RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Mar 19, 2008 0:38:43 GMT
Paul Schrader (1946- )1. American Gigolo (1980) 7/102. Cat People (1982) 3/10
|
|
jake
Writer's block
Posts: 215
|
Post by jake on Mar 19, 2008 0:43:48 GMT
1. American Gigolo (1980) 2. Affliction (1997) 3. Hardcore (1979) 4. Cat People (1982)
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Mar 19, 2008 2:00:00 GMT
Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters American Gigolo Cat People Criterion's releasing Mishima!
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Apr 2, 2008 13:18:51 GMT
I listened to part of a recent radio interview with him yesterday on why films are dead. It was pretty depressing.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Apr 2, 2008 13:49:56 GMT
Did he explain his reasons for believing that?
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Apr 2, 2008 15:03:05 GMT
Mostly new media, and the idea that we don't know what films are anymore. How long are they supposed to be? Why are they confined to a dark room to watch them?
He said the theater going experience wouldn't become completely obsolete, but would be more along the lines of dramatic theater. An event, he called it. He joked about Criterion releasing "Mishima!", and how DVDs would be worthless in a few years anyway. "It will look good on your shelf."
He said that there were four legs to the film industry: 1) the audience 2) the director 3) the critics 4) and the financiers.
He talked about how the critics leg had fallen due to the internet. Paid film reviewers would soon be obsolete, along with print media. He went on and on about watching films on cellphones, and how that would be a possible change in the future, due to the falling of the audience leg.
He compared it slightly to the 60's, in that American films in the 60's had to re-discover what films were about. Now, he said, we have to re-discover what films are.
The whole thing made me want to shoot myself. I will try to find the link for you.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Apr 2, 2008 15:07:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Nov 1, 2008 13:13:17 GMT
1. Affliction (1997) 8/10 2. Hardcore (1979) 6/10 3. Auto Focus (2002) 6/10
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Nov 2, 2008 5:28:42 GMT
DOMINION: PREQUEL TO THE EXORCIST (2005) - ****
I might review it someday, but an incredibly underrated effort that tried and mostly succeeds as a thoughtful theological drama on faith, guilt, and the fucking Devil.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Jun 21, 2009 21:38:27 GMT
cat people
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jun 22, 2009 20:16:53 GMT
Well, sometimes Film needs a good asskicking. It happens.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Jun 23, 2009 1:42:47 GMT
Well, sometimes Film needs a good asskicking. It happens. Yeah, you're right. It didn't really upset me. I think it was right on the money (or something less vain).
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Jun 23, 2009 1:50:17 GMT
Well, sometimes Film needs a good asskicking. It happens. Yeah, you're right. It didn't really upset me. I think it was right on the money (or something less vain). It didn't upset me either, but it scares me. I don't want film to go the way of theater, which has a dedicated audience, but hardly anywhere as popular as cinema is today.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jun 23, 2009 2:10:46 GMT
guys, movies have had to evolve, whatever it be the 60s or the 50s when Television nearly strangled it.
It'll evolve and survive. But what it'll evolve and live as in the future....who knows, and what we don't know, always frightens up. Maybe for the better, or for the worse. I mean wouldn't you all agree that Netflix has been great for us moviephiles in this decade?
And no svsg, I dont see cinema going the way of theatre. There's just too much money to be lost for everyone in Hollywood, including theatrical distributors, if that is to happen.
Shit guys, remember when the Internet popped up in popularity in the 1990s when everyone was predicting printed/published/delivered newspapers would go the way of the dodo? Well those fuckers are still around, even though many have been put to sleep. But still around, alot of them are. For now.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Jun 23, 2009 3:06:46 GMT
And no svsg, I dont see cinema going the way of theatre. There's just too much money to be lost for everyone in Hollywood, including theatrical distributors, if that is to happen. Good point. And for that (and only that) reason I am happy that they make films like Harry Potter series, that I have zero interest in watching, but at least it preserves the general idea of film as an entertainment medium, if not an art form. Artists will find a way to sneak in art in the midst of all the "entertainment"
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Jun 23, 2009 4:52:24 GMT
Shit guys, remember when the Internet popped up in popularity in the 1990s when everyone was predicting printed/published/delivered newspapers would go the way of the dodo? Well those fuckers are still around, even though many have been put to sleep. But still around, alot of them are. For now. As a communications major who was formally focused in journalism, I must say that their days are numbered.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jun 23, 2009 5:21:33 GMT
And no svsg, I dont see cinema going the way of theatre. There's just too much money to be lost for everyone in Hollywood, including theatrical distributors, if that is to happen. Good point. And for that (and only that) reason I am happy that they make films like Harry Potter series, that I have zero interest in watching, but at least it preserves the general idea of film as an entertainment medium, if not an art form. Artists will find a way to sneak in art in the midst of all the "entertainment" I would think the same of other "event" pictures of this decade that one was almost compelled or "forced" to go watch at an actual theatre with the perception that a DVD screening just won't cut it, jack. I think of James Bond's recent revival (CASINO ROYALE), those LORD OF THE RINGS movies, those Christopher Nolan Batman pictures that FCM is split on, and my personal role model for what you describe of injecting "art" into "entertainment": The BOURNE franchise, easily the most influential of the lot I've mentioned if you ask me. Not all, but those are good examples of what you are describing. Another from our lifetime I could that alot of you will disagree with its quality but certainly was arguably "the" event film...TITANIC. Whatever one liked it or not, it was indeed a big movie. Too big for our small screens. Speaking of 007, especially the Sean Connery/Moore entries, they don't work on TV with the constant cutaways to commercials. Then again, movies upon once a time weren't produced to be seen on television, or which you could click with your remote during the middle, and watch aimlessly as if it didn't matter you weren't there from the beginning. Which is probably why the recent Brosnan episodes play better on the tube, since they were shot in that mindless/whatever narrative scheme. Even the quite fun GOLDENEYE. Haven't seen CASINO ROYALE yet on TV, but I wouldn't be shocked if it has the same problem with the Connery/Moore movies.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jun 23, 2009 5:35:23 GMT
Shit guys, remember when the Internet popped up in popularity in the 1990s when everyone was predicting printed/published/delivered newspapers would go the way of the dodo? Well those fuckers are still around, even though many have been put to sleep. But still around, alot of them are. For now. As a communications major who was formally focused in journalism, I must say that their days are numbered. I'm reminded of that recent STATE OF PLAY. Not rocket science or anything, but a decent thriller with good acting, a decent plot, capable excitement, intrigue, and chills. Anyway, star Ben Affleck was all over TV, especially MSNBC, going off about how we can't let the major newspapers eat it because we won't get their great reporting, and thus his STATE OF PLAY was effectively a propaganda piece to vouch for the dying paper. I thought only two words when I heard all that: Fuck YouAffleck confuses a medium as being one and the same with journalism, and that's such bullshit. Medium is irrelevant really, as long as journalists actually bother to do their friggin jobs, put forward an effort, research, and not just copy and paste the government press releases as "news" (like Fox News notoriously did with the Dubya White House) Or in short, hijacking the Auteur Theory for a moment, the journalists are the author of their narrative, not the editors or the company ideological talking points or whatever. A classic example of my point is ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN. Every journalist and communications major have seen that and at point or another were inspired to want to kick ass, chew bubblegum, and report the truth. Shit even Bill O'Reilly admits this, and he's an asshole of the worst kind. And really, even the ole Washington Post has gone to the sort of hell I describe above. They just fired one of their freelanced-associate bloggers because he kept badgering on the government about the Torture issue, while the paper and their NeoCon Op-Ed writers wanted to ignore that shit like the STAR WARS Christmas Special. Or Tehran even. Not to be fair, New York Times and Wall Street Journal have done some terrific reporting over that crazy upheaval over there. But otherwise on that weekend when the shit went down, the cable networks were out to lunch and the papers didn't give a shit either. Except the blogs. Huffington Post, andrew Sullivan, etc. They all were posting reports from the ground, mostly pro-reform demonstrators and tech-saavy youth, and especially that Twitter postings which escaped the Iran tech crackdown. Which you probably heard all about by now. Sure not all those reports panned out as truth, but overall as a collage, its been broadly accurate and in real-time. When CNN got criticized, they laughed it off as "hey we gotta sleep sometime." Remember when CNN was there in Eastern Europe when the Iron Curtain dropped, and in Baghdad during the First Gulf War? No wonder people dont give a shit about CNN anymore. Back to my point: The whole dynamic of STATE OF PLAY was how short-sighted and wreckless the bloggers are in the news reporting medium compared to the big picture/assertive newspaper report. And all that now comes off as just bullshit. So yeah, fuck you Ben Affleck.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Jun 23, 2009 15:07:49 GMT
Back to my point: The whole dynamic of STATE OF PLAY was how short-sighted and wreckless the bloggers are in the news reporting medium compared to the big picture/assertive newspaper report. And all that now comes off as just bullshit. So yeah, fuck you Ben Affleck. Something we talked about in one of my classes was how when that thing broke out a few years ago about Dan Rather presenting those false reports of Dubya's National Guard service record, or whatever, and how that error was discovered not by other news networks, but bloggers, who realized that the type of ink used for those documents didn't exist in the early 1970s. Anyway, to be fair to Mr. Schrader, there might be another thread we could talk about this in .... maybe ...
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jun 23, 2009 19:03:49 GMT
Alright, to get back to Schrader....when is his new movie out anyway?
|
|