Author Topic: influence of directors: categories  (Read 5585 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

(kelvin)

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +1
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #15 on: December 08, 2003, 02:47:22 PM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen
but his particular style of montage and camera movement (via sequence construction) has definitely influenced PTA and Wes Anderson

and his perverse attention to detail, as well as his embracing of criminal on-the-fringes characters and explosive violence has been well utilized by Tarantino.

but I will agree that he has a "thing" all his own, which is of course why he is one of the greats.


also, is it safe to say Welles fits firmly in cat.1?


Concerning Welles: As far as I know, the legend goes that Welles learned everything he knew about cinema from watching a John Ford movie forty times in a row. I don't know if it's true, but I'd say his influence on others was far more important than the influence of others on him. I#d propose cat 1.2

Concerning Scorsese: well, you made a good point. But PTA and Wes have been partially and only stylistically influenced by him, concerning the camera work. But Marty's style speaks redemption, sin and purgatory, whereas PTA's style speaks repent, isolation and the dichotomy heaven/hell. Scorsese is catholic, PTA protestant. There is a whole universe of ideologies that divides them. Wes certainly concentrates on a more comical adaptation of Marty's style. But apart from the violence, I don't see anything from Scorsese in Tarantino who might be called a cinematographic atheist, for he has chosen the postmodern approach.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #16 on: December 08, 2003, 02:53:25 PM »
0
A very good point. However, one of the underlying messages in Pulp Fiction is redemption.

But you are right, Marty wears his Catholicism on his sleeve, and does it better than the rest probably ever will.
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.

(kelvin)

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +1
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #17 on: December 08, 2003, 03:35:20 PM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen
A very good point. However, one of the underlying messages in Pulp Fiction is redemption.

But you are right, Marty wears his Catholicism on his sleeve, and does it better than the rest probably ever will.


I always thought that Pulp Fiction had no message at all. Where do you see redemption in it? I rather see coincidence.

And one thing I wanted to add to my previous post: the idea of catholicism/protestantism in Marty's and PTA's work is remarkable. Note that in Scorsese's movies, characters suffer because their suffering is inflicted on them by others (who have often suffered because of the first ones). There is a logical continuation of sufferings.
In PTA's films, people suffer, because they "deserve" it. They often have caused the problems themselves. Their fate lies in their own hands, whereas in Scorsese's view, their fate would have been altered by others. Just a thought.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #18 on: December 08, 2003, 03:47:28 PM »
0
re: Pulp Fiction

The Jules character. He's saved by an act of God, which causes him to make a change in his life, and he decided to try and be "the shepherd" saving the weak, rather than being the "tyranny of evil men".
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.

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Respect: +470
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #19 on: December 08, 2003, 03:53:59 PM »
0
Quote from: chriskelvin

I always thought that Pulp Fiction had no message at all. Where do you see redemption in it? I rather see coincidence.


WARNING: PULP FICTION SPOILERS, PLEASE DON'T READ IF YOU'RE ONE OF THOSE WEIRD PERSONS WHO HAVEN'T SEEN PULP FICTION

The stories in Pulp Fiction are linked by an element of redemption. Coincidence? Sure. But the characters always make a choice before their final destination in the film is revealed.

Vincent Vega chooses to not have an affair with Mia before her O.D., therefore liberating himself of the moral weight that this would be in his relationship with Marsellus. You could argue that it was only fear of punishment what made him act like that, but in the film Vega is shown as a pretty irritable guy who almost never says I'm sorry and doesn't really care about other people stuff, however in the bathroom he's actually concerned about how to act on this particular situation. He has a crush but knows it wouldn't be fair to do something about it.

Butch, in the Clock story, decides to save Marsellus after all. He can leave him to be raped and surely killed, but he decides to save him, saving himself at the same time.

Julius, in the final chapter, is out of crime life for good. He has decided this before the robbery at the restaurant, but then he chooses not to kill these two robbers and gives them his money. He forgives them cause he has changed, and its a way of compensating himself too.

It's not real life, it's pulp fiction, but the redemption subject is what holds the movie together and make it so great. Everyone can make a movie about fucked up coincidences and cool dialogues (guy ritchie), but here all this shit actually MEANS something, so that's why it is terrific.

(kelvin)

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +1
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #20 on: December 08, 2003, 03:56:11 PM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen
re: Pulp Fiction

The Jules character. He's saved by an act of God, which causes him to make a change in his life, and he decided to try and be "the shepherd" saving the weak, rather than being the "tyranny of evil men".


But doesn't redemption include suffering? Sinners have to pay for their sins, according to catholicism. Only then, they are forgiven (which they are not according to the protestant philosophy). I'm missing the idea of purgatory.

(kelvin)

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +1
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #21 on: December 08, 2003, 04:01:59 PM »
0
Quote from: Alexandro
Quote from: chriskelvin

I always thought that Pulp Fiction had no message at all. Where do you see redemption in it? I rather see coincidence.


WARNING: PULP FICTION SPOILERS, PLEASE DON'T READ IF YOU'RE ONE OF THOSE WEIRD PERSONS WHO HAVEN'T SEEN PULP FICTION

The stories in Pulp Fiction are linked by an element of redemption. Coincidence? Sure. But the characters always make a choice before their final destination in the film is revealed.

Vincent Vega chooses to not have an affair with Mia before her O.D., therefore liberating himself of the moral weight that this would be in his relationship with Marsellus. You could argue that it was only fear of punishment what made him act like that, but in the film Vega is shown as a pretty irritable guy who almost never says I'm sorry and doesn't really care about other people stuff, however in the bathroom he's actually concerned about how to act on this particular situation. He has a crush but knows it wouldn't be fair to do something about it.

Butch, in the Clock story, decides to save Marsellus after all. He can leave him to be raped and surely killed, but he decides to save him, saving himself at the same time.

Julius, in the final chapter, is out of crime life for good. He has decided this before the robbery at the restaurant, but then he chooses not to kill these two robbers and gives them his money. He forgives them cause he has changed, and its a way of compensating himself too.

It's not real life, it's pulp fiction, but the redemption subject is what holds the movie together and make it so great. Everyone can make a movie about fucked up coincidences and cool dialogues (guy ritchie), but here all this shit actually MEANS something, so that's why it is terrific.


Again, I say: redemption includes suffering, not just a change of mind. Watch Raging Bull: when the De Niro character, emprisoned, hits the wall with his fists. That is redemption, the "mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" idea. You have to suffer and , more important, you have to want to suffer in order to get salvation.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #22 on: December 08, 2003, 04:02:51 PM »
0
no, no, I'm protestant -- the idea goes: admit your sins and ask for forgiveness.

It was Scorsese who wasn't satisfied with the idea of just any person getting instant forgiveness, hence the idea that "you don't make up for your sins in the church... you do it in the street..."

Jules is made aware of his evil lifestyle, and decides to make a positive change, imo anyway, it's a form of redemption.
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.

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Respect: +470
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #23 on: December 08, 2003, 04:08:32 PM »
0
Quote from: chriskelvin

Again, I say: redemption includes suffering, not just a change of mind. Watch Raging Bull: when the De Niro character, emprisoned, hits the wall with his fists. That is redemption, the "mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" idea. You have to suffer and , more important, you have to want to suffer in order to get salvation.


PULP FICTION SPOILERS AHEAD

OK...

In their own pulpfictionesque way...all these characters go trhough some kind of suffering here...

Vincent has to deal with Mia before the O.D., which is suffering being as hot as she is and all, but then he has to deal with her WHILE she's od.ed...that's purgatory if you ask me...if he had any thought still of having something with her, I bet he thought about it twice after this...

Butch crashed his car, was about to be killed and was about to be raped and end his days on some perverts basement: purgatory...

Julius almost got killed and saw God or so he says...then, after that, his criminal ways got him into a fucked up situation where he had a dead body on the trunk on his blood filled car, with pieces of skull and shit...

so, they suffered, not in the scorsese straight from the bible way, but they had some kind of suffering and then transformation....

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #24 on: December 08, 2003, 04:12:42 PM »
0
the suffering is sometimes the only way to lead most of these characters to awareness, and then to redemption. Don't forget Scorsese's good old "cleansed by the blood of Christ" idea, ie. Jake getting pounded into a bloody mess in Raging Bull. Then, later, he can meet his real foe in the jail cell, and have his one last great bout with himself. Then he is redeemed -- marked for life, but finally at some kind of peace.
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.

(kelvin)

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +1
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #25 on: December 08, 2003, 04:31:59 PM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen
the suffering is sometimes the only way to lead most of these characters to awareness, and then to redemption. Don't forget Scorsese's good old "cleansed by the blood of Christ" idea, ie. Jake getting pounded into a bloody mess in Raging Bull. Then, later, he can meet his real foe in the jail cell, and have his one last great bout with himself. Then he is redeemed -- marked for life, but finally at some kind of peace.


Yes, I think I have said the same thing, haven't I?

As a protestant, you have have to ask for forgiveness, as you have said.
As a catholic, you have to want to suffer, to give something in exchange for your salvation, as I have said.

Alexandro, your arguments are good, but I'm just not convinced that those incidental sufferings are identical to those that catholicism needs and wants. There really is too much coincidence. The characters don't want deliberately to suffer, they just want deliberately to change.  They do suffer, but they don't want to do so. That is not enough.

And I'm catholic, by the way. (well, officially, you know)

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #26 on: December 08, 2003, 04:38:29 PM »
0
oh, sorry, yeah I just re-read one of the above posts and you did say that... I missed the protestant part.. :oops:

anyway, yes, I do see what you're saying with PTA being more like protestant to Scorsese's Catholic -- funny though, didn't PTA say he was raised a Catholic or something? Also, by this can we say Pulp Fiction is also protestant leaning in its "redemptive" aspects?

At any rate, Catholicism seems to lend itself better to films, as it's more symbol-heavy.

------


Where would you put Truffaut and Rohmer on your categories?
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.

(kelvin)

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +1
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #27 on: December 08, 2003, 04:50:32 PM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen
oh, sorry, yeah I just re-read one of the above posts and you did say that... I missed the protestant part.. :oops:

anyway, yes, I do see what you're saying with PTA being more like protestant to Scorsese's Catholic -- funny though, didn't PTA say he was raised a Catholic or something? Also, by this can we say Pulp Fiction is also protestant leaning in its "redemptive" aspects?

At any rate, Catholicism seems to lend itself better to films, as it's more symbol-heavy.

------


Where would you put Truffaut and Rohmer on your categories?


Truffaut: cat 1
Rohmer: can't really say, because I don't know him too much (ashamed to say so...)

The one that's really hard to categorize is Godard.
I'd say: cat 1 in 1960, cat 4 for some of his most difficult films, cat 3.2 for the rest. But I don't know. He is about the only that doesn't really fit in.

SHAFTR

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
  • You brought two too many
  • Respect: +4
    • rmlumley.com
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #28 on: December 08, 2003, 08:04:36 PM »
0
Coppola in category 1
Ingmar Bergman in category 2
Kevin Smith in category 3
Agnes Varda in category 4


how's this?
"Talking shit about a pretty sunset
Blanketing opinions that i'll probably regret soon"

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5770
  • Respect: +153
influence of directors: categories
« Reply #29 on: December 08, 2003, 09:22:34 PM »
0
I don't really like this thread in foundation. Out of the four categories involved, two begin with a director not really being influenced in his filmmaking. How is that possible? Everyone is influenced by someone or something else in so many ways for so many things. Thing is, even if a style isn't being lifted from a previous filmmaker, that filmmaker is still influenced by previous filmmakers. Maybe 'influenced' should be replaced by 'borrowed' in respects to style, but I still don't believe it is that easy. I could say Kubrick's style is unique and definitely his own, but what percentage of the films made before his career have I seen? Its very little and I definitely could not speak so boldly. For 2001, though, I know much of his filmmaking was influenced by documentaries, which is a very wide net. I also could not say at all Hitchcock wasn't influenced. If I had to guess, I'd say he was influenced by the studio system of shooting and some experimental filmmaking considering his films, but fuck, I'm guessing. I think with questions and situations like these it assumes and simplifies way too much.

The better idea I think is to start with a known filmmaker and guess to what later films his body of work has influenced. You are grounded on something very specific in which you can go and investigate the "what ifs". Its just someone could write an entire book questioning the first post.

I also don't believe any great idea of redemption is in Pulp Fiction. The story just isn't there for it. The film really isn't trying to be dramatic.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy