Author Topic: Dirs NOT to add  (Read 13945 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cowboykurtis

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1671
  • Respect: +8
Dirs NOT to add
« Reply #60 on: May 08, 2003, 03:10:06 PM »
0
Quote from: cecil b. demented
Quote from: cowboykurtis
i think they may have been referring to the rape scene of the writer's wife -- i didn't find that too funny.


youd be surprised, ive been to showings where people do actually laugh. hes dancing and singing!


when hes dancing it's amusing -- momentarily -- but, when the music dips out and we see the writer's POV of his wife getting violenty groped and fucked: i would say it's argueably one of the most disturbing scenes in cinema history -- peopel probably laugh because they're nervous, not becuase they think it's funny.
...your excuses are your own...

Thecowgoooesmooo

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Respect: +1
Dirs NOT to add
« Reply #61 on: May 09, 2003, 12:06:53 PM »
0
Quote
Oh yeah, cause you have to be a genius to like Larry Clark and James Cameron's films...they are just so fucking complex. I mean, just look at any of Clark's films: naked young girls, profanity, and...naked young girls...ummm, yeah. Try to understand that and then do my math homework.



You dont know what your talking about man. Larry Clark is great. I didn't know you had to have a complex film to be great. Im not the biggest fan of Stranger then Paradise, but KIDS is absolutely great.
Larry Clark was an extremely bad kid when he was younger. He was an addict to every drug, carried guns at a young age, in and out of jail constantly, and served 19 months in jail for shooting a guy in the arm during a card game. This guy has been through it all, and actually came out alive.

It only makes sense, that his films would reflect heavily on his childhood.

Quote
I mean, just look at any of Clark's films: naked young girls, profanity, and...naked young girls...ummm, yeah.


Your a fool if you think his films are about this. It's like saying Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a drug movie. (Which you probly do)

KIDS is a realistic tradgedy. It's a tragic reflection on the reality that many kids face today. When you watch KIDS, its not complex, it feels like your right there with them, not thinking ahead, just living for the moment as many teens do.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Dirs NOT to add
« Reply #62 on: May 09, 2003, 12:18:34 PM »
0
But does the guy have a point to make? Or is he just reproducing horrors? I haven't seen KIDS, but I did watch Another Day... and I found it just tried to be hip, but wasn't. It was pretty graphic, and I usually like that, but in this case it just seemed stupid. Even if something reflects on our childhood (no matter how "out there" it was), it can still make for a banal film.
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.

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • on the not-face of it
  • Respect: +774
Dirs NOT to add
« Reply #63 on: May 09, 2003, 12:52:12 PM »
0
yeah once again ebeaman is ebeingawoman. and JB nice job in trying to know what ur talking about.. but not.

what i meant was that James Cameron is a great director, Larry Clark is good, and Solondz is unique and interesting and if ur not open to em especially Cameron, well that's a damn shame.

obviously calling u 69 was a reference to u changing ur name, no deeper meaning than that.
under the paving stones.

Ernie

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1394
  • Respect: +3
Dirs NOT to add
« Reply #64 on: May 09, 2003, 05:32:24 PM »
0
Quote from: _|P|_
yeah once again ebeaman is ebeingawoman. and JB nice job in trying to know what ur talking about.. but not.

what i meant was that James Cameron is a great director, Larry Clark is good, and Solondz is unique and interesting and if ur not open to em especially Cameron, well that's a damn shame.

obviously calling u 69 was a reference to u changing ur name, no deeper meaning than that.


I never intended to have the 69 on there...I regreted putting it there as soon as I registered. It wasn't until recently that I realized I could change my name without re-registering. I thank mogwai for helping me realize this when he altered his name.

And, JB is probably right. I can't see any other reason for you to bitch at me all the time other than just being in a bad mood. I may not have the best taste, I don't  think I know everything about film, but I'm a pretty nice guy I think...so what's the damage?

ono

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4237
  • ...
  • Respect: +208
Dirs NOT to add
« Reply #65 on: May 28, 2003, 11:38:21 AM »
0
Larry Clark is a horrible filmmaker, as is Harmony Korine (as a writer, that is -- makes it clear in my mind that it's easy to make it if you scrape the bottom of the barrel).  Their films are nothing but exploitative garbage.  Kids, while having a valid point, went about it all wrong, and I was left feeling as if I just wasted time listening to something I already knew.  It may, at least, be educational for high school students, though.  But it could have done without the gratuitous nudity.

I actually admire Solondz, though, for tackling tough issues in this very tongue-in-cheek way.  His best picture, IMO, is Storytelling.  Happiness is a little too over the top, but still good.  As Ebert said in his review of Happiness, he gets you to laugh at things you shouldn't, and catches you at it, making you see something in a new light.  And that's evident a lot, especially in Storytelling.

Cameron Crowe, though.  How the fuck did HE get his own forum?  I must've missed something.  Almost Famous was almost entertaining, but not quite.  I had an ex who loved, loved, loved Say Anything..., but I could never sit through it all.  Maybe I will someday.  Vanilla Sky had this amazing trailer that introduced an amazing premise which he totally copped out on, then I find out that the film is a remake of a film -- and instead of improving on Abre los ojos, he just made a shot-for-shot recreation, which was pointless vanity.  He could have just lobbied for the Spanish film to be released, but no.  And, well, Jerry Maguire was alright, but that's not saying much, considering how formulaic it is.  So yes, get rid of Crowe, I say.

Sleuth

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3468
  • dead comic genius
  • Respect: +8
    • http://www.conologue.com
Dirs NOT to add
« Reply #66 on: May 28, 2003, 11:49:41 AM »
0
Quote from: Onomatopoeia
Larry Clark is a horrible filmmaker, as is Harmony Korine (as a writer, that is -- makes it clear in my mind that it's easy to make it if you scrape the bottom of the barrel).  Their films are nothing but exploitative garbage.  Kids, while having a valid point, went about it all wrong, and I was left feeling as if I just wasted time listening to something I already knew.  It may, at least, be educational for high school students, though.  But it could have done without the gratuitous nudity.

I actually admire Solondz, though, for tackling tough issues in this very tongue-in-cheek way.  His best picture, IMO, is Storytelling.  Happiness is a little too over the top, but still good.  As Ebert said in his review of Happiness, he gets you to laugh at things you shouldn't, and catches you at it, making you see something in a new light.  And that's evident a lot, especially in Storytelling.

Cameron Crowe, though.  How the fuck did HE get his own forum?  I must've missed something.  Almost Famous was almost entertaining, but not quite.  I had an ex who loved, loved, loved Say Anything..., but I could never sit through it all.  Maybe I will someday.  Vanilla Sky had this amazing trailer that introduced an amazing premise which he totally copped out on, then I find out that the film is a remake of a film -- and instead of improving on Abre los ojos, he just made a shot-for-shot recreation, which was pointless vanity.  He could have just lobbied for the Spanish film to be released, but no.  And, well, Jerry Maguire was alright, but that's not saying much, considering how formulaic it is.  So yes, get rid of Crowe, I say.


Oh, you were so close to being my best friend until that last part
I like to hug dogs

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Dirs NOT to add
« Reply #67 on: May 28, 2003, 11:52:31 AM »
0
I agree with everything above except the useless Cameron Crowe bashing. He's the only guy I consider to make really popular mainstream movies that I think are great. Well, I know his last two didn't do so well, but whatever. The more you watch Almost Famous (Untitled), you get to slowly love it.
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.

godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
Dirs NOT to add
« Reply #68 on: May 28, 2003, 12:45:58 PM »
0
I don't think Harmony Korine is exploitative. I think he's actually quite fond of the people he's depicting; they're mostly the kind of people the mainstream thinks of as "trash," though. That's always sticky business; being shown these things that people ignore but that really do exist can feel like exploitation, when really it just makes us uncomfortable but does have a purer intention than just shock value and exploitation behind it. I see Gummo as a sort of commemorative tribute to the swept-under-the-rug people; that tornado is a perfect metaphor.

Clark, on the other hand... I liked Paradise and hated Bully, which I thought really was exploitative. He might be a different story. He generally has very little of the sort of tenderness Korine sometimes displays.

Cameron Crowe is sort of blah to me. I found Almost Famous entertaining, but overall, I don't think he deserves his own forum. But the apparent criteria for who gets their own director's forum here seems nonsensical to me, anyway. I mean, why do Quentin Tarantino and Steven Spielberg get their own forums, but not Jean Renoir or Alfred Hitchock or even Orson Welles? Importance and standing in the history of cinema are obviously not the deciding factors.
""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.

ono

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4237
  • ...
  • Respect: +208
Dirs NOT to add
« Reply #69 on: May 28, 2003, 01:16:26 PM »
0
Well, take a look at Crowe's Director filmography:

Director - filmography
Vanilla Sky (2001)
Almost Famous (2000)
... aka Untitled: Almost Famous the Bootleg Cut (2001) (USA: director's cut (DVD title))
Jerry Maguire (1996)
Singles (1992)
Say Anything... (1989)
... aka ...Say Anything... (1989) (USA: promotional title)

Only five films.  I can certainly understand why people like his work.  I simply don't think it's ever going to be on the level of a PTA, Solondz, Kubrick, Tarantino, or even Lynch (whose films I don't even necessarily like, but more respect).

I haven't seen Singles, but it appears to be the weakest entry in his body of work.  And don't get me wrong, when I saw Vanilla Sky in theatres, I thoroughly enjoyed it.  But in learning more and more about film, I've come to realize it was simply unnecessary, considering Abre los ojos.

Watch any one of the TV spots for Vanilla Sky and take it for what it advertises, not what the movie is actually about.  Note the tagline: LoveHateDreamsLifeWorkPlayFriendshipSex.  I loved that tagline.  I loved the TV spot.  I thought "here we have a director with his head on straight, going to give us a good film with intelligent thought put in to it."  Note the tones toward fidelity.  Remember Cameron Diaz's character's lines in the car, as she drives Tom Cruise's character home.  Here we have all the trappings of the opening of a great film.  But *poof* it all vanishes into this spiral, this vortex of another film's premises.  These lines don't belong here.  They leave the viewer wanting you to explore those issues you've established, but once you realize this is just a mimicking of Abre los ojos, you find yourself duped, and realize that those lines belong in another film.  You are left with a prettying up of a story that was decent in Spanish, simply glamourized in English.  Crowe pulled every punch here, and that's what leaves me so frustrated.

Jerry Maguire was very decent for a formulaic romantic comedy, but that alone doesn't make a great movie.

And finally, the film I meet with most contention, Almost Famous.  I don't get why people constantly cream their pants over this film.  It's cute, it's sweet, it's based on Cameron's own experiences, but it's a little too optimistic and far-fetched for me.  I watched the special features on the DVD after I was done with the movie, and admired Crowe's demeanor, his apparent rapport with the cast, and such.  Not to mention, Kate Hudson is a beautiful, great actress.  Also, Philip Seymour Hoffman is simply the man, and great here in what amounts to a cameo.  Frances McDormand is always a joy to watch as well.  But it just didn't move me any.

Perhaps, it was just because I never got in to that music scene, I don't know.  You can talk technical accomplishment until the cows come home, but what it comes down to me as far as movies go are four simple words: "Did it move me?"  If it did, and I liked how it affected me, great.  To what extent it affected me is the extent I'll appreciate it, which is why my favorite film is Magnolia, and the films that follow all are very moving in one way or another, currently (all the movies I'd give 10/10 to): American Beauty, Donnie Darko, Fight Club, Pulp Fiction, Le Fabuleux destin d’Amélie Poulain, A Clockwork Orange, Annie Hall, Punch-Drunk Love, Waking Life, The Shawshank Redemption, Eyes Wide Shut, Casablanca, When Harry Met Sally..., Groundhog Day, Contact, The Princess Bride, Dead Poets Society, Singin' in the Rain, and Requiem for a Dream.  (Way too many honorable mentions (9/10) to mention, but Dancer in the Dark is one I've been debating for a while.  Ditto for 12 Angry Men.)

So yeah, that's where I'm coming from.  Now, I don't think my "Cameron bashing" was senseless.  I could have been more tactful.  But I was surprised to see him mentioned with all the other great directors you have listed, is all.  Maybe after he makes a few more films.  He's still young yet, and does have potential.  Perhaps a forum for deceased directors would be in order as well?  Kurosawa is great.  I've only seen Ran, but got it with Madadayo in the Amazon.com limited edition collection, which I look forward to.  I've seen over 170 films in the past year (you'd be amazed at what you can accomplish with a library card an a couple of art houses within walking distance), and have over 600 I want to see (thanks, IMDb), at least five of which are from Kurosawa.  Don't want to leave it off there with just Kurosawa, but the bottom line is, there are so many great directors that constantly get overlooked, that I was surprised to see Crowe's name mentioned.

And I'll probably get flak for this too, but I find Hitchcock a bit overrated myself.  North by Northwest was just CORNY and frustrating, although Psycho was interesting, and its impact is undeniable.

Tarantino and Anderson are the only two filmmakers I can think of never to have missed in the director's chair (Tarantino has had a little less success producing and writing).  It seems as if PTA has the magic touch, though, which is why it's so exciting anticipating his work.  Solondz is similar to that, but his films touch a nerve, so I don't know how much that would factor in.  I haven't seen his earliest film, though, so I can't comment on that.

That's it for now.  What a mouthful.  :P

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +639
Dirs NOT to add
« Reply #70 on: May 28, 2003, 02:30:24 PM »
0
Quote from: Onomatopoeia
Cameron Crowe, though.  How the fuck did HE get his own forum?  I must've missed something.


Yes. You missed a board called The Cigarettes & Coffee Message Board that Greg Mariotti ran on his ptanderson.com website. Greg also runs the Cameron Crowe website: The Uncool. Greg is nice enough to place banners ads up on his sites to promote this message board and bring in new members. So out of repesect to him and his followers the Crowe forum is set up. Just accept it.

Quote from: Onomatopoeia
And I'll probably get flak for this too, but I find Hitchcock a bit overrated myself.  North by Northwest was just CORNY and frustrating, although Psycho was interesting, and its impact is undeniable.


We are done talking.
“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

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
Dirs NOT to add
« Reply #71 on: May 28, 2003, 03:16:07 PM »
0
Quote from: mogwai
Quote from: P™
James Cameron is a great director

Quit playin'!


When I saw that, I thought it must be backwards day. James Cameron is sometimes competent and always a sub-literate asshole, but never great.
""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.

Pas

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3429
  • Respect: +10
Dirs NOT to add
« Reply #72 on: May 28, 2003, 03:17:12 PM »
0
Quote from: godardian
I mean, why do Quentin Tarantino and Steven Spielberg get their own forums, but not Jean Renoir or Alfred Hitchock or even Orson Welles? Importance and standing in the history of cinema are obviously not the deciding factors.


I would think it is because they don't shoot movie anymore, being dead and all . Every directors that have forum are, and should be, active, and alive.

As for Cameron, I just looked over his filmo and I can say that I can watch any of his movies (except the overly long Titanic) without falling asleep, but I cannot really say I like them. YET, I cannot say he had absolutly no importance as a film maker, at least technically.

godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
Dirs NOT to add
« Reply #73 on: May 28, 2003, 03:22:49 PM »
0
Quote from: Booth
Quote from: godardian
I mean, why do Quentin Tarantino and Steven Spielberg get their own forums, but not Jean Renoir or Alfred Hitchock or even Orson Welles? Importance and standing in the history of cinema are obviously not the deciding factors.


I would think it is because they don't shoot movie anymore, being dead and all . Every directors that have forum are, and should be, active, and alive.


Right. That just seems like a really arbitrary standard of inclusion to me, but it really doesn't bother me, though it is very presumptuous to assume that there's nothing interesting to say/discuss about a great filmmaker because they're dead and merely left us a rich, rich vein of incomparable cinema.

I have no trouble finding the topics of interest to me here, though; I don't feel bad that most of the true greats don't have a forum of their own. They're probably not rolling in their graves over it, or anything. I'm just pointing out that the reasons some directors get their own forum and some don't have little to do with their actual work and more to do with some sort of popularity-contest mentality or prejudice in favor of the contemporary and current. So nobody should be bothered when their favorite director doesn't get their own forum; it's not really a relevant or meaningful judgment.
""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

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +639
Dirs NOT to add
« Reply #74 on: May 28, 2003, 03:37:06 PM »
0
The forums are set and unless Mr. Xixax sees fit to change them, he won't. This topic was started at the beginning when xixax.com was taking suggestions and finding its footing. But there is nothing wrong with members starting their own topic to showcase other filmmakers as they see fit. In fact, I encourage you to do so instead of trying to understand and complain about why some have forums and others don't. I personally feel there would more to discuss in a James Cameron topic than a Wolfgang Peterson one.
“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

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy