requiem for a dream

[Alexandro]

GT:

1.) Did I ever define avant garde?
2.) The larger questions about what genre represents to dig at larger drama and ideas is what is important.

Alexandro
1) No, you didn't, so that makes it ok for everyone else to point out to you why your statement of Requiem For a Dream having elements of avant garde is incorrect.
2) I disagree, cause genre can dig as large as any drama in any topic or story possible, only with different aesthetic...if the emotional core of the story and the symbiotic elements are utilized to do so, a thriller can be about racism, clacism and all sorts of other cisms around...

GT:
...the process of interpretation and critical thought always goes beyond the artists' original intentions. That's the beauty of crticism and what separates it from being just a tool depedent upon a work to interpret.

Alexandro:
I agree, but then critical should be critical and nonjudgemental on the value of an artistic work in terms of good or bad, and should always point out when a films sets out to do what and what does that film achieves of what it sets out to do, and not condemn a film cause it doesn't achieve what the film never tried to do in the first place.

GT:
You know what? I'm sure if you looked at all my great "rules" you'd see I likely contradicted them every now and then, just like everyone else.

Alexandro
That's why I don't understand why you use them as such serious argument points.

GT:
The filmmaker's experience overrides logical thinking, huh?

Alexandro:
Of course, that goes without saying. Logical thinking is the last thing that should matter on art.

GT:
Your attidude though of "Why not" sounds complacent. Its sounds like you could accept any movie if just hit you on a certain basic levels.

Alexandro:
I would say sometimes is harder to say "why not?" to something you don't quite get than keep asking why and live in the complacency that you're right and the filmmakers were all wrong...


GT:
Here's the deal. Many times when I do argue a film I get these type of reactions. My responce: Fuck off. You say I hinder true analysis of a film by having preconceived notions. I say you guys hinder any actual decent argument by jumping on my general attitude instead of actually arguing my points about the film. Yes, I do have points. I do make arguments that lead to a larger interpretation. When people can look at this, good or bad, I am priveleged. When I am being jumped on like this, I wonder why I have to keep arguing about something that isn't important.

Alexandro
To be honest man, I don't even know you. I don't have any reason to "jump on you" and fuck with your attitude. I can say the same about everyone else here. This is just a forum to ventilate opinions and yours are highly valued by me, not int he sense of "will I see this movie?" but simply because they are interesting. I just wanted to point out to you how by your writing you can seem to be more condescendent than harsh or critical, and how sometimes it seems you don't really enjoy movies that much. Not that is the case, but that's what it seems sometimes.

[Gold Trumpet]

GT:

1.) Did I ever define avant garde?
2.) The larger questions about what genre represents to dig at larger drama and ideas is what is important.

Alexandro
1) No, you didn't, so that makes it ok for everyone else to point out to you why your statement of Requiem For a Dream having elements of avant garde is incorrect.
2) I disagree, cause genre can dig as large as any drama in any topic or story possible, only with different aesthetic...if the emotional core of the story and the symbiotic elements are utilized to do so, a thriller can be about racism, clacism and all sorts of other cisms around...

1.) Alright, lets point out how drastically radical avant garde wasn't. In the early 1900s, the theater of Bernard Shaw was considered avant garde. It was considered this because his plays were dealing with social topics and larger ideas. Later on, avant garde became identified with plays that were breaking structual barriers. Finally, after all the changing and modulations through out 20th century art, avant garde became identifiable with pieces of work that were really un-identifiable.

As it goes on subjects about drugs in films, one could make the argument that the film is avant garde because it takes a point of view that skews the objective to a drug induced state. Other films on drugs have done this, but most films don't. In the history of avant garde this film still registers as a clear break from the usual objective in how to tell a story about drugs. Is my calling this film avant garde important? No. It isn't because it doesn't truly detail this film. I'm just glad you think people can tell me how wrong I am about avant garde stateliness. You're already convinced you're right even though you nor anyone else has said why.

2.) OK, your talking very general. Tell me a film and give some specifics to why. I hope a genre film someday will satisfy everything serious drama is able to do, but I've never seen that film. I just haven't.

There has always been a difference in drama and genre in arts. In the days of Shakespeare it was just classified as the relationship between melodrama and drama. Hollywood studios popularized genres and gave us many genres that melodrama as a staple term became eradicated.

GT:
...the process of interpretation and critical thought always goes beyond the artists' original intentions. That's the beauty of crticism and what separates it from being just a tool depedent upon a work to interpret.

Alexandro:
I agree, but then critical should be critical and nonjudgemental on the value of an artistic work in terms of good or bad, and should always point out when a films sets out to do what and what does that film achieves of what it sets out to do, and not condemn a film cause it doesn't achieve what the film never tried to do in the first place.

Thank you, but give me some specifics. How do I incorrectly condemn Reqiuem for a Dream? Or Cache? You'er hell bent on focusing on avant garde or genre when they have little do with the detail of my arguments.

GT:
You know what? I'm sure if you looked at all my great "rules" you'd see I likely contradicted them every now and then, just like everyone else.

Alexandro
That's why I don't understand why you use them as such serious argument points.

Why should anyone then do criticism? Do you realize that critics have engrained in them a philosophy or perspective (whether they realize it or not) and yet contradict themselves still? Why are you so concerned with only criticizing my general points. You'd service yourself a lot better to focus on my specific points and realize contradiction is just a name of the game and everyone is inherit to falling for it.

GT:
The filmmaker's experience overrides logical thinking, huh?

Alexandro:
Of course, that goes without saying. Logical thinking is the last thing that should matter on art.

Explain.

GT:
Your attidude though of "Why not" sounds complacent. Its sounds like you could accept any movie if just hit you on a certain basic levels.

Alexandro:
I would say sometimes is harder to say "why not?" to something you don't quite get than keep asking why and live in the complacency that you're right and the filmmakers were all wrong...

Saying why not still just says the filmmakers were all right. OK, this could go back and forth forever. "Why" and "Why not" are both subject to complacement feelings. This is too general to care about.

GT:
Here's the deal. Many times when I do argue a film I get these type of reactions. My responce: Fuck off. You say I hinder true analysis of a film by having preconceived notions. I say you guys hinder any actual decent argument by jumping on my general attitude instead of actually arguing my points about the film. Yes, I do have points. I do make arguments that lead to a larger interpretation. When people can look at this, good or bad, I am priveleged. When I am being jumped on like this, I wonder why I have to keep arguing about something that isn't important.

Alexandro
To be honest man, I don't even know you. I don't have any reason to "jump on you" and fuck with your attitude. I can say the same about everyone else here. This is just a forum to ventilate opinions and yours are highly valued by me, not int he sense of "will I see this movie?" but simply because they are interesting. I just wanted to point out to you how by your writing you can seem to be more condescendent than harsh or critical, and how sometimes it seems you don't really enjoy movies that much. Not that is the case, but that's what it seems sometimes.

I didn't mean anything harsh on my point. You caught me in a moment. Am I condascending in some ways? Yes! I have a critical approach that is very distrusting of many norms and acceptances in cinema. I will discredit certain films many others can appreciate, yes. See, I got into an argument with someone recently who wanted to start a new critical theory. Or something. Those things are all so vague and fluffly. He wanted to forward ideas instead of just reverting back. How can you start a new theory or idea of how cinema should be if you don't already have a distrustful disposition toward much of cinema? The person I was arguing, I'm already forgetting who he was, seemed very easy going in what films he liked. That's not the personality to forward ideas and move forward in cinema.

See, you say I sound condescending and maybe I do but I will only truly be condescending when my opinions don't have ideas and aren't very interesting to you.


OK, apologies for anything that sounded too harsh.

[Alexandro]

Your idea of avantgarde is different than mine. To my knowlegde, avantgarde, is the way the french army refered to the soldier who walked a little further down the road than the rest to tell them what was going on without risking everyone's lives...So, that term translated to the arts meant pretty much that, to be avantguarde you're supposed to be somewhere way before the rest. That's why avantguard is a word I believe is overused, cause with time, it has become increasingly hard to be avantgard for anyone...I would say Requiem has nothing to be there, cause nothing about Requiem is groundbreaking, not even the sound design. That's my view on it.

I'm not so sure i'm right, but since you write with such precision, the moment you don't define what's avantgarde to you, automathicly you leave open all sorts of possibilities for people like me and others, to ask you what the fuck do you mean by that, or to tell you, since you didn't give any context to it, that you're wrong...

I would say most of the films dealing with drug use as main plot point have tried different ways to show the drug induced perspective, and they have shown it in different ways...I've used a lot of drugs in my time and I could tell you all of them have done it right and wrong at the same time. Requiem is kind of hyperreal in a sense, but you could say that about Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas too...it's just not something that would fall into the avantgarde thing, for me.

Genre can dig as deep as drama, which itself is a genre too. Every film is about this and that and it doesn't necesarily need to be specific about it. This is where you and I differ cause you say film has to be specific to be universal and I just don't believe so. Arthur Miller's The Crucible is about Mccarthism, and everyone knows that, it doesn't mean you couldn't say is about intolerance mainly, but it's also about McCarthism...the fact that it doesn't specifcally talks about it doesn't mean is not about it...And it can dig deep cause human problems can be sumed up in feelings. I belive a thriller can dig as deep and sometimes even deeper than straight dramas just like a metaphor can dig deeper than an explicit sentence on something. The problem I have with what you say about Caché is that you claim it is not about racism and that it is about the guy alienating from everyone. Even though a lot of people see Cache and read in it the racism thing. Just because it doesn't specifically talks about it, or analyze it in a close, explicit way, doesn't mean the film's not about that. And in any case, it is open to interpretation. I agree with you, Cache is about this guy locking himself out of everyone else, but I also think is about racism...it can be both, you know?? It can be anything. That's art.

About condemning the film, you claim Requiem is not very good at all and then proceed to give a reason for that judgement that in all it's points doesn't seem enough to me. I understand your point, I understand what you¿re trying to say, why I don't understand is why the way Arronofsky chose to cut and block Requiem is a bad choice. How that acted in detriment of the picture's emotional power? Why something like that makes you say is not very good at all? And I don't mean the critical explanation of blocking that you gave, but how does it affect the development of the story, characters, performances and everything else in the movie? Why is it less organic? Critical observations are great and enrich a viewer's apreciation of a film, but observation with criticism is one thing and judgement about the whole of a movie is another.

I don't think contradiction is avoidable, I thnk that's inherent to art and the appreciation of it, cause it's very subjective to appreciate a piece of art. That's why I don't like and personally I don't think "rules" (for lack of a better word right now) are the right way to approach any film or art piece. And it's not anarchism what I'm deffending here, is not anyone can do what they want and it will be great, it's just that maybe, for example with Caché, it could work as a thriller and be about racism and clacism even though you have this idea that by being a genre film it can't possibly be about it for real cause it can't dig as deep as a serious drama on it...maybe it can, maybe it says things with subtext in ways a serious drama would do with text...That's why i say you shouldn't take these principles so rigidly...

About logical thinking in art, every true artist knows that intuiton and creativty are waaaaaaaay more important than logic and reason when it comes to art, when you make it and when you come across it and experience it. Because of the way ideas flow and materialize. That's nto to say everything should be purely intuiton, logical thinking has to be a part of it, but in the end is not that important. When you have an idea for a story or a movie or a song, it's very rare you think in terms of critical thinking, of yuxtaposition of your idea in the context of the big picture of your art or the world in general. That also counts, but you go with the flow and it's usually better for the artist.

This is where critics and artists collide. Critics want to make sense of the whole thing, but that's not the way creativity works. Yes, the brain tries to order things, but that shouldn't be the rule to follow for everyone. This is why a lot of critics get exasperated with a film like 8 1/2, and filmmakers in general love it. It doesn't have to make sense, not as a movie, not as a film in the context of anything, not as anything. Art is not something that is needed, humans don't need art to survive, and no art piece was something we were expecting to help us through our lives, so it doesn't even have to make sense in an historical context, really...it's imortance lies simply in that it is a human way of expression, and that most of the times is actually unique. Art goes through too many processes or ordering and packaging, but it is a very abstract and in many cases indescifrable thing. I would say is magical, I would say we really don't know how creativity works yet and probably we don't know yet what it means by itself. I love it when something doesn't make sense and works mainly on en emotional, abstract, not really that grounded way. I love to read the critics too, and I love to read how people interprets things, but I'm more drawn to be fascinated by the illogical. And logical thinking is a changing thing. I think art is more about intuiton and dream "logic" than anything, and I think also that is great when logical and illogical meet, but I would still say that the creative process overrides logical thinking, a lot...I think is way more complex.

Lastly, I understand you have ideas behind your tone, but really, is not cool to sound condescending. The same way and artist shouldn't be condescending towards critics and audiences, no matter what anyone knows, assumes he knows, or will know in the future, is nto a nice way to express yourself. Harshness is good, but not condescending, it's not even woth it man, it distracts from your points.

And I'm tired of this whole thing.