the movie industry in 10 years?

Started by SmellyBoobFungus, February 24, 2004, 03:17:43 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3
User actions

godardian

#15
February 24, 2004, 11:29:04 AM
Quote from: SoNowThenYep, but replace "American" with "most regular people".


EDIT: also, to be fair, the tendency of the elitist "intelligencia" to over analyse things is equally as destructive, imo.

I WAS talking about "regular people," though. I think a great many more "regular people" in other places see much less contradiction between being thoughtful/aware/contemplative and being working-class or "regular" (nebulous term, that) than American "regular" people do.

There's nothing wrong with being intelligent, even if it makes you elite (so long as that's not the overriding goal, and for true intelligence it actually can't be, though this does not preclude a truly intelligent/intellectual person from enjoying any benefits their intelligence may gain them). I bristle at the term "elitist"- I'm absolutely not implying this is you, but you know as well as I do that that word is mostly used by willful know-nothings out of defensiveness.
""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.

SoNowThen

#16
February 24, 2004, 11:30:12 AM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
Quote from: SoNowThenVery VERY good points, GT. But can't the spinoff of all this dvd mania surely allow some fringe films to reach more people?

Not to mention, for us cinephiles, it's a plus to get to revist our favorite harder-to-find flicks over and over in relative comfort. Whereas back in the day you had to get your hands on a print, and sit at a shitty editing console and go back and forth...

Its a plus to the niche market that already appreciates challenging films. For the regular movie viewer, with all the dvds here and there, its just they are likely to get lost in the shuffle and over praise Spiderman because it has so much more on its dvd than most other films.

haha, true.

Actually, most people I know go on dvd buying binges due to the price tag (my buddy has the biggest collection of used or under $10 discs of the biggest shit you've ever seen, and that he'll never watch, yet to shell out $40 plus for a Criterion is almost absurd to these people).
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

#17
February 24, 2004, 11:33:44 AM
Quote from: SoNowThenBut some people just want to over-think something to the point where they're just putting their ideas into something where the original author had no intent whatsoever, and that gets dangerous.

English teachers and university students = red flags

:)

Actually, this is just the unfortunate thing I was talking about- knee-jerk  distrust of education and book-learnin' = American anti-intellectualism. Any time you make the slightest interpretation of a work, you're "putting your ideas in" where nobody has the the final word on what the author's "real" (as distinguished from expressed) intent was, whether you're educated or not. This is the iceberg-tip value of semiotics and poststructuralism: The author's intent only counts for so much, because the author's intent does not, cannot, and should not control how the work is received. It is only what it is: Intention, hardly all-encompassing fact or the last word.
""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.

SoNowThen

#18
February 24, 2004, 11:47:45 AM
Yeah, I don't wanna be misunderstood. I'm all for free thinking, and learning more. But I'm on the side of educating yourself. I'm very skeptical of someone telling me what to study, and telling me how well I've learned it.

Anyway, what I meant is that you get someone who knows nothing (we could call that a 'negative' position), but wants to know something. They could take baby steps and learn each part of the process, and grow until they feel confident -- OR -- they could have someone who makes up some wild theory teach them in a few months, and forever pervert their own ideas. Case in point: when I started getting into Godard and Bertolucci, I got a bunch of interview books, and ____ On ____ books, and some biographies, etc. And of course, spent time watching the films, listening to commentaries, extras, and all that. Then I stumbled upon this book called The Radical Cinema Of Bertolucci And Godard. Excited, I started reading. Lo and behold, it was an extreme leftist feminist, who basically knew nothing about film, but misconstrued every little detail of these great filmmakers into some grand scheme of statement making for hardcore feminism.

Now, I'm all for freedom of speech, people can write about whatever they want. But she would take something like the Breathless jump cuts (not exactly, but as an example) and go on about how they meant something symbolic to one of her ideas, not even knowing why JLG did them in the first place. If someone was given this book to start, it could so turn them off these great filmmakers, or at least get them looking for things that weren't there, I'd say that's destructive. The nitpicking of things to death is usually done by non-creative people who have never written fiction before, and therefore do not understand "plot points" or narrative construction, and mistake these machinations for hidden ideas. This is not overlooking subtext, but even the subtext has ten more subtexts for these people...
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.

SmellyBoobFungus

#19
February 24, 2004, 12:14:59 PM
in the end: i really think our world is in dire need of some sort of social movement. the system is in need for reform.
Guy with spoon: My spoon is too big. My spoon is too big. My spoon is too big.
Banana: I am a banana!

Rejected

Ghostboy

#20
February 24, 2004, 12:16:34 PM
You're right, SoNowThen, about the value of self-propellent learning, which Kubrick had some good things to say about. But what if, in your pursuit of filmic knowledge, you had randomly STARTED with that book; it could have forever skewed your opinions (although, if it had as much of an agenda as it sounds, I'm sure you may have seen through it). What you'd hope for in a film class is that the instructor would ignore material that infuses such a subjective point of view, and while I have no experience in film classes, I'd like to think that it wouldn't be too big of a risk.

To backtrack towards the original topic, history works in waves. We learn from the past, the past comes close to repeating itself, but it does so in an amalgated form that is, basically, neither here nor there. So where we're at right now, perhaps, is a point like the late sixties, where ticket sales were dropping; is a new 70s style renaissance on the horizon? No, unfortunately, because that type of filmmaking has been appropriated by the studios and is still in effect (re: Anderson, Anderson, Payne, Russel, et al). Hollywood is not likely going to throw up its hands and let a bunch of kids run in again, but it will evolve, and DVD and interactivity are going to play a big part with that. You already have people whose sentiments echo SoNowThen's, like Robert Rodriguez (and many studio execs, I'm sure), who sees theatrical releases as commercials for the eventual DVD.  

I think the progression of cinema will be more technological now, rather than idealogical, as it was in the seventies (there aren't that many taboos to cross anymore, and filmmakers are still being allowed to tell smart, personal stories that don't make a dime at the box office, so the only progression there would be quantitative, and while it would be nice to get more films geared towards US, I'm not complaining with the amount we get now). We'll have people like James Cameron propelling high quality 3D into the mainstream, and I'm sure full interactivity won't be too far behind (remember the 'feelies' in Brave New World?). At the same time, Landmark's recent decision to install a Hi Def digital projection network in all their theaters will allow smaller films to continue to be shown, at a fraction of the distribution price they incur now.

I'm spending way too much time writing this, so I'll wrap it up saying that the theatergoing experience will continue to evolve, but won't go away.

godardian

#21
February 24, 2004, 12:17:42 PM
I'm all for autodidacticism, too.  :)   But I don't think you have to know what Godard did or didn't mean with his jump cuts to have an interesting theory on them. I also don't think a lot of people would have an interest in Godard or Bertolluci or even have heard of them if not for those nasty old leftist-infested film/literature studies departments, so they do perform a service, though I'd advise nobody to only explore one recommended-reading-list of literature on their topic of interest/passion. There is a part of academia that DOES stifle independent exploration by positing itself as a final authority; there is also a part of it that preserves an ongoing interest in culture at all. I don't necessarily mean "university" when I say "education," though I don't think "university education" is automatically an oxymoron.

What I'd be interested in exploring- and I'm sure I'll read a book or three on the topic eventually- is why, apart from Bertolucci and Godard's own adamantly professed leftism(s), the creative arts in general seem so endemic to leftist thought (or is it vice versa) and have always been a haven for "freethinkers" and each historical period's own version of leftist/progressive/radical individuals and thinkers...
""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.

Jeremy Blackman

#22
February 24, 2004, 02:29:44 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenBut some people just want to over-think something to the point where they're just putting their ideas into something where the original author had no intent whatsoever, and that gets dangerous.
I think ignorance and apathy are a little more dangerous than "overanalyzing" things. And is it really possible to overanalyze something as long as you acknowledge the absurdity of your ideas?

And... artists do things unintentionally all the time.

Quote from: SoNowThenBut I'm on the side of educating yourself. I'm very skeptical of someone telling me what to study, and telling me how well I've learned it.
The real value of college is more inspiration than it is instruction... it can show you why to learn and how to learn, and then you leave college and learn.

SoNowThen

#23
February 24, 2004, 02:44:02 PM
I take it you're part of that over-analyzing sect I was speaking of...
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.

modage

#24
February 24, 2004, 02:58:03 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenThe only reason box office records are being broken is because ticket prices are on a steady incline.
Down with theatres!!
Long live home dvd!!!!
exactly.  wasnt it something like 70% of americans had seen Gone With The Wind in the theatres adn Titanic has less than like 10 percent or something.  can anyone find me the exact figures on that?  

here's my question: how much are people willing to pay for a ticket to the theatre?  prices are escalating so quickly so high its now $10+ some places.  when will it level off (probably never) or when will people just start refusing to go in numbers that make the theatreowners pay attention.  buy a movie forever for 20$ or buy two tickets to see it once $20.  hmmm....  although, personally i'll never be able (i dont think) to NOT go to the movies because it is an experience not matched at home (yet) although with home theatres becoming more common and better, maybe that'll change too.

Quote from: SoNowThenThis is not overlooking subtext, but even the subtext has ten more subtexts for these people...
my girlfriend is in this terrible American Horror Movies class with a teacher who doesnt particularly care for horror movies and ONLY wants to discuss the meaning behind them.  except for mostly its whatever SHE thinks the meaning is, and not the authors intent.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

SoNowThen

#25
February 24, 2004, 03:11:58 PM
My buddy's sister is in a university lit class, with a (you guessed it) feminist prof who insists that the Eye in Lord Of The Rings is a vaginal symbol, and is Peter Jackson's response to the overriding masculinity of the main characters.

Seriously. These are the people that you are paying to teach your children. Buyer beware.
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.

bonanzataz

#26
February 24, 2004, 03:16:20 PM
i kind of agree with that, actually. when i first saw fellowship and knew nothing about the lotr universe, i kept asking my friend why the screen would sometimes flash with an image of an abstract vagina.
The corpses all hang headless and limp bodies with no surprises and the blood drains down like devil's rain we'll bathe tonight I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls Demon I am and face I peel to see your skin turned inside out, 'cause gotta have you on my wall gotta have you on my wall, 'cause I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls collect the heads of little girls and put 'em on my wall hack the heads off little girls and put 'em on my wall I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls

Jeremy Blackman

#27
February 24, 2004, 03:18:04 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenMy buddy's sister is in a university lit class, with a (you guessed it) feminist prof who insists that the Eye in Lord Of The Rings is a vaginal symbol, and is Peter Jackson's response to the overriding masculinity of the main characters.

Seriously. These are the people that you are paying to teach your children. Buyer beware.
I actually really like that interpretation, and I think you're the one being elitist if you're going to exclude and reactionarily dismiss such things.

Ghostboy

#28
February 24, 2004, 03:23:22 PM
That's actually really interesting (the LOTR vagina thing), especially when you consider:

1. Shelob is also explicitly described as femal.
2. The two girls in Heavenly Creatures murder their mother.
3. The bizarre Freudian/Oedipal battle that runs throughout Dead Alive, climaxing with the monstrous incarnation literally shoving her son back into her womb.

SoNowThen

#29
February 24, 2004, 03:24:17 PM
So let me get this straight: if you're an artist or filmmaker, and you EVER use the images of an oval or a long stick, you're using vaginal or phallic imagery?

Bullocks.

If you really like it, JB, write your own book, rather than trampling on a classic.
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.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3
User actions