Optimism as a revolutionary act.

[Him]

in fact, i remember reading a draft of that script where at the end the guy drives himself into a wall on purpose and dies! i was like, geez...

[Ghostboy]

Yeah, but 8mm sucked period. What about something like, oh, say...Requiem For A Dream? Or (even better) The War Zone? These are great films which are nothing if not complete downers.

[©brad]

a short film about killing is pretty brutal. I watched it two years ago in freshman intro. to cinema and i still can't get it out of my mind.

[Him]

Actually, i didn't like the war zone, felt it was tim roth trying to do a nil by mouth, to the point where ray winstone had to go ape-shit. and again, not much levity to go around.

requiem for a dream, however, is a different story.

a) there are light moments throughout, bits that make you laugh - check jared leto with the cop's gun - and until about halfway through they seem to be having a good time. so. but -

b) it's a movie about drugs. not entirely, but mostly. and as a result, as an audience we know that things are going to go very bad indeed, unless the film-maker wants to be interpreted as irresponsible (or is in fact just irresponsible without realising it.) happily, darren aronofsky and hubert selby jr. are neither of these things (well, at least not the latter). so what i guess i'm saying is, it's not a total downer, even if the ending is.

and visually it's a bloody good watch.

it's entertainment with a message. not darkness just for the sake of it.

[bonanzataz]

I had to turn 8mm off it was so bad. Have you seen Dancer In The Dark? That's a depressing movie for when you need a good cry, and it's very well done. Saying that movies shouldn't make you realize problems we have in our lives is just not a very well thought out argument. That's like saying that the only good books are happy ones. While I love when movies take me out of life and I can just check my brain at the door and enjoy them, I don't feel like that's the only way to make a good film. I like when movies make you think. If you can watch a movie and get really depressed, you start to think about why you became depressed. If a movie can make you feel something for its characters, it's done its job. If a character makes you feel some kind of emotion, even hatred, a movie has done its job. Kids is a good example of a depressing movie that assesses a trouble in our society (unprotected, casual sex among minors with STD's floating around) but it makes you wonder what the director/writer was trying to do. Things that happen in Kids happen all the time and there's a message. After watching it, my sister started crying and said, "this movie is awful. I hate it." But the movie made her feel something. She connected with the people in the movie and it got through to her. By no means did she think the filmmakers did a poor job in making a movie, they just succeeded so well that we're forced to think about the horrible things we saw. I've started to rant, but I think the point is gotten. Movies that are happy and movies that are sad have their place. If you choose to like one or the other, that's fine, but don't say that one type of movie should not be made just because they depress you.

[Recce]

Tell me, walking cliche, did you see "The Life of David Gale"? If do, what did you think?

[bonanzataz]

Tell me, walking cliche, did you see "The Life of David Gale"? If do, what did you think?

ha.

[ProgWRX]

Personally, there are movies for every kind of emotional mood im in. I happen to hold Cameron Crowe's "optimistic" movies in high regard, because I can watch them when I'm feeling happy, and be satisfied, and I can watch them when im down, and come out feeling satisfied as well. But that doesnt mean I dont enjoy or value a completely depressing movie, they all have their place in my heart and mind, although when it comes down to it, i would identify more with Crowe's vision, than rather trying to make depressing films.  I personally think that independant/artsy cinema is many times too brooding and full of itself, again this is my opinion, but I would personally try to make optimistic cinema, there is plenty of depressing, shocking, explicit for the sake of titillating, bleak and brooding cinema to go around.

[Cecil]

8mm sucked.

i was referring to something more along the lines of "the bicycle thief." a film like this is "depressing" and was not meant as pure escapist entertainment. yet it is a milestone in the history of cinema.

speaking of cinema meant to be escapist entertainment and ONLY escapist entertainment, what about godard? whos, lets say, ANTI-escapit entertainment films changed cinema forever.

whether you actually enjoy these films or not, you cannot deny the impact they had on the industry and the way they changed filmmaking forever.

[Ghostboy]

Actually, i didn't like the war zone, felt it was tim roth trying to do a nil by mouth.

That's funny, I was actually going to mention Nil By Mouth first, and then I decided to use The War Zone instead since its a bit more extreme.

[Him]

hmm. i don't deny godard's films, particularly the early new wave, are important (or at least are regarded as important - the difference is something to be argued about elsewhere i guess). perhaps the fact that they are important is what troubles me the most. (hmm...liked king lear, though.)

to be honest, i'm not even sure there's that much difference between what came before the new wave and the new wave itself. of course, everyone talks about the american influence on a bout de souffle, but essentially, isn't it just a reaction to the american influence on what the french are most touchy about, the infringement on their "culture"? (excuse the quotes. after all, i'm english) wasn't the new wave simply them hitting back with matters of style?

`New Wave' is to film as Perrier is to water - there's a real style here, but it is of a relatively synthetic nature.

so, here's the argument; cecil b., those films you mentioned...undoubtedly milestones - but were they simply technical and/or sociological milestones? it's simply my opinion that they had a disproportionately large influence. i haven't given it much thought, but i may even like the richard gere version better. at the very least, it's a close run thing, despite the obvious hold - it's a remake by an object of satire in the original...

would it have worked better with a better story as a platform? again, i guess something that should probably be debated elsewhere.

but hang on, let's get back to the point. at least for a second.

bonanzataz, why do you think that a "happy" film (i'm becoming uncomfortable with that phrase. optimistic might be better.) means that you should check your brain at the door? you know, they are allowed to make you think too. the mpaa doesn't pull them for that.

i pointed out that i like angela'a ashes. it's fairly grim most of the time (although there are obvious moments of joie de vivre not really brought up in the film) but ends on an upbeat note. this is the argument isn't it? optimism over despair in the movies?  i'd hate to think that it has become something it's not...

it's my contention that the best movies are the ones where an emotional journey has taken place for the protagonist...and i happen to think that they work the best with an up-beat ending. there are exceptions...remember i said 90%?..it's somewhere near the top if you wanna check. regardless, this remains my conviction.

call me an iteration of the spielberg generation.

by the way, we haven't had the life of david gale out here yet. i think it's out next week.

[Ghostboy]

I'd say this is one of the best discussions we've had on this site yet.

[Him]

well, certainly i'm having a good time.

with regards to kids...need it even have been a movie? larry clarke, ex-photographer, needed to say something substantial about kids of today. but look at the nature of the film...it's documentary masquerading as movie. it's my opinion that once you enter the theatre, however old you are, you're elevated (or perhaps you descend   ) to a place where only your imagination can take you, and yet surely the purpose of kids is to educate - "this is what the kids of today are up against" - and so that movie left me wondering need it have been a movie at all?

Perhaps there are just some stories that need to be told within the confines of a real documentary.

especially... well, actually i've just found this line from a video review of it at empireonline.co.uk which kind of says everything i wanted to say:

But, ultimately, the unrelenting grim tone and Clarke’s generally unnerving, leering stance towards his subjects hardly make it a prime candidate for must have.

you see what i'm saying? once again this movie, which has undoubtedly fantastic performances, is let down by the lack of levity. without optimism, audiences switch off.

[Cecil]

but were they simply technical and/or sociological milestones?

would it have worked better with a better story as a platform?

are you talking about the lack of box office success? i dont know about bicycle thief, but breathless did quite a bit of money when it came out.

i think having a more optimistic ending to bicycle thief wouldve killed it. the film had something to say about italy at the time and thats what it did. maybe a happy ending wouldve gotten the film to make more money, but it wouldve ruined it. if the film would be re-released today, it would bomb with regular audiences. yet this very movie is partly responsible for what cinema is like today, including the kinds of film the regular audience do like.

there is a way of giving hope without being unrealistically optimistic. example: mrs. doubtfire. its still sad, but it gives hope.

i disagree with crowe because i dont think it will "work." regular moviegoers will just enjoy the happy ending cause thats what they go to the movies for, but it wont make them try to improve their lives for the better. what pisses me off about overly-optimistic (i dont think crowe is OVERLY-optimistic) films is that they seem to say "its all right folks. the world is perfect and we dont need to improve our behaviour or anything." which is why i make the "depressing" films, because they say "hey asshole, dont pretend like these kinds of things arent happening. lets do something about this." regular moviegoers dont like that because they go to the movies to forget about these types of depressing subject matters. hence my statement.

dont get me wrong. i believe there should be every kind of films out there. but right now i think there is WAY TOO MUCH of the uncreative hollywood fluff and not enough "important" films... films with social meaning and importance.

[©brad]

it's my contention that the best movies are the ones where an emotional journey has taken place for the protagonist...and i happen to think that they work the best with an up-beat ending.

this is my favorite emotional journey upbeat/sad ending.