elephant

Started by gjg 4 REEL, September 23, 2003, 01:45:14 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 20
User actions

godardian

#90
October 28, 2003, 05:46:35 PM
Quote from: mutinycoWell, what does it mean when you say it was incorrect? I think the film was equally focused on the killers and victims. What about Benny, for instance? You think he's going to be a hero, but then he turns out not to be. That said, I don't see why it needed to focus more on the victims than the predators. I think the predators were ultimately more interesting.

One other thing -- most films ARE UNEQUIVOCALLY NOT TOLD FROM NEUTRAL POSITIONS. Most films are VERY SUBJECTIVE. Most films try to make you identify with your main character to the point of distortion.

I haven't seen Elephant yet, but I do agree that there's a huge overemphasis on "identification" in the movies. I don't think it's a terribly valuable or gratifying aim in most cases, and they usually get it wrong anyway.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

mutinyco

#91
October 30, 2003, 12:17:49 PM
I think both Nick and Pete are misdirected. I saw it for a second time last night and it still held together. Having a unilateral POV is what's wrong with art and culture nowadays. As Kubrick felt, the most interesting thing about 20th Century art was its subjectivity, but in doing so, art had lost any sense of objectivity.

I not only think what Van Sant did was correct, but it was ballsy. A lot more ballsy than trying to augment the matrial to suit one argument. It's a lot scarier and more complicated to tell things how they are instead of how YOU see them. That's the point of the movie: the subject is too complex to be explained from one person's perspective.

And BBII is of course being told in a style that suits its jokester leads -- beautiful but shallow. You're meant to totally identify with them because they're the good guys -- even though they're 'bad boys'. That's how most films are. I'm not talking about subjectivity to the point where everything is specifically from that person's POV -- I'm talking about the tone of storytelling and they way a film is shot to mirror that character's world. In other words, filmmaking with a sharp foreground and zero background.

As for staying power at the BO, let me tell you of a few other other films that fell off immediately but have done quite well on video: Magnolia, Fight Club, Rushmore, Eyes Wide Shut, Punch Drunk love... It's not about the short-run. It's about the longrun. This film is going to be around for a while. Even if it takes a while to achieve its recognition.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

pete

#92
October 30, 2003, 03:34:17 PM
disclaimer again, I have yet to see the film, so I'm just arguing against how the film's advertised and how the filmmakers (director, actors, and cinematographer...etc.) talked about how the film was shot.  I really don't think hiding behind multiple point of view is more ballsy than saying what one believes.  a situation can be multifaceted sure, it can be complex sure, not black or white sure--but to leave it as it is by saying "it's too complicated so you should find out what's the best for you" is not half as ballsy as "this is the situation and this is my opinion on the situation, and since I'm a filmmaker, an artist, this is my slice of The Truth."
post modernism died, for good reasons.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

TheVoiceOfNick

#93
October 30, 2003, 04:07:56 PM
mutinyco, i get where you're coming from, but i guess i'm more into movies that have a point of view, and show some subjectivity, however subtle... even reality TV is able to have a certain point of view through editing.  I guess the reason i feel this way, is that i want film to be relatable to some degree... i see everything through my own perspective, and not through a floating bird's-eye view like in this movie, so i want my movies to have someone's perspective... that way I can relate... i felt totally detached and uninterested with Elephant.

godardian

#94
October 30, 2003, 04:39:24 PM
Quote from: TheVoiceOfNickmutinyco, i get where you're coming from, but i guess i'm more into movies that have a point of view, and show some subjectivity, however subtle... even reality TV is able to have a certain point of view through editing.  I guess the reason i feel this way, is that i want film to be relatable to some degree... i see everything through my own perspective, and not through a floating bird's-eye view like in this movie, so i want my movies to have someone's perspective... that way I can relate... i felt totally detached and uninterested with Elephant.

I haven't seen Elephant (though I am eager to), but I strongly disagree with the need for "relatability." A friend and I have constant disagreements on this. He'll dismiss the movie because the characters weren't "likeable' (or sometimes even that they weren't "attractive," which is even more ludicrous! The attractiveness thing came up with Adaptation).

While I agree that anything utilizing a medium automatically becomes subjective, I think an emphasis on the more coolly observational is crucial now- and reality TV doesn't count! I'm talking about films like Kubrick's, Fassbinder's, Greenaway's, the exceptionally brilliant Safe, or, from the sounds of it, Elephant. We're so used to everything being telegraphed loudly and bluntly into our faces that a few steps back feels like this huge relief to me; allow some space in which the film and the audience can have a relationship of a little bit more enduring complexity. And those sorts of films stay with me longer; they can nag at you and haunt you more deeply. It's the difference between feeling superficially "involved" in something that you know isn't real, and feeling as if you've witnessed something. All it takes to "get into" those types of films- the ones that don't grab you by the collar and head-butt you- is an interest in the world, the way it works, and the people in it. Anna Karina says something akin to this in Vivre sa Vie: "You only have to take an interest."
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

pete

#95
October 30, 2003, 04:44:46 PM
look at Do the Right Thing; it was complex, had multiple points of view, didn't preach (or "telegraph messages"), but still had something to say.  

a film with a message isn't necessarily a propaganda film.  a film with nothing to say isn't necessarily deeper.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

TheVoiceOfNick

#96
October 30, 2003, 04:49:47 PM
Quote from: godardianHe'll dismiss the movie because the characters weren't "likeable' (or sometimes even that they weren't "attractive," which is even more ludicrous! The attractiveness thing came up with Adaptation).

I don't really care for attractiveness or likeability... but I want to know SOMEONE's story from their point of view... its just a way of seeing things... you say tomato, i say tomoto -kinda thing, ya know?

Quote from: godardianAll it takes to "get into" those types of films- the ones that don't grab you by the collar and head-butt you- is an interest in the world, the way it works, and the people in it. Anna Karina says something akin to this in Vivre sa Vie: "You only have to take an interest."

But this movie totally took me out of itself... it called so much attention to itself, and was SO different, that i knew I was watching a movie the whole time... making me less interested... there was no belief to suspend, if you will... the only thing that could have been done to make this more self-aware, is if the director yelled "cut" and walked into frame during the climax...

mutinyco

#97
October 31, 2003, 12:38:20 PM
AHHH!!! You just said it: the movie was so different (original?) that you had difficulty relating to it. That's exactly how a lot of people feel about Kubrick. That's why his movies get so much better with each viewing -- because you now know what to expect to a certain degree -- you're more atuned to the film's sensibility. Then you can start to see it for what it is.

It's my opinion, a film that's difficult to crack is more often the film I want to crack. The one that intrigues me. It's not explaining things upfront. It forces the viewer to participate. That why you're taken out of the moment on first viewings -- you're being forced to do a little work. Once you become used to it, though, the setting feels more real than another type of film.

As for the roving camera, I think it's beautiful like The Shining. By distancing the viewer slightly from the action, what it's doing is forcing the viewer to step into the scene, instead of forcing the scene onto the viewer. Here, the school is as much a character as anybody -- not unlike The Overlook Hotel.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

godardian

#98
October 31, 2003, 02:01:05 PM
Quote from: TheVoiceOfNick
Quote from: godardianHe'll dismiss the movie because the characters weren't "likeable' (or sometimes even that they weren't "attractive," which is even more ludicrous! The attractiveness thing came up with Adaptation).

I don't really care for attractiveness or likeability... but I want to know SOMEONE's story from their point of view... its just a way of seeing things... you say tomato, i say tomoto -kinda thing, ya know?

Quote from: godardianAll it takes to "get into" those types of films- the ones that don't grab you by the collar and head-butt you- is an interest in the world, the way it works, and the people in it. Anna Karina says something akin to this in Vivre sa Vie: "You only have to take an interest."

But this movie totally took me out of itself... it called so much attention to itself, and was SO different, that i knew I was watching a movie the whole time... making me less interested... there was no belief to suspend, if you will... the only thing that could have been done to make this more self-aware, is if the director yelled "cut" and walked into frame during the climax...

...as he did in the last frames of To Die For, actually.  :lol:

It's nice to disagree on this topic with someone who has thoughts and is able to consider and articulate them, though...
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

TheVoiceOfNick

#99
October 31, 2003, 02:37:44 PM
Quote from: mutinycoThat's exactly how a lot of people feel about Kubrick.

Yeah, but Kubrick's movies have interesting character and complex senarios... things that Elephant has none of... the characters are boring, and the senario is, well, an old fashioned school... sure, the shooters could be construed as interesting characters, but they aren't... they seem just like normal kids... <SPOILERS: SKIP TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH TO NOT GET SPOILED> i felt the shower scene was totally random, and didn't add any complexity to the characters... so he's gay, or curious... does that make this whole thing more plausable?  Is it some kind of Shakespearean love-murder-suicide?

This director has nothing on Kubrick... Kubrick has made some of the most amazing movies in history... i was able to be drawn into his films upon first viewing them... they have edge and character... its an insult that this hack (Van Sant) could be named in the same thread as Kubrick... a frickin insult!  :)

godardian

#100
October 31, 2003, 02:42:20 PM
Quote from: TheVoiceOfNick
Quote from: mutinycoThat's exactly how a lot of people feel about Kubrick.

Yeah, but Kubrick's movies have interesting character and complex senarios... things that Elephant has none of... the characters are boring, and the senario is, well, an old fashioned school... sure, the shooters could be construed as interesting characters, but they aren't... they seem just like normal kids... <SPOILERS: SKIP TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH TO NOT GET SPOILED> i felt the shower scene was totally random, and didn't add any complexity to the characters... so he's gay, or curious... does that make this whole thing more plausable?  Is it some kind of Shakespearean love-murder-suicide?

This director has nothing on Kubrick... Kubrick has made some of the most amazing movies in history... i was able to be drawn into his films upon first viewing them... they have edge and character... its an insult that this hack (Van Sant) could be named in the same thread as Kubrick... a frickin insult!  :)

SPOILERS PERHAPS EXTENDED:

Weren't the Columbine killers always being called gay as a putdown, though? Most things I've read make that connection with the shower scene...
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

TheVoiceOfNick

#101
October 31, 2003, 03:02:56 PM
Quote from: godardianSPOILERS PERHAPS EXTENDED:

Weren't the Columbine killers always being called gay as a putdown, though? Most things I've read make that connection with the shower scene...

They've called the Columbine killers lots of stuff... they've even said that they were listening to devil's music beforehand (Marilyn Manson, maybe? I don't remember)... anyways... they'll come up with any excuse to place the blame somewhere... whatever makes them sleep well at night...

godardian

#102
October 31, 2003, 03:09:14 PM
Quote from: TheVoiceOfNick
Quote from: godardianSPOILERS PERHAPS EXTENDED:

Weren't the Columbine killers always being called gay as a putdown, though? Most things I've read make that connection with the shower scene...

They've called the Columbine killers lots of stuff... they've even said that they were listening to devil's music beforehand (Marilyn Manson, maybe? I don't remember)... anyways... they'll come up with any excuse to place the blame somewhere... whatever makes them sleep well at night...

I meant by their classmates, though, before the massacre... Not as an excuse for what went down, obviously, but as relates to the verisimilitude of the shower scene...
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

cowboykurtis

#103
October 31, 2003, 04:25:37 PM
Quote from: mutinyco

And BBII is of course being told in a style that suits its jokester leads -- beautiful but shallow. You're meant to totally identify with them because they're the good guys -- even though they're 'bad boys'. That's how most films are. I'm not talking about subjectivity to the point where everything is specifically from that person's POV -- I'm talking about the tone of storytelling and they way a film is shot to mirror that character's world. In other words, filmmaking with a sharp foreground and zero background.
.

Learn what the word subjectivity means and get back to me. we're talking about 2 different things here, rendering the debate lifeless.
...your excuses are your own...

pete

#104
November 01, 2003, 03:04:32 AM
goddammit Nick, HOW DARE you not know the meaning of the word "subjectivity"!  You party foul.  You misinformed, underedumacated, party foul.
You better learn the meaning of that word and get back to cowboy dude, 'cause I don't think it was very nice of you to use the word like that.  Jackass.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 20
User actions