Movie Debate #19: Glengarry Glen Ross

[themisfit138 | 523]

@Californication That scene is the first time I heard about GlenGary Glen Ross. After looking it up. I am not even remotely interested. A better movie about sales is Used Cars. 

[Reed Rothchild | 9,543]

2 hours ago, themisfit138 said:

@Californication That scene is the first time I heard about GlenGary Glen Ross. After looking it up. I am not even remotely interested. A better movie about sales is Used Cars. 

I love Used Cars, but how would you know which one is better without watching both? 

[ifightdragons | 234]

4 people gave this 0/10 ?

Can't follow these votes seriously anymore, it's a joke. Clearly people who have never watched it are voting it down.
I know it's all in good fun and whatnot, but that's kinda lame

Edit: Desktop Chrome shows wrong vote tally. Actually no votes for 0 after testing on mobile.

Edited June 2, 2020 by ifightdragons

[JamesRobot | 5,803]

5 hours ago, ifightdragons said:

4 people gave this 0/10 ?
 

Literally no zeroes at the moment.  I voted that I haven't seen it but would like to.  I'm not really sure why I haven't.  It's right up my alley. 

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

27 minutes ago, JamesRobot said:

Literally no zeroes at the moment.  I voted that I haven't seen it but would like to.  I'm not really sure why I haven't.  It's right up my alley. 

I suspect those bottom few entries on the poll may render differently in different browsers or on different devices.  (could make the 2nd-to-last option look like it was a vote of "zero")

[ifightdragons | 234]

45 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

I suspect those bottom few entries on the poll may render differently in different browsers or on different devices.  (could make the 2nd-to-last option look like it was a vote of "zero")

It seems that Desktop Chrome shows 4 votes for 0, while I now see that is not the case on mobile. My bad

[profholt82 | 60]

I always felt that this one didn't translate particularly well from the stage to the screen. Every performance is compelling, however, so it's well worth a watch. But there's no movement, no action, the settings are static, et cetera. They might as well have filmed the stage production because no effort was made to translate it into a motion picture.

Excellent script, excellent characterizations, and top notch performances, made it an excellent play. But a stationary camera watching guys sitting down in an office or diner having conversations for 2 hours does not really lend itself well to the motion picture picture medium in my opinion.

 

Edit: I rated it a 6

Edited June 2, 2020 by profholt82

[Tulpa | 3,509]

58 minutes ago, profholt82 said:

 But a stationary camera watching guys sitting down in an office or diner having conversations for 2 hours does not really lend itself well to the motion picture picture medium in my opinion.

Don't ever watch "My Dinner with Andre."

[mbd39 | 2,024]

1 hour ago, profholt82 said:

I always felt that this one didn't translate particularly well from the stage to the screen. Every performance is compelling, however, so it's well worth a watch. But there's no movement, no action, the settings are static, et cetera. They might as well have filmed the stage production because no effort was made to translate it into a motion picture.

Excellent script, excellent characterizations, and top notch performances, made it an excellent play. But a stationary camera watching guys sitting down in an office or diner having conversations for 2 hours does not really lend itself well to the motion picture picture medium in my opinion.

 

Edit: I rated it a 6

For me this movie is all about the acting and dialog. I like the sparse "filmed play" cinematography because it draws attention to what matters.

What other action or settings was needed?

Someone mentioned My Dinner With Andre. Some movies only need good acting and dialog to be exciting.

 

 

 

[profholt82 | 60]

1 hour ago, Tulpa said:

Don't ever watch "My Dinner with Andre."

Indeed.

Interesting conversation, but not exactly a movie I like returning to.

38 minutes ago, mbd39 said:

For me this movie is all about the acting and dialog. I like the sparse "filmed play" cinematography because it draws attention to what matters.

What other action or settings was needed?

Someone mentioned My Dinner With Andre. Some movies only need good acting and dialog to be exciting.

 

 

 

Well, I only speak for myself, not anyone else. But some filmmakers can take stories with little action and make them compelling visually with techniques. I'm thinking Welles, Antonioni, Lynch, Hawks, some others. They can do things with the camera and settings to make a motion picture. 

Just spitballing here to demonstrate what I mean, taking the GGGR script, you could make one of the conversations take place in a car instead of a diner to have movement on the screen. The camera could show us the reflections of the actors' eyes and/or mouths in the rearview and/or vanity mirrors, and perhaps there would be a crack in the glass to symbolize the way his words are hurting the feelings of the other. In a scene such as when Spacey is angry, a close up could be used to accentuate his facial expression or his clenched fist. They could show the condensation beading down the glass of ice water in the diner when Pacino is swindling the rube to convey the heat and pressure he's feeling from the sales pitch. Or along that line, we could see a close up of Jack Lemon's brow as he sweats while stressing over his failure.

These are the types of artistic avenues available in the motion picture medium which are not available on the stage for plays. GGGR as it is, is simply a straight translation of the play that doesn't utilize the motion picture medium. It's essentially a filmed play. It's still great due to the excellent script and world class actors involved, however, as I stated before. I'm just rarely thrilled about stage to screen translations. I'd rather see the play.

[DefaultGen | 5,407]

8/10 but I haven't seen this in a very long time. The coffee is for closers monologue is so classic. I can't believe it's apparently not in the play!