Xixax Film Forum

I've read a few things about Fincher teaming up with Fight Club writer Chuck Palahniuk again to adapt Katie Arnoldi's Chemical Pink.

From Chuck's site:
This isn't just some rumor... Chuck has plans to meet with Fincher soon to discuss the book's passage into screenplay. I still haven't read the novel but Chuck told me it's basically about a man going through a mid-life crisis who gets off on dating young female bodybuilders. Once the man has them ensnared in his seduction, he gets them steadily hooked on steroids and testosterone pills. He then makes them do all sorts of fetishistic things for his pleasure. And once the girl's are so far gone that they have started growing beards he dumps them and moves on to the next.

I'd love to see Fincher work with Palahniuk again, but I don't know if Fincher's into doing things this twisted anymore.

Quote from: BonBon85I don't know if Fincher's into doing things this twisted anymore.

And after seeing Panic Room, I'd say that's a damn shame.

I agree. I had a look at Panic Room again and love the first half but then it's a case of what happened to the style? As though he got bored with it or something.

BonBon (or anyone), have you read Chemical Pink? It's very strange that Chuck sees the central character as being the bloke, when to me it was definitely the woman he makes over. Knowing that Chuck 'n' Dave were thinking about a movie, I kept imagining it as such, and it would make a good one but the ending is kinda weak. There doesn't seem to be much more said about such a plan, though, as far as I can see.

MacGuffin, you should read it if you haven't, cause it very much reminded me of your stuff, stylistically as well as thematically. In fact, you should write the screenplay, not Palahniuk (wonderful as he is).

Quote from: budgieMacGuffin, you should read it if you haven't, cause it very much reminded me of your stuff, stylistically as well as thematically. In fact, you should write the screenplay, not Palahniuk (wonderful as he is).

:oops:  :kiss:

mac, can we read your stuff?

That storyline is the silliest storyline that is question to be turned into a movie this week for me. And that's still bad. Even if this was done by the great excellence of a director like Kubrick at his best, I still don't think I could get past how ludricrous that story is. Most really good twisted plots, always seem like generally normal stories with a few nuts or bolts missing, or with some added. This seems all nuts and bolts that are suppose to be just extensions of the normal story.

~rougerum

I'm beginning to wonder if GT likes *anything*!

Quote from: XixaxI'm beginning to wonder if GT likes *anything*!

Only 2001.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThat storyline is the silliest storyline that is question to be turned into a movie this week for me. And that's still bad. Even if this was done by the great excellence of a director like Kubrick at his best, I still don't think I could get past how ludricrous that story is. Most really good twisted plots, always seem like generally normal stories with a few nuts or bolts missing, or with some added. This seems all nuts and bolts that are suppose to be just extensions of the normal story.

~rougerum

Yeah... read the book, not the synopsis.

Quote from: budgie

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThat storyline is the silliest storyline that is question to be turned into a movie this week for me. And that's still bad. Even if this was done by the great excellence of a director like Kubrick at his best, I still don't think I could get past how ludricrous that story is. Most really good twisted plots, always seem like generally normal stories with a few nuts or bolts missing, or with some added. This seems all nuts and bolts that are suppose to be just extensions of the normal story.

~rougerum

Yeah... read the book, not the synopsis.

no joke. sounds pretty damn intriguing to me. cant base much judgement on that short synopsis. can you imagine reading one for A Clockwork Orange, having not seen it before? what would u think about that?

I would think A Clockwork Orange would seem pretty normal within the context of a twisted story. A Clockwork Orange was a pretty basic story of the controlling aspect of a society in order to gain command of a society out of control, they put felons and criminals through this. It always felt pretty basic in the storyline by way of science fiction. I think the coloring to it, though, is what made it twisted.

And see, I can't buy the argument of 'read the book instead of the synopsis'. Obviously, to read a book takes a lot of time compared to a movie and since I have priorities, I likely won't do it. So on that basis, I can't buy the argument. if someone could tell me why I should give this story more credit than what the synopsis holds, tell me. If not, it smells like shit so I will speak of it in that manner.

~rougerum

Quote from: The Gold Trumpetif someone could tell me why I should give this story more credit than what the synopsis holds, tell me.

'Cause budgie says so.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpetif someone could tell me why I should give this story more credit than what the synopsis holds, tell me.

cos i will punch u in the throat if u don't.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI would think A Clockwork Orange would seem pretty normal within the context of a twisted story. A Clockwork Orange was a pretty basic story of the controlling aspect of a society in order to gain command of a society out of control, they put felons and criminals through this. It always felt pretty basic in the storyline by way of science fiction. I think the coloring to it, though, is what made it twisted.

And see, I can't buy the argument of 'read the book instead of the synopsis'. Obviously, to read a book takes a lot of time compared to a movie and since I have priorities, I likely won't do it. So on that basis, I can't buy the argument. if someone could tell me why I should give this story more credit than what the synopsis holds, tell me. If not, it smells like shit so I will speak of it in that manner.

~rougerum

You have just described A Clockwork Orange in terms of theme, whereas the Chemical Pink synopsis outlined above speaks of plot. To follow your pattern, I could say that Chemical Pink is about the controlling aspect of a society (represented by the male character, Charles) [that operates in certain ways] in order to gain command of a[n other presence in] society (represented by the female character, Aurora) who, because of his own insecurities, Charles wishes to manipulate like a doll. Where Clockwork is about the demonisation of youth by dominant ideology, Chemical Pink is about the demonisation of women by the dominant ideology, merely described through the personal rather than a more (but not exclusively) social narrative. Interestingly, however, the endings demonstrate the different standings of male youth and women in patriarchy.

Now shut up and stop being a snob.

Quote from: budgieChemical Pink is about the controlling aspect of a society (represented by the male character, Charles) [that operates in certain ways] in order to gain command of a[n other presence in] society (represented by the female character, Aurora) who, because of his own insecurities, Charles wishes to manipulate like a doll.

Now I see why you recommended me for the screenplay.

Yeesssss...

The best scene is one where Charles is masturbating with his collection of vegetable heads, playing out a sado-masochistic encounter between Mr. Avocado and Miss. Corn on his erect penis, with all the others arranged round so they can watch. He wears a condom so as not to mess the dolls' faces.

Well, damn, I'm getting this book this week then.

Quote from: MacGuffinWell, damn, I'm getting this book this week then.

:cry:

Quote from: budgie:cry:

:yabbse-sad:

Quote from: sphinx
:yabbse-sad:

:yabbse-sad:

OK, I give in what I said was of relation to the themes instead of the story itself. I still think though, that the story for Chemical Pink operates on a level with characters so extreme and doing things so completely out of the norm that it brings a very large jump in accepting to be able to feel its themes. A Clockwork Orange, I think, is much more basic. At its heart, it is the story of violent teenagers and one being captured and prisoned. In the context of the science fiction story, he is "cured" that allows to be free but without abilities to seduce or hate. In the context of the fairy tale, the people he hurt get their revenge on him. Chemical Pink represents a march larger jump in believability, even for a movie, than A Clockwork Orange that on my assumptions now, may be hard to really believe as something to take serious to get deeper meanings. Yes, they are assumptions but all anyone has now.

My main problem with the storyline is that they are ballooned to such levels of weirdness that it may feel almost absurd to believe that they represent some great truths, or whatever. It's like looking at a porno, or the mainstream porn these days, the action film. When thousands and thousands of bullets fly through the matrix and kids are getting these Christ interpretations of the main character wielding automatic machine guns, it feels like it is operating on the level of absurd and pretension. The characters of this story seem to be so weird that the better question can be whether we can get past all their quircks or oddities to even feel the meanings behind.

Also, we are all snobs here. Just some people like things other snobs may consider to be sub par quality wise for someone "knowing" of movies. If we weren't believing we had something to say of importance, we wouldn't be here.

~rougerum

well i know i have nothing to say of importance. ever. im just here for the sex. wait, which message board is this again...?

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetOK, I give in what I said was of relation to the themes instead of the story itself. I still think though, that the story for Chemical Pink operates on a level with characters so extreme and doing things so completely out of the norm that it brings a very large jump in accepting to be able to feel its themes. A Clockwork Orange, I think, is much more basic. At its heart, it is the story of violent teenagers and one being captured and prisoned. In the context of the science fiction story, he is "cured" that allows to be free but without abilities to seduce or hate. In the context of the fairy tale, the people he hurt get their revenge on him. Chemical Pink represents a march larger jump in believability, even for a movie, than A Clockwork Orange that on my assumptions now, may be hard to really believe as something to take serious to get deeper meanings. Yes, they are assumptions but all anyone has now.

My main problem with the storyline is that they are ballooned to such levels of weirdness that it may feel almost absurd to believe that they represent some great truths, or whatever. It's like looking at a porno, or the mainstream porn these days, the action film. When thousands and thousands of bullets fly through the matrix and kids are getting these Christ interpretations of the main character wielding automatic machine guns, it feels like it is operating on the level of absurd and pretension. The characters of this story seem to be so weird that the better question can be whether we can get past all their quircks or oddities to even feel the meanings behind.

Also, we are all snobs here. Just some people like things other snobs may consider to be sub par quality wise for someone "knowing" of movies. If we weren't believing we had something to say of importance, we wouldn't be here.

~rougerum

I guess you can identify with 'violent teenagers' better than either the perpetrators or victims of female oppression, then. I'm kinda pleased about that, I think...

On the storyline: this is where reading the novel would help, because the style is very minimalistic and makes everything appear quite everyday, whilst gradually revealing the perversions that are making it tick. Just because it references a world (of bodybuilding) that is unfamiliar to you that doesn't mean it can't be made to seem 'normal' (anyway, aren't you a wrestling fan?). You also seem to be denying that the world is a perverted place anyway - so do you also dismiss Lynch, Palahniuk and anything else that seems a bit 'pornographic'?

I'm not getting into 'some great truths'.

What's your definition of a snob?

I'm glad your interpretation of the novel doesn't bring out big glorifications that finds what and who these people are as freaks most interesting. It should be minimalistic in that sense. It's not that I think being a bodybuilder was stranger than a pyschotic teenager, it was just that the synopsis suggested that instead of a man preying on women in general, he preyed on young female bodybuilders specifically and did specific things to them. Those facts seemed to go much more into the weird for the reason to be weird than just a man who preyed on women in an empowerment situation.

There is a thing with pornographic and being truthful to what one says of society. Yes, things are weird in society but under the rules of the porno, the weirdness exists just for love of its own self and not of explaining anything important that can deal with society. My reasoning when seeing that synopsis is that whoever wrote it, obviously wrote it with the shocking facts in mind instead of maybe what the story was really about. Maybe just stating the facts of who these people are to begin with in a short synpopsis will bring out that reaction anyways since it is all one has to deal with in making a judgement.

A snob is anyone who thinks they know more on a particular field than the average person and feel their opinion with that knowledge is a more enlightened one. Snob doesn't mean though that one is just an asshole to anyone who disagrees or whatever.

~rougerum

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetIt's not that I think being a bodybuilder was stranger than a pyschotic teenager, it was just that the synopsis suggested that instead of a man preying on women in general, he preyed on young female bodybuilders specifically and did specific things to them. Those facts seemed to go much more into the weird for the reason to be weird than just a man who preyed on women in an empowerment situation.

But GT, your seeing the particularisation of the female character in the book as 'weird' and somehow less naturalistic than the representation of violent male youth is one of the points of gender relations that the book is dealing with. One of the problems for the representation of women is that we get seen over and over as 'women in general' or one of three stereotypes (mother, angel, whore), or, in most 'women empowerment' narratives, as substitute men. What Chemical Pink does is give the heroine individuality, a life - that you immediately typify as 'weird'. What it also then does is show how women becoming like men (in the end Aurora uses her physical strength to exact a physical revenge on Charles) is not a solution, and it also lays bare the only root of male dominance - bigger muscles. In that sense, the distortion of the female body/our expectations of what that body should be, the 'weirdness' or 'pornography', is not operating just for shock value, but is integral to the social meaning of the film/book.

It's not the aim of a synopsis to tell people this, though, is it?

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetA snob is anyone who thinks they know more on a particular field than the average person and feel their opinion with that knowledge is a more enlightened one. Snob doesn't mean though that one is just an asshole to anyone who disagrees or whatever.

I thought snobbery was more to do with assuming a superiority of taste than knowledge. I also don't see how your definition makes everyone here a snob. Perhaps you could give me a few examples?

I don't know about snobbery, but this discussion is a pretty good definition of BOOOOOOOOORING.

You're right, it is not the duty of the synopsis to make any mention of what could be redeeming of a story like this. And with Hollywood's nice history of exploitation of every single subject imaginable, reading this brought me to expect the case of it being weird for the sake of just being weird. There are directors who are off base in subject matter they deal with that are looked up to but have fascinations in subjects for less than any beneficial reasons. I will take your word for the story, since I cannot vouge, and hope that is sees humanity behond the superficiality of what these characters can hold in the long line of crap Movieland goofiness.

Snobbery does align itself with the people who do believe they are superior with no reasons to really think so, yes, but it also does allign itself with people who really do know what they are talking about. In his introduction to the Great Movies Series, Roger Ebert spoke about what he thinks when someone will tell him that a movie like "Ferris Beulluer's (fucked spelling there) Day Off" is there favorite movie. Ebert said he wonders if they knew pleasures of movies outside the 20 year mainstream range most people know. He then spoke of how the greatest moments in movies came outside of it and said he was in fact a film snob, but his identification is through that he knows more about something with a general public who feel no motivation to move outside of the boundaries. Reading subtitles is too hard. Movies that make you think are not enjoyable. Those movies are too weird. I think Ebert identifies his snobbery with a smile, being that he can find enjoyment in many movies that mainstream audiences will too. My identification of snobbery comes through the fact most of us believe we know more about movies, and are willing to learn more than the general public, and we believe they are caught in a small window of what makes a movie good. We don't believe they necessarily are all dumb people, but we believe they see movies as entertainment only. We look deeper, but still like these people. This may not be making any sense though. I just realized i wrote a lot for what a better writer could answer in 2 to 3 sentences.

Also, to get off topic, I want your opinion on something Budgie, that for the most part I know of, you didn't give. We argued about the validity and quality of the remake of Pyscho, but what do you think of news that Gus Van Sant is considering to do yet another remake, but with a Punk style to it instead?

~rougerum

Quote from: budgieOne of the problems for the representation of women is that we get seen over and over as 'women in general' or one of three stereotypes (mother, angel, whore), or, in most 'women empowerment' narratives, as substitute men.

Say a misogynist wanted to avoid movies or other books that give female characters "individuality". What films/characters do you feel don't fall into those stereotypical catagories you speak of?

Go back the masturbating with fruit part. That was holding my attention.

Gold Trumpet ~

I am glad you seem to have retreated from declaring everyone here to be a snob, because by your definition I don't think everyone is. My own comment on Ebert is that he is limiting his outlook just as much as he might consider 'the general public' to be doing because he treats people who do not share his way of enjoying cinema firstly as a mass and secondly as somehow undereducated and therefore incapable of appreciating 'art'. You don't have to do much research into actual audience practice, as well as popular critical practice like Ebert's, to realise that it isn't so simple. Ultimately cinema is about pleasure: Ebert is simply reinforcing the bourgeois privileging of intellectual/educated pleasure over other, perhaps more visceral experiences. In the meantime he safeguards his own elevated position by talking about the unwashed masses and blaming them for their self-image as people unable to understand subtitles and art films when he is perpetuating the division that keeps them too afraid to cross into his territory. If he allowed that his view of 'the general public' is an uninformed one (because he's scared of losing his distinction/status, so he doesn't get close to the thing he needs to be distinct from) then he would lose his own self-importance. God forbid! What would we do without him to give us guidance in these important matters? The fact that he might be boasting his 'snobbery' with a knowing smile only makes him more self- and class-serving, as you have to ask: who is he winking at? It isn't the mass of people he declares are too lazy (maybe they just don't give a shit, Ebert?) to read his reviews, is it? Qualifying this by saying things like 'we don't think they're dumb' doesn't do anything but patronise. But it's all about taking the easy way out I suppose. Like it's easier to stereotype any group of people that presents a threat: Arabs, for instance. Once we actually start getting to know people it all gets more messy, and that is really where the danger for people trying to maintain borders is.


As for Van Sant and Psycho... you know I think this is fine. I hope he makes a whole run of them because personally I'm interested in spectatorship. If the punk thing is about looking at how style and the culture depicted can change the meaning of a narrative, then great. I think it's good that he's choosing a subculture, not going for making, I dunno, a Jamaican Psycho, or a Chinese Psycho, because it's familiar but with a shift.


MacGuffin ~

Hmmm... tricky. But thinking about female characters who I think somehow move beyond: as I've already mentioned lots, Vanessa Lutz in Freeway, White Girl in Freeway II and Justine in The Good Girl come most readily to mind. And Enid I s'pose.

Quote from: budgieMacGuffin ~

Hmmm... tricky. But thinking about female characters who I think somehow move beyond: as I've already mentioned lots, Vanessa Lutz in Freeway, White Girl in Freeway II and Justine in The Good Girl come most readily to mind. And Enid I s'pose.

I agree it is tricky, so I don't understand how Vanessa transends the sterotypical catagories of promiscous/lolita/victim/damsel in distress? Sure, she fights back, but is it because it's at that moment that she is "strong" instead of, say, Thana in Ms. 45, who fights back for revenge days after her rape? (Haven't seen Freeway in a while, so forgive me if it's a bit inaccurate and I haven't seen Part II, so sorry can't comment). And Justine, a bored wife who becomes a double adulterer/attempted murderer, how do these traits work for positive approval? I guess I want to know what the fine line is for all these characters and any others you might think of. And Enid, well, she is the perfect woman, so I understand completely.

Quote from: MacGuffin

I agree it is tricky, so I don't understand how Vanessa transends the sterotypical catagories of promiscous/lolita/victim/damsel in distress? Sure, she fights back, but is it because it's at that moment that she is "strong" instead of, say, Thana in Ms. 45, who fights back for revenge days after her rape? (Haven't seen Freeway in a while, so forgive me if it's a bit inaccurate and I haven't seen Part II, so sorry can't comment). And Justine, a bored wife who becomes a double adulterer/attempted murderer, how do these traits work for positive approval? I guess I want to know what the fine line is for all these characters and any others you might think of. And Enid, well, she is the perfect woman, so I understand completely.

I am talking about the point of view of the movie as much as representaton, and this is the crucial area where 'strong' female characters are still subject to being perceived as passive. Freeway is excellent because it shows how Vanessa is positioned as a victim/Lolita/damsel in distress, but how she continually takes responsibility for her own actions and doesn't end up as any of those things. She isn't a victim at the end, neither has she had to change (become masculinised) to fit into the obviously male-dominated world she's moving in. She just refuses to obey somebody else's rules because they don't make sense to her or she spots how they only benefit the people trying to manipulate her. Her laughter at the end places her outside of the law, and for once you get a female lead who isn't defined only in her relationship to men. The policemen laugh following her lead. There's so much more to it than fighting: Vanessa reaches a place where fighting is irrelevant. That's why the police join her, cause they realise it too.

Thana, on the other hand, is punished by death and also angelicised (?) in Ms. 45.

As for Justine, she slips between the stereotypes, and again the film surrounds her with the roles allotted by society, all of which she slips in and out of so that she's never really any of them - there's this other 'Justine' that you understand is the person she really is, or at leasts would be if she had the means to evade her given roles (the way Vanessa does by becoming an outlaw I guess). For instance, when she's in her car at the crossroads, thinking about whether to choose good mother/wife or whore, what you want to shout is 'Go straight ahead!'. But of course, she can't. That's what is so real and heartbreaking about the movie and her character. The other line it crosses is in not punishing or judging her (she isn't a murderer, come on) for her social 'transgressions' - ie, in not treating her as or expecting her to be an angel who does no harm. She's completely human, instead of mythical.

I'm interested in why Enid is the 'perfect woman'. I don't think her characterisation is so complex as the above, but obviously she avoids the stereotypes. I s'pose there's always a sense in which you can just see anybody in an abstracted and simplistic way, though, so maybe she's just a hot babe.  :wink:

I don't think the snobbery of people who really are into films and who are just for general spectatorship and entertainment is that they won't get the films percieved to be more thought provoking or deeper, is that usually, they just refuse to watch them. With a subtitle film, they think it will be too weird and the subtitles too distracting. With indepedent films, they think it will be too weird or something that would permit them in just not enjoying it. For my experience, this has been the case more than anything else because all around me, most people are just into the things they know and won't see new things. I don't discuss any movies with anyone I know because I know it will be a waste of time because no one really cares about those movies. One person I know, when talking about movies and asking me if I liked it or not, will seriously get mad if I said it was a bad movie and start saying how I know absolutely jack shit about movies. I think its funny, but I'm not into Bruce Lee or all the Steven Seagal movies. I think the snobbery comes more for what people are willing to see than what they will "get".

For the punk version, I honestly see basically the same story being told with only minor changes to suit the punk atmosphere and most changes just being location, dress and attitudes of characters. They would have to get very talented in reminagining the movie to be something new and work within the context of now and in a punk scene. And looking at the first remake, I don't think that will happen at all.

~rougerum

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
For the punk version, I honestly see basically the same story being told with only minor changes to suit the punk atmosphere and most changes just being location, dress and attitudes of characters. They would have to get very talented in reminagining the movie to be something new and work within the context of now and in a punk scene. And looking at the first remake, I don't think that will happen at all.

But the point is to emphasise the part the viewer plays in creating the meaning and affect of the movie, and the first remake and this one both throw up the importance of contexts outside the basic narrative - eg change the cast and period and you get a whole different reading, and change the visual style and class/culture (punk being a subculture whereas the original movie shows safe middle class straightness threatened by 'perversity'). At a time when there are a lot of people moaning about the loss of story to spectacle, Van Sant might be trying to argue that you can't separate narrative from visuals or historical and cultural context. It isn't about the movie 'working', but about how movies work. Critical judgments around the usual markers of quality become irrelevant (so critics become redundant!). I think that's pretty radical and I'm in favour.

But with that kind of film, wouldn't the viewer of it just need to read what you have said on its meaning to get what is important about it instead of just watching it for themselves? Your arguments seem to be speaking for film in general than the worthiness of a piece of work holding up as a film itself. The first remake, and this one, feel like they can be attained in understanding by just some words of what they are in importance.  

~rougerum

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetBut with that kind of film, wouldn't the viewer of it just need to read what you have said on its meaning to get what is important about it instead of just watching it for themselves? Your arguments seem to be speaking for film in general than the worthiness of a piece of work holding up as a film itself. The first remake, and this one, feel like they can be attained in understanding by just some words of what they are in importance.  

Possibly, but not everyone is going to read about a movie, and you could say Van Sant is just exploring what I might do in an academic context in a different (ie a visual) medium, perhaps for a different audience. I don't think you can separate what his films do from other movies - there are other examples of filmmakers making specific addresses to audiences (Kubrick?) or making movies about movies and how they impact on us, but really I would suggest that you can watch any movie that way: if you think consciously about a movie's affect or meaning whilst you are watching it (like JB mentioning being aware of being emotionally manipulated by The Pianist (I think)) then that movie is about spectatorship, and no film exists as "a film itself". Van Sant, by making remakes that turn the story into a template, just foregrounds these ideas to make us aware of the issues involved (including the purpose of film criticism as it stands) in watching films. In that sense, isn't he making a piece of art cinema like, say, Godard?

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI don't think the snobbery of people who really are into films and who are just for general spectatorship and entertainment is that they won't get the films percieved to be more thought provoking or deeper, is that usually, they just refuse to watch them. With a subtitle film, they think it will be too weird and the subtitles too distracting. With indepedent films, they think it will be too weird or something that would permit them in just not enjoying it. For my experience, this has been the case more than anything else because all around me, most people are just into the things they know and won't see new things. I don't discuss any movies with anyone I know because I know it will be a waste of time because no one really cares about those movies. One person I know, when talking about movies and asking me if I liked it or not, will seriously get mad if I said it was a bad movie and start saying how I know absolutely jack shit about movies. I think its funny, but I'm not into Bruce Lee or all the Steven Seagal movies. I think the snobbery comes more for what people are willing to see than what they will "get".

Sorry, but I have to add something here. I agree that partly critical snobbery is about feeling superior to others whose range of knowledge about a subject is narrower, but my objection to that is that it assumes that knowledge is superior to feeling and pleasure taken in knowledge and the demonstration of that knowledge is somehow more legitimate than pleasure taken in experience and the sharing of that experience. Ebert isn't alone in this, it's part of a system of cultural value that is reinforced every time someone writes a review that supports the view that the intellect is more important than feeling, and that makes a distinction between 'art' and 'entertainment'. What I was trying to say before was that laying the blame on people for not being open to pleasures that challenge them (and that works both ways, often) ignores the influence of the system of cultural value that Ebert might be reinforcing, and that is reproduced by education and so forth. It takes an exceptional person to break through the boundaries that are drawn around them by society, and a kid who is never encouraged to break those boundaries is liable to grow up afraid to cross them. I'm guessing that Ebert was brought up in an environment that encouraged him to think of art as available to him. Now he's lucky enough to be able to spend all his time thinking about films and going to see whatever he likes, and also he's just into it. Why, because he has time, money and the right upbringing that supported his interest, is his love or appreciation of film to be counted as more valuable than someone who has seen three movies in their life, loves them to death and isn't educated or confident enough to be able to write a critical review. It's just two different ways of finding pleasure in movies, and neither is better. The inverse snobbery of your friends is simply their attempt to defend the type and quality of their experience against such as Ebert's. I just think it's appalling that attitudes get so entrenched that neither you nor your friend who likes stuff you don't can't get outside you own needs and question what people tell you is good to define your likes against each other's. But I can understand it, cause I used to think my family was shit for not liking stuff too.

i want attention.

For your thoughts on critical snobbery mixed with viewing pleasure, I do agree with you that people who do think they know more do assume a sorta superioty in thinking about other people. I'm trying my best to accept someone's else views on movies even if they are different than mine or something and try to not get combative or mad or anything, but just say, "hey, that's fine" and nothing more. The reason I prolly have not got over that hump completely yet is due to how young I am and very competitive in learning about all the movies know else has seen and finding better ones or whatever. I don't think Ebert is as far gone as being just about intelligence and completely removed from people who just want to see movies as entertainment. I use to go to Joblo.com and people just screamed about he was way too artsy in his choices and then i went to a forum for criterion collection and people just screamed about how he was way too mainstream and entertainment as a critic. I think he is somewhere in the middle when looking at both extremes, but its a good one considering the ego someone can have in his position for being such an influential critic.

"Intelligence can sometimes confuse us, but our feelings never lie."
-Roger Ebert

On Van Sant, I do realize he is operating within the realm of art cinema, and on a level farther away from most american ones and definitely closer to things Godard was doing later on in his career. I think that even though most people won't read about what his intentions mean, the fact is that they can. Van Sant is creating a movie under a cinematic idea that can be measured in what someone says of it. Maybe I'm not even arguing the credibility of the idea itself so much as I am arguing the final result in his first remake of Pyscho. I think that even though he was adding music (forget if anything else, since its been a while since i had seen the movie) but I remember that I couldn't get past how the film was an exact duplicate shot wise of the original and how it seemed more of something staged in an artificial way than something more naturally. I knew of how the movie was an exact duplicate, and only thought of how it was that while watching it and I think that was too distracting in seeing the movie for what it was trying to achieve. I think i am wishing that the movie found a way to reimagine itself into something new so it didn't seem so much related to the first to where it became distracting. If the next was to take a punk look, isn't it likely that the story would be different than the first? Do you think this would be good or bad? And if good, how much different should it be story wise?

~rougerum

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetVan Sant is creating a movie under a cinematic idea that can be measured in what someone says of it. Maybe I'm not even arguing the credibility of the idea itself so much as I am arguing the final result in his first remake of Pyscho.

But all ideas and criticisms are measured in what we say afterwards (to ourselves and others), aren't they? That's how judgments and interpretations are formed, and why they are subject to change and discussion. And yeah, it's obvious we are watching the movie for different reasons and in different ways. I'm not sure it stands up to regular textual analysis or assessment, but then as I said before, that's part of the meaning for me and what makes it interesting, cause when I'm watching it, thinking about how it relates to the original and what that does to the way I make sense of the film in front of me (and then the way I go back to Hitchcock's version too), I'm put in a different position to usual and that's stimulating. So...

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI knew of how the movie was an exact duplicate, and only thought of how it was that while watching it and I think that was too distracting in seeing the movie for what it was trying to achieve.

I think this is what is meant to happen. It just questions the expectations we have and makes us aware of what we are doing when we watch and talk about movies. For instance, a shot-for-shot remake can pose a question about who is the author of the film, which can then make you question whether your outrage has more to do with ideas of Hitchcock's canonisation as anything else. And then the fact that it isn't a duplicate brings up all those issues of shifts and difference in interpretation, which also challenges Hitchcock's authority and the authority of mainstream (ie: white, heterosexual, male) cultural value.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI think i am wishing that the movie found a way to reimagine itself into something new so it didn't seem so much related to the first to where it became distracting. If the next was to take a punk look, isn't it likely that the story would be different than the first? Do you think this would be good or bad? And if good, how much different should it be story wise?

I don't know whether it will affect the plot and dialogue. I hope not, because I don't think there is much point, or not so much point, in doing it if that is the case. I would prefer it to question the meaning and impact of surface style, with just the costumes, design and performance changed.

As for Ebert... I don't have a problem with him in the greater scheme of things. He gets people talking about movies, and that is all good to me. I just don't agree with privilege that's all, and it's depressing when people let ideas of good and bad restrict the enjoyment they could take if they let go of the idea of good and bad pleasure. I find that crazy.

Thanks for the discussion, by the way. I'm glad you haven't let anyone beat it out of you yet.  :yabbse-smiley:

I just finished Chemical Pink, I enjoyed it and think it is a very Fincheresque story, I just think the casting would be very difficult. Im too tired to discuss the book right now, maybe later.

Actually I've been around the scene that Chemical Pink is about, and while some of it might seem far fetched, it's actually pretty accurate.  There's a ton of stuff that most people don't know, especially on the women's side, and some of the characters I can almost see as caricatures of people that I've seen in the sport or surrounding it.

I am not sure, but is the film for sure going to be made?

Thanks,
gene

catching up on those old budgie/gt posts made my eyes bleed.

I just picked up the book that's come out on Fincher called Dark Eye: the Films of David Fincher, by James Swallow. The end chapter is about future projects, and states that Fincher would produce Chemical Pink, with Jonas Ackerlund directing. And apparently Kevin Spacey would be the ideal Charles.

The book looks useful, if anyone is interested, and like you could read it in a day. Exclusive interviews with Fincher used.

Quote from: budgieThe book looks useful, if anyone is interested, and like you could read it in a day. Exclusive interviews with Fincher used.

could i borrow it?

I finally got a copy of "Chemical Pink" the other day and have just started reading it, and damn, budgie, you were right. This is right up my alley. I would love to take a stab and writing/directing this. Even the cover says: "A Novel Of Obsession".

Yet another MacGuffin post about budgie, obsession, and stabbing