Topic: Most people don't understand film as an artform (Read 20101 times)

Ribbon Fat · « **on:** 22 Jun 2006, 18:30 »

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 · « **Reply #1 on:** 22 Jun 2006, 18:46 »

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 http://imdb.com/title/tt0113540/">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 · « **Reply #2 on:** 22 Jun 2006, 19:16 »

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 · « **Reply #3 on:** 22 Jun 2006, 19:23 »

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 http://imdb.com/title/tt0113540/">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?

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 · « **Reply #4 on:** 22 Jun 2006, 19:34 »

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.

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.

est · « **Reply #5 on:** 22 Jun 2006, 19:38 »

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 · « **Reply #6 on:** 22 Jun 2006, 20:33 »

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."

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.

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 · « **Reply #7 on:** 22 Jun 2006, 21:30 »

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.

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 · « **Reply #8 on:** 22 Jun 2006, 23:03 »

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 · « **Reply #9 on:** 23 Jun 2006, 00:45 »

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.

Garcin · « **Reply #10 on:** 23 Jun 2006, 09:13 »

Quote from: Ribbon Fat

Make of this what you will.

Provocative, but sophomoric. If inquiry into human behavior was your measuring stick, Altman and Mamet would be deified by the art film world, but certainly not Fellini, Bunuel, Bergman, Tarkovsky, de Sica, Kurosawa. You hint at a hierarchy of cinematic worth by referring to "true masters". I recommend you catch up on old Pauline Kael reviews, and ponder why there has to be a hierarchy at all.

brew · « **Reply #11 on:** 23 Jun 2006, 12:05 »

Quote from: 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.

Not to get too off-topic, but who's ever thought of big band jazz as "fine art" or "classical"? I've always seen it as pop. I can see what you're saying to a point, but that's a horrible example.

The article on idealist vs. pragmatic forms looks interesting, but I don't have time to read it all at the moment. I will look into it later.

Scandanavian War Machine · « **Reply #12 on:** 23 Jun 2006, 13:11 »

I think this whole discussion is stupid. most of the time i see art as people trying to give meaning or definition to something that has none. whats the point? its like trying to swim eight feet down in a four foot pool.

a movie is a book with pictures. a book is just a thought written down. a thought is an electrical fucking impulse.
thats highly over simplified but im very tired and still trying to make a semi-coherent point (which is hard enough when well rested, which i am not).

dont get me wrong, i have no problem with "art" in any of its forms. i just think people need to stop trying so hard, thats all.

MWhaling · « **Reply #13 on:** 23 Jun 2006, 15:54 »

I guess you've really got a firm grasp on the human condition.

Ribbon Fat · « **Reply #14 on:** 23 Jun 2006, 16:12 »

Quote from: MWhaling

I guess you've really got a firm grasp on the human condition.

I don't; that's what I want films and art to give me.

Ribbon Fat · « **Reply #15 on:** 23 Jun 2006, 16:17 »

Anyway, thread's ben a distortion and near-parody of my actual views about film. What really matters is

Kai · « **Reply #16 on:** 23 Jun 2006, 16:23 »

I swear, every time I see that dinosaur in a thread I squee.

Ribbon Fat · « **Reply #17 on:** 23 Jun 2006, 16:51 »

Squee?

Kai · « **Reply #18 on:** 23 Jun 2006, 16:54 »

It's like a pig squeal. for teenage girls.

I am not a pig nor a teenage girl.

MWhaling · « **Reply #19 on:** 23 Jun 2006, 18:09 »

Just as "most people" don't "understand film, you don't "understand" how to apply the dinosaur.

Kai · « **Reply #20 on:** 23 Jun 2006, 18:42 »

I love how you put "understand" in quotes. You know. In case it has some hidden fucking meaning.

MWhaling · « **Reply #21 on:** 23 Jun 2006, 19:54 »

Yeah, get it?

ForteBass · « **Reply #22 on:** 23 Jun 2006, 22:19 »

You know. I was once sincere in here. And now I regret it. I now hate this damn thread.

Johnny C · « **Reply #23 on:** 23 Jun 2006, 22:56 »

YEAH, FUCK THIS THREAD

LET'S BURN IT TO THE GROUND

THE MOTHER FUCKING GROUND

ForteBass · « **Reply #24 on:** 23 Jun 2006, 23:23 »

Whoa! Whoa! Eeeeeeeasy, killer. Put the torch down. Thaaaaat's it. Nice and slow like. We're not gonna burn it down. WE're going to

BLOW THE FUCKER UP![/size][/b][/i]

Johnny C · « **Reply #25 on:** 23 Jun 2006, 23:44 »

I am about to double post so that I can put in a sincere thought prior to this thread's annihilation.

What irritates me is less that people mistake flashy style for artistic merit as people who steadfastly refuse to pour any thought into any filmgoing experience ever. At all. You know the type; they're the people who say "Don't you ever go to a movie just for fun?"

To build on est's thoughts: I like me some Prozzak and Madonna and Kelly Clarskon and other vapid pop b.s., but I also like some thoughtful music. And frankly, the thoughtful music is usually something that I enjoy far more. It's the same for movies; I can enjoy a "Dumb And Dumber" but I'd still say that I appreciate, say, "The Quiet American" more. You follow?

MWhaling · « **Reply #26 on:** 23 Jun 2006, 23:47 »

Quote from: ForteBass

You know. I was once sincere in here. And now I regret it. I now hate this damn thread.

You could have claimed that post was a clever joke and I don't think anyone would have suspected otherwise.

Johnny C · « **Reply #27 on:** 23 Jun 2006, 23:48 »

YIPPEE-YAY-OH-KAY-YAY!

MWhaling · « **Reply #28 on:** 23 Jun 2006, 23:50 »

Quote from: Johnny C

What irritates me is ... the people who say "Don't you ever go to a movie just for fun?"

What the fuck is the matter with you?

Johnny C · « **Reply #29 on:** 23 Jun 2006, 23:52 »

Quote from: MWhaling

What the fuck is ... you?

Probably that.

EDIT: The real problem is, of course, that I know people who ask that question like it's some goddamn societal sin to put thought into entertainment.

And, can't you see? The thread has been nuked! YOU'RE COVERED IN RADIATION

Johnny C · « **Reply #30 on:** 24 Jun 2006, 00:06 »

^
YOU LOL

MWhaling · « **Reply #31 on:** 24 Jun 2006, 00:08 »

Quote from: Johnny C

Quote from: MWhaling
What the fuck is ... you?

Probably that.

EDIT: The real problem is, of course, that I know people who ask that question like it's some goddamn societal sin to put thought into entertainment.

And, can't you see? The thread has been nuked! YOU'RE COVERED IN RADIATION

Sometimes entertainment is a fun diversion. Nothing to get excited about.

Johnny C · « **Reply #32 on:** 24 Jun 2006, 00:14 »

^
ME LOL

And to the topic: If people want to take it as a meaningless diversion, that's fine. But
a) don't act like me wanting meaning is a crime, and
b) don't complain if, because shitty movies sell well, movies keep getting shittier

And also, seriously, don't make a point of needlessly antagonizing people. It's generally frowned upon. I would have probably been more apt to discuss this in a more civil manner had I not been approached with a misquote and "fuck."[/img]

MWhaling · « **Reply #33 on:** 24 Jun 2006, 00:21 »

That wasn't a misquote. I used an ellipsis to filter out some unnecessary words.
There are a lot of dumb, funny movies and even more dumb, entertaining action movies. The enjoyment of these in no way implies that enjoying other movies ("meaningful," as you put it) is a crime. Similarly, by simply enjoying these movies with "meaning" doesn't make you any better than those who enjoy movies that are solely "fun."
And shitty movies have always sold well and that's what they'll continue to do in a very similar ratio of good:bad since motion pictures were invented.

Scandanavian War Machine · « **Reply #34 on:** 24 Jun 2006, 15:09 »

Quote from: MWhaling

That wasn't a misquote. I used an ellipsis to filter out some unnecessary words.
There are a lot of dumb, funny movies and even more dumb, entertaining action movies. The enjoyment of these in no way implies that enjoying other movies ("meaningful," as you put it) is a crime. Similarly, by simply enjoying these movies with "meaning" doesn't make you any better than those who enjoy movies that are solely "fun."
And shitty movies have always sold well and that's what they'll continue to do in a very similar ratio of good:bad since motion pictures were invented.

you would have won the argument if we hadnt already been blown the fuck up

Ribbon Fat · « **Reply #35 on:** 24 Jun 2006, 17:19 »

Quote from: Scandanavian War Machine

Quote from: MWhaling
That wasn't a misquote. I used an ellipsis to filter out some unnecessary words.
There are a lot of dumb, funny movies and even more dumb, entertaining action movies. The enjoyment of these in no way implies that enjoying other movies ("meaningful," as you put it) is a crime. Similarly, by simply enjoying these movies with "meaning" doesn't make you any better than those who enjoy movies that are solely "fun."
And shitty movies have always sold well and that's what they'll continue to do in a very similar ratio of good:bad since motion pictures were invented.

you would have won the argument if we hadnt already been blown the fuck up

No argument to be won here. I said I enjoyed Tarantino in another thread; I'm just opposed to his postmodern/nostalgiac/clever pastiche approch to filmmaking, which I hate. But I also I kinda like him. I had a "hella" (to use the parlance of our times) good time at Kill Bill.

It's all fake though. It's not art. It tells me nothing about life.

Johnny C · « **Reply #36 on:** 24 Jun 2006, 17:20 »

Quote from: Johnny C

What irritates me is ... people who steadfastly refuse to pour any thought into any filmgoing experience ever. At all.

I'd just like to clarify that I used absolutes in there for a reason. Okay? And I'm not saying "How dare they have fun." I mean, it might have looked that way, from how I clearly declared my own cultural proficiency and denounced the intellect of people who view pure entertainment movies:

Quote

I like me some Prozzak and Madonna and Kelly Clarskon and other vapid pop b.s., but I also like some thoughtful music. And frankly, the thoughtful music is usually something that I enjoy far more. It's the same for movies; I can enjoy a "Dumb And Dumber" but I'd still say that I appreciate, say, "The Quiet American" more. You follow?

Or maybe not so much.

Look. I'm just saying that a little cultural literacy, open-mindedness, and appreciation of others' tastes - note that I never said their entertainment sucks, I just said that their attitude towards movies made for more than sheer entertainment value was a bad one - is good. And that it irritates me when people have none - none, the absolute - of those three.

So to clarify:

THINGS JOHN DIDN'T SAY:
-"Boy I sure hate entertainment."
-"Other people suck so much ass all the time."
-"Please bow before my mighty and vivacious brain. You do not have a choice."

THINGS JOHN DID SAY:
-"people who steadfastly refuse to pour any thought into any filmgoing experience ever. At all." (Note: Was excised by an ellipsis)
-"'Don't you ever go to a movie just for fun?'" (answer: yes. see below.)
-"I can enjoy a 'Dumb And Dumber'"

THINGS JOHN WILL SAY NEXT TIME SO THERE'S NO CONFUSION
-"I like 'True Lies,' too. Just so you guys don't have the wrong idea."
-"Hey, so who's excited for 'Snakes On A Plane'?"

Ribbon Fat · « **Reply #37 on:** 24 Jun 2006, 17:20 »

Quote from: Scandanavian War Machine

Quote from: MWhaling
That wasn't a misquote. I used an ellipsis to filter out some unnecessary words.
There are a lot of dumb, funny movies and even more dumb, entertaining action movies. The enjoyment of these in no way implies that enjoying other movies ("meaningful," as you put it) is a crime. Similarly, by simply enjoying these movies with "meaning" doesn't make you any better than those who enjoy movies that are solely "fun."
And shitty movies have always sold well and that's what they'll continue to do in a very similar ratio of good:bad since motion pictures were invented.

you would have won the argument if we hadnt already been blown the fuck up

No argument to be won here. I said I enjoyed Tarantino in another thread; I'm just opposed to his postmodern/nostalgiac/clever pastiche approch to filmmaking, which I hate. But I also I kinda like him. I had a "hella" (to use the parlance of our times) good time at Kill Bill.

It's all fake though. It's not art. It tells me nothing about life.

Kai · « **Reply #38 on:** 24 Jun 2006, 17:29 »

Man, who DOESN'T like True Lies? True Lies is pretty much the peak of American cinema and it's been steadily spiraling downards ever since.

MWhaling · « **Reply #39 on:** 24 Jun 2006, 17:45 »

there's nothing to enjoy in Dumb & Dumber.

Johnny C · « **Reply #40 on:** 24 Jun 2006, 18:12 »

What about the part where they're interviewing the blind kid who bought the dead parrot on TV?

Ravenbomb · « **Reply #41 on:** 24 Jun 2006, 20:20 »

I think movies that are "just entertaining" get overlooked or underrated sometimes. Maybe it's just me, but a lot of movies that try to be "just entertaining" are boring as hell. A movie being entertaining, not necessarily something you'd want to just have as background, but genuinely entertaining (for example, Versus had me just engrossed by it's awesomeness the whole time) is no less an acomplishment than making a movie that has meaning and such. To me, at least.

Johnny C · « **Reply #42 on:** 24 Jun 2006, 22:23 »

It is tough to be a genuinely entertaining movie! But when it's done right, it's done RIGHT.

happybirthdaygelatin · « **Reply #43 on:** 25 Jun 2006, 08:43 »

Quote from: Johnny C

"People who steadfastly refuse to suck so much ass all the time."

I tend to fall asleep when watching most movies and almost always do when watching anything a long the lines of Metropolis or Citizen Kane (Most frickin' over rated movie ever)

The blind kid with the dead parrot was most likely my favourite part in Dumb and Dumber.

Kai · « **Reply #44 on:** 25 Jun 2006, 09:00 »

Citizen Kane is shit.

happybirthdaygelatin · « **Reply #45 on:** 25 Jun 2006, 09:38 »

I think you may be the first to agree with me on that.

Johnny C · « **Reply #46 on:** 25 Jun 2006, 11:17 »

Quote from: happybirthdaygelatin

Citizen Kane

I have pretty much no urge to watch "Citizen Kane." Thank you for now giving me a reason.

Houdinimachine · « **Reply #47 on:** 25 Jun 2006, 19:05 »

Quote from: Ribbon Fat

No argument to be won here. I said I enjoyed Tarantino in another thread; I'm just opposed to his postmodern/nostalgiac/clever pastiche approch to filmmaking, which I hate. But I also I kinda like him. I had a "hella" (to use the parlance of our times) good time at Kill Bill.

It's all fake though. It's not art. It tells me nothing about life.

That's where you're wrong. Kill Bill breathes its life from a pure love of certain genre films that it homages directly throughout the experience. You tell me that you came away with nothing from Kill Bill? You were sleeping then. I came away with an appreciation of samurai grindhouse films that has grown to an obsession since. If anything, Tarantino is excellent at making the audience feel what he wants them to feel. As a screenwriter myself, I believe the greatest artists can make an audience leave feeling overwhelmed with what they've seen. (Either with questions or with wonder and appreciation.) I came away from Kill Bill feeling like I had just been a part of a religious experience. That religion being film.

Kill Bill is a loveletter to pulp film, a style that has sadly gone missing in the last twenty years for the most part.

Now, does this say that Tarantino is as good with handling actors as Hitchcock or as skilled with capturing the absurd horror of life as Herzog? No, all it says is he knows how to make a film grab you and make you think. Refusing to call something that visceral art is like refusing to label ballet as art because you think it's a sport. Modern ballet may not teach you about the human condition, but it can make you think and appreciate the beauty of the human body in motion.

happybirthdaygelatin · « **Reply #48 on:** 26 Jun 2006, 08:32 »

Quote from: Johnny C

Quote from: happybirthdaygelatin
Citizen Kane

I have pretty much no urge to watch "Citizen Kane." Thank you for now giving me a reason.

How so? I'm curious!

Scandanavian War Machine · « **Reply #49 on:** 26 Jun 2006, 14:29 »

Quote from: Ribbon Fat

It's all fake though. It's not art. It tells me nothing about life.

you should not be looking to learn about life from movies anyway. live your life and learn from it.

unless you are one of those unfortunate souls trapped in a bubble or something.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Most people don't understand film as an artform (Read 20101 times)

Ribbon Fat

Ribbon Fat

Ribbon Fat

Ribbon Fat

Ravenbomb

Garcin

MWhaling

Ribbon Fat

Ribbon Fat

Ribbon Fat

MWhaling

MWhaling

MWhaling

MWhaling

MWhaling

MWhaling

Ribbon Fat

Ribbon Fat

MWhaling

Ravenbomb