The Film Talk – Part 54 – Taken
posted by
Jett Loe
Films Reviewed This Week: Taken / Atanarjuat / Emerald Forest
Get TFT delivered weekly via iTunes
Subscribe to our podcast
Subscribe to our blog
Follow us on Twitter
This entry was posted on Saturday, March 21st, 2009 at 5:22 pm. It is filed under Action, Blog, Drama, Gareth Higgins, Gareth Higgins Reviews, Jett Loe, Jett Loe Reviews, Podcast, Reviews, Violence in Film. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
P.S. Kind of on an unrelated note, you mentioned on twitter that you caught a BSG spoiler. Once you've watched the finale, might you guys have a discussion of the show as a whole(assuming both of you have seen it)? With all of the spiritual aspects of the show (not to mention its ground-breaking political commentary and production values), it certainly seems like it would be an interesting point of discussion now that the whole picture is complete.
We've never analysed TV on TFT – and of course in the time we live in that distinction is artificial = tv/movies/ipod/big screen etc = but, and I don't want to speak for Gareth here but I will, it seems to me that the experience of the 'big screen' was a big part of our lives growing up hence our exclusive focus on films made for theatrical distribution. Maybe we should re-examine that policy – will bring it up with Gareth.
If we decide to do some TV I suppose we could do Battlestar Galactica – though it would a bit like reviewing a soap opera – nothing bad in that – it's just a very different form that something that's designed to be 'self-contained' like a movie.
Perfectly understandable, and there is certainly no lack of film material to talk about (;
I will say that, and actually the now defunct hollywood saloon (similar podcast to you guys) had a great discussion about this, its ultimately a matter of simply a difference in canvas, where the running time of movies makes for too small of a canvas for large arced storytelling.
For instance, something like Band of Brothers or the Wire, would be great examples of stories that really wouldn't work well under that kind of restrictive storytelling (And I have a feeling Watchmen really could have been something special in an HBO miniseries format).
So at any rate, I wouldn't rule TV out as an “inferior” medium for discussion, and really, you get into a difficult situation of categorization, because for instance, many foreign films, like “War and Peace”, are essentially multi-part miniseries, yet they're still categorized as films here in the US.
You some good points Peter – the thing is most TV shows' goal is to stay in production meaning that, regardless of what is organically appropriate for the plot, they got to keep churning out product. Too many series to name that really would have been as a handful of episodes instead stretch out to years – and for me the interest wanes – they turn into soaps – therefore nothing really interesting can happen as that would be too threatening to the machine of production.
[...] discussed in these comments TFT rarely critiques television shows. I would make an exception though for the original [...]
Thanks for the podcast. This one was very good because — um, how to put this delicately — you stayed on topic so well. Not that I don't like the snark and back story elements, but sometimes the shows can drift.
Anyhoo, I'll start by saying I have not seen Taken but want to. I'm intrigued with your claim in the podcast that Taken's characters have no psychology. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but isn't there a very compelling and basic psychological dynamic at play in this story? A man is extremely concerned about his daughter's virginity, willing to kill over it; another man is attempting to steal it. Etc. What could be more basic? That a “cave man” would recognize this as a meaningful story means, to me, that it speaks to something deep and immovable in human psychology, not that it *lacks* psychology.
A movie lacking psychology would be, for example, 50 First Dates. That is, it makes something of a gesture at psychology (male-female courtship dynamics, whatever) but fails absolutely. I have never met a guy in my life who would willingly invest himself in the “chase sequence” of romance over and over and over *directed at the same woman.* That's wildly, insanely wrong as a reading of basic male psychology. I'm not even sure if it rises to the level of “merely wrong.”
Maybe I'm just revealing myself to be a cave man. Oh well — if so, there are worse things to be. In for a penny, in for a pound, right?
Anyway, thanks again for the podcast. Well done.
Cheers Dale re: your comments on the podcast – you'll find that every week we're getting a little bit 'tighter'.
+ re: the psychology or lack thereof in 'Taken' – I think it's more accurate to say that the film takes place before the invention of psychology, (same, as per the show, per misogyny, racism etc.); Liam Neeson's character is not aware of psychology, nor is anyone else in the film.
Thanks for the podcast. This one was very good because — um, how to put this delicately — you stayed on topic so well. Not that I don't like the snark and back story elements, but sometimes the shows can drift.
Anyhoo, I'll start by saying I have not seen Taken but want to. I'm intrigued with your claim in the podcast that Taken's characters have no psychology. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but isn't there a very compelling and basic psychological dynamic at play in this story? A man is extremely concerned about his daughter's virginity, willing to kill over it; another man is attempting to steal it. Etc. What could be more basic? That a “cave man” would recognize this as a meaningful story means, to me, that it speaks to something deep and immovable in human psychology, not that it *lacks* psychology.
A movie lacking psychology would be, for example, 50 First Dates. That is, it makes something of a gesture at psychology (male-female courtship dynamics, whatever) but fails absolutely. I have never met a guy in my life who would willingly invest himself in the “chase sequence” of romance over and over and over *directed at the same woman.* That's wildly, insanely wrong as a reading of basic male psychology. I'm not even sure if it rises to the level of “merely wrong.”
Maybe I'm just revealing myself to be a cave man. Oh well — if so, there are worse things to be. In for a penny, in for a pound, right?
Anyway, thanks again for the podcast. Well done.
Cheers Dale re: your comments on the podcast – you'll find that every week we're getting a little bit 'tighter'.
+ re: the psychology or lack thereof in 'Taken' – I think it's more accurate to say that the film takes place before the invention of psychology, (same, as per the show, per misogyny, racism etc.); Liam Neeson's character is not aware of psychology, nor is anyone else in the film.
[...] TAKEN on ‘THE FILM TALK’ PODCAST [...]