tried and erred

“I think certain films call for certain approaches and limiting an artist, though sometimes exhilarating and oddly freeing (again back to that damn Hayes Code), is a mistake.”

This is ridiculous. There are ALWAYS limits on an artist. You would agree that it would not be okay for Scorsese to torture a dog with hot pokers for 20 minutes, to the point of death, and include this in his film. Why? Because this is a sin. Because it involves real physical harm. In the same way, I’m convinced that sexual immorality, as a physical act, causes harm. That is the same reason why I object to flagrant bumping and grinding on film. You, on the other hand, have accepted and embraced the triumph of the pornographic. Bully for you! What I want to point out is that I am not for limits and you are against limits. We are both for limits, imposed on the artist from within and without. Where we differ is in what those limits are and what they should be.

“I’m not as much interested in standing on top of Mount Sinai, with every emotional/moral/spiritual reaction preset to reinforce my own morality. I like to be wrestle with my responses from time to time.”

I like to be "challenged" as well and you know this. That is why I love films like Force of Evil or Blast of Silence or No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood or Love in the Afternoon or Faces. I even think Japon or Seventh Continent, two films that I don’t love, belong here, maybe even more so, because they are films that I wrestled with and rejected (and see “repugnant” comments below; they are both repugnant). You’re guilty here of the same crap that Jeff was doing. You claim that you like to wrestle. Those who object to specific content are OBVIOUSLY just content to sit back and have their own prejudices reinforced and not wrestle. How about you go wrestle with some animal cruelty videos for the next year since that’s the only thing that apparently gets you riled up? Then come back to me and talk about wrestling. Where does this end? No one is a "wrestler" unless they've watched Human Centipede 2 and found some good in it? At some point, one has to decide that "wrestling" with certain things is a complete waste of time.

“I cannot deny (again, shame) that I took pleasure in the immorality, much of this is because the director is so damn talented.”

Right. This is exactly why I think the film is dangerous. Yes, dangerous. I’m not even afraid to say it. Film is more dangerous than AK-47s or whatever.

“I disagree wholeheartedly that the approach renders it celebratory, but we simply won’t agree on this.”

I think that when a filmmaker is having this much fun with material and making it fun to watch, then it’s fair to call it celebratory. I’m willing to change my terminology but not my basic point.

“The biggest divergence is that you seem to think that Jordan needs to repent in order for the film to work. I think that’s precisely why it works.”

This is just wrong and demonstrates that you’ve missed my point. I love stories with unrepentant protagonists. Macbeth, The Stranger, There Will Be Blood, In the Company of Men. I’m not worried that Scorsese presents Belfort as unrepentant. It’s HOW he presents him as unrepentant (and HOW he presents the rest of his story) that concerns me.

“You weren’t a fan of SPRING BREAKERS, but you bent over backwards trying to reconcile the content because you have championed the director since I’ve known you.”

And now you show that you misunderstood my Spring Breakers review as well. I respect the craft behind Spring Breakers. I respect the craft behind Wolf of Wall Street. My post about Spring Breakers was my trying to wrestle with the content (something that you apparently don’t think I do), not to endorse it in any way. I can see rays of light in the trash. So what? Spring Breakers and Wolf of Wall Street are both vile films. I reject Spring Breakers. I’m not sure why you question this now. I thought I had made myself pretty clear both in the car and in my post. But, perhaps I wasn’t. Forgive me.

As for my “respectably repugnant” list, I stand guilty as charged. Forgive me. WoWS was just the clear and easy target that made me wake up and realize that I’d spent way too much time rustling around in the trash last year looking for gems. I looked back on all of those films (yes, mostly represented by that list) and I have begun to despair about film culture and culture more generally. I looked for the rays of light in those films. They are there. That stupid list was my way of acknowledging that there were moments worth praising in films that I could not make peace with. I tried to frame that list with caution, that I was uneasy with the perversity on display throughout the year’s best films.  “I can't help but feel that 2012 has been a sad and lost year in film.” I was trying to make the best of the worst. I was making a sort of anti-Top10 list because I couldn’t find any films to place on a Top 10 list for 2012, which is something that is still bothering me. I’m sorry that it was misunderstood and you thought that I was endorsing those films.

When one finds gems in a trash heap, one can praise the gems. That doesn’t mean that the one praising the gems doesn’t understand that he found them in a trash heap or that he recommends trash. This man would much rather be rooting around in gem heaps. The sad state of affairs is that there aren’t all that many gem heaps at the moment and there is a whole lot of trash.

There is also plenty worthy of praise present in WoWS. WoWS would clearly make it on a “respectably repugnant” list. But, I’m sick of the darkness.  My conclusion regarding WoWS could be applied to all of those other films: “To the degree that it is enjoyable, it is execrable.” I am not denying that it is well made. I am not denying that it is enjoyable. I am saying that the problem is precisely that it is so well made and enjoyable.

So, if I have been inconsistent in the past, forgive me. I’ve sought clarity and I’ve failed. I am guilty of pride as you say. Sometimes, I think that I’m the greatest movie reviewer in the world and see all sorts of things in films that no one else can see. That is why I MUST go see WoWS, so that my Very Important Definitive Take on the film can be known. But of course that’s all a stupid lie.

I am tired of spending so much time looking around in filth when there are all sorts of goldmines (Scripture foremost, but also the “Western Canon”, sf books I’ve missed, re-watching films I love, re-reading books that I know will both CHALLENGE ME and EDIFY) that I have neglected to my detriment. I’m afraid that you scoff at my quest for edification. So be it. The best works of art DO instruct and build up the best in us as they tear down the worst in us.

WoWS on the other hand is rather shallow. Re-watching it is not going to make me a better person and I will not learn anything new about the human condition or our present financial or sexual crises du jour. In wrestling lingo, at the end of the day, this film is a lightweight.

I’m not afraid of films like WoWS. If someone I know is really dying for a critique of any film, I’ll go ahead and plunge in the muck and watch whatever. This is why Jeff’s “too much” is silly (though I realize that that wasn’t directed at me primarily). I’m pretty sure that I could beat Jeff in a filth-watching endurance test and still come out relatively clean on the other side. But I don’t want to. I’m tired. I guess I’d change my mind if someone wanted to pay me a good salary to work for some crappy content review site and count curse words and prosthetic penises. Otherwise, I’m tired of it all.

WoWS was the “final straw” that made me realize that my heart isn't in this Film Club business anymore. Jeff was right. The Wolf ate my blog.

I still love CR5FC. I still love films and film culture. I’m just tired. There haven't been enough "gems" to sustain and nourish me as I chase.

And that’s why I ended Chasing Pictures. I really am done chasing pictures for now.

I co-opted this old blog because I figure that I’ve still got things that I’ll want to blog about. Some of the time, maybe even a lot of the time, it’ll be film-related. And I like the blog title. It feels appropriate.

Perhaps any or all of the above is not clear. Perhaps I have written too many contradictory things over too long a period of time and the above is just gobbledygook. I hope not. I offer all of this mess in love.

Now concerning [“challenging” cinema]: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up.

Peace.