Cannes 2009

[Qrazy]

Just a little.

Yeah I hear ya, I took four years in high school, live in Montreal and my verbal is still fairly weak. Aside from street signs and basic conversation I've lost a lot of my comprehension as well.

[Qrazy]

Nah, not lately. Though I'm playing Final Fantasy VIII, which is kinda like playing an anime, lol amirite.

Thinking I'm gonna watch Now and Then, Here and There or whatever soon. Probably gonna rewatch FLCL in the next week, too.

You?

Nothing since GunXSword. My friend wants me to watch Fate Stay Night.

[Melville]

Of course, this doesn't take into account one of us being significantly more movie knowledgable than the other. Most likely you. :)
Doubtful. My movie-knowledge is relatively slight.


Being a sort of INTP type yourself, what explanations have occurred to you as to why two smart people like ourselves could have such divergent opinions on the films of Boorman, for instance?

Are you leaning more toward the nurture side of the nature vs nurture debate? I wasn't so much born to like Boorman as I have accumulated experiences that have shaped me into a Boorman fan.
Well, there are varying degrees and types of knowledge and of intelligence. There are also variations within the sixteen personality types (e.g., I'm much more introverted than anything else, and much more thinking than intuiting). Also, different educations and reading lists will lead to different philosophical interests, different knowledge-sets, different ideas of what art should accomplish, etc.

And I don't think that the sixteen possible types really exhaust all the types of personalities; they are a somewhat arbitrary collection of somewhat vague descriptors, and I don't see any reason that they would necessarily be a strong factor in determining one's taste in movies. In particular, the types don't account for one's general mood (unless I'm mistaken), nor do they take into account one's worldview. I think both those things are determined by both genetics and experience; in fact, I think that one's personality type, as measured by the Myers-Briggs test, is probably also at least partially due to experience. My personal experiences have certainly changed my personality over the years, in addition to (or in conjunction with) influencing my worldview and philosophical interests.

[Boner M]

Mixed review (http://www.screendaily.com/face/5001695.article) for Tsai's latest.


In Face, a Taiwanese director shoots his own version of the Salome myth in Paris. This may sound too simple a description for Tsai Ming-liang’s eccentric work, but without it, the viewer will have to wait until the final third of the movie to work out what’s going on. Less emotional and more theoretical than anything he has done before, Face will appeal exclusively to Tsai Ming-liang’s devoted fans who find themselves in familiar territory here, but the rest of the audience may be baffled – to say the least. Art house and festival interest is, as always, likely, but prospects seem highly limited beyond that.

[MacGuffin]

Map of the Sounds of Tokyo ('09 Coixet): 26. Jesus, what a fucking hack. Just an embarrassment. I hope bribes were involved, at least.

http://twitter.com/gemko

[B-side]

Why not and how is that not something worth making a movie about?

EDIT: Also, that's only a tagline. The movie does so much more with its material than you are giving it credit for.

I don't know if you'd be interested in this, but sensesofcinema has a fantastic article (http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/04/31/irreversible.html) on Irreversible interpreting it as much more than its tagline would lead one to believe.

[MacGuffin]

I don't know if you'd be interested in this, but sensesofcinema has a fantastic article (http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/04/31/irreversible.html) on Irreversible interpreting it as much more than its tagline would lead one to believe.

Oh, I'm sure. I'll probably look that over once I see it again, thanks.

[Qrazy]

I don't know if you'd be interested in this, but sensesofcinema has a fantastic article (http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/04/31/irreversible.html) on Irreversible interpreting it as much more than its tagline would lead one to believe.

To be honest that article made me think even less of the film. I didn't realize how shallow Noe's take on gender and sexuality was until thinking of the film as linear progression. Assuming the film is a linear progression (I didn't interpret it as strictly previously), homosexuals and transvestites are relegated to the inferno side of the film. They're even worse than heterosexual rape, while heterosexual love, woman and 'birth' are the idyllic ideal. The film could very easily be read as a treatise against same-sex marriage.

Fellini's homosexuals in La Dolce Vita aren't relegated to the role of sinner.

[Derek]

http://twitter.com/gemko

Not surprising, Coixet is awful.

[B-side]

To be honest that article made me think even less of the film. I didn't realize how shallow Noe's take on gender and sexuality was until thinking of the film as linear progression. Assuming the film is a linear progression (I didn't interpret it as strictly previously), homosexuals and transvestites are relegated to the inferno side of the film. They're even worse than heterosexual rape, while heterosexual love, woman and 'birth' are the idyllic ideal. The film could very easily be read as a treatise against same-sex marriage.

Fellini's homosexuals in La Dolce Vita aren't relegated to the role of sinner.

I don't know that I'd say Noe was attempting any moral judgment. I'd say, if anything, he was utilizing such extreme instances of homosexuality just to fuck with people. The man obviously seeks a fierce response from people, and considering how silly some people are when it comes to homosexuality, I don't doubt he did it simply to stir the pot.

[MacGuffin]

Not surprising, Coixet is awful.

I've only seen her segment from Paris, je t'aime, and I don't even remember, but I think it was the one that caused D'Angelo or Sicinski to say something along the lines of how they never want to see her direct a full-length feature.

EDIT: I guess Enter the Void comes out as the Cannes winner as far as Tokyo based movies go, going by word of mouth.

[Qrazy]

I don't know that I'd say Noe was attempting any moral judgment. I'd say, if anything, he was utilizing such extreme instances of homosexuality just to fuck with people. The man obviously seeks a fierce response from people, and considering how silly some people are when it comes to homosexuality, I don't doubt he did it simply to stir the pot.

I don't know. The article makes a fairly good case that the film believes heterosexual union > sodomizing.

[balmakboor]

Inspired by this thread, I've finally done two things:

I added Irreversible to the top of my Netflix queue.

I re-watched Dancer in the Dark for the first time since seeing it theatrically when it first opened. Wow! I'm numb. That's one powerful and draining movie. I don't think it's far from the truth to declare Bjork's performance one of my favorites, ever.

[MacGuffin]

Noé has said he feared people would interpret the movie as homophobic, so he put himself in as an actor in the club.

[B-side]

Inspired by this thread, I've finally done two things:

I added Irreversible to the top of my Netflix queue.

Gooood.


I re-watched Dancer in the Dark for the first time since seeing it theatrically when it first opened. Wow! I'm numb. That's one powerful and draining movie. I don't think it's far from the truth to declare Bjork's performance one of my favorites, ever.

Oh yes. And to think some folks say she was bad or just wrong for the role.:crazy:

[B-side]

Noé has said he feared people would interpret the movie as homophobic, so he put himself in as an actor in the club.

Nice. I just couldn't buy that he was homophobic. Nice to see it confirmed.

[Qrazy]

Not really sure how that changes the content of the film in relation to it's seeming disdain for sodomy or for sex which does not result in biological union/love/pregnancy. If he didn't want the film to be read that way he could have worked in a loving homosexual couple.

[B-side]

Not really sure how that changes the content of the film in relation to it's seeming disdain for sodomy or for sex which does not result in biological union/love/pregnancy. If he didn't want the film to be read that way he could have worked in a loving homosexual couple.

It doesn't change the content of the film, that's true. I just never read a sense of homophobia. I read it as more playful.

[MacGuffin]

I didn't read it like that, either.

[Watashi]

The talking Mutt from Pixar’s 10th won Cannes‘ highest (dog) honor, The Palm Dog award. This prize is a spoof of the Palme d’Or which is Cannes top prize for films in competition. Speaking of competition, Dug was UP against a black Nazi poodle from Inglorious Basterds. Awarded to an Up team member was a diamante color with "Palm Dog" embroidered on it. As you may remember Up was also honored as the first ever animated and 3D feature film to open Cannes.

Uh, INDEED.

The Palm Dog = Greatest Award Ever

[trotchky]

Why not and how is that not something worth making a movie about?

EDIT: Also, that's only a tagline. The movie does so much more with its material than you are giving it credit for.


Yeah Pop Trash, that was a pretty dumb statement. What does formal control have to do with the film's themes? Pretty much everything, since that's how the viewer recieves them.

[transmogrifier]

Oh and formal control, use of colors, etc. doesn't mean crap if your thesis is 'time destroys everything.' Puh-lease! :rolleyes:

I hope this sentence makes sense in your head, because it doesn't survive the translation to text. In fact, it comes across as someone having a very tenuous hold on what cinema can be, desperately hating on a film and hoping that sustained random snipings will suffice in the absence of logic and insight.

[Sycophant]

Look out dudes, I think Pop Trash has had some college-level courses on the creative arts or something. So y'all better watch yo' mouths.

[Sycophant]

Uh, INDEED.

The Palm Dog = Greatest Award Ever

Wats, I think this award was made just for you.

[Boner M]

Not surprising, Coixet is awful.
http://reelsuave.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/isabel-coixet.jpg

I MAKES QUALITY FILMZ WITH POETIC TITLES AND TASTEFUL EROTICISM AND ARVO PART IN THE SOUNDTRACK, PLZ TAKE ME SERIOUSLY

[Qrazy]

Actually people it's a perfectly reasonable argument to say that all the formal control in the world doesn't mean shit if the film's overarching statement/themes/ideas are facile and stupid. If your counter-argument is rather that Noe's thesis is not that Time Destroys Everything or that this is an interesting/valuable thesis than that's a different criticism of Pop's remarks. But these latter two criticisms don't mesh with the above dismissals.

[Sven]

Actually people it's a perfectly reasonable argument to say that all the formal control in the world doesn't mean shit if the film's overarching statement/themes/ideas are facile and stupid.

"Doesn't mean shit" is not reasonable. Unless you can find a logical position that reasonably dictates an only-theme-is-important approach to cinema (which I can't imagine existing, at least insofar as I understand the craft, discourse, theory, and social value of the movies)...

[balmakboor]

Doubtful. My movie-knowledge is relatively slight.


Well, there are varying degrees and types of knowledge and of intelligence. There are also variations within the sixteen personality types (e.g., I'm much more introverted than anything else, and much more thinking than intuiting). Also, different educations and reading lists will lead to different philosophical interests, different knowledge-sets, different ideas of what art should accomplish, etc.

And I don't think that the sixteen possible types really exhaust all the types of personalities; they are a somewhat arbitrary collection of somewhat vague descriptors, and I don't see any reason that they would necessarily be a strong factor in determining one's taste in movies. In particular, the types don't account for one's general mood (unless I'm mistaken), nor do they take into account one's worldview. I think both those things are determined by both genetics and experience; in fact, I think that one's personality type, as measured by the Myers-Briggs test, is probably also at least partially due to experience. My personal experiences have certainly changed my personality over the years, in addition to (or in conjunction with) influencing my worldview and philosophical interests.

Yeah, the 16 types are too black and white for sure. It's like saying someone is either 100% introverted or 100% extroverted. When the truth is usually somewhere in between.

I'm actually very much introverted like you. But I'm also, unlike you, almost 50/50 between thinking/feeling (which probably helps explain my lack of intellectual rigor).

I think the tests do determine a certain genetic and unchanging psychological quality in people though. Through experience and being forced to talk in front of people -- giving presentations, training groups of people -- I've lost some of my public speaking phobias and working for 2 1/2 years in phone technical support helped me shed much of my fear of the telephone. But, I still have the deep-seated tendency to despise those things and would rather be alone somewhere with my thoughts.

You're very right though in that the things I've experienced, people I've known, books I've read, and movies I've seen have influenced my taste in movies moreso than genetics. And my worldview as an extremely liberal atheist certainly influences my tastes as well.

[Qrazy]

"Doesn't mean shit" is not reasonable. Unless you can find a logical position that reasonably dictates an only-theme-is-important approach to cinema (which I can't imagine existing, at least insofar as I understand the craft, discourse, theory, and social value of the movies)...

You're using a very narrow definition of theme.

Michael Bay's films are formally well crafted to a certain degree, but for the most part they're also garbage. Doesn't. Mean. Shit.

I specified themes and ideas, etc to use the wide scope definition of the terms... essentially what the film is about. I've seen plenty of 'well crafted' (in the technical sense) films which failed because of what they were about or how they approached their material. Pearl Harbor is horrible crap. On the other hand Vinterberg's Festen while 'poorly lit' (according to some definitions) is quite good. Judging by your favorite films and as someone who dislikes Sam Mendes as much as you do you should really be more on board with this. Technical proficiency has little value if it's not in the service of an idea worth communicating/story worth telling. And of course the theme is intermeshed with the formal approach but if the thrust of the theme and thus the purpose of the formal approach is to communicate something inconsequential then the form has little value just in so far as a shot may be pleasing to the eyes or a sequence efficiently edited.

Does formal competence have value if it's not in service of anything? (Of course this is not applicable to Irreversible because the approach is in service or the themes but I do find that the themes/approach/final yield is relatively slight.) Perhaps some minimal value. I've heard people say they tend to rate something higher if it's formally competent even if they hated everything the film was about... however I'm not sure I'm convinced. I don't think it means much that the director has a basic proficiency if everything being expressed is trite, treacly, distasteful, what have you.

[Sven]

Our mutual terminologies are found on entirely different pages, being that you used two Michael Bay films to illustrate the concept of formal competence. I am not on board with that perception, therefore I am unsure how to continue this dialogue.

How about this: even if I found Bay's films to be formally passable, I would not think that they would "mean shit." Even then, NOT being interested in his craft or his subjects, I still don't think that I would deny the films any value. Even a film I find technically competent but completely unwatchable, like that Eastwood Japanese Iwo Jima thing, doesn't really lack in substantial material. Even if it is material that I am personally dissatisfied or disinterested in, I remain steadfast in my assertion that there is no logical argument that reasonably places any film's "meaning" so far above the craft as to render the craft useless (or "meaning shit").

[baby doll]

Just to belatedly jump into the whole Irréversible debate, most films when boiled down to their theme are inevitably saying something blatantly obvious. My favorite line from The 40-Year-Old Virgin (indeed, the only line I can recall from the film) is when Seth Rogan says, "I saw this movie Liar Liar, and the message is you shouldn't lie." Calling a movie shallow because it isn't philosophically profound means you can't like Les Vampires, La Règle du jeu, Citizen Kane, or any film by Ingmar Bergman, either.

[trotchky]

You're using a very narrow definition of theme.

Michael Bay's films are formally well crafted to a certain degree, but for the most part they're also garbage. Doesn't. Mean. Shit.

I specified themes and ideas, etc to use the wide scope definition of the terms... essentially what the film is about. I've seen plenty of 'well crafted' (in the technical sense) films which failed because of what they were about or how they approached their material. Pearl Harbor is horrible crap. On the other hand Vinterberg's Festen while 'poorly lit' (according to some definitions) is quite good. Judging by your favorite films and as someone who dislikes Sam Mendes as much as you do you should really be more on board with this. Technical proficiency has little value if it's not in the service of an idea worth communicating/story worth telling. And of course the theme is intermeshed with the formal approach but if the thrust of the theme and thus the purpose of the formal approach is to communicate something inconsequential then the form has little value just in so far as a shot may be pleasing to the eyes or a sequence efficiently edited.

Does formal competence have value if it's not in service of anything? (Of course this is not applicable to Irreversible because the approach is in service or the themes but I do find that the themes/approach/final yield is relatively slight.) Perhaps some minimal value. I've heard people say they tend to rate something higher if it's formally competent even if they hated everything the film was about... however I'm not sure I'm convinced. I don't think it means much that the director has a basic proficiency if everything being expressed is trite, treacly, distasteful, what have you.
Until we stop thinking of process and product as two separate things, tired and pointless arguments like the above will continue to reign.

In other words, Qrazy, you're the one who should shut the fuck up, you pedantic ninny.

[Sven]

Les Vampires, La Règle du jeu, Citizen Kane, or any film by Ingmar Bergman, either.

Terrible examples. How about things like The Big Heat, Robocop, Some Like It Hot, or The Great Muppet Caper.

All in all, I'm not sure that many films contain profound (or at least novel) philosophical sentiments. But then, I don't watch films for "Philosophy," so I may just not notice these things.

[trotchky]

If we're talking about "meaning" as something didactic rather than something inherent to the craft we should just fuck right off because that kind of "meaning" really doesn't mean shit.

[Sven]

Until we stop thinking of process and product as two separate things, tired and pointless arguments like the above will continue to reign.

I don't know if I agree with you entirely, but I definitely agree that considering one without the other is entirely unproductive.


In other words, Qrazy, you're the one who should shut the fuck up, you pedantic ninny.

I would suggest, even if you are joking, not adopting such a hostile tone. It makes people not want to have conversations with you.

[trotchky]

I would suggest, even if you are joking, not adopting such a hostile tone. It makes people not want to have conversations with you.

Cool. I wouldn't have adopted that tone if Qrazy hadn't told me to "shut the fuck up" (via an utterly hilarious image macro) one page ago.

[Sven]

If we're talking about "meaning" as something didactic rather than something inherent to the craft we should just fuck right off because that kind of "meaning" really doesn't mean shit.

Aaaaaaand you've stopped making sense. Because of course textual "meaning" means shit. And the really good filmmakers will infuse that textual meaning into their craft, making them inseparable, the way you suggested in your last post.

[trotchky]

Aaaaaaand you've stopped making sense. Because of course textual "meaning" means shit. And the really good filmmakers will infuse that textual meaning into their craft, making them inseparable, the way you suggested in your last post.

Right. The really good filmmakers will infuse that textual meaning into their craft, making them inseparable. That's what the post where I "stopped making sense" was supposed to reiterate.

I'm of the opinion that "art" should not be didactic, ever, and that style and substance are the same thing, which is why I find arguments about "formal control" versus "themes" not just boring but pointless.

[baby doll]

Terrible examples. How about things like The Big Heat, Robocop, Some Like It Hot, or The Great Muppet Caper.

All in all, I'm not sure that many films contain profound (or at least novel) philosophical sentiments. But then, I don't watch films for "Philosophy," so I may just not notice these things.Well, I chose those examples because they're revered even though there's nothing deep or profound about them. A lot of people I know are somewhat mystified by Citizen Kane's reputation; it's like they're so busy looking for symbolism, and pondering what Rosebud represents, that they can't see what's in front of them. Feuillade's is a popular serial with lots of twists and surprises, and Renoir's is a bedroom farce. I chose Bergman because he's celebrated for the very reasons I find many of his films insufferable: the agonized Scandinavian soul searching and dream sequence symbolism. (One notable exception is Susan Sontag's defense of The Silence against its defenders in "Against Interpretation.") I like Persona because it's about hot chicks being mean to each other with lots of sudden jolts to the central nervous system.

[Sven]

Right. The really good filmmakers will infuse that textual meaning into their craft, making them inseparable. That's what the post where I "stopped making sense" was supposed to reiterate.

What I'm observing, though, is that since you do not think that art can be didactic, everything in a film that is textual that is not a part of the craft "means shit." This is totally snobby high art preposterousness. Because there ARE filmmakers out there who emphasize theme over craft. Their films are vehicles for spoken message. Can those not qualify as "art"? Or is "art" derived solely from the manipulation of the medium?


I'm of the opinion that "art" should not be didactic, ever, and that style and substance are the same thing, which is why I find arguments about "formal control" versus "themes" not just boring but pointless.

I agree with your boring-pointless sentiment (so let's stop!). However, your restrictive requirements for "art" are baffling, but I will not go there. Because that is not a fun place to go.

[baby doll]

I'm of the opinion that "art" should not be didactic, ever, and that style and substance are the same thing, which is why I find arguments about "formal control" versus "themes" not just boring but pointless.I don't know if it's possible for a narrative film not to be didactic. Citizen Kane is about a guy who acts like a bastard and winds up alone and miserable. Lesson: Don't act like a bastard.

And I don't know if style and substance are the same, even if we can only know a film's content through its style. A film can have a slight storyline and still be beautiful to look at and listen to.

[Sven]

Well, I chose those examples because they're revered even though there's nothing deep or profound about them. A lot of people I know are somewhat mystified by Citizen Kane's reputation; it's like they're so busy looking for symbolism, and pondering what Rosebud represents, that they can't see what's in front of them. Feuillade's is a popular serial with lots of twists and surprises, and Renoir's is a bedroom farce. I chose Bergman because he's celebrated for the very reasons I find many of his films insufferable: the agonized Scandinavian soul searching and dream sequence symbolism. (One notable exception is Susan Sontag's defense of The Silence against its defenders in "Against Interpretation.") I like Persona because it's about hot chicks being mean to each other with lots of sudden jolts to the central nervous system.

Hm. "Nothing deep or profound"? "Nothing"? You really believe that? Is this hyperbole? You do a great disservice to Renoir's film by summing it up so tritely. Surely it's meant to entertain as a romantic comedy, but do you see nothing else there? Something that elevates it from Doris Day territory?

[baby doll]

Hm. "Nothing deep or profound"? "Nothing"? You really believe that? Is this hyperbole? You do a great disservice to Renoir's film by summing it up so tritely. Surely it's meant to entertain as a romantic comedy, but do you see nothing else there? Something that elevates it from Doris Day territory?Well, there are a lot of things I like about Renoir's film that elevates it above a Doris Day vehicle. As André Bazin has pointed out, Renoir uses off-screen sounds to enlarge our sense of the space of the story. There's his staging techniques, and the way he draws the viewer's eye through composition and sound rather than montage. There's the fluidity of the storytelling. There's Renoir's obvious affection for the characters despite their flaws (the husband cheats on his wife, but loves her enough to put an end to it). And it's very, very funny. But all these things are right there on the surface.

[Melville]

Calling a movie shallow because it isn't philosophically profound means you can't like any film by Ingmar Bergman, either.
:|

I chose Bergman because he's celebrated for the very reasons I find many of his films insufferable: the agonized Scandinavian soul searching and dream sequence symbolism.
:|

I don't know if it's possible for a narrative film not to be didactic.
:|

[Sven]

But all these things are right there on the surface.

What would be an example of something you find that isn't "right there?" "On the surface?"

[baby doll]

What would be an example of something you find that isn't "right there?" "On the surface?"Maybe the theme which the story illustrates--except in the case of Noé's film where it's right there on the screen in big capital letters.

[baby doll]

:|I'm not saying anything that Pauline Kael hadn't already argued in the 1960s. So just as there's nothing profound to be found in the cinema, there's nothing profound or original to be found in my arguments which simply re-phrase things other people already thought and said long before I was even born.

[Sven]

Maybe the theme which the story illustrates--except in the case of Noé's film where it's right there on the screen in big capital letters.

So all of these distinctions are being made to differentiate superficial qualities with "maybe the theme"...

... that strikes me as remarkably insufficient. I can't speak for Noe's film, as I haven't seen it. But does Renoir's film not have a theme that isn't explicitly spoken by a character? What do we make of the fact that the love interest is from Austria? That's not really a functional narrative point, but is loaded with a few implications. What does the film say about the (im)possibility of cross-caste love affairs? Is that something that is easily wrapped up?

[Melville]

I'm not saying anything that Pauline Kael hadn't already argued in the 1960s. So just as there's nothing profound to be found in the cinema, there's nothing profound or original to be found in my arguments which simply re-phrase things other people already thought and said long before I was even born.
Can you give an example of something, anything, you think is profound? You usually just seem to reduce a movie's themes to the simplest, usually only vaguely true, description of them, and then dismiss them.

Also, nuts to Pauline Kael.

[baby doll]

So all of these distinctions are being made to differentiate superficial qualities with "maybe the theme"...

... that strikes me as remarkably insufficient. I can't speak for Noe's film, as I haven't seen it. But does Renoir's film not have a theme that isn't explicitly spoken by a character? What do we make of the fact that the love interest is from Austria? That's not really a functional narrative point, but is loaded with a few implications. What does the film say about the (im)possibility of cross-caste love affairs? Is that something that is easily wrapped up?I think the fact that the wife is Austrian informs her character. Not only is she an outsider, but as her husband's mistress puts it, she has different attitudes about infidelity ("A Frenchwoman would understand"). So in that sense, it is a functional narrative point--after all, a major turning point in the narrative is the scene where she sees her husband kissing his mistress.

[Sven]

I think the fact that the wife is Austrian informs her character. Not only is she an outsider, but as her husband's mistress puts it, she has different attitudes about infidelity ("A Frenchwoman would understand"). So in that sense, it is a functional narrative point--after all, a major turning point in the narrative is the scene where she sees her husband kissing his mistress.

Do you not think there's any extra-narrative significance to her national identity?

Or rather, do you not think that any narrative instances can be seen to have extra-filmic significance? Yes, she's Austrian. But do you not think that it can be seen as anything other than "she's Austrian"?

[baby doll]

Can you give an example of something, anything, you think is profound? You usually just seem to reduce a movie's themes to the simplest, usually only vaguely true, description of them, and then dismiss them.

Also, nuts to Pauline Kael.No, I can't. A work of philosophy isn't good because it tells us something new ("I think, therefore I am"--well, of course I am, I already know that), but because the logic of the argument is unassailable. There isn't anything new under the sun, and the arguments we have about films are the same ones people have been having since long before we were born; different films, even different mediums, but the same basic arguments.

[Melville]

Terrible examples. How about things like The Big Heat, Robocop, Some Like It Hot, or The Great Muppet Caper.

All in all, I'm not sure that many films contain profound (or at least novel) philosophical sentiments. But then, I don't watch films for "Philosophy," so I may just not notice these things.
I think many films contain profound philosophical statements (for example, Persona). It's true that they usually aren't novel, in the sense that if you transcribe them into a written statement, they have usually been stated before; but they are novel in the sense that film expresses them in ways unique to itself, which illuminates them and, in a very meaningful sense, makes them novel. For example, the area of philosophy I'm most interested in is phenomenology, and I think that film can directly convey phenomenological ideas about the structures of human experience in ways that can not be done in written language. When Mulholland Drive portrays the divide between real and ideal, and how we live in terms of that divide, it does so in a particular way that gives the idea more meaning; it is not merely a reiteration of an old idea. Also, film obviously can make self-reflexive philosophical statements about film, which would not be possible otherwise.

[transmogrifier]

My main problems with the Pop Trash comment:

(a) it is not evident why having "time destroys everything" as a theme invalidates everything else in a film, and I'm not sure if he knows either - it is facile posturing
(b) even if it were true that the theme "time destroys everything" is an abomination (which it isn't, of course), anyone with half a cinematic brain would recognize that when it comes to movies, having an overarching theme is only part of a suite of components that can provoke a response (emotional, intellectual, social etc) in an audience, and it is puerile to suggest that if one of these components are weak in any way, then the strengths in the others become meaningless and not worth consideration.

PT's comment is the comment of a ten year old stamping his feet over a film he doesn't like but doesn't have the sophistication to identify why - hence focusing on a poster blurb as if it means something.

[Sven]

I'm pretty sure that many people are attracted to philosophy because of the light that it can shine on perspectives. Maybe it's not "new," necessarily (though with technology comes novelty, so I think I disagree with you there), but it can feel new. Sometimes it's the uniqueness that's attractive.

It is clear at this point that you are a reductionist.

[transmogrifier]

Maybe the theme which the story illustrates--except in the case of Noé's film where it's right there on the screen in big capital letters.

Which maybe part of another theme in itself, that we see the imprint of time everywhere, in our faces, wherever we care to look. It doesn't really make sense to try and underplay chaos theory, at least given the tone of this film.

[Sven]

I think many films contain profound philosophical statements (for example, Persona). It's true that they usually aren't novel, in the sense that if you transcribe them into a written statement, they have usually been stated before; but they are novel in the sense that film expresses them in ways unique to itself, which illuminates them and, in a very meaningful sense, makes them novel. For example, the area of philosophy I'm most interested in is phenomenology, and I think that film can directly convey phenomenological ideas about the structures of human experience in ways that can not be done in written language. When Mulholland Drive portrays the divide between real and ideal, and how we live in terms of that divide, it does so in a particular way that gives the idea more meaning; it is not merely a reiteration of an old idea. Also, film obviously can make self-reflexive philosophical statements about film, which would not be possible otherwise.

I agree with you. I like the way disparate stories can reach for the same ideas and still achieve them, but in distinctly different circumstances, thus illustrating different aspects of these ideas. I didn't want to come off as a "there is nothing profound in cinema" type, so in the bit you responded to, an emphasis on "novel" over "profound" would've been more accurate.

[baby doll]

Do you not think there's any extra-narrative significance to her national identity?

Or rather, do you not think that any narrative instances can be seen to have extra-filmic significance? Yes, she's Austrian. But do you not think that it can be seen as anything other than "she's Austrian"?Whatever significance I might attach to the character's nationality would be going beyond the letter of the text. I have no interest in making a case that she's somehow a modern-day Marie Antoinette, because that's an association I'm bringing to the film. In Ebert's book on Scorsese, the director says in one of the interviews that Raging Bull is like an opera, and the ropes around the ring in the opening shot are like bars of music; but when I look at that image, I see only what Scorsese actually filmed: the ropes around a boxing ring, not what that image reminds him of.

[baby doll]

I'm pretty sure that many people are attracted to philosophy because of the light that it can shine on perspectives. Maybe it's not "new," necessarily (though with technology comes novelty, so I think I disagree with you there), but it can feel new. Sometimes it's the uniqueness that's attractive.

It is clear at this point that you are a reductionist.All ideas are reductive in some way.

[Melville]

No, I can't. A work of philosophy isn't good because it tells us something new ("I think, therefore I am"--well, of course I am, I already know that), but because the logic of the argument is unassailable. There isn't anything new under the sun, and the arguments we have about films are the same ones people have been having since long before we were born; different films, even different mediums, but the same basic arguments.
This is nonsense. Descartes, not necessarily in his proof of his own existence (which, as usual, you are reducing before dismissing), but in his philosophical method of rigorous doubt, was conveying a philosophical idea that was revolutionary. It was that idea that was important; his actual arguments are not unassailable—in fact, they have been successfully assailed many times, and anybody reading them should be able to easily pick apart their logic. Kant's transcendental idealism, Hegel's dialectic, Husserl's phenomenology...none of these are great because of their unassailable logic, but because of their novel ideas, their revolutionary way of analyzing the world.

[baby doll]

I think many films contain profound philosophical statements (for example, Persona). It's true that they usually aren't novel, in the sense that if you transcribe them into a written statement, they have usually been stated before; but they are novel in the sense that film expresses them in ways unique to itself, which illuminates them and, in a very meaningful sense, makes them novel. For example, the area of philosophy I'm most interested in is phenomenology, and I think that film can directly convey phenomenological ideas about the structures of human experience in ways that can not be done in written language. When Mulholland Drive portrays the divide between real and ideal, and how we live in terms of that divide, it does so in a particular way that gives the idea more meaning; it is not merely a reiteration of an old idea. Also, film obviously can make self-reflexive philosophical statements about film, which would not be possible otherwise.Every film makes a statement, but I disagree that a theme should be praised for its profundity (or condemned, as Pop Trash has, for not being sufficiently so). There's nothing profound about Persona, unless "profound" equals "general" (and therefore, reductive). In the case of Noé's film, he's illustrating a simple, very reductive idea, but the shape that statement takes--as you point out--is what's important. So it would seem that we agree.

[Sven]

Whatever significance I might attach to the character's nationality would be going beyond the letter of the text. I have no interest in making a case that she's somehow a modern-day Marie Antoinette, because that's an association I'm bringing to the film. In Ebert's book on Scorsese, the director says in one of the interviews that Raging Bull is like an opera, and the ropes around the ring in the opening shot are like bars of music; but when I look at that image, I see only what Scorsese actually filmed: the ropes around a boxing ring, not what that image reminds him of.

Films are not hermetic creations. Real people filmed them, real people watch them, the scenarios enacted in the vast majority of them are recognizable to real life stimulus. If you want to refuse to see connections to real life, I guess that's you're right, but I think it's a woefully limited way to see things. If there is opera playing and a shot of things that look like a musical staff, there is an immediate real life connection there. Do you not acknowledge any symbolic intent?

[baby doll]

Films are not hermetic creations. Real people filmed them, real people watch them, the scenarios enacted in the vast majority of them are recognizable to real life stimulus. If you want to refuse to see connections to real life, I guess that's you're right, but I think it's a woefully limited way to see things. If there is opera playing and a shot of things that look like a musical staff, there is an immediate real life connection there. Do you not acknowledge any symbolic intent?One obvious case of symbolic intent is Delacroix's "Liberty Leading the People." Liberty, being an abstract concept, is outside the realm of visual representation, and therefore requires a symbol--in this case, a woman with her tits out holding a flag while charging into a battle field. But obviously that's an interpretation of the painting that goes beyond what it actually represents.

[Sven]

One obvious case of symbolic intent is Delacroix's "Liberty Leading the People." Liberty, being an abstract concept, is outside the realm of visual representation, and therefore requires a symbol--in this case, a woman with her tits out holding a flag while charging into a battle field. But obviously that's an interpretation of the painting that goes beyond what it actually represents.

You're cryptic non-answers are tedious.

[MacGuffin]

New Noé sounds incredibly radical:


Okay, I see where I goofed now. Easily remedied for next year. “Won’t somebody please show up with a film that’s truly bold and audacious and visionary and unprecedented?” I’ll once again plead. But from now on, I’ll make sure to add “and not utterly stoopid.”

In terms of sheer mindblowing formal astonishment, Gaspar Noé’s Enter the Void is the movie I’ve been waiting for the entire festival. It wouldn’t be quite accurate to say it’s like nothing you’ve ever seen, because you may have seen Noé’s Irreversible, which he now claims amounted to an elaborate test run for this project. I can believe it, even though—as sometimes happens—the sketch turned out superior to the actual canvas.

Running nearly three hours even in the incomplete form shown here, Enter the Void unfolds almost entirely from the disembodied first-person POV of a young American drug dealer, Oscar (Nathaniel Brown), who’s shot and killed in a Tokyo club restroom early in the movie. Once he keels over, the camera, representing his freed spirit, gallivants all over both space and time, following Oscar’s beloved sister (Paz de la Huerta) and best friend (Cyril Roy) as they work through their grief, run from the cops, have crazy explicit sex that would be even more explicit were there not neon love rays emanating from their genital orifices (truly), etc. Basically, the entire movie is shot like Irreversible’s brief scene transitions, with the camera constantly hurtling, swooping, diving through solid matter—at one point Noé sends us high into the sky and then into a moving plane—or simply floating above people’s heads like an impotent deity. There’s also a lengthy multiple-flashback sequence, corresponding structurally and thematically to Irreversible’s infamous rape scene, during which Noé locks the camera down and shoots from over Oscar’s shoulder (at various ages, in various locales, often for just a second or two at a time), employing quick flash cuts that make the whole thing resemble the “life flashing before your eyes” cliché reimagined as a morbid slide show; I found this nearly hour-long tour de force, which relies on basic compositional symmetry for its power, even more masterful than the vertiginous moving camerawork that bookends it.

If only the movie’s moronic content didn’t keep distracting you from its exhilarating form. Irreversible’s dare-you-to-watch extremity has an unfortunate (if understandable) tendency to distract people from its three superb central performances and its genuinely thought-provoking ideas; the film’s key scene, as I’ve argued for seven years now, is not the rape or the opening Rectum hunt or even the tender bedroom finale, but the lengthy Metro ride during which the characters animatedly debate the nature of desire. Enter the Void has no characters of interest, apart from Noé’s camera—which would be fine if his camera weren’t constantly observing bad actors delivering crappy improvised dialogue. (Brown and Roy are awkward non-pros, and Paz de la Huerta seems to get cast in movies solely because she’s willing to get naked at the drop of a lens cap.) The film’s ending, which I won’t spoil, comes across as silly and fatuous mostly because it’s so clumsily foreshadowed; I winced hard in the first five minutes, when Oscar asks his sister whether she’s ever read The Tibetan Book of the Dead, actually brandishing a copy for emphasis. Enter the Void gives us a thrilling ghost’s-eye view of Tokyo, but we’re stuck with the extra-corporeal form of a monotonous loser who spies exclusively on his equally tedious friends and relations. Can it be a great party, whatever the quality of the venue and the entertainment and the free booze, if there’s nobody there worth flirting with? Grade: B-

This may be the movie I can't wait for (along with Antichrist, of course). D'Angelo's cons don't really apply to my train of thinking (it's "stoopid"… don't think I would care), bad characters and dialogue (not really why I wanna see the movie). But seriously, gliding camera shots that lead us up into the sky? An hour long flashback sequence? This sounds awesome!

http://www.avclub.com/articles/cannes-09-day-ten,28394/?utm_source=sidebar_cannes

[trotchky]

I don't know if it's possible for a narrative film not to be didactic. Citizen Kane is about a guy who acts like a bastard and winds up alone and miserable. Lesson: Don't act like a bastard.

And I don't know if style and substance are the same, even if we can only know a film's content through its style. A film can have a slight storyline and still be beautiful to look at and listen to.

Sure, if that's all you take away from Citizen Kane. It might be possible to reduce any narrative film to a didactic message, but that must be a horribly dull, not to mention limited, way to appreciate movies.

[trotchky]

What I'm observing, though, is that since you do not think that art can be didactic, everything in a film that is textual that is not a part of the craft "means shit." This is totally snobby high art preposterousness. Because there ARE filmmakers out there who emphasize theme over craft. Their films are vehicles for spoken message. Can those not qualify as "art"? Or is "art" derived solely from the manipulation of the medium?


I don't know how it's a snobby or high art perspective. One of my favorite contemporary directors is Quentin Tarantino, and while his themes are bound inexorably to his craft, he's generally considered a "low brow" or at least an unintellectual filmmaker.

And a movie isn't automatically invalidated because a director doesn't care as much about craft as they do about delivering a message, because good craftsmanship can come incidentally from devotion to a theme. Theme can't exist without craft, though, and an artist who doesn't understand that probably won't produce very compelling works.

[Sven]

I don't know how it's a snobby or high art perspective. One of my favorite contemporary directors is Quentin Tarantino, and while his themes are bound inexorably to his craft, he's generally considered a "low brow" or at least an unintellectual filmmaker.

It's absolutely snobby to say that anything featured that isn't inextricably bound to your own idea of "art" means "shit." You can play as many "but I like this 'low brow' director" cards you want. Doesn't change things.


And a movie isn't automatically invalidated because a director doesn't care as much about craft as they do about delivering a message, because good craftsmanship can come incidentally from devotion to a theme. Theme can't exist without craft, though, and an artist who doesn't understand that probably won't produce very compelling works.

Movies, by their nature of simply being, are crafted. I'm talking about aesthetic apathy, not incidental quality. I'm talking about a movie that looks and sounds terrible, but has a strong enough message or story to make it watchable. A lot of television is like this.

[Duncan]

baby doll, you are high comedy, man. Never stop.

[trotchky]

It's absolutely snobby to say that anything featured that isn't inextricably bound to your own idea of "art" means "shit." You can play as many "but I like this 'low brow' director" cards you want. Doesn't change things.

It's not so much my idea of "art" as my own aesthetic sensibilities. The same kind of sensibilities that any of us here use to determine the quality of a movie. If having criterion for what constitutes "good" or "worthwhile" entertainment makes me a snob, so be it.



Movies, by their nature of simply being, are crafted. I'm talking about aesthetic apathy, not incidental quality. I'm talking about a movie that looks and sounds terrible, but has a strong enough message or story to make it watchable. A lot of television is like this.

What, you mean like Clerks or The 40-Year-Old Virgin? Yeah I thought those movies sucked because they looked like shit. So?

Maybe I just don't have enough experience with aesthetically shit films that also happen to be worthwhile; I'm basing my comments largely on literature, which I have more of a background in. You know, authors like Harriet Beecher Stowe and Charlotte Bronte, who don't give a shit (and presumably don't know shit) about form, and their forsaking of form in favor of theme paradoxically renders their themes impotent at best and self-defeating at worst.

[MacGuffin]

Kynodantas (Dogtooth) wins Un Certain Regard. (http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/theDailyArticle/56798.html)

[trotchky]

Oh, does anyone know where I can find The Official 62nd Cannes Film Festival Poster (http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/theDailyArticle/56782.html#) at wallpaper-size resolution?

[Sven]

It's not so much my idea of "art" as my own aesthetic sensibilities. The same kind of sensibilities that any of us here use to determine the quality of a movie. If having criterion for what constitutes "good" or "worthwhile" entertainment makes me a snob, so be it.

It's snobbish to respond with such impertinent language insisting that any morality that exists apart from a film's aestheticism is "shit."


What, you mean like Clerks or The 40-Year-Old Virgin? Yeah I thought those movies sucked because they looked like shit. So?

Those films' mutual suckiness was the result of much more than looking bad.

[Sven]

Maybe I just don't have enough experience with aesthetically shit films that also happen to be worthwhile; I'm basing my comments largely on literature, which I have more of a background in. You know, authors like Harriet Beecher Stowe and Charlotte Bronte, who don't give a shit (and presumably don't know shit) about form, and their forsaking of form in favor of theme paradoxically renders their themes impotent at best and self-defeating at worst.

Lesson 1 in discussing aesthetics: frequently, differing mediums do NOT possess interchangeable qualities. The word is the word, the image is the image.

[Bosco B Thug]

Whew. Reading this thread just about gave me an aneurysm.

baby doll, please refrain in the future from "figuring out" what you believe is the wide appeal of films like Citizen Kane and Persona.


Whatever significance I might attach to the character's nationality would be going beyond the letter of the text. How is the Christine character's unique nationality beyond the letter of the text? Renoir made her Austrian for a reason.


One obvious case of symbolic intent is Delacroix's "Liberty Leading the People." Liberty, being an abstract concept, is outside the realm of visual representation, and therefore requires a symbol--in this case, a woman with her tits out holding a flag while charging into a battle field. But obviously that's an interpretation of the painting that goes beyond what it actually represents. Jesus, baby doll. Way to go about aggressively demystifying all allure and passions from works of art.

We get it, art is useless and has only the purpose of its immediate pleasures.

All this to defend Irreversible - a film more art film ala Persona than Citizen Kane and Delacroix - that I don't think would feel defended by people defending it for lack of profundity.

[MacGuffin]

Wow, Bosco. A 5.5 for Irréversible, I don't think I've ever seen someone on the middle ground for that movie.

[Qrazy]

Our mutual terminologies are found on entirely different pages, being that you used two Michael Bay films to illustrate the concept of formal competence. I am not on board with that perception, therefore I am unsure how to continue this dialogue.

How about this: even if I found Bay's films to be formally passable, I would not think that they would "mean shit." Even then, NOT being interested in his craft or his subjects, I still don't think that I would deny the films any value. Even a film I find technically competent but completely unwatchable, like that Eastwood Japanese Iwo Jima thing, doesn't really lack in substantial material. Even if it is material that I am personally dissatisfied or disinterested in, I remain steadfast in my assertion that there is no logical argument that reasonably places any film's "meaning" so far above the craft as to render the craft useless (or "meaning shit").

I'm not denying them any value, that is a hyperbolic misinterpretation of what I said. The meaning of what I said was essentially formal skill does not a good film make.

It goes beyond not being personally interested in the material to how the material is handled (more than just visually/auditorily).

Also saying logical argument here is slightly nonsensical. Any argument of this nature is not going to reduce to analytic axioms. I will give you an argument though. And that's just that what a film is fundamentally about, what it is trying to communicate (although tied to form) is more valuable than technical precision when the film has nothing to say. Why is this? I don't know precisely, I find it intuitively self-explanatory. I'll take a shot. This is because when films are genuinely about something, versus retreading cliches or sketching shallow characters, they feel more real, honest and reach to a deeper place.

[Qrazy]

Just to belatedly jump into the whole Irréversible debate, most films when boiled down to their theme are inevitably saying something blatantly obvious. My favorite line from The 40-Year-Old Virgin (indeed, the only line I can recall from the film) is when Seth Rogan says, "I saw this movie Liar Liar, and the message is you shouldn't lie." Calling a movie shallow because it isn't philosophically profound means you can't like Les Vampires, La Règle du jeu, Citizen Kane, or any film by Ingmar Bergman, either.

That may be so in general but I don't think that's what's happening here. Also I don't think Citizen Kane boiled down: 'You can never truly understand everything there is to know about a man' is as simplistic as what Noe himself directly puts at the end of his film 'Time destroys everything'. In fact his film might be better if he hadn't added that although not too much better because I think that final quote really primarily sheds light on the film's overall facile approach to life and sexuality, rather than only being facile in and of itself.

[Qrazy]

Until we stop thinking of process and product as two separate things, tired and pointless arguments like the above will continue to reign.

In other words, Qrazy, you're the one who should shut the fuck up, you pedantic ninny.

"The concept of "art" is a (bourgeois) construct that divides human creation based on a false binary, and serves more to obstruct the validity of our experiences with works than bolster it."

How is the term art bourgeois (unless you're referring to high art which was not what the discussion was about)? How does it act as a false binary? How does the word 'art' (no one was talking about high/low art) obstruct the validity of our experiences. That statement was terrible on so many levels.

---

I already addressed the fact that form/content are not separate and clarified that formal precision which is not used to communicate anything is not valuable in and of itself. Unless it's avant-garde cinema and then the purpose is the technique which is directly the content but all of this is getting very far afield from the initial argument. The argument being good lighting, performances, technical virtuousity does not a good film make.

[baby doll]

You're cryptic non-answers are tedious.You asked if I acknowledged any symbolic intent. I cited an example of a work of art with obvious symbolism in it. But that's the thing: symbolism only works if it's really obvious.

[baby doll]

Whew. Reading this thread just about gave me an aneurysm.

baby doll, please refrain in the future from "figuring out" what you believe is the wide appeal of films like Citizen Kane and Persona.I just stated what their appeal is for me, and personally, I'm less interested in what a movie says (or how it might be interpreted) than what it does.


How is the Christine character's unique nationality beyond the letter of the text? Renoir made her Austrian for a reason.As I've said earlier, her nationality serves a number of purposes (primarily, making her an outsider and informing her attitudes about infidelity), so of course Renoir made her Austrian for a reason, but I'm not sure what you guys think I should be reading into this that I'm not. Does everything have to have a reason? Why does the husband like clocks and not something else equally ridiculous? Not everything has to have more than one level of meaning.


Jesus, baby doll. Way to go about aggressively demystifying all allure and passions from works of art.

We get it, art is useless and has only the purpose of its immediate pleasures.Going back to what Trotchky said about good art never being didactic, look at The Arabian Nights: these stories are obviously, obviously didactic (if some one tells you not to open a door, you better not open it), but that has nothing to do with how much I enjoy them. I read them simply to be enchanted and amused.


All this to defend Irreversible - a film more art film ala Persona than Citizen Kane and Delacroix - that I don't think would feel defended by people defending it for lack of profundity.Whether Noé would feel defended is neither here nor there, because the text is something that exists apart from its maker (Umberto Eco uses the analogy of a message in a bottle). People are going to make of it whatever they make of it. In the Raging Bull example, as many times as I've seen the film, I never thought the opening shot showed anything more than what it shows. And so what if there's an opera piece on the soundtrack? Lots of movies have all kinds of music over the opening credits. More important to me is the beauty of the slow motion image and the aria themselves, and the juxtaposition of the black-and-white cinematography and bold red text. It also serves the basic function of hinting at something about the story's content (namely, that the protagonist is a boxer).

[trotchky]

"The concept of "art" is a (bourgeois) construct that divides human creation based on a false binary, and serves more to obstruct the validity of our experiences with works than bolster it."

How is the term art bourgeois (unless you're referring to high art which was not what the discussion was about)? How does it act as a false binary? How does the word 'art' (no one was talking about high/low art) obstruct the validity of our experiences. That statement was terrible on so many levels.

Because it has historically been used precisely to connote "high art" while excluding "low art" or "not art" from the realm of human creation that can be affecting, moving, enlightening, edifying, etc.

I say a ruibk's cube is art. I say a break beat is art. I say a videogame is art. I find something that stirs my soul in all of the above. Who the fuck is to tell me those things aren't art?

[baby doll]

That may be so in general but I don't think that's what's happening here. Also I don't think Citizen Kane boiled down: 'You can never truly understand everything there is to know about a man' is as simplistic as what Noe himself directly puts at the end of his film 'Time destroys everything'. In fact his film might be better if he hadn't added that although not too much better because I think that final quote really primarily sheds light on the film's overall facile approach to life and sexuality, rather than only being facile in and of itself.Well, Citizen Kane at once suggests that you can't understand everything about a man and suggests that you can (Rosebud explains everything and nothing).

Regarding Noé's film, you have two characters--one who's a wimpy pacifist intellectual and the other's a macho womanizer ass-hole--but then practically the first thing that happens is the ass-hole gets his ass kicked and the intellectual smashes this dude's face in with a fire extinguisher. So because the story is told in reverse chronology, this colours how we make sense of their behavior in the later scenes (which happen earlier). What does any of this have to do with time destroying anything? Or how about the audacity of brining back the butcher from Seul contre tous for the opening sequence, which has no immediate causal relationship with the rest of the story? (One function of the final title card is to add a sense of symmetry to the film by referring back to this sequence.) Or the swirling, vertiginous Michael Snow-like camera movements and seizure-inducing strobe lights? All this is right there and none of it can be normalized by the movie's ostensible theme.

[Boner M]

ass-hole
wtf

[baby doll]

wtfI'm not sure if I dislike Vincent Cassel as an actor, or if he's just very, very good at playing unlikeable characters.

[MacGuffin]

I'm not sure if I dislike Vincent Cassel as an actor, or if he's just very, very good at playing unlikeable characters.

If you dislike Vincent Cassel as an actor, you may not know exactly what constitutes good acting.

[B-side]

If you dislike Vincent Cassel as an actor, you may not know exactly what constitutes good acting.

Burn?

[MacGuffin]

Burn?

No? Truth. Baby doll was experiencing indecision. I was helping him decide.

[B-side]

No? Truth. Baby doll was experiencing indecision. I was helping him decide.

Cassel was good in Eastern Promises.

[MacGuffin]

Cassel was good in Eastern Promises.

Haven't seen it. If anyone is not convinced, see either La haine or Sheitan, the second of which, an otherwise average movie made good by an exceptionally bizarre performance from Cassel.

[baby doll]

Cassel was good in Eastern Promises.Again, playing an unlikeable character. Okay, he can't bring himself to drown the baby. Big deal. That doesn't make me like his character more; it just doesn't make me like his character less. And I mean that as an observation, not a criticism.

[Boner M]

I'm not sure if I dislike Vincent Cassel as an actor, or if he's just very, very good at playing unlikeable characters.
Actually, I was reacting to seeing 'asshole' hyphenated for the first time in my life.

[Qrazy]

I'm not saying anything that Pauline Kael hadn't already argued in the 1960s. So just as there's nothing profound to be found in the cinema, there's nothing profound or original to be found in my arguments which simply re-phrase things other people already thought and said long before I was even born.

There's plenty profundity to be found in the cinema.

[Grouchy]

Cassel's character in Irreversible is an asshole? Why? If anything, I pity the poor guy.

Anyway, if baby doll's posts were written in paper, he should be on trial for wasting forests. Way to rant on about nothing.

[Qrazy]

Because it has historically been used precisely to connote "high art" while excluding "low art" or "not art" from the realm of human creation that can be affecting, moving, enlightening, edifying, etc.

I say a ruibk's cube is art. I say a break beat is art. I say a videogame is art. I find something that stirs my soul in all of the above. Who the fuck is to tell me those things aren't art?

No one. I agree they're art. It's just definitional. In the sense that a wide scope definition of art is very inclusive (but not all inclusive) the moon is not art... an image of the moon is art. If you had made your same comments but specified your issue with the concept of high art but not just art in general then I wouldn't have responded the same way. Based on what had come before it seemed you were veering into the high/low art argument when no one had taken it there. But anyway sorry I told you to STFU but I didn't mean teh Arnold to be taken seriously.

[MacGuffin]

Anyway, if baby doll's posts were written in paper, he should be on trial for wasting forests. Way to rant on about nothing.

A bit harsh, I think. I find his posts entertaining, and I like his writing style.

[Qrazy]

Well, Citizen Kane at once suggests that you can't understand everything about a man and suggests that you can (Rosebud explains everything and nothing).

Regarding Noé's film, you have two characters--one who's a wimpy pacifist intellectual and the other's a macho womanizer ass-hole--but then practically the first thing that happens is the ass-hole gets his ass kicked and the intellectual smashes this dude's face in with a fire extinguisher. So because the story is told in reverse chronology, this colours how we make sense of their behavior in the later scenes (which happen earlier). What does any of this have to do with time destroying anything? Or how about the audacity of brining back the butcher from Seul contre tous for the opening sequence, which has no immediate causal relationship with the rest of the story? (One function of the final title card is to add a sense of symmetry to the film by referring back to this sequence.) Or the swirling, vertiginous Michael Snow-like camera movements and seizure-inducing strobe lights? All this is right there and none of it can be normalized by the movie's ostensible theme.

Just to be clear I don't hate the film. I'm with Bosco in the middle ground although I'd probably rate it even higher. My initial remarks were all in relation to the argument that seemed to suggest formal precision = good film/filmmaking. A film can be formally precise and still be bad. Anyway, in relation to Irreversible I think there's some interesting stuff going on but that ultimately the film is borderline trite (for reasons I think I've already been over). In terms of the title card 'Time Destroys Everything' which ends the film I find that to be trite as well. This is because to me it seems to suggest that the flow of time itself leads inexorably away from innocence and towards pain/suffering/etc. This strikes me as a facile, uninsightful generalization.

[Qrazy]

A bit harsh, I think. I find his posts entertaining, and I like his writing style.

To reiterate, compelling style does not make up for a lack of content.

I kid Baby Doll! Although occasionally infuriated by some of your comments I enjoy your presence.

[MacGuffin]

To reiterate, compelling style does not make up for a lack of content.

I kid Baby Doll!

I thought this was the reason some people like Armond White.

[ledfloyd]

Oh, does anyone know where I can find The Official 62nd Cannes Film Festival Poster (http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/theDailyArticle/56782.html#) at wallpaper-size resolution?
http://www.filmofilia.com/2009/04/22/cannes-2009-poster-unveiled/

i wouldn't mind having it on my wall.

edit: apparently these are .eps files which i have no idea what to do with.

[Melville]

Every film makes a statement, but I disagree that a theme should be praised for its profundity (or condemned, as Pop Trash has, for not being sufficiently so). There's nothing profound about Persona, unless "profound" equals "general" (and therefore, reductive). In the case of Noé's film, he's illustrating a simple, very reductive idea, but the shape that statement takes--as you point out--is what's important. So it would seem that we agree.
No, we completely disagree. I think that a film should be praised for its profundity. I think that Persona is a profound film that says profound things about human relationships and personal identity. I think the fact that its ideas (or similar ones) had been expressed previously makes them no less profound. I think that, in fact, it is not simply expressing old statements in new forms, but that the written statements are different from the filmed ones; the contents of the shapes can be related to one another, but they cannot be identified with one another.

But this conversation is a waste of time, since you don't think anything is philosophically profound.

[Qrazy]

I thought this was the reason some people like Armond White.

I wouldn't know, I think he's an insufferable bastard.

[B-side]

I thought this was the reason some people like Armond White.

I'd sooner read a million baby doll rants before suffering anything analytical that man attempted.

[Bosco B Thug]

Wow, Bosco. A 5.5 for Irréversible, I don't think I've ever seen someone on the middle ground for that movie. It's a difficult one. I went from "Not buyin' it" in the first half, then being quickly won over during the perceptive and revealing second half.

I still find very little worthwhile about that first half, and making myself endure it.

The film must have really taken people aback back in 2002. When reading through a handful of reviews, I was really surprised by how little I was gleaming from them. Even the most insightful critics (Andrew O'Hehir from Salon was the best I read, Alex Jackson's the worst, and I was rather surprised by Ed Gonzalez' quick dismissals) seemed too preoccupied defending/not defending the extremes the film presents.

Hopefully I'll collect some further thoughts in the FDT.

[Russ]

Even the most insightful critics (Andrew O'Hehir from Salon was the best I read, Alex Jackson's the worst, and I was rather surprised by Ed Gonzalez' quick dismissals) seemed too preoccupied defending/not defending the extremes the film presents.
..as opposed to??

I mean, in what manner were you expecting it to be approached? (not trying to give you a hard time or anything, just genuinely curious as this is one film that I had put off seeing since its release, but for some reason, have recently decided that I'd now like to see it)

[Bosco B Thug]

..as opposed to??

I mean, in what manner were you expecting it to be approached? (not trying to give you a hard time or anything, just genuinely curious as this is one film that I had put off seeing since its release, but for some reason, have recently decided that I'd now like to see it) Trying not to give too much away about the film... I thought the film really opened up in the moments when it was not trying to shock us, provoke us, exploit the attention-grabbing nature of simulated ugliness. There was dialogue and character interaction that was rich for reading into, that would take analyses of the film to different directions than that determined by the more on-the-surface themes dealing with the film's chronology, its centerpiece moments, ineluctable time, the extremes of purity and perversion (which I felt the film was trying to subvert, going back to the debate about the film a few pages back...).

[baby doll]

Cassel's character in Irreversible is an asshole? Why? If anything, I pity the poor guy.I have a pretty low tolerance for macho posturing, and isn't that the whole point of his character? When they're chasing the Tapeworm, one of the gangsters says something to the effect that revenge is a man's business, so no pussies, but he really is a pussy who gets his arm snapped.

[baby doll]

No, we completely disagree. I think that a film should be praised for its profundity. I think that Persona is a profound film that says profound things about human relationships and personal identity. I think the fact that its ideas (or similar ones) had been expressed previously makes them no less profound. I think that, in fact, it is not simply expressing old statements in new forms, but that the written statements are different from the filmed ones; the contents of the shapes can be related to one another, but they cannot be identified with one another.

But this conversation is a waste of time, since you don't think anything is philosophically profound.Speaking hypothetically, if films should be praised for their profundity, does that make Singin' in the Rain less of a great movie than Persona? A film that's completely intellectual may be, however profound its ideas, is a bad film. Persona is a great one because it speaks to me on an emotional level.

[baby doll]

Just to be clear I don't hate the film. I'm with Bosco in the middle ground although I'd probably rate it even higher. My initial remarks were all in relation to the argument that seemed to suggest formal precision = good film/filmmaking. A film can be formally precise and still be bad. Anyway, in relation to Irreversible I think there's some interesting stuff going on but that ultimately the film is borderline trite (for reasons I think I've already been over). In terms of the title card 'Time Destroys Everything' which ends the film I find that to be trite as well. This is because to me it seems to suggest that the flow of time itself leads inexorably away from innocence and towards pain/suffering/etc. This strikes me as a facile, uninsightful generalization.Okay, you got me there. It is a facile, uninsightful generalization to say that time itself leads inexorably away from innocence towards pain/suffering/etc., and that's basically what the film says on a thematic level, but you know, like Persona, it moved me emotionally and viscerally (talk about a jolt to the central nervous system!). I don't have to agree with a movie's message to enjoy it.

[Ezee E]

Random Guesses:

Palme D'Or: A Prophet
Grand Jury: The White Ribbon
Actor: someone in Vincere
Actress: Penelope Cruz in Broken Embraces
Screenplay: Bright Star
Director: Jean-Pierre Melville
Jury Prize: Giannoli's film and

[MacGuffin]

Some people are reporting that Police, Adjective! won Un Certain Regard, so I'm kind of confused there.

[Ezee E]

Some people are reporting that Police, Adjective! won Un Certain Regard, so I'm kind of confused there.
Apparently, that award is given out a day earlier. I don't understand that either.

[MacGuffin]

Apparently, that award is given out a day earlier. I don't understand that either.

Well, yesterday they were saying a different movie won. I know Palme d'Or is given out later though.

[MacGuffin]

Short film Palme d'Or: Arena
Jury Prize: Thirst and Fish Tank
Scenario: Spring Fever

[MacGuffin]

Prix de la mise en scéne: Get ready for this... Brillante Mendoza for Kinatay

[Ezee E]

Watching this somewhere Clipper?

[MacGuffin]

Watching this somewhere Clipper?

I looked everywhere, but couldn't find it. Someone is covering it on another forum from watching French television.

[MacGuffin]

I called it! Best Actress: Charlotte Gainsbourg for Antichrist! Woohoo!! Yay!!

[MacGuffin]

Best Actor: Christoph Waltz for Inglorious Basterds.

[MacGuffin]

I'm going to find it pretty funny if A Prophet walks away with nothing.

[MacGuffin]

Alain Resnais got some sort of special prize.

[MacGuffin]

Grand Prix: A Prophet.

[Spinal]

I called it! Best Actress: Charlotte Gainsbourg for Antichrist! Woohoo!! Yay!!

And yet again, a Trier actress gets high praise for her performance.

Too bad about all the torturing though.

[MacGuffin]

Palme d'Or: The White Ribbon.

[Spinal]

Palme d'Or: The White Ribbon.

Awesome.

[MacGuffin]

Awesome.

Haneke finally has a Golden Palm.

[Bosco B Thug]

Well isn't that spread around all nice.

... Anyone want to tell me what the distinctions are between Grand Prix and Palm d'Or, and what the Jury Prize and Scenario awards signify?

[MacGuffin]

Well isn't that spread around all nice.

... Anyone want to tell me what the distinctions are between Grand Prix and Palm d'Or, and what the Jury Prize and Scenario awards signify?

Palme d'Or (Highest honor)
Grand Prix (Second highest)
Jury Prize (Third highest)
Scenario (Screenplay)

Sorry, I was just typing it as it was announced.

[Pop Trash]

Well isn't that spread around all nice.

... Anyone want to tell me what the distinctions are between Grand Prix and Palm d'Or, and what the Jury Prize and Scenario awards signify?

Grand Prix I believe is second prize, Palm d'Or is the top prize or "best in show" so to speak. Not sure what the others signify. Maybe Jury Prize is something they all agreed was good? Dunno.

[Pop Trash]

Palme d'Or (Highest honor)
Grand Prix (Second highest)
Jury Prize (Third highest)
Scenario (Screenplay)

Sorry, I was just typing it as it was announced.

Aha.

[Pop Trash]

Haneke finally has a Golden Palm.

Ehh, now he can further browbeat people with his "intellectual superiority." Not really a good thing.

[MacGuffin]

Ehh, now he can further browbeat people with his "intellectual superiority." Not really a good thing.

You're a moron.

EDIT: Sorry if that was a little harsh, you've just been pissing me a lot with your "matter of fact" posts lately.

[Bosco B Thug]

Palme d'Or (Highest honor)
Grand Prix (Second highest)
Jury Prize (Third highest)
Scenario (Screenplay) Thanks.

So Thirst got some recognition, and apparently the choice of Spring Fever's a puzzler.

[Spinal]

Ehh, now he can further browbeat people with his "intellectual superiority." Not really a good thing.

Haneke is smarter than you and me. No need to put that in quotes.

[Pop Trash]

Haneke is smarter than you and me. No need to put that in quotes.

Vomit. Charlie Kaufman on the other hand...

[MacGuffin]

Thanks.

So Thirst got some recognition, and apparently the choice of Spring Fever's a puzzler.

It's funny, Spring Fever has been likened to a confusing soap opera. Even at the press conference, the curator couldn't get actors' names right in correspondence to the characters they play.

[Spinal]

Vomit. Charlie Kaufman on the other hand...

Is not. Yes, that's about right.

[Pop Trash]

You're a moron.

EDIT: Sorry if that was a little harsh, you've just been pissing me a lot with your "matter of fact" posts lately.

I am the best poster in the world. I'm not sure if Match-Cut is the best Match-Cut in the world.

[Pop Trash]

Is not. Yes, that's about right.

Did you even see Synecdoche, NY?

P.S. I like your avatar.

[Spinal]

Did you even see Synecdoche, NY?


No. Zero interest.

[Watashi]

I want more "Cache" Haneke than "Piano Teacher" Haneke.

[Spinal]

I want more "Cache" Haneke than "Piano Teacher" Haneke.

There is very little difference.

[Pop Trash]

No. Zero interest.

Toooooo bad.

[Watashi]

There is very little difference.
Considering I loved one and loathed the other, I would say you're wrong about that one.

[trotchky]

I want more Haneke, period.

[number8]

I want Haneke to direct a Charlie Kaufman screenplay.

[Melville]

Speaking hypothetically, if films should be praised for their profundity, does that make Singin' in the Rain less of a great movie than Persona? A film that's completely intellectual may be, however profound its ideas, is a bad film. Persona is a great one because it speaks to me on an emotional level.
I liked but didn't love Singin' in the Rain, while Persona is in my top 5, so, yes, I think that the former is less of a great movie than the latter. But I find Persona not just more profound, but also more technically interesting and emotionally engaging.

I agree to some extent that a film with profound ideas can still be a bad film; profound ideas make a film better, but they are just one thing I look for in a film. However, I also agree with trotchky to some extent: if a movie has good ideas but is poorly executed, then the ideas that it actually succeeds in conveying are probably not very profound. A profound philosophical idea cannot be readily reduced to a one-sentence summary. Its profundity lies in its depth and breadth, in the richness of its application to the world. For example, the profundity of Descartes's cogito ergo sum (which I actually agree isn't very profound, but let's just take it as an example) lies not in the idea that I can be certain I exist (which I can't: Descartes's argument is deeply flawed, or at least superficial), but in its place within his overall philosophical project: even if I purposely doubt the certainty of everything, I can be sure, from the very act of doubting, that the doubting exists, and from that, I can be sure that I (that is, my conscious mind) exist. The idea is made profound by the context, in which Descartes insists that we can doubt everything, even what we normally take as obvious, but that very act of doubt assures us that at the very least, we exist; it is an absolute certainty to hold onto amidst the potential for complete uncertainty. Just saying "I think, therefore I am" doesn't capture this importance.

So if a movie has some good ideas but doesn't express them well, then the ideas that it actually conveys are not profound: they are simply the seeds of profound ideas. In order to express them in their profundity, a film must make them immanent within its technique and narrative; it must express them through the capabilities of cinema. Certainly "theme spouting", overt discussion of philosophical issues, can be made a part of this; but ideally, such overt discussion must be coupled to the form of the film. Otherwise the idea will be simply a dilute version of what it could have been in a philosophy text; it will be the equivalent of pop philosophy with a story attached, with neither the philosophy nor the story being well served.

Also, maybe it's just me, but a profound idea speaks to me on an emotional level. A profound idea makes me reflect on the world; it changes the way I view the world and interact with it. Ideas and emotions are not independent.

[baby doll]

There is very little difference.La Pianiste was based on a book, but he came up with the story for Caché on his own. In my books, La Pianiste is his greatest film, but then, I'm a Huppert groupie.

[baby doll]

It's funny, Spring Fever has been likened to a confusing soap opera. Even at the press conference, the curator couldn't get actors' names right in correspondence to the characters they play.Lou's Summer Palace was really good, but it didn't get good reviews at Cannes either, so I'm not taking this film's mixed reaction too seriously.

[Ezee E]

Different scripts, but I can see the Haneke touch on Piano Teacher and Cache.

I may consider Time of the Wolf his best movie.

[MacGuffin]

Lou's Summer Palace was really good, but it didn't get good reviews at Cannes either, so I'm not taking this film's mixed reaction too seriously.

Really? I've heard mixed things about Summer Palace also.

[baby doll]

Really? I've heard mixed things about Summer Palace also.Really. Check it out.

[Rowland]

I may consider Time of the Wolf his best movie.The first half hour blew me away, while the rest was pretty tepid, which I suspect was to some degree by design, but still.

[MacGuffin]

Really. Check it out.

Okay, I might just do that.

[Rowland]

Summer Palace was on Ed Gonzalez's 2008 Top Ten, but I didn't hear much else.

[MacGuffin]

Summer Palace was on Ed Gonzalez's 2008 Top Ten, but I didn't hear much else.

I heard it was sex scene after sex scene, but that's about it.

[number8]

If I consider it a 2008 film, I'd put it in my top ten too. Summer Palace is fucking great.

[baby doll]

I heard it was sex scene after sex scene, but that's about it.Yeah, it's definitely not that.

[MacGuffin]

Yeah, it's definitely not that.

Okay.

For those interested in the movie, you can stream it on Netflix. It's in my queue.

[soitgoes...]

I may consider Time of the Wolf his best movie.
Yeah, I don't agree with this. Bottom tier Haneke for me. As Rowland stated, it started off great, but mellowed out to mediocre by the end. Perhaps it was his intent, but it did nothing for me.

[Melville]

Based on the two interviews with him that I've seen, I'd say Haneke is smart as a whip. He's pretty consistent too:

Funny Games - 8
The Piano Teacher - 7.5
The Seventh Continent - 7.5
Cache - 7
71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance - 7

I tried to watch Code Unknown, but the VHS tape was screwed up.

[MacGuffin]

Caché - 9.5
Code Unknown: Incomplete Tales of Several Journeys - 9.0
Benny's Video - 6.5
The Time of the Wolf - 6.5
The Piano Teacher - 6.0
The Seventh Continent - 6.0
Funny Games U.S. - 5.5
Funny Games - 5.0

[MacGuffin]

These are the four Cannes movies from this year I want to see as soon as possible:

Antichrist
Enter the Void
Kinatay
The White Ribbon

These are the ones I want to see eventually:

Face
Inglorious Basterds
A Prophet
Wild Grass

[Grouchy]

Benny's Video - 7
Funny Games - 10
Code Unknown - 6
The Piano Teacher - 10
Caché - 10

[trotchky]

Caché - 10
Code Unknown - 9
The Piano Teacher - 10
The Seventh Continent - 8.5
Funny Games U.S. - 9
Funny Games - 9

[Pop Trash]

Funny Games (Euro) -6
The Piano Teacher -8
The Time of the Wolf -6.5
Cache -7
Funny Games (USA) -6

Eh.

[Rowland]

I need to see more of his work.

Funny Games - don't trust original score, I'd guess 70-75 upon a revisit.
Time of the Wolf - 60
Caché - 83
Funny Games U.S. - 76

[Ezee E]

Les Etreintes brisées de Pedro Almodovar
Un prophète de Jacques Audiard
Vincere de Marco Bellocchio
Bright star de Jane Campion
A l'origine de Xavier Giannoli
Le Ruban blanc de Michael Haneke
Taking Woodstock d'Ang Lee
Looking for Eric de Ken Loach
Soudain le vide de Gaspar Noe
Thirst de Park Chan-Wook
Inglourious Basterds de Quentin Tarantino
Vengeance de Johnnie To
Antichrist de Lars Von Trier

I'd make a point to see all these at some point. I'm sure all of them will hit the US at one point.

[ledfloyd]

i want to see:

A Prophet
Broken Embraces
Thirst
Inglourious Basterds
Wild Grass
Face
The White Ribbon
Antichrist
Enter the Void

even though i don't think i'll like the last three. maybe Fish Tank and Spring Fever. possibly more once i see trailers/hear more.

[trotchky]

I wouldn't mind seeing every film in the competition.

[transmogrifier]

I want to see every film ever made ever, by anyone. Except for the Hungarian film Petőfi '73 . I've got fucking standards.

[baby doll]

From the official line-up, the films I'm most anticipating are Resnais' Les Herbes folles, Elia Suleiman's The Time That Remains and Haneke's The White Ribbon.

From Un certain regard, I'm pumped for Raya Martin's Independcia (a Philippine feature that's been compared to Sternberg), João Pedro Rodrigues' To Die Like a Man (I didn't see a single review for it, but Odete was freakin' awesome), Bong Joon-ho's Mother (why this was in Un certain regard while Park Chan-wook gets a competition slot is beyond me), Corneliu Porumboiu's Police, Adjective (which reminds me that I probably underrated 12:08 East of Bucharest), and Lee Daniels' Precious (yeah, I went there).

And from the Quinzaine des Réalisateurs: I Love You, Philip Morris (from the writers of Bad Santa!), Luc Moullet's Land of Madness, Pedro Costa's Ne change rien, Denis Villeneuve's Polytechnique (I was still in Korea when this opened in Canada), and Francis Ford Coppola's Tetro.

[baby doll]

I wouldn't mind seeing every film in the competition.I dunno, as much as I love Ken Loach, I might have to pass on this one. And if I never saw another Quentin Tarantino movie, it wouldn't bother me. Ebert compared the Coixet to Hiroshima mon amour, so now I have to see it.

[MacGuffin]

Don't forget Kinatay!

[Amnesiac]

Does anyone know if the shot in this banner is from a particular film?

http://11even.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/cannes-09.jpg

[MacGuffin]

L'Avventura.

[Qrazy]

Different scripts, but I can see the Haneke touch on Piano Teacher and Cache.

I may consider Time of the Wolf his best movie.

Not a big fan of the guy but I also like Time of the Wolf the most and like it quite a bit.

[B-side]

I dunno, as much as I love Ken Loach, I might have to pass on this one. And if I never saw another Quentin Tarantino movie, it wouldn't bother me. Ebert compared the Coixet to Hiroshima mon amour, so now I have to see it.

I haven't seen a single Ken Loach film, but I watched the trailer for Looking for Eric and my impression was indifference at best.

I suppose I should see something from Loach. What are your favorites?

[Qrazy]

I haven't seen a single Ken Loach film, but I watched the trailer for Looking for Eric and my impression was indifference at best.

I suppose I should see something from Loach. What are your favorites?

Watch Kes. I didn't care about the other 3 I've seen from him. I don't think you would either... Sweet Sixteen, The Wind that Shakes the Barley, My Name is Joe.

[B-side]

Watch Kes. I didn't care about the other 3 I've seen from him. I don't think you would either... Sweet Sixteen, The Wind that Shakes the Barley, My Name is Joe.

I think I caught part of Sweet Sixteen on TV a few years back. Kes sounds interesting. I'll check it out.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I thought Sweet Sixteen was fantastic. Didn't care for The Wind That Shakes the Barley at all.

[baby doll]

I haven't seen a single Ken Loach film, but I watched the trailer for Looking for Eric and my impression was indifference at best.

I suppose I should see something from Loach. What are your favorites?I only know his more recent films, but Sweet Sixteen, The Wind That Shakes the Barley and It's a Free World... were all terrific. (If I had to pick a favorite, it'd be The Wind That Shakes the Barley.)