Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 11, 2007 0:00:00 GMT
It depends, Kino. Generally I'm creating the threads for referencing reasons; Ideally I'd like to have every film we've ever seen as a board accounted for, but know that that is practically impossible for now, so will settle for the ones I have seen recently/am seeing now.
As a rule of thumb, though: if your comment is director-based, go in the director thread; if it's more specifically to do with the film, go to the film's thread.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 11, 2007 0:15:54 GMT
You must have edited your post, then, because I thought it had just said "Goddamnit " or something. That post still exists. I made another post after it asking you to elaborate.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 11, 2007 0:21:08 GMT
Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 11, 2007 0:49:47 GMT
It's not okay.
Asshole.
|
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Jan 13, 2007 1:03:41 GMT
big time indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Sullivan on Jan 14, 2007 19:38:00 GMT
Salvador (1985) First Viewing Directed by: Oliver Stones Rating: [/i] A film that is a tad meandering at the begning that picks up it's paced by Stone's deft direction, his sharp writing and a hell of a performance by James Woods. The only problem is that the film tends to get a bit too preachy at some points... Still, worthy Stone material.
|
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Jan 15, 2007 15:23:35 GMT
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 16, 2007 23:37:19 GMT
How far into a film do people get before they begin to "write" Proviews in their heads? How limiting is this sort of continual analysis? How early have you decided on what your thoughts are?
I've usually made up my mind half an hour into the film at least, sometimes a lot earlier, sometimes a lot later, rarely after the film; whether I am right in my assumptions or not depends on how the film pans out, obviously, but it's got to the point now where I cannot simply "watch a film for entertainment". I can't watch a film "mindlessly". And nor do I think I should. At least not in the conventional sense. I of course watch films for no other reason but to be entertained, but my requirements for being entertained are at a remove, a distance; entertainment itself is half-masked under a layer of finding out what and why and how things entertain me.
I'm becoming more and more interested not in enjoying Cinema, but why I am in love with it. It's selfish, personal, exciting and a lot more insightful than bullshit reasons to watch films.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 17, 2007 1:07:12 GMT
How far into a film do people get before they begin to "write" Proviews in their heads? How limiting is this sort of continual analysis? How early have you decided on what your thoughts are? I've usually made up my mind half an hour into the film at least, sometimes a lot earlier, sometimes a lot later, rarely after the film; whether I am right in my assumptions or not depends on how the film pans out, obviously, but it's got to the point now where I cannot simply "watch a film for entertainment". I can't watch a film "mindlessly". And nor do I think I should. At least not in the conventional sense. I of course watch films for no other reason but to be entertained, but my requirements for being entertained are at a remove, a distance; entertainment itself is half-masked under a layer of finding out what and why and how things entertain me. I'm becoming more and more interested not in enjoying Cinema, but why I am in love with it. It's selfish, personal, exciting and a lot more insightful than bullshit reasons to watch films. This is exactly why I stopped writing proviews. Throughout the entire film, I would just think about what I was going to write. It takes away from the experience.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 17, 2007 1:28:41 GMT
Throughout the entire film, I would just think about what I was going to write. It takes away from the experience. But does it, though? I'm not so sure. Like I said, I don't watch films mindlessly. Everybody, or everybody with an educated and informed interest in some kind of artistic discipline, goes through some kind of critical, analytical framework when enduring a text. I think the more consciously you engage with such criticism, the more insightful and "critic-proof" (that is, consistent) your thoughts are going to be. It's something that comes completely natural to me, now; and I'm not sure if it is a good or bad thing that I am holding texts at a sort of literal distance with a layer of analysis between me and it, in order to metaphorically bring myself closer to it in the long run. To be frank, I think deciding against Proviews is both dangerous and lazy. I'm not talking about writing stuff here, that's up to you, but the amount of films you're watching, if there's no effort to bring coherence to these thoughts and reactions, your head is going to be some kind of hectic, inconsistent ball of whatyoumightormightnotremembertohavelikedornotliked. I've said it before, but I think the most active, valid or even responsible (morally responsible?) way of responding to a film is to make your own. That way you're chanelling your loves in and your hates out; which is why I always get pissed off when people say suchandsuch "ripped off" suchandsuch. There is no thief more blatant and shameless than the artist. But not everybody has access to filming or editing equipment. I've also said in the past that we won't see Cinema in its true form on a wide scale until the recording equipment and other necessary tools of filmmaking are as readily accessible as a paintbrush and a canvas are to a painter, as a pen and paper are to a writer. And until then, until you can channel your irrationality into rational cinematic form, you have to have some way of ridding yourself of the burdens obtained by a film. Films do not so much enlighten me as unload their burdens onto me. The more films I see without unloading this burden off from me onto somebody or something else, the more suffocated I feel. I could never do what Wet Dog does with his monthly updates. I always feel excited when he posts them, because I wish to discuss the films he has seen... or do I merely wish to allow him the chance to escape the burdens evicted from an artist into his mind. I said in another thread lately, I think it was my "C" thread in the Film Ideas forum, that an idea is like a disease. It is. It's like a leech that never disappears. It is formed like a tumour in the artist's mind. Becomes contagious in the film, and is spread in cinemas worldwide. I think the "Distribution" is a double-edged term in film marketing for definite. It's as if theatre owners are releasing a gas canister into a darkened room and filling people's minds with sordid (beautiful?) ideas that, in the long-run, sooner or later, will all accumulate to one fuck-off idea in each of those members' heads, and so more tumours grow.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 17, 2007 20:19:41 GMT
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Jan 17, 2007 20:51:45 GMT
|
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Jan 18, 2007 5:19:33 GMT
Maybe I'm hypocritical for asking this, but I would love to hear your thoughts on "Waking Life" Mick. Tôkyô nagaremono Tokyo Drifter(1966/Seijun Suzuki) [First Viewing] A hitman attempting to go straight drifts from place to place avoiding assassination.Another film to add to the list of the strangest that I have ever seen. Essentially, what you have here, is a colorful, vibrant, violent, silly, musically driven crime film. The film can go from a snowy showdown on a set of railroad tracks, to a slapstick fight at a mock wild west bar, complete with stereotypical Americans. Bizarre indeed. And the finale is beautifully done.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 18, 2007 12:22:46 GMT
Like always, Omar, I'll be posting a thread on the films listed.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Jan 18, 2007 20:42:15 GMT
Koroshi no rakuin Branded to Kill(1967/Seijun Suzuki) [First Viewing] A famous hit-man is given a standard assignment, only to find his job getting stranger with each new task.It starts out as a great, fast paced, and even jazzy Yakuza film. But Suzuki must have gotten bored after awhile, soon adding a sequence involving sex on a spiral staircase, a butterfly fetish, and introducing themes of obsession and that of a psychological thriller, all within the realms of a violent Yakuza picture. The black and white photography, surprisingly, doesn't hinder Suzuki's unique visual style, making this extremely avant-garde film a marvel. It makes absolutely no sense at all, but it never needed to.
|
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Jan 19, 2007 20:34:31 GMT
Do the Right Thing (1989/Lee) >>>>
|
|