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.
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..
Quote from: P on March 25, 2010, 03:07:45 PM
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...
why not stop talking about it and just do it
or
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.com.com%2Fgamespot%2Fimages%2Fbigboxshots%2F4%2F588204_76503_front.jpg&hash=d797e2ba787766eda54c72df79ed8e634e6c71ed)
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:) **
Quote from: polanski's illegitimate baby in the locked cocaine QT threadthe 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
are you trying to say "Affect"?
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.
Quote from: pete on March 25, 2010, 05:19:12 PM
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.
I remember the summer my older brother turned 21. I spent it by the pool with girls, though. Not trolling the Criterion forums.
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. :)
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:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mitosyfraudes.org%2Fimages-29%2Fannie-hall_l.jpg&hash=18a59e6dca3485b40bb4bce4b93fd4ec89537c31)
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. :(
Quote from: pete on March 25, 2010, 07:38:08 PM
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:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mitosyfraudes.org%2Fimages-29%2Fannie-hall_l.jpg&hash=18a59e6dca3485b40bb4bce4b93fd4ec89537c31)
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.
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:
Quote from: polanski's illegitimate baby on March 25, 2010, 03:01:49 PM
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.
I agree that there's probably an interesting question in here somewhere, but the question still needs to be better defined in order to be talked about. At the moment it's so vague that it can be interpreted in a million different ways, so any conversation is likely shoot off into a million equally ill-defined personal rants...
EDIT: I often miss Godardian - he had the clear-headedness and dedication to get exactly these kinds of broad, tangential debates onto critically interesting tracks.
I no longer believe any one model should be the entire house in which to talk about movies. We all show our biases and preferences with how we talk about movies. Sometimes those biases are slips and sound like the casting of our truth as law, but I think we all can be mindful of the limitations of our preferences. I am discouraged by people who want carry around the label of auteur because even many theorists who know better don't believe in the label either. It's historical importance is the easiest way to propose yourself as someone who knows better, but I am also discouraged by people who believe there is nothing in theoretical models at all. It's a slim argument to attack those people because a filmmaker once said something along the lines of hating it. Yes, for the most part, theory has nothing to do with filmmakers. There are no Sergei Eisensteins today, but to spit venom at theories is also dumb and smacks of the arrogance that the anti-auteur crowd is talking about.
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on March 25, 2010, 08:24:59 PM
There are no Sergei Eisensteins today, but to spit venom at theories is also dumb and smacks of the arrogance that the anti-auteur crowd is talking about.
I can't speak for anyone else, but the torch that I was carrying was for intelligent thought over reductive thought. The man I had a conversation with was interested in finding a specific, form-fitting label for James Cameron, and this was his preference over rational conversation. He didn't want to expand his thoughts on Cameron. . .and in fact, I had the conversation with him, and I couldn't tell you what even the kernel of his thought was. It was obvious to me that he meant to degrade Cameron through some theoretical exclusion/inclusion, but his words became meaningless to me not because he was searching for a theoretic framework but because he relied on that framework to be the substance of his opinion. And that's what I'm against.
Quote from: Captain of Industry on March 25, 2010, 08:48:19 PM
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on March 25, 2010, 08:24:59 PM
There are no Sergei Eisensteins today, but to spit venom at theories is also dumb and smacks of the arrogance that the anti-auteur crowd is talking about.
I can't speak for anyone else, but the torch that I was carrying was for intelligent thought over reductive thought. The man I had a conversation with was interested in finding a specific, form-fitting label for James Cameron, and this was his preference over rational conversation. He didn't want to expand his thoughts on Cameron. . .and in fact, I had the conversation with him, and I couldn't tell you what even the kernel of his thought was. It was obvious to me that he meant to degrade Cameron through some theoretical exclusion/inclusion, but his words became meaningless to me not because he was searching for a theoretic framework but because he relied on that framework to be the substance of his opinion. And that's what I'm against.
I agreed with you. I was disagreeing with others.
Quote from: Captain of Industry on March 25, 2010, 07:58:45 PM
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.
Yeah, this guy you were talking to sounds like a moron for a number of reasons, but if you want just one you could remind him that Hitchcock made Dial M for Murder in 3D - I think he would have to fit ANY canon of 'auteur'.
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on March 25, 2010, 08:50:32 PM
Quote from: Captain of Industry on March 25, 2010, 08:48:19 PM
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on March 25, 2010, 08:24:59 PM
There are no Sergei Eisensteins today, but to spit venom at theories is also dumb and smacks of the arrogance that the anti-auteur crowd is talking about.
I can't speak for anyone else, but the torch that I was carrying was for intelligent thought over reductive thought. The man I had a conversation with was interested in finding a specific, form-fitting label for James Cameron, and this was his preference over rational conversation. He didn't want to expand his thoughts on Cameron. . .and in fact, I had the conversation with him, and I couldn't tell you what even the kernel of his thought was. It was obvious to me that he meant to degrade Cameron through some theoretical exclusion/inclusion, but his words became meaningless to me not because he was searching for a theoretic framework but because he relied on that framework to be the substance of his opinion. And that's what I'm against.
I agreed with you. I was disagreeing with others.
Just to note...This isn't so much a covert effort to exclude certain films from the "art house" category obscured by a discriminating theoretical framework, rather a modest effort in proposing the normative standards by which a film, any film, qualifies as an art. Essentially, i am talking about the motivation of an art film and proposing a standard for that particular category. I don't see what the big deal is all about... Even Avatar would "qualify" in accordance to what i have said if James Cameron meant a goddamn by making it. (and i am sure he did) I am not talking about critique here which is like a retrospective process, i am talking about normative standards for a true art film. This is theory, and it probably couldn't be validated. But for fucks sake, could you validate ethics? This is just an attempt at film ethics, so to speak, in a form of a categorical imperative.
On that fine note, i am going to opt out. I think i've had enough of this power-abusive and mulish mob of higher-posting users, of self-frustrated admins who childishly tinker with my "position" status as if that is the only form of authority they have ever exercised. I already had the feeling that Xixax wasn't really "saved"...and turns out, i was fucking right. Xixax isn't saved, its remains are just being mopped up by a vile sadistic mob who have no other choice. Cheers ya nazi cunts! You've done it! :bravo:
...your "posting status" changes with your number of posts. Says more about you that you jerked your knee at that one.
Quote from: polanski's illegitimate baby on March 25, 2010, 09:04:25 PM
On that fine note, i am going to opt out. I think i've had enough of this power-abusive and mulish mob of higher-posting users, of self-frustrated admins who childishly tinker with my "position" status as if that is the only form of authority they have ever exercised. I already had the feeling that Xixax wasn't really "saved"...and turns out, i was fucking right. Xixax isn't saved, its remains are just being mopped up by a vile sadistic mob who have no other choice. Cheers ya nazi cunts! You've done it! :bravo:
as ono said, your status changes depending on your number posts. below is the complete list of status names, along with number of posts and stars attached to them which hav been in place since the board's inception, or, according to you, created in 2003 with the sole purpose of insulting a random drunkard in 2010..
Film Critic * 0
Extra * 1
Production Assistant * 20
Grip * 40
Key Grip * 50
Stunt Supervisor * 60
Stand-In * 70
Gaffer * 80
Frog ***** 82
Gaffer * 83
Fluffer * 90
Film Editor ** 100
Screenwriter ** 200
Script Supervisor *** 300
Director of Photography **** 400
Second Unit Director ***** 500
Director ***** 600
Producer ***** 700
Executive Producer ***** 800
Studio Vice President ***** 900
Aspiring Actress Jacki Lynn * 997
Inspiring Actress Jacki Lynn ***** 1001
Sell Out ***** 1020
Studio Whore ***** 1040
Film Snob ***** 1060
over-achiever ***** 1100
you just showed yourself to be a complete nutcase.
Did you call the guys at The Auteurs Nazi Cunts too?
You have successfully mastered "affect", now it's time you learn what "nazi" and "cunt" mean because while P can be a real cunt of a fellow sometimes, I don't think you're using either word correctly.
art demystified. Finally.
Quote from: I Love a Magician on March 25, 2010, 03:42:18 PM
why not stop talking about it and just do it
or
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.com.com%2Fgamespot%2Fimages%2Fbigboxshots%2F4%2F588204_76503_front.jpg&hash=d797e2ba787766eda54c72df79ed8e634e6c71ed)
Should be captioned (w/ game cover).
what the fuck was all this about really?
Pretty sure I just figured out polbastard's true identity (http://theplaylist.blogspot.com/2010/03/bad-reviews-make-kevin-smith-cry-wants.html).
This seems to explain everything that just happened.
Generally in vague theory conversations, everyone is talking about something different.