a visual defense of 2001: a space odyssey

Started by Jeremy Blackman, November 17, 2004, 08:33:29 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

The Perineum Falcon

#1
November 17, 2004, 09:07:48 PM
Did this movie really need defending?
We often went to the cinema, the screen would light up and we would tremble, but also, increasingly often, Madeleine and I were disappointed. The images had dated, they jittered, and Marilyn Monroe had gotten terribly old. We were sad, this wasn't the film we had dreamed of, this wasn't the total film that we all carried around inside us, this film that we would have wanted to make, or, more secretly, no doubt, that we would have wanted to live.

Stefen

#2
November 17, 2004, 09:58:11 PM
If I had never seen this movie I would think it looks like shit.
Falling in love is the greatest joy in life. Followed closely by sneaking into a gated community late at night and firing a gun into the air.

El Duderino

#3
November 17, 2004, 10:09:32 PM


especially that one
Did I just get cock-blocked by Bob Saget?

cine

#4
November 18, 2004, 12:01:18 AM
Quote from: El Duderinoespecially that one
please put that down.

Pubrick

#5
November 18, 2004, 06:44:51 AM
an old reply of mine i'm stealing from myself in order to make a point:
additions are in bold
Quote from: in the general Visual Defense thread, when it was becoming a sort of fad, Pubrickthere is nothing morally objective to making a visual defense for every movie ever made,. but it was funny the first time cos Josie and the Pussycats is underrated, that was the joke. then the second time it was funny cos Barry Lyndon is generally acknowledged as the most beautiful picture ever.. so to visually defend it is ironic.

if every good-looking movie gets a visual defense, where's the challenge in that? most ppl hav trouble enuff getting the Barry Lyndon joke. it just loses any sort of creativity when we just pat each other on the back by choosing movies which are obviously good looking, and don't NEED a visual defense.

ok, so what i'm saying is, maybe it's just me, but i thought the phrase "visual defense" was charming because it was a rebuttal, a defense against sum sort of attack. a joke, whether it be ironic or otherwise, repeated in the same manner without alteration, becomes stale. *
in conclusion.. i can see the different kind of irony being employed here. the shots are not celebrated ones, in sum cases not even a steady composition. unfortunately this adds very little to the concept of a visual defense, and only makes it more obscure.

*however the considerable time interval between reposting of jokes can render the crime forgivable. so long as the tradition is respected, the joke can reach timeless stature. otherwise.. booooooring.
under the paving stones.

mutinyco

#6
November 18, 2004, 05:30:14 PM
Quote from: Pubrick
in conclusion.. i can see the different kind of irony being employed here. the shots are not celebrated ones, in sum cases not even a steady composition. unfortunately this adds very little to the concept of a visual defense, and only makes it more obscure.

Funny. I thought he was just drunk when he posted it.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Just Withnail

#7
November 18, 2004, 05:38:11 PM
In that case he deserves props for the ability to cap DVDs under the influence.
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions