28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[B-side]

Not sure why you removed the context of that statement, 'in certain extreme situations', in order to disagree with it.

That context exists nowhere in your original few posts. This is what you said when DaMU argued in favor of the film despite its "abhorrent" -- to quote you -- morality:

I think you can appreciate elements within a film that is reprehensible, but the morality of the film should trump those elements in your overall opinion of it. Also don't think it's easy to isolate the message of a film from the elements of the film that help convey to that message.

That is the context. Your only previous post was saying the film was abhorrent when Sven said he liked it. No subsequent post used the words "in certain extreme situations".

[transmogrifier]

Not sure why you removed the context of that statement, 'in certain extreme situations', in order to disagree with it.

I was responding more to your original post, but ws too lazy to find it. (beat) UNTIL NOW! [ominous music]

I think you can appreciate elements within a film that is reprehensible, but the morality of the film should trump those elements in your overall opinion of it.

SHIT. B-Side beat me to it.

[PS, Brightside - technique does not come before ideas, in either the constructionm of or response to films. You see a shot of a coupls eating breakfast in a chilly farmhouse, the first thing you generally think is "Who are these people? or "Looks very Russian" or "Man, I shouldn't have skipped breakfast, that roast turnip looks fantastic", not "Hey, a medium wide shot." or "Wow, I wonder if this is going to be an unbroken shot, or whether the directors going to cut to close ups!". Sure, there will be odd (deliberate) exceptions, like exquisitely staged establishing scenes where the first thing that hits you is "That's pretty", but take a film as a whole, and its the ideas that take primary importance.]

No mention of extreme situations there. But lest this escalate into a silly argument, the main reason why I made the post was to introduce Armond White, who is (a) a MC mascot who unites us rather than divides us and (b) the extreme manifestation of the "morality triumphs cinema technique" opinion.

[Melville]

Morality is not some political construct

It kind of is.

nor is it simply about finding something agreeable or disagreeable or acceptable or unacceptable.

How isn't it?

:|

Yeah, I'll follow the trend and bow out of this discussion. Though I don't know where you got the idea that I think morality is decided for you.

[B-side]

I've been saying that a film's affect extends past aesthetics and that the textual, subtextual, emotional, spiritual, etc, content is likely going to be informed by some kind of moral system. Given that so much of a film is guided by its content, it makes sense that an appraisal of that content is fair game.

Then we've been on the same page this whole time.

And since we all generate different but no less genuine reactions to stimulus

I don't recall calling into question how genuine someone's response was.

it's sensible that some will make the decision to prioritize moral concerns. Because that's what's important to them. You call this "narrow-minded" and then things get a little hazy after that.

It is a narrow-minded approach to art, yes. Narrow in that it is inherently exclusionary. If it is your prerogative to dismiss a film because it would seem to support certain things you don't care for, then knock yourself out. I think it's limiting.

I'd also like to point out that two negatives, an obscuring adjective, and distancing quotation marks contribute to a tone of exclusivity.

I argue against exclusionary habits for appreciating art and you're trying to accuse me of being exclusive in my opinion about people's opinions? What a strange argument.

[Winston*]

No mention of extreme situations there. But lest this escalate into a silly argument, the main reason why I made the post was to introduce Armond White, who is (a) a MC mascot you unites us rather than divides us and (b) the extreme manifestation of the "morality triumphs cinema technique" opinion.

'film is reprehensible' = 'extreme situation'

BTW my original post was going to say: 'Birth of a Nation? Triumph of the Will? [A funny third film]?' But I couldn't think of a funny third film at the time.

[B-side]

:|

Yeah, I'll follow the trend and bow out of this discussion. Though I don't know where you got the idea that I think morality is decided for you.

Finding something agreeable or disagreeable is not part of morality? Then how the hell do people know or decide what's right and wrong? Do they flip a coin? I don't think anyone involved here is particularly religious, so I don't think a religious text is deciding these things.

[B-side]

Yeah, I'll follow the trend and bow out of this discussion. Though I don't know where you got the idea that I think morality is decided for you.

Also, to clarify, I didn't mean to imply that. I would've thought, of all people, you'd have taken my side in this considering we share a similar affection for films people often deem offensive.

[transmogrifier]

'film is reprehensible' = 'extreme situation'

BTW my original post was going to say: 'Birth of a Nation? Triumph of the Will? [A funny third film]?' But I couldn't think of a funny third film at the time.

Well then, put that way, the whole argument people are having here has been a giant waste of time for everyone. It's pretty much like saying "In extreme situations (like the film being shot outside an airport) poor sound design should trump everything else" or "In extreme conditions, like Paul Dano Jay Baruchel cloning himself and taking all the roles in a The Sound of Music reboot, poor acting should trump everything else."

[B-side]

Well then, put that way, the whole argument people are having here has been a giant waste of time for everyone. It's pretty much like saying "In extreme situations (like the film being shot outside an airport) poor sound design should trump everything else" or "In extreme conditions, like Paul Dano Jay Baruchel cloning himself and taking all the roles in a The Sound of Music reboot, poor acting should trump everything else."

Heh.

[Raiders]

Also, praising a Hitler speech for oratory skills ≠ condoning his ideas. A speech can be good as a rhetorical device without being something worth condoning. I'll venture to say that speeches that express direct political motivations are much different than fiction films, whose ideas are not constructed or processed in such a cut and dry manner, generally. It is also possible to employ distasteful characterizations for a grander point e.g. The Searchers portrayal of the Natives.

I think the issue here is that there really was not initially a substantive argument contained in your initial posts. You were simply relating that the immediate form and technique of a film impacted you more than the ideas, which to you at least always crop up second. You are taking issue with the argument everyone else has subsequently thrown back, which is more about the total appreciation of what a film is which seems to be somewhat limited by your "inclusive" approach. I don't honestly believe anyone here is saying that you cannot appreciate technical aspects of reprehensible art, and indeed most people here are "form lovers" who find beauty in the cinematic qualities of a film, but that in order to really evaluate the piece of art as a whole, you have to include in it the themes and morals of its portrayal and ideas. These are intrinsic to its creation and final product. All art generates from a place of expression of ideas and perspectives to a particular theme, image, memory, story and so forth.

To keep beating the Hitler speech dead horse, as I said before, stating that he spoke and has great oratory skills is fine, but if someone was to evaluate a speech of his in totality and only focused on its mere technical aspects and not into the actual point of his speech, which is the furthering of his social and political agenda for the glory of Nazi Germany, I would say they had failed to really grasp the speech and all its aspects.

For The Searchers, Ford was indeed using the same stereotypes he had employed before in order to make a point. He was using the common foe of westerns to hold up against it a uniquely disturbed John Wayne, making the focus not on the complexity of Native Americans but of how the western hero must learn to conquer his own hatred of them and in the end, Ford clearly owns up to the antiquity of his films' portrayal of Natives when he takes this rustic, roaming "hero" and casts him back out into the wilderness.

This is not the same thing as we have been discussing, though. The film itself still holds up the racist, single-minded view of Native Americans and even when Ethan relents on his own hatred, it is for a poor white girl who had been turned into a "savage." It is not an escapable fact and one that must be eventually confronted. However, this isn't really what people here have been arguing over with respect to your comments. You started out once the replies came in by saying film is form first, then ideas as if the two were separate from each other. The point everyone is trying to make is that a) the ideas happened first in most cases as they are generally the basis for any film and, b) that you cannot process the techniques and form of a film such as Ford's without consideration of the meaning behind them. Such as above with the final shot of the film or the way in which the film displays Ethan uncomfortably and at odds inside the house or at the town. I imagine these ideas were not missed by you right away when watching, and if so then you would have to agree that while scientifically speaking you are processing the form first, your analytical mind will also look for the impetus to the form and the images you are watching. As such, when the KKK is gloriously shown to the rescue in Birth of a Nation, no matter how terrific Griffith's staging is, the scene itself is horrific.

[transmogrifier]

I got effectively called an anti-intellectual by some American dude I'll never meet. New experiences are never a waste of time.

Never say never.

And I'm not a huge fan of intellectuals either.

[B-side]

I think the issue here is that there really was not initially a substantive argument contained in your initial posts. You were simply relating that the immediate form and technique of a film impacted you more than the ideas, which to you at least always crop up second.

I never meant to imply that the ideas came second during the experience, but rather that they weren't as relevant to me as the form in which they were conveyed. It then became a strange argument of physiological phenomenon.

You are taking issue with the argument everyone else has subsequently thrown back, which is more about the total appreciation of what a film is which seems to be somewhat limited by your "inclusive" approach. I don't honestly believe anyone here is saying that you cannot appreciate technical aspects of reprehensible art, and indeed most people here are "form lovers" who find beauty in the cinematic qualities of a film, but that in order to really evaluate the piece of art as a whole, you have to include in it the themes and morals of its portrayal and ideas. These are intrinsic to its creation and final product. All art generates from a place of expression of ideas and perspectives to a particular theme, image, memory, story and so forth.

Right. And my contention was that these simplistic moral readings -- regardless of how appropriate they may be -- aren't important to me and are a dead end for discussion. It would be foolish to deny that art is created with ideas in mind since that's essentially the baseline of auteurism, an approach to cinema I clearly favor.

To keep beating the Hitler speech dead horse, as I said before, stating that he spoke and has great oratory skills is fine, but if someone was to evaluate a speech of his in totality and only focused on its mere technical aspects and not into the actual point of his speech, which is the furthering of his social and political agenda for the glory of Nazi Germany, I would say they had failed to really grasp the speech and all its aspects.

But we're not journalists reporting for public knowledge. We're experiencing art. Art is decidedly more abstract and places far more emphasis on the how. If the how weren't important, they may just as well have written a thesis paper about their ideas, or painted something, but they chose the decidedly unique artistic medium of film, one in which a thousand different factors play into the quality of the end product, and only one of those thousand factors happens to be any morality that may be gleaned from the narrative.

This is not the same thing as we have been discussing, though. The film itself still holds up the racist, single-minded view of Native Americans and even when Ethan relents on his own hatred, it is for a poor white girl who had been turned into a "savage."

I don't buy that he "holds up" that view. He's shut out because he could only be convinced to relent on his racial bigotry because she had been kidnapped by Native Americans. His ideals were archaic, thus he was shut out and left behind.

You started out once the replies came in by saying film is form first, then ideas as if the two were separate from each other.

Not my intention.

The point everyone is trying to make is that a) the ideas happened first in most cases as they are generally the basis for any film and, b) that you cannot process the techniques and form of a film such as Ford's without consideration of the meaning behind them. Such as above with the final shot of the film or the way in which the film displays Ethan uncomfortably and at odds inside the house or at the town. I imagine these ideas were not missed by you right away when watching, and if so then you would have to agree that while scientifically speaking you are processing the form first, your analytical mind will also look for the impetus to the form and the images you are watching.

Right. My issue was that I don't need to agree with the message to enjoy the film. That was it.

As such, when the KKK is gloriously shown to the rescue in Birth of a Nation, no matter how terrific Griffith's staging is, the scene itself is horrific.

That's fine, but why should that perceived racism be the deciding factor for quality?

[Mr. McGibblets]

"perceived racism"? Some things exist; not every thing is relative. Birth of a Nation is actually racist.

[MadMan]

Well then, put that way, the whole argument people are having here has been a giant waste of time for everyone. It's pretty much like saying "In extreme situations (like the film being shot outside an airport) poor sound design should trump everything else" or "In extreme conditions, like Paul Dano Jay Baruchel cloning himself and taking all the roles in a The Sound of Music reboot, poor acting should trump everything else."

trans, I take back everything bad I ever said about you. I apologize.

And yeah Birth of a Nation is a racist film. Woodrew Wilson screened it in the White House during "Happy I Hate Black People Time," which he held on the weekends. I'll see the damn movie, but if it sucks then whether or not its racist is irrelevant. Maybe that's really B-Side's point? I don't know anymore.

[Raiders]

Right. And my contention was that these simplistic moral readings -- regardless of how appropriate they may be -- aren't important to me and are a dead end for discussion. It would be foolish to deny that art is created with ideas in mind since that's essentially the baseline of auteurism, an approach to cinema I clearly favor.

But why do you keep reducing these as "simplistic?" Morality is the compass by which we judge most acts and that which we encounter in our lives. It is not a universal or objective truth, morals are dictated by where we live and how we were raised. But nonetheless, you cannot interact with a piece of art that was thought, formed and created by an individual or group of people with their own perspective and view and ignore whatever impetuses drove its creation and formation. I just cannot fathom treating art as if it lives in some plane of existence beyond where you live. Just because the work itself is not inherently taking place in this world, it is still created and anchored in the world we live and as such is no less subjugated by the perspective of the world each viewer brings to the table. When we speak of extremes, we do so only to emphasize this point on a more universal level (i.e., most everyone hates the Nazis).

But we're not journalists reporting for public knowledge. We're experiencing art.

Journalists are merely paid for their ability to convey their experiences, and often their views and opinions; but everyone has an opinion and a viewpoint. We're no different.

Art is decidedly more abstract and places far more emphasis on the how.

Art is abstract in that it represents ideas and stories in the selected medium of its creator. It is a form of expression, but if we only look at how it is expressed and not what is being expressed, then we are not looking at the whole picture.

If the how weren't important, they may just as well have written a thesis paper about their ideas, or painted something, but they chose the decidedly unique artistic medium of film

Nobody has said the "how" isn't important. Of why is it a film and not a painting or a book, well that's something that would be unique to whoever or whatever team of people decided to make a movie from that idea or story. Why some people gravitate to film, others to writing and others to painting is outside the discussion we are having

one in which a thousand different factors play into the quality of the end product, and only one of those thousand factors happens to be any morality that may be gleaned from the narrative.

Morality is outside the standard factors of getting a film made other than those producing finding your art to be immoral and shutting it down. It is a viewpoint and perspective of a given scenario or idea or overriding principles of an individual. It is intrinsic to everyone.

I don't buy that he "holds up" that view. He's shut out because he could only be convinced to relent on his racial bigotry because she had been kidnapped by Native Americans. His ideals were archaic, thus he was shut out and left behind.

But the film displays no dynamic or complex Natives, no? It doesn't ever make the argument against Ethan's viewpoint, or at the least provide a counterexample. The Natives are hostile and up to no good, transforming sweet, white Natalie Wood into a "savage." I am a big fan of the film and think it is a complex film and as I alluded to, I think Ford is knowledgable of his archaic viewpoints (he is critical in the end of Ethan's place in civilization). But, his film still operates on the level and assumption that Natives are bad and the white man must fight them off as the heroes of the story.

Right. My issue was that I don't need to agree with the message to enjoy the film. That was it.

I believe you that this was all you meant and I think many people could agree. But the admiration of the art itself must still come in spite of the message or morality of the work which means, as we have been saying, both aspects must be considered. It just depends on your personal view whether you can overlook this. In some cases, I think many viewers find it too much.

That's fine, but why should that perceived racism be the deciding factor for quality?

You haven't seen it, so OK, but it isn't "perceived." It's racist, plain and simple. Whether you can ignore that for the quality of the craft is a personal choice. But, there must be an acknowledgment of the immoral and distasteful nature of the images and the emphasis the film gives (assuming your morals go against the film's, which I am certain they do). You cannot simply view the film on a formal level and ignore what lies beneath and drives the images and the editing. They are joined.

[Dukefrukem]

tldr




.

[Adam]

Sight and Sound starts the countdown of their 2012 Film Poll on twitter in about a half hour, y'all

[elixir]

Sight and Sound starts the countdown of their 2012 Film Poll on twitter in about a half hour, y'all

yup, though the individual lists--what i care about the most--don't roll out til later on, here's the schedule for those interested: http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/s...-all-time-2012

[Watashi]

As long as Kane stays #1, I'll be happy.

[Sycophant]

tldr




.

'Grats.

[elixir]

Sight and Sound starts the countdown of their 2012 Film Poll on twitter in about a half hour, y'all

for y'all:

Sight & Sound ‏@SightSoundmag
At #10 in our #sightsoundpoll we have erstwhile directors' favourite, 8 1/2.

#sightsoundpoll #9: The Passion of Joan of Arc.

#sightsoundpoll #8: a new entry! A documentary! Man with a Movie Camera.

#sightsoundpoll #7: John Ford's evergreen western The Searchers.

#sightsoundpoll #6: 2001: A Space Odyssey

#sightsoundpoll #5: a third silent! Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans.

#sightsoundpoll #4: La Règle du jeu.

#sightsoundpoll #3 Tokyo Story. And some of you have already heard…

#sightsoundpoll #2 Citizen Kane's reign is over.

#sightsoundpoll #1 is Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo.

[elixir]

and the directors' poll

The Directors’ Top 10 Greatest Films of All Time
Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
=2 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
=2 Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
8 ½ (Fellini, 1963)
Taxi Driver (Scorsese, 1980)
Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)
=7 The Godfather (Coppola, 1972)
=7 Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
Mirror (Tarkovsky, 1974)
Bicycle Thieves (De Sica, 1948)

[elixir]

and here's the top 50
http://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time

sorry if this is annoying :/

[Watashi]

and here's the top 50
http://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time

sorry if this is annoying :/

Lists are always more fun than endless debates on aesthetics vs. morals!

[Dukefrukem]

Top 5 things I love.

1. Lists
2. Discussing Lists
3. Looking at Lists
4. Making Lists
5. Getting Angry over Lists