Not-so-Classics, classics.

[JG]

I do think some of them aren't as good as some of the movies released now, just these ones haven't sunk in yet.

that's pretty much exactly how i feel. i think it's stupid to feel like you have to put certain movies in your list of favorite movies because they are widely accepted as classics when there are plenty of movies coming out now that are just as good.

[Gold Trumpet]

Let's also throw in some Fellini for good measure.  How good is La Dolce Vita?  La Strada?

La Dolce Vita is definitely overrated. A major transition film for Fellini, he wants to convey the realism of Neo noir but he is as in love with his camera and self as his works to come. Many moments are too good to ignore, but the film comes off as meandering and over done as any film he has ever done. Compare that to the fact it debuted at Cannes alongside L'Avventura, both films subject of internal isolation, it comes off as the lesser realized film of the two. (though La Dolce Vita won the Palme D'or and L'Avventura was booed) Antononoi's art is in tact and for me, stands as his best and one of the best films ever.

La Strada, yes, is overrated. Well done and all, I just am not sure if Fellini's dabbling in realism really stands up comparable to other films.

I've never had much interest to defend Casablanca, so I won't here either. Its still a bad film. Citizen Kane, which I again watched recently, keeps degrading with every viewing. I think I may have to testify to what James Agee originally said, "just a series of shots already done in the 20s."

[w/o horse]

Let's also throw in some Fellini for good measure.  How good is La Dolce Vita?  La Strada?

La Dolce Vita is definitely overrated. A major transition film for Fellini, he wants to convey the realism of Neo noir but he is as in love with his camera and self as his works to come. Many moments are too good to ignore, but the film comes off as meandering and over done as any film he has ever done. Compare that to the fact it debuted at Cannes alongside L'Avventura, both films subject of internal isolation, it comes off as the lesser realized film of the two. (though La Dolce Vita won the Palme D'or and L'Avventura was booed) Antononoi's art is in tact and for me, stands as his best and one of the best films ever.

La Strada, yes, is overrated. Well done and all, I just am not sure if Fellini's dabbling in realism really stands up comparable to other films.

I've never had much interest to defend Casablanca, so I won't here either. Its still a bad film. Citizen Kane, which I again watched recently, keeps degrading with every viewing. I think I may have to testify to what James Agee originally said, "just a series of shots already done in the 20s."

Are you as all intellect and nill emotion as I gather from your posts?  Your arguments on film are cold and distant, so it strikes me as appropriate that you would consider L'Avventura the better film here.

The gist of this post is that my school is not your school and I don't know how you can take such an even handed approach to film.  It seems to me that abundant passion is essential in appreciating film, that same kind you used to show for 2001, but now seem to bridle.

[Gold Trumpet]

Let's also throw in some Fellini for good measure.  How good is La Dolce Vita?  La Strada?

La Dolce Vita is definitely overrated. A major transition film for Fellini, he wants to convey the realism of Neo noir but he is as in love with his camera and self as his works to come. Many moments are too good to ignore, but the film comes off as meandering and over done as any film he has ever done. Compare that to the fact it debuted at Cannes alongside L'Avventura, both films subject of internal isolation, it comes off as the lesser realized film of the two. (though La Dolce Vita won the Palme D'or and L'Avventura was booed) Antononoi's art is in tact and for me, stands as his best and one of the best films ever.

La Strada, yes, is overrated. Well done and all, I just am not sure if Fellini's dabbling in realism really stands up comparable to other films.

I've never had much interest to defend Casablanca, so I won't here either. Its still a bad film. Citizen Kane, which I again watched recently, keeps degrading with every viewing. I think I may have to testify to what James Agee originally said, "just a series of shots already done in the 20s."

Are you as all intellect and nill emotion as I gather from your posts?  Your arguments on film are cold and distant, so it strikes me as appropriate that you would consider L'Avventura the better film here.

The gist of this post is that my school is not your school and I don't know how you can take such an even handed approach to film.  It seems to me that abundant passion is essential in appreciating film, that same kind you used to show for 2001, but now seem to bridle.

I am absolutely nothing you claim. The fact you take the preference of L'Avventura to La Dolce Vita as an admission of containing no emotions is ludicrous. Though L'Avventura is the more spoken about film in regards to structural achievement, far more has also been written about the film in what it achieves for the personal than La Dolce Vita. I'll also attest. Everytime I watch the film, I seem to identify with the film in a different way. It grows organically. The reason for comparing La Dolce Vita and L'Avventura in merely an academic tone before is that to explain why I think La Dolce Vita faulters would seem slim if I just explained how more "personal" I took L'Avventura to be. I'm not really trying to dig for a huge analysis. Its not necessary.

Continuing on, one of the most outspoken critics of a film like Citizen Kane has been Ingmar Bergman who has spoken of how little personality and all technical academics are wedged into the film. I'd mostly agree.

Its not that I am not personal, its just to really get discussion going, talking "personal" never seems to do the trick. This board continues to decay and some of the most adiment defenders of the board before now complain to me. They say there's no discussion. Everyone can say what they felt about a film and be happy to know their emotions aren't up for criticism the way analyzing a film would be. Talk to me in real life and the way I talk about movies is different.

[Pubrick]

i'm gonna step in and support GT, and possibly clarify his robotic text, to say it just isn't enuff to review a film by saying "this worked for me i don't know why." or my (least) favourite "the directing was good, lol, imo."

then again this was rarely a place where anyone really discussed the meaning of movies, in any absolute sense. godardian, JB, and GT maybe tried to in the past, samsong too. GB does his bit, a few others. in the end most members just want to say their opinions and have others agree with them, no thought necessary, it's a security thing.

Losing The Horse isn't one of the offenders btw, he's written decent reviews. but it's good we got this out in the open (again).

[socketlevel]

The gist of this post is that my school is not your school and I don't know how you can take such an even handed approach to film.  It seems to me that abundant passion is essential in appreciating film, that same kind you used to show for 2001, but now seem to bridle.

any movie that you love enough to watch a countless amount of times will eventually cause this bridle reaction in the fan(atic).  2001 is in my opinion one of, if not the, greatest films ever made.  problem is, any film is a victim of time.  time as a technological factor; the film is now (finally) showing signs of obsolescence.  we no longer see the mind blowing pioneering sequences that would have captivated the audiences in 1969.  more importantly, time as a factor in your own subjective experience.  The countless hours spent with the film leaves opportunity for the viewer to look at all the elements individually, and in turn, see the errors of the filmmaker's approach.  this applies to all films.

like so many people i was a huge fan of pulp fiction when it came out.  i was 16 and found it both brilliant and original.  now over time (and countless viewings) i see the acting is shitty in some parts and the script is over written in others.  i could go into the specifics but that's not important.

i agree with losing the horse on one point however.  passion often is replaced by scholarly thinking.  as much as i hate it, it is inevitable.  it is only through analysis that one can learn how to talk the language and express feelings for other to react.  that is the beautiful cycle of creativity.   by learning this you often loose the innocence that you once had.  and of course innocence is bliss.  so even though i agree with him, it renders his arguement usless.  it is A. speculative and B. an easy way out, because we all go through the process of alienating from a work of art.

on a side note, i remember when i was younger i wanted to learn how to play the guitar because i loved music so much.  once i started figuring it out i realized how mathematical it was.  i hated that, so i chose to drop it and retain the magical/unknown aspects of that medium.  so the only way i could keep the raw purity of the "passion" was by disassociating myself with the analysis.  sorry LTH your point doesn't really stand up because if we all kept our "passion" this would be an empty thread on an unpopulated site.

i think we can talk in "personal" terms, they just need to be well articulated so there is understanding, even if the only way to do it is through metaphor.

the saddest thing that i've read is how GT mention that the adamant defenders of the board complain to him now that there are no discussions.  i couldn't agree more.  i haven't been around since the beginning, but i get a sense of that over the last couple years.  very often people rally behind a safe blanketed response because this is supposed to keep the status quo.


-sl-

[w/o horse]

I am absolutely nothing you claim. The fact you take the preference of L'Avventura to La Dolce Vita as an admission of containing no emotions is ludicrous. Though L'Avventura is the more spoken about film in regards to structural achievement, far more has also been written about the film in what it achieves for the personal than La Dolce Vita. I'll also attest. Everytime I watch the film, I seem to identify with the film in a different way. It grows organically. The reason for comparing La Dolce Vita and L'Avventura in merely an academic tone before is that to explain why I think La Dolce Vita faulters would seem slim if I just explained how more "personal" I took L'Avventura to be. I'm not really trying to dig for a huge analysis. Its not necessary.

Continuing on, one of the most outspoken critics of a film like Citizen Kane has been Ingmar Bergman who has spoken of how little personality and all technical academics are wedged into the film. I'd mostly agree.

Its not that I am not personal, its just to really get discussion going, talking "personal" never seems to do the trick. This board continues to decay and some of the most adiment defenders of the board before now complain to me. They say there's no discussion. Everyone can say what they felt about a film and be happy to know their emotions aren't up for criticism the way analyzing a film would be. Talk to me in real life and the way I talk about movies is different.

If I understand, it's more the board that has changed than you.  Which is a shame.  I wish I'd been here in the glory days.

As for L'Avventura, of course more could be written about what it achieves for the personal, because there is never going to be a succinct explanation of the film.  The sparse framework of the film requires the individual to translate the film, to sublimate, to project,  to interpret.  As an artist I respect this, and the speech Antononoi gave before the film (in the leaflet for the Criterion DVD) wonderfully summarizes the goal of the film.  It's beautiful, and it will survive always because it does not make any direct criticisms.

I think looking at it that way neglects the fact that Fellini's intention was polar to Antononoi's, although their theme the same.  He was meaning to be provocative socially, the latter intellectually.  Because of this Fellini's film was more bottle-necked emotionally, but more focused still.  The scenes are loud, they make you move, they draw you in.  They are intensely transcendent and equally abrasive.  And I think that that is fucking great filmmaking, not a reason to discredit the film.

One filmmaker was attempting to incite thought, and one was displaying a certain thought.  On neither side was there a deprivation of substance.

And socketlevel made that post but I have to go to class.  I'll read it after.

[Gold Trumpet]

This discussion is springboarding to many different things. To clarify, if I came off as I was just disregarding La Dolce Vita, I wasn't trying to. Losing the Horse's summation of La Dolce Vita is as eloquent of a defense as I've seen on this board. I'm glad he loves the film. My position is just I prefer his later work. A mere disagreement.

Thing is, I also love movies. But P is mostly right about my text. It is quite rigid and with little emotion. I just hope to clarify my situation of interest in movies is not without emotion. Back when I use to argue JB for pages and pages on just one movie, I was showing emotion and passion for a film. My rigid writing is not arguing in favor of pure academics. I just write like this.

About the board, I hope things change. It's quite a dismal place. I have so much interest in writing about movies right now but am too disheartened by how this board is going to do so. I mentioned it to a few people to get Green Screen going again. The thing is, how?

I've come up with an idea. Instead of focusing on events requiring people to write long texts for a certain subject, we allocate people positions of columns to write. If we can get enough people to do so, we can start off by having just one column due for each participant every month. Subject, related somewhat to film, is up to every writer. The idea gives everyone the freedom to write on what they want to write. Like I said, if we get enough people, it should get Green Screen flowing with the end result our own unofficial magazine.

Everyone will be welcome to throw in their own ideas and works.

[JG]

A little too much to read and not enough time so I'll give my full thoughts later but I will say this:  When Ebert originally saw La Dolce Vita when he was twenty something, he gave it three stars.  He said as he got older, the movie kept on getting better in his mind.  Just some food for thought.   I personally think La Dolce Vita lets each scene run on a little too long but I wouldn't say it lacked emotion.  I'm still yet to see L'Adventura.  

Again, I'll post more later.  

And GT I like your idea about the articles.

[modage]

A little too much to read and not enough time.

^ probably why this board is on life support.

[socketlevel]

A little too much to read and not enough time.

^ probably why this board is on life support.

true, but that's what makes (some of) this site more original then other film appreciation forums.  i find what GT is saying very inspirational.  i think he's got a great idea.  i like reading the long posts, and i may be one of few people who do so, but it's more interesting then the typical "shit man, this movie fuckin' rocks" and the reply "ILMFAO, you're soooooooooooo phuckin' right!!?!?!?!?!"

... i know no one is quite like that here, but just look at ain't it cool news for the history.  that site used to be an alright and now it's degraded to utter trash replies.  "Great Harry, can't wait" or inversely "Shut the fuck up you fat bastard!"  this example should be a warning.

the more i think about it, the more i need to donate some cash money so the life support doesn't dwindle.  maybe i took that for granted.

For what it's worth, and hopefully it is somewhat, sign me on GT.  in eager for your ideas and would love to contribute.

-sl-

[Gold Trumpet]

Likely later today, I'm going to start a thread that will be an open casting call for this project. Anyone who wants to contribute an article on anything film is welcomed to submit. Before anything else, I want to see how many articles I can get. I now know those who sign up will not automatically pull through.

Also, I will personally contact those I feel should be writing but may miss my thread. If ever I could accomplish anything, it would be to get Godardian back into the fold somehow.

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

I would be honored to write a coulmn.  Sometimes I find it hard to say all that I have to say in a post because I want to keep it short and easier to read, but with all the important parts to it.

With what you're proposing, I could be afforded some more space to write a little bit longer, analyze what I'm saying a little deeper, and I'm totally for this idea.

[Gamblour.]

"Even if the good old days never existed, the fact that we can conceive such a world is, in fact, an affirmation of the human spirit." - Orson Welles

The good old days discussions are funny to me. Maybe it's just me, but this past era of 03/Ariel was pretty good. I would say the JJ days were full of strife and kinda annoying. They got in the way of discussions. Anyhow, transitory stages happen, I think these boards (quoting Dali now) are always altered, but they never change.

People go in waves of liking movies, their interests wane. For me, the idea of a column is cool, but I wouldn't read it, that's just me. I've got too much going on to really see movies, and then to even analyze them. This is antithetical to the time I submitted an article to the Green Screen (what happened to that?).

Anyhow, I'm glad to see some discussion going on.

[Pubrick]

these days are pretty good.

more intelligent movie discussion would be great and all but mostly i enjoy reading funny shit. as with the green screen, i don't hav much faith in this new column idea mainly cos ppl are slow to get organized. i'd read it tho, if it happened.. beats postwhoring threads where no one says anything, and currently only Neon's game in real life soundtracks fits that description, which is harmless enuff.

so yeah, i like the days we're in.