Fun Stuff > ENJOY

Most people don't understand film as an artform

<< < (2/17) > >>

est:
I think that pop anything has its place in society.  I used to be a snob when it came to things like this, but now I love dance music & go out clubbing every so often.  It becomes kind of hard to criticise the musical choices of others after you've been shaking your ass to cheesy dance music all night & enjoying it.

brew:

--- Quote from: Ribbon Fat ---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."
--- End quote ---


It seems like the same idea, no?



--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---


That wasn't what I said; I just think that the differences aren't a matter of ideas like "high art" and "low art".  Maybe you didn't mean to paint the difference between a "true master" and Hollywood as the difference between "high art" and "low art", but that's the impression you gave.

You still haven't said anything about why film shouldn't be about "telling a great story visually" or how that's any less of an art form.

Ribbon Fat:

--- Quote from: brew ---


You still haven't said anything about why film shouldn't be about "telling a great story visually" or how that's any less of an art form.
--- End quote ---


Not saying it's less, exactly. It's just that most people treats it as cinema's sole purpose. I'm actually gonna go watch a movie right now. Here's an interesting article for you:

http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/acad/forms.shtml

Ravenbomb:
I think that movies that are just a narritive, "point a to point b" story have just as much place in filmmaking society as something like Koyanisqaatsi or Un Chien Andalou. I appreciate and even admire the more artistic works, the Tarkovskys and Bunuels and the like (although I couldn't stand Koyanisqaatsi, but that was mostly because I hate Philip Glass), one has to keep in mind that film is as much a visual medium as anything. The 'clever camera angles' and editing techniques are equally as important as conveying human behavior and experience, et cetera. Not to say that all films need to have artsy camera work and editing, there have been plenty of great films that didn't use them, but in a visual medium (and, again, film is very much a visual medium), they do have their place and are just as important as anything else in filmmaking.


also (speaking of Von Trier), if you haven't seen it, I highly recommend The Five Obstructions. I think it's the best thing he's done (although one could argue that Jorgan Leth was doing the actual filmmaking)





favorite filmmaker quote:
"Cinema is truth at 24 frames a second, and every cut is a lie."
-Jean-Luc Goddard

ForteBass:
Regarding differences of pop and classical anything: What we consider "Fine-arts" was the pop of its day. Big band jazz was the pop of its day. And as far as film goes Citizen Kane was the pop of its day. Yet we see these as artistic and brilliant now. And who knows? Maybe some day people will find Paul Wall and Rob Schneider to be BRILLIANT ARR-TEESTS!

Frankly I find the whole "High art" argument to be highly subjective. Sometimes I want to listen to certain music, or watch certain movies for one simple purpose: I have no desire to think about them. I don't want to fucking analyze everything. I think enough about things as it is, so sometimes I just want the point handed to me. Point A to Point B. Say thank ya, say true.

In a shocking development, you may be the first to get a sincere response out of me in quite some time, let alone what is possibly my lengthiest response in the over two years I've been here. Bravo.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page