'tis the season to greenlight the same movie twice (at least)

Started by pete, September 14, 2006, 11:53:40 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

picolas

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on April 13, 2007, 01:36:49 PMMy point is that if people are going to dramatically praise or slam something they should try for at least a small explanation. Grand standing statements, especially those that go against the grain, always need a context.
that's what i was saying.

matt35mm

I am not big into Elephant (though I don't hate it, either... I didn't have that strong of a reaction to it either way.  I CAN see some of the bullshit in it, though), but I like Gerry.  I don't know if Pete was including that in his Van Sant hate because I don't know if Gerry was 'based on facts.'

I never saw Last Days.

Pubrick

gerry was based on facts.

Quote from: picolas on April 13, 2007, 02:42:04 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on April 13, 2007, 01:36:49 PMMy point is that if people are going to dramatically praise or slam something they should try for at least a small explanation. Grand standing statements, especially those that go against the grain, always need a context.
that's what i was saying.

i don't know what pic is saying, but GT your comment is no less absolute than anyone else's.. maybe even moreso cos you simply agreed with pete's "grand standing statement".
under the paving stones.

Gold Trumpet

Quote from: Pubrick on April 13, 2007, 09:04:09 PM
gerry was based on facts.

Quote from: picolas on April 13, 2007, 02:42:04 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on April 13, 2007, 01:36:49 PMMy point is that if people are going to dramatically praise or slam something they should try for at least a small explanation. Grand standing statements, especially those that go against the grain, always need a context.
that's what i was saying.

i don't know what pic is saying, but GT your comment is no less absolute than anyone else's.. maybe even moreso cos you simply agreed with pete's "grand standing statement".

I wasn't trying to make an argument against Van Sant. I was just commenting on the nature of, well, comments. It didn't seem like the appropriate place to start a Van Sant discussion.

picolas

Quote from: Pubrick on April 13, 2007, 09:04:09 PM
i don't know what pic is saying
i said "no they haven't" to show that pete's statement didn't justify or explain itself at all so it could be countered with a satement as simple and unjustified. basically thread rebalancing. also i think the death trilogy is the opposite of bullshit, with the possible exception of michael pitt's performance in last days, but even that isn't without an amazing premise that involves looking at something for a really long time..

pete

god, everyone is asking for explanations everywhere.  I've trashed van sant enough times I just assumed people who read whatever I said would remember a fragment of that or whatever.  plus, I really wasn't that interested in discussing the indie darling status of van sant, I just wanted to loudly groan with words.  Since I read the bad news on this forum, then I will show my disgust on this forum.  that was all.
but if you wanna talk about van sant, lets talk about van sant, and I'll just re-iterate my point.  the man has no insightful knowledge of the "real events" that he based his films on, aside from what everyone already knows, which is all based on sensationalized news pieces.  Then he proceeds to make a film using those facts, but filmmed with the grace and texture of a more expensive, more pensive film.  then when he releases the film he goes public with this two-part cheap tactic: first he tells everyone exactly what and who the film is about, just in case we don't recognized the re-enacted headlines or sunglasses.  then he tells everyone he doesn't have a conclusion so we have to watch it and decide for ourselves.  now, the latter might be okay, if he's thrown in some insight or understanding in there.  but instead, the man essentially becomes as irresponsible as CNN.  he draws out his sensationalized newspaper gossip, but then comments that he refuses to comment on it.  and then voila, somehow, all these people who have never believed in objectivity in cinema before come out and praise his master pieces for their objectivity.  objectivity and ignornace are not the same thing.  that's the problem with van sant, but also the genius of van sant.  nobody with that sophisticated sense of craftsmanship has sunken that low yet.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

Pubrick

i didn't need or want an explanation. GT was basically saying that calling his recent efforts total bullshit is justified as a statement while the opposite (that his last three films were amazing) is "typical" of a grand statement that says nothing. well they're both the same and that's all he needed to acknowledge.

i havn't even read what you wrote, i'm sure it's all well and good. i wasn't really invested in this to care either way. just pointing out that GT made no sense and i think that's what pic was saying too. grand statements are fine sometimes!
under the paving stones.

pete

I was responding to Picolas, he seemed to both love van sant and wanted an explanation.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

pete

"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton