Jump to content

Film Thread


ssiscool

Recommended Posts

theres almost no artists left in the mainstream medium.

Which mainstream filmmakers would you consider artists?

-Kickingthehabit

sofia coppola]/b], jim jarmusch (barely mainstream)...very few. bertolucci too.

:heart: You just shot up so high in my books, and it's not like I didn't already like you! I'd add Almodovar, the Coens, Spike Jonze, Michel Gondry, Atom Egoyan, Ang Lee, Steven Soderbergh, Wong Kar Wai, David Fincher, Jane Campion, Wong Kar Wai, Todd Haynes, Spike Lee, Tim Burton, Paul Thomas Anderson, Oliver Stone, Peter Weir, Scorsese etc.

again, artist first business-people second in those instances? y'really think? (add david lynch to my list) and gus van sant.

i think terms like artist are the privelige of puritans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 13.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

theres almost no artists left in the mainstream medium.

Which mainstream filmmakers would you consider artists?

-Kickingthehabit

sofia coppola]/b], jim jarmusch (barely mainstream)...very few. bertolucci too.

:heart: You just shot up so high in my books, and it's not like I didn't already like you! I'd add Almodovar, the Coens, Spike Jonze, Michel Gondry, Atom Egoyan, Ang Lee, Steven Soderbergh, Wong Kar Wai, David Fincher, Jane Campion, Wong Kar Wai, Todd Haynes, Spike Lee, Tim Burton, Paul Thomas Anderson, Oliver Stone, Peter Weir, Scorsese etc.

again, artist first business-people second in those instances? y'really think? (add david lynch to my list) and gus van sant.

i think terms like artist are the privelige of puritans.

To whom on my list are you taking exception?

EDIT: I forgot Terence Malick and Michael Winterbottom.

Edited by Angelica
Link to comment
Share on other sites

theres almost no artists left in the mainstream medium.

Which mainstream filmmakers would you consider artists?

-Kickingthehabit

sofia coppola]/b], jim jarmusch (barely mainstream)...very few. bertolucci too.

:heart: You just shot up so high in my books, and it's not like I didn't already like you! I'd add Almodovar, the Coens, Spike Jonze, Michel Gondry, Atom Egoyan, Ang Lee, Steven Soderbergh, Wong Kar Wai, David Fincher, Jane Campion, Wong Kar Wai, Todd Haynes, Spike Lee, Tim Burton, Paul Thomas Anderson, Oliver Stone, Peter Weir, Scorsese etc.

again, artist first business-people second in those instances? y'really think? (add david lynch to my list) and gus van sant.

i think terms like artist are the privelige of puritans.

To whom on my list are you taking exception?

EDIT: I forgot Terence Malick and Michael Winterbottom.

highlighted those that make the grade. only one i aint heard of is Jane Campion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

theres almost no artists left in the mainstream medium.

Which mainstream filmmakers would you consider artists?

-Kickingthehabit

sofia coppola]/b], jim jarmusch (barely mainstream)...very few. bertolucci too.

:heart: You just shot up so high in my books, and it's not like I didn't already like you! I'd add Almodovar, the Coens, Spike Jonze, Michel Gondry, Atom Egoyan, Ang Lee, Steven Soderbergh, Wong Kar Wai, David Fincher, Jane Campion, Wong Kar Wai, Todd Haynes, Spike Lee, Tim Burton, Paul Thomas Anderson, Oliver Stone, Peter Weir, Scorsese etc.

again, artist first business-people second in those instances? y'really think? (add david lynch to my list) and gus van sant.

i think terms like artist are the privelige of puritans.

To whom on my list are you taking exception?

EDIT: I forgot Terence Malick and Michael Winterbottom.

highlighted those that make the grade.

Your standards are impossible. The Coen's aren't artists? Come on. And I also forgot Wes Anderson, Michael Mann, and as much as a loathe them, Peter Greenaway and Lars Von Trier.

only one i aint heard of is Jane Campion.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001005/

Some of her stuff is great, some of it is diabolically annoying. But anyone who considers themselves a cinephile should check her out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

theres almost no artists left in the mainstream medium.

Which mainstream filmmakers would you consider artists?

-Kickingthehabit

sofia coppola]/b], jim jarmusch (barely mainstream)...very few. bertolucci too.

:heart: You just shot up so high in my books, and it's not like I didn't already like you! I'd add Almodovar, the Coens, Spike Jonze, Michel Gondry, Atom Egoyan, Ang Lee, Steven Soderbergh, Wong Kar Wai, David Fincher, Jane Campion, Wong Kar Wai, Todd Haynes, Spike Lee, Tim Burton, Paul Thomas Anderson, Oliver Stone, Peter Weir, Scorsese etc.

again, artist first business-people second in those instances? y'really think? (add david lynch to my list) and gus van sant.

i think terms like artist are the privelige of puritans.

To whom on my list are you taking exception?

EDIT: I forgot Terence Malick and Michael Winterbottom.

highlighted those that make the grade.

Your standards are impossible. The Coen's aren't artists? Come on. And I also forgot Wes Anderson, Michael Mann, and as much as a loathe them, Peter Greenaway and Lars Von Trier.

only one i aint heard of is Jane Campion.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001005/

Some of her stuff is great, some of it is diabolically annoying. But anyone who considers themselves a cinephile should check her out.

maybe artist is a term that requires more substance that just throwing the term around. Lars Von Trier counts, definitely. why'd you loathe him? :lol: i've always been on the opinion that true artists as directors are people whoose movies you can pause at almost any point and envision like an oil painting of the still frame, one of grace and depth, Sergio Leone for example. some of the directors you mentioned are just plain money machines. David Fincher an artist? :lol: please..

Edited by ffrankwhite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe artist is a term that requires more substance that just throwing the term around. Lars Von Trier counts, definitely. why'd you loathe him? :lol:

I don't throw the term around, I reserve it for people with a combination of distinct talent and integrity. Speilberg is an almighty director, but he has the artistic integrity of a reality tv star, which is why I didn't include him. Now that would be, IMO, misappropriating the term. So yes, by my criteria, David Fincher is an artist. At his peak, Hitchcock was the definition of a money machine, he was also an artist.

I loathe Lars Von Trier's films and I think he's a dickhead. That dogma manifesto was the biggest wank ever.

And I forgot Baz Lurhmann. Okay, I'll just stop now. :lol:

Edited by Angelica
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Marie Antoinette...

Really? I thought it worked from a cinematic perspective with some really stunning visuals, but I thought it was lacking overall... really failed to engage me on any sort of emotional level.

RTN - I was really excited to see Atonement, but I thought it failed to live up to it's hype. It dragged on through the middle which dragged the rest of the film down - had some truly great moments, but it could have been better. Should have developed the initial romance a little more as well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe artist is a term that requires more substance that just throwing the term around. Lars Von Trier counts, definitely. why'd you loathe him? :lol:

I don't throw the term around, I reserve it for people with a combination of distinct talent and integrity. Speilberg is an almighty director, but he has the artistic integrity of a reality tv star, which is why I didn't include him. Now that would be, IMO, misappropriating the term. So yes, by my criteria, David Fincher is an artist. At his peak, Hitchcock was the definition of a money machine, he was also an artist.

I loathe Lars Von Trier's films and I think he's a dickhead. That dogma manifesto was the biggest wank ever.

And I forgot Baz Lurhmann. Okay, I'll just stop now. :lol:

hitchock was an artist primarily and it was the nature of his art, the craft if you will that drew people in, that wasnt an act of design on his part. i think theres no such thing as bad art, therefore if a movie sucks, by the nature of its sucking, somewhere in it its artistic integrity on whatever level has been compromised and you can fucking set your watch by that theory. Dogmae Manifesto was what the fucking industry needed, vision, overhaul, guts...THAT is a fucking artist!! The Idiots is a masterpiece :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RTN - I was really excited to see Atonement, but I thought it failed to live up to it's hype. It dragged on through the middle which dragged the rest of the film down - had some truly great moments, but it could have been better. Should have developed the initial romance a little more as well...

I was expecting a really good film but not greatness. I was pleasantly surprised. Maybe it's because I went to see it before all the big hype started being thrown around; Joe Wright did an excellent job with Pride and Prejudice and, of course, James McAvoy was just stunning in The Last King of Scotland. Those two working together alone got me excited. I had to see it as soon as it opened.

It really just blew me away. It is a bit of a slow burner? Yes, but I loved the build and the pay-off was fantastic. The whole theme of Briony making one stupid mistake when she was 13 and it having such a profound impact on the lives of everyone around her was something that was just done really well. Each of the acts were spaced far enough apart to really create the feel that you had a great outlook on how their lives had gone from that one single moment.

I know some people have complained they thought that the war scenes would have more action but I really have no time for those people. The Dunkirk scenes were absolutely mind blowing. It was never going to be Saving Private Ryan in terms of shells flying all around him etc and I don't understand why people went into the film expecting that. The long shot of him walking along the beach rivals the one-take scene in Children of Men for me. Just an immense visual treat. I fail to see how anyone could be disappointed with it.

Partly due to McAvoy's performance which was just above and beyond everything I expected. He really hit greatness with this film. I think in 5/10 years time he will have done so many amazing films he could easily be considered one of the all-time greats and people will always look back to this performance as the start of it all. He cannot be faulted at all.

The ending, though, was obviously the greatest thing about it for me. After such a build up they continue to fuck with your emotions some more. It has to be one of the most tense ten minutes in cinema ever. You basically have a camera pointed at an old woman's face for 80% of it yet it's one of the must hard hitting monologues I've ever witnessed. The reveal that (spoilers folks) you were basically witnessing her book which left out a fraction of the truth is wonderful. I'll admit it happily - I welled up when it turned out Robbie and Cecilia had both died. All of the emotions of you thinking that they eventually found each other over the course of the second act just totally crumbled. It was heartbreaking. The odd thing is that despite all of this you never really hate Briony. You can't even dislike her. It's just pity. That's the true beauty of the film, I think. That somebody could put a spanner in the works of true love so spectacularly yet you sympathise with her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dogmae Manifesto was what the fucking industry needed, vision, overhaul, guts...THAT is a fucking artist!!
1. Filming must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found).

2. The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs within the scene being filmed, i.e., diegetic).

3. The camera must be a hand-held camera. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place where the camera is standing; filming must take place where the action takes place.)

4. The film must be in colour. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera).

5. Optical work and filters are forbidden.

6. The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)

7. Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.)

8. Genre movies are not acceptable.

9. The final picture must be transferred to the Academy 35mm film, with an aspect ratio of 4:3, that is, not widescreen. (Originally, the requirement was that the film had to be filmed on Academy 35mm film, but the rule was relaxed to allow low-budget productions.)

10. The director must not be credited.

A couple of pretentious twats coming up with a bunch of arbitrary restrictions does not equal vision. It was a massive wank and the majority of the films were excruciating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree wit Angelica the dogma manifesto is rubbish.

why?

It's about as pompous and conceited as you can get.

thats not necessarily a flaw in terms of the resultant product. pompous in what sense?

No, it's not a flaw in the product.

Popmpous in the sense in that it's so contrived. It's the ultimate in artists disappearing up their own asses to put it bluntly. Trying to make a statement.

A good story is a good story, it doesn't need 'rules' about how it has to be made. They're confusing method with substance.

That's just my opinion.

Edited by ADPT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dogmae Manifesto was what the fucking industry needed, vision, overhaul, guts...THAT is a fucking artist!!
1. Filming must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found).

2. The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs within the scene being filmed, i.e., diegetic).

3. The camera must be a hand-held camera. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place where the camera is standing; filming must take place where the action takes place.)

4. The film must be in colour. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera).

5. Optical work and filters are forbidden.

6. The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)

7. Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.)

8. Genre movies are not acceptable.

9. The final picture must be transferred to the Academy 35mm film, with an aspect ratio of 4:3, that is, not widescreen. (Originally, the requirement was that the film had to be filmed on Academy 35mm film, but the rule was relaxed to allow low-budget productions.)

10. The director must not be credited.

A couple of pretentious twats coming up with a bunch of arbitrary restrictions does not equal vision. It was a massive wank and the majority of the films were excruciating.

you dont see the brilliance at work there? the kind of interesting cinema that came out of that, it was different, it was fresh, it was exciting, it was subversive and above all good art. seriously, what about that manifesto is bad, explain it to me..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree wit Angelica the dogma manifesto is rubbish.

why?

because they reduce the possibilites to create a good movie. for example it doesn't allow light effects. you even have great light effects in modern theaters.

for me the list is designed by arrogant snobs that think they bought the right to say what a good film is an what not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree wit Angelica the dogma manifesto is rubbish.

why?

It's about as pompous and conceited as you can get.

thats not necessarily a flaw in terms of the resultant product. pompous in what sense?

No, it's not a flaw in the product.

Popmpous in the sense in that it's so contrived. It's the ultimate in artists disappearing up their own asses to put it bluntly. Trying to make a statement.

A good story is a good story, it doesn't need 'rules' about how it has to be made. They're confusing method with substance.

That's just my opinion.

a story is as good as the method with which you convey it. they're not disappearing up their own ass, it discipline, its not confusing method with substance, its not addressing substance for the simple reason that there is substance in EVERYTHING its just that the methods of conveying the substance has been perverted and distorted, THATS their point. whether or not they're up their own asses isnt really relevant, its the product that matters or what the product is saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Marie Antoinette...

Really? I thought it worked from a cinematic perspective with some really stunning visuals, but I thought it was lacking overall... really failed to engage me on any sort of emotional level. .

I found it entirely engaging on an emotional level. Partly because I fell in love with them and dreaded their fate, partly because it's sheer physical beauty, but the key component for me was the soundtrack. It drew me into the film completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree wit Angelica the dogma manifesto is rubbish.

why?

because they reduce the possibilites to create a good movie. for example it doesn't allow light effects. you even have great light effects in modern theaters.

for me the list is designed by arrogant snobs that think they bought the right to say what a good film is an what not.

did you ever hear the saying that God has the most boring job in the world? that is to say he can do whatever right, with everything at his disposal? same with filmmakers using all these techniques and trickery and not doing shit. its like being told one day you were totally free. it'd be stifling, you'd be spoilt for choice, i'd be inclined to sit on the grass and whistle. whereas if someone let me loose in a candy store with said freedom i could think of some serious shit :rofl-lol: Within the perimeter of this manifesto there are infinite possibilities, its a defined set of boundaries that push the artist to question his abilities and push their game forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree wit Angelica the dogma manifesto is rubbish.

why?

It's about as pompous and conceited as you can get.

thats not necessarily a flaw in terms of the resultant product. pompous in what sense?

No, it's not a flaw in the product.

Popmpous in the sense in that it's so contrived. It's the ultimate in artists disappearing up their own asses to put it bluntly. Trying to make a statement.

A good story is a good story, it doesn't need 'rules' about how it has to be made. They're confusing method with substance.

That's just my opinion.

a story is as good as the method with which you convey it. they're not disappearing up their own ass, it discipline, its not confusing method with substance, its not addressing substance for the simple reason that there is substance in EVERYTHING its just that the methods of conveying the substance has been perverted and distorted, THATS their point. whether or not they're up their own asses isnt really relevant, its the product that matters or what the product is saying.

They thought that a list of rules would improve the film they made. I don't think that's true.

Also, having a set of rules constrains art. It just screams to me, like Angelica said, of artsitc masturbation of the worst sort.

Personally, I feel it narrows down the possibilites of what you can do. Can you imagine The Warriors made under Dogma rules?

*Shudders*

Edited by ADPT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree wit Angelica the dogma manifesto is rubbish.

why?

It's about as pompous and conceited as you can get.

thats not necessarily a flaw in terms of the resultant product. pompous in what sense?

No, it's not a flaw in the product.

Popmpous in the sense in that it's so contrived. It's the ultimate in artists disappearing up their own asses to put it bluntly. Trying to make a statement.

A good story is a good story, it doesn't need 'rules' about how it has to be made. They're confusing method with substance.

That's just my opinion.

a story is as good as the method with which you convey it. they're not disappearing up their own ass, it discipline, its not confusing method with substance, its not addressing substance for the simple reason that there is substance in EVERYTHING its just that the methods of conveying the substance has been perverted and distorted, THATS their point. whether or not they're up their own asses isnt really relevant, its the product that matters or what the product is saying.

They thought that a list of rules would improve the film they made. I don't think that's true.

Also, having a set of rules constrains art. It just screams to me, like Angelica said, of artsitc masturbation of the worst sort.

Personally, I feel it narrows down the possibilites of what you can do. Can you imagine The Warriors made under Dogma rules?

*Shudders*

it doesnt narrow down the possibilities, that is where vision comes in, it only narrows down the possibilities if you lack imagination. its not a set of rules that they believed EVERYONE should follow, its something they designed as like, an option. it offers cohesion, direction, its a statement of intent, i think it was an amazing idea :)

Edited by ffrankwhite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree wit Angelica the dogma manifesto is rubbish.

why?

because they reduce the possibilites to create a good movie. for example it doesn't allow light effects. you even have great light effects in modern theaters.

for me the list is designed by arrogant snobs that think they bought the right to say what a good film is an what not.

did you ever hear the saying that God has the most boring job in the world? that is to say he can do whatever right, with everything at his disposal? same with filmmakers using all these techniques and trickery and not doing shit. its like being told one day you were totally free. it'd be stifling, you'd be spoilt for choice, i'd be inclined to sit on the grass and whistle. whereas if someone let me loose in a candy store with said freedom i could think of some serious shit :rofl-lol: Within the perimeter of this manifesto there are infinite possibilities, its a defined set of boundaries that push the artist to question his abilities and push their game forward.

Decent lighting and cameras = trickery? Please. It's pretentious claptrap. As were the films themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree wit Angelica the dogma manifesto is rubbish.

why?

because they reduce the possibilites to create a good movie. for example it doesn't allow light effects. you even have great light effects in modern theaters.

for me the list is designed by arrogant snobs that think they bought the right to say what a good film is an what not.

did you ever hear the saying that God has the most boring job in the world? that is to say he can do whatever right, with everything at his disposal? same with filmmakers using all these techniques and trickery and not doing shit. its like being told one day you were totally free. it'd be stifling, you'd be spoilt for choice, i'd be inclined to sit on the grass and whistle. whereas if someone let me loose in a candy store with said freedom i could think of some serious shit :rofl-lol: Within the perimeter of this manifesto there are infinite possibilities, its a defined set of boundaries that push the artist to question his abilities and push their game forward.

Decent lighting and cameras = trickery? Please. It's pretentious claptrap. As were the films themselves.

not exactly but im sure you know what they mean. synthetic assistance. if you refuse to understand thats up to you but im actually explaining here as opposed to just stonewalling and going 'no no no no, its crap' think about it :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...