tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3321104539463385583.post2834913038513362574..comments2024-03-29T02:25:06.412-07:00Comments on The House of Sparrows: MY SON, MY SON, WHAT HAVE YE DONEDavid Robson, Proprietor, House of Sparrowshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17512358627000077081noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3321104539463385583.post-45864998406824991742010-03-08T11:47:12.300-08:002010-03-08T11:47:12.300-08:00Some compelling commentary, and I thank you for we...Some compelling commentary, and I thank you for weighing in at such length. (And I'm amused that we're equally split on THE BAD LIEUTENANT: PORT OF CALL NEW ORLEANS.) Your analysis of the Greek motifs seems particularly spot on, and I'm more than willing to concede that my mood was simply not in sync with the film's that day. And yet enough of my reservations hold that I hesitate to see the film again. Though I also hesitate to call it a year's worst. Moving on...David Robson, Proprietor, House of Sparrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17512358627000077081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3321104539463385583.post-53659436346870953572010-02-22T10:34:06.486-08:002010-02-22T10:34:06.486-08:00I take your point about Zabriskie’s performances. ...I take your point about Zabriskie’s performances. I just finished watching her chew up the screen on BIG LOVE, in which her character—abused by tyrant of a husband and a remorseless patriarchy—is a bundle of neuroses, but still manages to retain a sense of decency and love for her family. You are right that she’s playing a character she has always played, but I don’t think you’re giving the “undramatized” breadth of her character justice. There are suggestions, through the Greek tragedy and her treatment of her son and his girlfriend, that speak of a damaged history, and a more damaging relationship with men. The “basketball scene” was lovely, as the character literally, laughably “passed” his life and energy on to someone more innocent. That is somewhat cutesy, but I felt the character’s sadness and desire to choose life through the image. The ostrich eating Kier’s glasses was indeed hilarious, as was the subsequent wrestling to get them back. I felt the hand of Lynch there. Especially with Lynch, where there is absurdity there is often insanity, and consequently, tragedy. You can count me among the “crowd” that laughed at the absurdity of the flamingoes and ostriches, and I don’t see how that audience is “growing” at all. I also find it hilarious that Herzog and Lynch developed this wild tale from a true story.<br /><br />Who else makes films as nutty as this? I don’t think it’s a masterpiece, and I agree that the two styles don’t always gel, but the film works on several levels in spite of that. I see the evolution of Shannon’s character over the course of the film. I haven’t seen ENCOUNTERS or BAD LIEUTENANT so I can’t trace the development you’re suggesting here, and now your viewing of those films, damn it, has irrevocably colored my own. (BAD L. is playing at the Red Vic next weekend, and I’ll be able to test that theory soon.) Herzog’s predictability is what seems to irk you the most, and I can see your point that his madness and passion have hardened into conventionality somewhat. But there’s still intelligence and inquisitiveness. I can’t see giving up on him yet.Arkatinomay & Evinelayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589562112091496355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3321104539463385583.post-9842957733905099582010-02-22T10:33:37.204-08:002010-02-22T10:33:37.204-08:00[SPOILER Warning] [Posting a Response in Two Posts...[SPOILER Warning] [Posting a Response in Two Posts]<br /><br />I’m sorry you didn’t like the film, but I’m especially saddened that you don’t seem able to connect with Herzog anymore. You raise some valid points here, and I’ll try to offer some of my own insights, but your visceral reaction to Herzog’s films since ENCOUNTERS seems personal, as if he’s just wasting your time, and I can’t agree there. I don’t see self-parody as much as repetitiveness, and it may be that Herzog simply has nothing new to say to you. I can empathize with that idea—we know his themes at this point—but Herzog’s raging “antinature” existentialism still connects with me, partly because, well, I see the concept and its exploration as inescapably cathartic. I’m thinking particularly of the “mountains staring at me” moment late in the film, when Shannon’s character, who has been striving for reconciliation with the world, himself, and his family, gives into his paranoia, stares into a void, and has no answers. Life’s ostensible meaninglessness deserves our scorn not our acceptance, as Shannon’s character illustrated during his “audience performance.” In this way, and also by placing us as witnesses and participants in the lead’s decline, the film becomes metacinematic. <br /><br />The house itself, its calming pink stucco and manicured cactus garden, is Lynch’s BLUE VELVET lawn, disguising the ugliness within. Also particularly moving to me was Shannon’s Steadicam shuffling through a central Asian square of men with hard faces and rough skin. Why? I couldn’t tell you exactly, but it was. Herzog’s (or was it Lynch’s?—because it felt Lynchian) balancing of police interrogation alongside the spiritual investigation of the murderer’s motivations was a highlight for me as well. To my mind the other characters—Dafoe and Pena’s detectives, Sevigny’s girlfriend, Kier’s director, Dourif’s crazy uncle—though admittedly cheaply developed, represented the Greek chorus explicating the tragedy. It’s true that a lot of these characters seem fixed, pitched at a certain level, but those are Greek characters for you.Arkatinomay & Evinelayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589562112091496355noreply@blogger.com