Wednesday, November 15th marked the second pick Movienight’s Official Northern Associate (MONA) brought to the Back Yard. Unlike the warm reception his first selection ‘Midnight Cowboy’ enjoyed, Peter’s choice to go with Wim Wender’s epic ‘Wings of Desire’ was deemed a less than heavenly pick by some of the assembled Crew.
Coolbaugh and Nubs registered their dissatisfaction with the Selection by sleeping. Nubs caught the bulk of it nodding off only briefly, but Coolbaugh went down for the count after the first thirty-five minutes of this slow paced masterpiece.
After the screening, a drunken Tooda took Peter to task for the poor reception. Netti served as a mediator for the rambling (on Tooda’s side anyway) post-pick discussion. In the end, little common ground was found on the issue of what constitutes a great pick.
So it was with these issues still up in the air that Coolbaugh began an e-mail dialogue with Peter about the Selection. Tooda was cc’d on the discussion and a lively and engaging debate ensued.
The three friend’s dialogue is preserved below, and it serves as an interesting look into Movienight’s Canon, History, and the very nature of “the pick.”
[Editor’s Note: The following record is edited for grammar and content.]
From: Coolbaugh
To: MONA
Subject: yo
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:47:56 -0800
I sent you a long text, but my text messages aren't terribly reliable. I'm not in a position to review the film, so accept this as my commentary.
First of all, I hope you weren't upset at my dozing off during your selection. I've been working my ass off lately with some long hours, and my fatigue, combined with a "slow" moving pic just put me out. You were right about it being ambient...to me, it was like listening to chill out music and watching iTunes visualizers. I dug it completely at the beginning. It was terribly exhausting trying to follow along with a slow film and subtitles. I ultimately just gave up. I'm sure it's a great film...in fact, I know it is. It just wasn't a good pick, in my opinion. I'd like to see it again, and will watch it again, as I liked its tone and style.
Our movies, by definition, need to kick ass...that doesn't mean they need to be popular, or meet any sort of specific criteria...but they cannot be sleepers or beautiful art-house films. Movienight pics need a backbeat...and this was sort of an Astral Weeks type film that just floated along. There are a million GREAT movies that will never be seen on the Stucco...it's just the nature of Movienight. We say “no chick flicks,” not because there aren't any great chick flicks, but because they are not what we agreed we'd be showing on the wall. It's the reason we say, "must be a slam dunk...no exceptions." And, I might add, this pick bordered...no...definitely crossed the chick flick line - love stories about angels falling in love with mortals is something that I believe crosses it into that category. That's debatable, I understand, but it is my opinion.
Anyway - I wanted you to know I didn't hate your film and that I felt bad about falling asleep.
From: MONA
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 5:12 PM
To: Coolbaugh
Cc: Tooda
Subject: RE: yo
Well, I'm sorry you didn't like it, and before I get all defensive, let me apologize myself for not selecting something more obviously Movienight-friendly. I truly regret literally putting my gracious host to sleep. It was obvious from general post-film awkwardness and Davis dissection afterwards that in the eyes of membership, I'd picked a total dud. And I can respect that judgment, though honestly, it makes me wonder if I really "get" Movienight and what it is you guys are trying to do.
First of all: the chick flick charge. With all due respect, if you thought the film was "about" an angel falling in love with a human being, then you probably were asleep for longer than I thought. Sure, that's nominally what happens at the very end of the film. But the trapeze artist subplot is really only one minor aspect of what to my mind is a delicately nuanced and yet sprawlingly ambitious poetic meditation on humanity, German history of the 20th Century, isolation, urban alienation, human empathy and, yes, love (though really, to use pretentious Greek concepts, I believe Wenders is exploring philia, friendly-companionly love, or agape, spiritual love or devotion, than eros, sexual-romantic love). And I don't think the angels-falling-for-humans theme, like most of the films magical realist devices, is meant literally. The film has a totally metaphorical vocabulary, and to think of what little narrative does take place in literal terms is probably to miss much of what it has to offer. Besides, I'm already on record as thinking the "no chick flicks" rule is ludicrous (and unnecessary in the light of the immediately-preceding rule that requires the film to be good, which, pace Movienight, ‘Wings of Desire’ undeniably is). To me, the film IS a slam dunk, and while I knew it would be a risky film as Movienight pick, I'd hoped for a little more indulgence from the crowd.
I was trying to bring something different to the stucco. I was actually surprised that so many had already seen it. But to my mind, the idea that Davis tried to articulate last night after the screening, that Movienight is essentially a buddy night and that picks should always be mindful of each individual member and their tastes, hoping to build some communal shared aesthetic, ties Movienight's hands and limits the opportunity for us (or, perhaps after last night, you guys) to share things with one another that are a little outside of our (or your) wheelhouses. Having to try to select a film that is a cookie cutter "Movienight" film will inevitably have a chilling effect on the Selector and his or her aesthetic and value judgments, and is bound to result in a kind of lowest-common denominator. Without "dissing" the Movies picked so far, to my mind, this dynamic is easily discernable in the list of picks you guys have come up with so far, which are very safe, standard repertory fare. The institution, to my mind, is bound to be poorer for that.
But, hey, it's not my club, I'm not a member, and I respect your rules, even if I disagree with their operation some times and think it's a pity. If I'm ever forgiven for last night's crime against "GREAT movies," I'll be sure to come correct with a movie that has lots of shit blowing up.
It's always great to see you guys, in all events...
spoerl
From: Coolbaugh
To: MONA; Tooda
Subject: yo
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:40:56
I have no real comment. It would take too much energy, which as you could plainly see last night, I don't have. But a couple of random thoughts. The nature of having so many rules, and making such a big deal about the rules, and the template that you claim has been created for selections, is that people start focusing in on nothing but the rules - and with all due respect Peter, you have gravitated towards the rules rather easily. No doubt because the rules are on the Homepage, (which I've always felt misrepresented our evening).
You can reach, and you can bend...but my ONLY point is that the film has to move along. We have an hour and half a week to this...movies that come on slow, and take a while to mature can stick to Tuesdays. Wednesdays need to kick ass. Plain and simple. How's that for a rule? I'm sorry - but that film did not kick ass. It may be one of the most creative, beautiful heavy films of all time, but it does not kick ass. ‘Kung Fu Hustle’ kicks ass. ‘City of God’ kicks ass. ‘Fight Club’ kicks ass. ‘First Blood’ kicks ass. Even ‘Treasure of the Sierra Madre’ kicks ass. If we don't kick ass on every film, it's only because we failed...
And I've gotten my ass handed to me a few times on picks, and I've learned to not take things too personally. And when people say you made a bad pick, it really hurts. But Movienight has always made a commitment to honest feedback, and that's what you'll always get. If you need a reminder of this, reread Davis' Precious blog entry...it's all right there. Text book case.
Anyway - I hope you continue to come down, and I hope you come again with another pick. It's all about moving forward.
Late,
ec
p.s. - [If ‘Wings of Desire’ isn’t one,] then there is NO way ‘Bull Durham’ is a chick flick.
From: Tooda
To: Coolbaugh
CC: MONA
Subject: Re: yo
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:52:55 -0800
Gentlemen,
I think this discourse is likely to become a blog entry.
I plan on engaging more clearly and specifically when I write my comments on 'Wings of Desire,' and post them to the site. But reading the back and forth here begs a response and I'm going to take a quick moment to do just that.
Peter, Eric is totally on the money pointing to my "Precious" Blog about the Selection of 'Network' and the resulting backlash I got from the Back Yard.
But listen man, I am not for a moment dissing 'Wings of Desire.' I have loved it since I first saw it. It is a beautiful film. It is at times even miraculous.
But Wenders storytelling throughout the film does something very purposefully that makes it untenable as a Movienight "Slam Dunk." Specifically, the carefully crafted, dreamlike elegance of the film willfully weaves an introspective experience for the attentive viewer. The more you are absorbed by the film, the more you are isolated like the characters who inhabit it.
As I tried to drunkenly state last night, Movienight is by inception and definition a group experience. It is a celebration of camaraderie. 'Stand By Me' isn't a great pick because it is a great film. It is a great pick because it was the first sentimental gesture I have seen from Zack in 13 years of knowing him.
Please don't get all SOMBie on us and trash Movienight as though it is a place where idiot know-nothings gather to watch shit blow up. That's a low blow - and I believe you know it does not reflect our canon or our character. I understand feelings are frayed somewhat (as mine have been often enough) following last night's screening, but you are a part of Movienight and shouldn't throw up your hands or look down your nose due to the reception of one pick.
I'm not going to get into the chick flick debate except to make three points-
1. I agree the rule is off putting, and have brought up rescinding it twice to the group though the jury remains out.
2. 'Wings of Desire' is in no way, shape or form a chick flick, and labels should not be applied to films by people who slept through them.
3. 'Bull Durham' is the chickiest chick flick of all time. Second only to 'The First Wives Club.'
Peter, as a movie lover with a vast repertory of cinema knowledge, the Back Yard becomes a cauldron and an engaging challenge. You have to navigate the sensibilities of the Membership in picking Selections. Paying attention to the tone of the previous film, and the entire canon, in choosing what to bring next. Our only goal is to ignite more passion each week than was done the week before.
Your point about the deleterious impact of our "lowest common denominator" selection process misses the point of the Back Yard. We always aim to expand our canon's breadth and width, but at the same time we try to honor the tastes of everyone in attendance. I applaud risky picks, but I vehemently disagree with judging the canon and deriding the ongoing shared experience that Movienight has always been. Movienight isn't about accumulating the most varied and excellent list of films in existence. It is about sharing the joy of cinema itself in the company of the truest of friends.
I am dispirited by the distance you put between yourself and Movienight in your letter. You are a part of our history and I trust a part of our future.
At the end of the day, you can “hope for more indulgence from the crowd” all you want, but the crowd is what it is, and to quote Nubs, “that beast is untamable.”
Perhaps this metaphor will make my point the best-
A DJ working a party can spin the undeniably greatest music ever produced all night long, but if the crowd isn't dancing, the music's quality is irrelevant.**
We've been at this non-stop for a long time. Last night I was trying to key you into some of the wisdom we have accumulated through this close-knit project of ours. I woke up this morning feeling great regret about my drunken attempt to make sense of the group, and your letter to Eric makes me fear I pushed too hard. My aim was not to push you away, in fact, it was just the opposite. You're a part of the fabric of the Movienight community, and we are always hard on each other. My frankness and vitriol was not about how far from the Crew you are, but how close.
I can't wait to have you back in the Back Yard, and if no pick opens up naturally, I pledge one of mine to you in 2007.
Thanks for coming last night and every night before. It's about time you got some heat from the Crew, it's how you know you're one of us.
Welcome to Movienight.
-Tooda
**Editor’s Note: Tooda stole the “DJ” metaphor above from Wiener.
From: MONA
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 10:35 PM
To: Tooda; Coolbaugh
Subject: Re: yo
Alright, fellows, no need to make a bigger deal out of this than it is. ‘Wings of Desire’ is a film that is very close and dear to me, both in my personal history (I literally moved to Berlin for nearly two years on the emotional strength of the impressions it gave me of the City and its people on first viewing it) and in my estimation of its value and importance as art. So yes, it's "precious" to me, but fair enough, I'm being too sensitive and need to be more mindful of my audience. And obviously, you guys aren't ignorant meat head filmgoers who need to see "shit blow up" (though, for the record, you DID screen ‘Die Hard’) - it was a ready and cheap shot occasioned by indignance over the actively cool reception it got (which, Davis, was very pedantically administered). But I have a thick enough skin to take my medicine, and am man enough to apologize both for this stinker of a pick as well as my little email hissy fit. If I were forming my own Movienight (and perhaps I will), I would definitely adopt rules VERY different from the ones you've chosen, but I accept that I take the rules and the crowd as I find them.
Re: Chick flicks. I'll try to submit a blog posting on this at some point to better articulate my reservations. I really think it's a stupid, puerile frat boy-mentality rule that hurts Movienight's potential, but more on that later. For now, I will simply say that while I can freely acknowledge that, obviously, ‘Wings of Desire’ was by all accounts a lousy pick, it is EMPHATICALLY not a "chick flick," whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. For the record, I think ‘Bull Durham’ is probably closer to whatever a "chick flick" is supposed to connote, but as I hope I've made clear, I in NO WAY think that should bar it from eligibility. I like ‘Bull Durham’ and think it was a good pick, chick flick or not.
My next film, should I get another pick, will, in Coolbaugh's terms, "kick ass." Shit may or may not blow up.
Long live Movienight.
spoerl
From: MONA
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 10:17 AM
To: Tooda; Coolbaugh
Subject: Re: yo
Davis [Tooda]:
Just one other point of misunderstanding between you and me on this subject I'd like to clear up, by commenting on two observations you've made in different forums: “Movienight isn't about accumulating the most varied and excellent list of films in existence.” and “The point of Movienight is not to demonstrate relative intelligence based on appreciation of esoteric garbage.”
My project in bringing the Wenders was not trying to culture or “school” Movienight by introducing something that would round out its canon. I wasn't trying to impress anybody or have the film enter the canon because it would round out your list or anything. I picked it because it's a brilliant film, end of story. And it failed. Nuff said.
From: Tooda
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 11:38 AM
To: MONA
Cc: Coolbaugh
Subject: Re: yo
Fair enough, but in the spirit of understanding please consider the following...
-I don't believe 'Wings of Desire' to be a bad film. I love the film. The debate has never been about its merit. In fact, I feel rather awkward being in the position of arguing against a film I too hold dear.
-You said yourself "I was trying to bring something different to the Stucco." So the claim that the pick was entirely chosen on its merit alone seems somewhat disingenuous.
-I will stand by the first quote of mine you mention, but the second quote I have widely and publicly admitted was written in a stupor and designed to provoke debate. I don't think it reflects my opinion vis a vis 'Wings,' nor for the record once again, do I think 'Wings' is “esoteric garbage.”
-Andy Kottler picked 'Die Hard'!!!! It was fucking Kottler, god damnit!! Andy "Tea Break" Kottler!! Andy Kottler is the one who brought fucking 'Die Hard' to the Back Yard!!!!! Yes, we watched it on the Stucco. But no one in the Crew would have brought that pick, and no one points to it as a great moment in Movienight history.
Bottom line Peter, you're my friend.
Your enthusiasm for Movienight has buoyed me up when I have been down on the enterprise and all the work I put in each week on the Web Site. I hate to think that you have fallen to the wayside and now think less of all of us and our institution for not embracing your selection. Your chilled tone about Movienight throughout this discourse makes me fear you have. But this debate we've been e-mailing back and forth, this fervor over a pick and its merits, all of this - is why I love Movienight.
I hope you still love it too.
-Tooda
From: Coolbaugh
To: MONA; Tooda
Subject: yo
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 13:46:56
In the interest of avoiding these types of issues going forward (although I think to a certain degree it's healthy dialogue), I vote we move the By-Laws off the Homepage and onto their own page. If somebody wants to read the rules, they can...if they aren't as interested, they're not forced to focus in on them as much.
Just a suggestion - it's always bothered me that they're on the Homepage. Being there sends the message that the rules are first and foremost what we're about, which is obviously not the case.
ec
From: Tooda
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 2:08 PM
To: MONA
Cc: Coolbaugh
Subject: Re: yo
I'm all for that (though it will take some doing), but in it's place I'd like to put a Mission Statement. Once we have one that works for everyone I'll be happy to make the change.
From: Coolbaugh
To: MONA; Tooda
Subject: yo
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:16:03
More stimulating talk radio...only on movienightonline.com
My only regret about this is that it's not captured on the website. It's perfect material...wink.
If you are a visitor to this site, and would like to add your voice to this debate please use the Comment button at the bottom of this page. We would love to hear your thoughts.
