some general theoretic bullshit about film that needs to be out with

[children with angels]

I agree that there's probably an interesting question in here somewhere, but the question still needs to be better defined in order to be talked about. At the moment it's so vague that it can be interpreted in a million different ways, so any conversation is likely shoot off into a million equally ill-defined personal rants...

EDIT: I often miss Godardian - he had the clear-headedness and dedication to get exactly these kinds of broad, tangential debates onto critically interesting tracks.

[Gold Trumpet]

I no longer believe any one model should be the entire house in which to talk about movies. We all show our biases and preferences with how we talk about movies. Sometimes those biases are slips and sound like the casting of our truth as law, but I think we all can be mindful of the limitations of our preferences. I am discouraged by people who want carry around the label of auteur because even many theorists who know better don't believe in the label either. It's historical importance is the easiest way to propose yourself as someone who knows better, but I am also discouraged by people who believe there is nothing in theoretical models at all. It's a slim argument to attack those people because a filmmaker once said something along the lines of hating it. Yes, for the most part, theory has nothing to do with filmmakers. There are no Sergei Eisensteins today, but to spit venom at theories is also dumb and smacks of the arrogance that the anti-auteur crowd is talking about.

[Captain of Industry]

There are no Sergei Eisensteins today, but to spit venom at theories is also dumb and smacks of the arrogance that the anti-auteur crowd is talking about.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the torch that I was carrying was for intelligent thought over reductive thought.  The man I had a conversation with was interested in finding a specific, form-fitting label for James Cameron, and this was his preference over rational conversation.  He didn't want to expand his thoughts on Cameron. . .and in fact, I had the conversation with him, and I couldn't tell you what even the kernel of his thought was.  It was obvious to me that he meant to degrade Cameron through some theoretical exclusion/inclusion, but his words became meaningless to me not because he was searching for a theoretic framework but because he relied on that framework to be the substance of his opinion.  And that's what I'm against.

[Gold Trumpet]

There are no Sergei Eisensteins today, but to spit venom at theories is also dumb and smacks of the arrogance that the anti-auteur crowd is talking about.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the torch that I was carrying was for intelligent thought over reductive thought.  The man I had a conversation with was interested in finding a specific, form-fitting label for James Cameron, and this was his preference over rational conversation.  He didn't want to expand his thoughts on Cameron. . .and in fact, I had the conversation with him, and I couldn't tell you what even the kernel of his thought was.  It was obvious to me that he meant to degrade Cameron through some theoretical exclusion/inclusion, but his words became meaningless to me not because he was searching for a theoretic framework but because he relied on that framework to be the substance of his opinion.  And that's what I'm against.

I agreed with you. I was disagreeing with others.

[children with angels]

the other day this guy told me that Alfonso Cuarón was thinking about making a 3d film and that that would be the first 3d film made by an auteur.

Yeah, this guy you were talking to sounds like a moron for a number of reasons, but if you want just one you could remind him that Hitchcock made Dial M for Murder in 3D - I think he would have to fit ANY canon of 'auteur'.

[polanski's illegitimate baby]

There are no Sergei Eisensteins today, but to spit venom at theories is also dumb and smacks of the arrogance that the anti-auteur crowd is talking about.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the torch that I was carrying was for intelligent thought over reductive thought.  The man I had a conversation with was interested in finding a specific, form-fitting label for James Cameron, and this was his preference over rational conversation.  He didn't want to expand his thoughts on Cameron. . .and in fact, I had the conversation with him, and I couldn't tell you what even the kernel of his thought was.  It was obvious to me that he meant to degrade Cameron through some theoretical exclusion/inclusion, but his words became meaningless to me not because he was searching for a theoretic framework but because he relied on that framework to be the substance of his opinion.  And that's what I'm against.

I agreed with you. I was disagreeing with others.

Just to note...This isn't so much a covert effort to exclude certain films from the "art house" category obscured by a discriminating theoretical framework, rather a modest effort in proposing the normative standards by which a film, any film, qualifies as an art. Essentially, i am talking about the motivation of an art film and proposing a standard for that particular category. I don't see what the big deal is all about... Even Avatar would "qualify" in accordance to what i have said if James Cameron meant a goddamn by making it. (and i am sure he did) I am not talking about critique here which is like a retrospective process, i am talking about normative standards for a true art film. This is theory, and it probably couldn't be validated. But for fucks sake, could you validate ethics? This is just an attempt at film ethics, so to speak, in a form of a categorical imperative.

On that fine note, i am going to opt out. I think i've had enough of this power-abusive and mulish mob of higher-posting users, of self-frustrated admins who childishly tinker with my "position" status as if that is the only form of authority they have ever exercised. I already had the feeling that Xixax wasn't really "saved"...and turns out, i was fucking right. Xixax isn't saved, its remains are just being mopped up by a vile sadistic mob who have no other choice. Cheers ya nazi cunts! You've done it!  

[ono]

...your "posting status" changes with your number of posts.  Says more about you that you jerked your knee at that one.

[Pubrick]

On that fine note, i am going to opt out. I think i've had enough of this power-abusive and mulish mob of higher-posting users, of self-frustrated admins who childishly tinker with my "position" status as if that is the only form of authority they have ever exercised. I already had the feeling that Xixax wasn't really "saved"...and turns out, i was fucking right. Xixax isn't saved, its remains are just being mopped up by a vile sadistic mob who have no other choice. Cheers ya nazi cunts! You've done it!  

as ono said, your status changes depending on your number posts. below is the complete list of status names, along with number of posts and stars attached to them which hav been in place since the board's inception, or, according to you, created in 2003 with the sole purpose of insulting a random drunkard in 2010..

Film Critic     * 0     
Extra    *   1
Production Assistant    *    20
Grip    *    40    
Key Grip    *    50    
Stunt Supervisor    *    60    
Stand-In    *    70    
Gaffer    *    80    
Frog    *****    82    
Gaffer    *    83    
Fluffer    *    90    
Film Editor    **    100    
Screenwriter    **    200    
Script Supervisor    ***    300    
Director of Photography    ****    400    
Second Unit Director    *****    500    
Director    *****    600    
Producer    *****    700    
Executive Producer    *****    800    
Studio Vice President    *****    900    
Aspiring Actress Jacki Lynn    *    997    
Inspiring Actress Jacki Lynn    *****    1001    
Sell Out    *****    1020    
Studio Whore    *****    1040    
Film Snob    *****    1060    
over-achiever    *****    1100    


you just showed yourself to be a complete nutcase.

[RegularKarate]

Did you call the guys at The Auteurs Nazi Cunts too? 

You have successfully mastered "affect", now it's time you learn what "nazi" and "cunt" mean because while P can be a real cunt of a fellow sometimes, I don't think you're using either word correctly.

[Neil]

art demystified.  Finally.

why not stop talking about it and just do it

or

Should be captioned (w/ game cover).

[Alexandro]

what the fuck was all this about really?

[The Perineum Falcon]

Pretty sure I just figured out polbastard's true identity.

This seems to explain everything that just happened.

[Gold Trumpet]

Generally in vague theory conversations, everyone is talking about something different.