I’ve just posted Ken Morefield‘s review of Shut Up and Sing, the new documentary about the Dixie Chicks and the trouble they fell into when one of them said something critical about the President. After musing about the effects of Natalie’s challenging lyrics, he ends up considering the effects… or lack of them… caused by a certain television personality.
Here’s a great clip:
… my moment of clarity while watching the film came not from something said by Natalie, Emily, or Martie, but by Bill O’ Reilly who opines that the Dixie Chicks just need to be “slapped around.” Strange, isn’t it, how that statement didn’t seem to offend anyone, how it’s not a big controversy to this day, and how nobody is threatening to boycott Fox News if they continue to play his work? Perhaps it’s just understood that his words were not meant literally. Perhaps his words were borne of frustration and strenuous disagreement. Perhaps he simply made a poor choice of words and ought to be allowed some slack for the occasional blunder given how much time he spends in front of a microphone. Perhaps advocating violence against women really isn’t thought to be as serious an offense in this day and age as expressing disdain for the President of the United States. Perhaps Toby Keith’s “boot in your ass” is not just America’s answer to other nations that don’t bow before it but also to its own citizens who don’t toe the ruling party line.
Perhaps he really just meant what he said.
All of a sudden, Natalie’s lyrics don’t seem quite so melodramatically exaggerated, do they?
Have you ever thought that the name, “Dixie Chicks” was offensive on some level?
So they offend their conservative fans with regard to statements about President Bush, but their conservative fans think nothing of women who refer to themselves (of which has possible implications for all women) as “Chicks?”
Interesting. That quote sums up how I felt about the film as well. It boggles my mind how people were ready to string up the Dixie Chicks, but no one were up in arms about what Bill or Toby had to say.
The movie game a newfound respect for the girls, and it made me go out and give them a second listen. It’s actually a very good album, worth checking out.
Shut up and… listen to Laura. Geez, I wonder if the film makers even paused over their theft of this title from Laura Ingraham? But then, Michael Moore never even batted an eye when Ray Bradbury expressed his outrage over Farenheit 911.
If memory serves, the title comes from something that someone says in the movie itself. Since I don’t know who Laura Ingraham is, it might be her that says it onscreen, but it might be someone else who says it, too.
Actually Moore reportedly called Bradbury to apologize. Of course, it’s a little difficult to take Bradbury’s reaction seriously, given that he himself “stole” the titles “I Sing the Body Electric,” “Something Wicked This Way Comes,” “Beyond 1984” and “Another Tale of Two Cities.”
Peter wrote: Since I don’t know who Laura Ingraham is…
She is the person I linked to above–she wrote the 2003 book Shut Up and Sing.
Wasp Jerky wrote: Actually Moore reportedly called Bradbury to apologize. Of course, it’s a little difficult to take Bradbury’s reaction seriously, given that he himself “stole” the titles “I Sing the Body Electric,” “Something Wicked This Way Comes,” “Beyond 1984” and “Another Tale of Two Cities.”
Actually… Bradbury tried for a long time to contact Moore and was stonewalled. Then, after Bradbury was good and angry and getting public about things (and after it was too late to do as Bradbury asked–namely, change the title of the film), Moore made a lame-duck, for-the-cameras attempt at apologizing.
Also, there is quite a difference between making a benign literary reference to an old book and taking the title of a living writer, applying that title to a piece of what has been broadly demonstrated to be a piece of political propaganda, and using that title to make some very tasteless suggestions. Farenheit 451 was a reference to the temperature at which books burn. What burned on September 11th? Innocent Americans. Moore would have us believe that the government was complicit in this, and he used Bradbury’s title to stir up mis-informed outrage all around the world.
The reasons why people such as the Dixie Chicks (as well as others) seem to hate the President so much are false. There was no lying about going into Iraq, there’s no evidence that we’re there for oil, or any of the other slogans that we hear on a daily basis.
Even if there were any facts to support these things, I don’t think you have to agree with the President’s policies/decisions or even like him on a personal level in order to think that saying such things as they did – in a foreign country, while we are at war – was right. Just because you have a ‘right’ to say certain things doesn’t mean it’s wise to do so.
It’s also interesting that censorship has been employed in the add campaign for a film that is (ostensibly, at least) about censorship. The slogans written on the Chicks’ bodies have been modified significantly from the original picture that appeared on the cover of that entertainment weekly a few years ago. (Didn’t you blog about this a while back, Jeffrey, or at least link to something about it?)
So, I guess it really isn’t about censorship after all. It’s about the band’s image & a decrease in their ticket sales. A publicity stunt. Pardon me for being cynical about the Chicks’ motives in all this.
Actually there really isn’t a difference. Your diatribe about Moore is entirely irrelevant. Bradbury’s complaint was that Moore stole the title, which is clearly an allusion to Fahrenheit 451. From a legal standpoint, Bradbury does not own the phrase Fahrenheit followed by a number. Even if he did, it would fall under fair use because, again, it is clearly an allusion. Whether or not you or Bradbury agree with Moore’s politics or his filmmaking style does not change that.
Has anyone actually seen the movie? Or are we just using this topic as a chance to take jabs at opposing political viewpoints? Just a thought.
Peace,
P.S. Lytle
I think a lot of people are just fed up with uneducated pop stars thinking they have somethign to contribute to policy discussions. Far from being “challenging,” it seems to me that the Chicks’ lyrics are about on par with the level of thinking one ought to expect from a class discussion in a lower-division political science class.
I’m not a country music fan, nor am I a Dixie Chicks fan. If I were, i’d want to buy their albums because of what they do exceptionally well: write, play, and sing country music. Pretensions after speaking truth to power simply introduce an element of mediocrity into their work that I would find annoying, and degrading to the album as a whole. I would probably think, “This is a terrific album, I just wish they had left the political posturing to someone who actually has something interesting to contribute to the political discussion.”
Okay, folks… let’s COMMENT ON THE MOVIE ITSELF, or on Ken’s review.
And for what it’s worth, I thought Adam’s post was ENTIRELY relevant, WJ. If you say, “Actually Moore reportedly called Bradbury to apologize.” and Adam responds with different information, that’s relevant and, in fact, helpful. (“Actually… Bradbury tried for a long time to contact Moore and was stonewalled. Then, after Bradbury was good and angry and getting public about things (and after it was too late to do as Bradbury asked–namely, change the title of the film), Moore made a lame-duck, for-the-cameras attempt at apologizing.”)
I’m all for attending to your comments, but don’t go bashing each other with broad-stroke put-downs like “Your post is entirely irrelevant.”
“I think a lot of people are just fed up with uneducated pop stars thinking they have somethign to contribute to policy discussions. Far from being “challenging,” it seems to me that the Chicks’ lyrics are about on par with the level of thinking one ought to expect from a class discussion in a lower-division political science class.”
You know…that describes my feelings on Christian music…who are these singers trying to wax all theological?! 🙂
But seriously, I am fairly intrigued by this movie, mainly because I know people who are not fans of the Chicks who thought it was quite good. I also thought the initial review brought up a fascinating question regarding Maine’s comment versus O’Reilly. I’ll probably have to wait for DVD though…like I have to for practically everything else. 🙂
To clarify, Jeffrey, my retort was in response to the second paragraph of Adam’s response, not the first. The first paragraph is a case of he said, she said. Adam might be right about that. I’ll gladly concede the point. But it doesn’t change my overall point, which is that free speech doesn’t suddenly change because we find a filmmaker offensive.
Excellent thoughts, Jeffrey. I just watched “L’Enfant” (on your recommendation) and found it full of the type of imagery you write of here. There’s an interview with the directors on the DVD that sheds a lot of light on some of the images in the film.
Another recent image that has really stuck with me is the scene in “Children of Men” where the presence of the baby totally silences the battle scene. Though this image has been commented on extensively, it nevertheless still resonates deeply with me and even now brings tears to my eyes when I think of it, just as it did in the theater. What a remarkable image, just dripping with truth and transcendant beauty.
I’m not sure why this is, but I find it easier to slip into the mood you described while watching Asian cinema. Not all Asian cinema, mind you, but specifically directors such as Jia Zhang-Ke, Hou Hsiao-hsien, Hirokazu Koreeda, and of course, Wong Kar-Wai.
Perhaps the perfect example of this for me is the aforementioned In The Mood For Love. Sure, it boasts wonderful acting by two of the world’s best actors, but the movements of the camera, the framing, the gorgeous colors are just as important — and perhaps even more effective — at communicating the film’s themes of loneliness and heartache.
There are certain shots in that film that still give me chills and bring tears to my eyes, even after the many times I’ve seen the film.
Akin to what Opus says, this kind of visual expression strikes me quite strongly with a number of Asian fimmakers, though different ones than he cites. Miike particularly has a definite visual language he uses. It’s also why he, or someone like Melville or Dreyer, can make an engrossing movie with little or no coherent storyline.
Dreyer’s Passion of Joan of Arc particularly said as much with imagery as with dialogue.
“an engrossing movie with little or no coherent storyline”
Sounds a lot like “Anchorman”, if you ask me!
I’ve lost track of how many times moviegoers, upon learning that I write reviews, respond by saying, “Yeah, well, I go to the movies to turn my brain off.” Which is, I’m coming to believe, a lot like saying, “I go to dinner to turn my stomach off.”
Well, there is certainly a time and a place for eating simply because you’re hungry and you want your stomach to stop growling, as opposed to eating because you are a connoisseur of fine foods. 🙂
Great topic, Jeffrey, and something that’s near and dear to my heart. I’ve echoed much of what you’ve said over the years, but I do think there are limits to visual communication.
For instance, as you know, I didn’t care for “The New World,” and unless Darren’s changed his initial view, I don’t think he cared all that much for that movie either. (I haven’t read the post you excerpted, but that’s my recollection of our original “New World” discussion at A&F upon the film’s release.)
Nor am I big fan of “In the Mood for Love.”
So *my* question has to do with why some viewers prefer visual poetry as expressed in certain films, but not others.
Huge topic, and one that I’m content, for now, to dismiss with the comment, “To each his own.” I’m happy you value the movies you mentioned, and I’m happy that I have passionate reponses are primarily visual to other movies. The main thing is the recognition, as you stated, that films communicate visually, and that the tyranny of narrative shouldn’t solely dictate how we respond to a movie.
The tricky part is expressing *how* the visuals move us. That’s where I’m still a novice.
Heh… Never thought I’d see Miike mentioned in the same sentence as Melville and Dreyer. 😉
I have to admit, I’m not a huge fan of Miike. All too often, the extreme elements in his films get in the way for me. I prefer it when he settles down and does something like The Bird People In China.
Jeffrey, I appreciate that film is foremost a visual medium. But I’m a dialogue-driven writer myself. You’d probably HATE my scripts because ofhow talky they are.
One of my all-time favorite movies is “Gosford Park” which won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. And it’s one of the most dialogue-heavy movies of recent memory.
Yes: film IS a visial medium. Yes: I also have done the film-student exercise of turning off the volume and watching a film just via its images and tried to see if I could follow the story and get the emotional impact without any sound. But dialogue is still a valid componentof cinema.
Sheila, Gosford Park is one of my favorites to.
Believe me, I am not saying that I’ve lost any respect for “talky” movies. Wes Anderson, The Coen Brothers, Whit Stillman, Charlie Kaufman, David O. Russell… there are many, many filmmakers whose flair for dialogue is one of the highlights of the film.
I just feel that the richness of the visual aspect of cinema is something I’m just beginning to discover, appreciate, and “read.” And I like what that kind of art does to me.
Hey Jeffrey,
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve written here, but I think you might be projecting (no pun intended) onto the Snow quote something that wasn’t necessarily intended. (Partly that’s my fault. I’ve been collecting these little snippets about film form and posting them on Long Pauses without any context.)
Rather than “filmmaking as revelation-through-imagery for those who look closely,” I would say that Snow’s first interest is film as this strange, formal thing — “picture as picture,” as he calls it. It’s light passing through a thin strip of film and hitting a screen. It’s images changing in time. It’s a sound wave moving at various frequencies, traveling through space, and vibrating our eardrums (or however sounds works).
So for Snow, narrative not only prevents us from seeing hidden mysteries (or ideologies for that matter); it makes us forget what film is. If this all seems terribly pedantic, it’s worth noting that Snow is also a painter and sculptor (and musician) and that he has forbidden his most famous film, Wavelength, from ever being transferred to a digital or home video format. Unless it’s projected through film, it kind of loses its reason for being.
Well said. I think that’s why I like the film Garden State so much. Some people I’ve lended the DVD to just don’t “get it”. There’s a lot of cool imagery going on there like the scene when Zach Braff and Natalie Portman are on the old school motorcycle. And when they’re screaming at the “infinite abyss”. It’s soul stirring.
Good post!!
Opus, Miike can be off putting when he’s excessive. Ichi the Killer was probably the most disgusting movie I’ve ever sat through. But when he restrains himself, he shows a remarkable visual style for someone with such little money and time to work with. Dead or Alive is an example of fine nuance. Some dark subject matter, but not overwhelming.
Maybe this is why I tend to disagree so strongly with many of your reviews, Jeffrey. Story is everything to me in a movie. I will give up the beautiful imagery any day in order to have a story that makes sense and is completely consistent AND which has something clear to say. (Obviously, we would both prefer to have both things — story and visuals — done right, but we have opposite “must have” preferences.)
There has always been a tension (even competition) between filmmakers who favor one or the other, but it seems as though the pendulum has swung SO far in the “image” direction today (among most critics) that those with your view tend not to respect those of us with the opposite view. I understand how someone can come to the conclusion that you do, and I accept that it’s a valid view. But when you refer to the opposite conclusion as merely “storybook illustration,” it makes it seem as though those who disagree with you clearly are wrong.
For me, the visuals are there primarily to support what the story is doing. If there aren’t story points which make those visuals meaningful, it’s nothing more than pretty images with no meaning — just random emotions without a root in reason. What I’m saying is that your view is just as foreign to me as my view is to you. There’s nothing wrong with either view. It’s just that different films (and different filmmakers) are going to value one or the other more.
I suppose it also explains why I detested, “Children of Men,” as strongly as I did while you and some others thought it was truly great. I will just have to remember (as a beginning filmmaker who’s only done one short film so far) never to send anything to you to review. I’ll probably never be the artistic genius at generating the images you want. I’m merely a storyteller who finds film a compelling medium to do that. 🙂
I will give up the beautiful imagery any day in order to have a story that makes sense and is completely consistent AND which has something clear to say.
I value story tremendously. That’s why I write novels.
But I also love poetry. That’s why I spend as much money on poetry books as I do novels. I love both, David. You don’t need to persuade me. 🙂
(Obviously, we would both prefer to have both things — story and visuals — done right, but we have opposite “must have” preferences.)
I didn’t say it was a “must-have” preference. I gave Sophie Scholl an A, and expressed only mild disappointment in its lack of visual creativity. If a film does what it sets out to do well, I’m happy. If it reaches for visual poetry and ends up overly showy, or derivative, I’m discouraged.
I’m just saying that I’m developing a greater understanding of, and appreciation of, visual poetry. Don’t worry… my appreciation of good storytelling is not diminishing as a result.
…it seems as though the pendulum has swung SO far in the “image” direction today (among most critics) that those with your view tend not to respect those of us with the opposite view.
My respect for big-screen storytelling only gets stronger with the years. Again, don’t worry. There’s no disrespect. I’m not dissing anybody’s preferences. I’m just encouraging readers to explore a different kind of movie, a different way of watching. It’s about expanding appreciation, not abandoning anything.
But when you refer to the opposite conclusion as merely “storybook illustration,” it makes it seem as though those who disagree with you clearly are wrong.
I didn’t mean that as an insult. It just a description, one I first encountered in an interview with Peter Greenaway: Film is, more than 90% of the time, an illustrated narrative. That’s fine. I’m a novelist. And I enjoy a good comic book from time to time. Nothing wrong with illustrated narratives. I just don’t want filmmaking to stop there.
If there aren’t story points which make those visuals meaningful, it’s nothing more than pretty images with no meaning — just random emotions without a root in reason.
Do you spend much time in art museums? Paintings can be loaded with meaning without having a narrative. They don’t even have to be pretty. They can convey all kinds of truth. Creation does the same thing. I don’t go stand at the beach and stare out at the ocean just for emotion. There is something about its beauty that speaks to me; just as the psalms promise, the heavens declare the glory of God and creation pours forth speech.
What I’m saying is that your view is just as foreign to me as my view is to you.
Whoah, there. As a storyteller, and as someone who loves narrative film, your appreciation of it is not at all foreign to me.
I suppose it also explains why I detested, “Children of Men,” as strongly as I did while you and some others thought it was truly great.
Actually, I rather liked the story in Children of Men. The amazing camerawork just sweetened the deal.
I will just have to remember (as a beginning filmmaker who’s only done one short film so far) never to send anything to you to review.
Aren’t you taking this a little too far? I mean, if you want to make a decision like that, I can’t stop you, but then…
I’ll probably never be the artistic genius at generating the images you want. I’m merely a storyteller who finds film a compelling medium to do that.
Best wishes on your filmmaking. If you’re a compelling storyteller, I’m sure your work will be interesting. Even to me. 🙂
I’d encourage you to take an art history class, or an art appreciation class, sometime though. You might really enjoy discovering just how much a pretty picture can convey besides emotions. It certainly couldn’t hurt your moviemaking. And it might even give you a whole new world of ideas.
Jeffrey, it’s too late in my time zone to respond fairly to your thoughts, but I wanted to clarify that I was kidding about making sure you never reviewed a film I made. I’m sorry that didn’t come through in my words. I certainly see why you took that more seriously than I meant it, so I apologize for not being more clear. Of course, I have to actually get a feature made before this is even an issue. 🙂
I’m not going to take the time to respond point by point, but I DO think we see film differently. I don’t see it as the same as a static painting in a museum or a sunset at the beach. I see film as being ABOUT the story. I appreciate other visual media (to varying degrees), but film is ultimately about the narrative TO ME. I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m merely saying that I think we see it differently.
On a discussion board for filmmakers where I hang out (where one of the other Christian filmmakers told me about your blog awhile back), there was quite a bit of discussion about, “Children of Men,” not long after it came out. People seemed to either love it or hate it. Some people were spellbound by the visuals (especially the long shot during the battle), but a number of us found it rather irrational and pointless (if technically brilliant). Even those who loved it, though, couldn’t come up with anything rational that it was trying to SAY (without going into total speculation that went beyond the bounds of what was actually THERE).
I was completely serious when I said that I’ll never be the visual genius that some gifted filmmakers are. At the same time, I don’t think anybody will look at my pretty shots and say, “Hold on! That scene didn’t make any SENSE,” as I seem to find myself saying a LOT at critically acclaimed movies these days. And the fact that I’m not a visual genius is why I’ll always give a lot of deference to a strong director of photography working with me. 🙂
I’m sorry not to do more justice to your thoughtful responses. My sleepy brain is turning to mush. 🙂
Jeffrey Overstreet said:
Believe me, I am not saying that I’ve lost any respect for “talky” movies. Wes Anderson, The Coen Brothers, Whit Stillman, Charlie Kaufman, David O. Russell… there are many, many filmmakers whose flair for dialogue is one of the highlights of the film.
I just feel that the richness of the visual aspect of cinema is something I’m just beginning to discover, appreciate, and “read.” And I like what that kind of art does to me.
Ahh! Okay. So you’re not here LAMENTING talky films. Instead you’re here asking for equal air-time for those movies that embrace visual story-telling.
Okee-doke. I’m cool with that.
Woah, there’s quite a discussion going here. Just thought I’d mention the incredible take on this very topic by Robert Bresson in the extras of the Criterion edition of “Au Hasard Balthazar.” In an interview, Bresson expresses his desire to create a wholly new kind of art form using the tools of cinema – editing, sound, lighting, actors, direction, words, cameras, etc. He calls his endeavor “cinema,” and separates it from the art form of a “movie” — a filmed play. His aim is not to belittle the “filmed play” as an art form, but rather to point out that filmed plays are only a tiny fraction of what a cinematic art form can be and can do.
When you watch Balthazar, it’s disorienting for that reason: the film communicates ideas and creates a non-naturalistic world using all of the cinematic techniques at its disposal.
Wouldn’t it be strange if someone came to film in the opposite way most of us arrive? That is, someone who had only ever seen films that focused on visual poetry and the presentaton of visual ideas being exposed to fairly straightforward narrative-focused films? I wonder how much they would miss the reverberations, nuance, and mystery more often achieved by non-narrative or low-narrative films.
Excellent thoughts, Jeffrey. I just watched “L’Enfant” (on your recommendation) and found it full of the type of imagery you write of here. There’s an interview with the directors on the DVD that sheds a lot of light on some of the images in the film.
Another recent image that has really stuck with me is the scene in “Children of Men” where the presence of the baby totally silences the battle scene. Though this image has been commented on extensively, it nevertheless still resonates deeply with me and even now brings tears to my eyes when I think of it, just as it did in the theater. What a remarkable image, just dripping with truth and transcendent beauty.