28 Film Discussion Threads Later

**D_Davis** · 03-30-2010, 10:34 PM

I tend to like things that are artsy just for the sake of being artsy, or weird just because, or not because; it's neat. When given the choice to experience something mundane, or to experience something mundane made fantastic through artistic means, I'll almost always take the later. I also like pretentious things, and especially self-indulgent music.

Winston* · 03-30-2010, 10:37 PM

Mini film festival. Which of these films should I prioritise? I've seen Antichrist, White Ribbon and Still Walking and The Hurt Locker is coming to regular cinemas.

http://www.worldcinemashowcase.co.nz/Thefilms2.html

**Rowland** · 03-30-2010, 10:37 PM

Hmm, shall my first viewing of a non-DTV 2010 release be Chloe, Greenberg, or Ghost Writer? My pervish leanings suggest the Egoyan, my asshole-ish predispostion suggests the Baumbach, while my taste for pulpy thrillers directed with gusto by auteurs suggests the Polanski. Choices, choices...

**Sycophant** · 03-30-2010, 10:38 PM

I haven't seen it myself yet, but LOVE EXPOSURE.

**Rowland** · 03-30-2010, 10:56 PM

I'd prioritize Love Exposure, Everyone Else, and Antichrist, which I've seen already but would love to witness in a cinema.

**Dead & Messed Up** · 03-30-2010, 11:01 PM

Wait, which one is the most artsy-fartsy?

**Spun Lepton** · 03-30-2010, 11:09 PM

Quoting Dead & Messed Up (view post)

Wait, which one is the most artsy-fartsy?

Trash Humpers

**Spinal** · 03-30-2010, 11:12 PM

Quoting Spun Lepton (view post)

Pretention and "artsy-fartsy" tend to go hand-in-hand. Art becomes artsy-fartsy when pretention enters the picture.

I've also noticed over the years that pretentious people -- especially the ones who are offended when the word is even mentioned -- tend to gravitate toward pretentious things, claiming that said pretentious things aren't actually pretentious at all, but brilliant or misunderstood or "underrated" masterpieces.

Feh.

And in my experience, the term 'artsy-fartsy' is seldom used in conjunction with any serious attempt to engage the work in question. It is typically used as a quickly-applied label, intended to dimiss the artist's efforts in one fell swoop and discourage defenders to come forward lest they be similarly judged.

**Sycophant** · 03-30-2010, 11:14 PM

This conversation. Is it the same one we had about Match Cut being pretentious like 2 weeks ago, only broadened somewhat now?

**Mara** · 03-30-2010, 11:15 PM

**Sycophant** · 03-30-2010, 11:23 PM

[/argument]

**Dead & Messed Up** · 03-30-2010, 11:35 PM

I have to watch Aguirre tonight. It goes off Netflix Instant on the first of April - boo!

**MadMan** · 03-30-2010, 11:42 PM

Quoting Dead & Messed Up (view post)

I have to watch Aguirre tonight. It goes off Netflix Instant on the first of April - boo!

Well, I'm glad I've already seen it. Although a rewatch wouldn't hurt. I'm in the "Its a great film, but not worthy of my Top 20" camp.

Also, this site can't be pretentious. If that was the case, people like me would have been booted a long time ago :P

**chrisnu** · 03-31-2010, 12:04 AM

Quoting Rowland (view post)

Hmm, shall my first viewing of a non-DTV 2010 release be Chloe, Greenberg, or Ghost Writer? My pervish leanings suggest the Egoyan, my asshole-ish predispostion suggests the Baumbach, while my taste for pulpy thrillers directed with gusto by auteurs suggests the Polanski. Choices, choices...

Greenberg! Although I am interested in Chloe.

**NickGlass** · 03-31-2010, 12:19 AM

Quoting Winston* (view post)

Mini film festival. Which of these films should I prioritise? I've seen Antichrist, White Ribbon and Still Walking and The Hurt Locker is coming to regular cinemas.

http://www.worldcinemashowcase.co.nz/Thefilms2.html

For chrissakes, see Everyone Else. As for the rest, Herb and Dorothy, Fish Tank and A Single Man are flawed yet fine. Louise-Michel is horrendous.

**megladon8** · 03-31-2010, 12:21 AM

Quoting Dead & Messed Up (view post)

I have to watch Aguirre tonight. It goes off Netflix Instant on the first of April - boo!

ENJOY!

It's fantastic.

**Spun Lepton** · 03-31-2010, 01:14 AM

Quoting Spinal (view post)

And in my experience, the term 'artsy-fartsy' is seldom used in conjunction with any serious attempt to engage the work in question.

Not just dismissive, but flippant. As such, an equally flippant response would be appropriate. I would recommend your typical "Oh, shut the fuck up, dude" but use whatever works best for you ...

Quoting Spinal (view post)

It is typically used as a quickly-applied label, intended to dimiss the artist's efforts in one fell swoop and discourage defenders to come forward lest they be similarly judged.

I don't know if I'd go that far.

**Spun Lepton** · 03-31-2010, 02:25 AM

Stroszek also expires tomorrow. Aww, man!

**Skitch** · 03-31-2010, 02:50 AM

Quoting Sycophant (view post)

This conversation. Is it the same one we had about Match Cut being pretentious like 2 weeks ago, only broadened somewhat now?

I believe I was to blame for that one as well. I guess I can stop assuming I'm on everyones ignore list.

It is fascintating to me, that for all stuff I say around here that gets completely ignored, its the statements I feel are least controversial that seem to get the most hostility.

**Skitch** · 03-31-2010, 02:57 AM

Quoting Spinal (view post)

And in my experience, the term 'artsy-fartsy' is seldom used in conjunction with any serious attempt to engage the work in question. It is typically used as a quickly-applied label, intended to dimiss the artist's efforts in one fell swoop and discourage defenders to come forward lest they be similarly judged.

That was hardly my intention, and in my defense, I did present a few real questions. Response? Zero.

**B-side** · 03-31-2010, 03:00 AM

Quoting Spun Lepton (view post)

Stroszek also expires tomorrow. Aww, man!

Just watch the ending. It's the only interesting part of the film.

Winston* · 03-31-2010, 03:04 AM

Quoting Brightside (view post)

Just watch the ending. It's the only interesting part of the film.

You do not deserve Bruno S.

**B-side** · 03-31-2010, 03:09 AM

Quoting Winston* (view post)

You do not deserve Bruno S.

Bruno's cool with me.

**Spun Lepton** · 03-31-2010, 03:21 AM

Quoting MadMan (view post)

Well, I'm glad I've already seen it. Although a rewatch wouldn't hurt. I'm in the "Its a great film, but not worthy of my Top 20" camp.

I was a little disappointed by the ending, but extremely impressed by what Herzog created out of so few resources.

**Derek** · 03-31-2010, 03:33 AM

Quoting Skitch (view post)

I could be wrong, but do you really think Willem Dafoe having nuts rain on his head in slow motion is a critical part of the narrative?

Why does everything in a film have to be a critical part of the narrative? Can a film not attempt expression without it relating directly to story or character development? That shot, however, is particularly meaningful in terms of the film's themes. In Herzogian terms, the nuts pelting the metal roof show the "cruel indifference of nature", a nature that, in the film's MO, is intrinsically linked to the feminine while Dafoe's character is an unnecessary intruder whose logic and reason don't stand up to the chaotic, destructive forces of nature. So did it have to be in slow motion? No, but it's a powerful and vivid image that directly relates to the film's core ideas.

Thread: 28 Film Discussion Threads Later

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Posting Permissions