Post by Capo on Dec 28, 2006 13:41:17 GMT
Originally posted here, though I think SVSG would have had a better response posting it on here. This is the film board, after all. I don't think he'll mind me posting the entire discussion here.
SVSG said:
To which I replied:
1) The scenario between Mr. X and Mr. Y is being judged already: you called those films "no-brainer movies". On whose terms are they no-brainer movies?
2) My problem with remakes is that they rarely add anything personal or new. Like Wet Dog, I'm not against the process of remaking a film, but I more often than not will approach one with caution, because from experience they hold very little merit. Jackson's King Kong was fantastic and rare: it updated the effects and action by CGI, but also showed a rare enthusiasm from its director towards the original, with self-reflexive action and intertextual dialogue thrown in for good measure. Scorsese did exactly the same with Cape Fear. I think the Bond movies are in need of a lot of remakes too. Now that Casino Royale has been finally been given justice, I'd love to see the makers remake the series in the order Fleming wrote them.
I think a lot of people have a problem with originality. Originality to me essentially means creating something which strikes one as new, as having not been experienced before. I value it greatly, but often overlook it at first. I might even be put off by it. People forget that Cinema itself is original, it is still a very new medium. People also forget that there is so much more potential to be had from the whole idea of using a camera, of not only recording reality but producing it. They forget that what they're watching is an illusion. That's how powerful Cinema is, but it's overlooked on a mass scale. People value stories and characters, I think, more than anything. Like I've said before, there's nothing particularly cinematic about stories or characters. But as an example I've experienced many times before, I've asked a lot of people what they thought of Lost In Translation, and they've said, "It's boring, nothing happens." What they mean is story-wise; Coppola, its director, belongs to that misunderstood category of "Art Cinema", and her films are often successions of repeated situations in order to develop character. The film itself is one of the best films I've ever seen; it has a fine sense of not only narrative rhythm, but evokes loneliness through framing compositions and volume levels, not to mention creates a fine sense of place through sound and cinematography.
But I think it is important to note that originality is often dismissed; a lot of people find it repulsive. When you think about the term originality, what it really means is going against what we already know; I'm not sure if it is transcending traditional value or rejecting it - either way, original works are often misunderstood. How many times, for instance, have you read or heard somebody call Lynch, Jarmusch or Greenaway (to name but three very original directors with very individual styles) "pretentious" or "weird just for the sake of being weird"? I got into quite a heated verbal debate with someone recently who said Lynch was pretentious because he considered himself above his audience. When I asked how that was so, the answer I got was that he dismissed story in his films, and even took pleasure in making them confusing.
There are three fundamental questions I think everybody should ask themselves after every film has finished:
a) Why do I watch films?
b) How would I define Cinema?
c) How original was the film I've just seen?
These three films help you be objective in your opinion - that is, as honest as you can be inside your own perishable, subjective bubble.
Question 'a' helps you to understand why you're even watching the film in the first place. If you come to the conclusion that you're watching it to pass the time, then the likelihood is you're going to be easily pleased. If you're watching it to know the meaning of life, the chances are you're going to be dismissive of a lot of films, such as "no-brainer comedies". (I say that not because the meaning of life cannot be found in such films, but because the kind of person who seeks such frivolous and objective answers in something as abstract and subjective as Cinema is not the kind to be open to something as "irrelevent" as a Will Ferrell film. He's approaching Cinema with an agenda that limits and restricts his opinion and chances of enjoyment, not to open him to more pleasures.)
Question 'b' helps you to know how well the film fits to your perceptions or definitions of Cinema. How cinematic it is, how relevant it is to bringing you closer to enjoying or appreciating the medium - that is, how well you enjoyed the film as a work of Cinema. And I think it is important to be aware of the medium you're watching. I've met many people on my film studies degree recently who have turned their noses up at the likes of Battleship Potemkin, and their reasons showed quite a disdain for Cinema itself...of course without them knowing it. In my opinion, you shouldn't be judging films about how "morally acceptable" or how "socially relevant" they are, because that places works of art in a cage, in a time vault, which limits their impact across what John Fowles called the "horizontality of time". You should watch films and judge films by how closer they bring you personally to your love for the medium itself - and story and character is rather quite irrelevant to the medium. The primary window through which I engage with a film, for instance, my first connection with a film, when the lights in the cinema go down and the celluloid strip is projected onto film, is either (and most often) the image. The image, the frame, the illusion, of what the camera has captured, of what we are being allowed to show. If it isn't the image, it is the sound. Images and sounds, and the way they are edited together. It is convenient to edit such images and sounds together so as to create a coherent, accessible story. Stories interest me little, but I am fascinated by narrative - narrative is the way in which stories are told, or the way in which films unfold. I go into this further here.
Question 'c' is pretty much self-evident. I value creativity, and being creative, the process of being creative, lends originality to a work. How original you rate a film will depend on how many you've seen, and how many you've seen that are like it. But original films are often those which make more use of the fact they are being made with, or because of, a camera. But when people are sitting in a darkened theatre, they'll nevertheless forget the fact, or ignore the fact, that they're watching something only because of a camera. People are rarely interested in the visual, in the image.
If you know what you're interested in, if you know what drives you personally, what fascinates you and excites you, I think you can offer analysis of and elaboration on films with a lot more conviction and sophistication.
These three questions, as I've said, help you know yourself, or your interests and tastes, on a much deeper level... but of course a lot don't ask them because they are afraid that the answers might conclude that they in fact are repelled by Cinema, by the medium of Cinema, by the whole notion of being "cinematic"...and how else would they pass their time?
I'll pose a question to you, now (and anybody else who might be reading): What would you be more interested in reading, the AFI's Top Ten, or the individual AFI members' choices?
SVSG said:
Resurrecting this thread to throw another question into the debate.
Note, I am not necessarily talking about the 'greatest' or 'best' but at least a film that you would classify as 'good'. Till now (as you can see from my response in the beginning of the thread), I have been maintaining that the basis for classifying a movie as good should be entirely based on your subjective opinion and the effect the movie has on you rather than some third party metric of what constitutes a technically well-made film or critics' view or popularity of the movie and such. But lately I am questioning my view and want to introduce the 'creativity' and 'originality' aspects in the discussion. I give a couple of scenarios to explain my point:
1) Mr X madly loves chinese martial-arts movies and he will watch any number of no-brainer movies from that genre with great interest and will never get bored. Mr Y in Hollywood is a genre-leading producer of hongkong based martial arts movies, one indistinguishable from the next (except probably by an avid fan like Mr X). Mr Y releases yet another kung-fu movie this year and Mr X promptly watches it and is all praises for the movie.
Now Mr Y has done nothing great, just rehashed the formula from his database of martial arts movies to come up with yet another predictable film. The bottom line is lack of creativity (not marketing wise, but with respect to the medium). Now if I were to go by my original theory, the effect on Mr X is great, so he will classify it as a good movie (not necessarily great/best) regardless of the actual merit of the movie. Don't you think something is wrong in this scenario? No creative effort whatsoever from Mr Y, but his film is hailed as a good one by someone. You can extend this concept to die-hard fans of some director/actor/actress/whatever who will praise a film regardless of its actual merit.
2) Mr Z is a script writer who watches an old and obscure movie with a great concept from some not-so-famous country/language and rewrites it to great critical acclaim. I am not talking about subtle influences which everyone is subject to, sub-consciously, but an active 'lift' of concept. Again originality and creativity wise, no points should be given. But somebody might be greatly influenced by this movie and term it excellent. Isn't something wrong with the judging criteria again?
Do we need an objective measure (if at all it is possible)? Or at least a standard set of subjective measures that includes creativity and originality? If so, what should be those subjective metrics used. Some have mentioned 'rewatchability' and 'lasting effect'. What else?
Note, I am not necessarily talking about the 'greatest' or 'best' but at least a film that you would classify as 'good'. Till now (as you can see from my response in the beginning of the thread), I have been maintaining that the basis for classifying a movie as good should be entirely based on your subjective opinion and the effect the movie has on you rather than some third party metric of what constitutes a technically well-made film or critics' view or popularity of the movie and such. But lately I am questioning my view and want to introduce the 'creativity' and 'originality' aspects in the discussion. I give a couple of scenarios to explain my point:
1) Mr X madly loves chinese martial-arts movies and he will watch any number of no-brainer movies from that genre with great interest and will never get bored. Mr Y in Hollywood is a genre-leading producer of hongkong based martial arts movies, one indistinguishable from the next (except probably by an avid fan like Mr X). Mr Y releases yet another kung-fu movie this year and Mr X promptly watches it and is all praises for the movie.
Now Mr Y has done nothing great, just rehashed the formula from his database of martial arts movies to come up with yet another predictable film. The bottom line is lack of creativity (not marketing wise, but with respect to the medium). Now if I were to go by my original theory, the effect on Mr X is great, so he will classify it as a good movie (not necessarily great/best) regardless of the actual merit of the movie. Don't you think something is wrong in this scenario? No creative effort whatsoever from Mr Y, but his film is hailed as a good one by someone. You can extend this concept to die-hard fans of some director/actor/actress/whatever who will praise a film regardless of its actual merit.
2) Mr Z is a script writer who watches an old and obscure movie with a great concept from some not-so-famous country/language and rewrites it to great critical acclaim. I am not talking about subtle influences which everyone is subject to, sub-consciously, but an active 'lift' of concept. Again originality and creativity wise, no points should be given. But somebody might be greatly influenced by this movie and term it excellent. Isn't something wrong with the judging criteria again?
Do we need an objective measure (if at all it is possible)? Or at least a standard set of subjective measures that includes creativity and originality? If so, what should be those subjective metrics used. Some have mentioned 'rewatchability' and 'lasting effect'. What else?
To which I replied:
1) The scenario between Mr. X and Mr. Y is being judged already: you called those films "no-brainer movies". On whose terms are they no-brainer movies?
2) My problem with remakes is that they rarely add anything personal or new. Like Wet Dog, I'm not against the process of remaking a film, but I more often than not will approach one with caution, because from experience they hold very little merit. Jackson's King Kong was fantastic and rare: it updated the effects and action by CGI, but also showed a rare enthusiasm from its director towards the original, with self-reflexive action and intertextual dialogue thrown in for good measure. Scorsese did exactly the same with Cape Fear. I think the Bond movies are in need of a lot of remakes too. Now that Casino Royale has been finally been given justice, I'd love to see the makers remake the series in the order Fleming wrote them.
I think a lot of people have a problem with originality. Originality to me essentially means creating something which strikes one as new, as having not been experienced before. I value it greatly, but often overlook it at first. I might even be put off by it. People forget that Cinema itself is original, it is still a very new medium. People also forget that there is so much more potential to be had from the whole idea of using a camera, of not only recording reality but producing it. They forget that what they're watching is an illusion. That's how powerful Cinema is, but it's overlooked on a mass scale. People value stories and characters, I think, more than anything. Like I've said before, there's nothing particularly cinematic about stories or characters. But as an example I've experienced many times before, I've asked a lot of people what they thought of Lost In Translation, and they've said, "It's boring, nothing happens." What they mean is story-wise; Coppola, its director, belongs to that misunderstood category of "Art Cinema", and her films are often successions of repeated situations in order to develop character. The film itself is one of the best films I've ever seen; it has a fine sense of not only narrative rhythm, but evokes loneliness through framing compositions and volume levels, not to mention creates a fine sense of place through sound and cinematography.
But I think it is important to note that originality is often dismissed; a lot of people find it repulsive. When you think about the term originality, what it really means is going against what we already know; I'm not sure if it is transcending traditional value or rejecting it - either way, original works are often misunderstood. How many times, for instance, have you read or heard somebody call Lynch, Jarmusch or Greenaway (to name but three very original directors with very individual styles) "pretentious" or "weird just for the sake of being weird"? I got into quite a heated verbal debate with someone recently who said Lynch was pretentious because he considered himself above his audience. When I asked how that was so, the answer I got was that he dismissed story in his films, and even took pleasure in making them confusing.
There are three fundamental questions I think everybody should ask themselves after every film has finished:
a) Why do I watch films?
b) How would I define Cinema?
c) How original was the film I've just seen?
These three films help you be objective in your opinion - that is, as honest as you can be inside your own perishable, subjective bubble.
Question 'a' helps you to understand why you're even watching the film in the first place. If you come to the conclusion that you're watching it to pass the time, then the likelihood is you're going to be easily pleased. If you're watching it to know the meaning of life, the chances are you're going to be dismissive of a lot of films, such as "no-brainer comedies". (I say that not because the meaning of life cannot be found in such films, but because the kind of person who seeks such frivolous and objective answers in something as abstract and subjective as Cinema is not the kind to be open to something as "irrelevent" as a Will Ferrell film. He's approaching Cinema with an agenda that limits and restricts his opinion and chances of enjoyment, not to open him to more pleasures.)
Question 'b' helps you to know how well the film fits to your perceptions or definitions of Cinema. How cinematic it is, how relevant it is to bringing you closer to enjoying or appreciating the medium - that is, how well you enjoyed the film as a work of Cinema. And I think it is important to be aware of the medium you're watching. I've met many people on my film studies degree recently who have turned their noses up at the likes of Battleship Potemkin, and their reasons showed quite a disdain for Cinema itself...of course without them knowing it. In my opinion, you shouldn't be judging films about how "morally acceptable" or how "socially relevant" they are, because that places works of art in a cage, in a time vault, which limits their impact across what John Fowles called the "horizontality of time". You should watch films and judge films by how closer they bring you personally to your love for the medium itself - and story and character is rather quite irrelevant to the medium. The primary window through which I engage with a film, for instance, my first connection with a film, when the lights in the cinema go down and the celluloid strip is projected onto film, is either (and most often) the image. The image, the frame, the illusion, of what the camera has captured, of what we are being allowed to show. If it isn't the image, it is the sound. Images and sounds, and the way they are edited together. It is convenient to edit such images and sounds together so as to create a coherent, accessible story. Stories interest me little, but I am fascinated by narrative - narrative is the way in which stories are told, or the way in which films unfold. I go into this further here.
Question 'c' is pretty much self-evident. I value creativity, and being creative, the process of being creative, lends originality to a work. How original you rate a film will depend on how many you've seen, and how many you've seen that are like it. But original films are often those which make more use of the fact they are being made with, or because of, a camera. But when people are sitting in a darkened theatre, they'll nevertheless forget the fact, or ignore the fact, that they're watching something only because of a camera. People are rarely interested in the visual, in the image.
If you know what you're interested in, if you know what drives you personally, what fascinates you and excites you, I think you can offer analysis of and elaboration on films with a lot more conviction and sophistication.
These three questions, as I've said, help you know yourself, or your interests and tastes, on a much deeper level... but of course a lot don't ask them because they are afraid that the answers might conclude that they in fact are repelled by Cinema, by the medium of Cinema, by the whole notion of being "cinematic"...and how else would they pass their time?
I'll pose a question to you, now (and anybody else who might be reading): What would you be more interested in reading, the AFI's Top Ten, or the individual AFI members' choices?