Commenting Rules: Keep the conversation civil and on topic. If your comment does not add to the conversation, it will be removed. Debate intelligently. Insulting the author, /Film, or other commenters will result in comment removal and possible ban. If you want to point out a typo, correction, suggestion or criticism for /Film, please email us instead. Please use your name or nickname and not your business name (ie Discount Car Parts) as we might confuse and mark it as spam. If you would like to have your own Avatar show up with your comment, sign-up for a free Disqus account. Any Links will go into moderation before being approved. Anything we deem as spam will not be approved.

The /Filmcast: After Dark - Ep. 77 - Imagined Worlds, Children of Men, and The Dying Art of Film Criticism (GUEST: Mike D’Angelo from Onion AV Club)

Posted on Saturday, November 28th, 2009 by David Chen

slashfilmcast550

children_of_menThe /Filmcast: After Dark is a recording of what happens right after The /Filmcast is over, when the kids have gone to bed and the guys feel free to speak whatever is on their minds. In other words, it’s the leftover and disorganized ramblings, mindfarts, and brain diarrhea from The /Filmcast, all in one convenient audio file. In this episode, Dave Chen, Devindra Hardawar, and Adam Quigley talk about the role of imagined worlds in some of their favorite films. Also, film critic Mike D’Angelo joins us to discuss his article decrying the use of long continuous shots in Children of Men, and to assess Anne Thompson’s claim that film criticism is a dying art.

You can always e-mail us at slashfilmcast(AT)gmail(DOT)com, or call and leave a voicemail at 781-583-1993. Join us next Monday at 9 PM EST / 6 PM PST at Slashfilm’s live page as we review Wes Anderson’s Fantastic Mr. Fox.

Download or Play Now in your Browser:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Subscribe to the /Filmcast:



And here’s the long shot from Children of Men that we discuss:

Comments 

Related Posts

Tags

After Dark, slashfilmcast, , ,

  • What? I thought that was the ending of American Psycho was obvious. I also thought that it was all in his mind.
  • atothej
    well, actually the first couple of times I saw "Children of Men", the continuos shot did not distract me in the least. I was so immersed in what happened, that I didn't think about it at all!
  • Jamieson
    How did the cameraman get out of that car? wtf? where was the open or close noise from the door? did they cover the noise with gun shot?
  • A rig was built on the roof of the vehicle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjNk-nxHjfM
  • I had already seen this clip but not recently. Can't believe I forgot to mention the real-time aspect of it!
  • I think this should be Alfonso Cuaron's rebuttal to Mr. D'Angelo:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k84bV-Yskf4
  • Garber
    I read D'Angelo's article before and was stunned how anybody could fail to recognize the brilliance of that sequence. I appreciate his argument, but he was flat-out wrong in his assessment. That was the second most baffling article I've seen posted on AV Club; the first being one of their writer's negative review of Ghostbusters (!), which fortunately, was wisely derided by their readership as a whole.

    No offense to D'Angelo -- who's a stand up guy to weather the harsh criticism against his article -- hopefully AV Club doesn't turn into Cinematical (which has lately been posting baffling, stupid articles from apparently film-illiterate contributors).
  • ill never register!
    The difference between AV Club and Cinematical, is even when AV posts controversial articles, they are at least well written and argumentative rather than juvenile and pointless. Ghostbusters and this article were ones I couldn't agree with, however, I appreciated the argument because it was well presented and I could theoretically see where they were coming from.

    Great site, one of the last few with a top notch team of writers.
  • jason b
    yer nicer than i am - as i could never think someone who would rather have the quick choppy headache inducing add edits from the music video age of filmmakers, as opposed to the true talent of a patient visionary.
  • jason b
    it's quite easy to call hitchcock's idea stupid, and to also criticize cuaron's sequences, as it takes no talent or skill at all to pick apart artistic vision or decision making.

    thankfully d'angelo provides us with a blatant example to give to Anne Thompson: there is no art in film criticism - so how could something that doesn't exist die?
  • kfizz
    Your right I look at movies in two parts. The story and it as a whole technical side as two different things. The only time i bring the two together is if it hinders my viewing of the movie. like when frames get to choppy and jerky or really bad CG like in 10,000 B.C. Near the end when stuff starts falling down and i can see the CG drop frames. As they said in training day this guys need to have his Sh!t pushed in.
  • kfizz
    Your head is screwed on too tight. Its a movie they built a world and try to make feel as really as they can. Its to create these people and make you connect with their world and it does not take away from the movie at all. Shaky cam does take away so does lens flare and to much CG. You are just saying that to get the clicks sir I think your sneaky and back handed way of talking about it. The only thing is that really bugs me is when they are lazy and cut conners unless it is creative.
  • I had no idea what that dude was talking about.

    I suppose all filmmakers should resort to the banality of television's ideology: "show what the script tells you".

    No, actually I do understand what he is trying to do after all. He wanted people to think that he was smart for fucking with an unfuckwithable movie.

    He failed.
  • And that fat white chick almost ruined the movie singlehandedly. She sucks at acting and should try to kill herself by overdosing on Julianne Moore's raw talent.
  • thedude
    More people should read the AV Club. Even articles like these are intriguing, rather than boring and frustrating.
  • Octoberist
    i understand the arguments from both sides, but here's my deal: I'll take raw continuous shots over any second of Transformers 2. Anyday.

    I think continuous shots makes it sudden..makes it real.
  • Gene Milder
    Immersion. Understanding of scene geography. Impact.

    This is the kind of discussion that´s over before it even begins. Why the hell even write an article about it? To attract some controversy, maybe?
  • Mike D'Angelo seems to be see quality film making as a distraction, his argument is so idiotic that even he has to see that. But his ill-advised argument has gotten him all kinds of attention, which I'm sure was his intent in the first place.
  • Great episode, guys! Mike was a great guest. I especially liked the conversation about the current state of film criticism. Very unfortunate, but hopefully wants the economy gets better we will see a comeback of film critics in print.
  • MA
    THANKS!! I love what Del Toro says about Pan's Labyrinth -- I'm going with it's all real. Makes me love the film even more.
blog comments powered by Disqus

gorilla nation

/Film

Copyright © 2010 /Film. Web design by Pro Blog Design. Logo Concept by: Illumination Ink

All names, trademarks and images are copyright their respective owners.