Are you encouraging indiscretions? Indiscretions that Matt specifically asked us all to avoid? What are you, man, cruel?
Ok, er, I was agreeing with Tia that there was a certain broadness of caricature (and corresponding bigness of laughs) that suggested parody. I could see it being a straight but broadly-played crime film, a la Tarantino, but to the extent that it was referring to noir, it was often mocking that tone rather than copying it. Not the whole time, perhaps, but frequently enough to seriously undercut the hardboiled elements.
Yeah, and there were all these elements that just didn't jibe with the characters' actual world, but to classic noir, and so mark it as parody, like the slang, and, as I pointed out to Ben, costumes like Laura's feathered headress in the final scene that clearly belonged the 40's, and not to an OC high school student.
Yeah, and there were all these elements that just didn't jibe with the characters' actual world, but to classic noir, and so mark it as parody, like the slang, and, as I pointed out to Ben, costumes like Laura's feathered headress in the final scene that clearly belonged the 40's, and not to an OC high school student.
I don't see how those discrepancies make it parodic. For one thing, it's not at all clear that the slang doesn't belong to the characters' actual world. Sure, go to an actual OC high school, people won't be talking like that. But we're clearly being invited to imagine that talking that way is the norm in the movie, and no one gives the least bit of indication that it's a put-on—the director was apparently quite concerned that all the lines sound natural. That doesn't make it a parody.
And I didn't see it as mocking the tone. If I thought it were, I could see it more easily as being parodic, but as it stands, nope.
While there is humor in classic noir, it is mildly ironic and reflective of absurdity in the existential sense. Are all the shots focusing on the mother's pitcher like that? I don't think so.
Which is to say that the two of you seem to be disagreeing on how to interpret pure imitation in an absurd context, whereas I'm saying that in a few key places it went far enough beyond pure imitation that there is no question of it not being parody.
And what's nonsensical about 'reef worms'? I've eaten reef worms. Not bad, although an awful lot bluer than you expect food to be.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 12:00 PM
are you saying landmines are just too over the top? Or what? I think it's fairly sound, tactically.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 12:18 PM
Don't get all VH1 on us.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 12:34 PM
Odd that that article spells it "yeg" as well.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 12:42 PM
It's "yegg"! It was in the title of a Bugs Bunny cartoon! It shows up again and again in "Miller's Crossing"!
I can't believe so many people have never heard the word "yegg".
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 1:11 PM
Wolfson, I didn't even know the slang in Brick was anachronistic, but I feel that this supports my view of the movie as parody.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 1:22 PM
You would.
But you're still wrong.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 1:23 PM
Thanks Cryp! I was trying to remember the Looney Tunes reference.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 1:38 PM
How can one interpret the Tolkien reference as anything other than parody?
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 2:11 PM
That's what I was saying, ac, but Ben would have none of it.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 2:15 PM
pls tag any spoilers (preemptive note to any who may be inclined toward indiscretion errors)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 2:17 PM
Sorry Matt, thought it was oblique enough as it was.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 2:26 PM
Oh it was, I just thought I should preempt since it seemed like you guys could be heading toward discussion of the plot.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 2:30 PM
So..er what it about then, ac?
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 2:31 PM
I'm talking about Brick.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 2:35 PM
mmhmm.. and what happened?
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 2:42 PM
Are you encouraging indiscretions? Indiscretions that Matt specifically asked us all to avoid? What are you, man, cruel?
Ok, er, I was agreeing with Tia that there was a certain broadness of caricature (and corresponding bigness of laughs) that suggested parody. I could see it being a straight but broadly-played crime film, a la Tarantino, but to the extent that it was referring to noir, it was often mocking that tone rather than copying it. Not the whole time, perhaps, but frequently enough to seriously undercut the hardboiled elements.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 2:57 PM
I am in weird frame of mind today. Latent cruelty vielleicht.
Obviously, i would not want you to actually commit those indescretions.
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 3:02 PM
Yeah, and there were all these elements that just didn't jibe with the characters' actual world, but to classic noir, and so mark it as parody, like the slang, and, as I pointed out to Ben, costumes like Laura's feathered headress in the final scene that clearly belonged the 40's, and not to an OC high school student.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 3:02 PM
It's OK, I merely asked that you warn us of them. For instance, I have read the first paragraph but not the second of comment 17.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 3:02 PM
s/b "jive"
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 3:04 PM
wait, I think I was right the first time. Spelling is hard.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 3:06 PM
You were and I thank you for it. "Jive with" grates on me almost as badly as "hone in on".
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 3:11 PM
Yeah, and there were all these elements that just didn't jibe with the characters' actual world, but to classic noir, and so mark it as parody, like the slang, and, as I pointed out to Ben, costumes like Laura's feathered headress in the final scene that clearly belonged the 40's, and not to an OC high school student.
I don't see how those discrepancies make it parodic. For one thing, it's not at all clear that the slang doesn't belong to the characters' actual world. Sure, go to an actual OC high school, people won't be talking like that. But we're clearly being invited to imagine that talking that way is the norm in the movie, and no one gives the least bit of indication that it's a put-on—the director was apparently quite concerned that all the lines sound natural. That doesn't make it a parody.
And I didn't see it as mocking the tone. If I thought it were, I could see it more easily as being parodic, but as it stands, nope.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 3:18 PM
While there is humor in classic noir, it is mildly ironic and reflective of absurdity in the existential sense. Are all the shots focusing on the mother's pitcher like that? I don't think so.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 3:28 PM
Are they, therefore, mocking noir?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 3:29 PM
A parody doesn't have to be mocking. It can just be imitative for comic effect.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 3:31 PM
ac, not I, suggested mockery.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 3:33 PM
It's not purely imitative, I would say, but deliberately exaggerated, in such scenes, which yes, I would describe as mocking.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 3:35 PM
Which is to say that the two of you seem to be disagreeing on how to interpret pure imitation in an absurd context, whereas I'm saying that in a few key places it went far enough beyond pure imitation that there is no question of it not being parody.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04- 3-06 3:41 PM
The Pin is Julian Sanchez to a T, for the record.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 04-25-06 11:56 AM