Panel Discussions

[SHAFTR]

*7 Wonders of Cinema?

*What exactly is cinema?
-the point where mechanical reproduction leaves off?
or
-the representation of reality?

*Top Directors Under 30?

[The Silver Bullet]

To reiterate: I so want to be, like, always in the five.

[Pubrick]

*7 Wonders of Cinema?

*What exactly is cinema?
-the point where mechanical reproduction leaves off?
or
-the representation of reality?

ok these two here are amazing.

the first allows for a sense of humor, which i think would be the biggest challenge for any writer be him geek or freak. so i'd definitely wanna do that one.

and the second could be rewritten as some sort of play on Kubrick's assertion that he wanted to photograph the photograph of reality. so the question becomes "what kind of reality is best suited to cinema, and which does it most faithfully represent, if any". THAT's a real question. no boring textbook plagiarism possible there. haha i'd love to see ppl misinterpret that one.

so there u hav it, two fun topics, or u could go for sumthing u prolly hav already written about before.

[cron]

"Matrix: Filosophy or Fraud?"

"History IN Cinema" : Here we can debate the views of each period/decade and the historical accuracy of the argument.

"Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: The Seventies"  

*What exactly is cinema?

[The Silver Bullet]

I'm just thinking, it might be an idea to have the five members write their first piece on, say, the Sunday before the week begins, and then posting it on the Monday. They can each then write their next piece in reply, and so on and so forth.

Doing it that way would also keep them one step ahead of the general masses. Otherwise, it's just a normal [albeit more interesting] thread.

[SoNowThen]

Yeah, let's not get into anything too broad. Things like "what is cinema" is something we spend our whole lives trying but never answering.

I like the one about what reality is best displayed, that would be a good one.

We could continue the old Bazin debate of montage vs mise en scene, and how they will continue to evolve in the future.

Maybe one on editing style, and how non-linear has changed it (and those who were doing crazy stuff before non-linear came, like Mutinyco talked about with Fosse in an old thread).

Oh, and when we say "no pretension", does that mean we can't use words like 'mise en scene' or 'dialectics' and 'semiotics' ? Cos, um, I know some people hate those words, but they're kinda the language of discussing cinema...

I propose an all-encompassing rule, that we should call the Marian Keane Factor -- as in, don't shove your own CRAZY BULLSHIT OUT-OF-THE-BLUE spin on the movie, finding phallic symbols in every frame, etc etc.

[cron]

I propose an all-encompassing rule, that we should call the Marian Keane Factor -- as in, don't shove your own CRAZY BULLSHIT OUT-OF-THE-BLUE spin on the movie, finding phallic symbols in every frame, etc etc.

Hahahaha, you couldn't have said it better.  Realize ,though, that there are some movies that demand that kind of meticulous examination.

[Xixax]

Totally. My eyes really need to be opened to the complexiities of Kangaroo Jack.

[SHAFTR]

I'm reading that right now.  You caught me.

[Redlum]

Im not sure I'd be capable of doing this kind of thing but it sounds like a very interesting idea. I would like to submit a discussion title though, hopefully I wont have to elaborate and make a fool of myself. Hopefully you'll get my meaning.

"The Happy Ending"

I suppose it kind of ties in with what P said about "what kind of reality is best suited to cinema".

[Gold Trumpet]

*7 Wonders of Cinema?

*What exactly is cinema?
-the point where mechanical reproduction leaves off?
or
-the representation of reality?

I like those, but I'm not sure how well they'd work in a panel discussion under the current restrictions. There doesn't seem room for people to really debate and take specific sides. Like SoNowThen, it could last forever and is am ambiguous as defining love. I still think we should try to approach discussion on them though, just under different guidelines. 1.) Instead of people writing to argue amongst each other, just have everyone write one large essay stating their belief and the reasons why. 2.) Open up it to more people, like 10 or so. Discussion can come, but allow it in the form of everyone just replying to each theory. The people selected just won't be on call to reply in length to what the others said. I think this may be the better approach.

P said he's interested, Silver Bullet wants to be in all of them. More people start saying they want to do it and if people commit, we'll go forward with one of these topics.

The more I think about panel discussions really working, the more I think about how the subject should be specific, but grandoise. It should also be between people taking specific sides. My new idea is this: If the subject can only have 2 sides to it on an opinion, have two people representing each side and both sides arguing against each other. The kind of topic this would best work in is the discussion on the credentials of a filmmaker. 2 people would argue why he is good, 2 people would argue why he isn't. This would work because the discussion would be varied: from success of his individual films, his development of style, importance of influence and his future potential; but yet, the discussion would be still be specific and directed at a cause. Paul Thomas Anderson arguments do carry near religious fanaticism, but what about any other filmmaker? These arguments be can be spirited and objective without everyone killing each other.

I think the perfect argument for a 5 person panel discussion on everyone representing a different opinion would be judgement of the decades and which one was the actual "golden years" of film. A person defending a decade and arguing against the others. It would be very wide spanding, but also still specific in goals for everyone. This one just may be the Super Bowl of panel discussions.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Let's just start with What is art?

[cron]

i'm starting to think this PD's wouldn't work.

[godardian]

Yeah, let's not get into anything too broad. Things like "what is cinema" is something we spend our whole lives trying but never answering.

I like the one about what reality is best displayed, that would be a good one.

We could continue the old Bazin debate of montage vs mise en scene, and how they will continue to evolve in the future.

Maybe one on editing style, and how non-linear has changed it (and those who were doing crazy stuff before non-linear came, like Mutinyco talked about with Fosse in an old thread).

Oh, and when we say "no pretension", does that mean we can't use words like 'mise en scene' or 'dialectics' and 'semiotics' ? Cos, um, I know some people hate those words, but they're kinda the language of discussing cinema...

I propose an all-encompassing rule, that we should call the Marian Keane Factor -- as in, don't shove your own CRAZY BULLSHIT OUT-OF-THE-BLUE spin on the movie, finding phallic symbols in every frame, etc etc.

I agree with neo-chuckhimselfo that some films do beg for this kind of interpretation, Hitchock's definitely being among them. My problem with Keane, and what I see as her main failing, is her lack of real seriousness or contextualization- her rollercoaster-random approach to analysis that yes, does come up short, though on a strictly informational basis there is still some value there. Contrast with Mulvey's commentary on Peeping Tom, which is solid, consistent, thorough, serious, extremely well-informed and utterly engaged. All things that should describe these panel discussions if we're to have them.

I think a generalized anti-pretension rule is too nebulous. Pretension is merely the discrepancy between an attempt at intellect/depth/profundity and the skill required to bring it off; I don't think anyone should be barred from jabbing at those things just because it might come off "pretentious" to some.

[SoNowThen]

Keane claimed that a coat hook (among MANY other things) was an obvious phallic symbol in the 39 Steps. That alone should be reason to never let her speak or write about film again.