28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Ezee E]

The juxtaposition of poverty and nature in Boner M's posts asks telling questions of pre-Oedipal guilt.

[Spinal]

The prevalance of foreground obstructions in The Kim Kardashian Sex Tape unpacks the pre-war crisis of masculinity.

[Spinal]

The prevalance of foreground obstructions in The Kim Kardashian Sex Tape unpacks the pre-war crisis of masculinity.

This one could actually be true.

[Spun Lepton]

It's rare when a movie completely sweeps me up like Black Swan did. A *little* predictable, but it's so engrossing that it just doesn't matter. This is the best performance I've seen from Portman. Honestly, I didn't think she had it in her. Funny how she actually gives this tour-de-force performance in a film whose themes revolve around a character being obsessed with giving a perfect performance. Fantastic.

[Spinal]

Her performance is good, but I think she's been better. V for Vendetta, for example.

[MadMan]

Surf Nazis Must Die! reveals critical seams in the fascist aesthetic through its frequent use of long takes.


The political use of voiceover in Attack of the Killer Shrews reminds the spectator of scopophilic tendencies of the viewer.


The Beyond masks suburban notions of containment through its binarism of light and racism.

Heh that site is fun.

[Bosco B Thug]

Wild Grass is an absolutely wild movie. Quip not intended, that's how wild it is. If it wasn't love, it was definitely that other love, to take a piece from the film's philosophy. Might as well be a 10. Buuut perhaps a bit too much "bubble thought," which slows the film, and yeah, lame non-sequiter at the end.

[Rowland]

Wild Grass is an absolutely wild movie. Quip not intended, that's how wild it is. If it wasn't love, it was definitely that other love, to take a piece from the film's philosophy. Might as well be a 10. Buuut perhaps a bit too much "bubble thought," which slows the film, and yeah, lame non-sequiter at the end.I don't think any movie I saw last year gave me as much pleasure at the theater as this one. I've been tempted to watch it again, see if it still deserves the top spot on my list, but I'm worried that it couldn't possibly live up to the first viewing, especially at home.

[Boner M]

Her performance is good, but I think she's been better. V for Vendetta, for example.
Ugh, god no.

[Wryan]

A local sortaskeezy theatre is showing Caligula for reasons unfathomable. Never seen it. Should I?

Keep in mind, going to see it would entail being seen in a sortaskeezy theatre watching Caligula. There are facets, here.

[Mara]

A local sortaskeezy theatre is showing Caligula for reasons unfathomable. Never seen it. Should I?

Keep in mind, going to see it would entail being seen in a sortaskeezy theatre watching Caligula. There are facets, here.

I saw it once and it was incomprehensible. I think it may have been edited down somewhat-- it came off as a hard R, but nothing to scar my brain for all time. But if it was somewhat edited, that might explain why it didn't make any damn sense.

It felt like a film that was trying really, really hard to be shocking, which is always just embarrassing for everyone.

Nothing can excuse the awful acting, though. Dreadful work from some otherwise respectable actors.

[number8]

Were there shots of erect cocks in iron rings being masturbated? If no, then you saw the edited R-rated version.

[Mara]

Were there shots of erect cocks in iron rings being masturbated? If no, then you saw the edited R-rated version.

Pretty sure I saw it edited. It was a decade ago, but I think I'd still be blushing if that had happened.

[Spun Lepton]

A local sortaskeezy theatre is showing Caligula for reasons unfathomable. Never seen it. Should I?

Bleecchh ... couldn't even finish it.

[kuehnepips]

... I'd still be blushing if that had happened.

Might be the wrong word now, but you are sweet.

Oh, and Wryan, read a book instead. In Greek.

[megladon8]

The erect cocks being masturbated was also one of the less explicit images.

[Wryan]

"Excuse me, Carmike? Your showing of Caligula...is this the edited R version or the one that's not edited? Specifically I'm curious about whether the erect be-ringed cocks being masturbated are included."

[Bosco B Thug]

I don't think any movie I saw last year gave me as much pleasure at the theater as this one. I've been tempted to watch it again, see if it still deserves the top spot on my list, but I'm worried that it couldn't possibly live up to the first viewing, especially at home. Worked its magic on me, and I downgraded to my sucky home theater system so the X-Files-y score wouldn't be swimming surround-sound in my ears. (Though I think the score is fine, the suspense cues that bothered me at first seem to mostly disappear after those first twenty minutes anyway.)

[megladon8]

So here's a question directed towards D_Davis...

Tsui Hark's Time and Tide. Is there a reason for the casting of HK actors as South Americans?

Was it purely a "we had to make do with what was available to us" situation?

Because if there's some underlying political "message" behind it...I don't get it.

[D_Davis]

Probably just a production/casting decision.

[megladon8]

I find the sense of energy captured in the movie to be intoxicating. It's an exciting movie to watch, even with its shortcomings (ie, it really doesn't make any sense).

But...I get the feeling that making sense was on the back-burner with this one.


Oh, and I could watch Anthony Wong in just about anything.

[Mara]

Might be the wrong word now, but you are sweet.


No, you want the word "wimp." I still cover my eyes if things get too gory or naughty in films. Probably not getting over that soon.

[Sven]

No, you want the word "wimp." I still cover my eyes if things get too gory or naughty in films. Probably not getting over that soon.

... and you sat through all of Caligula?

Even still, that takes strength, so you are no wimp.

[number8]

Maybe she saw the edited-edited PG-13 cut.

[megladon8]

Really, the only reason Caligula is remembered at all is because of the controversy, right?

Because it's a pretty terrible movie in just about every aspect.

[MadMan]

Caligula is one of the worst pieces of shit I have ever seen. My friends and I viewed the un-edited version as a test of strength, or simply because we had to see if it was truly as awful as people said it was. Well, they were right, cause its a worthless film that even manages to fuck up the ending, which is remarkable because the ending was starting to appear to be the only good thing about it. A 0/100, that's for sure, and sadly its only the third worst movie I've ever seen.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Sounds like my kind of flick.

[B-side]

Sounds like my kind of flick.

That's what I was thinking.:D

[balmakboor]

Caligula ... sadly its only the third worst movie I've ever seen.

So you've seen Staying Alive and Bolero I take it.

[Rowland]

Watched Winter's Bone again, was on the fence last time, kinda expected to veer fully into negative territory with a second go, so was surprised to like it a bit more this viewing, enough for a minor rating bump. It's still no favorite of mine, but yeah, I like it.

[MadMan]

So you've seen Staying Alive and Bolero I take it.Is Staying Alive the John Travolta movie? Never heard of Bolero. I have viewed Manos: The Hands of Fate and I Spit On Your Grave, though.

[balmakboor]

Is Staying Alive the John Travolta movie? Never heard of Bolero. I have viewed Manos: The Hands of Fate and I Spit On Your Grave, though.

I actually heard that I Spit... is worth a watch. I haven't yet though.

Yes, Staying Alive is the """sequel""" to Saturday Night Fever directed by Sylvester Stallone. Bolero stars Bo Derek and was directed by her husband John Derek. It's even worse than their Tarzan movie.

[Skitch]

Caligula is definitely one of the worst films ever made. But nothing I've seen so far is worse than Manos. Hell, Caligula at least has a boob in it, therefore, Caligula > Manos.

[balmakboor]

Caligula is definitely one of the worst films ever made. But nothing I've seen so far is worse than Manos. Hell, Caligula at least has a boob in it, therefore, Caligula > Manos.

I think I'll give Manos a look. Thanks for the un-recommendation.

[balmakboor]

Great web page on Michael Cimino by Robin Wood. It's not as detailed as his marvelous chapter on the director in "Hollywood From Vietnam to Reagan" but it captures the same spirit.

http://www.filmreference.com/Directors-Bu-Co/Cimino-Michael.html

[elixir]

Why are people always saying subsequent viewings are needed? I'm not saying "errors" can't occur in one's reactions/judgments, but I don't know, I do feel like I know how I feel after one viewing (and how subsequent viewings will affect it), and also, I think movies should be able to work after one viewing (that doesn't mean second and third viewings don't mine new meaning for you though!). Does anyone get what I'm saying? It's just frustrating sometimes to be told you second viewings are absolutely necessary or that I can't consider a movie a favorite after one (yes, one) viewing. Probably no one agrees with me. I'm not saying second viewings aren't useless.

Anyways, this thought process came because I watched Blade Runner again tonight. I think it was the Director's Cut, which had no narration and the unicorn shot, and while I enjoyed it more because of the lack of narration (and seeing it on a bigger screen), I still really don't quite get its classic status. I feel so left out! I guess for me, the love story just doesn't feel genuine at all, the whole final sequence comes off as ridiculous (if it does, it does, I can't help it!), and yeah, I have pacing issues with it. It can be quite striking at times though, and the art direction (right?) and light is often spectacular. Which just makes me wish I liked the story more.

[baby doll]

Why are people always saying subsequent viewings are needed? I'm not saying "errors" can't occur in one's reactions/judgments, but I don't know, I do feel like I know how I feel after one viewing (and how subsequent viewings will affect it), and also, I think movies should be able to work after one viewing (that doesn't mean second and third viewings don't mine new meaning for you though!). Does anyone get what I'm saying? It's just frustrating sometimes to be told you second viewings are absolutely necessary or that I can't consider a movie a favorite after one (yes, one) viewing. Probably no one agrees with me. I'm not saying second viewings aren't useless.Personally, I have a hard time getting a sense of a film's greatness on first viewing. There's a certain novelty in seeing an interesting film for the first time, so I'm likely to have an over-inflated sense of just how great it is. (For instance, based on my first viewing, I'm tempted to put Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives on my top ten, but I'm sure that if I saw it again, my esteem for the film wouldn't be quite so high.) Furthermore, my favorites are often those that are designed to be seen more than once (two recent examples being The Headless Woman and Film socialisme).

[elixir]

But these films that are designed to be seen more than once, as you state, they work a first time, right? Because personally, I think a film should be able to do that, even as subsequent viewings increase your understanding and appreciation.

I don't know, I guess it's possible I am overestimating my appreciate and it certainly can't be gauged objectively, but I'd like to think I know how I feel. Hm...I don't know. And the thing is, only a rewatch can tell if I'm right or not.

[B-side]

Why are people always saying subsequent viewings are needed? I'm not saying "errors" can't occur in one's reactions/judgments, but I don't know, I do feel like I know how I feel after one viewing (and how subsequent viewings will affect it), and also, I think movies should be able to work after one viewing (that doesn't mean second and third viewings don't mine new meaning for you though!). Does anyone get what I'm saying? It's just frustrating sometimes to be told you second viewings are absolutely necessary or that I can't consider a movie a favorite after one (yes, one) viewing. Probably no one agrees with me. I'm not saying second viewings aren't useless.

Nah, you're fine. I have no problem whatsoever putting a film amongst my favorites after a single viewing. It's a constantly evolving and changing group of films. I think people often recommend multiple viewings to do away with petty expectations. There's a certain ease that often accompanies a repeat viewing; less pressure to feel a certain way.

[baby doll]

But these films that are designed to be seen more than once, as you state, they work a first time, right? Because personally, I think a film should be able to do that, even as subsequent viewings increase your understanding and appreciation.

I don't know, I guess it's possible I am overestimating my appreciate and it certainly can't be gauged objectively, but I'd like to think I know how I feel. Hm...I don't know. And the thing is, only a rewatch can tell if I'm right or not.Well, in the case of The Headless Woman, I didn't have a clue what was going on for the first forty-five minutes or so, but I was never bored, so I guess it worked for me. Similarly, the Godard film was characteristically beautiful and fascinating, but I'm sure I'll get a lot more out of it on second and third viewing, once I find my bearings, whereas the first time around I was a bit overwhelmed.

[elixir]

Yeah, I just want to be clear that I don't think subsequent viewings are worthless--that would be ridiculous! Another reason I was thinking about it is because I just recently viewed The Son, and yeah, I want to call it a favorite after one viewing, and I would honestly be SHOCKED if it went down in esteem upon a repeat watch.

[baby doll]

Nah, you're fine. I have no problem whatsoever putting a film amongst my favorites after a single viewing. It's a constantly evolving and changing group of films. I think people often recommend multiple viewings to do away with petty expectations. There's a certain ease that often accompanies a repeat viewing; less pressure to feel a certain way.Yeah, that's another good thing about multiple viewings, is that you're more prepared for what the film is, rather than what you expect it to be.

[Mara]

I think I'll give Manos a look. Thanks for the un-recommendation.

You can't just watch Manos. You have to get the MST3K version.

[Mara]

For the record, I still think the worst films I have ever seen were:

*Ken Russell's Lair of the White Worm. There are always a couple people on websites that will defend this film, or Russell in general, as campy and fun. But it's neither-- it's just bloated, sensationalized, self-important nonsense.

*Mascara (Conrad, 1987.) It seems nobody has ever seen this film but me. Like Lair of the White Worm, I watched this during college when I was working at a video store, and also suffering from crippling insomnia. This confluence of events led to me watching just the most random films imaginable, which occasionally led to happy discoveries of little-known gems, and sometimes led to... well... this.

My roommate and best friend, Kristen, and I watched it together. After the first half hour, she said, "Can I turn it off?" Horror-struck, I said, "No... I have to see how it ends." A half hour later, I said, "My eyes... my brain... we can turn it off now." And she said, "Hell, no, you got me into this, we're FINISHING IT."

It was like we were playing "chicken," except we BOTH LOST. Absolute trash. Pretentious. Attempting really hard to be shocking but just being ridiculous. I only saw it the one time, but a sick part of me wants to see it again just to verify if it could honestly be that bad.

[Pop Trash]

Yes, Staying Alive is the """sequel""" to Saturday Night Fever directed by Sylvester Stallone.

And it's an awful, awful movie. Shudder.

[Spun Lepton]

I think I'll give Manos a look. Thanks for the un-recommendation.

You won't be able to finish it unless you have the MST3K crew making wisecracks. Seriously, it's considered "worst" because it's ungodly boring nonsense.

[Spun Lepton]

*Ken Russell's Lair of the White Worm. There are always a couple people on websites that will defend this film, or Russell in general, as campy and fun. But it's neither-- it's just bloated, sensationalized, self-important nonsense.

There's nothing more irritating to me than pretentious horror, and Lair of the White Worm fills that description perfectly.

[Mara]

There's nothing more irritating to me than pretentious horror, and Lair of the White Worm fills that description perfectly.

Good point. I'm not a fan of the genre to begin with, but every once in awhile one manages to be somewhat arty without being ridiculous. But when the formula fails, it fails spectacularly.

[Spun Lepton]

Good point. I'm not a fan of the genre to begin with, but every once in awhile one manages to be somewhat arty without being ridiculous. But when the formula fails, it fails spectacularly.

Horror doesn't lend itself to "artsy" in my opinion. Horrific elements can certainly work for artsy films, but "artsy horror" usually ends up laughable.

Another perfect example: The Addiction starring Lili Taylor and Christopher Walken. HATE that movie. Or A Company of Wolves. Stupid as hell.

[Raiders]

Another perfect example: The Addiction starring Lili Taylor and Christopher Walken. HATE that movie. Or A Company of Wolves. Stupid as hell.

:frustrated:

[Spun Lepton]

:frustrated:

:pritch:

:lol:

I think we've already had this discussion, Raiders. I think we'll simply have to agree to disagree. :)

[Sven]

I just showed Company of Wolves to my wife, who is definitely a woman of discriminating taste. She thought it was boring. Sigh.

[balmakboor]

Why are people always saying subsequent viewings are needed? I'm not saying "errors" can't occur in one's reactions/judgments, but I don't know, I do feel like I know how I feel after one viewing (and how subsequent viewings will affect it), and also, I think movies should be able to work after one viewing (that doesn't mean second and third viewings don't mine new meaning for you though!). Does anyone get what I'm saying? It's just frustrating sometimes to be told you second viewings are absolutely necessary or that I can't consider a movie a favorite after one (yes, one) viewing. Probably no one agrees with me. I'm not saying second viewings aren't useless.

Anyways, this thought process came because I watched Blade Runner again tonight. I think it was the Director's Cut, which had no narration and the unicorn shot, and while I enjoyed it more because of the lack of narration (and seeing it on a bigger screen), I still really don't quite get its classic status. I feel so left out! I guess for me, the love story just doesn't feel genuine at all, the whole final sequence comes off as ridiculous (if it does, it does, I can't help it!), and yeah, I have pacing issues with it. It can be quite striking at times though, and the art direction (right?) and light is often spectacular. Which just makes me wish I liked the story more.

I think you're still about five viewings away from really appreciating Blade Runner.

Just kidding with you, although it did take me a while to like the film.

It all depends on the film. I usually have a good idea if I like a film or not after one viewing. I do have a bad habit of paying attention to things I shouldn't be on a first viewing like how the movie was shot and miss obvious stuff about the plot. My daughter tells me I suck at watching movies because of this. (She's so sweet.) I usually get the most out of the plot on a second viewing. But sometimes a film requires some readjustments on how you watch films and before you get in sync with the film you might hate it. But it can become a favorite once you've watch it a few times and become familiar with its unique ways of operating.

[Grouchy]

Another perfect example: The Addiction starring Lili Taylor and Christopher Walken. HATE that movie. Or A Company of Wolves. Stupid as hell.
Wow, I originally agreed with Lair of the White Worm, but you just brought it together with two of my personal favorites.

[Mara]

I just showed Company of Wolves to my wife, who is definitely a woman of discriminating taste. She thought it was boring. Sigh.

Hmmm. I think it looks interesting. Might queue it up.

[Spun Lepton]

Wow, I originally agreed with Lair of the White Worm, but you just brought it together with two of my personal favorites.

Like I said, I don't think "artsy" necessarily works for the horror genre. Just an opinion. The only "horror" movie that I thought even came close to being an artistic success would be Von Trier's Anti-Christ, but even that left me a little cold.

[Qrazy]

Like I said, I don't think "artsy" necessarily works for the horror genre. Just an opinion. The only "horror" movie that I thought even came close to being an artistic success would be Von Trier's Anti-Christ, but even that left me a little cold.

The Shining?

[Sven]

I'm a big fan of Don't Look Now, which is pretty horror-y and pretty artsy.

[Grouchy]

Define "artsy". Because while I think it's a good adjective to describe something like The Addiction, I really wouldn't use it for The Shining.

And Antichrist is too personal for me to think of it as a genre movie.

[Spun Lepton]

The Shining?

Beautifully shot with some nice artistic flourishes, but I don't consider it an "art horror" film.

[megladon8]

Wouldn't Black Swan be kind of an "art horror" movie?


I don't know, I'm not willing to write off any horror movie with artistic ambitions. I would agree with The Shining as an example of an artful horror film that really nailed it, as well as something like Eyes Without a Face, and much of the horror output from the silent era.

I'm sure there are more modern examples, but since I'm trying to think of them now, I can't. I'll get back to you at 4AM when I suddenly bolt upright in bed with 30 examples in my brain.

[Dukefrukem]

What would Antichrist fall under? Horror cinema?

[Spun Lepton]

Wouldn't Black Swan be kind of an "art horror" movie?

Less horror, more thriller.

[megladon8]

The term "artsy" seems seems kind of redundant to me, though.

What classifies a film as being "artsy"? Broken time line? Heavy use of symbolic imagery? Broken or unclear plot line? Emphasis on style over narrative?

If these are what make a film "artsy", then anything from Suspiria to Cloverfield could be deemed an "artsy horror movie".


I just find that there are some films that succeed with their artful aspirations and some that fail for whatever reason(s).

I mean, it's all subjective. My brother borrowed The Limey last weekend (yes I know it's not horror, but it's an example to make my point) and he didn't like it because he found it too "artsy" and pretentious, with its broken time line and stylish editing. He found it hard to follow.

[Spun Lepton]

The term "artsy" seems seems kind of redundant to me, though.

What classifies a film as being "artsy"? Broken time line? Heavy use of symbolic imagery? Broken or unclear plot line? Emphasis on style over narrative?

It's subjective.

[Mara]

I really like it when sci-fi gets arty.

[Spun Lepton]

Keep in mind that I generally find avante garde films unbearable.

[megladon8]

Sounds like someone must love Michael Haneke!

[Spun Lepton]

Sounds like someone must love Michael Haneke!

I've only seen Funny Games, don't really consider that avante garde.

[megladon8]

I've only seen Funny Games, don't really consider that avante garde.


No, it's just pretentious hub-bub.

[Spun Lepton]

No, it's just pretentious hub-bub.

:lol:

[Dead & Messed Up]

All horror movies are artsy. All movies are artsy. Art is artsy.

[megladon8]

All horror movies are artsy. All movies are artsy. Art is artsy.


This statement is pretentious.

[number8]

I hate "film." All I want is a movie.

[MadMan]

I actually heard that I Spit... is worth a watch. I haven't yet though.

Yes, Staying Alive is the """sequel""" to Saturday Night Fever directed by Sylvester Stallone. Bolero stars Bo Derek and was directed by her husband John Derek. It's even worse than their Tarzan movie.Hah, awesome. I feel the strange need to watch these movies so I can laugh at how bad they are.

And actually I've never seen the MSTK version of Manos. My local cable channel should the movie without said commentary, and the only reason I viewed it all the way through was because I couldn't believe how awful the movie really was. Its a painful, dull, messy trainwreck, and I'm not even sure you can call it a movie. Just a random object that's pretending to be one, and actually makes Plan 9 From Outer Space look like Citzen Kane.

Antichrist is a horror movie, easily. Despite what Von Trier says.

[Russ]

I'm a big fan of Guy Maddin, and I just saw My Winnipeg, which is now my new favorite of his films. It's unquestionably the most accomplished (and enjoyable) of his autobiographical trilogy. With all the recurring motifs from his earlier work, it's like the Cliff's Notes version of Maddin's Greatest Hits. Those unfamiliar with his filmography who are looking for a good starting point...you've just found it. Just don't expect a lot of variance when backtracking from this point. But make no mistake, this is a great film.

[megladon8]

I hate "film." All I want is a movie.


Would a "flick" do?

Do you ever feel like you're just tired of writing about "pictures"?

[Mara]

"The Flick Discussion Thread: Hey, Popcorn Sounds Kinda Good, Huh?"

[Spun Lepton]

All movies are artsy.

Michael Bay would like to have a word with you.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Michael Bay would like to have a word with you.

Film is art. Michael Bay directed films. Michael Bay is a director of art. He is artsy. Artsy means nothing. Nothing means nothing. Just letters on a screen, symbols in the ether, to be deciphered by the ephemeral extrusions of a universe bereft of intrinsic meaning or import. Let us dance in in the absence of ourselves.

[Skitch]

You won't be able to finish it unless you have the MST3K crew making wisecracks. Seriously, it's considered "worst" because it's ungodly boring nonsense.
Even the MST3K version is a struggle for me to get through. Manos is that bad.

[Mara]

Oh, YAY! I'm so excited!

[B-side]

Another perfect example: The Addiction starring Lili Taylor and Christopher Walken. HATE that movie.

You dun goof'd.

[B-side]

Keep in mind that I generally find avante garde films unbearable.

You and I are really not on the same wavelength.

[soitgoes...]

Animation watch...just finished an insane film courtesy of the 2009 graduating class of the Korean Academy of Film Arts. I think I love it, but I have absolutely no idea what the hell was going on at any point in the film. The Story of Mr. Sorry, about this fellow who cleans the wax out of people's ears for a living (I know, yuk..) begins taking a vitamin that makes him really small, which makes it a lot easier for him to earn his living. Apparently. There's trippy visions. And incest. And game shows. And monster spiders. And...well, what the hell. Daniel, soitgoes, you're the only ones who are gonna want to see this, so...don't miss it!Yeah, so what the fuck? Entertaining and some inspired animation, but I'm not really sure what it is I watched.

[Boner M]

Black Swan is far more pretentious than The Addiction.

[elixir]

How is Black Swan pretentious? I don't see it.

[Boner M]

How is Black Swan pretentious?
Cos I say so and I'm smarter and better than everyone.

[elixir]

Cos I say so and I'm smarter and better than everyone.

You have convinced me.

[B-side]

Black Swan is far more pretentious than The Addiction.

Heh. It's also not nearly as good.

[Boner M]

FWIW, I think pretentiousness is synonymous with calculation, and Ferrara is as uncalculating as filmmakers come (sometimes to a fault).

[elixir]

I don't get that view at all? What does "calculation" even mean here? I think pretentious is the most overused word when criticizing movies. I really don't think that many movies are pretentious.

[B-side]

I think pretentious is the most overused word when criticizing movies. I really don't think that many movies are pretentious.

Yeah. Not to mention it's most often used by imbeciles who dismiss anything that's unique or refuses to pander.

[soitgoes...]

Even the word "pretentious" is too pretentious for me. I prefer highfalutin.

[Boner M]

Was hoping we wouldn't get to the part of the discussion where dictionary definitions come in, but...


— adj
1. making claim to distinction or importance, esp undeservedly
2. having or creating a deceptive outer appearance of great worth; ostentatious

...which is tantamount to calculation. I rarely use 'pretentious' because using the term itself is putting oneself in a similarly exalted position, but I feel confident in calling some films more pretentious than others, hence the reason I jumped to defend Ferrara.

YA HAPPY, ELIXIR?!

[Dead & Messed Up]

Even the MST3K version is a struggle for me to get through. Manos is that bad.

Seriously. I always feel bad when, after twenty seconds of Torgo adjusting his posture, Joel shouts "DO SOMETHING!" Palpable hatred. What a crummy film.

[Ezee E]

Carlos just happens to be getting an Instant Watch date of 2/15.

:pritch:

[Rowland]

Carlos just happens to be getting an Instant Watch date of 2/15.

:pritch:It's probably the edited cut though right? I have the 50-hour version waiting to be watched, just haven't mustered the will yet.

[Fezzik]

Would a "flick" do?

Do you ever feel like you're just tired of writing about "pictures"?

When I was in college, I had a girlfriend who split films into five categories, generally based on what she thought they were trying to accomplish:

Flick - Lowest of the low. Pure popcorn, no attempt at redeemable artistic qualities
Movie - "It is what it is" - decent entertainment, but not much else.
Motion Picture - Some artistic merit, but nothing overwhelming. Fun, maybe thought-provoking, but nothing overwhelmingly artistic.
Film - Good watching experiences that somehow are able to fold the art and craft of filmmaking into their running time.
Cinema - The high brow stuff created strictly for the art or to portray some greater "meaning" - entertainment is rarely (if ever) taken into consideration. The art is what matters.

I understand where she was coming from, but felt that segregating the industry like that just created chasms between those that watch movies (perhaps that was the intent). I found her "chart" more pretentious than any movie she was talking about :)

[Fezzik]

Seriously. I always feel bad when, after twenty seconds of Torgo adjusting his posture, Joel shouts "DO SOMETHING!" Palpable hatred. What a crummy film.


Yeah, I can't watch Manos, even MST-ified. It's horrifyingly awful.

[Mara]

Yeah, I can't watch Manos, even MST-ified. It's horrifyingly awful.

The worst movies don't necessarily make the best MST3K episodes. There's bad, and there's unwatchable. For my money, the best episodes are Space Mutiny and Cave Dwellers.

[Mara]

Only once have I seen a film only to find out later that it was an MST3K episode. It was during the worst of my insomnia years, during a semester abroad in London. I was so sleep deprived that I was... well, not hallucinating exactly, but not thinking clearly, either. It was kind of like slipping into dreaming without actually falling asleep. Sort of like having a really bad fever.

Anyway, it was about three in the morning and I was bouncing around my flat completely unable to focus or wind down. We had about three channels on our little t.v., and one was showing Soultaker.

And I was like, is this really happening, or have I completely lost it? Because that film wouldn't make any sense even if I hadn't been seriously unwell. Every time they said the main character's name ("Natalie") I thought someone was calling me from the other room. It didn't help that I was confused about some of the actors, including being convinced that Martin Sheen was playing the Soultaker and I thought the redhead was that pretty girl from Teen Witch.

Years later I caught the MST3K episode and it cleared some things up. Some things. It was still kind of a trip.

[Spun Lepton]

Film is art. Michael Bay directed films. Michael Bay is a director of art. He is artsy. Artsy means nothing. Nothing means nothing. Just letters on a screen, symbols in the ether, to be deciphered by the ephemeral extrusions of a universe bereft of intrinsic meaning or import. Let us dance in in the absence of ourselves.

You ... what ... this ...

...

http://meteoryty.pg.gda.pl/rozne/hihi/!Nowe12/HeadExplode.gif

[Spun Lepton]

The worst movies don't necessarily make the best MST3K episodes. There's bad, and there's unwatchable. For my money, the best episodes are Space Mutiny and Cave Dwellers.

Cave Dwellers is easily a favorite.

Nothing tops Attack of the The Eye Creatures. (Yes, "the" appears twice in the title.)

[Scar]

When I was in college, I had a girlfriend who split films into five categories, generally based on what she thought they were trying to accomplish:

Flick - Lowest of the low. Pure popcorn, no attempt at redeemable artistic qualities
Movie - "It is what it is" - decent entertainment, but not much else.
Motion Picture - Some artistic merit, but nothing overwhelming. Fun, maybe thought-provoking, but nothing overwhelmingly artistic.
Film - Good watching experiences that somehow are able to fold the art and craft of filmmaking into their running time.
Cinema - The high brow stuff created strictly for the art or to portray some greater "meaning" - entertainment is rarely (if ever) taken into consideration. The art is what matters.

I understand where she was coming from, but felt that segregating the industry like that just created chasms between those that watch movies (perhaps that was the intent). I found her "chart" more pretentious than any movie she was talking about :)

My girlfriend had something very similar, 'cept it was for the various stages of intoxication.

[number8]

I did something similar too. It went something like this:

Not Awesome - Neither artistic nor entertaining.
Kinda Awesome - Artistic, but not so entertaining.
Pretty Awesome - Entertaining, but no artistic merit.
Awesome - Awesome.

[Mara]

Nothing tops Attack of the The Eye Creatures. (Yes, "the" appears twice in the title.)

Oooh, I haven't seen that one. Must find. Must watch.

[Skitch]

The worst movies don't necessarily make the best MST3K episodes. There's bad, and there's unwatchable. For my money, the best episodes are Space Mutiny and Cave Dwellers.
Both those are terrific, especially SM.

I'm partial to the black and white and monster movies. The Giant Mantis, Mole People, Prince of Space...also the very sci-fi ones, Pod People, This Island Earth...these literally bring me to tears.

[Dukefrukem]

boo @ thread title change

[Spun Lepton]

...which is tantamount to calculation. I rarely use 'pretentious' because using the term itself is putting oneself in a similarly exalted position, but I feel confident in calling some films more pretentious than others, hence the reason I jumped to defend Ferrara.

YA HAPPY, ELIXIR?!

An over-inflated sense of self-importance is a crutch some bad filmmakers lean on. "The people must know that I am IMPORTANT, and my films are IMPORTANT. These are my IMPORTANT themes, and I must twist and turn my dialogue so the audience understands how IMPORTANT these themes are." Go into your story with that attitude sitting in the back of your head and you will most likely produce garbage.

If your themes are important, it will be self-evident. No need to puff out your chest and convince yourself your CINEMA is changing the world.

Of course, when I label something pretentious, it's usually an emotional reaction, so attempting to put it into some kind of objective framework will never stand up to scrutiny.

I didn't get a sense from Black Swan that Aronofsky believed he was making An Important Film, but I don't read minds.

It was mentioned earlier, but Funny Games is pretentious, as far as I'm concerned. I think the message it's sending is laughable bullshit, but it delivers the message very neatly and in a manner that's interesting to me, so I do admire the skill behind it.

[Mara]

If your themes are important, it will be self-evident.

Very well put.

[Wryan]

Hobgoblins and Danger: Diabolik and one of the Gamera movies...plus whatever the giant spider movie was. And too many more.

[Ezee E]

It's probably the edited cut though right? I have the 50-hour version waiting to be watched, just haven't mustered the will yet.
It's the "miniseries" version.

[balmakboor]

It's probably the edited cut though right? I have the 50-hour version waiting to be watched, just haven't mustered the will yet.

Holy smokes. I've sat through some long movies before but never anything like 50 hours.

[balmakboor]

Definition of Pretentious

...which is tantamount to calculation.

I don't see how that definition equates with calculation. Calculation here means that the director carefully measures out and designs everything to achieve a desired effect. Pretentious means that a director aims for -- and believes he accomplished -- an effect that is beyond his grasp.

[Russ]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0284020/

This is the longest movie ever made at a total running time of 87 hours. It premiered in its entirety at The School Of The Art Institute in Chicago, Illinois from 31 January to 3 February 1987 in one continuous showing.

[Raiders]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0284020/

This is the longest movie ever made at a total running time of 87 hours. It premiered in its entirety at The School Of The Art Institute in Chicago, Illinois from 31 January to 3 February 1987 in one continuous showing.

Actually it isn't.

Cinematon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cin%C3%A9maton) has a runtime of 156 hours and actually sounds pretty cool. The one you linked to sounds uber-lame.

[balmakboor]

I have an idea for a movie. It's called "Front Yard 2012." It would be 8760 hours long and consist of a single static shot out my front window. It might even end with a bang.

[Russ]

Actually it isn't.

Cinematon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cin%C3%A9maton) has a runtime of 156 hours and actually sounds pretty cool. The one you linked to sounds uber-lame.
I stand corrected.

[Watashi]

I have an idea for a movie. It's called "Front Yard 2012." It would be 8760 hours long and consist of a single static shot out my front window. It might even end with a bang.
It would definitely make Brightside's list of all-time favorites.

[DavidSeven]

Yeah, I don't know about the "calculated" definition of pretentiousness. Michael Bay's films presumably involve a lot more calculation than one of Andy Warhol's static shot pieces, but to say Bay is way more pretentious than Warhol doesn't seem to fit with the common sense definition of the word.

[MadMan]

I approve of the new thread title.


Film is art. Michael Bay directed films. Michael Bay is a director of art. He is artsy. Artsy means nothing. Nothing means nothing. Just letters on a screen, symbols in the ether, to be deciphered by the ephemeral extrusions of a universe bereft of intrinsic meaning or import. Let us dance in in the absence of ourselves.You fucking pretentious wanker. What a goddamn wonderful statement, you beautiful bastard :P

[Spun Lepton]

Yeah, I don't know about the "calculated" definition of pretentiousness. Michael Bay's films presumably involve a lot more calculation than one of Andy Warhol's static shot pieces, but to say Bay is way more pretentious than Warhol doesn't seem to fit with the common sense definition of the word.

I get the sense that Bay is less pretentious, more arrogant. His aspirations are making money for the studios, I don't think he's telling himself that his films are important.

[Raiders]

I get the sense that Bay is less pretentious, more arrogant. His aspirations are making money for the studios, I don't think he's telling himself that his films are important.

I think he believes they (making money and importance) are one and the same.

[DavidSeven]

I get the sense that Bay is less pretentious, more arrogant. His aspirations are making money for the studios, I don't think he's telling himself that his films are important.

I more or less agree. But are his films any less "calculated" than avant-garde pieces? I don't think so. They're carefully designed to make you feel something, even if it's just cheap thrills and superficial patriotism.

[megladon8]

I find Michael Haneke's films (particularly Funny Games) to be a pretty accurate representation of the definition of "pretentious" that Boner posted earlier.

[D_Davis]

There is nothing in life more important than making money.

[MadMan]

There is nothing in life more important than making money.I thought it was live fast, die young, and leave behind a beautiful corpse.

[Spun Lepton]

I more or less agree. But are his films any less "calculated" than avant-garde pieces? I don't think so. They're carefully designed to make you feel something, even if it's just cheap thrills and superficial patriotism.

Agreed.

[Winston*]

The Weather Underground documentary is excellent.

[Spinal]

I find Michael Haneke's films (particularly Funny Games) to be a pretty accurate representation of the definition of "pretentious" that Boner posted earlier.

This is exactly the wrong way to use the word. Haneke thinks he's intelligent and insightful and he is. It would be better to use it for someone like Baz Luhrmann, who thinks he's intelligent and really isn't.

[megladon8]

This is exactly the wrong way to use the word. Haneke thinks he's intelligent and insightful and he is. It would be better to use it for someone like Baz Luhrmann, who thinks he's intelligent and really isn't.


No, I think it works pretty well because Haneke's attempts at intelligence (once again, particularly in Funny Games) are more of a condescending arrogance than actually having anything intelligent to say.

He thought what he was saying was really important, but it was just high-nosed rubbish.

Pretentious.

[Boner M]

Yeah, Baz Lurhmann fits the bill perfectly; he described his films as "Brechtian", FFS. Dictionary definition pretension, right there.

[baby doll]

Yeah, I don't know about the "calculated" definition of pretentiousness. Michael Bay's films presumably involve a lot more calculation than one of Andy Warhol's static shot pieces, but to say Bay is way more pretentious than Warhol doesn't seem to fit with the common sense definition of the word.I've seen a couple of Warhol shorts and about two and a half hours of Chelsea Girls. Good, bad, or indifferent, there's nothing pretentious about them at all.

[megladon8]

Yeah, Baz Lurhmann fits the bill perfectly; he described his films as "Brechtian", FFS. Dictionary definition pretension, right there.


Funny I never read that about him. I had no idea.

I always kind of liked Moulin Rouge!.

[baby doll]

Yeah, Baz Lurhmann fits the bill perfectly; he described his films as "Brechtian", FFS. Dictionary definition pretension, right there.That's more delusional than pretentious, isn't it? Anyway, I still like Australia.

[D_Davis]

I find the sense of energy captured in the movie to be intoxicating. It's an exciting movie to watch, even with its shortcomings (ie, it really doesn't make any sense).

But...I get the feeling that making sense was on the back-burner with this one.


Oh, and I could watch Anthony Wong in just about anything.

They cram about 10 movies worth of plot into one film.

[megladon8]

They cram about 10 movies worth of plot into one film.


Yeah. Two guys are friends then end up in rival gangs in something with something happening. Some other guys are involved too. Some of them are bad, and some of the good guys are bad, but were they really good guys?

There are also some girls and one of them is a lesbian but is also in love with a guy.

[D_Davis]

Yeah. Two guys are friends then end up in rival gangs in something with something happening. Some other guys are involved too. Some of them are bad, and some of the good guys are bad, but were they really good guys?

There are also some girls and one of them is a lesbian but is also in love with a guy.

I've watched it 10 times and I still get confused sometimes. :)

Gotta love Tsui Hark!

[megladon8]

I've watched it 10 times and I still get confused sometimes. :)

Gotta love Tsui Hark!


I really want to see more of his work, and I'm particularly intrigued by Detective Dee.

I'd say my favorite of his at this point is We're Going to Eat You.

Though to be honest I think I've seen maybe 5 of his movies, which is the equivalent of only seeing 1 movie by most other directors.

[Spun Lepton]

This is exactly the wrong way to use the word. Haneke thinks he's intelligent and insightful and he is. It would be better to use it for someone like Baz Luhrmann, who thinks he's intelligent and really isn't.

Agreed intelligent, but insightful ... ??? But, I haven't seen anything of his except for Funny Games. His message in that was ridiculous and self-important, even if the story taken on its own was interesting.

[Boner M]

even if the story taken on its own was interesting.
Really?

[Spun Lepton]

Really?

I admired the skill involved, and it did keep me watching.

[Milky Joe]

No, I think it works pretty well because Haneke's attempts at intelligence (once again, particularly in Funny Games) are more of a condescending arrogance than actually having anything intelligent to say.

He thought what he was saying was really important, but it was just high-nosed rubbish.

Pretentious.

How exactly are you determining what's really important and what's high-nosed rubbish? How is it that you've interpreted him as being condescending and arrogant whereas many, many other people here and elsewhere find him intelligent and insightful? What's the difference here? It'd be very easy to say that you find him condescending and arrogant because you just don't get it and therefore feel threatened by it in some way as to need to discredit it in some faux-objective way, but that would be pretty damned pretentious of me.

[megladon8]

How exactly are you determining what's really important and what's high-nosed rubbish? How is it that you've interpreted him as being condescending and arrogant whereas many, many other people here and elsewhere find him intelligent and insightful? What's the difference here? It'd be very easy to say that you find him condescending and arrogant because you just don't get it and therefore feel threatened by it in some way as to need to discredit it in some faux-objective way, but that would be pretty damned pretentious of me.


It's subjective.

Could I not ask you exact same things? "How is it that you've interpreted him as being intelligent and insightful when myself and others find him arrogant and condescending?"

And yeah, insinuating that me not liking his films = me not "getting" his films? Kinda douchey.

[MadMan]

All this talk about Funny Games once again brings me back to why I haven't bothered to watch it: there's no way it can live up to the hype and be this divisive or controversial. It'll affect how I'll view the movie, and probably result in me saying "Why does it get people so worked up again?"

Reminds me of Antichrist. Sure it was shocking, but its great and in the end its just a movie. The only controversial was the whole "This movie hates women" buillshit, which I really found to be ridiculous.

[Milky Joe]

I just think saying this:


He thought what he was saying was really important, but it was just high-nosed rubbish.

Pretentious.

about somebody so clearly invested and passionate about the things he does in his work simply because you didn't like it is itself quite condescending and arrogant and yeah, kinda douchey.

That said, nobody and I mean nobody, for me, fits that bill more than Christopher Nolan, so what do I know.

[Qrazy]

All this talk about Funny Games once again brings me back to why I haven't bothered to watch it: there's no way it can live up to the hype and be this divisive or controversial. It'll affect how I'll view the movie, and probably result in me saying "Why does it get people so worked up again?"

Reminds me of Antichrist. Sure it was shocking, but its great and in the end its just a movie. The only controversial was the whole "This movie hates women" buillshit, which I really found to be ridiculous.

Madman.

[MadMan]

Ed Wood Jr. was invested heavily in making Plan 9 From Outer Space, and was really passionate about it too. He believe he was making an amazing movie. Its a bad, but kind of fun, movie, that is widely regarded as one of the worst of all time. So what if someone works hard to make a movie and believes in it, if its still crap or they think they are creating a so called "Pure work of art" (whatever the hell that means,) then one should call them on it and state that they think as such. So yes I'm siding with meg, even if I end up seeing Funny Games and I think its a great movie.

[MadMan]

Madman.Damnit don't encourage Duke.

[Milky Joe]

Plan 9 is great (in its way), precisely because of the passion Ed Wood had in making it. I would never say something like that about Ed Wood.

[megladon8]

All this talk about Funny Games once again brings me back to why I haven't bothered to watch it: there's no way it can live up to the hype and be this divisive or controversial. It'll affect how I'll view the movie, and probably result in me saying "Why does it get people so worked up again?"

Reminds me of Antichrist. Sure it was shocking, but its great and in the end its just a movie. The only controversial was the whole "This movie hates women" buillshit, which I really found to be ridiculous.


Funny Games is meant to be seen as a critical look at the blood-lust audiences exhibit as shown by ticket sales for gory horror and super-violent action and thriller films.

Michael Haneke made the film(s) to show people their own "sickness". The two psychotic young men who torture the family will quite literally wink at the camera, or talk directly to the camera. It's all an exercise in breaking the fourth wall, turning that blood lust back on the audience to test the limits of their comfort when the violence is so brutally sadistic and directed towards an every-day family.

But the film collapses on its own ideals when it becomes the very thing its criticizing in a final ultimate shattering of the fourth wall that is so utterly retarded when any thought is put into it that it only angers me that Haneke wasted my time rather than making me think about my own enjoyment of on-screen violence. Instead of simply proposing the question "this is what you came for, isn't it?" it says "this is what you came for and I find you disgusting for it, and the fact that you even watched this movie disgusts me."

Well, Mr. Haneke, you made the movie, so what should I think about you oh wise one?

It's not as simple as that, MadMan, but the film's "messages" are all mixed up and ultimately contradict each other.

[Derek]

Madman.

Antichrist >>> Funny Games

With that said, Haneke is an otherwise brilliant director and his other films are hardly pretentious. I think people too often equate 'an intelligent film by a director who considers the subject important that I don't like' with pretentiousness.

[megladon8]

I just think saying this: about somebody so clearly invested and passionate about the things he does in his work simply because you didn't like it is itself quite condescending and arrogant and yeah, kinda douchey.


So being invested and passionate in one's work means one is immune to creating work that's pretentious?



That said, nobody and I mean nobody, for me, fits that bill more than Christopher Nolan, so what do I know.

LAWL.

But...but...but...Christopher Nolan is passionate and invested in his work!

[megladon8]

Antichrist >>> Funny Games

With that said, Haneke is an otherwise brilliant director and his other films are hardly pretentious. I think people too often equate 'an intelligent film by a director who considers the subject important that I don't like' with pretentiousness.


Except that's not what I'm doing at all, but OK.

[Derek]

Instead of simply proposing the question "this is what you came for, isn't it?" it says "this is what you came for and I find you disgusting for it, and the fact that you even watched this movie disgusts me."

Actually, I'm pretty sure that in both versions of the film I saw, it clearly was asking the first question.

[Winston*]

How exactly are you determining what's really important and what's high-nosed rubbish? How is it that you've interpreted him as being condescending and arrogant whereas many, many other people here and elsewhere find him intelligent and insightful? What's the difference here? It'd be very easy to say that you find him condescending and arrogant because you just don't get it and therefore feel threatened by it in some way as to need to discredit it in some faux-objective way, but that would be pretty damned pretentious of me.

Kind of agree with this. That's ony of the reasons I'm trying to change my way of watching movies. Trying to more look for what positive I can get out of a movie rather than judging it negatively.

[megladon8]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that in both versions of the film I saw, it clearly was asking the first question.


It does ask that, but that's also not all it says.

Michael Haneke is bothered by people who watch the movie to the end. He's said so himself.

So, what...did he make the movie for people to walk out on? Or not go see at all?

Come on.

[Winston*]

I don't think you should neccesarily take a director's words outside of the movie into your reading of the movie itself.

[Milky Joe]

So being invested and passionate in one's work means one is immune to creating work that's pretentious?

Nope, just look at Christopher Nolan!

[megladon8]

I don't think you should neccesarily take a director's words outside of the movie into your reading of the movie itself.


Why is that?

People on here and professional critics do this all the time when analyzing other films. What's wrong with it in this case?

[megladon8]

Nope, just look at Christopher Nolan!


Good one!

I haven't seen a single Michael Haneke film that even comes close to the weakest of Christopher Nolan's films.

[soitgoes...]

Good one!

I haven't seen a single Michael Haneke film that even comes close to the weakest of Christopher Nolan's films.I wouldn't go that far. Most of Haneke's work is much better than Nolan's, but he's made a couple films that are mediocre. Haneke isn't that great.

[megladon8]

I haven't enjoyed anything I've seen by Haneke.

Funny Games is the only one to whom I'd apply the "pretentious" label. The rest (that I've seen) I just didn't care for.

[soitgoes...]

I haven't enjoyed anything I've seen by Haneke.

Funny Games is the only one to whom I'd apply the "pretentious" label. The rest (that I've seen) I just didn't care for.
Which are?

[Derek]

People on here and professional critics do this all the time when analyzing other films. What's wrong with it in this case?

Because a director's intentionality and the way it turns out in the final product will often be different and though a director may hold a certain extreme belief, that belief may be reflected differently in the film. Case in point, Funny Games, where I can't see how you came to the conclusion you came to (thinking the film was telling you that you were an idiot for watching it) without accounting for what Haneke said outside of the film.

I rarely account for a director's intentions, nor do I really care much about them.

[Milky Joe]

I haven't seen a single Michael Haneke film that even comes close to the weakest of Christopher Nolan's films.

That's pretty hard for me to fathom. I mean I've only seen two of Haneke's films, one of which was not very good and another which was great, but Nolan's films are big, plodding, ugly messes. He may be 'passionate' and 'invested' and all of that, but that apparently doesn't translate to making me the viewer feel the same way. All I feel is bored and slightly irritated. Different strokes, I guess.

[megladon8]

Which are?


Everything in the Kino Video box set except for 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance.

The closest I came to liking one of his films was probably The Piano Teacher, but it was more for Isabelle Hupert than anything else.

[megladon8]

That's pretty hard for me to fathom. I mean I've only seen two of Haneke's films, one of which was not very good and another which was great, but Nolan's films are big, plodding, ugly messes. He may be 'passionate' and 'invested' and all of that, but that apparently doesn't translate to making me the viewer feel the same way. All I feel is bored and slightly irritated. Different strokes, I guess.


Pretty much. I'm glad you said that because I was going to kind of jump on you for criticizing my subjective statements then making your own.

[Winston*]

I really like Haneke's films. I've seen most of them and they always give me alot to think about afterwards.

[soitgoes...]

Everything in the Kino Video box set except for 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance.

The closest I came to liking one of his films was probably The Piano Teacher, but it was more for Isabelle Hupert than anything else.Yeah, I guess chalk it up to a difference of taste. Only a couple of his films I'm lukewarm on, everything else I flat out love. One of the best contemporary directors out there.

[Adam]

Haneke is a master craftsman and I like everything I've watched by him, but I think even the biggest fans can understand why he gets criticized for going too far with his didacticism at times. Of the Haneke movies I have seen, Cache is my favorite and yet the seeming thesis to that movie bothers me moreso than any of his others

[megladon8]

Haneke is a master craftsman and I like everything I've watched by him, but I think even the biggest fans can understand why he gets criticized for going too far with his didacticism at times. Of the Haneke movies I have seen, Cache is my favorite and yet the seeming thesis to that movie bothers me moreso than any of his others


EXACTLY!

The greatest issue I take with his style is that I so often feel like he is lecturing - talking AT me, rather than giving me something to think about independently.

It's that old writers' rule, "show me, don't tell me"

[DavidSeven]

I've seen a couple of Warhol shorts and about two and a half hours of Chelsea Girls. Good, bad, or indifferent, there's nothing pretentious about them at all.

If I conducted a poll, showing "Sleep" or "Kiss" and Transformers to a group of people and asking them to vote which was more pretentious, my feeling would be that Warhol's films would win in a landslide. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm relying on my intuition. My only point was that Warhol's earliest experiments seemed to exercises in anti-calculation, but they do carry a pretense of artistic importance (perhaps one that Warhol didn't even intend) that many argue isn't there. Bay's films, on the other hand, are very calculated in at least the formal and fiduciary sense, but people don't generally argue that these films are holding themselves out to be artistically significant. That's why I'm not convinced that pretentiousness is synonymous with calculation. I haven't seen Warhol's later, supposedly more developed work, so I can't speak to those.

[Mysterious Dude]

I think he believes they (making money and importance) are one and the same.
Michael Bay doesn't think his movies are "important;" he thinks they are awesome (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXRCf9LbLM0).

[balmakboor]

All of this Haneke talk is timely for me because I've been getting ready to start on a binge. I've already seen Funny Games (original), Cache, and The Piano Teacher, but plan on watching all of them in order.

I haven't read any of them yet because I like to watch before I read, but this page seems a wealth of material about his films:

http://filmstudiesforfree.blogspot.co m/2010/06/michael-haneke-studies-videos-podcasts.html

Also interesting is that almost all of Robin Wood's essays about his films have been deleted from their servers. I hope this means his estate is preparing to publish his Haneke book he was working on during his final few years -- or at least as much of it as he completed.

[Fezzik]

Both those are terrific, especially SM.

I'm partial to the black and white and monster movies. The Giant Mantis, Mole People, Prince of Space...also the very sci-fi ones, Pod People, This Island Earth...these literally bring me to tears.

My favorite is Hercules and the Captive Women. It never fails to have me rolling.

"John..."
"Marsha!"
"John..."
"Marsha!"

[Qrazy]

EXACTLY!

The greatest issue I take with his style is that I so often feel like he is lecturing - talking AT me, rather than giving me something to think about independently.

It's that old writers' rule, "show me, don't tell me"

Ehh I think show/tell transferred from writing to film would refer more to a poor visual storyteller who overly relies on dialogue to communicate information. The didacticism is a slightly different issue I would argue.

[soitgoes...]

Those of you with access need to check out Dreyer's They Caught the Ferry. A great example in film editing, taking a simple propaganda piece on the need for speed restriction for Denmark's roadways, and lifting it to a worthwhile film in Dreyer's oeuvre. He showed his sense of humor a few times during the silent era, but for the works he's known for, he's definitely much more serious in tone. I can imagine a wry smile on his face when he first came across the idea for this one.

[baby doll]

If I conducted a poll, showing "Sleep" or "Kiss" and Transformers to a group of people and asking them to vote which was more pretentious, my feeling would be that Warhol's films would win in a landslide. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm relying on my intuition. My only point was that Warhol's earliest experiments seemed to exercises in anti-calculation, but they do carry a pretense of artistic importance (perhaps one that Warhol didn't even intend) that many argue isn't there. Bay's films, on the other hand, are very calculated in at least the formal and fiduciary sense, but people don't generally argue that these films are holding themselves out to be artistically significant. That's why I'm not convinced that pretentiousness is synonymous with calculation. I haven't seen Warhol's later, supposedly more developed work, so I can't speak to those.I haven't seen Sleep or Kiss, but of the ones I've seen, I can't see too much that implicitly lays claim to artistic importance (even unintentionally), except maybe the sheer length of The Chelsea Girls. However, when you realize that Warhol's point in making the film is that anyone can a celebrity (even transvestites and drug addicts), and that anything one of his superstars might say in front of a camera is inherently interesting (to him), I think the film's length becomes more understandable, particularly in the context of 60s drug culture.

[Qrazy]

I haven't seen Sleep or Kiss, but of the ones I've seen, I can't see too much that implicitly lays claim to artistic importance (even unintentionally), except maybe the sheer length of The Chelsea Girls. However, when you realize that Warhol's point in making the film is that anyone can a celebrity (even transvestites and drug addicts), and that anything one of his superstars might say in front of a camera is inherently interesting (to him), I think the film's length becomes more understandable, particularly in the context of 60s drug culture.

Warhol made an 8 hour plus film called Empire about the Empire State building solely featuring the Empire state building. He's pretentious as fuck dude.

[Derek]

Warhol made an 8 hour plus film called Empire about the Empire State building solely featuring the Empire state building. He's pretentious as fuck dude.

But have you seen it? I've heard it doesn't feel a minute over 6 1/2 hours.

[elixir]

I hate Andy Warhol. I haven't seen his films though.

[B-side]

Warhol's art isn't great, though I do enjoy a few of his pieces. His films sound much more appealing as experiments and game-changers than actual films.

[Spinal]

Ebert may be losing it. He just made a Facebook post pimping Hansen's soda.

[baby doll]

Warhol made an 8 hour plus film called Empire about the Empire State building solely featuring the Empire state building. He's pretentious as fuck dude.I dunno, dude, I don't see that as very pretentious. Unwatchable maybe, but I'm still not seeing pretension.

[soitgoes...]

Ebert may be losing it. He just made a Facebook post pimping Hansen's soda.
Irony. He can't even drink!

[baby doll]

Weekend:

Bringing Up Baby (Howard Hawks, 1938)
The Life and Times of Harvey Milk (Rob Epstein, 1984)
Blue (Derek Jarman, 1993)
Dogtooth (Giorgos Lanthimos, 2009)
Blue Valentine (Derek Cianfrance, 2010)

[balmakboor]

I just watched Final Cut: The Making and Unmaking of Heaven's Gate on YouTube and was pleasantly surprised. It is a great look at late '70s/early '80s Hollywood. It is also surprisingly fair to Cimino and the film. It would make a great bonus on the Criterion Blu-ray coming next year -- in my dreams.

[soitgoes...]

So Fat Girl viewers, what to make of the ending?

I understand that Anaïs desires a first time regardless of its cost, so she's willing to dismiss a rape as nothing more than an encounter with a man, but the whole rest stop scene... Is it Breillat giving the girls what they wanted? On the roadside when Anaïs is puking, the conversation is about the hotter sister wish she and her mother were dead, then a random act occurs that gives all three their wish. Or is it all in Anaïs' head? Or am I reading it all wrong, and it's just a random act. Good film regardless, but the ending has me a bit confused.

[Spinal]

So Fat Girl viewers, what to make of the ending?

I understand that Anaïs desires a first time regardless of its cost, so she's willing to dismiss a rape as nothing more than an encounter with a man, but the whole rest stop scene... Is it Breillat giving the girls what they wanted? On the roadside when Anaïs is puking, the conversation is about the hotter sister wish she and her mother were dead, then a random act occurs that gives all three their wish. Or is it all in Anaïs' head? Or am I reading it all wrong, and it's just a random act. Good film regardless, but the ending has me a bit confused.

No, I think you're on the right track. Not about it all being in her head. There's no reason to believe it doesn't actually happen. But the rest of it is basically what Breillat is shooting for, I think. Letting her protagonist get her wish.

[soitgoes...]

No, I think you're on the right track. Not about it all being in her head. There's no reason to believe it doesn't actually happen. But the rest of it is basically what Breillat is shooting for, I think. Letting her protagonist get her wish.Nice. It seems like the best interpretation. A very jarring ending to say the least. You could sense something was going to happen as there's a feeling of dread hanging over the trip home. I expected a crash. What occurred was completely out of the blue.

[baby doll]

I just watched Final Cut: The Making and Unmaking of Heaven's Gate on YouTube and was pleasantly surprised. It is a great look at late '70s/early '80s Hollywood. It is also surprisingly fair to Cimino and the film. It would make a great bonus on the Criterion Blu-ray coming next year -- in my dreams.Yeah, I saw this a while ago. As filmmaking it's pretty formulaic, but it was still informative, and as you say, surprisingly fair to Cimino, or rather to Heaven's Gate (Cimino comes off as an ass-hole, but they still allow that people might actually enjoy the film).

[Boner M]

Weekend:

Drowning By Numbers
Come on Children (Allan King)
Until the Light Takes Us
Moar Brakhage
Biutiful and Hereafter

[B-side]

Weekend:

Come on Children

/tasteless pedophile joke

[B-side]

If anyone is interested, I've decided to give that whole blog thing another go. Link in my sig, obviously. Try not to be too harsh on my writing. I know the temptation to chuckle derisively at my ranting is overwhelming, but for the sake of my fragile ego I must plead that you attempt to find something redeeming and latch onto that.

[Rowland]

BiutifulI haven't been able to muster much enthusiasm in seeing this until the formidable Nick Davis recently went against the tide with his response (http://www.nicksflickpicks.com/biutiful.html). I'd love to give this thing two and a half hours of my time with the faintest hope I may actually like more than its lead performance.

[Skitch]

When I think of 'pretentious' in a film, its usually a moment where I feel the director is screaming at me "THIS IS ART! ITS MY ART! YOU WILL SWALLOW MY ART!"

I don't think of Bay as pretentious, just a guy who knows how to appeal to as many ADD people as possible (not saying that's a good thing), whereas Anti-Christ feels made to appeal to Lars Von Trier. Or Terrance Malick, who will give us a 2 hour shot of wind blowing through grass..."THIS MEANS SOMETHING! ITS LIFE, MAN!". Yes, Terrance. I get it.

As for Haneke, I find the man more pretentious (and douchey) than his films, but I understand how one could feel that way about his films.

[Boner M]

Or Terrance Malick, who will give us a 2 hour shot of wind blowing through grass..."THIS MEANS SOMETHING! ITS LIFE, MAN!". Yes, Terrance. I get it.
No, you clearly don't.

[dmk]

Or Terrance Malick, who will give us a 2 hour shot of wind blowing through grass..."THIS MEANS SOMETHING! ITS LIFE, MAN!". Yes, Terrance. I get it.
Holy shit I think I hate you.

[Skitch]

Sigh.

[soitgoes...]

Brighton Rock is great! Thanks Qrazy for the recommendation! Sorry it took three years for me to listen to you!

[kuehnepips]

Sigh.

:lol:

*passes bottle to Skitch*

[Scar]

Holy shit I think I hate you.

Hate crime.

[baby doll]

Or Terrance Malick, who will give us a 2 hour shot of wind blowing through grass..."THIS MEANS SOMETHING! ITS LIFE, MAN!". Yes, Terrance. I get it.A shot of wind blowing through grass is one of the least pretentious things you can film, because grass can't pretend to be anything but what it is, whereas an actor can pretend to be all kinds of different people. Where Q'orianka Kilcher can play Pocahontas, grass can only signify itself.

[Skitch]

Yeah, now that I'm fully awake and had some coffee and time to think about it, I spoke too hastily. Malik isn't really pretentious. I just find his films to be incredibly boring. I don't think I've ever stayed awake through one, or finished one in a single sitting.

[balmakboor]

Yeah, I saw this a while ago. As filmmaking it's pretty formulaic, but it was still informative, and as you say, surprisingly fair to Cimino, or rather to Heaven's Gate (Cimino comes off as an ass-hole, but they still allow that people might actually enjoy the film).

Yeah, there's definitely an element of asshole there, but he is portrayed as an Artist with a grand vision. He reminded me of some of the villains on Survivor, playing the game the way he thought he needed to play it to get what he wanted in the end. The way he whipped up the pace to assure himself the right to shoot his prologue and epilogue -- without the former, the film is inconceivable -- seemed more brilliant than desperate. I also liked how he then dragged out the editing to assure himself final cut.

Face it, the amazing thing about the whole story is that this film was made at all, and ultimately made the way Cimino wanted. If the producers had been strong, we wouldn't have the movie. If he'd been fired, no movie. If he had breached his contract once the studio had taken over, no prologue and thus no movie. If he'd met his editing deadline for the premiere, all we probably would've ever had would have been the 2 1/2 hour cut, if anything at all.

[Dukefrukem]

Oh damn. I hope this footage is coming to a special edition Blu-ray release. (http://io9.com/#!5756209/never+before+seen-footage-of-the-alien-puppets-in-james-camerons-the-abyss)

[Boner M]

Yeah, now that I'm fully awake and had some coffee and time to think about it, I spoke too hastily. Malik isn't really pretentious.
Damn straight he isn't. He'll slit your fucking throat if you say he is.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_AusUZoXeyYQ/TSDeLMkLoZI/AAAAAAAAA5c/bNkinfzb2go/s1600/a-prophet.jpg

[Skitch]

I also forgot he's one of Match-Cut's sacred cows, and I shouldn't post when I'm angry about non-related movie stuff. Been a rough week on the home front. I'll mosey on now. :)

[elixir]

I have yet to see a Malick film, but I am watching one (The Thin Red Line) in my film class in two weeks. So I think I may watch them all (consider how few he's done!) before then. And Tree of Life looks good.

I watched Masculin Feminin, and it is either my favorite or second favorite Godard now. Can't decide. It really hit me in a way I wasn't expecting, and I feel there's so much to the film that I haven't even contemplated yet. I am quite excited to watch again, which I'll be able to do since I blind-bought it. I think I'll watch Made in U.S.A. next, and I'll soon be watching Band of Outsiders for my film class. I haven't seen a non-French Wave work by him yet, though I'm curious about them.

I only have four episodes of Dekalog left, and parts of me doesn't want it to end while the other part is so excited to see the rest. I usually let each one sink in a for a few days before moving on to the next one. Six was quite good, but Five is one of my favorites (along with one). Are his "A Short Film About..." worth checking out?

[Dukefrukem]

I also forgot he's one of Match-Cut's sacred cows, and I shouldn't post when I'm angry about non-related movie stuff. Been a rough week on the home front. I'll mosey on now. :)

I do the same thing Skitch. It's all good.

[Skitch]

I think you will really like his work.

[Scar]

Don't worry, Skitch. I find the Thin Red Line to be ridiculously boring.

[bac0n]

Late to the conversation, but Lair of the White Worm has one redeeming value, and that is the fight scene involving the hero who fights off, and defeats, a snake-cop with nothing but a bagpipe. That was solid gold.

Here, found it. Just watch this and you've seen the only thing worthwhile in this movie.


rz0xukHPyTs

[Raiders]

Don't worry, Skitch. I find the Thin Red Line to be ridiculously boring.

Not enough 'splosions? Too much poetry? Too many native children? Not enough assless Woody Harrelson?

[Mara]

Late to the conversation, but Lair of the White Worm has one redeeming value, and that is the fight scene involving the hero who fights off, and defeats, a snake-cop with nothing but a bagpipe. That was solid gold.

Here, found it. Just watch this and you've seen the only thing worthwhile in this movie.


rz0xukHPyTs

Dear sweet heaven, I had no memory of that scene. And now it's etched in my mind forever. THANKS EVER SO.

[Spun Lepton]

A shot of wind blowing through grass is one of the least pretentious things you can film, because grass can't pretend to be anything but what it is, whereas an actor can pretend to be all kinds of different people.

OF COURSE! Makes perfect sense.

:|

[Dukefrukem]

Don't worry, Skitch. I find the Thin Red Line to be ridiculously boring.

OMG yes. I always thought of it as a Saving Pvt Ryan wanna be but MCers praise this movie for (what it feels like) 1 stellar scene.

[Raiders]

OMG yes. I always thought of it as a Saving Pvt Ryan wanna be

Ridiculous. They are radically different films. The only thing they have in common is they feature soldiers and are set during WWII. Not to mention the fact they were in production at the same time makes this a silly statement--even more so than suggesting Malick took twenty years off to come back and ape Spielberg (he began the screenplay in 1989).


but MCers praise this movie for (what it feels like) 1 stellar scene.

This is so remarkably untrue that I can't even begin to fathom what one scene you could be talking about.

[bac0n]

Dear sweet heaven, I had no memory of that scene. And now it's etched in my mind forever. THANKS EVER SO.

Just appreciate it for the unintended humor of it. I think the first time my buddy & I saw it when we were kids, we were doubled over laughing so hard (especially at the deflating sounds the bagpipes made when Captain Scotland was battling Mr Titspervert, and especially at the big HONK! sound it made when it got stepped on) that we kept re-winding that scene for, like, half an hour or something. I'm getting chuckles just thinking about it.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I can't find that one blog (or whatever it was) where someone compiled all the golden-hued shots of people running their hands over tall grass. There was a brief period where that type of shot was pervasive. Gladiator and some of Malick's films were included.

I've run my hand over tall grass. It's nothing special. Feels like grass.

[Mara]

I've run my hand over tall grass. It's nothing special. Feels like grass.

I like to pretend that all those actors got ticks in their fingertips.

[Ezee E]

I'm curious as to what scene Duke is referring to as well.

[Mara]

Just appreciate it for the unintended humor of it. I think the first time my buddy & I saw it when we were kids, we were doubled over laughing so hard (especially at the deflating sounds the bagpipes made when Captain Scotland was battling Mr Titspervert, and especially at the big HONK! sound it made when it got stepped on) that we kept re-winding that scene for, like, half an hour or something. I'm getting chuckles just thinking about it.

Oh, yeah, it's funny. Not debating that.

[Scar]

Not enough 'splosions? Too much poetry? Too many native children? Not enough assless Woody Harrelson?

Condescend much?

[Dukefrukem]

I'm curious as to what scene Duke is referring to as well.

I'll see if I can youtube it.

[Dukefrukem]

Can't find it. It's a dialog between Sean Penn's character and Jim Caviezel.

[Rowland]

because grass can't pretend to be anything but what it isWild Grass begs to differ. But then, that grass was pretty wild.

[Ezee E]

Condescend much?
Yeah, that surprised me coming from Raiders, even if he was trying to be a little funny about it.

[Skitch]

I've run my hand over tall grass. It's nothing special. Feels like grass.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Raiders]

Condescend much?

Yes, actually.

But, I was just cheekily compiling the complaints I have read/heard before (well, OK, I made up the Woody one). It was nothing personal.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Yes, actually.

But, I was just cheekily compiling the complaints I have read/heard before (well, OK, I made up the Woody one). It was nothing personal.

I'm just relieved that Harrelson still has his ass.

[Scar]

Yes, actually.

But, I was just cheekily compiling the complaints I have read/heard before (well, OK, I made up the Woody one). It was nothing personal.

I'm in Fargo, its -13F before the wind, and I'm not my usual cheery self...

[Ezee E]

I'm in Fargo, its -13F before the wind, and I'm not my usual cheery self...
Weather's looking up for Colorado. Should be sixty by next week!

[Scar]

Weather's looking up for Colorado. Should be sixty by next week!

'They' say its supposed to warm up tomorrow. This winter has made me seriously consider being willing to relocate to North Carolina.

[Ezee E]

'They' say its supposed to warm up tomorrow. This winter has made me seriously consider being willing to relocate to North Carolina.
NC?

Who willingly relocates to NC?

[Scar]

NC?

Who willingly relocates to NC?

*chuckle* Good point. Greensboro seemed alright when I was there for a whopping one hour last summer.

[Mara]

NC?

Who willingly relocates to NC?

It's where people in Maryland threaten to go when annoyed with Maryland. It's warmer, has better school districts, better beaches, and more space.

We don't threaten to move to Virginia. We HATE Virginia.

[Skitch]

NC?

Who willingly relocates to NC?

All depends on your current location. I live in Ohio, and have vacationed in NC nearly every year for the last 2 decades. NC is a tropical paradise, by my comparison. :)

[balmakboor]

'They' say its supposed to warm up tomorrow. This winter has made me seriously consider being willing to relocate to North Carolina.

We've gone from -7 to +12 so far today here in Bismarck. You shouldn't be far behind.

[Spun Lepton]

Minneapolis is supposed to hit the 40s by the end of the week.

[Mara]

We're supposed to be over 50 on Sunday and Monday.

The windows are OPENING, the air is going to be BREATHED. I'm going to let the SUN damage my SKIN.

[Scar]

Minneapolis is supposed to hit the 40s by the end of the week.

Just got home, built a fire, and going to relax until my 5:30pm conference call. Really, who the hell has a conference call at 5:30 in the evening?

Oh well, time to warm these old bones.

Oh, and, uh, weekend viewing:

I don't know yet.

[soitgoes...]

Are his "A Short Film About..." worth checking out?Yes. I watched them first, and loved them. They are just extended versions of the episodes.

[elixir]

Yes. I watched them first, and loved them. They are just extended versions of the episodes.

Okay. I actually know that. This is probably an annoying question, but do you think it's best to watch with the episodes fresh in my mind or should I let them fade from my memory a bit?

[soitgoes...]

Okay. I actually know that. This is probably an annoying question, but do you think it's best to watch with the episodes fresh in my mind or should I let them fade from my memory a bit?
I guess it depends what interests you more. If you're into comparing an contrasting the films with their respective episodes then watch them soon after. Me, I would wait because after 9 plus hours of Dekalog I wouldn't want to jump into 3 more hours of a version I just watched. Hit up his Three Colors Trilogy or The Double Life of Veronique first then come back to them?

[elixir]

I guess it depends what interests you more. If you're into comparing an contrasting the films with their respective episodes then watch them soon after. Me, I would wait because after 9 plus hours of Dekalog I wouldn't want to jump into 3 more hours of a version I just watched. Hit up his Three Colors Trilogy or The Double Life of Veronique first then come back to them?

Good point. Plus, like I said, I still have the four last installments (episodes? what does one even call them? films?) of Dekalog to watch. Which I'm very excited for.

I watched Three Colors: Blue and thought it was great. I've got a very good feeling that I'll like Kieslowski's other works as well. Thanks for the help!

[soitgoes...]

Good point. Plus, like I said, I still have the four last installments (episodes? what does one even call them? films?) of Dekalog to watch. Which I'm very excited for.

I watched Three Colors: Blue and thought it was great. I've got a very good feeling that I'll like Kieslowski's other works as well. Thanks for the help!
Sure thing. His other Polish work is solid too. Even some of his documentaries are amazing. It's a shame he died so young.

[Qrazy]

Good point. Plus, like I said, I still have the four last installments (episodes? what does one even call them? films?) of Dekalog to watch. Which I'm very excited for.

I watched Three Colors: Blue and thought it was great. I've got a very good feeling that I'll like Kieslowski's other works as well. Thanks for the help!

The last installment is great. It's so much fun when a thoughtful filmmaker takes on comedy.