Hold on let me make my moderated comment rated G since we’re all 11 years old.
Art is made to entertain our biases, whether political, spiritual, comedic, whatever. They’re biases even if they’re true, they perpetuate what we accept as fact about existence. World War 2, cornfields in Nebraska, sunsets in the Caribbean, torture in Hanoi, environmentalism, existentialism, we all KNOW these. Changing what we know doesn’t make better art either, it’s just a different side of the same biased coin. Better art will use our biases to engage us then obfuscate meaning.
Biases in film are great for make out sessions or to kill time and are sometimes necessary, but you should be aware of them. If we were aware of them a lot of what we consider drama would be comedy. I’m sure a lot of you already laugh at movies people say changed their life. Who is right? That’s not the point.
Anyway, if something confuses you it was probably worth your time and money, even more than something aesthetically pleasing. Look for confusion and take it as a challenge not an insult. Even if you can’t find the solution to the challenge stick with it. Maybe there is no solution. Maybe that’s the point.
I used to hate the guy who was ambivalent to everything. Not even hate but pity. How could you not want to see or do something or even have an opinion on an issue? Slowly I realized what was going on. This person knew all about these things but realized the value of a conversation. He was way beyond me and knew that to tell me how to think would only set me back. It turns out the answers to the questions I was asking never existed because I had to create them first.
Everything is fiction. Fact relies on human constructs like names, places and time. Human language is too weak to effectively explain anything. Every linguistic expression of human emotion is subjective.
The question is a straw man. The films you mention are lies not manipulation. They make assumptions about life and then use them as the foundation for a 2 hour story. Pick your gripe, choose a genre, add a few familiar tropes, you’re guaranteed a lifetime of tear jerkers and knee slappers.
The intention in the subtext of those 3 words " Well Done Manipulation" makes the question invalid. My answer to the question I believe you’re trying to ask is that they don’t address the assumptions mentioned above. The artistry of tackling an assumption is based on the questions asked. I bet you Paul Haggis thought he had the assumptions by the throat while writing crash.
If at any point you think you found the answer then you almost certainly haven’t.
people don’t think you’re pretentious or stuck up….you’re fooling yourself if you think that….they think you’re a dick for putting labels on something subjective, which you clearly do based on this post.
It’s funny you mention the sentimental history part because I’m 22 as well. Whenever WTWTA is brought up all I see are a bunch of suits sitting around a table trying to make a profit while insisting “arty” will be its trademark. The inability for it to connect with an audience isn’t the fault of the talent involved, it was doomed from conception.
Maybe Hollywood will learn from this and at least pretend to create some new original ideas instead of relying on the nostalgia of the 18-25 age bracket to produce easy ticket sales.
And for the record I also dig on Cassavetes/Pialat like Sunday afternoon pussy.
While labels for groups can be useful sometimes I think hipster has become pretty worthless as an identifier. I’m actually glad WTWTA was produced because it’s a quick and easy way for me to figure out if a persons opinions are worth my time. This doesn’t include the people who say “oh it might be good” or “the trailer looks interesting”, it’s mostly the “OMFG WTWTA I LOVE THAT BOOK AND THAT SONG FROM THE TRAILER I’M GOING TO TEXT EVERYONE, THEN TWITTER, THEN FACEBOOK BLOG THE WORLD SO THEY KNOW I’M ALL OVER THIS THROWBACK REFERENCE TO CHILDHOOD, GOD I’M SO YOUNG AND CAREFREE”
And yeah KJ I can accept fanboys being hipsters without social skills and tight clothing.
This post is around my 6th of all time on theauteurs, so I’m pretty sure I didn’t say that but I could be wrong. Maybe it was in a thread about district 9 which had an ~$30M budget?
But on the topic of what you said, I agree even $25M seems like a huge number and the $90M for WTWTA? If the internet can create that 20,000×20,000 pixel image breaking down the annual US budget there has to be something about films floating around the tubes.
Does anyone know of a good book that chronicles the work of an independent film house? I’m really curious to understand how a feature film can’t be made for under $100,000. Even pulp fiction cost $8.5M and that was in ’94.
Cecelia, what bothers me about WTWTA (which I prefer to say instead of Wild Things because it just conjures up dirty thoughts about Denise Richards breasts) is how manufactured it is. Films can be popular AND good. Iron man for example is a great movie not because it’s going to change cinema forever, but because it delivers what it promises, entertainment.
This film will fail, which is important, but it needs to fail for what it is; an insidious attempt at clever marketing, not just a bad movie. If popular culture/media doesn’t explicitly understand this then Hollywood is just going to readjust its lasers and fire again with no one the wiser. The people involved with this are simply out for money. Check out the executive producers on IMDB and their honest, true to cinema past projects. So spike Jonze gets a fat paycheck to attempt something mainstream while still on his terms. BONUS: his ex-girlfriend Karen O. is involved, he might just get some, shes hot, great. He knows it’s a doomed project but at least he saves face creatively and can fund 10 personal future endeavors. Good for him, I would do the same.
Now you say, but Delancy, who cares, there will always be big budget bad movies and small budget good films. This is true. The problem is I’m only going to be on this earth for at best 80 more years and if this shit is considered low budget success then every decade for the rest of my life I’m going to have to sit through flavor of the week actors and directors telling me how great the previous decade was when the only difference is that I can’t get my dick up as easily any more. Where the wild things are is marginal at best as a book and trying to make a “faithful” movie is like trying to call my shit mashed potatoes because it has the same consistency. I refuse to eat it.
I don’t know if you’re talking to me John but I don’t think Jonze is at fault for anything. He’s seizing an opportunity to fund more of his own projects at the expense of a greedy system. All of his past work has been well under $20M with a couple being close to that limit.
The flip side of this question is to what degree should filmmakers rely on the experiences of their viewers? Are all the films that we dislike below us or do we just not understand them? What many people consider vapid plots and cliche stories might just be the apathy of people who have gone through the “phase of artistic enlightenment” and found no solace. Are the most worthy films with the deepest messages so disjointed that they’re incomprehensible which is more of a point than anything that can be put into a plot or story?
People look down their noses at these cliche films but if you look around how many relationships in real life are so cliche they make these films look original? If these themes have influenced culture for so long now that they’re reality then aren’t these films really the most true to life?
What bothers me most about film is when I’m on a forum and someone says that a film that I like is pretentious. I don’t get that sense of pride that I assume most people do when they’re given the satisfaction of “understanding” something someone else disregards. I don’t buy that some people are inherently better at understanding than others, with or without experience or education.
I rewrote the second paragraph of this post about 10 times but I can’t put into words what understanding vs ignorance is. There are so many factors that it seems impossible to pin down. I’m tempted to say that in my own life there were events that switched on my brain to make me appreciate certain things, mostly artistic things, but when I really think about it it’s hard to distinguish between that and the truth. If I had watched Cassavetes films at 15, 18, 20, and so on, at what point would I have “got” it? Would you have even been able to get me to sit in front of a black and white film for 2 hours at 15? Why not? Furthermore, at 22 years old I can sit down with people twice my age and older and have them recommend art that I already appreciate. To me this only reveals only two clear options in life: you create new from what you know or you discover layers in what you know.
It’s hard to get to the root of something without going from broad to narrow and then once you’re there it seems like you’re taking such a small portion of your original argument that you want to start over again, but of course you’ll only end up in the same place. Maybe someone can more eloquently put what I’m getting at.
I meant to link to this Charlie Rose interview with David Foster Wallace in 1997 which in some ways speaks to the topic of this thread. He also starts talking about films and David Lynch for a 1/4 of the interview.
I can’t figure out how to link properly but here it is:
dr lemonglow – the problem is most of those movies you mentioned are appreciated by people way removed from their intended audience. While I don’t disagree that some movies are meant for and appreciated by people on a very obvious superficial level it doesn’t account for the visceral appreciation of films that lack easily identifiable themes.
I work with and know a lot about the history of computers which makes a film like Hackers an interesting historical document, but doesn’t change the fact that it’s a shitty movie. I wish it had cult appeal but I barely got through it once, even with some pretty funny cheesy lines, twice would be torture.
I’ve spent time in Paris and while it was a great experience I don’t really understand your reference to seeing film in a new way. Care to elaborate?
I’ll pick a random movie then read the plot synopsis and maybe some forum posts on IMDB to get myself hyped up for it. I can’t watch a slow movie when I’m in the mood for action and vice versa so this guarantees I don’t give up early on.
Just for the record I’d love for this movie to end up being great because I sincerely enjoy having my perspective of something I’m willing to dedicate 3 paragraphs to anonymous people about altered. That said I’m not holding my breath. I might even pay to see this movie just to prove myself wrong.
Well the difference is that I accept that my opinion can be changed after viewing the film in its entirety. If someone comes up with a valid counterpoint to something I object to in the film I’ll just come off ignorant if I dismiss it as unimportant, which I wouldn’t accept.
Ten minutes into any film you’ll make assumptions whether it’s the title, director, trailer, black and white, narrative, etc. I think with something as visible as WTWTA requires a skilled director to realize this and put you in a state of mind that doesn’t necessarily change your perception but diverts your attention from thinking about it.
The best example I can think of is comparing The Holy Mountain to that newer movie The Fall. I read on a forum that they had something in common so naturally I was excited to see it because I loved The Holy Mountain. The thing is that The Fall never entices you to think it just tells you what to think. It’s a beautiful film but the value of that is the same as a good gun fight or car chase in the movie that you fast forward to over the story.
I stand by the fact that the conception of this film IS the fault, not the content itself. Whatever Spike Jonze’s message is going to be, he failed in my eyes by needing Where The Wild Things Are™ to convey it.
Like Roscoe said, pinocchio underwater during some parts. I had no idea Tarr was supposed to be there. The line for WUI was long and sold out. If the next screening with an intro by Gena Rowlands is Monday I might go.
Moderated
What's the point of watching a film? almost 3 years ago
Hold on let me make my moderated comment rated G since we’re all 11 years old.
Art is made to entertain our biases, whether political, spiritual, comedic, whatever. They’re biases even if they’re true, they perpetuate what we accept as fact about existence. World War 2, cornfields in Nebraska, sunsets in the Caribbean, torture in Hanoi, environmentalism, existentialism, we all KNOW these. Changing what we know doesn’t make better art either, it’s just a different side of the same biased coin. Better art will use our biases to engage us then obfuscate meaning.
Biases in film are great for make out sessions or to kill time and are sometimes necessary, but you should be aware of them. If we were aware of them a lot of what we consider drama would be comedy. I’m sure a lot of you already laugh at movies people say changed their life. Who is right? That’s not the point.
Anyway, if something confuses you it was probably worth your time and money, even more than something aesthetically pleasing. Look for confusion and take it as a challenge not an insult. Even if you can’t find the solution to the challenge stick with it. Maybe there is no solution. Maybe that’s the point.
I used to hate the guy who was ambivalent to everything. Not even hate but pity. How could you not want to see or do something or even have an opinion on an issue? Slowly I realized what was going on. This person knew all about these things but realized the value of a conversation. He was way beyond me and knew that to tell me how to think would only set me back. It turns out the answers to the questions I was asking never existed because I had to create them first.
Go to Comment
What's the point of watching a film? almost 3 years ago
ambivalent = oblivious
Go to Comment
how movies lie almost 3 years ago
Everything is fiction. Fact relies on human constructs like names, places and time. Human language is too weak to effectively explain anything. Every linguistic expression of human emotion is subjective.
Go to Comment
Anyone going to film/art school over 2 years ago
He’s an artist because this post exists. Bad art is indifference.
Go to Comment
What's so wrong with well done manipulation? over 2 years ago
The question is a straw man. The films you mention are lies not manipulation. They make assumptions about life and then use them as the foundation for a 2 hour story. Pick your gripe, choose a genre, add a few familiar tropes, you’re guaranteed a lifetime of tear jerkers and knee slappers.
The intention in the subtext of those 3 words " Well Done Manipulation" makes the question invalid. My answer to the question I believe you’re trying to ask is that they don’t address the assumptions mentioned above. The artistry of tackling an assumption is based on the questions asked. I bet you Paul Haggis thought he had the assumptions by the throat while writing crash.
If at any point you think you found the answer then you almost certainly haven’t.
Go to Comment
Is there a point where an opinion is no longer an opinion? over 2 years ago
people don’t think you’re pretentious or stuck up….you’re fooling yourself if you think that….they think you’re a dick for putting labels on something subjective, which you clearly do based on this post.
Go to Comment
Let's Talk Pixar over 2 years ago
2008/2009
Stop motion :: Animation
Fixed gear :: Bicycles
exceptions abound…rule endures
Go to Comment
Faux Hipster Trash over 2 years ago
Negative reviews from paid industry critics before general release….AKA covering their asses for a truly horrible movie
I called this 8 months ago. Marketing hype.
Go to Comment
Faux Hipster Trash over 2 years ago
It’s funny you mention the sentimental history part because I’m 22 as well. Whenever WTWTA is brought up all I see are a bunch of suits sitting around a table trying to make a profit while insisting “arty” will be its trademark. The inability for it to connect with an audience isn’t the fault of the talent involved, it was doomed from conception.
Maybe Hollywood will learn from this and at least pretend to create some new original ideas instead of relying on the nostalgia of the 18-25 age bracket to produce easy ticket sales.
And for the record I also dig on Cassavetes/Pialat like Sunday afternoon pussy.
Go to Comment
Faux Hipster Trash over 2 years ago
haha sure KJ.
Go to Comment
Faux Hipster Trash over 2 years ago
While labels for groups can be useful sometimes I think hipster has become pretty worthless as an identifier. I’m actually glad WTWTA was produced because it’s a quick and easy way for me to figure out if a persons opinions are worth my time. This doesn’t include the people who say “oh it might be good” or “the trailer looks interesting”, it’s mostly the “OMFG WTWTA I LOVE THAT BOOK AND THAT SONG FROM THE TRAILER I’M GOING TO TEXT EVERYONE, THEN TWITTER, THEN FACEBOOK BLOG THE WORLD SO THEY KNOW I’M ALL OVER THIS THROWBACK REFERENCE TO CHILDHOOD, GOD I’M SO YOUNG AND CAREFREE”
And yeah KJ I can accept fanboys being hipsters without social skills and tight clothing.
Go to Comment
Faux Hipster Trash over 2 years ago
This post is around my 6th of all time on theauteurs, so I’m pretty sure I didn’t say that but I could be wrong. Maybe it was in a thread about district 9 which had an ~$30M budget?
But on the topic of what you said, I agree even $25M seems like a huge number and the $90M for WTWTA? If the internet can create that 20,000×20,000 pixel image breaking down the annual US budget there has to be something about films floating around the tubes.
Does anyone know of a good book that chronicles the work of an independent film house? I’m really curious to understand how a feature film can’t be made for under $100,000. Even pulp fiction cost $8.5M and that was in ’94.
Go to Comment
Faux Hipster Trash over 2 years ago
Cecelia, what bothers me about WTWTA (which I prefer to say instead of Wild Things because it just conjures up dirty thoughts about Denise Richards breasts) is how manufactured it is. Films can be popular AND good. Iron man for example is a great movie not because it’s going to change cinema forever, but because it delivers what it promises, entertainment.
This film will fail, which is important, but it needs to fail for what it is; an insidious attempt at clever marketing, not just a bad movie. If popular culture/media doesn’t explicitly understand this then Hollywood is just going to readjust its lasers and fire again with no one the wiser. The people involved with this are simply out for money. Check out the executive producers on IMDB and their honest, true to cinema past projects. So spike Jonze gets a fat paycheck to attempt something mainstream while still on his terms. BONUS: his ex-girlfriend Karen O. is involved, he might just get some, shes hot, great. He knows it’s a doomed project but at least he saves face creatively and can fund 10 personal future endeavors. Good for him, I would do the same.
Now you say, but Delancy, who cares, there will always be big budget bad movies and small budget good films. This is true. The problem is I’m only going to be on this earth for at best 80 more years and if this shit is considered low budget success then every decade for the rest of my life I’m going to have to sit through flavor of the week actors and directors telling me how great the previous decade was when the only difference is that I can’t get my dick up as easily any more. Where the wild things are is marginal at best as a book and trying to make a “faithful” movie is like trying to call my shit mashed potatoes because it has the same consistency. I refuse to eat it.
Go to Comment
Faux Hipster Trash over 2 years ago
I don’t know if you’re talking to me John but I don’t think Jonze is at fault for anything. He’s seizing an opportunity to fund more of his own projects at the expense of a greedy system. All of his past work has been well under $20M with a couple being close to that limit.
Go to Comment
Faux Hipster Trash over 2 years ago
haha sorry about that, JOSH
Go to Comment
Faux Hipster Trash over 2 years ago
(whoops)
Go to Comment
Faux Hipster Trash over 2 years ago
(duplicate)
Go to Comment
Can a real life experience improve your thoughts on a film? over 2 years ago
The flip side of this question is to what degree should filmmakers rely on the experiences of their viewers? Are all the films that we dislike below us or do we just not understand them? What many people consider vapid plots and cliche stories might just be the apathy of people who have gone through the “phase of artistic enlightenment” and found no solace. Are the most worthy films with the deepest messages so disjointed that they’re incomprehensible which is more of a point than anything that can be put into a plot or story?
People look down their noses at these cliche films but if you look around how many relationships in real life are so cliche they make these films look original? If these themes have influenced culture for so long now that they’re reality then aren’t these films really the most true to life?
Go to Comment
Faux Hipster Trash over 2 years ago
I’m more of a dandy than a hipster.
Go to Comment
Can a real life experience improve your thoughts on a film? over 2 years ago
What bothers me most about film is when I’m on a forum and someone says that a film that I like is pretentious. I don’t get that sense of pride that I assume most people do when they’re given the satisfaction of “understanding” something someone else disregards. I don’t buy that some people are inherently better at understanding than others, with or without experience or education.
I rewrote the second paragraph of this post about 10 times but I can’t put into words what understanding vs ignorance is. There are so many factors that it seems impossible to pin down. I’m tempted to say that in my own life there were events that switched on my brain to make me appreciate certain things, mostly artistic things, but when I really think about it it’s hard to distinguish between that and the truth. If I had watched Cassavetes films at 15, 18, 20, and so on, at what point would I have “got” it? Would you have even been able to get me to sit in front of a black and white film for 2 hours at 15? Why not? Furthermore, at 22 years old I can sit down with people twice my age and older and have them recommend art that I already appreciate. To me this only reveals only two clear options in life: you create new from what you know or you discover layers in what you know.
It’s hard to get to the root of something without going from broad to narrow and then once you’re there it seems like you’re taking such a small portion of your original argument that you want to start over again, but of course you’ll only end up in the same place. Maybe someone can more eloquently put what I’m getting at.
Go to Comment
Can a real life experience improve your thoughts on a film? over 2 years ago
I meant to link to this Charlie Rose interview with David Foster Wallace in 1997 which in some ways speaks to the topic of this thread. He also starts talking about films and David Lynch for a 1/4 of the interview.
I can’t figure out how to link properly but here it is:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/5639
Go to Comment
Can a real life experience improve your thoughts on a film? over 2 years ago
dr lemonglow – the problem is most of those movies you mentioned are appreciated by people way removed from their intended audience. While I don’t disagree that some movies are meant for and appreciated by people on a very obvious superficial level it doesn’t account for the visceral appreciation of films that lack easily identifiable themes.
I work with and know a lot about the history of computers which makes a film like Hackers an interesting historical document, but doesn’t change the fact that it’s a shitty movie. I wish it had cult appeal but I barely got through it once, even with some pretty funny cheesy lines, twice would be torture.
I’ve spent time in Paris and while it was a great experience I don’t really understand your reference to seeing film in a new way. Care to elaborate?
Go to Comment
How do you decide what film to watch? over 2 years ago
I’ll pick a random movie then read the plot synopsis and maybe some forum posts on IMDB to get myself hyped up for it. I can’t watch a slow movie when I’m in the mood for action and vice versa so this guarantees I don’t give up early on.
Go to Comment
Faux Hipster Trash over 2 years ago
Just for the record I’d love for this movie to end up being great because I sincerely enjoy having my perspective of something I’m willing to dedicate 3 paragraphs to anonymous people about altered. That said I’m not holding my breath. I might even pay to see this movie just to prove myself wrong.
Go to Comment
Faux Hipster Trash over 2 years ago
Well the difference is that I accept that my opinion can be changed after viewing the film in its entirety. If someone comes up with a valid counterpoint to something I object to in the film I’ll just come off ignorant if I dismiss it as unimportant, which I wouldn’t accept.
Ten minutes into any film you’ll make assumptions whether it’s the title, director, trailer, black and white, narrative, etc. I think with something as visible as WTWTA requires a skilled director to realize this and put you in a state of mind that doesn’t necessarily change your perception but diverts your attention from thinking about it.
The best example I can think of is comparing The Holy Mountain to that newer movie The Fall. I read on a forum that they had something in common so naturally I was excited to see it because I loved The Holy Mountain. The thing is that The Fall never entices you to think it just tells you what to think. It’s a beautiful film but the value of that is the same as a good gun fight or car chase in the movie that you fast forward to over the story.
I stand by the fact that the conception of this film IS the fault, not the content itself. Whatever Spike Jonze’s message is going to be, he failed in my eyes by needing Where The Wild Things Are™ to convey it.
Go to Comment
weird crush on steve buscemi anyone? over 2 years ago
nothing says soggy panties like a receding hairline
Go to Comment
Any New Yorkers going to see Satantango and/or A Woman under the Influence at MOMA on Saturday? over 2 years ago
dp
Go to Comment
Any New Yorkers going to see Satantango and/or A Woman under the Influence at MOMA on Saturday? over 2 years ago
I saw this in time out new york and gasped. I made the same connection for a morning afternoon of satantango, a short dinner, and then WUI.
Go to Comment
Any New Yorkers going to see Satantango and/or A Woman under the Influence at MOMA on Saturday? over 2 years ago
Like Roscoe said, pinocchio underwater during some parts. I had no idea Tarr was supposed to be there. The line for WUI was long and sold out. If the next screening with an intro by Gena Rowlands is Monday I might go.
Go to Comment