I don’t think any of those films are particularly bad at all, particularly SLC Punk and Requiem for a Dream. In fact, all of them with the exception of Garden State I’ve found to be very entertaining and very interesting. They’ve just become films associated with a younger audience, mostly because of their subject matter (drugs, sex, heavy consequences, “the real world.”) It’s just that pretentious film fans who always need to be at least 3 steps further than the rest will find any reason to knock them once they’ve broken out of indie and underground obscurity.
The films mentioned above are transitional points between mainstream movies and the art-house. They are also valid introductions to the counter-culture through the means of film. I doubt many film enthusiasts of my generation have developed an interest in film without seeing these at an early stage.
As for Napoleon Dynamite, it was pretty funny. Don’t blame the movie but rather corporate America for turning it into something gimmicky and stupid.
A number of Spike Lee “joints.” Unfortunately, his image as an artist has been tarnished by his activist agenda and inflammatory remarks (which may or my not be blown out of proportion by hyper sensitive white devils.) However, Roman Polanski and Woody Allen have sex with girls who’ve yet to develop full breasts, yet we’ve come to appreciate their eccentricity regarding the subject. It’s funny how things change when opinions on race relations come to the table.
Summer of Sam is near perfect, with the exception of a few dreadfully bad scenes involving a talking dog. He Got Game was also pretty excellent. And frankly, Malcolm X was one of the most powerful films I’ve ever seen. He does a lot of good work while balancing commercial and indie influence (not an easy task by any means.)
Paul Jazz – I’ve got lots of love for Jacob’s Ladder as well.
Apatow can be pretty brilliant when he puts some effort into them. I find all three of his directorial efforts on point regarding human interactions and more specifically the interaction between men and women and developing of relationships. I love Knocked Up.
Apatow can be pretty brilliant when he puts some effort into them. I find all three of his directorial efforts on point regarding human interactions and more specifically the interaction between men and women and developing of relationships. I love Knocked Up.
I started at NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts to pursue a degree in dramatic writing. However, I quickly reevaluated my options after getting a better grasp of what needs to be done in order to be a filmmaker. I decided it made much more sense to attend a city / state school and study whatever the hell I wanted, while taking advantage of their film department to hone in on my skills. I find it far more practical to spend 5000 dollars a year on school as opposed to over 40,000, being that film making relies just as much on financial freedom as it does on knowledge of the art itself. My plan is to try taking out a moderate loan following my graduation and put it towards an independent feature, while most film students from colleges such as NYU and BU will in all probability already be in debt. It’s risky, but then again so is anything worth doing. I’d suggest looking into your state school’s film, writing or photography programs. All of them teach vital skills that can spark a career in film making.
Another thing about having a degree is that it gives you opportunities for work should your film career not take off as you had hoped.
I say – go to school (it’s a great experience and a lot of fun), but go somewhere commonsensical. We’re currently looking at an economic landscape whose availability for success favors those who are willing to be completely self-made. As you said, if you have the talent it’s already in you. Hopefully you’ll end up making something good, the contemporary film industry needs all the help it can get.
Criterion has done an excellent job of keeping their ears low to the ground for overlooked indies and art films which most people have never heard of. However, they are missing some essentials. Starting with the basics -
Chinatown would be awesome
How about a Kubrick film that people actually care about?
Or the films from Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen’s heyday?
Cassavetes’ Husbands
North by Northwest
John Ford’s The Searchers or Stagecoach
Huston’s quintessential noir efforts or Fat City
Sergio Leone’s “Man With No Name Trilogy”
Bladerunner
The Deer Hunter
Pasolini’s Accattone
Midnight Cowboy
Chantel Akerman’s Toute une nuit
Fassbinder’s Fox and His Friends
Anything from Werner Herzog (they’ve dropped the ball with that one)
Bertolucci’s The Spider’s Stratagem, Luna, The Dreamers or Last Tango in Paris
Children of Men was pretty badass.
How about some horror flicks like the original Halloween?
An unpretentious and light-hearted comedy wouldn’t hurt either. I suggest Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back
I’m sure Criterion has already tried to get a bunch of the titles listed in this giant thread, but simply just can’t get a hold of the rights. :o(
The Captain was fairly one of a kind. They seem to draw the most comparison from The Fugs and Zappa’s Mother’s of Invention.
All of these guys (at least) share similar traits with Captain Beefheart and His Magic Band -
Can
The Red Krayola
Amon Duul II
Gong
Soft Machine
This Heat
13th Floor Elevators
Tom Waits
Henry Cow
Just like Captain Beefheart, their songs are pretty hit or miss, with the hits being downright incredible and the misses being the worst misses of all time. Hope you enjoy the stuff.
Slumdog Millionaire was the lousiest piece of shit I’ve ever seen. I’d rather watch a 15 part youtube video about Barack Obama and his “connections to the Illuminati” than sit through that goofy trash again.
I actually think it’s safe to say that more bullshit wins Academy Awards than actual quality films.
This list is all out of fucking wack, starting with the order which the filmmakers are listed in. Secondly, where the fuck is Gilliam, Cassavetes, Tarkovsky, and Godard? Thirdly, where the FUCK is STAN BRAKHAGE? Lastly, Ed Wood is on it. Haha.
I’m sure it won’t be amazing, but it won’t be utterly lousy either.
I’m going to see it on IMAX, which when combined with the right level of hallucinogens has been scientifically proven to positively enhance any overhyped movie.
Yes Guy Maddin is pretentious, thats why hes included on this website. Theres a debatable amount of snobbishness in every film worth examining. That doesn’t mean the stuff isn’t interesting or good, its just esoteric. Rarely will a filmmaker who is known for experimenting enjoy universal acclaim. Who cares if you don’t like him, I’m sure he wouldn’t like you either.
Last time I went to see a screening at the MOMA (I believe we were seeing “Children of Paradise”) a security guard had to ask me to leave because an old couple complained about me smoking pot near the entrance. And well, I’m just too embarrassed to go back there now. Regardless, rarely will I find myself watching a 3 hour movie in one sitting, let alone a 7 hour one. I’ve watched Satantango twice, and both times were divided up into hour long intervals for a week straight. I think sitting in the same seat for that long without even being able to put your feet up would be a little too real for me.
Sun Ra is awesome
Eric Dolphy is awesome
Ornette Coleman is awesome
Anthony Braxton is awesome
Sam Rivers is awesome
One time Cecil Taylor (who is OLD) tried to pick up my 21 year old friend (who was also a guy.) Cecil then gave my friend his phone number and told him to call him later. So we prank called him later. True story.
People often act as if Criterion is a cold-hearted drug dealer holding out on them for their Kubrick fix just because they can, when in actuality its probably not like that. Criterion is a business, and I’m sure they would love to have the opportunity to get their hands on a film like “Barry Lyndon” or “Dr. Strangelove”, and release it as part of the collection. Unfortunately, as Kubrick was one of the, if not the highest profile directors in both mainstream and art-house cinema, the studios who own the films’ rights (Warner Bros. I believe) probably make it so difficult and expensive it isn’t even worth it.
On the other hand, “Out 1”, “Chelsea Girls”, and “The Mother and the Whore” are just screaming for Criterion releases.
Both of Gallo’s films are pretty awesome in my opinion, but the dude is your stereotypical artist whose inspiration and style is based solely on his inability to find a middle ground between over confidence and total insecurity. He’s always going back and forth between the two and it explains his craziness to a certain degree. I’d love to watch this but from the way he’s described it, it sounds pretty stupid and I think he’s just falling further off the deep end.
I hate all this “government is conspiring against the people crap.” All it does it give a bunch of know it all 17 year old nerds an opportunity to discuss what they consider to be “human ignorance” to enhance their sad superiority complexes. The problems in this country have nothing to do with that, it has everything to do with special interest groups invading our democracy which is represented by an already stubborn, arrogant group of politicians who really only care about short term results for the sake of their careers and reelections. They’re just people trying to get ahead like everyone else, not space vampires dead set on world domination. Their functionality relies on our functionality, and the sooner people realize that is the sooner we will be able to calm down and see real change at the same time. Revolution begins with the revolution of the self, not some violent government overtake, like the ones being promoted by these “New World Order” wackos (ask the Afghani’s how those revolutions work out.) As for now we’ll have to deal with stupid online documentaries like “Zeitgeist.”
Most likely created by either some schizophrenic nut with a tinfoil hat, or as a propaganda film for younger audiences going through a stage of reevaluating their political identity, “Zeitgeist” is full of just as much disingenuous information as every other extremist news source. Everyone is trying to sell you something, and the people who made that documentary are no different. The film is for the most part unsourced, unreferenced, and self defeating in numerous other ways. Almost all of the proposed theories on the government’s involvement with the 9/11 tragedies were proven wrong before the film was even made, by actual credited experts, as well as independently (not government) ran publications such as Scientific American and Popular Science.
That isn’t to say there isn’t SOME true information included in it, but it’s merely used to build a structure of fiction around which helps serve their point. I feel as if the people who follow these things (and as the world is in a state of uncertainty right now there are A TON of them) have serious trust issues which go beyond not only the government but the outside world in general. And just like anyone who can’t handle the concept of thinking objectively, they tend to dismiss any evidence which goes against the point they’ve attached them self to. I swear sometimes its as if these kids on the internet want Obama to go forward with this “New World Order” he’s supposedly planning during his “Satanic quest for infinite power.”
The world is too complicated to be figured out by any one group of people, particularly the paranoid conspiracy theorists who happened to make a far out free movie. I would imagine that if you combine the views of every side, left, right, and everywhere in between, the correct direction is lost somewhere in that mess. We’re currently in a position where there really is no right side or wrong side, it’s all just a guessing game. Keep a balance between healthy skepticism and reasonable trust in authorities and do your best to look out for each other. It’s great to see so many people discussing this film rationally as opposed to some of the craziness I’ve seen in forums, which I often take a glimpse at for my own entertainment.
P.S. I also saw a few people cite Chomsky. He’s another character that at the surface seems to have everything figured out, but in reality he doesn’t. I’ve found every person fascinated with politics and more specifically classical left theory goes through a phase of living by his word. He makes a lot of interesting points but a lot of off base ones too. Change doesn’t come through radical revolutions like he’d like to make you think they do, but rather through moderate, prepared progression over a period of time. This has been proven time and time again by the best source of all – History.
And as for Ron Paul, yeah he has some great ideas… for the 1950’s. I particularly love his “End the Fed” shirts, currently being worn by a bunch of idiots who don’t know 1/10 of what the federal reserve actually serves as.
Ron Paul is cool in certain ways, but I feel like a lot of his policies are outdated and in the 21st century would only tighten the noose on those he’s trying to help. As for the federal reserve, any institution is only as valuable as the people who run it. There is no doubt Bernanke has engaged in his fair share of questionable activities (the fed has a history of doing so) but that doesn’t change the fact that the economy is a pendulum which swings from one extreme distance to another. The federal reserve was put in place to moderate that type of instability, and did a decent job in doing so until a number of regulations were removed from the organization which may or may not have been a contributing factor to the economic meltdown. Before the fed was instated the U.S. financial system was comparable to the wild wild west, and just as many positive things have come out of it as negative. So where does that leave the country? Very confused about it’s future ha.
I also think the fed needs to remain independent as long as there is a healthy level of tension between the fed chairman and the president (as opposed to the comfort displayed by Obama and Bernanke right now.) It provides reassurance that the two are not operating for the better of politics and not the people.
Not to mention things like monetary policy, fluidity, liquidity, etc. are so mind numbingly complicated that I’m not sure Ron Paul’s supporters have any real idea what he’s suggesting. People must figure out how systems work in order to understand them, not throw a series of shots at them in hopes to make them fail. That is merely a path to catastrophe.
Godard wants film to be radical, but not more radical than his. That would hurt his pride. His negative comments about every modern film under the sun has done a great job turning him into a novelty.
The dude is an insecure, pretentious asshole, and I’ve always found his movies boring.
Sorry I forgot that we weren’t just wasting time on an internet forum and everything we type on here really matters a whole lot. Since tonalities don’t travel very well through typing, I’ll make note of the fact that I was being very sarcastic right there.
Unless Dax is actually Jean Luc Godard going under an alias to defend his name, I would say he has no real reason to be upset about the fact that some people feel like bashing one of his favorite filmmakers. He just blew however long it took him to type that massive post about something totally trivial. People like what they like, thus why Jean Luc Godard is an asshole for trying to convince people that their opinions on something as objective as art (or his self-righteous, constantly changing definition of art) are wrong.
I’ll admit Godard brought countless techniques to the world of film, but that doesn’t turn him into something that isn’t a douche bag. That also doesn’t mean his films ZOMG CAN’T BE BORING TO ANYONE WITH A BRAIN.
I can read English fairly well, I just didn’t read your post in general. I was commenting on Dimitris’ whining, which referenced you “being upset” over people on the internet. I’ve seen enough Godard to appreciate what he’s done yet still not find his films particularly entertaining. And whatever masterpieces he’s created (I’m particular to Pierrot le fou) does not change his persona.
Was the use of the the “complete in its entelechy” necessary or did you just need to add that extra bit of sophistication?
Do I really need to spend the next hour referencing interviews he’s participated in and statements he’s made which would serve as excellent points to my case that he is an asshole.
Example #1230 – Godard, the most recognized enemy of capitalism in the world of cinema, was pissed off at Quentin Tarantino for using a piece of his intellectual property out of admiration for him, because he didn’t get any money for it.
I know that him, Wenders, Fassbinder, among others were all associated with the krautrock / experimental german ambient scene during it’s hayday in the 1960’s. Herzog also collaborated with Popul Vuh on a number of his pictures (for instance here’s a piece of the score from Aguirre – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u7vzaqITMA) So, I’m sure he has a lot of music from-
Can
Amon Duul II
Faust
Neu!
Kraftwerk
Tangerine Dream
Ash Ra Tempel
Agitation Free
Van der graaf Generator
and other similar stuff.
Somebody else suggested he listens to John Zorn, and I’m sure they’re right. Both his solo stuff and work with Naked City seems right up Herzog’s alley. And yes I’m sure he also gets down to a lot of both pre 1900’s classical as well as modern classical.
I feel like the people at Criterion and B&N must know about some DVD apocalypse that has yet to be revealed to the general public, and are exploiting it before the news hits.
Movies people seem to love for all the wrong reasons. almost 3 years ago
I don’t think any of those films are particularly bad at all, particularly SLC Punk and Requiem for a Dream. In fact, all of them with the exception of Garden State I’ve found to be very entertaining and very interesting. They’ve just become films associated with a younger audience, mostly because of their subject matter (drugs, sex, heavy consequences, “the real world.”) It’s just that pretentious film fans who always need to be at least 3 steps further than the rest will find any reason to knock them once they’ve broken out of indie and underground obscurity.
The films mentioned above are transitional points between mainstream movies and the art-house. They are also valid introductions to the counter-culture through the means of film. I doubt many film enthusiasts of my generation have developed an interest in film without seeing these at an early stage.
As for Napoleon Dynamite, it was pretty funny. Don’t blame the movie but rather corporate America for turning it into something gimmicky and stupid.
Go to Comment
Underrated Films... over 2 years ago
A number of Spike Lee “joints.” Unfortunately, his image as an artist has been tarnished by his activist agenda and inflammatory remarks (which may or my not be blown out of proportion by hyper sensitive white devils.) However, Roman Polanski and Woody Allen have sex with girls who’ve yet to develop full breasts, yet we’ve come to appreciate their eccentricity regarding the subject. It’s funny how things change when opinions on race relations come to the table.
Summer of Sam is near perfect, with the exception of a few dreadfully bad scenes involving a talking dog. He Got Game was also pretty excellent. And frankly, Malcolm X was one of the most powerful films I’ve ever seen. He does a lot of good work while balancing commercial and indie influence (not an easy task by any means.)
Paul Jazz – I’ve got lots of love for Jacob’s Ladder as well.
Go to Comment
Underrated Films... over 2 years ago
Oh, and most of Bernardo Bertolucci’s work is awesome too… in a twisted and perverted sort of way.
Go to Comment
Is Judd Apatow the next Woody Allen? over 2 years ago
Apatow can be pretty brilliant when he puts some effort into them. I find all three of his directorial efforts on point regarding human interactions and more specifically the interaction between men and women and developing of relationships. I love Knocked Up.
Go to Comment
Is Judd Apatow the next Woody Allen? over 2 years ago
Apatow can be pretty brilliant when he puts some effort into them. I find all three of his directorial efforts on point regarding human interactions and more specifically the interaction between men and women and developing of relationships. I love Knocked Up.
Go to Comment
Filmschool (Garage) over 2 years ago
I started at NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts to pursue a degree in dramatic writing. However, I quickly reevaluated my options after getting a better grasp of what needs to be done in order to be a filmmaker. I decided it made much more sense to attend a city / state school and study whatever the hell I wanted, while taking advantage of their film department to hone in on my skills. I find it far more practical to spend 5000 dollars a year on school as opposed to over 40,000, being that film making relies just as much on financial freedom as it does on knowledge of the art itself. My plan is to try taking out a moderate loan following my graduation and put it towards an independent feature, while most film students from colleges such as NYU and BU will in all probability already be in debt. It’s risky, but then again so is anything worth doing. I’d suggest looking into your state school’s film, writing or photography programs. All of them teach vital skills that can spark a career in film making.
Another thing about having a degree is that it gives you opportunities for work should your film career not take off as you had hoped.
I say – go to school (it’s a great experience and a lot of fun), but go somewhere commonsensical. We’re currently looking at an economic landscape whose availability for success favors those who are willing to be completely self-made. As you said, if you have the talent it’s already in you. Hopefully you’ll end up making something good, the contemporary film industry needs all the help it can get.
Good luck!
P.S. Fredo gave some killer advice.
Go to Comment
Movies That Should Be In the Criterion Collection over 2 years ago
Criterion has done an excellent job of keeping their ears low to the ground for overlooked indies and art films which most people have never heard of. However, they are missing some essentials. Starting with the basics -
Chinatown would be awesome
How about a Kubrick film that people actually care about?
Or the films from Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen’s heyday?
Cassavetes’ Husbands
North by Northwest
John Ford’s The Searchers or Stagecoach
Huston’s quintessential noir efforts or Fat City
Sergio Leone’s “Man With No Name Trilogy”
Bladerunner
The Deer Hunter
Pasolini’s Accattone
Midnight Cowboy
Chantel Akerman’s Toute une nuit
Fassbinder’s Fox and His Friends
Anything from Werner Herzog (they’ve dropped the ball with that one)
Bertolucci’s The Spider’s Stratagem, Luna, The Dreamers or Last Tango in Paris
Children of Men was pretty badass.
How about some horror flicks like the original Halloween?
An unpretentious and light-hearted comedy wouldn’t hurt either. I suggest Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back
I’m sure Criterion has already tried to get a bunch of the titles listed in this giant thread, but simply just can’t get a hold of the rights. :o(
Go to Comment
Any Good Artists Out There That Are Similar To Beefheart? over 2 years ago
The Captain was fairly one of a kind. They seem to draw the most comparison from The Fugs and Zappa’s Mother’s of Invention.
All of these guys (at least) share similar traits with Captain Beefheart and His Magic Band -
Can
The Red Krayola
Amon Duul II
Gong
Soft Machine
This Heat
13th Floor Elevators
Tom Waits
Henry Cow
Just like Captain Beefheart, their songs are pretty hit or miss, with the hits being downright incredible and the misses being the worst misses of all time. Hope you enjoy the stuff.
Go to Comment
Your opinions on Scorsese's and Woody Allen's last great film. over 2 years ago
All arrogance aside, “The Departed” was awesome.
Go to Comment
Your most hated 'Oscar Bait' films over 2 years ago
Slumdog Millionaire was the lousiest piece of shit I’ve ever seen. I’d rather watch a 15 part youtube video about Barack Obama and his “connections to the Illuminati” than sit through that goofy trash again.
I actually think it’s safe to say that more bullshit wins Academy Awards than actual quality films.
Go to Comment
BFI Sight and Sound's The Wild Bunch of Cinema over 2 years ago
This list is all out of fucking wack, starting with the order which the filmmakers are listed in. Secondly, where the fuck is Gilliam, Cassavetes, Tarkovsky, and Godard? Thirdly, where the FUCK is STAN BRAKHAGE? Lastly, Ed Wood is on it. Haha.
Go to Comment
Is it even possible Where the Wild Things Are won't be at least very good? over 2 years ago
I’m sure it won’t be amazing, but it won’t be utterly lousy either.
I’m going to see it on IMAX, which when combined with the right level of hallucinogens has been scientifically proven to positively enhance any overhyped movie.
Go to Comment
Is it even possible Where the Wild Things Are won't be at least very good? over 2 years ago
P.S. and yeah, David Eggers is a fucking clown.
Go to Comment
Peter Jackson's King Kong - Unjustly Forgotten? over 2 years ago
I remember going to see it for the first time and really loving it for a popcorn movie.
Go to Comment
Good Performances of Drunks and Stupid People over 2 years ago
Cary Grant in “North by Northwest” = lolzorzzzz!!!!11
Worst performances of drunk AND stupid people go to Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman in “Eyes Wide Shut.”
Go to Comment
Am I the only one here that thinks Guy Maddin is the most pretentious overrated filmaker of modern times? over 2 years ago
Yes Guy Maddin is pretentious, thats why hes included on this website. Theres a debatable amount of snobbishness in every film worth examining. That doesn’t mean the stuff isn’t interesting or good, its just esoteric. Rarely will a filmmaker who is known for experimenting enjoy universal acclaim. Who cares if you don’t like him, I’m sure he wouldn’t like you either.
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
Last time I went to see a screening at the MOMA (I believe we were seeing “Children of Paradise”) a security guard had to ask me to leave because an old couple complained about me smoking pot near the entrance. And well, I’m just too embarrassed to go back there now. Regardless, rarely will I find myself watching a 3 hour movie in one sitting, let alone a 7 hour one. I’ve watched Satantango twice, and both times were divided up into hour long intervals for a week straight. I think sitting in the same seat for that long without even being able to put your feet up would be a little too real for me.
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
Wow I wasn’t allowed in and I didn’t have any of those things hidden in my pockets. What bullshit.
Go to Comment
Jazz Anyone? over 2 years ago
Sun Ra is awesome
Eric Dolphy is awesome
Ornette Coleman is awesome
Anthony Braxton is awesome
Sam Rivers is awesome
One time Cecil Taylor (who is OLD) tried to pick up my 21 year old friend (who was also a guy.) Cecil then gave my friend his phone number and told him to call him later. So we prank called him later. True story.
Go to Comment
who else wants more kubrick in the collection? over 2 years ago
People often act as if Criterion is a cold-hearted drug dealer holding out on them for their Kubrick fix just because they can, when in actuality its probably not like that. Criterion is a business, and I’m sure they would love to have the opportunity to get their hands on a film like “Barry Lyndon” or “Dr. Strangelove”, and release it as part of the collection. Unfortunately, as Kubrick was one of the, if not the highest profile directors in both mainstream and art-house cinema, the studios who own the films’ rights (Warner Bros. I believe) probably make it so difficult and expensive it isn’t even worth it.
On the other hand, “Out 1”, “Chelsea Girls”, and “The Mother and the Whore” are just screaming for Criterion releases.
Go to Comment
Vincet Gallo on Promises Written In Water over 2 years ago
Both of Gallo’s films are pretty awesome in my opinion, but the dude is your stereotypical artist whose inspiration and style is based solely on his inability to find a middle ground between over confidence and total insecurity. He’s always going back and forth between the two and it explains his craziness to a certain degree. I’d love to watch this but from the way he’s described it, it sounds pretty stupid and I think he’s just falling further off the deep end.
Go to Comment
What do you guys think about Zeitgeist? over 2 years ago
I hate all this “government is conspiring against the people crap.” All it does it give a bunch of know it all 17 year old nerds an opportunity to discuss what they consider to be “human ignorance” to enhance their sad superiority complexes. The problems in this country have nothing to do with that, it has everything to do with special interest groups invading our democracy which is represented by an already stubborn, arrogant group of politicians who really only care about short term results for the sake of their careers and reelections. They’re just people trying to get ahead like everyone else, not space vampires dead set on world domination. Their functionality relies on our functionality, and the sooner people realize that is the sooner we will be able to calm down and see real change at the same time. Revolution begins with the revolution of the self, not some violent government overtake, like the ones being promoted by these “New World Order” wackos (ask the Afghani’s how those revolutions work out.) As for now we’ll have to deal with stupid online documentaries like “Zeitgeist.”
Most likely created by either some schizophrenic nut with a tinfoil hat, or as a propaganda film for younger audiences going through a stage of reevaluating their political identity, “Zeitgeist” is full of just as much disingenuous information as every other extremist news source. Everyone is trying to sell you something, and the people who made that documentary are no different. The film is for the most part unsourced, unreferenced, and self defeating in numerous other ways. Almost all of the proposed theories on the government’s involvement with the 9/11 tragedies were proven wrong before the film was even made, by actual credited experts, as well as independently (not government) ran publications such as Scientific American and Popular Science.
That isn’t to say there isn’t SOME true information included in it, but it’s merely used to build a structure of fiction around which helps serve their point. I feel as if the people who follow these things (and as the world is in a state of uncertainty right now there are A TON of them) have serious trust issues which go beyond not only the government but the outside world in general. And just like anyone who can’t handle the concept of thinking objectively, they tend to dismiss any evidence which goes against the point they’ve attached them self to. I swear sometimes its as if these kids on the internet want Obama to go forward with this “New World Order” he’s supposedly planning during his “Satanic quest for infinite power.”
The world is too complicated to be figured out by any one group of people, particularly the paranoid conspiracy theorists who happened to make a far out free movie. I would imagine that if you combine the views of every side, left, right, and everywhere in between, the correct direction is lost somewhere in that mess. We’re currently in a position where there really is no right side or wrong side, it’s all just a guessing game. Keep a balance between healthy skepticism and reasonable trust in authorities and do your best to look out for each other. It’s great to see so many people discussing this film rationally as opposed to some of the craziness I’ve seen in forums, which I often take a glimpse at for my own entertainment.
P.S. I also saw a few people cite Chomsky. He’s another character that at the surface seems to have everything figured out, but in reality he doesn’t. I’ve found every person fascinated with politics and more specifically classical left theory goes through a phase of living by his word. He makes a lot of interesting points but a lot of off base ones too. Change doesn’t come through radical revolutions like he’d like to make you think they do, but rather through moderate, prepared progression over a period of time. This has been proven time and time again by the best source of all – History.
And as for Ron Paul, yeah he has some great ideas… for the 1950’s. I particularly love his “End the Fed” shirts, currently being worn by a bunch of idiots who don’t know 1/10 of what the federal reserve actually serves as.
Go to Comment
What do you guys think about Zeitgeist? over 2 years ago
I like the quote you posted above.
Ron Paul is cool in certain ways, but I feel like a lot of his policies are outdated and in the 21st century would only tighten the noose on those he’s trying to help. As for the federal reserve, any institution is only as valuable as the people who run it. There is no doubt Bernanke has engaged in his fair share of questionable activities (the fed has a history of doing so) but that doesn’t change the fact that the economy is a pendulum which swings from one extreme distance to another. The federal reserve was put in place to moderate that type of instability, and did a decent job in doing so until a number of regulations were removed from the organization which may or may not have been a contributing factor to the economic meltdown. Before the fed was instated the U.S. financial system was comparable to the wild wild west, and just as many positive things have come out of it as negative. So where does that leave the country? Very confused about it’s future ha.
I also think the fed needs to remain independent as long as there is a healthy level of tension between the fed chairman and the president (as opposed to the comfort displayed by Obama and Bernanke right now.) It provides reassurance that the two are not operating for the better of politics and not the people.
Not to mention things like monetary policy, fluidity, liquidity, etc. are so mind numbingly complicated that I’m not sure Ron Paul’s supporters have any real idea what he’s suggesting. People must figure out how systems work in order to understand them, not throw a series of shots at them in hopes to make them fail. That is merely a path to catastrophe.
Go to Comment
Ive realized something about Jean-Luc Godard over 2 years ago
Godard wants film to be radical, but not more radical than his. That would hurt his pride. His negative comments about every modern film under the sun has done a great job turning him into a novelty.
The dude is an insecure, pretentious asshole, and I’ve always found his movies boring.
Go to Comment
Ive realized something about Jean-Luc Godard over 2 years ago
Don’t hate the players, hate the game.
Sorry I forgot that we weren’t just wasting time on an internet forum and everything we type on here really matters a whole lot. Since tonalities don’t travel very well through typing, I’ll make note of the fact that I was being very sarcastic right there.
Unless Dax is actually Jean Luc Godard going under an alias to defend his name, I would say he has no real reason to be upset about the fact that some people feel like bashing one of his favorite filmmakers. He just blew however long it took him to type that massive post about something totally trivial. People like what they like, thus why Jean Luc Godard is an asshole for trying to convince people that their opinions on something as objective as art (or his self-righteous, constantly changing definition of art) are wrong.
I’ll admit Godard brought countless techniques to the world of film, but that doesn’t turn him into something that isn’t a douche bag. That also doesn’t mean his films ZOMG CAN’T BE BORING TO ANYONE WITH A BRAIN.
Go to Comment
Ive realized something about Jean-Luc Godard over 2 years ago
I can read English fairly well, I just didn’t read your post in general. I was commenting on Dimitris’ whining, which referenced you “being upset” over people on the internet. I’ve seen enough Godard to appreciate what he’s done yet still not find his films particularly entertaining. And whatever masterpieces he’s created (I’m particular to Pierrot le fou) does not change his persona.
Was the use of the the “complete in its entelechy” necessary or did you just need to add that extra bit of sophistication?
Do I really need to spend the next hour referencing interviews he’s participated in and statements he’s made which would serve as excellent points to my case that he is an asshole.
Example #1230 – Godard, the most recognized enemy of capitalism in the world of cinema, was pissed off at Quentin Tarantino for using a piece of his intellectual property out of admiration for him, because he didn’t get any money for it.
Go to Comment
Filmmakers vs Fans of film over 2 years ago
I’m a poor excuse for both.
Go to Comment
What do you think is on Werner Herzog's Ipod? over 2 years ago
I know that him, Wenders, Fassbinder, among others were all associated with the krautrock / experimental german ambient scene during it’s hayday in the 1960’s. Herzog also collaborated with Popul Vuh on a number of his pictures (for instance here’s a piece of the score from Aguirre – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u7vzaqITMA) So, I’m sure he has a lot of music from-
Can
Amon Duul II
Faust
Neu!
Kraftwerk
Tangerine Dream
Ash Ra Tempel
Agitation Free
Van der graaf Generator
and other similar stuff.
Somebody else suggested he listens to John Zorn, and I’m sure they’re right. Both his solo stuff and work with Naked City seems right up Herzog’s alley. And yes I’m sure he also gets down to a lot of both pre 1900’s classical as well as modern classical.
Go to Comment
Criterion B&N November 2009 Sale now Live! over 2 years ago
I just took serious advantage of this offer.
I feel like the people at Criterion and B&N must know about some DVD apocalypse that has yet to be revealed to the general public, and are exploiting it before the news hits.
If so, I totally fell for it.
Go to Comment
SUNRISE NEEDS TO BE IN THE CRITERION COLLECTION! over 2 years ago
According to the threads on this forum, every film ever needs to be on the Criterion Collection.
Go to Comment