Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Oct 26, 2009 1:02:24 GMT
How does that viewpoint tie in with a socialist perspective? Not trying to push buttons, but I wondered that after reading your original post last night.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 26, 2009 1:42:37 GMT
How does that viewpoint tie in with a socialist perspective? Not at all really. Political standing shouldn't have too much impact on taste should it? I mean, I wouldn't like a Socialist film simply for the fact that it's a Socialist film. But then again I believe I'd immediately dislike a film with any type of clear conservative stance I pick up. My point here is that I prefer to get lost and escape into films, instead of simply watching something I could go out on the street and see.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Oct 26, 2009 1:54:58 GMT
Spirit of the Beehive doesn't belong beside Mother & Son, because it is very definitely grounded in history, it doesn't float free and try to comment essentialistically on social 'roles' or identities like 'mother' and 'son', or take as its subject nebulous notions like 'love', 'devotion', 'separation', 'loss', etc, as if those words don't signify a myriad of different human experiences and conditions depending on the historical context in which they're used.
A plea for a greater sensitivity to history in cinema is not a plea for a predominance of social realist aesthetics.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 26, 2009 2:12:42 GMT
My point here is that I prefer to get lost and escape into films, instead of simply watching something I could go out on the street and see. How does this not apply to Spirit of the Beehive? It's from a child's point of view and decidedly fantastical.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Oct 26, 2009 14:50:54 GMT
I didn't say that didn't apply, I was taking issue with your implication that on the one hand you have 'escapism' and on the other 'social realism' or 'slice-of-life' style drama (even though that can by no means be reduced to "something you could go out on the street and see").
Spirit of the Beehive is attuned to "society's problems" in a way that Mother & Son is decidedly not.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Nov 4, 2009 0:26:44 GMT
I'm posting this here because not everyone clicks on The Wire thread nor do some log in to read the Off-topic Discussion forum or the Politics and Economics thread. Please don't delete and move this. Video of David Simon interview on Bill Moyers JournalAnd if you can only can get to this while at work or at school; thus, can't watch the video because of restricted access, here's the full transcript: TranscriptThe footage they use are dialogue based ones. Some of them aren't ones I'd use to hook in new viewers, but they are ideal for purposes of the questions asked and discussion.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Nov 11, 2009 5:49:18 GMT
I just joined a film club on my campus. Tonight was the first meeting I went to. We watched Closely Watched Trains and Larisa Shepitko's Wings. I liked both, but was slightly more impressed with the latter (though the tone of both are completely different). I was even more impressed by the club and the people involved. I feel amazingly excited. ;D Also, after watching these films, 1966 is, to me at least, the best year for cinema: Andrei Rublev (Andrei Tarkovsky) The Battle of Algiers (Gillo Pontecorvo) Blowup (Michelangelo Antonioni) Closely Watched Trains (Jirí Menzel) Cul-de-sac (Roman Polanski) The Face of Another (Hiroshi Teshigahara) The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Sergio Leone) The Hawks and the Sparrows (Pier Paolo Pasolini) Masculine/Feminine (Jean-Luc Godard) Persona (Ingmar Bergman) Tokyo Drifter (Seijun Suzuki) Wings (Larisa Shepitko) Plus many more I have yet to see.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Nov 19, 2009 6:46:34 GMT
I've seen a handful of great films so far. It's a very good year. I would be interested to know which films stood out for you this year. I'm sure many escaped me under the radar.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Nov 19, 2009 17:22:54 GMT
I've seen a handful of great films so far. It's a very good year. I would be interested to know which films stood out for you this year. I'm sure many escaped me under the radar. It's a long list since I'm not only including the great and really great but the pretty and kind of great ones as well. I guess pretty and kind of great is equal to very good. really great: Sugar, Munyurangabo, The Betrayal, Summer Hours, Of Time and the City, The Way We Are, Treeless Mountain, Still Walking great: Revanche, Goodbye Solo, Soul Power, In the Loop, Anvil: the Story of Anvil, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Lorna's Silence, Ballast pretty great: Sin Nombre, Jerichow, The Headless Woman, Bright Star, Ponyo kind of great: Where the Wild Things Are, Tulpan, Two Lovers
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Nov 19, 2009 17:24:52 GMT
Just so that we know which are really great, which are good, which are pretty etc, would you please add star ratings too?
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Nov 19, 2009 17:25:44 GMT
Just so that we know which are really great, which are good, which are pretty etc, would you please star ratings too? Blows out of mouth like Wee-BeyOkay. Well, not star ratings, but I rated them.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Nov 19, 2009 21:53:48 GMT
For the purposes of this board, I consider "Sugar" and "Two Lovers" 2008 films. I saw the latter and really liked it. The way the narrative unfolds, very simple, but, I don't know. I'm losing my ability to comment like I used to. I was very into it, and it is high on my 2008 list.
Still really want to see "Sugar", considering how much I liked "Half Nelson".
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Nov 19, 2009 22:34:04 GMT
For the purposes of this board, I consider "Sugar" and "Two Lovers" 2008 films. Both of their official theatrical releases were in 2009, though, in both the U.S. and U.K. And for FCM Awards purposes they would be considered 2009 films. The only way they would be ineligible was if someone nominated them for the last awards which I don't think anyone did. The only place where they'd be considered 2008 regardless of official theatrical distribution and when the FCM member saw them is for the Yearly Top Tens section of the board.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Nov 20, 2009 0:08:05 GMT
This, a conversation between WSWS arts editor David Walsh and film critic Robin Wood, is the most inspiring thing I've read in a while with regard to film-viewing. It's from the 2000 Toronto film festival. Gives me hope. Everyone should read it.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Nov 20, 2009 20:06:48 GMT
I read some of DW's previous articles on films, it looks like he has a very narrow view of what a good film is - some of the points on which he criticizes certain films are laughable. Enough to say that I don't think very highly of him as a film critic.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Nov 20, 2009 20:23:26 GMT
He hasn't much room for aesthetic questions, it seems. I think any stylisation, or 'self-conscious aestheticism', is held as largely suspicious most of the time. He thinks Béla Tarr's films, for instance, are styled in the way they are in order to disguise their own lack of substance.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Nov 23, 2009 23:55:00 GMT
I read some of DW's previous articles on films, it looks like he has a very narrow view of what a good film is - some of the points on which he criticizes certain films are laughable. Enough to say that I don't think very highly of him as a film critic. Whos that Armando-whats-his-name that critic who seems to grade box-office as the indicator if a movie is good or not? Add him to the list svsg.
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Nov 24, 2009 5:28:29 GMT
He hasn't much room for aesthetic questions, it seems. I think any stylisation, or 'self-conscious aestheticism', is held as largely suspicious most of the time. He thinks Béla Tarr's films, for instance, are styled in the way they are in order to disguise their own lack of substance. Most definitely the case with his latest!
|
|
|
Post by quentincompson on Dec 1, 2009 7:43:48 GMT
Anyone ever watched a film without subtitles? I'm seriously contemplating watching Visconti's The Stranger at the cinema in such a way, having read the book and all. And now I can see Tropical Malady and Blissfully yours on the big screen without subs. I've already seen them both and I don't remember either having much dialogue but I'm not sure if it's gonna ruin or enhance my previous experience of the films.
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Dec 1, 2009 23:18:55 GMT
Anyone ever watched a film without subtitles? I'm seriously contemplating watching Visconti's The Stranger at the cinema in such a way, having read the book and all. And now I can see Tropical Malady and Blissfully yours on the big screen without subs. I've already seen them both and I don't remember either having much dialogue but I'm not sure if it's gonna ruin or enhance my previous experience of the films. jules and jim, semi-recently. not the whole way through, but it was good.
|
|