Get the doll
January 21, 2015 4:39 AM Subscribe
Be careful. If you criticize that movie too much we will be overrun by hordes of right-thinking patriots demanding your head on a stick for not being sufficiently anti-barbarian.
posted by TedW at 5:10 AM on January 21, 2015 [34 favorites]
posted by TedW at 5:10 AM on January 21, 2015 [34 favorites]
I had seen a few critical mentions of a baby in that movie, but I had thought it was because there was some shocking scene where he has to shoot a baby (like the bad guy is hiding behind the baby maybe?). So it was kind of a letdown to watch the video and realize what the problem actually was.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:20 AM on January 21, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Dip Flash at 5:20 AM on January 21, 2015 [6 favorites]
I'm honestly shocked at how obviously fake that baby is. Movies and tv shows regularly use actual babies in scenes like that. And there are some really convincing fake babies available. That one looks like the prop guy picked-up a doll at Target on the way to the shoot.
It's almost so obviously fake that, if you know nothing about the movie and saw this, it actually inserts a "people so psychologically damaged that they believe a doll is their real baby" subplot. (Which would actually make the movie more appealing to me.)
posted by Thorzdad at 5:21 AM on January 21, 2015 [25 favorites]
It's almost so obviously fake that, if you know nothing about the movie and saw this, it actually inserts a "people so psychologically damaged that they believe a doll is their real baby" subplot. (Which would actually make the movie more appealing to me.)
posted by Thorzdad at 5:21 AM on January 21, 2015 [25 favorites]
Apparently they had a couple babies scheduled but one fell sick and the other didn't show up.
posted by beowulf573 at 5:26 AM on January 21, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by beowulf573 at 5:26 AM on January 21, 2015 [7 favorites]
Babies are such divas.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:31 AM on January 21, 2015 [18 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:31 AM on January 21, 2015 [18 favorites]
That MIDI of "Fancy" is going to haunt my nightmares.
posted by Mister Moofoo at 5:43 AM on January 21, 2015 [20 favorites]
posted by Mister Moofoo at 5:43 AM on January 21, 2015 [20 favorites]
Apparently they had a couple babies scheduled but one fell sick and the other didn't show up.
Yeah, I read that, too, but really? How long can it take to borrow someone's baby and have them sign the consent forms? There are human babies all over the place. Seems like this could be a "okay, take a break, we'll film this scene tomorrow" situation. Are movie deadlines so strict that they had no choice but to substitute a Dollar Store doll?
Or is Bradley Cooper deathly afraid of babies, and everything else is a not-too-credible cover story for his pediaphobia?
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:47 AM on January 21, 2015 [10 favorites]
Yeah, I read that, too, but really? How long can it take to borrow someone's baby and have them sign the consent forms? There are human babies all over the place. Seems like this could be a "okay, take a break, we'll film this scene tomorrow" situation. Are movie deadlines so strict that they had no choice but to substitute a Dollar Store doll?
Or is Bradley Cooper deathly afraid of babies, and everything else is a not-too-credible cover story for his pediaphobia?
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:47 AM on January 21, 2015 [10 favorites]
Here's the actual scene from the movie, which...what? Somebody approved that?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:48 AM on January 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:48 AM on January 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
No Chucky no credibility.
I haven't seen American Sniper so I'll go on thinking that it's the story of a scarred veteran desperately trying to reconnect with his Cabbage Patch kid.
Anyway, it's nice to see that Ally McBeal's dancing baby still has a career.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:01 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
I haven't seen American Sniper so I'll go on thinking that it's the story of a scarred veteran desperately trying to reconnect with his Cabbage Patch kid.
Anyway, it's nice to see that Ally McBeal's dancing baby still has a career.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:01 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Apparently they had a couple babies scheduled but one fell sick and the other didn't show up.
I imagine the second baby's agent screaming at them: "You're getting a reputation, kid! Look at Lohan! You'll never work in this town again!"
posted by kersplunk at 6:03 AM on January 21, 2015 [9 favorites]
I imagine the second baby's agent screaming at them: "You're getting a reputation, kid! Look at Lohan! You'll never work in this town again!"
posted by kersplunk at 6:03 AM on January 21, 2015 [9 favorites]
That baby is more believable than most of Chris Kyle's book.
posted by Shohn at 6:03 AM on January 21, 2015 [24 favorites]
posted by Shohn at 6:03 AM on January 21, 2015 [24 favorites]
Did they approve the fake baby because Bradley Cooper has to sort of cry in that scene, and that might be hard to do if he had a real baby?
Once you see it, the "these people are so damaged they think a fake baby is real" subplot is kind of hard to unsee. I guess his fake baby family really CAN wait! But maybe they are so crazy they really CAN'T! Or maybe he wants to go back to the war to escape from his nutty fake baby family. So many more layers!
posted by onlyconnect at 6:04 AM on January 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
Once you see it, the "these people are so damaged they think a fake baby is real" subplot is kind of hard to unsee. I guess his fake baby family really CAN wait! But maybe they are so crazy they really CAN'T! Or maybe he wants to go back to the war to escape from his nutty fake baby family. So many more layers!
posted by onlyconnect at 6:04 AM on January 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
Apparently they had a couple babies scheduled but one fell sick and the other didn't show up.
Fair enough. But, there are plenty of convincingly realistic baby props available to film makers these days. This one isn't one of them. Hell, it doesn't even appear to weigh the same as a baby, or have any articulation to where Cooper has to convincingly support the head. It's a pretty egregious lack of attention to detail.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:09 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Fair enough. But, there are plenty of convincingly realistic baby props available to film makers these days. This one isn't one of them. Hell, it doesn't even appear to weigh the same as a baby, or have any articulation to where Cooper has to convincingly support the head. It's a pretty egregious lack of attention to detail.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:09 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
that baby grows up to be kim cattrall
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:12 AM on January 21, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:12 AM on January 21, 2015 [13 favorites]
one fell sick and the other didn't show up
HELLO!! I don't SEE any! Can I have a LITTLE BABY? Nice BABIES, we're with the MOOvee gonna do a THING!
posted by octobersurprise at 6:23 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
HELLO!! I don't SEE any! Can I have a LITTLE BABY? Nice BABIES, we're with the MOOvee gonna do a THING!
posted by octobersurprise at 6:23 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
The best most delicious Thing about this little uproar is how neatly it undermines the inevitable Right-wing Noise Machine's outrage when this movie fails to garner any Academy nominations for Eastwood next year. If he can't be bothered to find a real infant for his 80 million dollar budget movie, maybe ole Grampa Chair-talker ought to hang up his directors Spurs for good.
posted by Chrischris at 6:28 AM on January 21, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Chrischris at 6:28 AM on January 21, 2015 [6 favorites]
But, there are plenty of convincingly realistic baby props available to film makers these days.
I'm told there have been impressive strides made in post production and cgi.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:28 AM on January 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm told there have been impressive strides made in post production and cgi.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:28 AM on January 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
I saw the movie and to show you how clueless I am, I did not notice the fake baby at the time. So it is a fake baby, a doll. I liked the movie. (I have a son in the military.) I get the criticism of it, but, as far as I know, it was a pretty accurate depiction of the type of situation Chris Kyle was in during his four tours. I certainly don't think you can call Kyle a coward as Roger Moore implied. He may have been barbaric, but coward, no. I also do not see how those who liked the movie are considered patriotic (as if that was a negative term) and pro-war. While I do support the good ole US of A, I am far from pro-war. In simple terms, most wars are stupid. Our money is better spent on helping people than killing people. But I digress. I am so clueless, I missed the fake baby when I saw the movie last weekend.
posted by 724A at 6:31 AM on January 21, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by 724A at 6:31 AM on January 21, 2015 [8 favorites]
Chrischris: "The best most delicious Thing about this little uproar is how neatly it undermines the inevitable Right-wing Noise Machine's outrage when this movie fails to garner any Academy nominations for Eastwood next year. If he can't be bothered to find a real infant for his 80 million dollar budget movie, maybe ole Grampa Chair-talker ought to hang up his directors Spurs for good."
The movie was officially released in December. It is up for awards this spring including best picture and best actor. The bigger controversy is the snubbing of Selma.
posted by 724A at 6:33 AM on January 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
The movie was officially released in December. It is up for awards this spring including best picture and best actor. The bigger controversy is the snubbing of Selma.
posted by 724A at 6:33 AM on January 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
Note that the poster of the clip felt it necessary to state: "BEFORE YOU GET UPSET: This is NOT an attack against Chris Kyle, his family, or his friends.
posted by librosegretti at 6:38 AM on January 21, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by librosegretti at 6:38 AM on January 21, 2015 [7 favorites]
Oh my effing GAWD I made the mistake of mentally conflating the fakeness of this and Sleestaks and now I'm picturing Sleestak arrows all flipping around the room with Cooper like a box of pencils thrown without conviction by a production assistant and now I may actually die.
posted by sonascope at 6:48 AM on January 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by sonascope at 6:48 AM on January 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
I know next to nothing about the movie, is there some odd controversy about it? Something beyond people thinking it glories war or some such?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:49 AM on January 21, 2015
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:49 AM on January 21, 2015
The bigger controversy is the snubbing of Selma.
That was a great movie.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:50 AM on January 21, 2015
That was a great movie.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:50 AM on January 21, 2015
After all these years that Ally McBeal dancing baby still gives me the heebie-jeebies.
posted by sobarel at 6:51 AM on January 21, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by sobarel at 6:51 AM on January 21, 2015 [5 favorites]
I saw the clip from the movie posted on tunblr and assumed it was like production footage of them practicing their lines. Or possibly the footage before they added in a CGI baby. It looks like some thing out of a highschool film project.
posted by bracems at 6:52 AM on January 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by bracems at 6:52 AM on January 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
I love how you can see Bradley Cooper using his thumb to make the doll's arm move. They were obviously doing their best to make this work.
posted by Flashman at 6:53 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Flashman at 6:53 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Obviously Cooper deserved a best actor nod for his performance because he is doing the acting of one man PLUS a baby here.
posted by onlyconnect at 7:06 AM on January 21, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by onlyconnect at 7:06 AM on January 21, 2015 [10 favorites]
Note that the poster of the clip felt it necessary to state: "BEFORE YOU GET UPSET: This is NOT an attack against Chris Kyle, his family, or his friends.
posted by librosegretti
Sadly, it really is necessary because to some people attacking anything that might be construed as a symbol of something that they care deeply about is the same thing to them as making a direct attack against that same thing. (And then they say that they can't relate to those "other" people that they see on TV.)
posted by dances with hamsters at 7:07 AM on January 21, 2015
posted by librosegretti
Sadly, it really is necessary because to some people attacking anything that might be construed as a symbol of something that they care deeply about is the same thing to them as making a direct attack against that same thing. (And then they say that they can't relate to those "other" people that they see on TV.)
posted by dances with hamsters at 7:07 AM on January 21, 2015
Many years ago, I was the manager of a GNC at the Westside Pavilion Shopping Center in Los Angeles. During my time there, there was a period where the mall was being used to film some scenes for Christmas with the Cranks, and the shooting team needed to run some power cords through my store. It was requested that I come in an hour before usual opening time for two days to open the doors. That was it; just open the doors, and then they would let me wander off to eat at Tim Allen's special catering truck. I was offered $400 to do this.
At the time, I was unaccustomed to the way Hollywood does things, and I thought that getting $200 an hour to sit around and eat much better than I could normally afford was ridiculous; I offered to do the job for my regularly hourly salary rate.
Someone from the production team sat me down and explained to me that if I didn't show up on time one day, it would cost them $40,000. The actors would still need to be paid that day, the crew would still need to be paid, the equipment rentals and caterers would need to be paid. $40,000 with nothing to show for it, all because the 23 year old GNC manager hadn't been there when he said he'd be there. And what did I think would happen to the production guy who had let that happen?
That man looked me dead in the eye and told me to take the fucking money and show up on time, which is precisely what I did.
So I get it. If you're making a Bradley Cooper-level expensive film and neither of the babies that you scheduled shows up, you can't necessarily afford to put everything on hold while someone runs out to the studio and gets a realistic baby doll. You go to the nearest store and you grab something vaguely baby-shaped, and you pray to the gods of moviedom that it all works out. And sometimes, as happened here, those gods answer with laughter.
If you ever watch Christmas with the Cranks (which I do not recommend), be aware that it was shot in August in Los Angeles. Those extras bundled up in their winter coats and scarves and mittens are dying. Also, the mall was decorated for Christmas in August, which made a lot of the customers during the regular hours confused and/or furious.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 7:15 AM on January 21, 2015 [58 favorites]
At the time, I was unaccustomed to the way Hollywood does things, and I thought that getting $200 an hour to sit around and eat much better than I could normally afford was ridiculous; I offered to do the job for my regularly hourly salary rate.
Someone from the production team sat me down and explained to me that if I didn't show up on time one day, it would cost them $40,000. The actors would still need to be paid that day, the crew would still need to be paid, the equipment rentals and caterers would need to be paid. $40,000 with nothing to show for it, all because the 23 year old GNC manager hadn't been there when he said he'd be there. And what did I think would happen to the production guy who had let that happen?
That man looked me dead in the eye and told me to take the fucking money and show up on time, which is precisely what I did.
So I get it. If you're making a Bradley Cooper-level expensive film and neither of the babies that you scheduled shows up, you can't necessarily afford to put everything on hold while someone runs out to the studio and gets a realistic baby doll. You go to the nearest store and you grab something vaguely baby-shaped, and you pray to the gods of moviedom that it all works out. And sometimes, as happened here, those gods answer with laughter.
If you ever watch Christmas with the Cranks (which I do not recommend), be aware that it was shot in August in Los Angeles. Those extras bundled up in their winter coats and scarves and mittens are dying. Also, the mall was decorated for Christmas in August, which made a lot of the customers during the regular hours confused and/or furious.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 7:15 AM on January 21, 2015 [58 favorites]
Cooper ... is doing the acting of one man PLUS a baby here.
Still, he's no Edgar Bergen.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:19 AM on January 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
Still, he's no Edgar Bergen.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:19 AM on January 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
Why didn't they shoot the scene without the baby?
Looking down at the cot or something.
posted by fullerine at 7:19 AM on January 21, 2015
Looking down at the cot or something.
posted by fullerine at 7:19 AM on January 21, 2015
If pointing out bad prop babies means you hate America, I might be able to use a similar one to get my extended family off my back about not procreating when I see them for holidays.
posted by almostmanda at 7:21 AM on January 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by almostmanda at 7:21 AM on January 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
The strangest thing about that baby prop, when you consider its lack of realism, is the sheer expense required for its design and manufacture. I mean, that was a million dollar baby
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:25 AM on January 21, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:25 AM on January 21, 2015 [15 favorites]
Man, that scene. Did they use the obviously fake baby to distract the audience from the clunky dialogue and wooden acting?
posted by fleetmouse at 7:28 AM on January 21, 2015
posted by fleetmouse at 7:28 AM on January 21, 2015
I also do not see how those who liked the movie are considered patriotic (as if that was a negative term) and pro-war.
'Jingoistic' is the word you're looking for here.
posted by goethean at 7:28 AM on January 21, 2015 [5 favorites]
'Jingoistic' is the word you're looking for here.
posted by goethean at 7:28 AM on January 21, 2015 [5 favorites]
They were obviously doing their best to make this work.
Nothing about this indicates it was anybody's best effort.
When the British TV show Doc Martin needed a baby as a continuing character, how many did they cast? Depending on the episode, there were four to six babies credited with playing the baby. Four to six. For a baby with relatively little screen time.
Whoever thought it was adequate to hire two babies to play a baby in a major movie has never spent time with a baby, or attempted an outing with one. The point is, I'm not buying the two baby story. I think they were simply trying to get away with something.
posted by Flexagon at 7:31 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Nothing about this indicates it was anybody's best effort.
When the British TV show Doc Martin needed a baby as a continuing character, how many did they cast? Depending on the episode, there were four to six babies credited with playing the baby. Four to six. For a baby with relatively little screen time.
Whoever thought it was adequate to hire two babies to play a baby in a major movie has never spent time with a baby, or attempted an outing with one. The point is, I'm not buying the two baby story. I think they were simply trying to get away with something.
posted by Flexagon at 7:31 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
I thought the term 'jingoistic' was considered pretty racist these days?
posted by Flashman at 7:32 AM on January 21, 2015
posted by Flashman at 7:32 AM on January 21, 2015
I thought the term 'jingoistic' was considered pretty racist these days?
[citation needed] Who considers uncritical superpatriots a race?
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:38 AM on January 21, 2015 [5 favorites]
[citation needed] Who considers uncritical superpatriots a race?
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:38 AM on January 21, 2015 [5 favorites]
That last clip of the baby rolling down the hill would go nice with a little Yakkety Sax.
posted by Curious Artificer at 7:52 AM on January 21, 2015
posted by Curious Artificer at 7:52 AM on January 21, 2015
On Twitter, Norm Wilner discussed the rubber baby and pointed out that Eastwood, at this point in his career, tends to be somewhat slapdash in his filmmaking. Or, if you prefer, "efficient." He doesn't like re-shooting scenes, he doesn't like deviating from his schedule, he just wants to make the movie - and he has less tolerance for fixing errors than ever before.
posted by mightygodking at 8:15 AM on January 21, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by mightygodking at 8:15 AM on January 21, 2015 [11 favorites]
I haven't seen the film, but that scene was right out of a made-to-tv film from the 80s. The zombie baby from Brain Dead was more convincing. It would have been a little less jarring if they shot the scene so you couldn't see the doll's creepy face, the actors are doing mighty work trying to maintain the illusion but the camera and editing totally ruins the effect.
Having said that, all films are filled with this kind of trickery and normally things like this just glide by without the audience noticing. This is just a particularly bad example of a totally normal film making technique.
posted by AndrewStephens at 8:16 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Having said that, all films are filled with this kind of trickery and normally things like this just glide by without the audience noticing. This is just a particularly bad example of a totally normal film making technique.
posted by AndrewStephens at 8:16 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
the actors are doing mighty work trying to maintain the illusion but the camera and editing totally ruins the effect.
#Iwanttobelieve (in the #rubberbaby).
posted by octobersurprise at 8:24 AM on January 21, 2015
#Iwanttobelieve (in the #rubberbaby).
posted by octobersurprise at 8:24 AM on January 21, 2015
Jingoism comes from the expression By Jingo!, which is a euphemism for "By Jesus," so unless people are objecting to it originating in a song about war with Turkey, I'm not clear what is racist about it.
posted by maxsparber at 8:26 AM on January 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 8:26 AM on January 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
I only just recently learned about the fascinating existence of "reborn dolls," one of which could have made an excellent baby substitute in the movie.
posted by ORthey at 8:39 AM on January 21, 2015
posted by ORthey at 8:39 AM on January 21, 2015
Jingoism comes from the expression By Jingo!, which is a euphemism for "By Jesus," so unless people are objecting to it originating in a song about war with Turkey, I'm not clear what is racist about it.
Any term that is old-fashioned and refers to a specific group of people is automatically assumed to be racist until proven otherwise.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 8:41 AM on January 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
Any term that is old-fashioned and refers to a specific group of people is automatically assumed to be racist until proven otherwise.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 8:41 AM on January 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
"NO ONE CAN TELL IT'S AN ORANGE"
"It's just, it's. It's smaller than a real baby, and-"
"WE'LL FIX IT IN POST"
Martin: Uh, Sir, why don't you just use real cows?
Horse painter: Cows don't look like cows on film. You gotta use horses.
Ralph: What do you do if you want something that looks like a horse?
Other horse painter: Ehh, usually we just tape a bunch of cats together.
posted by almostmanda at 8:45 AM on January 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
"It's just, it's. It's smaller than a real baby, and-"
"WE'LL FIX IT IN POST"
Martin: Uh, Sir, why don't you just use real cows?
Horse painter: Cows don't look like cows on film. You gotta use horses.
Ralph: What do you do if you want something that looks like a horse?
Other horse painter: Ehh, usually we just tape a bunch of cats together.
posted by almostmanda at 8:45 AM on January 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
Also, the mall was decorated for Christmas in August, which made a lot of the customers during the regular hours confused and/or furious.
Please share with the class your stash of purloined surveillance footage that has been edited into a montage of men falling to their knees in tears of befuddlement in front of the Orange Julius, elderly women flipping out and throwing a large planter down an escalator as they howl in rage, and children wearing plastic elf heads as hats as they go feral in the foodcourt.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 8:48 AM on January 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
Please share with the class your stash of purloined surveillance footage that has been edited into a montage of men falling to their knees in tears of befuddlement in front of the Orange Julius, elderly women flipping out and throwing a large planter down an escalator as they howl in rage, and children wearing plastic elf heads as hats as they go feral in the foodcourt.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 8:48 AM on January 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
That baby is more believable than most of Chris Kyle's book.
Anybody who makes Jesse "the Body" Ventura sound more credible by comparison has some serious problems with the truth.
posted by jonp72 at 8:51 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Anybody who makes Jesse "the Body" Ventura sound more credible by comparison has some serious problems with the truth.
posted by jonp72 at 8:51 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
So in other words, Clint Eastwood has turned into William "One-Shot" Beaudine?
posted by jonp72 at 8:58 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by jonp72 at 8:58 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
So I get it. If you're making a Bradley Cooper-level expensive film and neither of the babies that you scheduled shows up, you can't necessarily afford to put everything on hold while someone runs out to the studio and gets a realistic baby doll. You go to the nearest store and you grab something vaguely baby-shaped, and you pray to the gods of moviedom that it all works out.
Not to be more Captain Snottypants more than I have to be in saying this, but if I'm in charge of baby wrangling for a Bradley Cooper level expensive film, the first thing I'm gonna do is make sure that the Emergency Backup Fake Baby is present and of good quality. It sure as hell won't be any random doll from the Target down the street.
In the event that the Emergency Backup Fake Baby explodes or whatever fake babies do, I will also have a Holy Shit Double Emergency Super Backup Fake Baby present. To wit, a live puppy.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:59 AM on January 21, 2015 [7 favorites]
Not to be more Captain Snottypants more than I have to be in saying this, but if I'm in charge of baby wrangling for a Bradley Cooper level expensive film, the first thing I'm gonna do is make sure that the Emergency Backup Fake Baby is present and of good quality. It sure as hell won't be any random doll from the Target down the street.
In the event that the Emergency Backup Fake Baby explodes or whatever fake babies do, I will also have a Holy Shit Double Emergency Super Backup Fake Baby present. To wit, a live puppy.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:59 AM on January 21, 2015 [7 favorites]
Brandon, the main controversy is that the guy portrayed is pretty much a huge racist who specifically wanted to kill "brown people" and speaks openly about it, so a lot of people are handwringing about whether Eastwood intended to glorify him. As in Gran Torino our provocative director clearly depicts a problematic person in a way that can be seen as non-judgmental (of the character himself), or flat out awesome bro depending on your audience. He walks that line on purpose but I know where "empty chair man" stands in the end
posted by aydeejones at 9:01 AM on January 21, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by aydeejones at 9:01 AM on January 21, 2015 [5 favorites]
I certainly don't think you can call Kyle a coward as Roger Moore implied.
Yeah, but did you hear what George Lazenby said? Total burn, I tell ya.
posted by jonp72 at 9:03 AM on January 21, 2015 [15 favorites]
Yeah, but did you hear what George Lazenby said? Total burn, I tell ya.
posted by jonp72 at 9:03 AM on January 21, 2015 [15 favorites]
What's the problem here? Obviously Miller and Cooper are both heterozygous Pp and the baby is a double recessive pp. Ta-da! Plastic phenotype. It's SCIENCE, people!
posted by Kabanos at 9:11 AM on January 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Kabanos at 9:11 AM on January 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
I am so clueless, I missed the fake baby when I saw the movie last weekend.
I'll bet most people who saw the film before this became a big Thing didn't notice the fake baby either. When you're caught up in a story and watching a film you're generally participating with the illusionistic nature of film storytelling to make the story and the storyworld "work." Many of the most famous "goofs" in film history went unremarked by audiences for years until someone pointed them out (the whole Blooper Reel thing that started with It'll be All Right on the Night in the late 70s educated generations of nerds to keep a sharp eye out for these kinds of things). Of course, in the days of the internet this stuff gets around a lot more quickly than it used to.
The problem, of course, is "once seen, it can't be unseen"--I know if/when I see this movie I'll notice this baby, and it will break me out of the movie for a while. I'm also reasonably confident that I wouldn't have noticed or cared if I hadn't been primed to do so.
posted by yoink at 9:16 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'll bet most people who saw the film before this became a big Thing didn't notice the fake baby either. When you're caught up in a story and watching a film you're generally participating with the illusionistic nature of film storytelling to make the story and the storyworld "work." Many of the most famous "goofs" in film history went unremarked by audiences for years until someone pointed them out (the whole Blooper Reel thing that started with It'll be All Right on the Night in the late 70s educated generations of nerds to keep a sharp eye out for these kinds of things). Of course, in the days of the internet this stuff gets around a lot more quickly than it used to.
The problem, of course, is "once seen, it can't be unseen"--I know if/when I see this movie I'll notice this baby, and it will break me out of the movie for a while. I'm also reasonably confident that I wouldn't have noticed or cared if I hadn't been primed to do so.
posted by yoink at 9:16 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
People, Eastwood's 85 years old, he doesn't have time to wait for a damn real baby.
posted by octothorpe at 9:26 AM on January 21, 2015
posted by octothorpe at 9:26 AM on January 21, 2015
I hope whoever is hosting the Oscars this year holds and comforts a fake plastic baby all night.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:58 AM on January 21, 2015 [25 favorites]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:58 AM on January 21, 2015 [25 favorites]
I still love Clint Eastwood, much as one loves your ranting terribly racist grandpa who used to tell the best stories at unbearable family reunions but has now kind of declined into incoherence (and more racism) most of the time.
It's just sad, y'know?
posted by dogheart at 9:59 AM on January 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's just sad, y'know?
posted by dogheart at 9:59 AM on January 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
I would buy the "babies flaked" explanation*, except that, on a 60 million dollar movie, when you see the dailies and realize the doll ruined the scene, you schedule a fucking reshoot with a real baby.
*Because of SAG rules and state labor laws and all sorts of reasons, they can't just find a baby to throw into the scene. The laws about using babies on camera are very strict, and every shoot I've been on that has used a real baby has been planned to the hilt around compliance.
posted by Sara C. at 10:00 AM on January 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
*Because of SAG rules and state labor laws and all sorts of reasons, they can't just find a baby to throw into the scene. The laws about using babies on camera are very strict, and every shoot I've been on that has used a real baby has been planned to the hilt around compliance.
posted by Sara C. at 10:00 AM on January 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
you can't necessarily afford to put everything on hold while someone runs out to the studio and gets a realistic baby doll.
No, you absolutely can. The AD moves around the scene order for the day to shoot some other scenes with those actors in that location, and then the prop shopper makes a few frantic phone calls and fights traffic and rushes a realistic looking prop baby to set, and everything is fine. Maybe you have to break for lunch early or the delay on set causes the crew to work an extra hour.
Shooting has stopped for much less than this, on jobs with much lower budgets. I once had to run a car battery out to a shoot because the ambulance we rented for the day ran its original battery down idling with the sirens on.
Hell, they could have contacted a third baby and had the parents drive in from Orange County or whatever and it would have been fine.
posted by Sara C. at 10:10 AM on January 21, 2015 [13 favorites]
No, you absolutely can. The AD moves around the scene order for the day to shoot some other scenes with those actors in that location, and then the prop shopper makes a few frantic phone calls and fights traffic and rushes a realistic looking prop baby to set, and everything is fine. Maybe you have to break for lunch early or the delay on set causes the crew to work an extra hour.
Shooting has stopped for much less than this, on jobs with much lower budgets. I once had to run a car battery out to a shoot because the ambulance we rented for the day ran its original battery down idling with the sirens on.
Hell, they could have contacted a third baby and had the parents drive in from Orange County or whatever and it would have been fine.
posted by Sara C. at 10:10 AM on January 21, 2015 [13 favorites]
they can't just find a baby to throw into the scene.
Well, it's a baby, you don't throw it. Gently toss, sure, but not throw.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:10 AM on January 21, 2015 [8 favorites]
Well, it's a baby, you don't throw it. Gently toss, sure, but not throw.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:10 AM on January 21, 2015 [8 favorites]
As in Gran Torino our provocative director clearly depicts a problematic person in a way that can be seen as non-judgmental (of the character himself), or flat out awesome bro depending on your audience.
Personally, I prefer my art/entertainment not to preach, proselytize, or otherwise try to ram a political message down my throat, even if that means some mouthbreather is going to interpret it in a way I find reprehensible.
It's not the director's job to run around with napkins making sure nobody got applesauce on their bibs.
posted by echocollate at 10:21 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Personally, I prefer my art/entertainment not to preach, proselytize, or otherwise try to ram a political message down my throat, even if that means some mouthbreather is going to interpret it in a way I find reprehensible.
It's not the director's job to run around with napkins making sure nobody got applesauce on their bibs.
posted by echocollate at 10:21 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
But it is the director's job to say, "You know, this baby looks super fake. I think we're going to have to punt this scene until we can get a real baby on set."
posted by Sara C. at 10:26 AM on January 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Sara C. at 10:26 AM on January 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
It's not the director's job to run around with napkins making sure nobody got applesauce on their bibs.
That's what the Best Boy is for.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 10:26 AM on January 21, 2015 [8 favorites]
That's what the Best Boy is for.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 10:26 AM on January 21, 2015 [8 favorites]
I'm curious if the plastic baby got SAG rates? I can't see the Screen Actors Guild letting a movie studio not pay an actor simply because they are made of plastic, inanimate and unconvincing without alienating a lot of their union members.
posted by srboisvert at 10:27 AM on January 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by srboisvert at 10:27 AM on January 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
echocollate, literally infantilizing condescension aside, you can be sure those same mouth breathers aren't extending that courtesy to the narratives of gangsta rappers and such. And there actually is a way to portray an asshole as an asshole without your hyperbolic...Concern.
posted by aydeejones at 10:52 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by aydeejones at 10:52 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
I wouldn't mind it if I didn't know Eastwood was in fact proselytizing by curating the whole movie, FFS. Way to really turn that around on its head, or not.
posted by aydeejones at 10:54 AM on January 21, 2015
posted by aydeejones at 10:54 AM on January 21, 2015
you can be sure those same mouth breathers aren't extending that courtesy to the narratives of gangsta rappers and such
So...that means we have to emulate them?
posted by yoink at 10:55 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
So...that means we have to emulate them?
posted by yoink at 10:55 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Something about the baby being as real as the reasons we started that war he served in.
posted by benito.strauss at 11:02 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by benito.strauss at 11:02 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
echocollate, literally infantilizing condescension aside, you can be sure those same mouth breathers aren't extending that courtesy to the narratives of gangsta rappers and such. And there actually is a way to portray an asshole as an asshole without your hyperbolic...Concern.
You've really taken personally a comment that was not intended to be taken personally. I prefer not to be forcefed a message, and I don't think it's a writer or director's job to frame a story to be unambiguous.
I have no idea what any of that has to do with gangsta rappers, but I try not to set others' behavior as the baseline for my own.
posted by echocollate at 11:02 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
You've really taken personally a comment that was not intended to be taken personally. I prefer not to be forcefed a message, and I don't think it's a writer or director's job to frame a story to be unambiguous.
I have no idea what any of that has to do with gangsta rappers, but I try not to set others' behavior as the baseline for my own.
posted by echocollate at 11:02 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Clint the Conservative Icon, the man of many women, many children (and a few alleged GF's abortions), might actually not have a lot of experience around real tiny children. ("Looks like any baby I ever saw from a distance as I was running out the door.")
This is a wonderfully odd thread, though, what with the Roger Moore saying jingoistic things to rubber babies. But mostly I'm jealous that Brandon Blatcher had so far had the good sense to not read other site's comments filled with "Rah-Rah 'Merican hero, wish he'd blown all them away."
Because the most troubling aspect to the movie is that for many in the audience it seems to reinforce incorrect notions, shall we say, re: the trillion-dollar Iraq debacle.
posted by NorthernLite at 11:19 AM on January 21, 2015
This is a wonderfully odd thread, though, what with the Roger Moore saying jingoistic things to rubber babies. But mostly I'm jealous that Brandon Blatcher had so far had the good sense to not read other site's comments filled with "Rah-Rah 'Merican hero, wish he'd blown all them away."
Because the most troubling aspect to the movie is that for many in the audience it seems to reinforce incorrect notions, shall we say, re: the trillion-dollar Iraq debacle.
posted by NorthernLite at 11:19 AM on January 21, 2015
aydeejones: “Brandon, the main controversy is that the guy portrayed is pretty much a huge racist who specifically wanted to kill "brown people" and speaks openly about it, so a lot of people are handwringing about whether Eastwood intended to glorify him. As in Gran Torino our provocative director clearly depicts a problematic person in a way that can be seen as non-judgmental (of the character himself), or flat out awesome bro depending on your audience. He walks that line on purpose but I know where ‘empty chair man’ stands in the end”
echocollate: “Personally, I prefer my art/entertainment not to preach, proselytize, or otherwise try to ram a political message down my throat, even if that means some mouthbreather is going to interpret it in a way I find reprehensible. It's not the director's job to run around with napkins making sure nobody got applesauce on their bibs.”
It sounds like you have this backwards. If a director portrays racism without portraying the problems racism causes, they are not the noble director portraying truth unaffected by the lens of sentiment; they are the proselytizing preacher trying to ram political messages down our throats.
posted by koeselitz at 11:22 AM on January 21, 2015 [8 favorites]
echocollate: “Personally, I prefer my art/entertainment not to preach, proselytize, or otherwise try to ram a political message down my throat, even if that means some mouthbreather is going to interpret it in a way I find reprehensible. It's not the director's job to run around with napkins making sure nobody got applesauce on their bibs.”
It sounds like you have this backwards. If a director portrays racism without portraying the problems racism causes, they are not the noble director portraying truth unaffected by the lens of sentiment; they are the proselytizing preacher trying to ram political messages down our throats.
posted by koeselitz at 11:22 AM on January 21, 2015 [8 favorites]
The point is, I'm not buying the two baby story.
Evidently they had a third baby but there was some sort of tragic mishap relating in some way to the bathwater.
posted by The Bellman at 11:33 AM on January 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
Evidently they had a third baby but there was some sort of tragic mishap relating in some way to the bathwater.
posted by The Bellman at 11:33 AM on January 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
Ok, so they got a plastic baby, fine. But why such a no-name? Who's the Meryl Streep of fake babbies and why weren't they on hand?!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:34 AM on January 21, 2015
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:34 AM on January 21, 2015
It sounds like you have this backwards. If a director portrays racism without portraying the problems racism causes, they are not the noble director portraying truth unaffected by the lens of sentiment; they are the proselytizing preacher trying to ram political messages down our throats.
It sounds like you think no societal ill even casually depicted in art can stand (morally? aesthetically?) without the narrative equivalent of a guy in the foreground banging a drum and pointing and shouting BAD! Or that complexities of character and even profound moral failures can't be subtly depicted to great effect. I think that's nonsense, and I disagree with the notion that not conspicuously drawing moral lines in art is the same as condoning an immoral act. But there are plenty of movies out there that satisfy both of our tastes, so I think we're all good.
posted by echocollate at 11:41 AM on January 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
It sounds like you think no societal ill even casually depicted in art can stand (morally? aesthetically?) without the narrative equivalent of a guy in the foreground banging a drum and pointing and shouting BAD! Or that complexities of character and even profound moral failures can't be subtly depicted to great effect. I think that's nonsense, and I disagree with the notion that not conspicuously drawing moral lines in art is the same as condoning an immoral act. But there are plenty of movies out there that satisfy both of our tastes, so I think we're all good.
posted by echocollate at 11:41 AM on January 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
echocollate: “It sounds like you think no societal ill even casually depicted in art can stand (morally? aesthetically?) without the narrative equivalent of a guy in the foreground banging a drum and pointing and shouting BAD!”
Ha. No, I feel like you're the one who thinks that. You're the one implicitly defending the recent films of Clint Eastwood, who is basically the most preachy and proselytizing of popular modern directors, in the most tedious ways. So, uh, yeah.
The fair thing – the honest thing – for a director to do is let the camera roll. Editing out important things can be deception just as much as inserting things can be. It takes a lot of work to show life as it is, to point a light at truth. Clint Eastwood doesn't do that, quite obviously; he confirms the biases of audiences, with vigor and with preachy heavy-handedness, and he's won many awards over the past decade for doing so.
posted by koeselitz at 11:52 AM on January 21, 2015
Ha. No, I feel like you're the one who thinks that. You're the one implicitly defending the recent films of Clint Eastwood, who is basically the most preachy and proselytizing of popular modern directors, in the most tedious ways. So, uh, yeah.
The fair thing – the honest thing – for a director to do is let the camera roll. Editing out important things can be deception just as much as inserting things can be. It takes a lot of work to show life as it is, to point a light at truth. Clint Eastwood doesn't do that, quite obviously; he confirms the biases of audiences, with vigor and with preachy heavy-handedness, and he's won many awards over the past decade for doing so.
posted by koeselitz at 11:52 AM on January 21, 2015
Another 10 Props More Convincing Than The Baby In 'American Sniper'
From the same creator, who again reassures us that "This is NOT an attack against Chris Kyle, his family, or his friends." So he's not going to do "10 Directors More Deserving of an Oscar Nomination Than Clint Eastwood". Too bad.
Second batch includes Chucky, and Triumph the Insult Comic Dog (and you won't believe what's Number One!)
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:52 AM on January 21, 2015
From the same creator, who again reassures us that "This is NOT an attack against Chris Kyle, his family, or his friends." So he's not going to do "10 Directors More Deserving of an Oscar Nomination Than Clint Eastwood". Too bad.
Second batch includes Chucky, and Triumph the Insult Comic Dog (and you won't believe what's Number One!)
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:52 AM on January 21, 2015
Who's the Meryl Streep of fake babbies and why weren't they on hand?!
The Meryl Streep of fake babbies doesn't just wait around to be cradled in someone's arms.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:56 AM on January 21, 2015
The Meryl Streep of fake babbies doesn't just wait around to be cradled in someone's arms.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:56 AM on January 21, 2015
Ha. No, I feel like you're the one who thinks that. You're the one implicitly defending the recent films of Clint Eastwood, who is basically the most preachy and proselytizing of popular modern directors, in the most tedious ways. So, uh, yeah.
I've done no such thing. I framed my comments to apply to art in general. I've enjoyed some of Eastwood's movies (Gran Torino, Unforgiven, a couple of others), disliked a few, and was pretty meh about others. Forgive me if I don't make a clever empty-chair reference or dismiss the guy outright as some kind of modern conservative boogyman. None of that shit interests me.
The fair thing – the honest thing – for a director to do is let the camera roll. Editing out important things can be deception just as much as inserting things can be. It takes a lot of work to show life as it is, to point a light at truth.
See, that's the kind of movie I like. But it's not my place to tell a director what he or she should do, because there are a lot of ways to approach writing, directing, framing, what have you. I just know what I prefer.
posted by echocollate at 12:06 PM on January 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
I've done no such thing. I framed my comments to apply to art in general. I've enjoyed some of Eastwood's movies (Gran Torino, Unforgiven, a couple of others), disliked a few, and was pretty meh about others. Forgive me if I don't make a clever empty-chair reference or dismiss the guy outright as some kind of modern conservative boogyman. None of that shit interests me.
The fair thing – the honest thing – for a director to do is let the camera roll. Editing out important things can be deception just as much as inserting things can be. It takes a lot of work to show life as it is, to point a light at truth.
See, that's the kind of movie I like. But it's not my place to tell a director what he or she should do, because there are a lot of ways to approach writing, directing, framing, what have you. I just know what I prefer.
posted by echocollate at 12:06 PM on January 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
The fair thing – the honest thing – for a director to do is let the camera roll. Editing out important things can be deception just as much as inserting things can be.
That's a pretty long way from where you started, though, with:
And come to that, who gets to make the list of all the things whose bad consequences you have to show in your film or otherwise be held to be directly championing them? If you show a car in your film do you have to show the consequences of Global Warming? Of Drunk Driving? Of poor urban planning that results from catering to automotive culture? If you don't are you an apologist? If you have a Catholic priest in your film and don't investigate the child molestation scandal are you an apologist for it? This just seems a hopelessly didactic and ultimately arbitrary approach to understanding a movie.
posted by yoink at 12:13 PM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
That's a pretty long way from where you started, though, with:
If a director portrays racism without portraying the problems racism causes, they are not the noble director portraying truth unaffected by the lens of sentiment; they are the proselytizing preacher trying to ram political messages down our throatsThat's a claim that if you portray racism and don't specifically preach against it you're a racist. And that seems like a pretty bizarre position. I mean, there are lots of situations in life where one can observe racists being racist and "just let the camera roll" without then getting to see, in that same context, "the problems racism causes."
And come to that, who gets to make the list of all the things whose bad consequences you have to show in your film or otherwise be held to be directly championing them? If you show a car in your film do you have to show the consequences of Global Warming? Of Drunk Driving? Of poor urban planning that results from catering to automotive culture? If you don't are you an apologist? If you have a Catholic priest in your film and don't investigate the child molestation scandal are you an apologist for it? This just seems a hopelessly didactic and ultimately arbitrary approach to understanding a movie.
posted by yoink at 12:13 PM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
People, Eastwood's 85 years old, he doesn't have time to wait for a damn real baby.
I would rather see a movie that just has footage of Clint Eastwood saying, "Ain't nobody got time for that!"
posted by jonp72 at 12:38 PM on January 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
I would rather see a movie that just has footage of Clint Eastwood saying, "Ain't nobody got time for that!"
posted by jonp72 at 12:38 PM on January 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
Second batch includes Chucky, and Triumph the Insult Comic Dog (and you won't believe what's Number One!)
Mr. Hanky the Christmas Poo? No wait, that would be Number Two.
posted by jonp72 at 12:40 PM on January 21, 2015
Mr. Hanky the Christmas Poo? No wait, that would be Number Two.
posted by jonp72 at 12:40 PM on January 21, 2015
Who's the Meryl Streep of fake babies?
Meryl Streep is the Meryl Streep of fake babies. Meryl Streep is the Meryl Streep of all roles. Because acting! If it had been Meryl Streep in there, no one would have said a thing. Why didn't they get Meryl Streep?
posted by The Bellman at 1:38 PM on January 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
Meryl Streep is the Meryl Streep of fake babies. Meryl Streep is the Meryl Streep of all roles. Because acting! If it had been Meryl Streep in there, no one would have said a thing. Why didn't they get Meryl Streep?
posted by The Bellman at 1:38 PM on January 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
yoink: "That's a claim that if you portray racism and don't specifically preach against it you're a racist."
No, absolutely not. The claim was that if you portray something selectively then it's exactly the same as heavy-handing preaching. That doesn't mean it's necessarily racist. It does mean that film is not so simple as what's on the screen. Manipulation of the audience isn't only done by insertion; it's also done by omission.
posted by koeselitz at 1:41 PM on January 21, 2015
No, absolutely not. The claim was that if you portray something selectively then it's exactly the same as heavy-handing preaching. That doesn't mean it's necessarily racist. It does mean that film is not so simple as what's on the screen. Manipulation of the audience isn't only done by insertion; it's also done by omission.
posted by koeselitz at 1:41 PM on January 21, 2015
yoink: "And come to that, who gets to make the list of all the things whose bad consequences you have to show in your film or otherwise be held to be directly championing them? If you show a car in your film do you have to show the consequences of Global Warming? Of Drunk Driving? Of poor urban planning that results from catering to automotive culture? If you don't are you an apologist? If you have a Catholic priest in your film and don't investigate the child molestation scandal are you an apologist for it? This just seems a hopelessly didactic and ultimately arbitrary approach to understanding a movie."
It's pretty easy to boil down what I was saying into a coherent doctrine. If you're going to show something, you have to show it. Otherwise, it is not an accurate representation of the thing it purports to show. That's pretty obviously tautological, right? People can make inaccurate representations all day if they want - sometimes that serves a real purpose - but if someone says "Gran Torino is a great movie about perceptions of racism and how they interact in the real world," then they are wrong. Maybe it's a great movie about something – about old cars, about the lines on Clint Eastwood's face, about Clint Eastwood's own prejudices and dislike for what he perceives as 'political correctness' – but it's not a great movie about racism. It is wrong about racism.
What you seem to want to do is add an implicit condemnation there, to the tune of 'if someone is wrong about racism, then they're racist.' Well, that might be true. Racism is a tough thing to riddle out, but yes, it might be true that if someone is wrong about racism then they are racist. I don't know. All that matters here, however, is art; and what I'm saying is, if people insist on deliberately leaving out significant parts of the subject they claim to be tackling, it is effectively the same as heavy-handed preachiness that ruins any claim they might have to pure representational art.
posted by koeselitz at 1:49 PM on January 21, 2015
It's pretty easy to boil down what I was saying into a coherent doctrine. If you're going to show something, you have to show it. Otherwise, it is not an accurate representation of the thing it purports to show. That's pretty obviously tautological, right? People can make inaccurate representations all day if they want - sometimes that serves a real purpose - but if someone says "Gran Torino is a great movie about perceptions of racism and how they interact in the real world," then they are wrong. Maybe it's a great movie about something – about old cars, about the lines on Clint Eastwood's face, about Clint Eastwood's own prejudices and dislike for what he perceives as 'political correctness' – but it's not a great movie about racism. It is wrong about racism.
What you seem to want to do is add an implicit condemnation there, to the tune of 'if someone is wrong about racism, then they're racist.' Well, that might be true. Racism is a tough thing to riddle out, but yes, it might be true that if someone is wrong about racism then they are racist. I don't know. All that matters here, however, is art; and what I'm saying is, if people insist on deliberately leaving out significant parts of the subject they claim to be tackling, it is effectively the same as heavy-handed preachiness that ruins any claim they might have to pure representational art.
posted by koeselitz at 1:49 PM on January 21, 2015
The claim was that if you portray something selectively then it's exactly the same as heavy-handing preaching
But all story telling is "selective." Otherwise no film or book could ever end. There has to be something left out (most things, indeed). I agree that selectivity can be a form of "heavy-handed preaching" (you make a film that purports to tell, say, the history of the Jews in WWII and you leave out any reference to deliberate genocide; that would be a clear case of denialist propaganda). But that's a million miles away from saying "if your film includes a racist, then it must also include a storyline in which we get to see the negative consequences of racism"--which is some Hollywood-Code-level paternalistic nonsense.
I have no opinion about American Sniper as I haven't seen it, but if your criticism is that it shows the main character to be racist, but does not fashion a scene in which the audience is explicitly instructed that "racism is bad, m'kay?" then that's a crappy criticism. It really is o.k. to leave the audience to form their own moral opinions.
If the argument that the film works to somehow implicitly or explicitly endorse that character's racist views, that's a whole other question and would be an entirely justifiable criticism of the film.
posted by yoink at 1:55 PM on January 21, 2015
But all story telling is "selective." Otherwise no film or book could ever end. There has to be something left out (most things, indeed). I agree that selectivity can be a form of "heavy-handed preaching" (you make a film that purports to tell, say, the history of the Jews in WWII and you leave out any reference to deliberate genocide; that would be a clear case of denialist propaganda). But that's a million miles away from saying "if your film includes a racist, then it must also include a storyline in which we get to see the negative consequences of racism"--which is some Hollywood-Code-level paternalistic nonsense.
I have no opinion about American Sniper as I haven't seen it, but if your criticism is that it shows the main character to be racist, but does not fashion a scene in which the audience is explicitly instructed that "racism is bad, m'kay?" then that's a crappy criticism. It really is o.k. to leave the audience to form their own moral opinions.
If the argument that the film works to somehow implicitly or explicitly endorse that character's racist views, that's a whole other question and would be an entirely justifiable criticism of the film.
posted by yoink at 1:55 PM on January 21, 2015
What you seem to want to do is add an implicit condemnation there, to the tune of 'if someone is wrong about racism, then they're racist.'
No, that's explicitly what you said:
posted by yoink at 1:59 PM on January 21, 2015
No, that's explicitly what you said:
If a director portrays racism without portraying the problems racism causes, they are not the noble director portraying truth unaffected by the lens of sentiment; they are the proselytizing preacher trying to ram political messages down our throatsIf you portray racism and don't include an explicit scene or plotline that shows "the problems racism causes" you're "trying to ram political messages down our throats." Or are you somehow suggesting that those "political messages" have nothing to do with race? That if you depict a racist without explicitly "portraying the problems racism causes" you're ramming a political message about oil sand drilling down our throats?
posted by yoink at 1:59 PM on January 21, 2015
yoink: “Or are you somehow suggesting that those "political messages" have nothing to do with race?”
I didn't say whether they were racist or not – that's what you added in. They could have something to do with race without being actively racist. I guess it's an interesting question: can someone be wrong about race without being racist? I didn't want to get into that question, so I left it alone. In this case, we have someone preaching at us about how politically correctness is morally bankrupt and how people who seem to be racist because they use slurs are actually often very equitable folks at the end of the day. Is it racist to say that? I'm not sure. Maybe. So I limited myself to saying that it's preaching that distorts the subject.
“I have no opinion about American Sniper as I haven't seen it, but if your criticism is that it shows the main character to be racist, but does not fashion a scene in which the audience is explicitly instructed that 'racism is bad, m'kay?' then that's a crappy criticism.”
Why in god's name would you conclude that I was saying that? Seriously, you're going very far afield here. I said that showing racism without showing its effects was dishonest. "Showing the effects of racism" and "fashioning a scene where the audience is explicitly instructed that 'racism is bad, m'kay?' couldn't be further away from each other. In fact, that seems like a ridiculous distortion, doesn't it?
“It really is o.k. to leave the audience to form their own moral opinions.”
Sigh. Yes, that is what I've been saying. Letting the audience form their own moral opinions is o.k. But giving them insufficient evidence to do so is manipulative and propagandistic. I would think this is obvious, isn't it? Like I said above, if you show a thing, you have to show the thing, or you haven't shown the thing.
posted by koeselitz at 2:19 PM on January 21, 2015
I didn't say whether they were racist or not – that's what you added in. They could have something to do with race without being actively racist. I guess it's an interesting question: can someone be wrong about race without being racist? I didn't want to get into that question, so I left it alone. In this case, we have someone preaching at us about how politically correctness is morally bankrupt and how people who seem to be racist because they use slurs are actually often very equitable folks at the end of the day. Is it racist to say that? I'm not sure. Maybe. So I limited myself to saying that it's preaching that distorts the subject.
“I have no opinion about American Sniper as I haven't seen it, but if your criticism is that it shows the main character to be racist, but does not fashion a scene in which the audience is explicitly instructed that 'racism is bad, m'kay?' then that's a crappy criticism.”
Why in god's name would you conclude that I was saying that? Seriously, you're going very far afield here. I said that showing racism without showing its effects was dishonest. "Showing the effects of racism" and "fashioning a scene where the audience is explicitly instructed that 'racism is bad, m'kay?' couldn't be further away from each other. In fact, that seems like a ridiculous distortion, doesn't it?
“It really is o.k. to leave the audience to form their own moral opinions.”
Sigh. Yes, that is what I've been saying. Letting the audience form their own moral opinions is o.k. But giving them insufficient evidence to do so is manipulative and propagandistic. I would think this is obvious, isn't it? Like I said above, if you show a thing, you have to show the thing, or you haven't shown the thing.
posted by koeselitz at 2:19 PM on January 21, 2015
Ok that disjointed piano music with the dancing baby between cuts is actually legitimately like a nightmare I once had.
posted by turbid dahlia at 2:40 PM on January 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by turbid dahlia at 2:40 PM on January 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
The Aliens facehugger does not belong in that company: the medbay scene is terrifying. The scuttling! The way the tail whips around Ripley's neck!
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 4:16 PM on January 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 4:16 PM on January 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
Well, the line is that they are more convincing. Aliens actually shows the importance of editing and in particular the use of close-ups rather than wide shots, I would say.
My go-to example would probably have to be the, uh, things from They Came From Within (US: Shivers), one of David Cronenberg's early features. This infamous bathtub scene (hint: it speaks to the theme of the film as well as an omnipresent interest of DC) definitely belongs, and in particular, with the notation that the film cost $179,000 in 1975 Canadian dollars (perhaps around 500-600K in current USD -- so about 1% the cost of Clint's opus).
posted by dhartung at 6:20 PM on January 21, 2015
My go-to example would probably have to be the, uh, things from They Came From Within (US: Shivers), one of David Cronenberg's early features. This infamous bathtub scene (hint: it speaks to the theme of the film as well as an omnipresent interest of DC) definitely belongs, and in particular, with the notation that the film cost $179,000 in 1975 Canadian dollars (perhaps around 500-600K in current USD -- so about 1% the cost of Clint's opus).
posted by dhartung at 6:20 PM on January 21, 2015
Apparently they had a couple babies scheduled but one fell sick and the other didn't show up.
...
If he can't be bothered to find a real infant for his 80 million dollar budget movie, maybe ole Grampa Chair-talker ought to hang up his directors Spurs for good.
Eastwood is popular with Hollywoodland power players because he always gets shit done on time and on budget. So apparently we're just witnessing one of the potential downsides to a mostly effective and highly efficient directing style: the occasional sub-optimal prop that almost no one notices or cares about (at least before it goes viral online!). On the other hand, the potential downside of the auteur perfectionist--who shuts down production to assemble a team of CGI wizards to transform Andy Serkis into the sniper baby--is a behind-schedule, multi-million-dollar-over-budget studio failure.
Meanwhile American Sniper snagged a Best Picture nomination and broke a number of Box Office records. So the outcome in Dirty Harry vs the Cabbage Patch kid is exactly as anticlimactic as it sounds.
posted by dgaicun at 7:46 AM on January 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
...
If he can't be bothered to find a real infant for his 80 million dollar budget movie, maybe ole Grampa Chair-talker ought to hang up his directors Spurs for good.
Eastwood is popular with Hollywoodland power players because he always gets shit done on time and on budget. So apparently we're just witnessing one of the potential downsides to a mostly effective and highly efficient directing style: the occasional sub-optimal prop that almost no one notices or cares about (at least before it goes viral online!). On the other hand, the potential downside of the auteur perfectionist--who shuts down production to assemble a team of CGI wizards to transform Andy Serkis into the sniper baby--is a behind-schedule, multi-million-dollar-over-budget studio failure.
Meanwhile American Sniper snagged a Best Picture nomination and broke a number of Box Office records. So the outcome in Dirty Harry vs the Cabbage Patch kid is exactly as anticlimactic as it sounds.
posted by dgaicun at 7:46 AM on January 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
I wonder if this whole controversy wasn't planned or deliberate on Eastwood's part. For one thing it's got a lot of people talking about American Sniper, and then going to the theatres to watch it in droves. But on an a deeper level, maybe by making this scene central to the public dialogue around American Sniper, Eastwood is forcing us to confront an uncomfortable reality of post-9/11 life: we imagine ourselves as being the babay, a meek, helpless public cradled in the rugged, powerful but occasionally brutal and war crimey arms of American Sniper. The scene becomes a heady distillation of the movie's troubling theme.
posted by Flashman at 8:34 AM on January 22, 2015
posted by Flashman at 8:34 AM on January 22, 2015
Rather, I think, Eastwood deliberately placed the tiny plastic doll in this movie in a way that is metaphorically akin to the tiny plastic doll in king cakes. By finding the doll with Cooper the audience becomes (with him) "the King" of the grotesque carnival—understood in the Bakhtinian sense—that is post-war America.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:02 AM on January 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by octobersurprise at 9:02 AM on January 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
It would have cost about $500 to get a more realistic baby.
posted by Sara C. at 9:04 AM on January 22, 2015
posted by Sara C. at 9:04 AM on January 22, 2015
It would have cost about $500 to get a more realistic baby.
How much for a toe?
posted by yoink at 9:16 AM on January 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
How much for a toe?
posted by yoink at 9:16 AM on January 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm reminded of Melissa in Home Movies: "You always say we'll fix it in post, but we never fix anything in post--ever!"
posted by ostranenie at 9:01 AM on January 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by ostranenie at 9:01 AM on January 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
"The problem with American Sniper, explained" —Vox.com
posted by blueberry at 9:08 PM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by blueberry at 9:08 PM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older Asteroid 2004 BL86 | Almost as appealing as a nailclipper next to a... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by clvrmnky at 4:52 AM on January 21, 2015 [1 favorite]