Fun Stuff > ENJOY
Most people don't understand film as an artform
Ribbon Fat:
Most people, age 20-35, even older, think cinema is a clever camera angles, hip pop cultural allsuions, and achronilogical plots. Tarantino is a master in their eyes, to name one menace.
And when they try to appreciate a true master, say Bresson or Tarkovsky or Cassavetes, they still think cinema is about "tell a great story visually" and fail to analyze what truly makes such films special: human behavior.
Much western filmmaking, Hollywood in particular, abstracts experience by giving us meaning through metaphor--and that metaphor is acheived through those camera angles, mood music, and editing I mentioned above.
It's shorthand. It's time for more longhand films.
Make of this what you will.
est:
Right up front I will say this: I know basically nothing about film. I think that I can kind of see what you are talking about though. There are pop films (chick flicks, action blockbusters), there are alternative pop films (Donnie Darko, stuff by Tarantino), and then there are movies which eschew stylistic tricks and try to tell a story in a simple fashion. I think that Kids was a good example of this in my eyes, but as I said, I'm not very film-literate, so I can't think of any more off the top of my head.
Maybe someone else who's a bit more film-savvy could pick this thread up?
brew:
I'm hardly film-savvy, but I have a couple of questions:
1) Do you think the world would be better off if pop music didn't exist?
2) What do you think of the following directors: Godard, Bergman, Lang, Lynch, Von Trier?
As someone who's fairly big into music, I'll say that the longer I look into the music world, the lesser a distinction I see between classical and pop, art and entertainment, "high-art" and "low-art", etc. More and more, I approach the Wu-Tang Clan in the same way that I approach Stockhausen. I haven't been watching films with anywhere near the detail of music, but I suspect that I'll find even less of a distinction there.
Ribbon Fat:
--- Quote from: est ---Right up front I will say this: I know basically nothing about film. I think that I can kind of see what you are talking about though. There are pop films (chick flicks, action blockbusters), there are alternative pop films (Donnie Darko, stuff by Tarantino), and then there are movies which eschew stylistic tricks and try to tell a story in a simple fashion. I think that Kids was a good example of this in my eyes, but as I said, I'm not very film-literate, so I can't think of any more off the top of my head.
Maybe someone else who's a bit more film-savvy could pick this thread up?
--- End quote ---
Kids, yeah, it had a story, but not a plot (and I find plot to be so ovverrated). But the point of that film was not to tell a simple story, but to observe the characters.
Ribbon Fat:
--- Quote from: brew ---I'm hardly film-savvy, but I have a couple of questions:
1) Do you think the world would be better off if pop music didn't exist?
2) What do you think of the following directors: Godard, Bergman, Lang, Lynch, Von Trier?
As someone who's fairly big into music, I'll say that the longer I look into the music world, the lesser a distinction I see between classical and pop, art and entertainment, "high-art" and "low-art", etc. More and more, I approach the Wu-Tang Clan in the same way that I approach Stockhausen. I haven't been watching films with anywhere near the detail of music, but I suspect that I'll find even less of a distinction there.
--- End quote ---
1) what does that have to do with anything? I have such a broad definition of pop music that, no, I don't think the world would be better off. Big Pop music fan--and btw, i define most indie music as "pop music."
2) Godard: still haven't seen enough to have an informed opinion; Breathless is great; Bergman: A Master. Winter Light is just devastating; Lang: Yeah, love him, although I think metropolis is a bit ovverrated--the second Mabusa movie is better; Lynch: Fun, but most of his films are stylistic chess games--don't mistake that for great art; Von Trier: Breaking the Waves is the kind of film that gives us none of those shorthand meanings I described above. And it's a great film. I haven't seen anything else besides Dancer in the Dark, however.
Sorry for the glibness of those responses, but it's a message board.
There is such a distnction between genres such as classical, pop, and jazz. Appreciate them. Simply because we both can listen to any genre at the flip of a cliche doesn't mean that there are no distinctions. To sit back and say "it's all the same to me!" is lazy thinking.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version