>Harry Dean Stanton, who died earlier this month, at the age of ninety-one, had the misfortune of becoming a star in a bad movie, “Paris, Texas,” and its misguided influence deformed the remainder of his career, even unto his last star turn, in “Lucky,” which comes out on Friday. “
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
newyorker.com
Richard Brody likes This Is Forty.
So? It's a good movie.
Fuck you Richard Brody. Paris, Texas is top ten tier.
Read the article; it's shit.
>I was struck by a strange resemblance to, or foreshadowed reminiscence of, another actor whose gesture repertory and verbal inflections form an enduring style: Jason Schwartzman. But Schwartzman, in addition to starting young, also started in “Rushmore,” a film that is rich in lived experience, that teems with observations, aphorisms, and dramatic and micro-dramatic situations of emotional complexity, range, and reach.
>Stanton, at the moment that he was ready to soar, was weighed down with an iconography that was neither his own nor as rich as the inner life that he pressed into its service. The best thing about “Paris, Texas” is the simple fact that Stanton is front and center throughout. But the role reduced him rather than filling him out, turning him into an icon rather than a performer.
>The last movie in which Stanton starred, “Lucky,” opens tomorrow, and though it’s a generous vehicle for Stanton’s presence, it’s also a painful trivialization of it. The movie follows the line of the mythologizing of Stanton in “Paris, Texas”—but now the loner with a bleak but blanked-out past is presented as a cute old coot.
>The cantankerous Lucky, the man with no name, is defined by the idiosyncrasies of his routine: his morning coffee and exercises; his faux-crabby greeting to Joe (Barry Shabaka Henley) at the diner—“You’re nothing”—to which Joe responds in kind; his crossword-puzzle conundrums; his daytime game shows; his regular walks through a dusty town that’s missing only tumbleweed to complete the clichés; his nighttime sessions at a bar among its hard-edged, ball-busting regulars
>The borrowings from “Paris, Texas” are apparent even in the credit sequence of “Lucky,” which, like the Wenders film, show the eponymous protagonist, played by Stanton, wearing a hat and framed against a blue sky.
literally one of, if not the best movie of the decade
BUMP
This board is too fast. I'm really sick of this shit.
>an empty vessel awaiting the delivery of his over-scripted backstory.
Something always bugged me about P,T an this put it into words pretty succinctly
Objectively one of the best movies of all time. My favorite.
That's a totally valid criticism, but Paris, Texas is not really about waiting for a 'delivery' of anything though. If you were expecting a story-driven film, then you are going to be disappointed. It's not interesting because we are so enthralled to find out if he will rekindle with his ex-wife/gf, it's the atmosphere and the performance of HDS that it. The story is just a vessel for really well-done performances, fantastic cinematography, a stellar atmosphere, and a few set pieces.
Did stanton get a sticky?
>For a glimpse of the performer he’s capable of being, watch instead Stanton’s turn in “Twin Peaks: The Return,” playing Carl Rodd, the principled, unsentimental trailer-park manager whose sense of life-worn routine is matched by his alertly empathetic power to rise to the demands of moments of exceptional need. It’s an ennobling portrait, and one to remember Stanton by.
Accurate
yes
>The New Yorker
It's terrible you pleb. Kys
>comparing schwartzman to stanton
that's pretty unfair desu. stanton excels at deadpan, while schwartzman mixes his apathy with very animated moments.
Richard Brody is an American film critic who has written for The New Yorker since 1999. He attended Princeton University, receiving an B.A. in Comparative Literature in 1980. He is the author of a biography of French New Wave film director Jean-Luc Godard and is writing a book about the New Wave. He first became interested in films after seeing Godard's Breathless in his freshman year at Princeton. Before becoming a film critic, he worked on documentaries and made several independent films.[1][2][3] In December 2014, he was made a Chevalier (Knight) in the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres for his contributions in popularizing French cinema in America.[4]
lmao
what a fucking pleb
oh look
a jew critic
this movie has such an European feel, emotions are evoked so genuinely and humbly in a way that's very hard to find in other movies
>Revenge of the Sith's labyrinthine opening shot— of Anakin and Obi-Wan giving chase to Dooku through the space vehicles on the planet of Coruscant—is a mighty and audacious gauntlet-throw, the digital equivalent of the opening shot of Orson Welles’s “Touch of Evil." It wheels and gyrates and zips and pivots with a vertiginous wonder that declares, from the beginning, that Lucas had big visual ideas and was about to realize them with a heroically inventive virtuosity. And the rest of the movie follows through on that self-dare.
>If I had seen ROTS in a theatre upon its release, in 2005, I think that, at the moment when Sheev, sizzling in the blue lightning that Mace Windu reflects back at him, cries out to Anakin, “Power! Unlimited Power!,” I would have leaped out of my seat yelling with excitement. The entire movie is filled with an absolute splendor of the pulp sublime, and that moment is its very apogee. Lucas reaches historic heights in the filming of action: the martial artistry of Anakin and Obi-Wan’s double duel versus Dooku, the gaping maw of outer space and of the airshaft into which the heroic duo drops, Obi-Wan’s light-sabre fight with the four-armed Grievous, and, above all, the apocalyptic inferno of the confrontation of Obi-Wan and Anakin. I watched these sequences over and was repeatedly and unflaggingly amazed by Lucas’s precise, dynamic, wildly imaginative direction.
>The scripted politics of the conflicts have a grand imagination to match. What Lucas brings to the script of the movie is a Shakespearean backroom dialectic of power-maneuvering. The dialogue is just heightened and sententious enough, just sufficiently rhetorical, to convey the grave moment of ideas in conflict and the grand mortal results of that dialectical clash—the making of a villain and the unmaking of a republic.
I like Brody quite a bit but every other month he does one of these bizarre Armond tirades that makes me think less of him. Stanton is barely dead and his way to commemorate 50 years of acting is to shit on his most famous and final roles?
And I like Wes Anderson as much as the next guy but his shameless dickriding is silly whenever it's brought up
lmao
>this is one of the shittiest movies ever made
yeah ok
The New Yorker
Salon
Vox
Huffington Post
Buzzfeed
NPR
I really liked him reviewing Die Hard
>the digital equivalent of the opening shot of Orson Welles’s “Touch of Evil.
pleb detected
Me too, that's the kind of hot take on popular films I can get behind.
>had the misfortune of becoming a star in a bad movie, “Paris, Texas,”
KEK THIS IS ARMOND WHITE TIER BANTZ
DID WIM WENDERS SHOOT HIS DOG
On the other hand, “Die Hard” resists, conspicuously, the cinematic stereotype of violent black villains (1988 was the year when George H. W. Bush won the Presidency by using a repellent attack ad linking his opponent, Michael Dukakis, to a black convict named Willie Horton). The movie features three major African-American characters—Al; a comedic (but ultimately heroic) limo driver named Argyle (De’voreaux White); and Theo (Clarence Gilyard, Jr.), the terrorist band’s computer whiz. Yet there’s another ethnic anxiety that the movie represents—the film is centered on the Nakatomi Corporation, headed by a Japanese-American man named Joseph Takagi (James Shigeta), which is an emblem of the then widely stoked fear that Japanese high-tech businesses were threatening to dominate the American economy. The film also shrewdly both emphasizes and banalizes the ambient fear of terrorism by presenting the attackers’ political demands as a false front for ordinary robbery and greed.
Sup Forums is always right
hes going to get fucking executed (justifiably) by film twitter
paris texas was always severely overrated. there's a reason wim wenders never worked again
He was so good in this
>I don't like people selling their blood
Such a simple scene but I almost teared up
Could you elaborate a bit?
It's been a while since I watched it. Basically what I can remember is that for the first half I was enjoying it for the reasons you described. I liked HDS as this mute wanderer who seemed to sort of spring up from the environment and I wasn't really concerned with what his backstory was or anything, I just liked watching how he interacted with the world around him. So when the second half is all about muh ex wife and muh son it really cheapened that.
Totally agree. Second half's obsession with studying his back story totally cheapens the first's indifference towards it (which is what made the first half so compelling).
severely overrated
no ones seen it
maybe its not excellent but its not 'bad' as this faggot critic puts it
>calling one of the best movie in the history of cinema "bad" for the sake of non-existant argument
what the fuck is even going on this guy's head?
>muh reagan
Brody is such a bore.
Brody does that for me often. Sometimes I disagree with him, and sometimes he does come across as a little contrarian, but way more often than not I agree with him and he is able to articulate my thoughts thoroughly
Is that scene supposed to be impressive?
Paris, Texas is a nice little sweet film.
Richard Brody is a tit, but Paris Texas is overrated.