RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2002
Apr 12, 2007 23:17:05 GMT
Post by RNL on Apr 12, 2007 23:17:05 GMT
Irreversible is a greatly made movie. A very good to great movie that I'm never watching again, ever. I really don't like you. So, Kino is an Ozu fan, therefore you 'like' him, and he found Irréversible too disturbing to watch more than once, therefore you 'dislike' him. Besides how staggeringly shallow and fickle that is, what perplexes me the most is the fact that you have not seen any Ozu and have not seen Irréversible and therefore cannot possibly have an opinion on either. On what is the like/dislike then based? Care to explain?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2002
Apr 12, 2007 23:20:01 GMT
Post by RNL on Apr 12, 2007 23:20:01 GMT
Haven't seen I Stand Alone. I'll watch more Noe, but to be honest, he's not high on my priority viewing list. It might be a while. I Stand Alone isn't nearly as violent as Irréversible, but he claims Enter the Void will be much moreso.
|
|
|
2002
Apr 13, 2007 0:29:36 GMT
Post by Michael on Apr 13, 2007 0:29:36 GMT
So, Kino is an Ozu fan, therefore you 'like' him, and he found Irréversible too disturbing to watch more than once, therefore you 'dislike' him. Besides how staggeringly shallow and fickle that is, what perplexes me the most is the fact that you have not seen any Ozu and have not seen Irréversible and therefore cannot possibly have an opinion on either. On what is the like/dislike then based? Care to explain? I like Kino, but some of the stuff he says baffles me. How on Earth somebody could love a film and not want to watch it again is completely beyond me. The whole point of loving a film is enjoying it while you're watching it, and wanting to watch it again.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2002
Apr 13, 2007 0:53:37 GMT
Post by RNL on Apr 13, 2007 0:53:37 GMT
The whole point of loving a film is enjoying it while you're watching it, and wanting to watch it again. Says you. Besides, he didn't say he loved it, he said it was a "greatly made film", which is an observation that doesn't necessarily imply that it's not too disturbing to want to watch more than once.
|
|
|
2002
Apr 13, 2007 1:07:14 GMT
Post by The Ghost of LLC on Apr 13, 2007 1:07:14 GMT
I bet Kino will give it another shot. Just takes a little while to get over the shock.
The first time I saw Requiem for a Dream, I thought "Wow, that may be the greatest movie I've ever seen. I don't ever want to watch that crap again," because the whole sex-party was disturbingly graphic (but well needed) as was the whole infected-arm/hospital thing (which was also well needed). But, I've seen it more times than I care to count since. And looking back at it, the film isn't really that graphic. But then again, I've just probably become so conditioned and desensitized by the film, and I don't know the difference.
It happens.
|
|
Pherdy
Ghost writer
Posts: 596
|
2002
Apr 13, 2007 10:27:32 GMT
Post by Pherdy on Apr 13, 2007 10:27:32 GMT
having seen a programme during a fantastic film festival called "How far can too far go?", I have built up a resistance or something against graphic excessiveness in movies, but I can truly understand how anyone does not want to see a film again for those reasons, yet still find it a greatly made film.
there's nothing wrong with that, although I would add that I myself would be curious at some point to watch it again, I suppose.
for similar reasons I have found films great but completely boring, or not understandable - and most of them I will not see again either. untill probably at some day, my memory will force me to see it again...
|
|
jake
Writer's block
Posts: 215
|
2002
Apr 13, 2007 15:40:35 GMT
Post by jake on Apr 13, 2007 15:40:35 GMT
Jake and Kino, what are your opinions on Irreversible? I've only seen the first 20 minutes or so and had to turn it off. If I recall correctly I was close to being physically sick. The thing was I watched it whilst being quite sleep deprived and very hungover and only after reading online did I find Noé had constructed a soundtrack designed to invoke nausea in the viewer. (;D) So my own fault really. I've got it high on my rental list so hopefully I'll be seeing it all the way through soon. By the way I highly recommend Dans ma peau which I'm pretty sure is your type of film. Very similar to Repulsion with a lot of self mutilation and cannibalism. Edit: Wrong word. I meant physically not psychically. ;D Thanks wetdog.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2002
Apr 13, 2007 17:48:02 GMT
Post by RNL on Apr 13, 2007 17:48:02 GMT
I wonder what that would look like. Yeah, I read the synopsis on IMDb and promptly eMule'd it.
|
|
|
2002
Apr 13, 2007 23:03:05 GMT
Post by Michael on Apr 13, 2007 23:03:05 GMT
I've been wanting to see Irreversible for quite some time now, and they used to have it at my local Blockbuster, but I would always put off renting it until another time. Then a while ago I went there with the sole intention of renting the film, and they had stopped carrying it.
Fuckers.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
2002
Apr 13, 2007 23:16:30 GMT
Post by Omar on Apr 13, 2007 23:16:30 GMT
Blockbuster is horrible. I haven't stepped foot in one for years.
|
|
|
2002
Apr 13, 2007 23:23:48 GMT
Post by Michael on Apr 13, 2007 23:23:48 GMT
I haven't been there in maybe a year. I just stopped going once I rented all of the American films I wanted to see. Their foreign section is half an aisle, and about 98% of it is cheesy kung-fu.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2002
Apr 13, 2007 23:38:50 GMT
Post by Capo on Apr 13, 2007 23:38:50 GMT
I don't feel Irreversible is good because it is graphic. Being horrifically violent does not by default amount to greatness. But I think it's one of the most convincingly cinematic films I've seen (in terms of style providing or magnifying or adding to or being meaning).
Does that mean 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her is a masterpiece because it's a boring film about a boring woman? Not sure...
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2002
Apr 14, 2007 0:02:49 GMT
Post by RNL on Apr 14, 2007 0:02:49 GMT
But I think it's one of the most convincingly cinematic films I've seen (in terms of style providing or magnifying or adding to or being meaning). If by 'style' you mean form, then all films do that by necessity. Where you place the camera and how you frame and when you cut and what you cut from and to, that all always contributes to the film's meanings. It's not usually allegorical, as most of the formal attributes of Irreversible are, but it's always meaningful.
|
|
|
2002
Apr 14, 2007 0:29:38 GMT
Post by Michael on Apr 14, 2007 0:29:38 GMT
2 or 3 Things isn't boring to me.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2002
Apr 14, 2007 0:37:04 GMT
Post by RNL on Apr 14, 2007 0:37:04 GMT
If I find myself bored while watching a movie, I tend to blame myself. If boredom arises from a lack of perceived stimuli, then the only explanation for someone becoming bored while watching a movie (which is a constant stream of stimuli), is that they're not paying attention.
That's the viewer's fault, right?
I've never been bored by Godard. I've been mildly amused and sporadically impressed at best, and utterly disgusted and repulsed at worst.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2002
Apr 16, 2007 13:36:35 GMT
Post by Capo on Apr 16, 2007 13:36:35 GMT
Something is never outright allegorical, just as something is never outright without allegory. Things can only be invitingly allegorical, I think.
But no, I didn't necessarily mean form by style; I meant stylistic form - that is, a self-conscious care for composition and visual rhythm.
The most standard shot-reverse shot sequences in films are not stylistic, they do not have style, they are simply providing information. The shot composition or length does not invoke anything beyond what is essential.
I'm very much a fan (as I know you are too) of camerawork that goes beyond that information-giving. It's an integral part of what we might gather from and beyond what is happening (what is being recorded). Denotation is made more interesting by connotation, and that only happens when the camera is used as more than merely a recording device.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2002
Apr 16, 2007 13:37:59 GMT
Post by Capo on Apr 16, 2007 13:37:59 GMT
Oh, and Godard at his worst can be very dull, but he's still a lot more interesting than most other people, for me.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2002
Apr 16, 2007 14:31:32 GMT
Post by RNL on Apr 16, 2007 14:31:32 GMT
Something is never outright allegorical, just as something is never outright without allegory. Things can only be invitingly allegorical, I think. Well, I meant concrete allegory, as in the real-time of the shots vs the reversed chronology of the narrative. That, in itself, is a style. It's a mainstream style. You don't think Clint Eastwood exercises "a self-conscious care for composition and visual rhythm" and chooses to follow the conventions of Hollywood classisicm (to your distaste)? You're making the illogical assumption that a camera used only to convey information equals a camera used only as a recording device. But no image only conveys information, regardless of how long it's held for. And more importanly, speaking literally, all cameras are recording devices and are used as such equally by Béla Tarr and Clint Eastwood. What you're saying is that you like when things are recorded from unusual angles/with unusual motion/for unusual amounts of time, not that a camera can ever be anything more than a recording device.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2002
Apr 16, 2007 17:40:21 GMT
Post by Capo on Apr 16, 2007 17:40:21 GMT
Mainstream filmmaking operates on convention, not style. That is, you might say they are a style, but they do not have style, they are not stylistic. That is their point. There is no artistic expressiveness about them; they are the normal, granted tools of information-giving in crafting a work.
Classic Narrative Cinema isn't to my distate at all. I love well-crafted films. You can take a still from Eastwood and explore it for the meaning contained within it, but Tarr's camera has meaning, it is meaning, as much as it contains meaning. Nothing wrong with that; the former is knowingly "invisible", the latter deliberately "visible".
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2002
Apr 16, 2007 19:13:17 GMT
Post by RNL on Apr 16, 2007 19:13:17 GMT
A filmmaker styles his film. That film then has a style, it is styled (perhaps not 'stylised', but that's a term used to refer to augmentation of the camera's natural mimetic images), and so according to the tastes of those who created it. This is every bit as true for Eastwood as it is for Tarr. Tarr chooses where to place his camera, how to move it, when to cut. So does Eastwood. Eastwood does not follow a 'How To' manual, he could not be replaced by a computer program, his tastes are simply more conventional and less avant-garde than Tarr's.
Yeah, they are 'normal'. That's because they're popular, and that's why they're conventional. That does not mean they're devoid of artistic expression (unless 'artistry' = 'avant-garde formalism' to you).
What does any of this mean?
How does Tarr's camera 'have' 'meaning' where Eastwood's does not? How 'is' Tarr's camera 'meaning' where Eastwood's 'is' not? How is this not meaningless semantic wordplay? There's SO much debate about what exactly constitutes 'meaning', especially non-linguistic 'meaning', and you're just throwing the word around like there's nothing controversial, difficult or ambiguous about the meaning of 'meaning' at all. You may as well replace the word with X. Tarr's camera has X, it is X, as much as it contains X. That's about as Xingful as what you've said.
The only reason Tarr's camerawork is 'visible' is because it's unusual. If it was the popular, conventional cinematographic style, it'd be as 'invisible' as Eastwood's is.
|
|