Just saw Pecker

[ywenz]

HAHAH great movie.. Althought it's a bit strange of a film.


"I hate modern photography!"

"I love you more than Kodak!"

LOL

 

[Poptart]

Why do people keep bringing up this film? It's not even a good John Waters movie.

 

[airds]

The best performance from the Canonet 🙂

 

[lubitel]

Why do people keep bringing up this film? It's not even a good John Waters movie.

its like sport fencers discussing the latest Zorro movie.

 

[aizan]

i watched 'blow up' again last week. maybe i should add a nikon f to my want-to-buy list...

 

[ZorkiKat]

i watched 'blow up' again last week. maybe i should add a nikon f to my want-to-buy list...

...and an old wooden aeroplane propeller! 😀

 

[Uncle Bill]

Blow Up now that was a cool film.


Bill

 

[ywenz]

Why do people keep bringing up this film? It's not even a good John Waters movie.

I brought it up because it kind of has to do with photography...

any other films ppl can recommend?

 

[JoeFriday]

does Pecker get any better after a half hour? that's when I reached my tolerance threshold for preadolescent humor

 

[jonasv]

i watched 'blow up' again last week. maybe i should add a nikon f to my want-to-buy list...

I've been craving for a Nikon F with a 135mm ever since seeing Cidade de Deus.

 

[scottgee1]

"What have you done to my mother??!!"

LOL!!/ScottGee1

 

[scottgee1]

Why do people keep bringing up this film? It's not even a good John Waters movie.

Because it features a rangefinder camera in a starring role! Canonet as a starlet! 😀

ScottGee1

 

[jano]

its like sport fencers discussing the latest Zorro movie.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaahaha 😀 😀 😀

mm catherine zeta jones 😀

 

[yossarian]

I brought it up because it kind of has to do with photography...

any other films ppl can recommend?

"Z" (1969, director Costa-Gavras)
"Under Fire" (1983, director Roger Spottiswoode)

 

[swoop]

My favourtie photography movie is Salvador. It's a good film even if I wasn't a photographer.

 

[kvanderlaag]

Pecker was fairly random and not very deep, but as long as you weren't watching it for the acting, it had its moments. All of the characters were totally obsessive-compulsive over SOMETHING (my favorite being Shelley and her laundromat) and its humor came out of nowhere, really.

I think my favorite part in the entire movie was the 'art photographer' shooting at the end.

 

[allthumbs]

AFAIK Pecker is Waters' most autobiographical movie so far. In it, addresses the nature of art, the culture and business of art, pretension, exploitation and privacy. Within and outside of these issues the notion of public/external vs personal/internal, belonging and alienation, seem to be the broader themes at work. That the medium of photography is as immediate and accessible as it is helps to accelerate a narrative driven in large part by these issues, IMO. I found it interesting to see how it all played out.

The large cast is all-around excellent and likeable.

I like the movie myself, but I don't understand why it isn't despised around here just for the fact that the photos supposedly taken by Pecker with the Canonet were actually taken with an SLR. It's not that they are bad photos, in fact they are quite good, and even reminiscent of famous RF shooters, but it seems to me that this kind of subterfuge is not taken lightly around these parts.

Interview with Pecker photographer Chuck Shacochis:

http://www.finelinefeatures.com/pecker/pecker_photos.htm

 

[scottgee1]

SNIP!

I like the movie myself, but I don't understand why it isn't despised around here just for the fact that the photos supposedly taken by Pecker with the Canonet were actually taken with an SLR. It's not that they are bad photos, in fact they are quite good, and even reminiscent of famous RF shooters, but it seems to me that this kind of subterfuge is not taken lightly around these parts.

SNIP!

My theory: Had the pix shown in the film been shot with a Canonet, they would have been too good, making it difficult for the general audience to accept that Pecker shot them. Hence the use of an SLR. 😉

ScottGee1

 

[cpranger]

We got it for 50 cents at half.com. Maybe cost around 4 bucks with shipping. Watched it one night. Laughed and wouldn't turn it off (as we do with so many tapes/dvds these days). Fairly shallow and mindless. So much the better. The New York art scene was characterized (caricaturized?) in a way that seemed to have some truth to it. Again, in a simplistic, superficial way -- but one which had these dialogues that I've heard among the so called cognoscenti, not only in the art world (I listen to them talk on local public radio) but all over the place on tv by the “expert” talk show guests (on the serious programs!). To sum up: Pecker was refreshing and fun to watch. It popped a few balloons of a pretentious culture. If you want to read an analogue of any “meaning” that could be gleaned from this movie you could always read the Winograd interview, the URL for which is somewhere on this forum. Pecker was saying the same thing, more or less, except in a more accessible, fun way. Winograd's humour was also there, but a bit more subtle, I thought.

 

[Jonathan_100]

After catching Pecker (her boyfriend) and his agent making out in his basement, Christina Ricci has what could be the best line in the entire movie, "I hate modern photography!"

Jonathan