some general theoretic bullshit about film that needs to be out with

[polanski's illegitimate baby]

So, after going on a drunken killing spree at Auteurs.com and getting 60% of my first posts moderated, i am gladly returning to vent over here, in the radically neutral hate zone of Xixax. What was so controversial, you might ask, when someone brings up Herzog in a thread titled "the search for god in films?" Or why isn't one allowed to comment negatively on effectiveness of film relatively to literature? Why the fuck is it a blasphemy to question film as a newer and less developed art form? What is with this conservative "art house" bubble bullshit? Where did it come from and who is continuing to contribute to this reactionary ideology about film? Essentially, is it art because it's film, or is it film because it's art? Is it art just because of the medium or is it a film because it's an effective art form? The questions posed are not to disintegrate the art but to interrogate it, find its disadvantages in order to mitigate them, not to aggravate them. A big fuck you to Auteurs.com for stifling a discussion and freezing film into an obscure bubble of show "art".

So what, is film a fucking show or does it mean to effect by default? I believe this is a fundamental question, that if answered correctly, will rid us of much garbagecore out there.

[Pubrick]

so.. wait.. is this a drunken rant too?

if so i'll tune out right now. you are one of the worst drunk posters i've seen in a while, maybe it's that you're drinking heavily in the middle of the day. i hav no idea what you're talking about, it looks like you just said a whole lot of buzz words.

you showed promise but since your attempted entrapment of stefen i've lost some faith..

[polanski's illegitimate baby]

so.. wait.. is this a drunken rant too?

if so i'll tune out right now. you are one of the worst drunk posters i've seen in a while, maybe it's that you're drinking heavily in the middle of the day. i hav no idea what you're talking about, it looks like you just said a whole lot of buzz words.

you showed promise but since your attempted entrapment of stefen i've lost some faith..

I am talking about the inherent motivation of film being, first of all, "effective" and not "exhibitionist". I don't know how Stefen is related to any of this so i am going to tune out right now...

[I Love a Magician]

why not stop talking about it and just do it

or

[polanski's illegitimate baby]

Ultimately, i believe, a film is made to affect, not only to express. Hence, a film that expresses with motivation to affect is an art film. Any film that expresses without any effort in attempt to affect is an empty carcass of art aka masturbation.

Edited grammar errors:) **

[Pozer]

the language you use is historically moronically dated and offensive. either recognize your misunderstanding of semantics significance in which case you would have to revise remove your subject, or have you admit you're a fucking nazi putzi. I am not being ambiguous am i?

viva la auteurs.com

[RegularKarate]

are you trying to say "Affect"?

[pete]

it looks like you've made up in your mind that there are these two imaginary schools of thoughts - one being bubble art where the film does not "affect", whatever the fuck that means; and the other being one that affects, whatever the fuck that means.  And everyone else is not sure why the two are opposing and where your sudden indignation comes from.  you've given a very incomplete story - just something to the effect of people on the other website are dicks.  I don't understand how they're dicks and I don't understand your opposing schools of thoughts.
Herzog would supremely hate your words and your approach to viewing film right now.  He hates theory.

[polkablues]

Herzog would supremely hate your words and your approach to viewing film right now.  He hates theory.

He would also hunt you for sport and make a wallet out of your foot.  Dude's crazy.

[Stefen]

I remember the summer my older brother turned 21. I spent it by the pool with girls, though. Not trolling the Criterion forums.

[polanski's illegitimate baby]

Shit... yeah i meant affect** ooops... In a sense that a film is only art when it attempts to affect, otherwise it's bullshit.

Anyway, the crux of my argument, is that of a fundamental definition of film as an art.. Take for instance, the latest, The Limits of Control, a prime example of an empty ass pseudoart film which seemingly had not attempted to really say anything yet appears so self-righteously confident in its own vanity. Take for instance Werckmeister Harmonies which is just brilliant and is so earnestly trying to say something in an attempt to affect and become an effective work of art.

Oh and pete i think it's you who hates theory in general, not Herzog, moreover i think he might actually hate you for saying that.

[pete]

you're not really backing up what you're saying in any shape or form - you hated one movie and loved the other without really any legitimate reasoning and then you applied your favorite words over them, then a self-satisfying non-response to me, who happens to be taking life very seriously this week.

I think I was 19, not in a hot tub, when I realized that I can't really respect the opinions of people who praise their favorite films as "art" and their favorite filmmakers "autuers", and if you don't get it lets break it down a little bit; the people who pretend to be critical but at the end merely categorize those they're passionate about are phonies, as if there is no shitty art or hacky auteurs.  I've never been rigorously critical though I do enjoy listening to rigorously critical people discuss what they love in such organized fashion, and a shortcut to sifting them out from time wasters is if they aren't intimidated or mystified by the word "art".

you're the guy on the left:

[polanski's illegitimate baby]

I don't have to back up a definition with any examples friend. That is why a definition is a standalone, determining category. Those were exclusively for your rumination You're ignoring my argument and arguing against my ethos while not knowing, any bit, who you're talking to. (not in a threatening Robert Deniro sense of the sentence )  Thanks for the autobiography but my argument still stands and unfortunately, i will not repeat it for your sake.  

[Captain of Industry]

you're not really backing up what you're saying in any shape or form - you hated one movie and loved the other without really any legitimate reasoning and then you applied your favorite words over them, then a self-satisfying non-response to me, who happens to be taking life very seriously this week.

I think I was 19, not in a hot tub, when I realized that I can't really respect the opinions of people who praise their favorite films as "art" and their favorite filmmakers "autuers", and if you don't get it lets break it down a little bit; the people who pretend to be critical but at the end merely categorize those they're passionate about are phonies, as if there is no shitty art or hacky auteurs.  I've never been rigorously critical though I do enjoy listening to rigorously critical people discuss what they love in such organized fashion, and a shortcut to sifting them out from time wasters is if they aren't intimidated or mystified by the word "art".

you're the guy on the left:

As a matter of fact, the other day this guy told me that Alfonso Cuarón was thinking about making a 3d film and that that would be the first 3d film made by an auteur.  So I told him that Cameron is an auteur.  He seemed deeply insulted.  I told him the application of auteur isn't a matter of taste.  In his frustration he told me that Cameron isn't an artist, and I said that he probably is an artist, and he said no, Cameron is definitely not an artist, he is a craftsman.  I asked him what he meant, and he said that for example Shawn Levy the director of Cheaper by the Dozen is a craftsman not an artist and that not everybody who touches a camera or works in film is automatically an artist.  I told him that I think Shawn Levy is probably an artist, although I've not seen his films.  And then he literally just stopped talking to me.

I'm not saying I was right or he was wrong, I'm just illustrating a conversation about art and auteurism that was a big fucking waste of time and how sometimes the usage of the words can completely derail a conversation into absurd and particular semantics that couldn't possibly actually illuminate the film or the filmmaker.  Because I think that's what you were also saying.

[matt35mm]

Captain gives a great illustration of this debate, which has probably been around since humans were carving pictures into cave walls, way before the word "auteur" ever existed.  It's a never ending debate.  It's worth having the conversation, I think, if it will serve to shape your understanding of our relation to art.  I think about this stuff all the time and have my own feelings about it, which is useful to me.  To that end, it can be pragmatic to delve into the theory.  But, if the intention is to answer the question once and for all, a la:

So what, is film a fucking show or does it mean to effect by default? I believe this is a fundamental question, that if answered correctly, will rid us of much garbagecore out there.

... then whether you're asking the question here, on The Auteurs, or anywhere else, you're doomed to fail.  There will never be agreement on this question.