I actually agree with your original review Mark. An incidental Herzog work was a good way of describing it. Still, it's good that you're prepared to go back and give it another chance. Please could you do the same for The Big Lebowski - maybe you will someday change your opinion of that film from 'zany throwaway Coens comedy' to 'utter genius' like it so deserves. : )

not herzog related but this will amuse you- £ 205=]



https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/blog/article/18878/danny-dyers-latest-film-pimp-bombs-at-cinema.html

I also have to question your reasoning of it being 'a Nicolas Cage film' instead of 'a Werner Herzog film', in fact I would put forward a strong case to suggest that Cage is a replacement for Klaus Kinski, Herzog's old collaborator. Behind Cage's wild eyes and outrageous, crazy mannerisms there is definitely the influence of Kinski's previous performances under Herzog's direction, particularly Aguirre and Fitzcarraldo, and I could see Kinski in the lead role had Herzog made this years ago. So Bad Lieutenant is closer to a Herzog film than a Cage film.

A comparison between Herzog and Ferrara's films is just. Simply because both films are under the 'Bad Lieutenant' banner, if Herzog wanted to dissuade any comparsions he would have named it differently. It is courting comparison if anything.

I too would like to hear what you think of Big Lebowski upon rewatch. Whatever you think of the comedy it has a great Jeff Bridges performance.

Amber!



Take a bow!

Well I really enjoyed this film and while I certainly wouldn't go as far as to say it's the best thing I've seen so far this year, it has remained in my thoughts for a few reasons, so I was very interested to see Mark's latest video-blog on the subject.

Firstly, my view is that this is a Werner Herzog film starring Nic Cage, not 'a Nicolas Cage film'. My main reason being that it is the best Nicolas Cage performance I have seen for a very long time, at least since Matchstick Men or more likely since Leaving Las Vegas. Port Of Call in my view bares no similarities whatsoever to any of the sub-standard 'Nicolas Cage films' I've seen in recent years (or 'Sorcerer's Apprentice' from what I saw in the trailer!). Also, it does have those Crocodile and iguana scenes which, lets face it, are gems. A thought just came to mind though, I'm not sure whether a view of Fitzcarraldo enjoying Caruso as seen through the pig's eyes would've gone down well(?) ...could've been interesting!

Secondly, I also agree with your original review Mark, that it is an incidental (but enjoyable) Herzog film rather than one of his 'best' films, and if nothing more at least we finally get to see a great Cage performance again. So this is a Werner Herzog film, but an incidental one. By the way, to 'Kinskirage' - I agree totally with your Big Lebowski comment, in fact Mark I recall discussing this with your good self when you came to Southampton on your book tour, but I'd prefer you to see Port Of Call again first, in order to comment on my third and most important point....

Please please could someone at least mention those truly irritating microphones/booms in shot throughout the film, waving from one actor to the other. Mark I noticed you've made no mention of this [clumsy] frame work at all. When I google there are a few mentions, all of which are negative. Ann Hornaday of the Washington Post says "there's no excuse for a filmmaker of Herzog's experience to allow as many visible boom microphones as there are here."

I would agree entirely, I found it very distracting, even to the point where after the film my friend and I had a discussion with a cinema staff about the very poor aperture masking of the print, as it was not masked off on either side of the picture - which they insist is as it was made!!! [I saw the film at my regular and trusted local Picturehouse in Southampton]. Would love a comment on this Mark, you've met Herzog, what was he thinking? ...part of my enjoyment on seeing a film is the fact I can escape to another world (so to speak) for a couple of hours, but here we are constantly reminded we are watching not a film, but a film set at work! ...So your reassurance please Doctor K?

I also felt the whole frame was too low, as information on the bottom of the picture was cut off (which would also have cut off some of the microphone footage had it been framed correctly!), again - they insist is as it was made. Incidentally, maybe these problems are why I don't rate the film as one of the best this year!

So could anyone comment or confirm if they have seen this film at the cinema with perfect framing? I look forward to seeing it again on DVD, and if the on-screen mics was a Herzog 'artistic licence' thing, then I want to see more Iguana-cam (real Herzog) and less (i.e. none!!!) on-set film-making apparatus please!

P.S. Apologies for the lack of paragraphs in my comment, the 'Preview' thing didn't show it like that!!

Like the bullet during the Herzog interview



"It is not a significant film"

Yowser Amber! Praise indeed!

Mark I think that you got the review right, you didn't hate it!

I felt the same, I liked it but couldn't quite say why, yet somehow it didn't blow me away. Oh, and Herzog has most definitely seen the original.

I'm disappointed that I didn't see you wandering around Hay yesterday to get my book signed...I guess you didn't hang around for the week, what a shame.



Also my husband was driving me nuts saying Bad (Leff)tenant all the time...Ferrara is right to correct you, it's an American movie with American pronunciations. (Leff)tenamnt just puts in mind an image of an British army officer!

On another note, Dr K have you seen the 50 Greatest Lost Movies article in Uncut magazine? Movies that are not available on dvd...The Devils comes in at no. 10

I would love to get my hands on a copy of Lonestar!

Oh man, I am laughing so hard right now... I honestly didn't want to tread on any toes, Dr. Kermode, I was just a little bummed out because I place value in your opinion and it was disappointing to hear you waste a good portion of your review talking about the Ferrara film, and how Herzog's movie isn't Ferrara's film, in place of providing the extra bit of incite into Port of Call that I was hoping for - outside of the really obvious things about how Nicolas Cage is insane and Herzog likes iguanas, of course.



That and I thought you were wrong to compare them to start with (: but that's really secondary. Maybe you will reconsider your stance on that or maybe you won't, but either way c'est la vie.



By the way, while I hate to sound like a suck-up and I haven't been around here long, I'm really impressed by how congenial and open-minded you are in response to everybody's comments. This is easily one of the nicest little film communities on the web, all of the members here are so pleasant and interesting and this place has quickly become one of my favorite bookmarks. Now let us never speak of it again.



Side-note: Lieutenant or Leff-tenant? I tried saying "Leff-tenant" once during a conversation in reference to a British officer but got cold feet and ended up veering into the usual American pronunciation at the last minute, so far be it from me to determine who should say what in the opposite situation.

@ Will Chadwick

I haven't seen Bad Lieutenant yet, but your comment about Cage replacing Kinski was brought up in this months issue of Sight & Sound, in interviews with Herzog and Cage. They had discussions about Kinski on set but Cage was by no means influenced by the great actors work. Herzog says he sees no similarity between the two beyond having a "presence and an intensity onscreen" and he did not direct the film that way. Cage says that in terms of the character he was thinking more of Richard III and making the character an almost theatre like collection of drug addled mannerisms. It's nice to think of Cage as the new Kinski but I think Herzog is right. They are only alike in their crazy, commanding screen presence.

Many reviewers have noted how Bad Lieutenant can be viewed as a pastiche of some classic genres, the cop movie, film noir, etc. Looking at it in this regard therefore, whatever about it being a below average Herzog film, I think it's actually an above average Tarantino one. Whereas Tarantino's recent efforts at genre homage however have been crude and obvious, to the point where his recreations of bad films have resulted in him simply making...bad films, Herzog's attempt at genre subversion is far more skilful and subtle. I think he also plays with expectations a lot. Thus for example, there is no redemptive epiphany for Cage's character, his bad deeds continually pay off. The tone is comedic and entertaining. Even the name and concept of the film itself potentially misleads us from the outset. Is this a remake of Ferrara's original? Or a sequel? What should we expect it to be? Then there's the clunky title. "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" for one thing sounds almost like some sort of CSI/Law & Order TV franchise spin-off. All in all I thought it was a fascinating film, one of the best I've seen this year.

I too have yet to see Bad Lieutenant, but am currently working my way through a boxed set of Herzog's finest which I haven't revisited for years. It's like eating a box of chocolates but without the guilt,though with absolutely no chance of avoiding the hard centres! However my comment is about Nic Cage who despite a strangely hypnotic screen prescence, has sadly on occasion made some utter garbage.

I still can't forgive him for that re-make of The Wicker Man,the unbelievably hilarious line ' Step away from the bike!' whilst pointing a loaded gun at the owner of a bicycle still cracks me up to this day, and the image of him pedalling off furiously will live in my memory forever.

Mr H once said' I make films to rid myself of pain, like ridding yourself of a nightmare' ........He must have just watched The Wicker Men then......

@MargeGunderson: Lone Star!! I was just talking about that the other day with my other half ( a conversation provoked by seeing poor Elizabeth Peña wasted in Rush Hour with the insufferable Chris Tucker and perennial Kermodian favourite Jackie Chan).

I was saying I'd like to see it again (assuming we're talking about the same film!) because it has really stuck in my mind even though I'd only seen it the one time nearly 15 years ago. Weird!

Ha ha Rourkesdrifter, and don't forget the bits when he runs round punching people while dressed as a giant bear!

Saying that 'The Bad Lieutenant' is a continuation of the central themes/presentations/spirit of the more iconic Herzog/Kinski collaborations of the 1970s and 80s seems a bit of a stretch to me. In the film in question, the tone throughout is trivial, brash and seemingly aware of how "bad" the source material actually is. Clearly, the entire cast and crew were still able to commit to the film 100%, but only by acknowledging the obvious absurdity of it and playing it tongue-in-cheek. This is something that certainly cannot be said of Herzog's far greater films from the peak of his career.



I also think the comparison between Cage's performance and the tradition of Kinski is way off. Kinski may well be known for his off-set temper tantrums and screaming rage, but if you go back and look at his actual performances for Herzog, with the exception of Cobra Verde, they're full of subtlety and nuance. Look at a film like Woyzeck or Nosferatu; look at the control of those performances, the depth of his emotion, the way that he deliberately places himself within the frame, and then compare it to the horrible, two-dimensional over-acting from Mr. Cage.



It seems, in this instance at least, that the critics are willing to give Herzog a free pass because his larger than life personality and his wilful eccentricity place his work in an immediate context, no matter how far it might stray from convention. For me, he was never a talent on a par with his contemporaries, like Wenders and Fassbinder, but his work was incredibly special and unusual.



Films like 'The Bad Lieutenant' and 'My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done?' are still unusual; they're just not very special.

@Spanking the Chiba

I know that's not what they may have been going for but without reading anything about the film beforehand, that's what came out of the film for me upon first viewing, I have a habit to trust the tale and not the teller. It may not have been their intention but unconsciously that's what I think comes out of the film.

In a way I know exactly what you mean when calling Port of Call New Orleans an 'incidental' Herzog work as it certainly does not have the pretentions of Ferrara's film.



However Herzog's film is eminently more watchable than the 'original' although I would, as you suggested, have preferred more iguanas and maniacal drug induced sequences as these are by far the strongest points of the movie ('shoot him again his soul's still dancing!').



Although I think the two are entirely separate entities, with the latter only making small nods to the original, if comparisons have to be made between the two films, Herzog's is on balance the more successful. Port of Call is an excellent black comedy, utterly hilarious at times, its moments of insanity and Cage's performance are captivating. It is 'incidental' as much as it does not deal with the depths of darkness and Catholic moralilty that the original does but then it does not attempt to and purely as a piece of original entertainment I think it deserves more credit than you warranted it.



The original is certainly not a masterpiece. Although Keitel is superb, Bad Lieutenant really comes down to a collection of horrific scenes (admittedly many are brilliantly constructed) involving the character's various vices with no real narrative or development and an inevitably violent conclusion. The theme of Catholic guilt seems irrelevant to the audience when confronted by a character lacking one single redeeming feature. In a sense Kietel's character is too bad for the audience to empathise at all with him or even vaguely understand the emotional turmoil he is suffering.

@ Dr Roobles

I bet we are talking about the same one:

Lone Star

(look I made a link again - thanks Roobles!)

Regarding whether it is Bad Loo-tenant or Left-tenant, or Clurks or Clarks in the debate on pronouncing film names. I ask you all, is it



Fried Green WHAT?t At The Whistlestop Cafe



Are you going to say To-mate-Ohs? As I'm sure you know, no Englishman can say Toe-mate-oh without wanting to retch. It can't be done. It's Toe-mart-oh, Clarks * Left-tenant, because this is ENGLAND :)

Wonderful to see you are up for re-evaluating your initial review Mark... While I agreed with many of the things you had to say about the film, I couldn't agree with your conclusions... example... you say the film lacks a metaphysics and you cite Aguirre and Fitzcarraldo as evidence. However, as you point out, it is a very different film from these... The Bad Lieutenant, rather, it seems to me, comes in the lineage of Nosferatu, Kasper Hauser or Woyseck. Herzog explores two themes in his work (according to the philosopher Deleuze) the grandiose, ecstatic vision... and the feebleness of bodies in a world with no meaning... Paradoxically, The Bad Lieutenant's lack of metaphysics *is* the metaphysics of the film...



https://cineosis.blogspot.com/2010/06/bad-lieutenant-port-of-call-new-orleans.html



Loving your passion for film tho dude... and your willingness to keep on thinking about cinema x x x x

To the guy who posted "On another note, Dr K have you seen the 50 Greatest Lost Movies article in Uncut magazine? Movies that are not available on dvd...The Devils comes in at no. 10

I would love to get my hands on a copy of Lonestar!"



I luckily own a region 1 of the masterpiece that is listed in their called "Seconds", one of the most crazed paranoid films ever made, it's made Brian Wilson go insane when he saw... his mental health and drug use at the time probably didn't help but it did contribute to his mental health issues for years.

Anybody prefer Herzog as an actor rather than a director?

@1: "Big Lebowski" ... No No No No No NO! It's just not that good! If anything, the over-enthusiastic response to BL poisons the fairly good vibes I had about the film the first time I saw it - I'm starting to hate it.

On the point of revisiting films, I recently managed to see "Synecdoche, New York". I really think Mark is wide of the ...err... mark in dismissing it. I found it a really quite moving and mournful film and certainly worthy of praise. Okay the plot was confusing but, then again, isn't the œuvre of David Lynch not equally, if not more bewildering? It's certainly more of an emotional film, much like "Eternal Sunshine" in that respect - I would compare it more to an absurdist "Manhattan" or "Annie Hall".



I think it will stay with me for a while - if you were put off by Mark's review a few months ago (and the blog posting), give it a go, honestly.



p.s. Emily Watson: she's looked after herself hasn't she? (cripes!)

@24: "Seconds". What a film - I saw it when BBC4 showed it a few years back and was blown away. This ought to get a DVD release (Tartan? Artificial Eye? Are you listening?).

Tend to agree with Joel_C_ooney on The BL . I never actually got around to watching it until it was released on DVD,so was well out of tune with the frenzy as such. Remember clearing the decks one saturday evening ,opening a bottle of the most expensive vino I could afford and quietly chortling my way through the experience.

However over the years due to it's over -hyped cult following the shine has kind of worn off it all for me. Films should be savoured , not smothered, and far too many are smothered.

@Ian Schultz: Just to let you know, I am most definitely not a guy!

Yep Synecdoche, New York is a great piece of work and a real miracle of a movie. Something so complex and yet very fluid, never allowing you to get bogged down by it's intricate plot.



...I think the greatest thing about that movie is the women that come in and out of his life. I really feel that Kaufman made it plausible that he loved every single one of them throughout his life but could not actually commit to any of them.



People throw the word "deep" around quite a bit in movies - but this movie was actually deep and I think if you go with it then you are rewarded as a viewer.

@31: I get the feeling that Kaufman is afraid of (or at least, in awe of) females and female sexual power, particularly the spectre of sapphic relationships. Maybe he has a neurotic fear of his own sexual irrelevance which he projects in his male protagonists (Craig Schwartz in BJM or Caden Cotard in SNY).



Hmmm just looking at the Wiki entry for the film - the reference to Cotard Delusion intrigues me; in fact even his first name "Caden" suggests "Cadence"...

As far as the comments about Cage vs. Kinski go, it may not have been something Herzog and Cage went into the movie thinking about but it does seem like, when one is watching the film, that there may have been unconscious connection made along the way.



As an actor, Cage has stored up enough goodwill with movies like Leaving Las Vegas, Adaptation, Wild At Heart and Bringing Out the Dead (shut up, I like it) that I still like his presence as an actor in spite of the poorer choices and more terrifying hairstyles he has committed to. Did we really want another Wicker Man anyway? Everybody knew it was going to suck when they announced it, but at least we got some good laughs this way. Go back and watch the original if you want to see a good version of The Wicker Man.



I also suspect Cage may be slightly insane, which is an attitude towards Hollywood that I can't help but fully advocate.



@RussiansEatBambi66: I love him as a director but agree that Herzog is incredibly charismatic in front of the camera as well. He was great in his small role in Mister Lonely and that scene in The Grand where he is explaining to the camera how he kills one animal a day was the funniest part of the entire movie.



@Joel_C_ooney Yeah, I liked Synecdoche, New York too. I found it kind of cold when I watched it which was kind of off-putting, but I still catch myself thinking back to it once in a while, especially that funeral scene. I'm not sure it was a total success, but I do know that most of the time I would rather see something ambitious that doesn't quite hit the mark than something glossy that is simply designed to distract the audience for ninety minutes while it collects their money. Synecdoche is definitely worth seeing at least once.

Robin Armstrong wrote:



"Regarding whether it is Bad Loo-tenant or Left-tenant, or Clurks or Clarks in the debate on pronouncing film names. I ask you all, is it



Fried Green WHAT?t At The Whistlestop Cafe



Are you going to say To-mate-Ohs? As I'm sure you know, no Englishman can say Toe-mate-oh without wanting to retch. It can't be done. It's Toe-mart-oh, Clarks * Left-tenant, because this is ENGLAND :)



It should be "The French LEFF-tenant's Woman" and the "Bad LOO-tenant".





The English pronunciation is based on a spelling that isn't used any more, so it's not really something to be proud of [puts tin hat on].

There is no equivalent of Lieutenant in the UK police system.

The rank in the US police system is pronounced LOO-tenant.



I can understand that most British people would say Fried Green To-MAH-toes, but I am not so sure that all the same people would say "Clarks" when referring to the American film.



When you say "this is ENGLAND", what "this" are you talking about? I can sense the sporrans twitching out there in UK cyberspace.



Do you say "9/11" or "11/9", I wonder?



Seriously, in philosophy, the argument you presented, is a potential logical fallacy and is known, ironically, as the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. I am English and living in America, if I am referring to the films, I would say "Fried Green To-MAY-toes" and "Clerks" (pronounced as it is written :-) ). According to the NTS fallacy you are supposed to reply, well then you are not a TRUE Englishman. So, I'll save you the trouble!

"Synecdoche, New York" was a shocker and Mark called it right. It started out OK, but ended up going nowhere and taking forever not to get there. I am a fan of (some of) Kaufman's other work.



I think the line "Step away from the bike" was meant to be funny. I am not so sure about the final scene where Cage's disembodied voice is heard to say "Killing me won't bring back your goddamn honey!", but when the whole audience is roaring with laughter it is hard not to get carried along.

@RussiansEatBambi66 / Amber - RE: Herzog's acting

As much as I love Herzog (and his troupe of flying nuns) in Mister Lonely, I still maintain there are few things finer than Herzog drinking cough medicine out of a shoe in Harmony Korine's vastly underrated (and underseen) Julien Donkey-Boy. Speaking of Korine, I'd be rather interested to know what Dr. K thinks of Trash Humpers!?



@Paul Dix RE: The film's title

And let's not forget, the title gets even better when you consider that it's actually called 'THE Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans'. For me, the inclusion of the definite article just adds to the whole genre pastiche thing. I was chatting with someone about the film the other day and he said he was kind of put out because he thought it was too much like a B-movie. As I said to him, as far as I can tell, that is entirely the point.



Also, per my comments in the other BL thread, let me say that I would actually agree with the Good Doctor's assessment of this as an 'incidental' Herzog, I just felt that it deserved a little more contextualisation in terms of at least one of his (albeit minor) career obsessions.



Finally, I'll also like throw my hat into the ring as a lover of Synecdoche, New York.



Thanks for the shout-out Doc!



https://screenaddict.wordpress.com/

I think it's interesting how many of Cage's films deal directly with post-traumatic stress disorder. Bringing Out the Dead, Leaving Las Vegas, Lord of War, Bad Lieutenant, even, (shudder) The Wicker Man, directly touch on the issues of a protagonist coming to terms with traumatic events. I respect the attempt to portray these issues honestly. I think that some of these movies are misunderstood by the general public because they portray issues that most people prefer not to think about.

I adored Synecdoche New York, and its stunning detail, and it's take on life actually cheers me up rather than depresses me, but I wouldn't exactly blame anyone who didn't like it. It's a bit marmitey.



IMO, The Big Lebowski is much more layered than a lot of people realise, and I could understand the bewilderment of people who have only watched it once in regards to the superfans' lauding of it. But the dialogue gives me physical pleasure, it's like poetry, and the underlying sense of love in the film is so sweet. It also has so many laugh-out-loud moments on a basic level, that it gets me every time.



Two of my favourites, both of which Mark did not really like.

@37: How about adding "Birdy" to that list too?

p.s.apologies for the ego-trip here, but for those who reply to my posts, I'm not hung up on the spelling or the spacing of letters specifically. I've only separated the C and the O because my surname fell foul of the BBC's spam filter - a victim of the Scunthorpe Problem methinks.

Amber said

"This is easily one of the nicest little film communities on the web, all of the members here are so pleasant and interesting and this place has quickly become one of my favorite bookmarks"



I agree its on my bookmark as well. Are there any plans for a forum Mark?



I would love that.

To antimode,



Just in case anyone was taking me too seriously, my "this is ENGLAND" comment was supposed to be a facetious bit of film referencing as well as a statement on pronunciation . It just seems interesting that people seem to pick and choose which way they pronounce titles, my Fried Green example I thought was funny, because from my standpoint the American way of saying tomato seems especially grating, like the way they call trousers pants.



If I have found an Englishman who can stomach it, I stand corrected :)

As it happens The original Wicker Man is one of my all time favourites,and if the remake was supposed to be funny for once the irony may well have been lost on me.;-) Nic Cage has a claim to fame he's the only person who has actually persuaded me to put the cork back in a half finished bottle of wine after watching him drinking himself into oblivion in Leaving Las Vegas, a car crash performance that is right up there. Herzog is a force of nature of that there is no doubt,and extracts some wonderful performances out of the actors he works with, though I do question his judgement on re-making this particular offering, in as much as his unflinching individualism doesn't sit well with the whole re-make debate.

Just saw the film (little bit of a trek but thats another story). Overall worth it. A major point of conflict in my judgement of this film though is the view, not just amongst members of this board, that this film is far more didactic than I considered it. As you quoted Steve from your update, with his interpretation that it was in part a continuation of Stroszeck. I feel that without the reputation of a heavy-weight director such as Herzog at its helm, this film would not be lauded to the critical extent that it has.



Indeed, to me it seems likely that the stylistic similarities between Bad Lieutenant and Stroszeck are perhaps more aparent than other Herzog films, with it's oddball performances and camerawork. But that much in the way Tarantino die-hards love the Stychomythic dialogue, Herzog fans look at this and see the brilliance of Stroszeck without realising the higher entertainment to didacticism (sue me) ratio of Bad Lieutenant.



But far from me to tell the listener what he listens. Sorry its a bit long-winded but I felt I had to get it out.

To Robin,



You would probably be surprised at the number of times Americans say "trousers" instead of "pants". I would highly recommend (to both British and American English speakers) a reasonably long sojourn in a different English-speaking country which might remove all remaining novelty of hearing others speak English in a way that is not entirely to your custom. Although, sometimes I think that the way English is spoken in Barnsley is every bit as different to the way it is spoken in Barnet to the way it is spoken in Barstow, California. So I ask you, what is this REALLY all about? Hmm?



If anybody really needs a rule on pronunciations of film titles, it should be to pronounce from the perspective of the origin of the item(s) being referenced, not the perspective of the speaker. There will be some exceptions. I do admit, though, that getting Americans to say "French LEFF-tenant's Woman" would probably be harder than getting British people to say "Bad LOO-tenant".





@Rourkesdrifter, I did not mean that the remake of Wicker man was supposed to be funny but I do believe there are some attempts at comic flourishes in it as well as some unintentional moments of mirth.

Any time you have a disembodied voice, to me that ends up as being funny, if intended or not. It happens at the end of "Moon" where the voice apparently is coming from the pictured distant earth. "Moon" is anything but a funny film. [It could be a reference to the often shown clip from the 1974 election special episode of the Clangers, "Vote for Froglet", where broadcasts of the UK election are being heard on the moon by the Clangers. Mark, you wouldn't know about that because it's television ;-) ]



Cage's Wicker Man is not as funny as Carrie or Jaws which have very funny moments but are not "funny films".

Hi Antimode,



Sojourn in English speaking country? Sounds great to me, been trying to get it done for nearly a decade! And yes, being born in Yorkshire and living in the south of England, with Scottish & Irish ancestry does give me a certain perspective on regional difference.



What it's really about? Boredom, pure and simple. I wish there were deep seated prejudices I could explore, but it boils down to a disagreement on pronunciation, and more importantly the exceptions we all invent to suit ourselves. For myself, it's Clarks, always will be :)

The further I scroll down the page, the louder I hear Fred and Ginger in my head. Loo-tenant, Leff-tenant... let's call the whole thing off.



Though I have to say a mid-westerner, I have never in my life heard an American refer to pants as trousers. Slacks sometimes, never trousers. Though I suspect antimode may be telling the truth as Californians are a weird bunch and that sounds exactly like the kind of shenanigans that would happen out there. (:



@Steev: And don't forget when he actually ATE his shoe in, well, Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe. That must be the most aptly titled film ever.

Robin,



I hope you get your wish to spend time overseas. You may then find that these British-English versus elsewhere-English debates themselves become a bit boring or at least irrelevant.



I think many Britons don't realise that many of the expressions and words they use everyday did not originate in Britain. Bill Bryson wrote a book on the English language called "Mother Tongue" that contains a section which contains many words and phrases that were coined in the US but used by British speakers who are completely unaware of their origin. Everybody knows the word "OK" originated in the US but I don't think I know any Brit that objects to the use of this word (in moderation), or that doesn't use it themself. I'm sure even Jeremy Clarkson uses it.



Clarks to me, is probably the shoe people first, the word "clerk" has fallen out of use somewhat both in the UK and US since it indicates a lower status of worker which is probably why Kevin Smith chose it in the first place.



Hey, Amber!

Keep listening. You will hear it. It maybe hasn't registered with you when it happens. Perhaps its use now may have something to do with the film "The Wrong Trousers", I don't know. I actually live near New York, which I admit is not really "America" ;-)



I might have to break down and actually watch "Bad Loo Attendant" now. The original was pretty bad and even if the remake is an improvement I am having a hard time persuading myself to watch it. It is available on TV on-demand channels ($4.99) starting the same day the DVD came out.

Oh, yeah I was trying to come up with somewhere, that started with BAR-

to go with Barnsley and Barnet [and I chose Barnet because we all know that is where Mark is from. Actually there is quite an impressive list of notable people from Barnet on Wiki and this time Mark made the list :-)]



So that's how I hit on Barstow, California and I have been there. Totally agree with Amber about the weirdness factor.

@ Amber



Yeah I'm thinkin more along the lines of his work with Harmony Korrine - particularly Julian Donkey Boy which I thought was a brilliant movie anyway - but Herzog as an obsessive father (who loves Dirty Harry) was my favorite character.



Rescue Dawn was another let down I felt

@antimode .......Finding funny lines in supposedly 'serious' movies is an art form in itself......;-) And I agree on the both films you mentioned. Classic Joan of Arc (Ingrid Bergman)in 1948 as she is about to go up in smoke on the human barbecue the executioner cries "We need more faggots!!" scraped myself off the floor with that little pearler.......

@ Amber likewise on Rescue Dawn, and thought Steve Zahn may have even pipped Bale to the acting post,as Mr B looked decidely uncomfortable in this one.

I know i'm late to the party on this one but i'd add that there is really only one 'Port of Reference' when it comes to analysising Herzog's film as a critique of American society and it's establishment. Consider the final shot (attempting to avoid spoilers for those yet to see it), of the two characters who we are introduced to in the first scene, which was on drugs (good) and which is now on drugs (bad) and where they have each found themselves, also what have they got their backs turned to.



It's all right there! :-)

@Rourkesdrifter: Think you actually meant to direct that at RussiansEatBambi?



Agreed anyway. I thought Rescue Dawn was alright but not nearly as good as Herzog's documentary on the same subject, Little Dieter Needs to Fly, plus Steve Zahn is a much better actor than he is often given credit for (and Bale a slightly less, though he's had his moments).



(@antimode: Oops! Honest mistake. But those New Yorkers are dodgy too. They call pop "soda" like it is a kind of cheap soup cracker! Never heard such nonsense. (: The first time I hear somebody use "trousers" in an everyday situation, you will be quickly informed.)

@Amber you are indeed correct ...that'll teach me to scroll faster than the speed of light........;-)