Optimism as a revolutionary act.

[Him]

i wasn't really talking about how much money those movies made, because let's face it, the amout of money a film makes has not got an awful lot to do with how good it is.

kind of like the oscars.

in all seriousness, i was questioning how good the new wave films are. i'm not disputing their "importance" (check my previous comments), or how much money they made (but which in my opinion is still very important and should be no. 2 on things films must do).

the professional critics who i trust the most when reading reviews have a similar opinion to me. with regards to a bout de souffle, they write nice things, acknowledge the importance, and award the film four out of five - where elsewhere they give jaws, or ocean's eleven (2002), or butch cassidy and the sundance kid five out of five. and these are not fickle journalists working for some trashy tabloid, but empire magazine reviewers.

what pisses me off about overly-optimistic (i dont think crowe is OVERLY-optimistic) films is that they seem to say "its all right folks. the world is perfect and we dont need to improve our behaviour or anything."

i agree with your sentiment. but hang on a second. i would argue that a film like you described above isn't a film - it's a celine dion music video (or at the very least terrible movies). every film needs an antagonist of some sorts - (bob sugar in jerry maguire is a good example, although the antagonist doesn't have to be a person) - and 99 per cent of the time they are a mirror to the bad things/people in society.

do you see what i'm getting at? in my opinion - and steel yourself for it - "cinema" which is designed to shock the viewer out of their apathy is fundamentally flawed because it's overt manipulation. the audience is smart to it. the greed displayed by bob sugar, like the colour black, would not stand out as much without the emotional journey of jerry maguire - who goes from black to white.

the same with the apartment. the callousness of J.D. Sheldrake stands out more because of Bud Baxter's sensitivity which he acquires after saving miss kubelik, having previously been a guy who only cared about his next hike up the corporate ladder. these two are both optimistic films, and make better points because they are.

"the sweet smell of success", and it's lovechild with "his girl friday", "the hudsucker proxy" despite almost being a big-screen cartoon, are more examples.

so you see, you can make points more subtly without having to insult the audience by saying "hey, asshole". the films which fail the most in their intended desire to get an important message across are the ones nobody goes to because they're called "Loudly Protesting My Social Significance".[/quote]

[Ernie]

I'd say I'm more of an optomist than a pessimist...maybe more of a realist, I don't know...anyway, I definitely do love Cameron, he's a fucking awesome filmmaker.

Ummm...I guess I don't really know what to say that hasn't already been said.  I think optomism is great...of course, there is a point where it becomes unrealistic and grating, Cameron Crowe's films don't even come close to that point I don't think and honestly...I don't like any film, anbody or anything at all that does reach that grating point of optomism. Then it just becomes ignorance...it's no longer cool...it's just annoying.  Some say that Amelie reaches that point...but to me, it really doesn't...it is very optomistic but not to the annoying point, it's inarguably a feel good film overall, I think it really uses some good measure though, there are two or three pretty dark parts to off set the mood...it's a perfect movie. So, that's my conclusion...I love optomism to a point...it's the same thing with pessimism...there's a point where it just becomes too much...it works both ways. Overly cynical people and overly optomistic people are no fun to be around...the world is so much more complex than just GREAT and HORRIBLE...black and white, it's cliche but it's fucking true.

[Cecil]

Overly cynical people and overly optomistic people are no fun to be around

im cynical, but i dont think im "overly" cynical. i just say overly cynical things because to me its funny.

[Ernie]

Overly cynical people and overly optomistic people are no fun to be around

im cynical, but i dont think im "overly" cynical. i just say overly cynical things because to me its funny.

Well, that's cool then I think. I'm fine with cynical people and yes, it is funny. There's just a point where I don't like it.

[Him]

you know, it's true, angry cynicism is pretty funny. in fact, in jerry maguire, the funniest part, in my opinion - actually, i'll just quote it...

                       

JERRY
                       Don't you even see -- I'm
                       finished. I'm fucked. Twenty-four
                       hours ago, I was hot. Now... I'm
                       a cautionary tale!

             Tidwell looks at Jerry, impassive.

                                 JERRY
                              (continuing)
                       See this jacket I'm wearing?  You
                       like it?  I don't really need it,
                       because I'm CLOAKED IN FAILURE.
                       I lost the number one draft pick
                       the night before the draft. They
                       will teach my story to other
                       agents on "do not do this" day in
                       agent school. Why? Let's recap.
                       Because a hockey player's kid made
                       me feel like a superficial jerk,
                       I had two slices of bad pizza,
                       went to bed, grew a conscience and
                       wrote a 25-page Manifesto of Doom!

it truly baffles me why tom cruise doesn't do more light-ish comedy like this. nothing is guaranteed to make me laugh more than whenever he gets mad with frustration at rod in this movie. instead he does mission impossible three, which he could probably do in his sleep. or born on the fifth of july, just to prove what a 'serious' actor he is. mega-stars should not forget that the greatest leading man of all time was cary grant, who never did anything more 'serious' than 'an affair to remember'.

coming back to the original point, i think we've just about run out of steam on this optimism v. pessimism debate. i would like to say that i think that, despite the vociferous complaints of the  members on here, i think it's a good and wise thing that the number of optimistic films being produced (mainly by hollywood) outweigh the pessimistic by such a large margin. no matter how artistic a spin you want to put on it, movie-making is a business in a similar way sports is. and people are going to see optimistic movies more so than pessimistic films. and i think the ratio of terrible up- films to great ones is about the same as terrible down- films to great ones.

by the way, i think saying you're a realist is a big cop-out.  :P

[©brad]

the 25 paged manifesto part wasnt in the movie.

[Him]

i just cut and pasted it from drew's script-o-rama, man. i guess it was edited out.

[Cecil]

movie-making is a business in a similar way sports is. and people are going to see optimistic movies more so than pessimistic films.

yes, but if you look at it that way, theres a market for every kind of film.

youre giving cinema too many restrictions: "escapist-entertainment," "business..." yes it is those things but so much more also.

by the way, i think saying you're a realist is a big cop-out.  :P

its funny, cause when you really think about it, an optimist can say hes a realist just as much as a pessimist can.

[Ernie]

That's true, never thought of it that way. Everybody is a realist in their own eyes.

Well, I guess I don't know what I am then...I guess I'm an optomist if I had to choose.

[Him]

i don't think i'm giving "cinema" (again, this is a term i try not to use. david lean made "cinema". eisenstein made "cinema". i prefer talking about pictures, movies or films) restrictions. i do think for a movie to be successful, it has to do at least two things;

1) be good (vague, i know. perhaps that should be amended to "tell a good story".)

2) at least make its money back.

you know, it's written that in the last fifty to one hundred years man has perfected the form of both the novel and the song. everything else is simply an experiment which is worthy, perhaps even quite good, but doomed to failure because it would have been better in the perfect form. how far away is hollywood from the perfect cinematic form - the inciting incident, the point of no return, the three act stucture, the false ending, etc, etc?

[Cecil]

you know, it's written that in the last fifty to one hundred years man has perfected the form of both the novel and the song. everything else is simply an experiment which is worthy, perhaps even quite good, but doomed to failure because it would have been better in the perfect form. how far away is hollywood from the perfect cinematic form - the inciting incident, the point of no return, the three act stucture, the false ending, etc, etc?

interesting concept. do you think that maybe there exists no perfect cinematic form? but instead just endless possiblities, and everyone has there own interpretation/ opinion of what the perfect form is?

[Him]

of course, there are always things which can be done differently in cinema, and people can have their own opinions of what the perfect cinematic form is.

(i feel i should point out at this juncture that this does not mean to say that there will ever be the perfect film. where's the perfect novel? or the perfect song? let's just clear that one up before i get misquoted.)

but the thing about opinions is that quite often they're wrong. and scientifically speaking, there's no evidence to suggest that in time, hollywood won't perfect the form. (and it probably will be hollywood because they produce the most films per year with the most money invested into the story part of the process. plus, i believe that they are already closing in on the formula.)

there is a theory which goes some way to explaining the perfect form hypothesis. it goes like this: with everything you come across in terms of art, your brain as a natural reaction will attempt to 'solve' it. all the best art has mystery to it, and you have to subject yourself to the art in an attempt to 'solve' it.

i'm sure everyone who reads this was desperate to see the usual suspects again having watched it the first time around. indeed, the usual suspects is perhaps the cleverest film of all time - i must have seen it upwards of 15 to 20 times now, and it still took me a little while to figure out this: none of what verbal kint says is the truth, and whilst there were undoubtedly elements of the truth in his lies, even attempting to guess at his motives is futile (why go all that way to rub out a guy because he's seen your face, and then leave another guy half alive so he can paint a picture of you?).

another one i remember vividly is mr. smith goes to washington. throughout the philebuster the thought kept going through my mind - how is he going to win against such dispecable foes with such resources at their disposal? it's the mystery and the need to 'solve' films which drives people on to look in an in-depth manner at the structure of good films and bad in an attempt to spot the similarities and differences. once the film has been 'solved' we can admire the handiwork, but it loses the magic of that first time you saw it - perhaps this is what people refer to when they call it the magic of the big screen.

here's more evidence for the argument: when was the last time you heard a stupid person say of a film with a decent plot 'i didn't get it' or 'i didn't understand it', 'it was too weird'. they either do not have enough intelligence (i find this unlikely. i read somewhere that the i.q. of the average film-goer jumps 25 points when they cross the threshhold of the theatre.) or they aren't clever enough to apply themselves to the story and 'solve' it, so they dismiss it as weird. (there's a subtle difference there.)

one of the simplest films ever also happens to be one of my personal favourites. i was just beginning to study film theory off my own bat when i saw 'swingers' for the first time, which is as neat and tidy as they come, with enough intrigue and character development to keep the viewer watching. on second inspection however, the structure of the movie is really simple.

so have a look at your favourite movies and see how simple they are. i'd be willing to bet that more of them conform than perhaps you'd thought. i haven't seen 'cecil b. demented' but it would make for an interesting study - have you checked it for hidden irony?

[Cecil]

what do you mean exactly when you talk about the perfect form? a structure (3 acts, plot points...) or an actuall story formula (like boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back)? or is it in the very core of the film (theres x amount of characters and something happens), or a combination of all those things?

i think i understand what youre saying, though. if we take memento for example, yes the film is told backwards but the introduction, rising action, climax, and resolution are still in the right order. therefore, its only the surface of things that change.

thats fine if youre film has a plot, even if its character driven. what about a film where all there is is images and sounds. pure abstract filmmaking. no characters, no plot. if someone enjoyed such a film, how can you say that this person is wrong? the best you can say is call him ignorant IF its the only film hes ever seen. but if hes seen tons of films, all sorts of films, and is aware of the history of cinema, then he is not ignorant at all.

i think that a perfect form would only make the film enjoyable for as many people as possible (being impossible to please absolutely EVERYONE). whereas that abstract film i refered to above would only please 5 people. calling the first film better because more people like it is fine (if thats what your opinion of what a good film does is), but denying the other one its right of existence is rediculous. in the end, they are both just films... neither of them is either good or bad, they are just films. whether they are good or bad is only an opinion.

i haven't seen 'cecil b. demented' but it would make for an interesting study - have you checked it for hidden irony?

LOL you should check this film out, im curious to see what you think of it.

[Julke]

Hi, I just joined recently, so you'll have to bare with me, I have some catching up to do.  But I want to say that I don't believe someone who doesn't know cinematic history should be called ignorant.  You don't need this kind of knowledge to know what you appreciate and what you don't.  Though I agree that it can only help develop one's tastes.  

Anyway, I wasn't involved in the whole debate so take my opinion lightly for now.

[Cecil]

Hi, I just joined recently

welcome to the madness  

I want to say that I don't believe someone who doesn't know cinematic history should be called ignorant.

why do you think that people who know nothing about past films and who hardly watch any films cant recognize the cliches that we all know and hate?

theres nothing wrong with being ignorant cinema-wise.... not everyone is a die-hard film lunatic. but maybe if the studios released "fresher material", people would be smarter about cinema.