I agree with Jett's "problem" with Wes Anderson movies, but I wouldn't include Rushmore. As Gareth pointed out, Rushmore features the single non-upper-middleclass protagonist (excluding Bottle Rocket) and to my mind is his best to date. Rushmore is about a spoilt and precious little boy who believes the world is as it is in his own head -and for some reason everyone around him kind of humours this notion. He writes awful plays that people actually go to see -and appreciate, it seems. It's hilarious in its blinkered non-view of anything outside the gates of Max's mind.

The problems, for me, began with The Tenembaums... Rich family is a shadow of its former-self. Boo and hoo. I've seen it a few times now though and I actually quite like it within the confines of its own little existence.

The Life Aquatic for me is an adventure movie about "anything other than the real world", told in a nerdy way. It never quite captured me, but I can see how people can view it as an "escape". In fact, my own book Ooyay (now available on free download on my site), shares some of this notion -ie. travel the world with a one-track-plan without ever acknowledging the possibility that maybe the world is not quite like this... which (if done right) can lead one to view one's own existence anew -perhaps opening one to the possibility that the world itself can, a lot of the time, be an environment of their own construction -for better or worse.

Darjeeling is a meandering mess, which appears to be the point of what the characters are discovering about India, but didn't particularly appeal to me. It did remind me a lot of Jean Renoir's The River, but I didn't like that either.

I love the look and feel of _all_ of his films, but to my mind he should snap out of perhaps his natural 'nerdy' view of the micro-world and attempt to make something less overtly child-like-self-conscious (and I don't mean that in a critical way -it's charming when done once, but grates eventually).

I enjoyed Rushmore, but for me, Tenenbaums is easily Anderson's best film. This may sound crazy to some but I feel it's a genuine masterpiece (and I don't throw that word around too often). It's brilliantly designed, the characterizations are strikingly fleshed out, the timing and rhythm of events are pitch perfect and it's got a stirring undercurrent of honesty, sincerity and humanity. It's as close to perfect as anything I've seen in the last decade. Not to mention it features Gene Hackman's greatest performance!

Jett, I'm just still pissed about 'Marley & Me' ;)
But on a serious note to both of you, in regards to the observation that all the black people in the film who help Precious happen to have lighter skin, could it be that the reason that they are in a position to help is that their light skin has somehow given them a social advantage over those with darker skin and are using their good fortune to help out other african americans who aren't as "fortunate". I realize that this may be seen as somewhat crass, and I admit that I have not seen the film, but it seems as though Precious is not exactly living in the fairest circumstances. This is merely something that crept in to my mind as I listened. Love the show!

Hi Jason - that's an interesting point - similar to a comment made to Gareth after we recorded the show that skin colour can also be seen as bound up in class issues - with lighter skinned folks more highly represented in professions such has teaching/social services.

+ Sorry about the Marley and Me review (which i've since removed from YouTube - that was recorded in the 'early' days of TFT when I was still working through some issues! ;)

Haha. I was totally joking about Marley & Me. I was just referencing it because it seemed as though this podcast was reaching "Marleygate" proportions.

Jett - that whole bulls*%t about 5mm lenses used for trauma flashbacks is soooooo bloody ridiculous. too bad you have bull cocky to fling and Gareth has no film making knowledge to counter attack that crazy claim. but, just to finish up what he couldn't....basically when he was talking about "the way it's shot" he is not necessarily talking about lighting or lenses or colors. what he would've said, if me knew how to form it, is that Lee Daniels' style in this film is different from other, similar hollywood films because he aims to throw the viewer off, to toss you out of your comfort zone in an aesthetic way,-usually through editing and sound. many times the music and cutting actually counteract what other films actually try to achieve, which is a standard, violin playing, melodramatic tactical approach. (one moment in particular is when she is told that her father has died of AIDS...remember what happened right after that news? similar info given to our hero in other films are treated much more conventionally, aesthetically speaking.)
sorry, but i'm really sick of critics who don't know enough about actual filmmaking, rattling off bull about lenses and such. especially when that was not what the point was about.

Hey there - I'll have to respectfully disagree.

There's nothing in PRECIOUS' 'shooting style' which you won't find in other corporate commercial cinema. Compare PRECIOUS to something like Ti West's TRIGGER MAN or the films of Ramin Bahrani and Kelly Reichardt to see what I mean.

Re: the 5mm lenses = that's not ridiculous at all - it seems that ever since John Frankenheimer used them in SECONDS that close-up, wide angle has been the 'go-to' approach for scenes of trauma, (though, of course it may date earlier - it's just the use of it in SECONDS is extremely powerful). Also I'll point out re: "really sick of critics who don't know enough about actual filmmaking" that I spent five years of my life directing shows for the BBC so I know a little bit about the use of cameras and lenses, etc. - one of the things that makes our show different, (along with Gareth's theological perspective), is that I actually know how films are made.

Re: your speaking for what Gareth would have said - I'll leave that up to him to comment on that if he wants to; I'll only say that Gareth's probably the most erudite person I know and normally I would think he doesn't need others to speak for him.

Also, thank so much for commenting - but your aggressive tone is not warranted - Gareth and I joke around with each other on the show - but we respect each other totally, (he was the Best Man at my wedding); there's no need for such a negative vibe - we can agree to disagree.

That's interesting - what you are saying about "Seconds" and trauma scenes. You may have a point, but maybe it's just "distortion" that they are going for in these scenes - fish eyed lenses or whatever - to throw the viewer off. My point is that it is not so much the wide angle lenses that creates the effect in Precious, as it is the editing. and your quickness in tossing out this 5mm lenses remark threw the conversation into a different direction and Gareth couldn't make the point that (perhaps I am delusional) I believe we share.

if you sense a tone in my writing that is perhaps a bit aggressive, it is because i (once again, perhaps delusionally)felt that he was trying to communicate something he saw in the film that I did as well, in essence "speaking for me" in this conversation.

and, by the way, you guys might be best buds, but, this is my first time listening, and, you may claim to respect your friend here, but there is definitely a feeling of "one-up-man-ship" going on. and usually that is made evident in a lack of listening to the other person. Which might be why the 5mm comment was put out so forcefully and, I feel, so irrelevantly, when it really wasn't the point he was trying to make.

last point. a question really - so you want me to compare Precious to Chop Shop and Wendy and Lucy? for what? i don't understand. so that i can see how they are different? you really feel that the trauma in chop shop and Precious are comparable? if my tone is aggressive again, my apologies, it's just that you come off as slightly arrogant, I guess. do you get that a lot? tossing around 5mm lenses, BBC, names of semi obscure directors, all seeming to mask something. what is it?

Oh. Dear.

Where to start? You're either a troll, or absurdly, commenting about a show you've never heard - possibly both.

Where to start? I'll be brief:

* Tossing around 5mm lenses? In almost every ep we try to discuss some element of the filmmaking craft - it's what makes different from other review shows out there.

* BBC? I also worked in a half dozen London pubs - so I feel qualified to tell people how to pour a pint, ya know?

* Semi-obscure directors? Roger Ebert named Bahrani the best director working in the States, and guess what, he's been a guest on the show. But you wouldn't know that as you haven't listened. Which makes your comments remarkably like someone who goes to the circus and then writes a letter to the management complaining that there were Elephants and Tigers there.

And on that note I'll thank for for listening and suggest you listen to some more eps before making statements such as 'you may claim to respect your friend here' - your comments are also welcome - I can't stop them from being misinformed - but we won't put up with the aggression.

Precious is a movie that might not need help at the box office, but it is in danger of being taken for something it is not. I think the comments you made in the show are really very ignorant, but because you, yes, "toss around" terms and names and just plain malarky, you may be fooling people into thinking you know what you are talking about. But I am not doing a very good job of explaining why you are wrong, what I am doing is just frustrating you and making you think I am a troll. so accept my apology and lack of a vocabulary. and thanks for the suggestion of maybe listening to more shows. but i am not sure that is going to be actually possible.

now here's a suggestion for you - realize that just because someone comments with slight aggression doesn't mean they are negative, it could mean that they simply are passionate and very anxious to call out a windbag. and perhaps they may not be very articulate, but there may be a point in there somewhere. you would do yourself a service to try to hear it instead of forming an arsenal of defense.

Not to butt into a conversation that isn't my concern, but I wanted to throw this out to you, Web. You're on the internet, using an anonymous pseudonym and repeatedly stating that you're not articulate enough to not be a troll.

Well, this isn't a real-time debate. If you disagree with someone, do some research on the internet; look up some words that try to explain what you mean (seriously, you can type just about anything into a search engine, and you'll come up with an answer that you're looking for); and use a name that people can actually respect/understand that you're not just here to be non-constructive.

If you want to have a serious discussion about things you disagree with, take a step back and keep from just posting knee-jerk reactions. Think through what you want to say. I think maybe you are trying to say something, but giving an excuse of, "I'm just not articulate enough," or saying that it's okay to be aggresive without saying anything, doesn't help to get that point across.

Just my .02, FWIW.

(Now I could use a pint...)

Hey there 'web', (if that is your real name :), I'm not fooling anybody - I do know what I'm talking about. I'd take you more seriously if you if made specific points rather than say you can't explain why I'm wrong - it's like when Bush said he knew things in his gut! ;)

I'm happy to have you comment on our site as to why my views are 'ignorant' - life is one big learning process and i've gained a lot from listener's views - but i did have to call you out when you were clearly embarrassing yourself by referring to directors like Bahrani as obscure or not knowing that i spent years of my life directing for a living.

Feel free to listen to more shows anytime and get even more upset by my analysis :) i'd only ask that you back your comments up with genuine insight and specific examples placed in a history of cinema context, rather than resort to opaque words like 'marlarky'.

yours in cinema,
jt.

My full name is Webster Logan, I am from New York, NY. People have always called me Web for short. If it makes you guys feel better, you can call me "Larry" or some other name so you can feel like I am a real person. (!!!???!!!)

My friend, who is in film school and is in love with Bela Tarr (just for an example), doesn't know who Bahrani is. I, on the other hand, have seen all his films. That's why i said he was SEMI-obscure. and, alas, he is.

But why aren't you telling me why I need to compare Precious with Chop Shop? you are not answering this. Come on, you're the articulate one. I can't help but wonder if you would have answered already if I wasn't so confrontational. Maybe there are other readers/listeners reading this, who love you, who are wondering what you are trying to say here. Don't you owe it to them? Me, I just think you had no point and you were just throwing out names. Because I am very familar with Bahrani and Reichardt (never heard of Trigger Man) and I have no idea what your point is.

It's so funny that you were the one who cut Gareth off saying that Precious is no different in style than similar hollywood films. I am giving you tangible points calling on you to examine the editing (which completely contradicts the usual instinct in hollywood toward melodrama in similar moments of trauma/strife) {which is what I believe is closer to what Gareth was saying then whether something was a 5 or a 50mm lens]and all you have done is defend yourself and, instead of defending your idea, you throw out names without explaining what you mean. and then have the nerve to say I don't have genuine insight. I guess because you mentioned some names, in your mind, that covers the "specific examples placed in a history of cinema context" part of what you feel someone needs to have before they can comment? but, again, WHAT DO YOU MEAN? Why are you mentioning these filmmakers/films?

{i would like to thank John Muth, if that is his real name, for encouraging me to comment again by looking up words on-line. thanks man. never thought of that. got a few for this post on m-w.com}

My full name is Webster Logan, I am from New York, NY. People have always called me Web for short. If it makes you guys feel better, you can call me "Larry" or some other name so you can feel like I am a real person. (!!!???!!!)

My friend, who is in film school and is in love with Bela Tarr (just for an example), doesn't know who Bahrani is. I, on the other hand, have seen all his films. That's why i said he was SEMI-obscure. and, alas, he is.

But why aren't you telling me why I need to compare Precious with Chop Shop? you are not answering this. Come on, you're the articulate one. I can't help but wonder if you would have answered already if I wasn't so confrontational. Maybe there are other readers/listeners reading this, who love you, who are wondering what you are trying to say here. Don't you owe it to them? Me, I just think you had no point and you were just throwing out names. Because I am very familar with Bahrani and Reichardt (never heard of Trigger Man) and I have no idea what your point is.

It's so funny that you were the one who cut Gareth off saying that Precious is no different in style than similar hollywood films. I am giving you tangible points calling on you to examine the editing (which completely contradicts the usual instinct in hollywood toward melodrama in similar moments of trauma/strife) {which is what I believe is closer to what Gareth was saying then whether something was a 5 or a 50mm lens]and all you have done is defend yourself and, instead of defending your idea, you throw out names without explaining what you mean. and then have the nerve to say I don't have genuine insight. I guess because you mentioned some names, in your mind, that covers the "specific examples placed in a history of cinema context" part of what you feel someone needs to have before they can comment? but, again, WHAT DO YOU MEAN? Why are you mentioning these filmmakers/films?

{i would like to thank John Muth, if that is his real name, for encouraging me to comment again by looking up words on-line. thanks man. never thought of that. got a few for this post on m-w.com}

Hi Web, you're still being an ass re: assuming that my motives are not genuine or that i'm 'throwing names around' - the reason i didn't address every point in your comments is that it's absurd for me to spend more time on a dialogue with someone who doesn't listen to the show rather than talking with/emailing folks who actually listen and understand what the show is about - i'm carrying on a about a dozen email conversations with listeners right now and they're far more interesting, in-depth and productive than your trolling.

Chatting with you is like having a conversation with someone who just listened to 'Car Talk' for the first time and then writes an angry email to the The Tappet Brothers complaining that they laugh too much.

At the end of the day what you can't seem to acknowledge, (for whatever reason), is that I've been a professional TV director and filmmaker for twenty years who happens to also love doing a film analysis show called The Film Talk - you accidentally bumbled onto the show thinking it was just a couple of dudes arguing, without having any idea of the context for the discussion - nor seemingly any idea that we have some of the finest directors and actors in the world on the show such as Francis Coppola, Ramin Bahrani and Ben Foster.

You've embarrassed yourself - and that's ok - I'm sure I embarrass myself on a weekly basis - but what you haven't done is correct your counter-productive, juvenile and aggressive tone which has no place on this site - there's a reason they say "don't feed the troll's" and I'm done feeding you.

-

CAN SOMEONE ELSE PLEASE CHIME IN HERE!!!!! am i really JUST being an ass or am i trying to get at the heart of something here? this is not "transformers 2" this is a serious movie that just got dissed by the NBR and needs to get fair attention.
Once again, you're spending a lot of time and words defending yourself and not your ideas. I was wrong for setting the tone of this exchange. It is a tone that prevents you from addressing the questions/issues i have with your comments and from taking me serious, and it is a tone that makes you think i am an ass and/or a troll.
if you look back at the first reply i wrote, I said you had a valid point about "Seconds". would a troll do that?

Yes, I think you're full of crap. and i am not being very polite about it, but the best way to shut me up is to just explain your self instead of saying for the 4th time that you are an experienced director and that I have "embarrassed" myself. I asked you valid questions that are about what YOU wrote. and i guess you are not going to answer them. is clearing up what you mean for me really going to "feed" me? I am not being an ass just to be an ass. really.

Hi Web

I find your last comment fascinating - you begin by acknowledging that you set a negative tone for the conversation, and that this is what you feel is preventing Jett from responding directly to your question; and then in the next paragraph you say that he's full of crap. I don't want us to keep going back and forth over this, and I'm not going to speak for Jett, so can I suggest we just move on from the negativity, and talk about the film?

Your initial comment helped me understand what it was I was trying to communicate on the show about the trauma flashback scenes in 'Precious' - I think you're absolutely right: when I say 'how it's shot' I'm saying something far broader than the literal interpretation of that statement; I'm not talking specifically about cameras or lenses - more a sense of how the piece contrasts with the rest of the style of the film, how it represents the hyper-real experience of traumatic memories. Jett is far more qualified to speak to the technical production realities of 'how it's shot'; and so it's possible that he mistook what I was saying. But I still imagine he would disagree with me about how the scenes feel; and that's just fine - part of why we do the show is to allow a deeper truth to arise in the midst of a creative conflict. But I'm grateful that you brought the point up because it left me surer of my own view that these scenes are extremely effective and powerfully done; in a way that mimics the experience that some people actually do have when they're remembering their own trauma. Your point about how Precious contrasts with more typical melodrama is, I think, worth exploring.

I'd really like us to move on from the negativity and have you as a welcome commenter on the site - so if I may ask you a question: when you say that you think Precious is in danger of being taken for something that it's not, what do you mean? I'm genuinely intrigued.

gareth, thank for for taking the time to write and for seeing past the results of my frustrations with not being heard - those results manifesting as negativity toward Jett.
I feel like this is the kind of film, with the help now of Winfrey and Perry, that is going to be jettisoned into some kind of mass product on thousands of screens. Now, I would normally think that is a good thing because I liked and appreciate this film, but the result of that is going to be, once again because of the involvement of Winfrey and Perry, the formation of a general placement of this film into some kind of category (middle American audiences will see it as a "film for blacks", the art film crowd, those who have yet to form an opinion, will see it as "Oprah-fare", a sort of "wholesome feel-good film with moral overtones") and all I am trying to say is that I think this film is not only different from that, but it is actually something "strange" to use the term in the way Harold Bloom uses it- not just new, original and imaginative but off-putting and discombobulating (in a good way).

The discombobulating aspect of this film is very brave. I found myself (a very picky, long-European film loving, little patience for Hollywood-type guy) cringing at certain moments, not necessarily because of the subject matter, but because I was not given what I am conditioned to expect at certain moments in this film.
For instance - when she is told her father has AIDs, I felt a strong need to see a close-up of Precious there. I needed to see what was going on in her. Because, to me (even though I reject all things conventional, and would argue with you if you said i was still conditioned like the average movie-goer),to me if a filmmaker wants to "show me" what's going on inside a person, he gives me a close up and lets the actor do her thing so i can study that persons face. Now, I am not saying there are no close-ups in this film. but in that moment when this news is delivered to her, there is a quick cut to more of that high-energy, happy, party-like fantasy that is going on in her head. So we get to see what is "going on" in this character in that moment. but, for me, it took me some time to settle myself with that. I wanted a close-up and some violins. or, maybe i didn't WANT it. (because I HATE that stuff) but i guess i am still conditioned to "need it" at such moments. it actually embarrassed me when I realized it.

I feel like there are a lot of moments like that in the film. Strange uses of music and editing and resolutions that set it apart from other Hollywood movies. To me, it would be a shame if it were considered a hollywood movie. It is strange and powerful in a different way. Life of all kinds is made worthy. even the monster's. that is rare. and i feel like it just needs to be appreciated or condemned for what it really is. the light-skin issue, the Armand White insanity (which would be a whole lot less bombastic if there were no Winfrey and Perry involved and he suspected it would remain simply a small film made by a dark-skinned gay black man) and the poverty-porn assertion are taking the focus off what this really is. This is a very unique film that has a certain power that it does not abuse. rare.
thanks for reading.

Thanks for elaborating Web; I'd be interested to hear what therapists and other professionals engaging with questions of severe trauma think of 'Precious', and of course people who are survivors themselves. I am neither, but have been close enough to trauma and to therapy to share your opinion that 'Precious is a very unique film that has a certain power that it does not abuse'. But I imagine that this is very much in the eye of the beholder.

I agree with you Web -your approach was all wrong and only caused an obstacle to anyone trying to address your issues. In fact, I can't remember what they were. Maybe you should try going outside, counting to 10, then come in again to calmly state your points as succinctly as you can.
?

Great podcast. I really enjoyed listening to the discussion about Precious. I am in the Gareth camp in terms of the film's hero. I thought that Precious was the hero and the complete beauty of the story. She went from not being able to see herself in the mirror (for a whole myriad of imposed reasons), to hearing an unfathomable truth from her mother, and being able to walk away not only intact, but capable of chosing her own humanity. As a viewer, I really felt like an extension of Precious and I felt like the movie had so much to give in terms of accepting oneself and others as whole and quite literally "precious" (sorry to sound corny...). It's such a difficult film in terms of the racial issues it brings up, but I believe the film is trying to work through them and look at them. It strikes me as a brave and loving attempt to try and make sense of pain.

ok, so fantastic mr fox: i thought i didn't like mr fox because he was being voiced by clooney, who i am not a fan of, but i think it maybe more because the fox really IS despicable, which i feel better about! ;) and you can try wes anderson again, jett, but i doubt it will be so simple - everything he's done is HORRIBLE...and i tried! when rushmore came out, the trailer was brilliant! then i tried the movie....couldn't do it, just couldn't do it...couldn't make it thru tanenbaums and gave up on the rest - i still think, even tho the stop animation was BEAUTIFUL, i really think it would've been a very striking visual piece had the actors just worn very obvious animal face masks...not sure why....LOL!

Precious: couldn't make thru the trailer without wanting to jump off a bridge it was so depressing! but the acting, BEAUTIFUL!