|
2002
Apr 16, 2007 19:37:02 GMT
Post by Michael on Apr 16, 2007 19:37:02 GMT
Discussions like this are pointless, because most, if not all of the reasoning you guys can use is convoluted.
Steer clear of over-contemplation.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2002
Apr 16, 2007 19:42:17 GMT
Post by RNL on Apr 16, 2007 19:42:17 GMT
Discussions like this are pointless, because most, if not all of the reasoning you guys can use is convoluted. Steer clear of over-contemplation. Haha... spoken like a true philosopher. Why is there always someone on a discussion forum who makes a point of advising people against discussion? Seriously, I've encountered that so many times; somebody pops into the thread and declares the discussion 'pointless' and accuses the participants of 'thinking too much'.
|
|
|
2002
Apr 16, 2007 21:43:43 GMT
Post by Michael on Apr 16, 2007 21:43:43 GMT
Notice I said discussions like this. As in, discussions that involve talking about the medium rather than specific films. I've found that I learn more by engaging in the latter than the former. I used to contemplate for hours about what cinema is, why it exists, what constitutes a film as "cinematic" and "uncinematic," but I've found that thinking too much about that stuff can ruin your film-watching experiences.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2002
Apr 16, 2007 21:48:38 GMT
Post by Capo on Apr 16, 2007 21:48:38 GMT
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). Well, in a sense, yes, it does. Artistry meaning expression, meaning something beyond mere craftsmanship. But you make good points, as always. But I must say, I've had enough discussion for this life. No more, I tell you, no more.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2002
Apr 16, 2007 21:55:02 GMT
Post by RNL on Apr 16, 2007 21:55:02 GMT
Notice I said discussions like this. As in, discussions that involve talking about the medium rather than specific films. I've found that I learn more by engaging in the latter than the former. I used to contemplate for hours about what cinema is, why it exists, what constitutes a film as "cinematic" and "uncinematic," but I've found that thinking too much about that stuff can ruin your film-watching experiences. I haven't found that.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2002
Apr 16, 2007 22:03:11 GMT
Post by Capo on Apr 16, 2007 22:03:11 GMT
I sort of feel like I earn the right to be broad and philosophicalmy by being specific too (with film reviews).
I try my best not to sit in the dark corner without a personality only to come out and bite on a cake full of grand concepts which need to be defined.
|
|
|
2002
Apr 16, 2007 22:14:19 GMT
Post by Michael on Apr 16, 2007 22:14:19 GMT
That cake really is delicious though. It loses most of its flavor when you rip it apart and smear it on the floor.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2002
Apr 16, 2007 22:15:06 GMT
Post by Capo on Apr 16, 2007 22:15:06 GMT
It is, but I only like it in a diet of other things, too.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2002
Apr 16, 2007 22:37:02 GMT
Post by RNL on Apr 16, 2007 22:37:02 GMT
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). Well, in a sense, yes, it does. Artistry meaning expression, meaning something beyond mere craftsmanship. But it's hardly true that the only way one can possibly express oneself is through avant-garde formalism. You say 'mere craftsmanship' as though Eastwood is assembling a wardrobe, with a set of instructions and a prescribed functionality that he needs to realise (is this to some extent true of production-line hack work?* I'm thinking in particular of the endless 'remakes' of 1970s/'80s horror movies that all look identical). Eastwood clearly cares about what he's doing. He's got creative control, and he's not a hack. He's making as many aesthetic decisions, and decisions about 'meaning' and how to convey it, as Tarr is. Their tastes and motivations simply differ. Hell, even a complete hack has to make as many choices as the most serious artist, they're just expressions of apathy rather than artistry. It's true that no artist is in full control of the meanings of their work, because it's impossible for them to pay attention to every aspect of it and shape it to their liking, but I guess it might be fair to say that Eastwood decides to pay more attention to his actors and their dialogue than he does to his cinematography, and that Tarr's main decision-making process relates to his camerawork. They try to control different 'channels' of meaning, perhaps? *This is an excerpt from an article published on CHUD.com a few weeks ago: Hollywood moviemaking is, quality-wise, at an all-time low; after all, even the major power players in the much-maligned 1980s - Spielberg, Simpson/Bruckheimer, Guber/Peters - were, more often than not, employing talented filmmakers to helm their would-be seasonal blockbusters. Today, however, the burgeoning Joe Dantes and Tony Scotts and Tim Burtons of the industry, if they even exist, are being shoved aside in favor of careerist incompetents like Brian Robbins (Norbit), Adam Shankman (The Pacifier), and Marc Lawrence (Sandra Bullock's rom-com generator). These guys don't have a point-of-view to distract them from doing the studio's bidding, and they keep getting work because they're okay with their movies being calibrated in development to make money. And their kind will only flourish because Hollywood is lousy with soulless types eager to hit as many quadrants as possible in order to secure that next gig. At least old school studio animals like Arthur Hiller and Mark Rydell had relatively good taste and collaborated with good writers to make pictures that entertained without being completely brainless; nowadays, the studios crunch the numbers beforehand to minimize their risk, order a committee of writers to incorporate a veritable shopping list of marketable elements, and then hand the script over to their new school "director" lackeys, who call action for a few months until the whole soulless endeavor is ready to be pieced together and ultimately supplied to the megaplexes, where audiences will pay for two hours of white noise replicating the beats of the comedies and dramas they enjoyed in their youth.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2002
Apr 16, 2007 23:43:53 GMT
Post by RNL on Apr 16, 2007 23:43:53 GMT
I sort of feel like I earn the right to be broad and philosophicalmy by being specific too (with film reviews). I try my best not to sit in the dark corner without a personality only to come out and bite on a cake full of grand concepts which need to be defined. In fairness, Capo, I'm not the only one who doesn't write reviews, and, civil rights aside, I'm being as specific in this thread as I need to be to discuss what we're discussing.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2002
Apr 17, 2007 7:13:24 GMT
Post by Capo on Apr 17, 2007 7:13:24 GMT
Past convictions have turned rather flaccid, and I am discouraged or confused or both:
From the Loach thread, wetdog:
And you once said Godard's camera in the eighties was "dead (because Cinema is dead!)", but I can't find the thread. Probably the Proview thread.
Everything has style, I can see that and concede to it as a point somebody else made against me; but not everything is stylistic, right? Not everything is expressive, or artistic, or conscious.
What makes you call Renny Harlin and Ridley Scott craftsmen as opposed to artists?
Eastwood and Tarr were bad examples for a comparison, because as much as I don't like his films, I agree with everything you said on Clint (I never pounced on Eastwood in the first place, so I don't know why you brought him up).
But there are films and filmmakers that are insanely ordinary, which mark a seeming disinterest in the medium itself, a natural way of filmmaking, one which I've come across with people my age who set this shot up and that shot up without any real reason behind it. There's no conscious thought put into it. There's not a decision (like Eastwood, you said, makes an aesthetic choice) to make something look the way it is, it just flows from convention - convention being the films they've watched; they fall into a trap of wanting to make films in the mainstream manner without being aware of mainstream conventions, or the opposite of that.
I don't even know how we got onto this, which is a really bad sign.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2002
Apr 17, 2007 7:21:17 GMT
Post by Capo on Apr 17, 2007 7:21:17 GMT
At any rate, when you said that what I was trying to say was that I liked unusual angles or camera movements in films, I'd revise that and say I like the idea of excess, of expression to the point of being noticed. Which allows for a lot of films depending on my mood.
I love Curtiz and his crowded mise-en-scène as much as I love Noé and his swirling camera.
I should think the same applies to you.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2002
Apr 18, 2007 0:05:48 GMT
Post by RNL on Apr 18, 2007 0:05:48 GMT
From the Loach thread, wetdog: Nah, so-called 'naturalism' is of course a style. It's just a style that doesn't particularly appeal to me. That quote's a little embarrassing, actually, it's a bit too close to the well-worn 'I don't like it so it isn't art' argument. Yeah, I think I was tempted by the potential for sarcasm there, to be honest. I hated Hail Mary with every fibre of my being. But I never said the film lacked a style. Yeah, I think any filmmaker, through exclusive and inclusive choices they make based upon their personal tastes, has their own style. All those choices are stylistic choices, some made consciously, others unconsciously, all expressive of that filmmaker's individual tastes, concerns, intentions, etc. Artistic? Dunno about that... Probably yes, but perhaps to differing extents. It depends entirely on how you define art, though. I'm less inclined to bother with that line of thought now. That opinion was based on what my own understanding and personal experience of art was at the time. I saw Harlin and Scott as not being filmmakers who 'dig deep' and pursue 'truth'. But to be fair, nor did I think avant-garde formalism required any depth of artistry, believing that an artist is an artist quite apart from whatever physical medium he chooses to channel his impulses through. I think I still believe that, but I've dropped any 'first-person plural' pretensions. That's what my art can be. Words don't have built-in definitions and it's not my place to decide for others what 'art' means to them. Just because he's an example of an extremely conventional filmmaker who has unmistakable integrity, and because of your distaste for his films. Are they disinterested in the medium or are they disinterested in radicalising the medium? Yeah, it does. But I like the idea of familiarity and convention, too.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2002
Jun 2, 2007 15:26:40 GMT
Post by RNL on Jun 2, 2007 15:26:40 GMT
I just replaced Punch-Drunk Love with Maddin's Dracula ballet, which I suddenly have an overwhelming urge to see again.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2002
Aug 29, 2007 14:57:11 GMT
Post by Capo on Aug 29, 2007 14:57:11 GMT
Solaris left the planet and Talk To Her landed in at fifth.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2002
Dec 9, 2007 4:26:25 GMT
Post by RNL on Dec 9, 2007 4:26:25 GMT
_1. Irreversible Gaspar Noé _2. Ararat Atom Egoyan _3. Spider David Cronenberg _4. Friday Night Claire Denis _5. Russian Ark Aleksandr Sokurov _6. Heaven Tom Tykwer _7. Adaptation. Spike Jonze _8. Unfaithful Adrian Lyne _9. Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary Guy Maddin 10. Femme Fatale Brian De Palma
|
|
|
2002
Dec 20, 2007 22:39:56 GMT
Post by bobbyreed on Dec 20, 2007 22:39:56 GMT
1. Ararat 2. Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary 3. Punch-Drunk Love 4. Spider 5. Heaven 6. Friday Night 7. Talk to Her 8. Dream Work 9. Gerry 10. Morvern Callar
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
2002
Mar 31, 2008 22:31:31 GMT
Post by Kino on Mar 31, 2008 22:31:31 GMT
1. The Son (Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne) 2. Friday Night (Denis) 3. Punch-Drunk Love (Anderson) 4. Magdalene Sisters (Mullan) 5. Comedian (Charles) 6. To Be and to Have (Philibert) 7. Distant (Ceylan) 8. Raising Victor Vargas (Sollett) 9. Unknown Pleasures (Jia) 10. Man Without a Past (Kaurismaki)
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
2002
Mar 31, 2008 22:33:53 GMT
Post by Kino on Mar 31, 2008 22:33:53 GMT
Wetdog, try checking out Seinfeld in Comedian. Very interesting documentary on the stand-up comedian's life.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2002
Mar 31, 2008 22:46:32 GMT
Post by RNL on Mar 31, 2008 22:46:32 GMT
I saw it, I didn't really like it. Or rather, I didn't like the half following that up-and-comer, who was a complete jackass.
|
|