RDK

Know Hicks mostly from his work with Pharoah Sanders, but he was a part of some of my favorite Sanders' sessions. RIP

Thinking more about this, I'd wager that a "Seven Greatest" list would be a lot harder to come up with than a "Top 100."

Well, for pre-LP days, wouldn't one have to include a compilation of some sort? Only the Jefferson Airplane could get away with a "Worst of..." album. edit: nevermind: what John L said...

Huh? Won't argue the "style over substance" generalization, but this is Superman for crissakes and not some character-driven indie flick. It's supposed to be a huge, stylish, effects-laden blockbuster kind of movie. Furthermore, how can you be so certain that there won't be any "decent acting, good story, believable characters, etc." here just from seeing the trailer? Looks pretty solid to me - better, at least, than all but the first two Superman flicks (and personally I think that even they are overrated and showing their age). I don't know if this will actually be any good, but I'm with Alex in being excited to see it...

So, anybody see RV? I hear it was Number One this weekend...

Dan, if it's any consolation - and perhaps how I interpret the film slightly differently from Alexander - i didn't find the depiction of the terrorists to be "sympathetic" at all. What i did find was that they were depicted with a great deal of humanity. They weren't your stereotypical sneering, mustache-twirling bad guys, and any hesitation on their parts (actually only one of them) seemed to me to be very rational and believable. If i were about to doom myself and others, I'd have second thoughts too. That said, the "reluctant" terrorist did carry out his assignment, so he gets no sympathy from the audience at all.

He's coming to the Jazz Bakery in a couple of weeks. I'm so there!

Good post, Alexander; I agree very much with it. I really think you'll appreciate the film. I didn't start this thread so much to pimp the film as to guage the reaction to it - both to the film itself and, i suppose, to the very existence of the film. Frankly, two weeks ago i was just as skeptical about it as most of you are now. As i said, i don't want to urge anyone to see it who doesn't want to see it or simply isn't ready yet to see it - it's a very personal decision in that regard - but for those on the fence i think it's a worthwhile experience. I'm also finding rather fascinating - not just from comments here but elsewhere as well - the idea that the film is coming "too soon." How much time should one wait in making a movie, drawing a picture, writing a book/poem/etc. about a tragic event before it stops being "exploitative?" I'll disagree with Alex in that i don't consider the photos on the cover of magazines published a week after 9/11 to be "exploitative" - I think they were valid and newsworthy - but his remark does point out just how fine a line there can be on the issue. Sure, the pics no doubt helped the magazines sell more copies, but i don't believe that that's why they featured them.

While i work for Universal, i had no involvement with this film (for that you'll have to wait for Fast & Furious 3: Tokyo Drift, coming soon to a theater near you - yee haw! ). So I basically know only what i've read in the papers about it. It was produced and shot in England, by a British director and a British crew, with the intent to keep it as low-profile as possible. One of my colleagues did a lot of research on the actual incident - trascripts, interviews, etc. - and i know that the filmmakers tried to stick closely to the facts. I also know that Marketting has tried to be ultra-sensitive about it and that the studio is on record as saying that they essentially don't care if it makes any money or not. It was a very cheap production for a studio film - about $15M I'm told - and depending how cynical you are and who you want to believe the studio let Greengrass make it because we wanted him to direct another Bourne sequel for us. And while I know the stereotype of the money-grubbing motion picture studio exec is pretty well entrenched, I can tell you that not everyone at the studio was on board with making this as well - mostly concerned about the very things others are concerned with, like "why" and "why now?" I'm not sure if i've answered your question, Erik, but if i had to guess i'd say that this is simply Paul Greengrass' "artistic statement" about the incident. It's no different from a journalist writing about it or a documentarian examining the event or a painter or sculpter doing what they do to tell a story, make a political statement, or seek some closure. It's just that Greengrass' "canvas" is a movie screen. That seems a bit pretentious, i know, but every once in a while someone in this business tries. I can tell you with great certainty, though, that this wasn't made to exploit the tragedy and simply make money; there are far easier and less controversial ways for Hollywood to do that.

Why not now? Seriously - and as i said i can certainly understand someone not wanting to see this - but how long should one wait? What is the appropriate amount of time? I don't know. I would think 20 years...maybe more. It's exploitation to me too...what other reason could there be to make this at this time? I find it interesting, too, that so many people who haven't seen the movie consider it to be exploitative; but just about everyone who has seen it - including the families of the victims - don't.

I'm fascinated by the reasoning of those who feel it's "too soon." (And i know there's no correct answer, but nevertheless...) A general question (and not to get on anyone's case specifically about this), but why, when it comes to tragic events such as these, is it okay to have books and countless magazine articles written, tv shows and documentaries made, art projects produced, public discourse even... but movies - one of our greatest and most popular forms of artistic and cultural expression - are considered off-limits when it comes to tackling such difficult subject matter? -_-

Chris - I'll agree that it's difficult to make and market this film without it seeming exploitative - that's been a concern of Universal's from the very start - but the film itself is not exploitative imo. Maybe that's just a fine semantical line, but i also think it's dependant on the film being "good." If the movie was "bad," then yes, I think it would be perceived as being more exploitative. Also, whether that was the motivation of the actual passengers or not I do not know, but the movie most certainly does not paint the passengers' actions as a "patriotic attempt to save Washington." If i recall correctly, the passengers (in the film at least) had no idea that the plane was even bound for D.C. Not sure if that fine a point even matters, but the film doesn't come across as patriotic or jingoistic or anything like that. I actually think a lot of people will be most shocked by the depiction of the terrorists. While certainly not sympathetic, they are (imo) depicted as very human. One of the problems with a film such as this - and i experienced it as well - is that our (lowered?) expectations of what it's going to be like doesn't quite jibe with what's delivered. Everyone that i know who has seen the film has been moved by it and impressed by it - even if they hold the opinion that it shouldn't have been made at this time.

You'll all be sorry when RV is the number one film this weekend!

Why not now? Seriously - and as i said i can certainly understand someone not wanting to see this - but how long should one wait? What is the appropriate amount of time? Or would movies such as this, based on tragic, real-life events always be considered exploitative and inappropriate?

I couldn't agree with Denby more (and i can't think of the last time that i did). I can certainly understand why someone wouldn't want to see this film, especially anyone personally affected by the crash. Honestly, I wasn't sure that i wanted to see it either, and i think that one of the things that makes it "okay," in retrospect, is that the movie is so well-done and honest and respectful... and because of that it's deeply meaningful and moving. If it was melodramatic and cheesy in the least, it would have been disastrous. Is it coming "too soon?" I honestly don't know, but i don't think so. I think it's all the more powerful for being so fresh in our minds and with the conflicts it triggered still going on. I have to admit, one can get pretty damn cynical working in Hollywood, but i have to give props to the filmmakers for stepping up, taking the risks, and making this film like they did. One can't really compare it to something like Schindler's List, but imagine if Schindler's List was made in 1949 rather than in 1993 - would that have been "too soon" as well? I won't urge anyone to see this film if they don't want to see it, of course, but i do think that many of you who don't think you want to see it would end up appreciating it far more than you think. I would recommend, though, that anyone interested in experiencing it see it in a theater with other moviegoers and not wait for cable or DVD. I think the film gains a lot from the communal experience as you can feel the tension in the theater, sense the baited breaths, and hear the gasps and the tears. It's really very powerful and moving, and imo not the least bit melodramatic or disrespectful.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet. It opens today. I don't usually like to pimp my studio's product, but I saw it a couple of weeks ago and think it's a very fine film. Was interested in hearing your thoughts... edit: Hmm. I put this in Non-Political becaue i was hoping to keep the discussion on the film, but obviously that might not be possible depending on how the thread develops. So if anyone objects, Jim, feel free to move it to the Political Forum.

Yet another reason why going to the dentist can be bad for you. -_-

I may have a boot of this. If it's the one i'm thinking of, it is indeed a terrific performance. The review was unclear, though - is this from a specific show or is it a comp of several performances?

If you're not (yet) into the "more adventurous" stuff, then i would definitely start with the studio box. It's not nearly as "out" as the VV recordings (though it starts to go there toward the end), and i think it's a better intro to Trane's mid-later period than the live stuff. The VV recordings are amazing, but you should probably build up to them.

Not sure if i've seen this - what's wrong with the cover? Nevermind. But some funny stuff here... http://www.bluenote.com/detail.asp?SelectionID=10509

I don't know what's funnier/sadder: if CLSF is Aric or if he/she/it isn't.

Hmm. The Tokens' versions - an even bigger hit? - is credited to Luigi Creatore...

let me be the first:

What Verve needs is the sort of exciting and marketable artist that helped revive Columbia's jazz program in the 80s...

A lot of it has to do with baby boomer nostalgia and the fact that a studio has a much easier time marketing a film with a recognizable title. You can make a buddy cop comedy and call it "Starsky and Hutch" and everybody knows what it is. Or you can make the exact same flick and call it "McAllister and Jones" and have a much tougher time selling it.