RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 13, 2005 23:28:07 GMT
1. Amélie (2001) 8/102. A Very Long Engagement (2004) 7/103. Foutaises (1988) 7/104. Delicatessen (1991) 5/105. The City of Lost Children (1995) 5/106. The Bunker of the Last Gunshots (1981) 5/107. Alien Resurrection (1997) 2/10
|
|
Pherdy
Ghost writer
Posts: 596
|
Post by Pherdy on Dec 29, 2005 13:08:55 GMT
Delicatessen Amélie Un Longe Dimanche The most romantic visualist filmmaker of Europe.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 3, 2006 19:21:26 GMT
1. Amelie 2001 2. A Very Long Engagement 2004 3. Delicatessen 1991 4. Foutaises 1988
|
|
|
Post by mikola on Apr 27, 2006 19:33:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 19, 2006 0:55:39 GMT
1. Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain (2001)
I pretty much hated every minute of Amelie. I honestly don't see what sets it apart from the average mainstream romantic comedy. What in god's name did you guys like about it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 19, 2006 1:07:30 GMT
I should watch Vivre sa Vie just to get the bad taste out of my mouth.
|
|
Marty
Runner
To a new world of gods and monsters
Posts: 84
|
Post by Marty on Oct 19, 2006 15:10:12 GMT
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Oct 19, 2006 20:42:49 GMT
1. Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain (2001) I pretty much hated every minute of Amelie. I honestly don't see what sets it apart from the average mainstream romantic comedy. What in god's name did you guys like about it? I find this kind of hard to swallow. Nothing sets it apart from the average Romcom? Even if we ignore the gorgeous visuals (and we probably shouldn't; that's what Jeunet cares about most), it has next to nothing in common with the Romcom genre. The whole film is Amelie's extremely, cartoonishly romantic, saccharine vision of the world (seemingly governed by nothing but the caprices and serendipities she daydreams about). Narratively it's very original, and very formally 'pure', which is a quality I admire. Then there's the indefatigable parade of visually beautiful cinematic set-pieces. IF ONLY the Romcom genre showed so much imagination (or any, for that matter). ... Jeunet hates Vivre sa vie.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 19, 2006 21:18:06 GMT
The film had the most irritatingly childike, cartoonish visuals I have ever had the displeasure of witnessing in my entire life. Seriously. I wanted to stab my eyes out 10 minutes into the film. I also despised how every character was introduced, telling us his or her fucking life story. Like I give a shit. What in the fucking hell do I need to know this shit for? Why not leave something up to the viewer instead shoving everything down our throats?
I don't think I've ever been this infuriated by a film before. Amelie is a disgrace to cinema.
I'm not surprised Jeunet hates Vivre sa Vie. He's already proven himself to be an ignorant, immature child, and a giant fucking moron.
*kicks something
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Oct 19, 2006 22:00:40 GMT
The film had the most irritatingly childike, cartoonish visuals I have ever had the displeasure of witnessing in my entire life. Seriously. I wanted to stab my eyes out 10 minutes into the film. Well, okay. Different strokes and all that; but it's supposed to be childlike, because the world is filtered through Amelie's imagination, and she's childlike. The result, logically enough, is cartoonish. You don't, I guess. The idea is that you'd want to (when do you ever need to?). The narrative is so diffuse, not much of it is essential storytelling. It's part of Jeunet's evocation of Amelie's imagination. The whole thing is capricious and whimsical. I've seen you say this a few times. What exactly does that mean, without the metaphor? So, everyone who dislikes Vivra sa vie is an ignorant, immature moron - and everyone who likes it is an enlightened, mature genius. Okey-dokey. I'm just not even going to touch that. He hates the whole New Wave. He resents that that's what's most closely identified with French cinema, which, aside from Gaspar Noé's films, he hates in general. He's a visualist, he thinks cinema is first and foremost a sensual medium - about composition, colour, camerawork, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 19, 2006 23:24:25 GMT
The whole thing is capricious and whimsical. You think those are good qualities? Well, um...okay then. When the viewer is told everything about every character, the narrative is fed to them on a silver spoon, the music is heavy, the visuals are bright and colorful, the editing is fast-paced. All these things are suffocating. I prefer when filmmakers take a step back and allow the viewer to meet their film on his or her own terms. Otherwise it lacks emotional depth and ambiguity, and borders on filmed theatre.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Oct 20, 2006 0:13:29 GMT
You think those are good qualities? Well, um...okay then. No, I think the film is good, and I think the film has those qualities. I don't come to each film demanding certain prescribed adjectives be applicable. That amounts to stereotyping, and results in severely narrowed aesthetic horizons. Some people evidently enjoy whittling down their taste buds until they only appreciate one kind of cinematic experience, but that's their loss - I, for one, love the medium. There's a fair amount of caprice in Godard's films too, you know, and not so much ambiguity. Those are more metaphors, which I've also heard before (and not just from you). You haven't clarified it. Try to explain what you mean literally; you should be able to do that if you understand it. Incidentally, I do know what you're getting at, I just think you're regurgitating a cliché popular among film snobs that doesn't actually carry any real meaning - the "leaving room for objective audience contemplation" banality. Apparently all it involves is making low-key, reticent, often visually mundane and usually self-important movies that "make you think". Amelie does not border on filmed theatre. Those two statements don't correlate, either, at all. You're implying that theatre inherently lacks ambiguity and emotional depth.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 20, 2006 0:51:37 GMT
Those are more metaphors, which I've also heard before (and not just from you). You haven't clarified it. Try to explain what you mean literally; you should be able to do that if you understand it. HOW MUCH MORE FUCKING LITERALLY CAN I PUT IT?!?!? Honestly. How is what I wrote not literal? I don't know how else I can put it. No offense, but I feel like kicking you in the face right now. With metal spikes. And comparing this film with anything Godard has ever done is...oh my god. I can't even put a sentence together right now. My blood is boiling. I need a cigarette break. I'll re-visit this when I can think clearly.
|
|
|
Post by Valenti on Oct 20, 2006 12:01:29 GMT
Perhaps, Don, you should be a little more tolerant of other people's tastes.
I can't really imagine being mad a movie when there's nothing inherently offensive about it. What's wrong with a film being innocent and sweet and entertaining? Not every movie has to be deep and provoking and groundbreaking.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Oct 20, 2006 12:14:53 GMT
I don't think I've ever been this infuriated by a film before. What about with "Boogie Nights"?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Oct 20, 2006 13:43:12 GMT
Godard's one of the least subtle directors I can think of.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Oct 20, 2006 21:29:29 GMT
How is what I wrote not literal? "When the viewer is told everything about every character, the narrative is fed to them on a silver spoon, the music is heavy, the visuals are bright and colorful, the editing is fast-paced. All these things are suffocating. I prefer when filmmakers take a step back and allow the viewer to meet their film on his or her own terms." I've bolded the metaphors you should try to clarify. I'll accept the "heavy" music and the "spoonfed" narrative (if by that you mean story) because those metaphors are almost dead (literalised). The others, unless you can convince me to the contrary, I'm considering meaningless clichés picked up and repeated without consideration. ...is quite easy, actually. Fast-paced editing? A bout de souffle. Bright and colourful visuals? Le mépris. "Heavy" music? Forever Mozart. If you dislike "heavy" music, your 3-star rating of Requiem for a Dream is a puzzler. And, moreover, if you enjoy "heavy" music on its own (Sigur Rós, for instance), I see no reason why it would suddenly become so abhorrent when synced with images.
As an aside: did anyone else know that Jeunet and Caro split directorial duties on their two collaborative features, with Jeunet directing the actors and Caro in charge of the visuals? That means that Amelie is the first real taste we get of Jeunet's style (if we brush over Alien 4, as I would Alien 3 for Fincher). Also, Caro is in post-production on his debut solo feature: Dante 01.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 21, 2006 5:38:42 GMT
Okay. I think my head is clear enough to discuss this now.
By "suffocating," I'm simply referring to the feeling I get when I'm not allowed to develop my own opinions about character motivations, or make my own judgments. Also, it's the feeling I get when things are moving too fast, or when the music is irritating. I actually didn't hate the music in Amelie, but the cartoonish feel was enough for me to want to puke my guts out.
As for Godard, I don't think those are fair comparisons. I think the jump-cuts in A bout de souffle were just Godard's way of adding character to the film. For the most part, the camera stayed in the same location for long periods of time, allowing us to focus on the interaction between characters.
Le Mepris is very bright and colorful, I agree. I actually think the film is pretty beautiful. The bright and colorful visuals combined with fast-paced editing is what I despise for the most part. These criticisms aren't applicable for all films however. If a film contains these elements and still manages to remain morally and thematically ambiguous, I wouldn't have a problem with it. A movie is a single package. I find it pointless to break it down into parts, because in the end, brilliance lies within the viewer's emotional responses, and using words to describe these emotional responses is reductive and usually leads to convoluted reasoning.
It's hard for me to explain why I love Godard's unsubtleness and despise other filmmakers'. Perhaps it is because Godard delivers his thoughts with such amazing force and conviction, that it's hard not to respect it. It also leaves a long-lasting imprint in my mind. I fact, all of Godard's films I've seen remain imprinted in my mind. They each have such a unique feel to them, and the way he combines his images with music in such an unconventional way really is impressive.
Hell, I don't even think all of Godard's films are unsubtle; Vivre sa Vie for example. The film may seem unsubtle on the surface, but when you look at it as a whole, so much of it is left up to the viewer. There are a million answers and nobody is wrong. That's what ultimately makes a film great to me; the level of interaction between artist and viewer. I see none of it in Amelie, and that's another reason why it is one of the most infuriatingly horrible films I have ever seen.
By the way, I loved the music in Requiem for a Dream. It was the best part of the film.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Oct 22, 2006 2:24:36 GMT
If a film contains these elements and still manages to remain morally and thematically ambiguous, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But isn't there moral ambiguities to be found in the intrusion upon other characters' lives by the title character? With her father, and his gnome's postcard adventures, Amelie isn't really making him notably more happy, is she? And there's a lot of spying going on, not to mention the bold attempt to get two people together by gossiping around them. Thematic ambiguity is such a vague description of what you want from a film before watching it. And, if you tried hard enough, you could basically pull any film into your own romanticised vision of how it should be. A bout de souffle, for instance, could well pass as a dissection of gender politics, if I wanted it to be that way. Or it could simply be a homage to Monogram B Pictures. Amelie, then, could well be a comment on Chance and Destiny... or it could well be an exploration of, or subversion, of the conventions of the romantic comedy as a genre. I remembered liking the film before tonight, but felt uncomfortable discussing it with you before a rewatch. And why do I like the film? Because, essentially, if (good?) Cinema is a succession of images and sounds edited together to create a rational, believable, fully credible world, with consistent rhythms and realities, then I admire Amélie for how irresistible it is, how knowingly "artsy fartsy" it is. Not only does it happen to be a fairly comprehensive collection of camera movements and lens tricks, but its soundtrack is brilliant too. I found a few similarities with Godard, actually, regarding character, if only because I was conscious of this debate while watching the film. I don't particularly care for most of the characters in Amelie, (but that is not to say I don't care for how their individual narratives will work out in this singular world), but I like how the narrator introduces them to us with such irrelevant information regarding their backgrounds and characters. Because these little snippets aren't necessarily needed to develop plot (and they don't really serve their respected characters either, really, though they do help to create Jeunet's eccentric world), the characters, though all very different to one another, are expendable creations, a little cardboard. Godard's characters are exactly the same: cattle to voice the director's thoughts, and we never really care for them. I need to see Vivre sa vie again, but to my knowledge, I've never cared for any of Godard's characters. His technique varies from Jeunet's though, because he reveals nothing about their characters. They all serve his politics, his "narrative", his "message", and don't exist outside the film. When the film ends, so do they. I'm writing while these thoughts are still fresh, so allow a little room for misunderstanding. But does anybody else agree with what I just said?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 23, 2006 20:50:24 GMT
If a film contains these elements and still manages to remain morally and thematically ambiguous, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But isn't there moral ambiguities to be found in the intrusion upon other characters' lives by the title character? With her father, and his gnome's postcard adventures, Amelie isn't really making him notably more happy, is she? And there's a lot of spying going on, not to mention the bold attempt to get two people together by gossiping around them. I think you're really stretching with those examples. The situation with Amelie's father and the gnomes was, um...stupid. (I hate using stupid as an adjective, but in this case, it's the only word I can think of). The way she set up the cigarette counter lady and the other guy was so insanely corny, it pains me to even talk about it. He tells him she likes him, she tells her he likes her, there's an awkward exchange between the two the next day, and 5 minutes later they're fucking in the bathroom! lolz how cute she gawt her man!!! It's all so phony, so fluffy; Jeunet hides the real world from his audience, hides the complexities of human emotion and interaction. Amelie can't be a comment on Chance and Destiny, because it's delivered with such a false sense of hope, fantasy, and blind optimism, that the viewer couldn't possibly apply those themes to the film. They don't have any room to apply those things, Amelie never explores the other side of things, never gives the viewer a chance to escape from the world which Jeunet has created. First of all, I'd like to thank you for re-watching the film before entering this discussion. Secondly, I agree with your definition of cinema, but my problem with Amelie is that the world that is created isn't rational, believable, or fully credible. It's just a fantasy world, filled with epic amounts of irrelevance and naivity. I agree with you on Godard, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed the method in which he uses his characters. I was actually going to include that in my last post, but decided against it. Godard's characters are just puppets. Providing an audience with tons of information about a character is a device used in Literature and Theatre, and has no place in cinema.
|
|