RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on May 30, 2009 3:27:56 GMT
Eraserhead is great, The Elephant Man is good, and Twin Peaks is probably overall the best thing he's done. Blue Velvet and the "Blackout" segment of Hotel Room get passes.
Flush the rest.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 30, 2009 3:37:21 GMT
ohboyohboyohboy
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on May 30, 2009 14:21:30 GMT
I noticed your taste has changed quite considerably. I just didn't realize to what extent. Maybe RNL is trying to seperate and differentiate himself from Capo? Which is an irrelevant objective. I mean do you see me running away from Capo because we both like the first DIE HARD, those BOURNE movies, and also BACK TO THE FUTURE?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on May 30, 2009 14:24:13 GMT
wat.
90% of your posts are nonsense.
|
|
Blib
Ghost writer
Posts: 623
|
Post by Blib on May 30, 2009 17:47:32 GMT
I think it's because I've shown interest in Lynch, and I like shit.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on May 30, 2009 21:28:53 GMT
wat. 90% of your posts are nonsense. 90% of the remaining 10% of the posts are over 3000 words, which I skip 90% of the times.
|
|
Blib
Ghost writer
Posts: 623
|
Post by Blib on May 30, 2009 23:58:40 GMT
90% of the remaining 10%... "60% of the time it works every time"
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on May 31, 2009 1:55:10 GMT
wat. 90% of your posts are nonsense. 90% of the remaining 10% of the posts are over 3000 words, which I skip 90% of the times. but you still read 10% of my ranting, which justifies another long-winded review. Svsg, you know what's great about you? Unlike some people, you don't take offense and you just know how to play back on my pissing.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on May 31, 2009 2:00:44 GMT
wat. 90% of your posts are nonsense. Considering a few weeks ago it was 95%, it looks like I got a nice polling bounce because of my selection of running mate, and for not saying "shit" and "David Lynch" in the same sentence, unless it involves DUNE. (Nonsense Orweillian Filter Translation: Your concede of 10% is victory.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on May 31, 2009 2:03:38 GMT
I think it's because I've shown interest in Lynch, and I like shit. Pretty much. Though Lynch is pretty great. Not my cup of tea, but I don't like tea anyway so fuck that analogy. Lynch is still mother fucking Lynch. I mean what did he deserve to get that rock thrown at him?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on May 31, 2009 16:12:56 GMT
"Flush the rest" is a little harsh, I'll admit. Most of his films have something interesting about them.
And Lynch is indeed still Lynch, which, to put it more meaningfully, is to say that Lynch is still one of the most unique and influential directors of his generation.
Which is not to say that he is great.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jun 6, 2009 22:52:57 GMT
I'd like to see him tackle another genre film. With the exception of the exceptional Eraserhead, I've always felt he's strongest when working against and within established narrative frameworks: Blue Velvet, The Elephant Man, Twin Peaks. (Saying that, I don't care much at all for his "road film", Wild At Heart.) On the run up to Inland Empire, and in its aftermath, he declared film was behind him, so I would expect that digital has made his narrative approach even more flexible and loose; probably not the direction I'd like him to be going in.
I wouldn't put many on the same level or standard in terms of sheer atmosphere. I suppose Lost Highway, Mulholland Dr. and Inland Empire form a sort of trilogy, an "Identity Crisis" series that boasts some wonderful, wonderful moments.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jun 7, 2009 2:11:52 GMT
I'd like to see him tackle another genre film. With the exception of the exceptional Eraserhead, I've always felt he's strongest when working against and within established narrative frameworks: Blue Velvet, The Elephant Man, Twin Peaks. and DUNE. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jun 7, 2009 2:13:07 GMT
"Flush the rest" is a little harsh, I'll admit. Most of his films have something interesting about them. And Lynch is indeed still Lynch, which, to put it more meaningfully, is to say that Lynch is still one of the most unique and influential directors of his generation. Which is not to say that he is great. But who can?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jun 7, 2009 2:26:28 GMT
Who can what?
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jun 7, 2009 2:34:17 GMT
Who can say he is great or not?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jun 7, 2009 2:40:43 GMT
Um.
Whomever so pleases...?
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jun 7, 2009 3:01:33 GMT
Um. Whomever so pleases...? Well you stink then. I could smell ya over the wireless. ;D
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jun 7, 2009 10:46:13 GMT
Ronnie, please stop your baiting and meaningless self-parading. It really is getting tedious.
Sorry if you feel bitter or wronged in any way by recent discussions, but if you're wanting an audience, (wrongly) throwing people's arguments back at them isn't the right way to go about it. Repeatedly questioning what is relevant or pertinent to a simple discussion, or who has the authority to say or assert what and when, is becoming increasingly transparent.
Find something to say, or don't say anything at all. If in doubt, go with the latter.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jun 7, 2009 19:55:25 GMT
Ronnie, please stop your baiting and meaningless self-parading. It really is getting tedious. Sorry if you feel bitter or wronged in any way by recent discussions, but if you're wanting an audience, (wrongly) throwing people's arguments back at them isn't the right way to go about it. Repeatedly questioning what is relevant or pertinent to a simple discussion, or who has the authority to say or assert what and when, is becoming increasingly transparent. Find something to say, or don't say anything at all. If in doubt, go with the latter. Are you mad mad, or just upset not about the bullethole, but that I used the wrong gun? You know what I find tedious? "throwing people's arguments back at them isn't the right way to go about it. " Not you or the first half, which I admit I am point-blank about. But the second half....what is the right way? Now before you go jiffy, what is the best approach to our relationship with the cinema? I agree with you, as others had debated for decades before we were even conceived, about rejecting going on automatic pilot about superficiality. But why is one approach better than the other? It's that doubt in logicity that bothers me, and which is why I boomerang arguments. Are we using the best method and rationality, or are we just settled down in completency with a particular method, and job it from there. Is my pursuit futile? Probably, but to not explore if its even possible to not be futile, totally defeats the purpose of FCM, or as you had described it as being different from IMDB or GangsterBB.Net and so many other supposed movie-discussion websites you found lacking. I think what bothers me is that despite our best efforts, me included, we're stuck on the mentality that film is mechanical, like a car engine: You do this, you don't do that, etc. But a movie isn't mechanical, because of what works varies because of our individual subjectivity....which we probably can't ever theorize ourselves around or to conquer. Or maybe we can? I don't know.I'm reminded of history. For example, Why is Lincoln a "great" President? Is it because of his deeds, or was it because most agree he is great? That's the logical paradigm I'm trying to struggle out of. I only boomerang argumentation because I wanted to challenge, or at least provoke better logic and thus better argumentation instead of just falling back, which I think you've noted about me more than once. Nothing personal, just I want more fluid logic. That said, what's the use? I won't get the solutions (if they exist) that I desire here at FCM. It's a fun place to discuss and pimp obscure pictures, and at times (when it actually surfices) an interesting debate will occur. But that's it. So yes I'll calm down and quit my needling dick games I've been conducting as of late. Though I gotta admit Capo, in that mode, I was trying to be you and RNL, just in 1000 degrees Hyperbole and on performance enhancement dickish therapy. A joke, that apparently worked. And some ketchup thrown in as well. EDIT - On further reflection, I think I know now my real problem. Not all that rambling above, but that I try and strive, but never ever will be like the best and refreshing film critic out there today, someone who encompasses everything I desire in cinema criticism: *Acceptance of individual subjectivity reaction as part of the film narrative *Not dismissive (especially because of genre) in general *Constructive, NOT deconstructive analysis. *Doesn't bother with that nonsense about trying to seperate "high" and "low" forms of stimulating cinema, which I infered from that Spielberg thread. *Actually has something to say, without falling back on particular sects of criticism dogma (Kael-influenced New York, the AICN-led Geeks, etc.) And that critic would be The Outlaw Vern.outlawvern.com/His SEAGALOGY, a thoughtful and entertaining interpretation of not just Steven Seagal pictures (which alone seems silly), but more broad of the action genre and its evolution (or devolution?) over the years across the big screen, TV, Direct to Video, etc. I mean who else you know of who pen a great argument that ABOVE THE LAW was one of only two (w/ ROBOCOP) liberal-takes on the action genre during the Reagan Decade of Hollywood, and that low budget sleazy fun LAW was the only movie around at that time which criticized Iran/Contra Affair openly when that shit was going down?
|
|