Just watched "Breaking Away", terrific movie. I think I've literally never seen a college movie from the point of view of the townies?
I joked Dennis Quaid was still getting "guy who takes his shirt off" roles decades later in "Labor Day" but that was Josh Brolin. Seriously I cannot tell them apart and I don't know why.
But yeah I'd heard good things but I was like "how good could a cycling movie be", no offense to any cyclists. It's good though.
A tricky thing with sports movies is making the victory feel "earned" both literally (as in, the athlete should win because they're better) and narratively (as in, the athlete should win because of where they are in their character arc).
Since sports isn't in fact a neat three-act morality take and since athletic ability comes from, you know, gifts and long training that don't really fit a movie, this can be difficult, but "Breaking Away" handles it very well.
It's really the same problem I've talked about with superhero and other action movies. The hero should win (logically) because they're stronger, and should win (narratively) because they're right, so a good movie/comic will often find some way to connect these things.
*morality tale.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's that, but then someone else posts something about Democrats losing working class to their shame, and around and around.
"Trump didn't win because of the REAL working class, he won because of the car dealers and golf guys."
"Ok, so what should Democrats do?"
"Improve with the real working class, that's why they lost."
As I've said I agree that "Soul" had like three or so possible themes floating around but they didn't want to engage with the negative implications of any of them so they're all half-finished.
Even down to the world-building itself. "No it's not your PURPOSE that's determined before you're born, that'd be grim, right, ha ha, that's not our premise, it's your...spark, a completely different thing".
I'm pretty sure 30% of their shows are shot in this warehouse.
Why is the CW being so aggressive about this. If it wasn't for "Riverdale writing being terrible for another three straight minutes" videos nobody would watch anything on there.
Playing the dim character who reacts to things in a funny way is arguably harder than playing the one who always has a zinger handy, but doesn't tend to get recognized as much.
Similarly, playing "smart" characters will often give the actor that same kind of image in real life.
There's this weird black-and-white discourse pairing on this site where on the one hand "the elite are always the real fascists" but on the other hand "people are radicalized by material suffering" and it kind of just goes around in circles because they're both too simple duh.
So like when that guy shot up Vegas, someone found IDK he'd lost money gambling, "aha here's the material suffering!". But he was also rich so "aha, it's the rich guys you have to watch out for!". And it's all just like, scoring points or something?
So then people end up arguing about the material circumstances of these people they've never met based on like, pictures of their stuff, in order to score points for one or the other side, which then implies ??? about anything useful.