Right now I’m reading Thus Spake Zarathustra, which is one of my favourite books. I love reading it aloud to myself. Though I’m not sure if I like it better than some of Nietzsche’s other works like Beyond Good & Evil or Genealogy of Morality. He wrote so many great books – Antichrist & Twilight of the Idols are also great.
I’m also reading some big books on art with lots of pictures. I was into Renaissance art and now I’m looking more at 18-19th century stuff. I got to say, I much prefer Renaissance art to anything that has come after it. But maybe I haven’t looked hard enough yet.
Pretty much everything after 2001 is amazing and it’s almost impossible to choose one that is the best. Nonetheless, I love Eyes Wide Shut, 2001, Barry Lyndon & A Clockwork Orange. The Shining & Full Metal Jacket are wonderful as well, but it took me much longer to see the brilliance in those films.
Heh, that is a pretty broad theme. I think you’ll find hundreds of films dealing with that topic. However some that come to mind:
Taxi Driver – Martin Scorsese
Splendor in the Grass – Elias Kazan
In the Mood for Love – Wong-Kar Wai
The Exorcist – William Friedkin
Far From Heaven – Todd Haynes
That Obscure Object of Desire – Luis Bunuel
Through a Glass Darkly – Ingmar Bergman
Dogville – Lars von Trier (the character of Tom)
Royal Tennenbaums – Wes Anderson (character of Richie)
The Shining – Stanley Kubrick (it’s subtle, but seems to be there. try this website http://www.collativelearning.com/the%20shining%20-%20chap%2016.html)
Lolita – Stanley Kubrick (yes haha, the character of Humbert!)
And here’s some films with unrestrained sexuality:
Salo or the 120 Days of Sodom – Pier Paulo Passolini
Blue Velvet – David Lynch
A Clockwork Orange – Stanley Kubrick
L’Age D’Or – Luis Bunuel
Belle de Jour – Luis Bunuel
A History of Violence. Amazing story, very well directed & terrible acting. Even though Vigo Mortensen is a great actor…I mean I think the bad acting was intentional to some extent to show the people were living in denial, but still…it was “bad” bad acting. Nearly ruined what could have been an astonishing film (and it sort of is anyway).
Wow, I get the feeling you guys aren’t even watching Barry Lyndon.
“imho, I believe Kubrick’s “Barry Lyndon” could have been a great film had it not been for Ryan O’Neal. He fit into the period like a Mr. Yuk sticker fails as punctuation.”
You’re completely missing the point. Redmond Barry fits into the 18th century about as much as Alex fits into the 20th. Both those movies are about those men and are told from their point of view. There are many scenes in those films that don’t appear to be based on objective reality, but more like how Redmond or Alex see things.
“a vapid and insipid character without much emotional depth. I’m not saying that’s good.”
That’s not accurate either. Barry is possibly one of Kubrick’s most genuinely feeling characters in his entire oeuvre. He had loads of passion in this movie. I would write out scene after scene in which he displayed this, but it seems too obvious to even do that. You should probably just watch the film again. I mean…what are some examples of things you didn’t like about Redmond Barry?
I pretty much agree with you Learn2Swim, although I don’t feel like it’s ever very clear where Love and Sexual Desire separate. It’s just easier, and perhaps more hiply Freudian, to say SEXUAL repression. Though it certainly short-changes people.
I don’t like Wong Kar-Wai, but I have friends who adore him, including 2046. They have excellent taste and I’m not sure why I don’t like him. I find him to be really shallow, sentimental, romantic. makes me want to be sick (even if he does it well).
This is a good thread, I’ve often wondered where all the good women directors are? One thing I’d really like to ask people is, are their any truly brilliant, ‘great’ female directors? You know, is there a Kubrick, Bresson, Fellini, Tarkovsky, Welles [insert favorite great director name]. From what little I know about it, the answers seems to be ‘no’. Or not yet. I mean, I realize that’s a pretty superficial, limiting and subjective approach, but that’s how I go about exploring any artform – exploring the great ones. One artist I’ve enjoyed quite a bit was Akerman. I certainly wouldn’t put her with those other guys, but I have to admit she makes pretty excellent films and I learn a lot about women from watching them (and most importantly, I identify with and understand her). Someone was asking why there aren’t more films by women getting released. How about literature? Poetry? Music? It seems to be a trend in all the arts. Quite confusing considering that a female filmmaker would likely have an easier time getting financed than a male. But in any case, I’d like to check out some really good women directors (preferably on the same ‘level’ as Akerman).
What is going on here? People have come on to spout mainstream feminist dogma and didn’t even recommend any female directors! Do you even care about cinema? I wan’t to know some good female directors – that’s all. From what I know about art – most good artists are men! This seems self-evident, I guess you’d have to goto Univeristy to ‘realize’ the opposite. Now I’m not so much interested in the reasons why there’s less women. It could be a result of culture or could be biological or evolutionary or psychological or something. But to say it’s obviously a result of sexism is quite arrogant. It stinks of 5th rate social contructivism, which is probably what you learnt at school, maybe even in a women’s studies program (gasp). I’m not making any claims about women filmmakers. I’ve been interested in film for a number of years and haven’t come across a women I’d call a favorite. This doesn’t mean I’m sexist, though. Like I said, I’ve enjoyed some female directors, just none that I’ve fallen in love with. That’s why I’m here. To find some. But if we are going to pretend like women have made huge waves in the art of movie making, or just about any artform, because if we don’t it means we don’t like them, then we’re in pretty bad shape.
No, I just like art (good art especially). But that’s an interesting perspective. Admiring Da Vinici & Shakespeare means you’re a facist. In my experience, Marxists and Feminists have a poor understanding and appreciation of art because they look at things thru such a narrow ideoligical lense. But then again, art is good as long as it makes you feel good. So if Shakespeare, or Goeth, or Kafka doesn’t do it for you, but some bull-dyke really gets you there – then that’s all that matters. But calling someone a facist based on 1 thing they said is a little much. Your own intolerence comes off a bit fascistic actually (maybe it’s just the caps).
I appreciate the recs. Kenji and will likely check some of them out soon.
I remember one time, we were sitting at the very back in the middle, and there was a black couple sitting way in the back right of the theatre, and things were pretty dead, like hardly anyone was there. Anyways, maybe 45 min into the movie, the chick started to give the guy a BJ. The guy sitting closest to them noticed and nudged us. And we looked over and there she was. We only saw her doing it for like 30 secs, because soon after the guy just left. And she stayed and watched the whole movie until it was over. It was weird. They were sitting so he was closest to the wall, so it would be harder to see of course. We reckoned that the guy must have effed off on her or something. Either he got his rocks off and didn’t want to waste time on the movie, or she did a really bad job, or maybe he just couldn’t concentrate because maybe they knew we saw them. We were pretty sure we heard him coming though. Man, I can’t remember what movie it was. That was like 5-6 years ago.
Just thought I’d add that I’ve seen a few of his films and he quickly became a favorite. Local Color is actually one of my all-time favorite films. Sometimes I like to just put it on and just have it playing, I don’t even need to be watching it, just to hear it, ya know? It’s one of those experiences where I practically love every second of it. I also really liked Chain Letters, a lot. Imposters was very good. And I wasn’t as big on The Scenic Route as many seem to be, but I did find it intriguing (it was the first I saw).
Instead of actually contributing I thought I’d just attack other people’s comments (less thinking for me).
“On the flip side, Nicole Kidman in Dogville didn’t come to her great epiphany until being talked to by her father. The man is the one who had to interject his opinions. And that’s where my opinion of misogyny comes in.”
That’s the funny thing – so many of these feminists are the most sexist people you’ll meet. Is that not a pathetic irony? I know that I identify with women because they trigger something inside me, hidden feminine qualities or something pretentious like that. And if you put a man in that role it just doesn’t have the same effect. Everyone can relate to this. A character who is struggling to make it by in an oppressive environment it just feels right to be a woman (most of the time). Whereas if you have a character who is constantly faced with dangerous confrontations it feels right for it to be a man. Take a movie like Passion of Joan – it could have been about a man instead (Passion of Jonas or something), but it works much better with a woman because she is being used and abused and treated unfairly and this kindles something in our minds relating to woman. And I’m not saying it’s a dogmatic rule (ex Punch Drunk Love). If you ask me, most directors cast woman because they feel like women sometimes. And a woman best embodies certain things they want to express. Course if a female director casts a man, there’s no comotion. Look, we’re all human. We all feel the same things, just in different ways.
It tries to do what Opera did, which is to combine all the major art forms. Film does an even better job of it, it is literature mixed with drama mixed with painting mixed with music. The possibilities are immense. I mean think of all you can do with words, then times that by like 3 other art forms. Now even if you can find more literary masterpieces than film doesn’t mean it’s better. Writing has been around for thousands of years, film is still developing. Anyways, literature is superior? That is such a passe notion. Literature may be better at certain things like narrative or presenting ideas, but film can do that too and so much more. Honestly, a more interesting debate would be literature vs. music. If you ask me, film triumphs over both.
Yet another commie delusion. Though I couldn’t make a convincing objective case to say that one art is better than another, they certainly aren’t ‘equal’. They are different. Yes they’re all expressions of a person or of a culture, but it’s the way they express that is different. If you honestly think that a Beethoven symphony or sonata is equal to a book by Nietzsche is equal to a film by Welles then we must be talking about different things. All these artists are good at working within their own medium, but they definitely feel very different to these ears & eyes. I wouldn’t say one is better, but they all accomplish very different things. And by the way, relax on the exclamation points. There are children starving in Africa who aren’t even strong enough to use an exclamation point after a sentence, you monster.
“What is this “much more”, exactly? Show us giant blue Na’vi cleavage?”
That’s an interesting question followed by a rather boorish one. If you ask me, film is good at a lot of things. Like literature, it is good at presenting ideas and concepts and asking you to think about them. Like music it is great at creating an atmosphere or building certain feelings or moods. Like drama it is great at conveying emotions. Like painting it can play with our sense of space and say a lot with a single image. Not every filmmaker is a Shakespeare and there were no doubt many writers over the ages who found wide success with pretty silly stories. But hey, film has produced a Stanley Kubrick, a Andrei Tarkovsky, a David Lynch, a Jean Luc Godard, a Robert Bresson, a Fellini. Are these equal to a Shakespeare? a Proust? a Goethe? a Kafka? a T.S. Eliot? I really don’t know. Does anyone actually sit around and think about these things? How could you even ‘measure’ something like that?
They are VERY different filmmakers. Von Trier’s strength is in writing, if you ask me. He clearly cares a lot about the philosophical message and intellectual focus of his work, sort of like Haneke. His films are visually interesting mostly because they break so many rules yet still seem to function. I remember watching Dancer in the Dark and thinking to myself, “You can’t shoot a film like that! This film is going to suck.” And yet I sat there and watched it and it really is a brilliant film. Von Trier also relies heavily on actors to get his point across, like Bergman. I think it’s safe to say that his work is stylistically inferior to Tarkovsky (but so is probably 99% of directors). Tarkovsky on the other hand cares more than anything about the look of his film. He is in that way a kind of ‘pure’ filmmaker. But I certainly don’t think his work is flawless. He borrowed heavily from painters and a lot of his style isn’t actually all that personal. Furthermore, the acting and dialogue is sometimes embarrassing. He seems to really get put on a pedestal by people, which I cannot really blame them for. I mean, the guy is good. But to be perfectly honest, I like Von Trier better because I generally care more about ideas. And I think Trier had more interesting ideas and insights into people than Tarkovsky did. People too often get away with a superficial appraisal of his work. They see how good it looks but they don’t really think about what everything means. And I honestly don’t think he was as good at using symbolism or mise en scene as some other directors. He is actually kind of hit and miss. The only film of his that I thought was undeniably genius all the way through was the Mirror. Which may as well be the best movie I ever saw. But fans of him tend to be overly romantic about his actual output, which has all kinds of problems I think. And btw, I am speaking mainly of Dogville, Dancer in the Dark & Breaking the Waves, all of which I thought were brilliant. I saw Antichrist and uh…well that’s another topic altogether. I have seen just about everything from Tarkovsky. Mirror is the only that I unabashedly adore. Also, I’m reading some of these comments and it seems like most people haven’t even watched much Von Trier. If you pay attention to his films, he doesn’t seem to bother that much with style. He cares about the story and the dialogue and the acting. At least, this has definitely been my impression of him. And therefore I find him quite different from Tarkovsky. Also, this thread seemed to have brought out the holier-than-thou ‘spiritual’ turds who love their own farts. Get over it. Just because a film is ‘spiritual’ doesn’t mean it’s automatically better. There is more to life than that, despite what you might think. There’s evolution (that neat little myth! it’s quite intriguing, check it out!), Marxism, Freudianism/Jungianism/or other Philosophy. You know, pick up a book and stop thinking you’re so neat because you’re into yoga.
^^ Come off it. Honestly you Tarkovsky snobs are ridiculous. I don’t agree that his view is childish at all. I find it considerably more profound than Andrei, partly because it actually contains HUMOR and PLAYFULNESS, which is the sign of a healthy mind. I can totally understand someone liking Tarkovsky better than Von Trier, but all these supposed reasons that largely attack Lars’ maturity is just ridiculous in my opinion. It is cheap and crude and just shows a complete lack of understanding. Get off your fucking high-horse. I know Tarkovsky is a good filmmaker. I’ve WATCHED him. Listening to a lot of things being said it doesn’t seem like people have really watched Von Trier. You’re throwing the most passe criticisms at him. Doesn’t matter if Tarkovsky is a trailblazer. I would never shove Kubrick down someone’s throat for those same reasons, because I know that being a pretentious twat is never a good way to win someone over. I’m interested in genuine responses to art. If all you can say about Tarkovsky is that he was one of the most innovative bla bla bla…who cares. You gotta do better than that if you want to touch someone’s heart or challenge their mind. Let’s get real here. I mean REALLY why do you like Tarkovsky so much. Let’s start hearing some honest answers that reveal self-awareness and not these safe un-peppered ones that you stole from some two bit film historian quack.
Are you really not a leftist? I swear I’ve seen you post radical leftists things on here. I may be completely out of my nut and/or confusing you with someone else. Also what’s with the hardcore snobbery? Philistine? JUNK FOOD? That’s the kind of stuff that stupid people say who want to appear smart.
“Actually, I think each of the things you mention can be equally applied to all arts. All artists do the same thing in that they create or acquire some kind of form (a script, a block of stone, an idea for a poem, a dance movement) and alter that form until it’s something they like.”
I think it can be applied to all arts, just not equally. I really think that certain arts are better at doing certain things. I’ll use the example of a book vs. a film. Ideas in a book are really very linear. They unfold one after the other and are usually presented in pretty clear ways. In a film, or any visual medium, the ideas are highly condensed and usually need multiple viewings or prolonged contemplation to draw them all out. I think that’s partly why we will watch a movie over and over again, but only read a book once or twice. Books are to me more logical, more detached. Whereas I find film, or say sculpture, to be a more passionate medium. Now I’m not saying it’s a dogmatic rule or anything. Take poetry. That is almost completely different and is very passionate. Closer to music I’d say. But a novel vs. a film, I think it’s a generalization that largely sticks. It is at least satisfying to me, tho it’s quite likely just flowery speculation.
Well, it seems people here are quite attuned to hypocrisy, which is really too bad.
Ahem.
Anyways, being educated isn’t the point. Anyone (wealthy enough) can take a course in Philosophy or Psychology but still won’t understand anything about it. Just like someone can read a book or review of a filmmaker and not have the slightest clue about him. I would like to know for example, what you thought Stalker was about for instance. I thought it had some very interesting themes, but I don’t think he captured them all that successfully. Actually, I’d love to hear your thoughts on any of his films, whatever one touches you the most. I cannot relate to your summary of why you like him in any meaningful way.
Also, humour and playfulness is an integral part of many profound artists. Nietzsche is perhaps the ultimate expression of this, but some others that immediately spring to mind would be Lenny Bruce, Frank Zappa, Chaplin, The Simpsons, Dali, many great writers incorporated some humor into their work: Shakespeare no doubt, Kafka had one of the strangest and most profound sense of humors ever. And see, using humor as profundity is I think a pretty modern thing. I feel Tarkovsky is quite passe in a lot of his thinking/style, like Bresson. I mean humor is not the only important thing, but I feel it is something oddly missing from his work. I think one of the things that has happened as a result of learning so much about the world is we see how tiny we are, which makes our lives appear quite silly and absurd.
When I say linear, I mean that the medium itself is linear. Words move left to right, page to page, like a locomotive on a track. A painting or a piece of music is a bit more ambiguous or chaotic; closer to what life is actually like if you ask me.
It’s like saying that all sports are equal. I don’t think there’s any sense to that really. Not like I can prove it to you which is the best, but Not All Arts are EQUAL!#ASDAWedq1!@ It’s a socialist delusion I tells you. A symptom of the modern age! Not everyone is equal, nor all arts, nor all sports, nor all works of art, nor all men, nor all women.
OT: What are you reading? over 2 years ago
Right now I’m reading Thus Spake Zarathustra, which is one of my favourite books. I love reading it aloud to myself. Though I’m not sure if I like it better than some of Nietzsche’s other works like Beyond Good & Evil or Genealogy of Morality. He wrote so many great books – Antichrist & Twilight of the Idols are also great.
I’m also reading some big books on art with lots of pictures. I was into Renaissance art and now I’m looking more at 18-19th century stuff. I got to say, I much prefer Renaissance art to anything that has come after it. But maybe I haven’t looked hard enough yet.
Go to Comment
Kubrick's Best Film... over 2 years ago
Pretty much everything after 2001 is amazing and it’s almost impossible to choose one that is the best. Nonetheless, I love Eyes Wide Shut, 2001, Barry Lyndon & A Clockwork Orange. The Shining & Full Metal Jacket are wonderful as well, but it took me much longer to see the brilliance in those films.
Go to Comment
Kubrick's Best Film... over 2 years ago
double
Go to Comment
Repressed Sexuality in Movies over 2 years ago
Heh, that is a pretty broad theme. I think you’ll find hundreds of films dealing with that topic. However some that come to mind:
Taxi Driver – Martin Scorsese
Splendor in the Grass – Elias Kazan
In the Mood for Love – Wong-Kar Wai
The Exorcist – William Friedkin
Far From Heaven – Todd Haynes
That Obscure Object of Desire – Luis Bunuel
Through a Glass Darkly – Ingmar Bergman
Dogville – Lars von Trier (the character of Tom)
Royal Tennenbaums – Wes Anderson (character of Richie)
The Shining – Stanley Kubrick (it’s subtle, but seems to be there. try this website http://www.collativelearning.com/the%20shining%20-%20chap%2016.html)
Lolita – Stanley Kubrick (yes haha, the character of Humbert!)
And here’s some films with unrestrained sexuality:
Salo or the 120 Days of Sodom – Pier Paulo Passolini
Blue Velvet – David Lynch
A Clockwork Orange – Stanley Kubrick
L’Age D’Or – Luis Bunuel
Belle de Jour – Luis Bunuel
Go to Comment
Great films with terrible acting? over 2 years ago
A History of Violence. Amazing story, very well directed & terrible acting. Even though Vigo Mortensen is a great actor…I mean I think the bad acting was intentional to some extent to show the people were living in denial, but still…it was “bad” bad acting. Nearly ruined what could have been an astonishing film (and it sort of is anyway).
Go to Comment
Great films with terrible acting? over 2 years ago
Wow, I get the feeling you guys aren’t even watching Barry Lyndon.
“imho, I believe Kubrick’s “Barry Lyndon” could have been a great film had it not been for Ryan O’Neal. He fit into the period like a Mr. Yuk sticker fails as punctuation.”
You’re completely missing the point. Redmond Barry fits into the 18th century about as much as Alex fits into the 20th. Both those movies are about those men and are told from their point of view. There are many scenes in those films that don’t appear to be based on objective reality, but more like how Redmond or Alex see things.
“a vapid and insipid character without much emotional depth. I’m not saying that’s good.”
That’s not accurate either. Barry is possibly one of Kubrick’s most genuinely feeling characters in his entire oeuvre. He had loads of passion in this movie. I would write out scene after scene in which he displayed this, but it seems too obvious to even do that. You should probably just watch the film again. I mean…what are some examples of things you didn’t like about Redmond Barry?
Go to Comment
Repressed Sexuality in Movies over 2 years ago
I pretty much agree with you Learn2Swim, although I don’t feel like it’s ever very clear where Love and Sexual Desire separate. It’s just easier, and perhaps more hiply Freudian, to say SEXUAL repression. Though it certainly short-changes people.
Go to Comment
What are people's opinions of 2046 over 2 years ago
I don’t like Wong Kar-Wai, but I have friends who adore him, including 2046. They have excellent taste and I’m not sure why I don’t like him. I find him to be really shallow, sentimental, romantic. makes me want to be sick (even if he does it well).
Go to Comment
What are people's opinions of 2046 over 2 years ago
Hmm, yeah I dunno. I didn’t like In The Mood For Love, which I saw first. I liked 2046 even less.
Go to Comment
Female Directors — How many can you name? over 2 years ago
This is a good thread, I’ve often wondered where all the good women directors are? One thing I’d really like to ask people is, are their any truly brilliant, ‘great’ female directors? You know, is there a Kubrick, Bresson, Fellini, Tarkovsky, Welles [insert favorite great director name]. From what little I know about it, the answers seems to be ‘no’. Or not yet. I mean, I realize that’s a pretty superficial, limiting and subjective approach, but that’s how I go about exploring any artform – exploring the great ones. One artist I’ve enjoyed quite a bit was Akerman. I certainly wouldn’t put her with those other guys, but I have to admit she makes pretty excellent films and I learn a lot about women from watching them (and most importantly, I identify with and understand her). Someone was asking why there aren’t more films by women getting released. How about literature? Poetry? Music? It seems to be a trend in all the arts. Quite confusing considering that a female filmmaker would likely have an easier time getting financed than a male. But in any case, I’d like to check out some really good women directors (preferably on the same ‘level’ as Akerman).
Go to Comment
Female Directors — How many can you name? over 2 years ago
What is going on here? People have come on to spout mainstream feminist dogma and didn’t even recommend any female directors! Do you even care about cinema? I wan’t to know some good female directors – that’s all. From what I know about art – most good artists are men! This seems self-evident, I guess you’d have to goto Univeristy to ‘realize’ the opposite. Now I’m not so much interested in the reasons why there’s less women. It could be a result of culture or could be biological or evolutionary or psychological or something. But to say it’s obviously a result of sexism is quite arrogant. It stinks of 5th rate social contructivism, which is probably what you learnt at school, maybe even in a women’s studies program (gasp). I’m not making any claims about women filmmakers. I’ve been interested in film for a number of years and haven’t come across a women I’d call a favorite. This doesn’t mean I’m sexist, though. Like I said, I’ve enjoyed some female directors, just none that I’ve fallen in love with. That’s why I’m here. To find some. But if we are going to pretend like women have made huge waves in the art of movie making, or just about any artform, because if we don’t it means we don’t like them, then we’re in pretty bad shape.
Go to Comment
Female Directors — How many can you name? over 2 years ago
@Dimitris
No, I just like art (good art especially). But that’s an interesting perspective. Admiring Da Vinici & Shakespeare means you’re a facist. In my experience, Marxists and Feminists have a poor understanding and appreciation of art because they look at things thru such a narrow ideoligical lense. But then again, art is good as long as it makes you feel good. So if Shakespeare, or Goeth, or Kafka doesn’t do it for you, but some bull-dyke really gets you there – then that’s all that matters. But calling someone a facist based on 1 thing they said is a little much. Your own intolerence comes off a bit fascistic actually (maybe it’s just the caps).
I appreciate the recs. Kenji and will likely check some of them out soon.
Go to Comment
Just what if Lars Von Trier did tourist ads for Denmark over 2 years ago
Very funny, thx for sharing.
Go to Comment
funniest thing you've seen/done in a theatre over 2 years ago
I remember one time, we were sitting at the very back in the middle, and there was a black couple sitting way in the back right of the theatre, and things were pretty dead, like hardly anyone was there. Anyways, maybe 45 min into the movie, the chick started to give the guy a BJ. The guy sitting closest to them noticed and nudged us. And we looked over and there she was. We only saw her doing it for like 30 secs, because soon after the guy just left. And she stayed and watched the whole movie until it was over. It was weird. They were sitting so he was closest to the wall, so it would be harder to see of course. We reckoned that the guy must have effed off on her or something. Either he got his rocks off and didn’t want to waste time on the movie, or she did a really bad job, or maybe he just couldn’t concentrate because maybe they knew we saw them. We were pretty sure we heard him coming though. Man, I can’t remember what movie it was. That was like 5-6 years ago.
Go to Comment
Mark Rappaport over 2 years ago
Just thought I’d add that I’ve seen a few of his films and he quickly became a favorite. Local Color is actually one of my all-time favorite films. Sometimes I like to just put it on and just have it playing, I don’t even need to be watching it, just to hear it, ya know? It’s one of those experiences where I practically love every second of it. I also really liked Chain Letters, a lot. Imposters was very good. And I wasn’t as big on The Scenic Route as many seem to be, but I did find it intriguing (it was the first I saw).
Go to Comment
Surreal musicians/composers about 2 years ago
Trout Mask Replica
Niandre Lades & Usually Just a T-Shirt
Go to Comment
von trier, tarantino, fassbinder- depiction of/ fascination with women about 2 years ago
Instead of actually contributing I thought I’d just attack other people’s comments (less thinking for me).
“On the flip side, Nicole Kidman in Dogville didn’t come to her great epiphany until being talked to by her father. The man is the one who had to interject his opinions. And that’s where my opinion of misogyny comes in.”
That’s the funny thing – so many of these feminists are the most sexist people you’ll meet. Is that not a pathetic irony? I know that I identify with women because they trigger something inside me, hidden feminine qualities or something pretentious like that. And if you put a man in that role it just doesn’t have the same effect. Everyone can relate to this. A character who is struggling to make it by in an oppressive environment it just feels right to be a woman (most of the time). Whereas if you have a character who is constantly faced with dangerous confrontations it feels right for it to be a man. Take a movie like Passion of Joan – it could have been about a man instead (Passion of Jonas or something), but it works much better with a woman because she is being used and abused and treated unfairly and this kindles something in our minds relating to woman. And I’m not saying it’s a dogmatic rule (ex Punch Drunk Love). If you ask me, most directors cast woman because they feel like women sometimes. And a woman best embodies certain things they want to express. Course if a female director casts a man, there’s no comotion. Look, we’re all human. We all feel the same things, just in different ways.
Go to Comment
Is liturature a better art form then film? about 2 years ago
Film. No question.
It tries to do what Opera did, which is to combine all the major art forms. Film does an even better job of it, it is literature mixed with drama mixed with painting mixed with music. The possibilities are immense. I mean think of all you can do with words, then times that by like 3 other art forms. Now even if you can find more literary masterpieces than film doesn’t mean it’s better. Writing has been around for thousands of years, film is still developing. Anyways, literature is superior? That is such a passe notion. Literature may be better at certain things like narrative or presenting ideas, but film can do that too and so much more. Honestly, a more interesting debate would be literature vs. music. If you ask me, film triumphs over both.
Go to Comment
Is liturature a better art form then film? about 2 years ago
-
Go to Comment
Is liturature a better art form then film? about 2 years ago
“NO, all Arts are EQUAL!!!!!”
Yet another commie delusion. Though I couldn’t make a convincing objective case to say that one art is better than another, they certainly aren’t ‘equal’. They are different. Yes they’re all expressions of a person or of a culture, but it’s the way they express that is different. If you honestly think that a Beethoven symphony or sonata is equal to a book by Nietzsche is equal to a film by Welles then we must be talking about different things. All these artists are good at working within their own medium, but they definitely feel very different to these ears & eyes. I wouldn’t say one is better, but they all accomplish very different things. And by the way, relax on the exclamation points. There are children starving in Africa who aren’t even strong enough to use an exclamation point after a sentence, you monster.
“What is this “much more”, exactly? Show us giant blue Na’vi cleavage?”
That’s an interesting question followed by a rather boorish one. If you ask me, film is good at a lot of things. Like literature, it is good at presenting ideas and concepts and asking you to think about them. Like music it is great at creating an atmosphere or building certain feelings or moods. Like drama it is great at conveying emotions. Like painting it can play with our sense of space and say a lot with a single image. Not every filmmaker is a Shakespeare and there were no doubt many writers over the ages who found wide success with pretty silly stories. But hey, film has produced a Stanley Kubrick, a Andrei Tarkovsky, a David Lynch, a Jean Luc Godard, a Robert Bresson, a Fellini. Are these equal to a Shakespeare? a Proust? a Goethe? a Kafka? a T.S. Eliot? I really don’t know. Does anyone actually sit around and think about these things? How could you even ‘measure’ something like that?
Go to Comment
Von Trier vs Tarkovsky about 2 years ago
They are VERY different filmmakers. Von Trier’s strength is in writing, if you ask me. He clearly cares a lot about the philosophical message and intellectual focus of his work, sort of like Haneke. His films are visually interesting mostly because they break so many rules yet still seem to function. I remember watching Dancer in the Dark and thinking to myself, “You can’t shoot a film like that! This film is going to suck.” And yet I sat there and watched it and it really is a brilliant film. Von Trier also relies heavily on actors to get his point across, like Bergman. I think it’s safe to say that his work is stylistically inferior to Tarkovsky (but so is probably 99% of directors). Tarkovsky on the other hand cares more than anything about the look of his film. He is in that way a kind of ‘pure’ filmmaker. But I certainly don’t think his work is flawless. He borrowed heavily from painters and a lot of his style isn’t actually all that personal. Furthermore, the acting and dialogue is sometimes embarrassing. He seems to really get put on a pedestal by people, which I cannot really blame them for. I mean, the guy is good. But to be perfectly honest, I like Von Trier better because I generally care more about ideas. And I think Trier had more interesting ideas and insights into people than Tarkovsky did. People too often get away with a superficial appraisal of his work. They see how good it looks but they don’t really think about what everything means. And I honestly don’t think he was as good at using symbolism or mise en scene as some other directors. He is actually kind of hit and miss. The only film of his that I thought was undeniably genius all the way through was the Mirror. Which may as well be the best movie I ever saw. But fans of him tend to be overly romantic about his actual output, which has all kinds of problems I think. And btw, I am speaking mainly of Dogville, Dancer in the Dark & Breaking the Waves, all of which I thought were brilliant. I saw Antichrist and uh…well that’s another topic altogether. I have seen just about everything from Tarkovsky. Mirror is the only that I unabashedly adore. Also, I’m reading some of these comments and it seems like most people haven’t even watched much Von Trier. If you pay attention to his films, he doesn’t seem to bother that much with style. He cares about the story and the dialogue and the acting. At least, this has definitely been my impression of him. And therefore I find him quite different from Tarkovsky. Also, this thread seemed to have brought out the holier-than-thou ‘spiritual’ turds who love their own farts. Get over it. Just because a film is ‘spiritual’ doesn’t mean it’s automatically better. There is more to life than that, despite what you might think. There’s evolution (that neat little myth! it’s quite intriguing, check it out!), Marxism, Freudianism/Jungianism/or other Philosophy. You know, pick up a book and stop thinking you’re so neat because you’re into yoga.
Go to Comment
Von Trier vs Tarkovsky about 2 years ago
^^ Come off it. Honestly you Tarkovsky snobs are ridiculous. I don’t agree that his view is childish at all. I find it considerably more profound than Andrei, partly because it actually contains HUMOR and PLAYFULNESS, which is the sign of a healthy mind. I can totally understand someone liking Tarkovsky better than Von Trier, but all these supposed reasons that largely attack Lars’ maturity is just ridiculous in my opinion. It is cheap and crude and just shows a complete lack of understanding. Get off your fucking high-horse. I know Tarkovsky is a good filmmaker. I’ve WATCHED him. Listening to a lot of things being said it doesn’t seem like people have really watched Von Trier. You’re throwing the most passe criticisms at him. Doesn’t matter if Tarkovsky is a trailblazer. I would never shove Kubrick down someone’s throat for those same reasons, because I know that being a pretentious twat is never a good way to win someone over. I’m interested in genuine responses to art. If all you can say about Tarkovsky is that he was one of the most innovative bla bla bla…who cares. You gotta do better than that if you want to touch someone’s heart or challenge their mind. Let’s get real here. I mean REALLY why do you like Tarkovsky so much. Let’s start hearing some honest answers that reveal self-awareness and not these safe un-peppered ones that you stole from some two bit film historian quack.
Go to Comment
Is liturature a better art form then film? about 2 years ago
@Dimitris
Are you really not a leftist? I swear I’ve seen you post radical leftists things on here. I may be completely out of my nut and/or confusing you with someone else. Also what’s with the hardcore snobbery? Philistine? JUNK FOOD? That’s the kind of stuff that stupid people say who want to appear smart.
“Actually, I think each of the things you mention can be equally applied to all arts. All artists do the same thing in that they create or acquire some kind of form (a script, a block of stone, an idea for a poem, a dance movement) and alter that form until it’s something they like.”
I think it can be applied to all arts, just not equally. I really think that certain arts are better at doing certain things. I’ll use the example of a book vs. a film. Ideas in a book are really very linear. They unfold one after the other and are usually presented in pretty clear ways. In a film, or any visual medium, the ideas are highly condensed and usually need multiple viewings or prolonged contemplation to draw them all out. I think that’s partly why we will watch a movie over and over again, but only read a book once or twice. Books are to me more logical, more detached. Whereas I find film, or say sculpture, to be a more passionate medium. Now I’m not saying it’s a dogmatic rule or anything. Take poetry. That is almost completely different and is very passionate. Closer to music I’d say. But a novel vs. a film, I think it’s a generalization that largely sticks. It is at least satisfying to me, tho it’s quite likely just flowery speculation.
Go to Comment
Von Trier vs Tarkovsky about 2 years ago
Well, it seems people here are quite attuned to hypocrisy, which is really too bad.
Ahem.
Anyways, being educated isn’t the point. Anyone (wealthy enough) can take a course in Philosophy or Psychology but still won’t understand anything about it. Just like someone can read a book or review of a filmmaker and not have the slightest clue about him. I would like to know for example, what you thought Stalker was about for instance. I thought it had some very interesting themes, but I don’t think he captured them all that successfully. Actually, I’d love to hear your thoughts on any of his films, whatever one touches you the most. I cannot relate to your summary of why you like him in any meaningful way.
Also, humour and playfulness is an integral part of many profound artists. Nietzsche is perhaps the ultimate expression of this, but some others that immediately spring to mind would be Lenny Bruce, Frank Zappa, Chaplin, The Simpsons, Dali, many great writers incorporated some humor into their work: Shakespeare no doubt, Kafka had one of the strangest and most profound sense of humors ever. And see, using humor as profundity is I think a pretty modern thing. I feel Tarkovsky is quite passe in a lot of his thinking/style, like Bresson. I mean humor is not the only important thing, but I feel it is something oddly missing from his work. I think one of the things that has happened as a result of learning so much about the world is we see how tiny we are, which makes our lives appear quite silly and absurd.
Go to Comment
Is liturature a better art form then film? about 2 years ago
When I say linear, I mean that the medium itself is linear. Words move left to right, page to page, like a locomotive on a track. A painting or a piece of music is a bit more ambiguous or chaotic; closer to what life is actually like if you ask me.
Go to Comment
Is liturature a better art form then film? about 2 years ago
@Matt Parks & Dimitris
It’s like saying that all sports are equal. I don’t think there’s any sense to that really. Not like I can prove it to you which is the best, but Not All Arts are EQUAL
!#ASDAWedq1!@ It’s a socialist delusion I tells you. A symptom of the modern age! Not everyone is equal, nor all arts, nor all sports, nor all works of art, nor all men, nor all women.Go to Comment
Is liturature a better art form then film? about 2 years ago
Everyone has equal opportunity but not equal abilities, or equal circumstances. It’s the same with arts. Some are better endowed. Some are plebian.
Go to Comment
Is liturature a better art form then film? about 2 years ago
litterchore
Go to Comment
Cinema 21: What Happened Was about 2 years ago
I just watched it last night, it was excellent. Although the guy was almost a little too pathetic.
Go to Comment
Why is it so hard to meet girls? about 2 years ago
Asian women are hot. I didn’t realize they were also less evil. Do tell!
Go to Comment