Just images

Image of the day, 10/01/09

By October 1, 2009No Comments

GOlem

From The Golem, 1920, Paul Wegener and Carl Boese.

Which reminds me, I gotta get in gear and write up the Coens’ fab­ulous A Serious Man soon. Not at all a self-hating Jew contempt-fest, but rather a car­toon Book of Job set in a (among oth­er things) bur­geon­ing counter-culture milieu. One of their richest and most prof­it­ably mis­chiev­ous films. 

No Comments

  • a car­toon Book of Job set in a (among oth­er things) bur­geon­ing counter-culture milieu”
    I dare them to put that on the poster.

  • Matt Miller says:

    Nice to hear. I was dis­ap­poin­ted when the writeup of the film at The Auteurs from TIFF was such an obvi­ous piece of reflex­ive Coen-hate.

  • lazarus says:

    Glenn, I don’t know if you’ve seen this yet but I’d love to hear your comments:
    http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/7e2d4a6e10/birthday-suit
    You can still be a douche even if you’re able to make fun of your­self, obviously.

  • DUH says:

    Oh good, I’ve been look­ing for some­where to com­plain about this: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/10/05/091005crci_cinema_denby
    Is any­one aware of peti­tion that I could sign ask­ing The New Yorker and oth­er respons­ible pub­lic­a­tions to pro­hib­it David Denby from review­ing any more Coen Brothers movies? A more obnox­ious and less gen­er­ous approach to film review­ing, I can­not recall.

  • Tom Russell says:

    I see where you’re com­ing from, Mr. DUH, but there’s anoth­er way to look at it.
    The invalu­able Nick Rombes had this to say about Denby: “I was glad to see that the New Yorker’s David Denby dis­missed Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds as ‘ridicu­lous and appallingly insens­it­ive’ (as if insens­it­iv­ity is a cri­terion for dis­miss­ing a movie), and as ‘shal­low’ and as mor­ally ‘cal­lous,’ while toss­ing in that Tarantino has become an ’embar­rass­ment’ etc. Denby, the Minister behind the ‘Minister’s Black Veil,’ is really good at mor­al­iz­ing. Damn good, as Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt might say).
    “I was relieved that Denby dis­liked it because almost everything Denby dis­likes about the movie is what makes it a great film, and of late Denby has rejec­ted the best, most dar­ing cinema in favor of the most bland.”
    I have a co-worker who has the worst pos­sible taste in movies. For example, OBSESSED was a great film; RATATOUILLE is not. If she recom­mends a movie, I know to avoid it; if she hates a movie, there’s a good chance it’s a great film. Perhaps Denby is use­ful in the same way.
    I still remem­ber the time on this blog that Glenn called Denby “baby puppy”, and I pretty much can­’t came across his name, in print or online, without think­ing of him as a “baby puppy”. Which is prob­ably why I regard him with more kind­ness (well, that’s the wrong word; less unkind­ness?) than I do Mr. White and Mr. Reed.

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    I just read Mr. Denby’s review (after post­ing my own mus­ings, above), and it’s inter­est­ing; aside from the mis­be­got­ten ref­er­ence to Phillip Roth, it’s clear that in a way he very much “gets” the film. Only he also hates it. Just goes to show, I guess.