As I said once to my friends and this applies to everything in my life:
“If I had the choice between go to the museum or stay at home and play videogames, just hand me that controller, I haven’t been able to defeat that boss yet!” – Jaime Grijalba
A movie I want to watch must not require me any knowledge besides the… you know… basic stuff… and I don’t mean dumbed down movie, because I love David Lynch and Donnie Darko, or any other kind of film that makes you think. A film must not require knowledge, it must CREATE it!!
And this is all but a critique against “Art House” flicks (I have to say that name’s stupid), because as long as it entertains me it’s good, like Battleship Potemkin, powerful movie and not boring at all (as many would say about it’s artistic value), the only bad thing about it was it’s obvious Propaganda, which kinda annoyed me, even if I`m fo or against the philosophy presented there.
God help me, no!
It might sound polemic, but I don’t consider people who onl watch a crtain kind of cinema to be true filmfans/cineastes/cinephiles…
Arthouse is such a narrow part of film history (didn’t even exist until the 60s/70s), it would be a waste to concentrate on it.
I hate to be the hippy dippy guy here, but can’t people just watch what they want? I’ve been watching loads of indie and so-called “art house” films lately as I’ve been interested in them (I’m not just stuffing myself totally because I feel I “should”). But I hope to watch something silly soon too. Most people here seem to have this thinking, I can’t quite understand why anyone would object to it. The Taco Bell comparison is flawed in quite a few ways, but the morally bankrupt evil nature of Taco Bell the corporation, links to the problems of capitalism, which to watch most movies is usually supported….man I could really go for some Taco Bell side nachos right now, maybe tonight I will watch Tarkovsky and eat ma nachos!
Agree with Sano—no way art-house films can be rewarding without watching other kinds of movies and visa-versa.
As a term, Arthouse may have started in the 60s/70s. I assumed the title of the thread referred to films that could be called art which goes back to the beginning of film. I don’t think it’s a waste to try and catch up with the most respected films of all time. What is so rewarding about watching bad films? As I said, when I pop in a Rivette film or Antonioni I’m expecting or hoping for the same entertainment value I get from Hawks or Hitchcock. When I see Will Ferrell on a screen I am expecting garbage. I don’t know anyone outside of academia who sees Arthouse movies because they feel they have to. Is this something that actually happens? Unless you’re Sam Malone trying to impress Diane Chambers I would assume that most of the people who like Arthouse films probably don’t have friends that like the same stuff so naming names wouldn’t impress them. Some of us on here just have a voracious appetite for seeing new films that will be completely new experiences. There are so many of them and I never get tired of hearing the name of a new master pop up in one of these threads. Viva la Arthouse.
I do like Die Hard though. Yiippee Kai Yay!
Non art-house does not equal bad film. People keep mentioning Die Hard and that is exactly what I’m talking about. Sometimes you are in the mood for a Die Hard like movie and there is no problem with that. A few weeks ago I was deciding what to watch and I had a huge variety of films on my DVR and on DVD. Instead of watching on of the Bergman films I had I decided I was in the mood for Aliens. A few days later when I watched the Bergman films I loved them, and I don’t think if I had watched them that night I would have loved them as much.
Notice how I said Die Hard and Aliens. Not Paul Blart and Transformers.
Let’s get down to brass tacks…
@Chopin: how are the other TREMORS aside from number 1? That’s one of my favorite films, but I’ve steered clear of the other installments.
I agree with Fredo’s response. After watching many heavy films, I need to take a breather. That’s the time when I’m open to anything, almost anything. On a different note, (from the perspective of any type of filmmaker) I think analyzing what makes a particular film horrible and how it could have been avoided is a useful tool, as to not repeat the same mistakes for your own projects.
Aisbilen, Exactly. Benjamin Button is what inspired me to go back and have a few more rewrites to my script. It showed me how big of a difference in quality a few scenes and lines cut makes.
I sometimes watch animated mainstream and oscar nominees, and that’s about all I could take.
Again, I reject the term Art House, but life is too short to spend hours, days, weeks, and months of it simply soaking in the UV rays from our television. I am an active, busy person. In order to give something two hours of my undivided attention, I want something back. Again, Art House is a narrow term, and one that suggest a lack of perception. But there are films of substance, and films devoid of substance, and I don’t know why one would want to waste any time indulging the latter.
In regards to Die Hard… to watch Die Hard is to support and celebrate male chauvinism and indiscriminate violence. I don’t think these are positive things in life, or in film, and therefore have no interest indulging in such values for two hours.
I try to strike a balance by watching equal amounts of both just so the sanctity prevails…but ideally I would rather watch art house all the time…
As a filmmaker, I feel it is my duty to see a wide variety of films – from foreign forgettables to mainstream megahits. I find inspiration for my own work in the most unlikely places (even from films that I may not like) and I know if I were to just watch films that were supposed masterpieces, I would be a very ignorant filmmaker.
i’m not familiar with “tremors”, but i think, as others have articulated earlier, limiting yourself to one area of film is denying yourself a very essential part of film or of any art form, really. film, art are a means of expression and to limit yourself to any specific sort of film is then neglecting the multitude of filmmakers of different cultures or different eras that perhaps all are trying to communicate some of the universal human experience. it’s just seems very narrow-minded (obviously) to me. not to mention the fact that you should never feel ashamed of your taste and what pleasures you as the idea of being “cool” or “hip” is never worth the sacrifice of your own personal fulfillment and satisfaction. what you enjoy is what you enjoy and that’s absolutely lovely no matter what it is in the very fact that you enjoy it.
that being said, i do find myself drawn to certain movements and certain time periods but more because i find the values of those closer and truer to those of my own. i don’t think i’ve seen a film made before 1970, with the few exceptions of a few bruce connor, daniel conrad, and students films, in a very, very long while. most of my favorite films are foreign but not because i find american film inferior, but because i enjoy the european sensibility and they tend to have a sensitivity and charm that i’ve not really found elsewhere. of course, this is an incredibly eurocentric view but unfortunately i’ve yet to explore the realms of international film as much as i’d like to. soon!
one last thing: i think it’s good to remember that everything you expose yourself to will, whether you recognize it or not, leave a certain imprint on your psyche and of course if you’re trying to create art of a sublime, transcendental sort and you only feed your mind coarse and unrefined material, it will become blatantly obvious in your work. perhaps this is a good way of understanding for those that the cry against the supposed ‘elitism’ that seems to enflame this forum every once and awhile? why surround yourself with junk when there’s so much beauty to be found? protect yourself and your creativity and decide what it is that you want to allow yourself to be affected by.
Maybe I should be more clear for when I said there is something to be gained from every film- as a FILMMAKER. Of course some films don’t debate important and complicated ideas but a real filmmaker wouldn’t give the slightest fuck, it would not even matter, he would watch the damn thing if the film sounded interesting, even if it had Will Ferrils name in the trailer. The last thing a filmmaker should watch films for is technical style and to me, that is what the art house is all about, a unique, more creative and more emphasized technical implementation of the telling of a story on film. Why do I watch the art house? Because I love the technical style and the uniqueness of the storytelling but I am not trying to “gain” some sort of prowess from it. I don’t watch a Tarkovsky movie because I want to learn how to tell a scene without cutting, I watch it because a fallout infested area called the zone in Russia sounds fregin interesting.
The moment a filmmaker starts watching movies because he wants to be more technically evolved is the moment he looses is individuality and style. So what is there to be gained from watching a film, as a FILMMAKER, if not the above? NOTHING absolutely NOTHING but inspiration and plain enjoyment.
@Erik
To say there is an area of film which is more inspiring than another by divine right is ignorant and due to no experience in creating from inspiration. (most likely, I am unaware of your personal status)
In life you have no idea what you are going to be inspired by. I could be inspired by the the size of my keyboard or the way I saw a lady bug crawl. I have been inspired by the most random things you can possibly imagine and some of the best work I have produced is not inspired from the mighty Italian neo-realist or French New Wave, it is from things you cannot predict. So why on earth would you say there is something less to be gained from “Tremors” than “Blow-Up?”
As an audience I suppose you start thinking about ideas and life and death and blah, blah, blah- but as a filmmaker those things don’t matter because you should not look to reiterate the ideas of Bergman, Welles and Kurosawa you should try to create your own.
So, to make my point black and white for you.
Things to be gained- as a filmmaker from watching film: inspiration and enjoyment
Things that should NOT be gained- as a filmmaker from watching film: ideas and technical style
Now,
Things to be gained- as an AUDIENCE, form watching film: Inspiration, ideas and understanding the technical side of film.
A couple months back I used to think that you gained some sort of skill as a filmmaker form watching films but it turns out, if you embrace that influence you are just saying what they just did or doing what they just did.
So, yes, if you are a conservative VIEWER who wishes to milk the days of his life so he gets the absolute maximum watch time of great ideas and complex editing, photography, acting, the I suppose you should sit there and only watch the acclaimed artistic triumphs of the last century and avoid absolutely everything which gets thumbs down or is directed by Michael Bay, no matter how interesting the plot is to you. But if you are an aspiring filmmaker I say watch what entertains you and what you want to watch, you got not idea what you are going to get from what, so do what you want.
Personally I am entertained by all films and that is what the thread was about originally. I watch them because I simply “feel” like I want to not because I have calculated the maximum profit. But even if I was a viewer and not a creator I would still watch what I wanted but you, Erik, seem to condone that action and want everyone to sit and watch the great art house, the area of movies which have a unique, more creative and more emphasized technical implementation of the telling of a story on film, no matter if they enjoy them, like you say you do so fervently, or not, because watching arty film somehow relates to your actual intelligence when all it really relates to is your appreciation for film. To commonly do people see their high knowledge and understanding of film as some sort of vice to make themselves seem more competent.
And the reason I don’t want to watch Fellini or anymore Antoninio, or however the hell you spell it, is not just because I hated their other work but because the rest of their films don’t sound interesting to me. I hated Cleo 5 to 7 but I watched Vagabond because I thought it sounded interesting.
As for the rest of the tremors films. 2 is not horrible, 3 is horrible and 4 is less horrible than 3.
This is near incomprehensible. I assume by condone, you mean, condemn. You know, the opposite.
Furthermore, to make claims about what and why real filmmakers should and shouldn’t watch films is an act of incredible arrogance.
But, let me get this straight.
- A filmmaker shouldn’t watch films to advance their technical understanding of the cinema.
- The Art House is about more emphasized (word choice?) technical implementation. (Where is this art house? Neither myself nor most of the posters here seem to familiar with this magical place)
- The moment (as in the very specific moment?) that a filmmaker starts watching films for technical understanding is the (exact?) moment that he loses his individuality and style.
- Tremors and Blow-Up are equal works of cinema.
- (quoting) “to commonly do people see their high knowledge and understanding of film as some sort of vice to make themselves seem more competent.”
- The works of Fellini and Antonioni are uninteresting.
Life should inspire artists, not other art. When you look to films for inspiration, films like Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill are created. (Yes, this is a negative). But the greater understanding of the medium, the better one can express himself through a given medium. The best way to understand a medium is to look at the films by the filmmakers who knew best how to express themselves in that given medium.
Your filmmaker argument is embarrassing and nonsensical. And not that I purport to be a good filmmaker, I am in the final week of preproduction before I direct a short of my own screenplay. I believe the relative success of this film will be directly related to my understanding of the medium. I prefer to learn from the best. You can look to Michael Bay for your understanding of cinema, but me, I’ll hold on to Antonioni.
Chopin – I’m a little confused too. It doesn’t seem like I agree with very much Erick has ever said on this site but I certainly respect his opinion and I have to agree that I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying here. I think I’m on your side but please clarify your position before I respond yay or nay.
@Fredo
I respect all opinions, and am glad people disagree, if people did not argue then there would be no progress.
Ok, I will be more clear, sorry Fredo, sometimes when arguing over forums can be confusing.
And before I start, you are in turn making claims to what filmmakers should and should not do by arguing with me, so please.
Filmmaker who sit there and try to learn how to be a filmmaker should NOT only watch movies which are considered good.
- A filmmaker shouldn’t watch films to advance their technical understanding of the cinema.
No they should not. A filmmaker who watches films to understand the technical cinema should not be making films, they should be writing essays and critiques. As a viewer you should but that should not influence you as a filmmaker.
- The Art House is about more emphasized (word choice?) technical implementation. (Where is this art house? Neither myself nor most of the posters here seem to familiar with this magical place)
Ok, the art house is an area of film which is more artistic executed, there plain and simple.
- The moment (as in the very specific moment?) that a filmmaker starts watching films for technical understanding is the (exact?) moment that he loses his individuality and style.
Yes, because that is when he starts to just film like he sees other people do it, where is your signature? I see Fellini’s but where is Erik’s? You will never in your life as a filmmaker gain an individual style and understanding of teqnuqie form watching films, you get this by filmmaking, you know, actually making films.
- Tremors and Blow-Up are equal works of cinema.
This statement is your clear misunderstanding of my post, maybe due to me not being clear enough but I think it is your inept interpretation. No, Tremors is not an equal work of cinema as Blow-Up, but as a filmmaker you will gain the exact same from watching them.
- (quoting) “to commonly do people see their high knowledge and understanding of film as some sort of vice to make themselves seem more competent.”
Yes, this is clear in every walk of life. You meet someone who has read every work by James Joyce and they think they are God.
- The works of Fellini and Antonioni are uninteresting.
To me yes and the fact that you think there can be this absolute “interesting and uninteresting” line for every person proves your elitist and arrogant tone at this point.
And let ME get this strait
“Life should inspire artists, not other art.”
So what is there to be profited as you say by watching film? If not inspiration then what? I think you can be inspired from films but thats it, only because art is apart of life, a way to look at it through a screen. But this inspiration should never be technical or thematic.
And your right, your success will be directly related to your understanding of film but if you think you will somehow understand film by watching it then your film will be pretentious or utter crap but most likely both.
And when did I ever say I liked Michael Bay, I fucking hate Michael Bay, I hate almost all mainstream directors, my two favorite directors are Tarkovsky and Kurosawa but unlike you I do not kid myself in to thinking I understand cinema more because I like Tarkovsky and Kurosawa and have seen most of their work.
I make these “arrogant” statement because I have created many shorts and I am finishing a feature documentary, I have experienced filmmaking and that is what I “understand” about it, so far. But of course when I say understand that is with doubt, of course I am not Eisenstien and cannot say to myself “I understand cinema” that is why I argue. No one just “understands cinema” but they can try to and grow as a filmmaker. There is no understanding but what you make of it. This does that, a dutch angle means tension, a long shot makes the audience feel distant and characters closers, a wider shot makes the characters seem faster and far apart, the first act should be this and the second that then the third that blah blah blah, do you think technical memorization like that equates understanding? That kind of thinking will stump you as a filmmaker and limit you to “the book.” Your kind of thinking would never have produced great filmmakers like your loves Fellini and Antonioni, you think Antonioni used his experiences from watching films when he was writing the script for Blow-Up? That is one of the most unconventional pieces of cinema ever written.
“The best way to understand a medium is to look at the films by the filmmakers who knew best how to express themselves in that given medium”
This is one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard. Oh, wait, your right! Instead of making a couple shorts and maybe a small feature one should take his library of the 100 greatest directors and invest his life savings because, by god, he knows how to make a movie! I am pretty sure any sane person would agree the best way to understand a medium is to actually create in the fucking medium. Good luck with your short though.
So you are suggesting that as simply a film viewer, one should be closely observing the technical minutia of a film, but that as a filmmaker, you should not? That’s counterintuitive, to say the least.
Can I just quote this back to you?
“Ok, the art house is an area of film which is more artistic executed, there plain and simple.”
Plain and simple? This sentence doesn’t make sense. How can you hope to communicate anything through film when the English language consistently gets the better of you.
Watching a film will not give you a style, but by studying the style and language of other filmmakers, one gains an incredibly nuanced perception of the medium, a perception which is required to create one’s own films.
As a filmmaker, “you” will gain the same from Blow-Up and Tremors? So, by watching a film in which a great artist masterfully utilizes the medium he works in to make a film about modern disintegration, one can gain the same as watching a film by the director of City Slickers, in an only competently made film about a giant subterranean worm? Justify this.
Straight. Not strait.
What is to be gained as a filmmaker from watching films is, as I said, a better understanding of the nuances of the medium one is working within. At no point did I suggest that one should watch films instead of making them, that suggestion was of your own device.
You have clearly NOT watched enough great films closely enough, as your shallow interpretation of the “technical” aspects of filmmaking suggest all the insight I would expect from a COM 101 class.
Actually…
Taken from “Chopin’s Book Of Moviemaking”
“- This does that.
- A dutch angle makes tension
- A long shot makes the audience feel distant and characters closers
- A wider shot makes characters seems faster (faster?) and far apart.
- The first act should be like this
- the second act that
- the third blah blah blah"
I am not talking about simple technical memorization. FIlm is an incredible dense form, and for you to suggest that these simple concepts are all that one has to learn exhibits your complete lack of perception of the medium. The language of film is not restricted to your wide shots (the ones that make your characters faster).
Chopin – Ok, I think I get what you’re saying – although this response also tended to get cloudy in your passion to the point of some incoherence.
But I’ll grab on to this, which I don’t agree with you on: I’ve seen countless interviews with filmmakers (Coppola and Gilliam come immediately to mind) where they’ve emphatically stated “steal from us” and that the history of cinema is stealing from one generation to the next (and in effect building upon a legacy of cinema, which is still in it’s infancy as an art form). If you know anything about making a film, which it sounds like you do, no matter how much you steal something from someone else, you will inevitably make it your own.
Tarentino is a horrible example, a layman’s example of someone who lifts from other filmmakers. Instead I’ll point to Terry Gilliam, who has given interviews where he’s stated he’s copied egregiously from Marcel Carne’s Children of Paradise. Does that make Gilliam not an original filmmaker but instead just a hack?
I think that you can watch films and be inspired by it’s technical aspects. A quick example: I was in preproduction on a short film last year and I went and saw Paranoid Park in the theater. I loved the film, loved so many aspects of it, including the use of iris pulls that Doyle incorporates throughout the film. I decided I wanted to use that for my own film because I thought it worked with the story at certain moments. And it looks great, it works great, and I’m super happy that I saw Paranoid Park that day because had I not, I never would have done it. These are the happy accidents that all great filmmakers talk about. The key of course, is to be open to anything, to allow yourself to be perceptive to allow these accidents to take place, these moments of inspiration to occur. And the fact that successful directors are pleading with younger generations to do it in the same way they did it themselves, should be reason enough to conclude that it doesn’t mean you’re a false filmmaker.
Of course we take inspiration, both technical and thematic, from the films that move us. I’m simply suggesting that our source material should be life, rather than other films. If you want to make a film about war, you must go to the source, rather than replicating the war perpetuated in other war films. If you want to make a film relationships, you must draw from the world around you, rather than from the contrivances of film relationships.
Tarantino is actually, a great example. His world of gangsters are not inspired by the real world of gangsters, but rather by the characters and situations inside the films he loves.
Of course, inspiration should be taken from life. How can anyone expect to make a film if they’ve never experienced anything? If you don’t have anything to say, you shouldn’t be making films.
I only say Tarantino is a bad example because it’s an obvious example and one everybody and their grandmother know about. I merely mean to suggest that all filmmakers are influenced by each other and steal from each other and I think a lot of people might be surprised to learn that their favorite “auteur” might have been influenced by someone who came before them.
Laura: Although I am taking time out from regular posting, I loved your sentiment so much – this really meant a lot to me – and it is why I will stay here – through thick and sometimes very thin: “one last thing: i think it’s good to remember that everything you expose yourself to will, whether you recognize it or not, leave a certain imprint on your psyche and of course if you’re trying to create art of a sublime, transcendental sort and you only feed your mind coarse and unrefined material, it will become blatantly obvious in your work. perhaps this is a good way of understanding for those that the cry against the supposed ‘elitism’ that seems to enflame this forum every once and awhile? why surround yourself with junk when there’s so much beauty to be found? protect yourself and your creativity and decide what it is that you want to allow yourself to be affected by.”
This is so concise and says it all. It doesn’t mean one can’t enjoy all types of film, but beware what you do expose yourself most frequently. Sorry to intrude, but I just wanted to say “Thanks!” for that.
okay… to watch films and be inspired, or maybe watch films and know what not to do? read, see, watch everything, is my opinion…
I’m done with you Erik, you have the slightest grasp on anything related to this discussion, please go watch the films now playing on this site 7 times so you can be the next Dreyer without picking up a camera.
@FREDO
I suppose if you don’t have a problem with consciously doing what director #1 did, then yes, Fredo, open yourself up to the styles of what you like and let that influence you to form your own. I guess it is a personal choice and what works in the end, is something no one can predict. I don’t like just taking things like a photographic technique but sometimes it happens, because you love it too much.
But as I go on the long journey I am wishing I had not let myself be controlled by what I loved watching and I think if someone just does this then he will eventually loose what he’s got.
I can say this though, watch what you want to- if you do this then you will profit most. Don’t watch what people like Erik seem to advocate- if you do this you will end up in-passionately copying things because everyone else says it is good, even though you don’t know why.
You are influenced the most from what you like, not from what is good.
EDIT:
But my “theory” if you have it simple is saying this.
You will be the most true filmmaker if you film something a certain way because it feels right, not because Fellini did it that way. Your “feeling” should control you technically and thematically not what you have seen other guys do.
Thus- don’t do what others directors do, do what you want to do because it feels right. So if you film based on your feelings then what have you gained from watching Blow-Up? Nothing technically and nothing thematically, so there you go, you have gained the same amount from watching Tremors as you did Blow-Up.
Chopin:
Without resorting to name calling, I highly suggest you closely examine both the ludicrous philosophy you are expounding, as well as your complete inability to communicate it. I am referring to incredibly nuanced facets of the cinema, yet you can only thing in terms of irrelevant words like “technically.” As a filmmaker, BlowUp was not enlightening because of my feelings while watching it. It’s enlightening because Antonioni is such a master of the form, that witnessing the nuanced way in which he communicates his ideas can open one’s mind regarding the potential of the medium. Now, before you reduce this to an incoherent ramble regarding technical knowledge,“feelings”, and missing conjunctions, just rest assured that you are espousing an incredibly simplistic view of cinema that exhibits a complete lack of understanding.
In fact, what you claim to be true of the afore mentioned great works is only true of Tremors. All one has to learn from competently created shlock are technique. But if you want to expand your awareness regarding the infinitely subtle capabilities of this complex medium, watching the films of the great are more than required.
When we heighten our own awareness with the medium, we can create with the most extreme care and nuance. You are a victim of your own philosophy, and suffer from your own lack of film-comprehension.
@Laura
I agree with most of your post, however, choosing to “watch the Art House” for many does not mean limiting themselves but rather expanding. I embrace different film cultures regularly and know that if i watch films by Kiarostami, Hou Hsiao Hsien, Tsai Ming Liang, Pedro Costa and Ousmene Sembene I will get 5 very different films. I am almost certain that if I watch crappy films from any country they will all be crappy in similar ways. There may be surface differences in plot or colloquialisms from a Will Ferrell vehicle to a vehicle starring whathever lame equivalent they have in India, Japan, Portugal, etc., but they are negligible. I watch films hoping to see something new. The other thing is that the mainstream crap machine doesn’t change from decade to decade. I have seen some of Chevy Chase’s crappy movies and some of Rob Schneider’s (under duress), so why should I go see Will Ferrell’s? It’s the same a-b-c story arc with the same fart jokes and the same sentimental ending. Obviously, if Ferrell or any of his kind produce something truly worthwhile I will hear about it from respected sources but whether he’s wearing a racing uniform, a basketball uniform, safari gear or whatever, it’s all the same. And TV is free.
@Erick
You’re right about Die Hard. It’s just a guilty pleasure but I won’t defend it. There are much greater films to defend.
Mike -
I agree with your sentiment. The notion that “watching the art house” is a limiting act is ludicrous. Without just repeating what you said, I think it means the act of seeking out new and different films from all cultures and eras, the result being the expansion of one’s conception of cinema. This can not be gained through the viewing of pedestrian commercial tripe, which contains a complete lack of fresh cinematic and thematic ideas.
House of Leaves
I agree with Mike to a point. Especially as I get older and my life gets more filled up, I’m wanting to spend more time with films that I feel are more like Guinness and less like Bud Light.
But Die Hard is still my favorite Christmas movie, and required viewing at my house during the holidays. That being said, I would never subject myself to Night at the Museum or Daddy Day Care or other crap like that cause I can tell it just ain’t for me.