books about films?

Started by (kelvin), April 24, 2003, 08:37:24 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User actions

godardian

#15
May 08, 2003, 04:07:12 PM
I sense a similar distaste for Spielberg between you and I, Cecil... if the revealing bits about Spielberg have anything to do with your devotion to Biskind's great book.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

SoNowThen

#16
May 08, 2003, 04:10:03 PM
I'm not Cecil, but you're right, I hate Spielberg. The book doesn't so much rip him as shows how his films brought about the downfall of the last great age of American filmmaking. But we're on a comeback. Of course, in 5 years, M Knight Shyalaman (I can't spell his name) will ruin this wave.
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

#17
May 08, 2003, 04:11:25 PM
That book helped me discover Schrader, Bogdanovich, Freidkin, and others. I am indebted to it for eternity.
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.

ShanghaiOrange

#18
May 08, 2003, 04:13:03 PM
Robert Rodriguez's book and Lloyd Kauffman's book.

I don't remember what they're called. :(
Last five films (theater)
-The Da Vinci Code: *
-Thank You For Smoking: ***
-Silent Hill: ***1/2 (high)
-Happy Together: ***1/2
-Slither: **

Last five films (video)
-Solaris: ***1/2
-Cobra Verde: ***1/2
-My Best Fiend: **1/2
-Days of Heaven: ****
-The Thin Red Line: ***

godardian

#19
May 08, 2003, 04:24:16 PM
That's right... you're SoNowThen. Which is a better reference than Cecil Demented, though not as cinema-focused...
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Cecil

#20
May 08, 2003, 06:54:36 PM
Quote from: godardianThat's right... you're SoNowThen. Which is a better reference than Cecil Demented, though not as cinema-focused...

hey hey hey, what the hells going on here?

i hate spielberg too, btw

RegularKarate

#21
May 08, 2003, 08:37:15 PM
The anti-spielberg sentiment is such a stuck-up film snob attitude.

I would call myself his biggest fan by any means (never even seen Schindlers List).

Bogdanovich... Godard... fantastic filmmakers... but you can like them AND the money raking directors as well.

and the idea that Spielberg "ruined" American filmmaking is ridiculous...  Jaws started the summer movie... if it hadn't, something else would... America sees what they want to see, it's no one filmmakers fault.

-and in this I'm not calling you anti-bergs snobs... don't get me wrong (especially Cecil)... just expressing my distaste for the snobbery.

Cecil

#22
May 08, 2003, 10:12:32 PM
i just dont like most of his films. it doesnt have anything to do with popularity or mainstream or money

godardian

#23
May 08, 2003, 10:25:50 PM
I feel the same way. Brian de Palma found his way into the (very) mainstream, yet he still manages to do work that doesn't feel so ingratiating. That's what I don't like about Spielberg; his movies all feel like big pats on the head and chucks under the chin, he LOVES test-screening, and he can't stand the idea of anyone not liking him; it's as irritating from him as it is from any benign, well-meaning, totally, hopelessly clueless elder family member.

I just hope I didn't hurt any veterans' feelings by laughing out loud at the flag-waving-in-the-breeze image in that load of malarkey Saving Private Ryan. If I were a veteran, I would've been angry, but since I'm not, I could see it objectively as the feel-good Cliffs note it was and just laugh it off.

I also really like the Lord of the Rings films. I'm not a snob, honestly. I just feel so much desperation from Spielberg. It's like Michael Jackson syndrome; when every child in the world likes you, you start creating for simple little children, and your work loses any perspective.

He's not nearly the terrible director George Lucas is, though. I felt sorry for Marcia Lucas in Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, having to edit Taxi Driver and Star Wars simultaneously. In that scenario, which director would you rather be married to, especially if you're going to take the leap of being honest about your opinions with your spouse? Marcia 'n Amy 'n George 'n Steven... it's like in those cases, the girls had to be the brains of the whole family until they just couldn't take it anymore.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

godardian

#24
May 08, 2003, 10:26:58 PM
Which is not to suggest, by the way, that children are as simple as Spielberg and much of the biz seems to think they are.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

MacGuffin

#25
May 09, 2003, 01:53:48 AM
Quote from: godardianThat's what I don't like about Spielberg; his movies all feel like big pats on the head and chucks under the chin, he LOVES test-screening.

Quote from: MacGuffin, in another thread,Spielberg Blasts Test Screening Practice

Hollywood heavyweight Steven Spielberg has slated the age-old practice of test-screening new movies - claiming they are no help to directors. The Minority Report filmmaker argues that, in his experience, such events have been of no assistance and they can even lead movie bosses to make the wrong decisions in editing films. He says, "I stopped testing six years before the internet was invented. I just found that the test screenings for Hook, Always, The Color Purple and Empire Of The Sun didn't teach me anything. In fact, it got me to cut things out to please the audience that I wouldn't normally cut out. An audience might respond negatively on a Wednesday night, so you'd make all these changes, but you could take that same film and show it to a different audience on the following Friday and get a positive reaction. To make an assumption that 400 people on a Wednesday night can tell you where you've gone right and where you've gone off, is not representative of how your film will be perceived across America."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: godardianI just hope I didn't hurt any veterans' feelings by laughing out loud at the flag-waving-in-the-breeze image in that load of malarkey Schindler's List. If I were a veteran, I would've been angry, but since I'm not, I could see it objectively as the feel-good Cliffs note it was and just laugh it off.

Don't you mean "Saving Private Ryan"?
"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

godardian

#26
May 09, 2003, 08:39:03 AM
...yes.  :oops:

Also, according to the inside dirt (from Julie Salomon's The Devil's Candy), Spielberg does (or did) think of the test-screening process as some sort of sacred bond between himself and his clammily sought-after audience... must've changed his mind somewhere along the way. The films still feel tailor-made for the practice, though.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

SoNowThen

#27
May 09, 2003, 08:59:54 AM
Quote from: RegularKarateThe anti-spielberg sentiment is such a stuck-up film snob attitude.

I would call myself his biggest fan by any means (never even seen Schindlers List).

Bogdanovich... Godard... fantastic filmmakers... but you can like them AND the money raking directors as well.

and the idea that Spielberg "ruined" American filmmaking is ridiculous...  Jaws started the summer movie... if it hadn't, something else would... America sees what they want to see, it's no one filmmakers fault.

-and in this I'm not calling you anti-bergs snobs... don't get me wrong (especially Cecil)... just expressing my distaste for the snobbery.

Oh, I do like some big money directors. Zemekis (sp) -- I love the Back To The Future trilogy, Reitman -- Ghostbusters will forever be in my top ten, Harold Ramis, etc...

It's just that, even when I was a kid, I always hated Spielberg movies (Jaws excepted). I agree totally with Godardian about how he seems like he's trying soooo hard to be loved. The Michael Jackson comparison was brilliant. I totally believe his "describe a movie in 20 words of less" and "put everything on the huge opening weekend" is hurting filmmaking in the States.
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.

Grand Epic

#28
May 09, 2003, 09:12:08 PM
Wasn't this thread supposed to be about books on film? I have one:

How to Read a Film by James Monaco

Bye.

Gold Trumpet

#29
May 09, 2003, 10:05:09 PM
Out of Godardian's argument against the validity of Speilberg as a director, it was only with this did I find any hint of an argument that was objective in looking to the quality of his films: "....you start creating for simple little children, and your work loses any perspective." Now, was this backed up with examples? Flag waving in a movie doesn't seem to me to be any judge of quality solely, as said about Saving Private Ryan. I really couldn't buy the rest of his argument at all because so many directors who really make very good worthwhile films could be spoken of that way. Too much generalizing on what someone may disagree with of the Hollywood system. I don't mind words against Speilberg, but not explaining yourself and stepping up to the bat is certain death in my eyes. And with that, I don't see how liking Lords of the Rings doesn't make someone a snob. Many people who hate commercially aimed movies like Lord of the Rings ones for the sole purpose that characters they loved in the books are being shown on the big screen. Again, why does Lord of the Rings deserve praise when put into comparison against a Speilberg film? Explanations go a long way and I always try to do it and to sadly disagree with many people here, it is the only way not to be pretensious.

~rougerum
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User actions