“Just got back from Dark Shadows at the Lincoln Square IMAX (102′ wide screen, over 50 sears per row). I loved almost every second of it. What a shock. I can see why people under 49 hate it, and it’s not just because of its ’60s TV roots–it’s a very traditional, classic-style horror film: leisurely-paced, character-driven, beautifully designed (mostly real sets, not CGI), music used as a humorous or ironic underline, not particularly violent (there’s more blood in the 1970 version), perfectly cast with superb actors, and of course a nice sense of humor to balance the horror. No jump scenes, no teens sliced to pieces by some mask-wearing non-entity, just good old-fashioned story-telling. It’s more like Hugo than Hostel, and not just because it shares cast members and underperformed. And as for the much-derided third act: the complaints are horseshit. Everything that takes place in the climax is logically built up to in what precedes it. Yes, the werewolf is a surprise, but it shouldn’t be given the family history and that character’s behavior, and the explanation is eminently reasonable. In an era where Bridesmaids is considered award-worthy writing, it’s no surprise that many people have forgotten what a well-made script can be like. So fuck all the haters. Dark Shadows lived up to my expectations (no small feat), and should be seen by everyone who still appreciates quality, grown-up, Old Hollywood-style filmmaking. Cadavra has spoken.”
~ Cadavra on Dark Shadows
‘This grooming and styling thing? It’s fucking poodles. Human poodles. I feel sorry for a poodle because he’s a dog. You know, a dog is a fucking great creature. They would do anything for you. And the poodle gets a haircut. No one asks if the poodle wants his hair cut like that. Do they? They just fucking cut his hair like that. And he just walks around. And everyone is like, “Why is that poodle so snarky?” Fuck you. Style, I think, is panache. Who are you? What did you do today? And what are you worth to me? What do you have to offer the world? How did you spend your time today on this planet? How are you spending your time every second? What are you doing now? Are you alive, or are you somnambulant? If you are somnambulant, then you are a fucking prick. Style is your ability to be awake. But who the fuck am I to judge? I’m starting to get really arrogant.”
GQ: Whose tuxedo did you wear on the red carpet here in Cannes?
“J.Lindeberg. Because I really love his suits.”
~ Stylin’ Tom Hardy
“Have we forgotten that the progressive comedy of Norman Lear started with a bigot named Archie Bunker, his dry cleaner, George Jefferson, and his cousin Maude
Great analysis, I should add. You provide a heck of a lot more context than Barnes does, and get to the main issues in a way he doesn’t come close to. You have to wonder what his editors were thinking (or weren’t) when they ran a piece that has essentially no evidence at all for its claims. A journalism prof would give this an ‘F.’ But this is the NYT, they don’t need to worry about trivia like that.
Ha, I was going to say the same thing, Blackcloud.
Aside from that, agree, agree, agree with Poland. Great piece. Perfect. Bravo. Dy-no-mite!
The stupidity of the movie’s critics is so vast and profound (for example:
Indeed, very good piece Dave.
The quote about New Orleans is pretty idiotic, but I can see why some people have a problem with the Prince being light-skinned and/or latin. It’s pretty common for black actors or actresses to be given a latin love interest in a movie rather than another black person (e.g. Will Smith and Eva Mendes in Hitch) so it won’t be thought of as a “black movie” and limit the audience.
http://www.urbanmecca.com/artman/publish/article_228.shtml
Thanks, Blackcloud.
Bitte, David.
I think you’re being a little hard on Barnes. Are you certain he even chose the headline? The headline on the very top of my browser reads, “Does Tiana, Disney’s First Black Princess, Conquer Stereotypes?” I mean, look at the headline YOU chose to go with for your entry.
I love the last quote of the Barnes piece. To me, self-righteous hyper-sensitivity toward race is as offensive as racial ignorance.
And people never take into account Original Intent. Bob Clampett went to see a performance of Duke Ellington’s “Jump For Joy” when it played in L.A. in the early ’40s. He was so impressed with the show that he went backstage afterwards to congratulate everyone. Several of the musicians mentioned that they could never get work in the movies. Clampett promised to do something about that, and promptly hired them to do the soundtracks for two cartoons, TIN PAN ALLEY CATS and COAL BLACK AND DE SEBBEN DWARVES, both now considered classics by animation fans…and both were withdrawn from circulation decades ago because they’re considered “racist.” But Clampett made them to CELEBRATE the great music of that era, and he was as far from a racist as one could get.
Yeah, but COAL BLACK AND DE SEBBEN DWARVES is undeniably racist when viewed today, so the point is rather moot. As a piece of entertainment for children, it simply isn’t acceptable except in an educational environment.
“Dis gon’ be GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!”
Seriously?
My point was that they were not INTENDED to be racist, even if they seem so now. Times change, attitudes change. Even something as simple as smoking now looks odd in pictures as recent as a decade ago. One needs to be able to take into account the era when the film was made before passing judgment on its creators.
I think a lot of that stuff really was meant to be racist…maybe not “fuck you” racist, but “fun” racist.