Directorial Self-Indulgence

Started by Born Under Punches, May 08, 2003, 03:26:06 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2
User actions

SoNowThen

#15
May 09, 2003, 02:20:26 PM
Funnily enough, I have 200 dvd's, and the only DePalma I own is Mission Impossible...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

SoNowThen

#16
May 09, 2003, 02:31:52 PM
It's oop.

So I'm sure that means they're making a Special Edition, which I'll wait to buy.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

MacGuffin

#17
May 09, 2003, 02:57:26 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenIt's oop.

So I'm sure that means they're making a Special Edition, which I'll wait to buy.

Don't bet on it anytime soon. Although I don't know why Universal has let this go OOP for so long. It seems there would be a demand from all the up and coming rappers who watch MTV's Cribs and want to copy their peers' tastes. But the Collector's Edition has outtakes and an awesome 'Making Of' doc. I guess they could add a commentary, but De Palma has yet to do one (that I know of). He should though, his contributions to his other discs (Carrie, Dressed To Kill, Casualties Of War, Obsession and Femme Fatale) are very insightful. If anything, Carlito's Way and Untouchables should get the Spec. Ed. treatment.

QuoteTry to work in Snake Eyes and Femme Fatale too, cuz I loved both of those until the end as well.

I'll go along with you on the Femme Fatale ending. I LOVED it all the way up until the ending.
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

SoNowThen

#18
May 09, 2003, 03:01:53 PM
*SPOILER WARNING ABOUT FEMME FATALE*



I know. Could have been the best neo-noir in so long, then went to the "all a dream" easy way out. When she got shot on the bridge, I went numb, thinking this was gonna be one of my fav movies of the year, then... it was not to be.

Oh yeah, I forgot Casualties. I LOVE that movie.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Gold Trumpet

#19
May 09, 2003, 03:53:55 PM
The pacing and mood of Femme Fatale doesn't really set up for neo-noir in the real sense. It is very like a dream film, where the story touches upon situations that could be in any other film, but never really is one because it explains nothing. One of the great focuses in neo noir is the explanation upon explanation in following a story that builds to some dramatic conclusion. The results can be good, but the viewing capabilities for long periods of time seem diminished with how obvious the story usually is. Femme Fatale is De Palma's best film in my opinion because it uses his mastery and command of directing in a way to bring interest in almost any story he touches, whatever their final merits, and does it in Femme Fatatale in a way that teases to the possibilities of what the movie can mean. Movies sadly are forgetting art is based off the foundations of an open work, where interpretation is not definite and for each viewer personally. Though the ending suggested a dream ending, I wasn't convinced that explained anything, but only add another level of curiosity to the whole movie on what it can be really about.

~rougerum

SoNowThen

#20
May 09, 2003, 04:04:46 PM
Ahhh, GT you ol' hound dog...


Yeah, I know Femme Fatale built the dream-state the whole way through (the fish tank stood out as being a cool thing...), but -- I dunno -- maybe I'm a purest, but if you wanna do a dream movie, do a dream movie. Maybe this one was sold as a neo-noir to me, so that's why I was disappointed. Cuz it COULD HAVE been a great neo-noir. I just like that word: neo-noir. Neo-noir, neo-noir...

No, the bridge should have been the ending, because the femme fatale brought the hero to his knees, but he manages to take her with him, a la Double Indemnity (which DePalma had shown us at the start). I just thought that would be the logical circular ending point. Not that I didn't think the epilogue was neat, I just thought it belonged in a different film. Oh well.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Gold Trumpet

#21
May 09, 2003, 05:26:43 PM
I'm confused by your definition of "purest". If you admit that Femme Fatale was built around a dream state, then how would it be of purest qualities to add something real, like the ending of a neo noir, to it? In the context of this movie, the only real purist thing to do was to see the film finish out on the structure that it has the entire way through, which the movie does. You may have seen it a different way and expected differently with how you followed the story, I can't argue these things. I do suggest you watch the movie again with my place of thought in tact and try to look at the film as an experience that never really identifies anything and when it comes to its ending, it identifies actually very little that is revealing about anything. Femme Fatale is a movie that is about the possibilities of what it can be. Truly a fascinating movie considering the pure talent De Palma has in directing.

~rougerum

SoNowThen

#22
May 10, 2003, 01:56:12 PM
I will indeed watch it again with that in mind. Though it is hard to concentrate when Rebecca R-S is so hot.


BTW, what I meant by "purest" was that I went into it wanting to see a noir, and by the time I figured out the dream stuff, it was far into the movie, and I was pissed that it had deviated from what I wanted. It's silly -- I know -- but I really just wanted the noir, pure noir, because that's what I was interested in watching and writing at the time. Dream movies seem too easy to me, because anything goes. I like the rigidity of genre expectations of noir, hence "purest". But this is just my subjective definition, as an explanation of what I said. It was MY fault, not the movie, but you know how sometimes you're in a certain mood, and a flick just doesn't work for you? That's how it was.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Gold Trumpet

#23
May 10, 2003, 08:29:03 PM
It's not your fault. Its all subjective and nothing lies in fact this or that. It really doesn't matter what you think of the film, except if you can back it up with good reason. This discussion board acts as arguments between different reasons not to say if something is that way or not, but just find all the ways something can be looked at.

~rougerum

Alexandro

#24
June 06, 2003, 12:18:17 PM
Yeah, most of my favorite directors are pretty much all the time called elf indulgent pricks...Scorsese, Tarantino, Coppola, Allen, PTA, Spielberg, Spike Lee, Oliver Stone...and so on and on and on...

My guess is that for some reason people who say this can't stand a director with a personal style, with personaly interests and artistical ambitions...

I wouldn't even call Guy Ritchie self-indulgent even though I don't like any of his movies cause he seems to be saying all the time: I'M COOL, THIS IS COOL, NO STORY, NO NOTHING, BUT SO COOL...still, that's his style, and a director shouldn't be really concerned about what people will think of his movie...

I think we all know how dissimilar opinions can be on the same film. Every person has one, and there can be interpretations you as a creator never intended or imagined someone would get out of your work. Some people think Rocky is the best movie ever and Magnolia the worst...the lesson is, DO AS YOU WANT...IS YOUR FUCKING MOVIE, WHY NOT BE SELF INDULGENT IF YOU WANT TO, YOU MAKE THE MOVIE FOR YOURSELF...

modage

#25
June 06, 2003, 03:01:25 PM
i would have to add my two cents by saying that there is self indulgent GOOD and self indulgent BAD.  scorsese, pta, etc. ALWAYS have the audience in mind.  as pta has said on numerous occasions that he has had high hopes for ALL his movies to be box office smashes.  he desperately wants to connect with the pubic as well as the critics, BUT he refuses to pander to them.  he wants to challenge them and give them something different, and gives them the credit (undue) that people will like it.  if you want to call THIS self-indulgent, than i would classify this as the good kind.  
however, someone who makes a movie without the audience in mind, (whatever audience that may be), would be self indulgent (in the BAD connotation).  someone who makes a movie just to get under peoples skin, or to be controversial, or to piss people off without really saying something, and that really has no intention of making their money back.  that seems like more self indulgent to me because they are making a movie with financers money for an audience that they know will not come to see it.  they are spending someone elses money for their statement.  i would say all the directors you named are always trying to make movies for (themselves sure), but always the audiences.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Alexandro

#26
June 06, 2003, 03:28:07 PM
Quote from: themodernage02i would have to add my two cents by saying that there is self indulgent GOOD and self indulgent BAD.  scorsese, pta, etc. ALWAYS have the audience in mind.  as pta has said on numerous occasions that he has had high hopes for ALL his movies to be box office smashes.  he desperately wants to connect with the pubic as well as the critics, BUT he refuses to pander to them.  he wants to challenge them and give them something different, and gives them the credit (undue) that people will like it.  if you want to call THIS self-indulgent, than i would classify this as the good kind.  
however, someone who makes a movie without the audience in mind, (whatever audience that may be), would be self indulgent (in the BAD connotation).  someone who makes a movie just to get under peoples skin, or to be controversial, or to piss people off without really saying something, and that really has no intention of making their money back.  that seems like more self indulgent to me because they are making a movie with financers money for an audience that they know will not come to see it.  they are spending someone elses money for their statement.  i would say all the directors you named are always trying to make movies for (themselves sure), but always the audiences.

You're right...completely right...they have respect for the audience but never betray their instincts and their style, the way they think the story should be told...

they have the audience in mind, but they ARE first, always...
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2
User actions