  Re: I'd love to see him to a Harry Potter film (with JNH!)   Thursday, July 27, 2006 (3:31 p.m.) 

> The trailer's here:
https://www.ghibli.jp/26trailer/

I've tried watching that before, but it never seems to work right. It's always skipping horribly.

> It's actually directed my Miyazaki's son.

Goro Miyazaki sure makes some very interesting and unexpected remarks about his father on the blog entries on that site:

"For me, Hayao Miyazaki gets zero marks as a father
but full marks as a director of animated films."

My father threw himself completely into his work.
Not only did he not look after the children, he never did a single bit of housework.

This was surprising to me, considering the themes of so much of Miyazaki's work.

His son even says:

The more wonderful I thought my father's movies were,
the more I watched them because I wanted to learn about him through them.

All very fascinating.

-Jon


Threaded display

Josh
(hlfxns01bbf-142177229239.ns.aliant.net)

  In Response to:
Smalltown_Poets

  Responses to this Message:
Smalltown_Poets
  Re: I'd love to see him to a Harry Potter film (with JNH!)   Thursday, July 27, 2006 (3:49 p.m.) 

https://www.ghibli.jp/26trailer/ I've tried watching that before, but it
> never seems to work right. It's always skipping horribly.

You might need to upgrade Quicktime...

> Goro Miyazaki sure makes some very interesting and unexpected remarks
> about his father on the blog entries on that site:

> "For me, Hayao Miyazaki gets zero marks as a father
but full
> marks as a director of animated films."

> My father threw himself completely into his work.
Not only did he
> not look after the children, he never did a single bit of housework.

> This was surprising to me, considering the themes of so much of Miyazaki's
> work.

> His son even says:

> The more wonderful I thought my father's movies were,
the more I
> watched them because I wanted to learn about him through them.

> All very fascinating.

It really is. In a sense, it's not surprising, considering how work/art can take over a person's life. I look forward to seeing the movie, in any case.


Cognoscente... my wonderfully wonderful Live Journal! :D
Threaded display

Smalltown_Poets
(ip70-179-215-216.dl.dl.cox.net)

  In Response to:
Josh
  Re: I'd love to see him to a Harry Potter film (with JNH!)   Thursday, July 27, 2006 (8:27 p.m.) 

> It really is. In a sense, it's not surprising, considering how work/art
> can take over a person's life. I look forward to seeing the movie, in any
> case.

Indeed & indeed.

Way the by, we're currently discussing Hisaishi (and the awesome Cliff Eidelman) over at MMUK:

https://mmuk64.proboards42.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1153947715

-Jon


Threaded display

Yavar Moradi
(adsl-69-231-64-160.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net)

  In Response to:
Smalltown_Poets
  That's actually one reason I like Unbreakable much better.   Tuesday, July 25, 2006 (11:21 p.m.) 

The "twist" seems much more organic. And it's still a twist that when you see it, you say, HOW IN HELL DID I NOT SEE THAT? But in truth I did not see it coming.

And it's not really the whole *point* of the movie, even though it's pretty major.

Yavar

Threaded display

Beavoid
(24-180-102-243.dhcp.aldl.mi.charter.com)

  In Response to:
Smalltown_Poets
  Re: My problem with The Sixth Sense...   Wednesday, July 26, 2006 (9:46 a.m.) 

He doesn't realize he is dead because he can't let go. He has been so focused on his patients that that is all he recognizes (we know this from the opening scene and the fact that he IS unable to talk with his wife and he considers it normal). He is determined to help other people and not himself. It is a great metaphore. In addition, it is has long been a passtime of ghosts in literary fiction to not understand that they are dead and not realize their situation. This is just a very well acted, well written interperetation of that.

Still a great film the 10th time I saw it.

The twist is so emotionally relevent and moving important to the story, that it doesn't matter that I know it every time. The characters are so well written that you care for them despite know their fates.

Now Lady, that is another story...ick.

B

> On the other hand I feel it's been more of an unpredictable see-saw
> effect. What I especially don't understand is seemingly almost everyone's
> unbridled love for The Sixth Sense, contrasted with mixed views on
> Unbreakable and outright loathing for his latest efforts... I mean, Scott
> says:

> "...the ending serves to make the film richer and more complex (...)
> seeing the film again after learning the twist is almost like seeing a
> whole new movie, and there are few films one can say that about."

> *Spoiler Alert*, for the three people in Idaho who haven't seen this film:

> I find it a whole new movie as well: a laughable one. While Willis and
> Osment give effective performances, I frankly find the The Sixth Sense
> absolutely ridiculous upon rewatching. How can someone think they are
> "alive" for long streches of their existence and never realize
> that they are never hungry, never bathe, never take a friggin crap, that,
> even though he thinks he lives in a city and thinks he is employed as a
> psychiatrist, NO ONE HAS ACTUALLY SPOKEN TO HIM FOR MONTHS, etc.
> He's either extremely stupid, or perhaps the least observant person in the
> history of man. Either way, not the kind of protagonist I can take
> seriously for a film that yearns for such dramatic moments.

> The last time I watched The Sixth Sense, it became a total unexpected
> MST3K fest.

> -Jon


Threaded display

Jockolantern
(168-103-23-207.chyn.qwest.net)

  In Response to:
Yavar Moradi

  Responses to this Message:
Yavar Moradi
  Re: Admission of my Own Pretentiousness/Is Shyamalan a Pretentious Bastard??   Tuesday, July 25, 2006 (9:59 a.m.) 

That was an incredibly well-written and strongly thought-out article. I can highly respect where Scott's coming from, even if I don't agree all the time. I actually very much enjoyed 'Lady in the Water' as a film and am rather bamboozled by the comparison's of Shyamalan's ego as a director to Tom Cruise couch-jumping, placenta-eating puffed-up-ness to which he is being treated.

In any event, we can certainly be thankful that Shyamalan has a great collaborator in JNH, whom Night actually gives the freedom to run loose and create scores equally extravagant and important as Shyamalan believes his films to be. Scores of such continual high quality do not exist apart from Spielberg/Williams these days, and I hope JNH and Shyamalan's collaborations continue for a long, long time to come. It could be the some of the only music we have to really look forward to, considering the vast majority of garbage that has been thrown at us this year and the gradual decline in quality of film music as a whole... but, maybe that's just my pessimism speaking out based on this year's output.

Sayonara!
Jockolantern

Threaded display

Yavar Moradi
(adsl-69-231-66-31.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net)

  In Response to:
Jockolantern

  Responses to this Message:
Jockolantern
  Haven't seen "Lady" but otherwise we completely agree, Jocko...   Tuesday, July 25, 2006 (2:25 p.m.) 

I personally loved Unbreakable a lot...and now Scott's article has made me curious about his first film.

Even if one is like Southall though and HATES everything else about Shyamalan, it cannot be denied that in terms of giving/encouraging creative freedom for his composer, Shyamalan is one of the very best in Hollywood!

Yavar

Threaded display

Jockolantern
(71-32-150-110.chyn.qwest.net)

  In Response to:
Yavar Moradi

  Responses to this Message:
Yavar Moradi
  Hey! Shouldn't we keep some semblance of rivalry left?   Sunday, July 30, 2006 (12:13 p.m.) 

Nah... I don't think so either.

> I personally loved Unbreakable a lot...and now Scott's article has made me
> curious about his first film.

Yeah, I'd love to see Praying with Anger, especially considering how young Shyamalan was when he made the film! Looks quite intruiging, but I don't know of any proper medium it is available on.

> Even if one is like Southall though and HATES everything else about
> Shyamalan, it cannot be denied that in terms of giving/encouraging
> creative freedom for his composer, Shyamalan is one of the very best in
> Hollywood!

Thank God there are at least a few of his directorial type left in Hollywood, however much more slim the number gets by the year.

Sayonara!
Jockolantern

Threaded display

Yavar Moradi
(adsl-69-231-64-160.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net)

  In Response to:
Jockolantern
  Re: Hey! Shouldn't we keep some semblance of rivalry left?   Sunday, July 30, 2006 (12:49 p.m.) 

> Yeah, I'd love to see Praying with Anger, especially considering how young
> Shyamalan was when he made the film! Looks quite intruiging, but I don't
> know of any proper medium it is available on.

Yeah...I suppose we could ask Scott how he was able to see it (probably went to a screening).

His next film (the one he did before The Sixth Sense) IS available on DVD though...anyone here seen that?

Yavar

Threaded display

Timmy B.
(166.214.117.215)

  In Response to:
Yavar Moradi
  Re: Admission of my Own Pretentiousness/Is Shyamalan a Pretentious Bastard??   Tuesday, July 25, 2006 (4:16 p.m.) 

> Scott Bettencourt just wrote a good article on Shyamalan and all his films
> for Film Score Daily. You can read it for free right here:

That is a well-written article--presents well-supported opinion but isn't overwhelmingly laden with subjectivity.

> P.S. I don't remember if we ever fought, so you can get all the
> forgiveness you want from me.

Hehe... I don't remember who I fought with... I just remember feeling "ganged up on" a few times here though, of course, as I said, I know I deserved it for the most part...

Tim


Threaded display

tromboja
(adsl-217-45-229.asm.bellsouth.net)

  In Response to:
Timmy B.
  Hey, if only Frank Herbert would realize the same thing!   Thursday, July 27, 2006 (9:22 p.m.) 

> It’s hard to imagine that one’s self is pretentious… I have always
> suspected that I might be easily called pretentious but I could never let
> myself think much about it. That all was before some adjusted medication
> and new self-discovery. I realize now that I indeed have acted
> pretentiously for much of my life, not because of trying to appear
> important or excellent, but from truly *believing* that I was both
> important and excellent. In the most recent past years of my life I’ve
> started writing a book that I’ve truly believed could be the most
> important book in human history. Even more recently, though, I’ve realized
> that this is indicative of a messiah complex. Change in medicine and
> diagnosis of having psychotic disorder N. O. S. helped me see this.
> (Psychotic disorder has probably been the culprit in many of my tangents
> here comprised of clouded reasoning.)

If only Frank Herbet would realize this same thing...and people wonder the Sci-Fi channel stopped making the Dune movies after Children of Dune...


Threaded display

C. Hook
(200.122.153.238)

  In Response to:
Timmy B.

  Responses to this Message:
Timmy B.
  Re: Admission of my Own Pretentiousness/Is Shyamalan a Pretentious Bastard??   Thursday, July 27, 2006 (10:00 p.m.) 

> It’s hard to imagine that one’s self is pretentious… I have always
> suspected that I might be easily called pretentious but I could never let
> myself think much about it. That all was before some adjusted medication
> and new self-discovery. I realize now that I indeed have acted
> pretentiously for much of my life, not because of trying to appear
> important or excellent, but from truly *believing* that I was both
> important and excellent. In the most recent past years of my life I’ve
> started writing a book that I’ve truly believed could be the most
> important book in human history. Even more recently, though, I’ve realized
> that this is indicative of a messiah complex. Change in medicine and
> diagnosis of having psychotic disorder N. O. S. helped me see this.
> (Psychotic disorder has probably been the culprit in many of my tangents
> here comprised of clouded reasoning.)

Psychosis is not a personality disorder. Psychosis is a state of mind that can be triggered by stress, drugs, and other psychiatric ailments, but is not a constant, a condition or disorder. You could also be referring to psychopathy or anti-social personality disorder, but that bears little resemblence to what you describe. What exactly is it that you're talking about?

I wasn't going to answer to this thread, but after viewing the last response I caught on that bit of info, yet I'm still treading carefully (this being an internet forum, a kind of "fan" known for its high fecal-hits index) on ultra-thin ice.

Threaded display

Timmy B.
(166.214.103.225)

  In Response to:
C. Hook

  Responses to this Message:
Timmy B.
C. Hook
  C. Hook's Post is an Example of a "Trigger" for Me   Friday, July 28, 2006 (7:07 a.m.) 

> Psychosis is not a personality disorder. Psychosis is a state of mind that
> can be triggered by stress, drugs, and other psychiatric ailments, but is
> not a constant, a condition or disorder. You could also be referring to
> psychopathy or anti-social personality disorder, but that bears little
> resemblence to what you describe. What exactly is it that you're talking
> about?

Psychotic disorder N. O. S. ("not otherwise specified) is what I have, a specific type of psychotic disorder. Do you have access to the DSM IV? That would tell you more about it. With medicine and therapy I am improving and my sense of self is now more realistic and less grandiose.

I have to admit that I was offended by this post of yours because you sound rather confident in it about something you're, unfortunately, ignorant about. I don't mean this in a mean way, it's just how things are.

I guess I forgot to mention in my original post in this thread that it's people's ultra-confident and condescendent tones that really bug me and get me to respond in similarly ultra-confident and condescent ways. I hope I reigned myself in some for what I'm saying now.

I don't mean any offense by this, but I hope you think about this a little, C. Hook.

Tim

Threaded display

Timmy B.
(166.214.103.225)

  In Response to:
Timmy B.
  (Sorry, my post title implies that I need to be treated as "fragile"--I don't) *NM*   Friday, July 28, 2006 (7:28 a.m.) 



Threaded display

C. Hook
(200.122.153.238)

  In Response to:
Timmy B.

  Responses to this Message:
Timmy B.
  Bouncing is what Triggers to best!   Friday, July 28, 2006 (11:33 a.m.) 

> I have to admit that I was offended by this post of yours because you
> sound rather confident in it about something you're, unfortunately,
> ignorant about. I don't mean this in a mean way, it's just how things are.

I'm not ignorant about it. I know more than you think and for a longer time than you do.

> I guess I forgot to mention in my original post in this thread that it's
> people's ultra-confident and condescendent tones that really bug me and
> get me to respond in similarly ultra-confident and condescent ways. I hope
> I reigned myself in some for what I'm saying now.

I'm ultra-confident and condescending? I'm asking a question. "Not otherwise specified" means, in this case, you are suffering from symptomatology without a clear diagnosis. I'm not undergoing some kind of Tom Crusade here, but sometimes doctors treat symptoms instead of an underlying condition and are too keen on diagnosing new bullsh-t diseases ("Narcissistic personality disorder" when the person is just an asshole). If anything, I'm encouraging you to be careful and take command, within reason, of your therapy.

But I guess that's "offensive".

Threaded display

Timmy B.
(101.sub-66-174-93.myvzw.com)

  In Response to:
C. Hook

  Responses to this Message:
C. Hook
  Re: Bouncing is what Triggers to best!   Friday, July 28, 2006 (10:09 p.m.) 

> Psychosis is not a personality disorder. Psychosis is a state of mind that
> can be triggered by stress, drugs, and other psychiatric ailments, but is
> not a constant, a condition or disorder. You could also be referring to
> psychopathy or anti-social personality disorder, but that bears little
> resemblence to what you describe. What exactly is it that you're talking
> about?

How are you deducing from the above the following? "If anything, I'm encouraging you to be careful and take command, within reason, of your therapy." That's an awfully nice sentiment that I highly appreciate, but I'm sure you could've done more to get this across in your original post. Instead, I interpreted your post as over-confident in stating that I couldn't have a psychotic "disorder" and condescending in assuming that you'd know better than me who has been diagnosed with this. I have no reason to think that you're qualified to make these statements about my diagnosis and yet you seem to try to invalidate my claim that I have a psychotic disorder... I would say that this is a reasonable interpretation of the material I inserted at the beginning of this post; this interpretation led me to be offended. Once again, I do appreciate your sentiment but don't see how it came across in your original post. I'm guessing that you thought it came across somehow, and I believe you--I'm just curious as to how you thought it came across.

Tim

P.S.--What is the extent of your knowledge of abnormal psychology?


Threaded display

C. Hook
(200.122.153.238)

  In Response to:
Timmy B.

  Responses to this Message:
Timmy B.
  Re: Bouncing is what Triggers to best!   Friday, July 28, 2006 (10:27 p.m.) 

> How are you deducing from the above the following? "If anything, I'm
> encouraging you to be careful and take command, within reason, of your
> therapy." That's an awfully nice sentiment that I highly appreciate,
> but I'm sure you could've done more to get this across in your original
> post. Instead, I interpreted your post as over-confident in stating that I
> couldn't have a psychotic "disorder" and condescending in
> assuming that you'd know better than me who has been diagnosed with this.
> I have no reason to think that you're qualified to make these statements
> about my diagnosis and yet you seem to try to invalidate my claim that I
> have a psychotic disorder... I would say that this is a reasonable
> interpretation of the material I inserted at the beginning of this post;
> this interpretation led me to be offended. Once again, I do appreciate
> your sentiment but don't see how it came across in your original post. I'm
> guessing that you thought it came across somehow, and I believe you--I'm
> just curious as to how you thought it came across.

Or you could interpret it as me being careful not to fall for a made-up clinical history from someone on the internet who might be saying that stuff for kicks or as an attempt to put the past behind him, excuse his behavior, so that your new posts might gain some legitimacy. It's the internet, this happens all the time.

As you can see, the preceeding is also a reasonable interpretation of my post.

> P.S.--What is the extent of your knowledge of abnormal psychology?

First of all, I wouldn't call it abnormal psychology, but my brother does suffer from OCD, mixed with depression, schizoid-type episodes (including pyschosis), and also closely resembles borderline personality disorder (when on meds). More recently, I've been acquainted with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. I'm no expert, but I have been responsible for smelling doctors' ineptitude a mile away, aiding in diagnosis, and actually helping him.

Threaded display

Timmy B.
(mobile-166-173-189-245.mycingular.net)

  In Response to:
C. Hook
  Re: Bouncing is what Triggers to best!   Sunday, July 30, 2006 (8:13 p.m.) 

> Or you could interpret it as me being careful not to fall for a made-up
> clinical history from someone on the internet who might be saying that
> stuff for kicks or as an attempt to put the past behind him, excuse his
> behavior, so that your new posts might gain some legitimacy. It's the
> internet, this happens all the time.

I don't think many people would do that... And those that would, who's to say that they would be acting in their complete control? I think a "disorder" is a way to label an unfavorable trait in someone that is mostly outside of their control. You're right--some people might just be assholes aka be acting in unfavorable ways *within* the realm of their control, yet they could be labeled as having a disorder wrongly. Yet, when do we ever know how much is in one’s control? Anyway, I realize that I need to take responsibility for my actions, even what might not be completely in my control—I don’t think anything is 100% in or out of one’s control…

I was trying to let people know that there are reasons why I have acted as I did--there are factors outside of my complete control that influence my behavior. Yet, I take responsibility for my behavior at the same time.

Tim



Threaded display

Carlton
(ac918ab4.ipt.aol.com)

  In Response to:
Timmy B.

  Responses to this Message:
Timmy B.
  Re: Reading the book, gaining status, and the messiah complex   Saturday, July 29, 2006 (5:52 p.m.) 

> I have always suspected that I might be easily called pretentious but I could never let myself think much about it.
> That all was before some adjusted medication and new self-discovery.

Hey, Tim, I hope you don't become too dependent on this newfound source of medication. Like Hook, I wish you the best during this journey of self-discovery (I'm not going to call it a recovery), but I am also wary of doctors, who view life in terms of an interminable supply of prescription pills and disorder symptoms. After all, everyone here could probably be diagnosed with one of the conditions found in the latest DSM manual. That being said, it's good to hear that medication, and great doctors (?) have improved your life.

> I realize now that I indeed have acted pretentiously for much of my life, not because of trying to appear important or
> excellent, but from truly *believing* that I was both important and excellent.

Timmy, there is nothing wrong with truly *believing* that you are important (and excellent). I'm tempted to steal a page from Christianity. Every being on this planet is important and excellent in their own way... If you believe and accept this, then you should have a better time being more humble and acting less pretentious.

> In the most recent past years of my life I've started writing a book that I've truly believed could be the most important
> book in human history. Even more recently, though, I've realized that this is indicative of a messiah complex.

Most authors must have delusional feelings of greatness and grandiose, or why else would they attempt to work on subjects that have already been worked on to death? I've never heard of this "Messiah Complex," so you'll have to tell me some more about it. I took an Abnormal Psych class awhile ago, but I didn't have really have a real textbook (only a casebook and an autobiography) because my professor wasn't a big supporter of the DSM approach; he took a more humanistic and empathetic approach...

> I’m not saying that I’m “cured” of this messiah complex... A grandiose sense of self is a challenge that I think I will
> always face—but, this is no reason to give up, of course.

Well, one day you might want to give up on a cure and embrace an "acceptance" of your self. Also, what exactly is this Messiah Complex which you keep mentioning? Is it life- threatening?

> This all is way too personal, I know, but it’s the only way I can think of to try to make amends here. I can’t imagine
> another way to try to clear up resentment concerning me on this board.

I can think of another way, and, yup, it's related to the "content" of your posts. Anyhow, it's good to read that you have become more comfortable with your "darker nature." It's like you have acquired a higher status on the Scoreboard.

> If you don’t know what all the above is about, check the archives…

I don't like reading my old post because when I write long (and fast) messages, I tend to gloss over writing errors and they make hard it hard to understand what I was trying to communicate. Thanks for wading through my old messages.

> Speaking of scores for a change, I really am liking Howard’s Lady score… The only other score I’ve gotten this year has
> been The Da Vinci Code which I like as well. Any recommendations for other recent scores??

I recommend exploring the past. This is what I have been doing. You also might want to check out some of the older classical composers, many of whom must have had thier fare share of "disorders"?

-Carlton

Threaded display

Timmy B.
(mobile-166-173-189-245.mycingular.net)

  In Response to:
Carlton
  You write WAY to much in your posts sometimes   Sunday, July 30, 2006 (8:24 p.m.) 

> Hey, Tim, I hope you don't become too dependent on this newfound source of
> medication. Like Hook, I wish you the best during this journey of
> self-discovery (I'm not going to call it a recovery), but I am also wary
> of doctors, who view life in terms of an interminable supply of
> prescription pills and disorder symptoms. After all, everyone here could
> probably be diagnosed with one of the conditions found in the latest DSM
> manual. That being said, it's good to hear that medication, and great
> doctors (?) have improved your life.

Thanks.

> Timmy, there is nothing wrong with truly *believing* that you are
> important (and excellent). I'm tempted to steal a page from Christianity.
> Every being on this planet is important and excellent in their own way...
> If you believe and accept this, then you should have a better time being
> more humble and acting less pretentious.

Well, I tend to believe that I am more excellent and important than I really am.

> Most authors must have delusional feelings of greatness and
> grandiose, or why else would they attempt to work on subjects that have
> already been worked on to death? I've never heard of this "Messiah
> Complex," so you'll have to tell me some more about it. I took an
> Abnormal Psych class awhile ago, but I didn't have really have a real
> textbook (only a casebook and an autobiography) because my professor
> wasn't a big supporter of the DSM approach; he took a more humanistic and
> empathetic approach...

The term "Messiah complex" implies that one believes they can save the world. This isn't such a bad thing, I guess; it's only bad when you believe you *must* save the world or that you are so special that you are innately capable of saving the world more than anyone else is.

> Well, one day you might want to give up on a cure and embrace an
> "acceptance" of your self.

I believe that we should balance acceptance of our problems with trying to change them. So I half-agree with the idea that one should accept their problems.

> I can think of another way, and, yup, it's related to the
> "content" of your posts. Anyhow, it's good to read that you
> have become more comfortable with your "darker nature." It's
> like you have acquired a higher status on the Scoreboard.

heheh...

> I recommend exploring the past. This is what I have been doing. You also
> might want to check out some of the older classical composers, many of
> whom must have had thier fare share of "disorders"?

Oh I'm always exploring new great scores and composers from the past... This year though, I don't know how many there are that I could discover besides the two I already have...

Tim


Threaded display




Scoreboard created 7/24/98, Version 3.0 created 6/14/06, updated 8/1/06 (Filmtracks Publications). The "Scoreboard" Forum is Copyright © 1998-2009, Christian Clemmensen All rights reserved. The reviews and notes contained on the filmtracks.com site may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Filmtracks Publications. Software is a completely rewritten and highly modified 6.x version of WebBBS. The current Filmtracks Scoreboard motto: in Real Audio. Filmtracks takes no responsibility for any mental trauma caused by this forum.