originality vs. reference

Started by mutinyco, April 14, 2004, 12:25:13 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1 2 3
User actions

mutinyco

April 14, 2004, 12:25:13 AM
Where do you all fall on this? Are you down for original cinema or do you prefer seeing films comprised of references?
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Pedro

#1
April 14, 2004, 12:33:53 AM
of course im down for original cinema.  im pretty sure most people are, but references are fine too...i think original cinema is just bits of references strung together to create something new

Just Withnail

#2
April 14, 2004, 09:12:09 AM
Both can be equally satisfying. To me, Mulholland Drive (original) is just about equal with Pulp Fiction (a bit of both really). But I guess Tarantino is the only one who has found a way to successfully fuse the two, though (in my opinion) Kill Bill didn't work, and was basically one big wink. I prefer original cinema.

Quote from: WithnailBoth can be equally satisfying

Nah. I prefer original cinema.

mutinyco

#3
April 14, 2004, 10:30:41 AM
Yeah, I kinda think a lot of the reference thing comes from a college-level mentality where kids at school are too deep in film and its history. The problem with doing original work is that it usually takes time for people to accept it. The problem with references is that it makes for boring filmmaking. I enjoyed KB1, but found Volume 2 a bore.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

SoNowThen

#4
April 14, 2004, 10:35:45 AM
It's a trick question. There's nothing original.
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.

mutinyco

#5
April 14, 2004, 10:57:11 AM
That's silly. I'm taking about making a film from your own ideas and observations or life experiences. Not simply making a film from pieces of other people's films you like.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

modage

#6
April 14, 2004, 11:00:17 AM
i'll take either as long as it blows my hair back.  a piece of shit original film is no better than a piece of shit film full of references.  in either case, the originality nor the film smarts cant save a movie i just dont care for.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

pete

#7
April 14, 2004, 11:47:53 AM
I don't think it's that easy to separate the two into diffrent categories.  narrative films (American ones especially) usually come with a nice set of formal constraints that oftentimes what seems original is really just a reaction, to rebel against something done over and over again--such as David Gordon Green's films, and you can say that without seeing all these cliched hollywood films (read: REFERENCING to them), he won't come out as original as he is right now.
I don't think QT makes that many more references, he's just way more flashy about it, and loves talking about it too.  I think he popularized not a cinema of references, but a cinema of sensibilities--that without even getting too deep into his films, they're already cool to begin with because he has a very keen sense of what is "cool" on celluloid.  and I think a lot of popular indie filmmakers today (without naming too many 'cause I'll probably get slaughtered here) lack the souls of their ancestors, but won acclaims just by having good taste in film and music and other artistic influences.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

mutinyco

#8
April 14, 2004, 11:52:01 AM
Exactly. Filmmakers are being celebrated for their taste in other people's films. One important nugget to point out, of course, is that Tarantino represents the first video generation. His was the first generation raised on video to begin making films of their own.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

SoNowThen

#9
April 14, 2004, 11:58:05 AM
Godard was and is THE reference man in cinema. However, his movies are most definitely original. Also, he references a lot more than just other films.

Fyi, I guess...
He's a good example of a marriage of the two.
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.

cron

#10
April 14, 2004, 12:00:53 PM
an academic spoted around 85 artistical references in a Godard movie...  i've read.
context, context, context.

pete

#11
April 14, 2004, 12:33:12 PM
academics are like fanboys who've read Carl Jung.  they can suck my balls.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

Ravi

#12
April 14, 2004, 02:01:44 PM
Quote from: peteand I think a lot of popular indie filmmakers today (without naming too many 'cause I'll probably get slaughtered here) lack the souls of their ancestors, but won acclaims just by having good taste in film and music and other artistic influences.

Name them, please.  This is an interesting topic.

modage

#13
April 14, 2004, 02:06:32 PM
Quote from: peteacademics are like fanboys who've read Carl Jung.  they can suck my balls.
haha, the only thing funnier than that statement is that i imagine it coming from the kid in your avatar.  hahah, thats great.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Jeremy Blackman

#14
April 14, 2004, 04:48:54 PM
Quote from: peteacademics are like fanboys who've read Carl Jung.
And what's wrong with that?
Print
Go Up Pages1 2 3
User actions