Fun Stuff > ENJOY
Most people don't understand film as an artform
happybirthdaygelatin:
Have you watched it yet?
To be honest, I like 1984 and fell asleep watching the movie version of it as well.
Johnny C:
Yes but you didn't call it "shit."
I will wind up watching it anyways. I can bet you money via paypal on that.
Kana:
While i'm not attacking the op directly I will say that this thread's main idea/question leads to the great downfalls of all genres of art. And that is over-analyzation. Art whether it be movies, music, painted/digital media, etc etc. all carry meanings and reasons as to why they are good/bad, but the fact remains that every single one of those reasons is opinionated.
Hence why so many movements where people go 'That's not art' meet the elitism/avant-garde response that what defines art is what we make of it. I think saying that certain things make movies and their directors bad is just the same as someone walking up to a Pollock Jackson painting and saying "That's not art, I could do that myself!" Its all opinion and there's nothing else there behind it.
What we classify as good/bad art is also opinionated, no one person agrees exactly with the other and not everyone agrees all on one thing. While the majority of people were outraged about the piece with Jesus/elephant feces in New York, not everyone said it wasn't art or disliked it. I think its great that there in fact is a museum of bad art... to prove that 'bad art' to you or anyone else is still art and can be 'good art' to others.
You think Terrentino and crazy camera angles/hip culture makes for bad movies? Thats your opinion, but others feel that those things are very well what makes a great movie and its art. And you can argue all you want and post about the 'classics' or 'the great movies' but what arguably is considered the great/classics are also just opinions of people. ie: The Renaissance was a great period with tons of great/classic pieces of art came out of it... truth is it was just another period of art maybe with more/less produced but the quality of the art is opinionated still.
Alright /ramble off.
bujiatang:
I'd say there are plenty of good reasons to not like Citizen Kane. For one thing, the abandonment of the Coleridge. In no way did the use of Kubla Kahn give the movie continuity. It served as a distraction. A good McGuffin should lead the audience, not make them go "shwa."
I've watched the movie three times through and like it less now than the first two times I tried to watch it and fell asleep. Why not watch macbeth if want to see Wells bellowing in the dark.
If you think attention to detail makes good film then watching Ozu's Tokyo Story should be on you to do list. Or CHung King Express. Or even Pirates of the Caribean. Or any movie other than Scotland PA. Becasue every cinematographer worth their salt pays attention to camera angles. And sometimes they still botch the shots like in the Manchurian Canidate where Frank Sinatra is completely out of focus at the crucial moment of the reprogramming.
I see nothing wrong with analyzing film or literature or any art for that matter. What I am opposed to is the practice of imposing meaning on art. the "this is what is happening here" rhetoric is disgusting and imperialistic. I claim this art in the name of Freud. might as well be an agent for a trading company--lets go rape the natives and make money on reproductions of what we discovered. but I digress.
lets be resisting readers and look for hidden motifs or implications without creating hidden motifs or implications as we watch our movies and read our books and look at interesting things.
Johnny C:
--- Quote from: Kana ---You think Terrentino and crazy camera angles/hip culture makes for bad movies?
--- End quote ---
Am I wrong in thinking that his point was Tarantino's work isn't art (which I disagree with but hey, whatev), and not that it's bad?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version