was in the dvd store tonight -- came across the requiem for a dream dvd and i immediately wanted to buy it, but it said edited version on it, i noticed. i had seen this in theaters about 3 years ago when it came out - and since they didnt have anything but the edited version, i bought it. i have watched it and i didnt notice anything different (it has been a while), but i know it is different. is it worth shopping around and returning this one to get the directors cut (its very hard to find around here) or is there not much of a difference? the film is still fucking powerful nonetheless.
from imdb:
"The edited version replaces the shot of Marion and another woman having sex with two men with a shot of Marion partially clothed climbing on top of a man. Also, all the shots of the double-ended dildo and the shots of Marion and the woman having sex on it have been replaced with alternate camera angles and shots that hide any indication that the two are having anal sex on it. Some shots were also re-used to hide the close-ups of the two butts slamming together.
In the opening credits for the edited version, when the title card "Requiem for a Dream" crashes down, underneath it is a red box with red lettering that reads "edited version", making it clear to the viewer that they are not seeing the true version of the film."
if ever something like this would happen to my movie, i would call it "censored version" not "edited."
Ive seen both and own directors cut. Only difference ive noticed is a much more explicit version of the dildo riding scene towards the end. Other than that i noticed nothing different.
thank you
edited version. What a travesty.
Mine is R2 PAL. I guess it's the UK version. The running time is 97 mins.
Is this the extended version?
.......By the way cool commentary by Aronofsky :yabbse-thumbup:
The edited R1 DVD sucks.
You don't get any bonus features.
aurora, would you please get a new avatar?
oh...
nice.
What was aurora's avatar before? I'm thinking it may have been better than this one
When you are asking me to get a new avatar is it because its displaying a big ass banner?
Its my script fucking up. If you refresh it should fix it but I am working on a way so I can host it myself and not have that stupid fuckin banner popping up randomly
Most of the time I see the banner, once I saw Requiem For a Dream
Ok guys
It should be all fixed now
Sorry about that
Let me know if it does it again
Quote from: auroraOk guys
It should be all fixed now
Sorry about that
Let me know if it does it again
it's still doing it, or it's a red box.
i think getting an av that doesn't end in .php would be a good idea..
Quote from: Sigur RósMine is R2 PAL. I guess it's the UK version. The running time is 97 mins.
Is this the extended version?
.......By the way cool commentary by Aronofsky :yabbse-thumbup:
Same question once again!
The censored DVD also has no special features. I'm serious.
Blockbuster, of course, only carries the censored DVD.
Blockbuster must burn up and die in horrible hellfire.
Blockbuster in Australia is like any other video store. They have every movie uncut
The only shit thing about Blockbuster is that when you hire a movie they don't give you the original cover - they give you a 'blockbuster' cover
Quote from: _|P|_Quote from: auroraOk guys
It should be all fixed now
Sorry about that
Let me know if it does it again
it's still doing it, or it's a red box.
i think getting an av that doesn't end in .php would be a good idea..
OK. Is it working perfect now?
I just wrote a whole new code from scratch and I can't find any flaws :D
Quote from: auroraOK. Is it working perfect now?
yes..
say, why havn't any of the resident geniuses thought of doin this multi avatar thing before? and is it possible with this new technology to make me one where i keep the moving bee, but add at least 2 other things, switching like?
Sure is
All you need is a PHP server and some pics =)
And you need the PHP code. Which I have. The question is... can you handle it?
Apparently(and I only heard rumors of this, since I don't rent DVDs), when there's a two disk set, blockbuster only gives the one with the film. At least in Montreal. That sucks.
Quote from: RecceApparently(and I only heard rumors of this, since I don't rent DVDs), when there's a two disk set, blockbuster only gives the one with the film. At least in Montreal. That sucks.
They did this with AI
Quote from: Duck SauceQuote from: RecceApparently(and I only heard rumors of this, since I don't rent DVDs), when there's a two disk set, blockbuster only gives the one with the film. At least in Montreal. That sucks.
They did this with AI
Democratic bastards
Has anyone seen Satoshi Kon's Perfect Blue?
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi46.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ff149%2Fsquints06%2Fperfectblueshot1.jpg&hash=b2fa7d60d9b15cea7ddba1368077c58c290426d2)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi46.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ff149%2Fsquints06%2Fperfectblueshot2.jpg&hash=0b6006c2e1e597f56694b57b04b842c1d3987cd8)
I find it funny Aronofsky makes no mention of this in the commentary.
Bumpity Bump Bump
Quote from: squints on August 02, 2006, 03:02:38 PM
I find it funny Aronofsky makes no mention of this in the commentary.
from imdb trivia for Perfect Blue:
Darren Aronofsky owns the American filming rights to this movie, which he purchased for $59,000
yes, that was pointed out in this thread: Most perfectly composed shot in movie history (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=1752.msg33513#msg33513).
here's the relevant bits
Quote from: godardian on May 31, 2003, 10:26:38 AM
My favorite Connelly bit from Requiem would be the muffled bathtub scream. It's beautifully composed... misery. Guess you could say the same of the film itself. I'm a fan.
Quote from: Pwaybloe on June 04, 2003, 03:07:05 PM
Have you ever seen the movie "A Perfect Blue?" It's a Japanese anime (an excellent one), and it had that same scene. A couple of years later, Aronofsky did a rip-off of that scene in "Requiem..."
I don't think Aronofsky mentions it in the commentary.
Quote from: Pubrick on June 04, 2003, 09:54:01 PM
i know..
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fperso.club-internet.fr%2Fpserve%2Fperblue8b.jpg&hash=470c6a405d516f2aec56622980850dbffb89204b)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fperso.club-internet.fr%2Fpserve%2FPerfectBlue10.JPG&hash=53c5b8163411da23abc68b5cc08cebd05f444f99)
the more you know
when you see the words duck sauce in the previous post of the thread you are about to revive... might want to consider that everything about the topic has already been discussed.
Memory doesn't serve me well again. Requiem for a Dream isn't very good at all. I was stunned recently watching it how amateur the film came off in the context of presenting most of the scenes. Too many times (especially for Ellen Burston's character) each scene came from the vortex of just a disjointed effect. Worst case, one effect (usually a disjointed camera angle) lasted the entire scene. There was no breath for presenting the scene typically or even with other effects. Some scenes were done typically and others tried to juxtapose mutiple tricks to sustain the length, but overall effect I felt the film had all the ambition to be "avant garde" without realizing the trickery of the avant garde had all the limitations of bad storytelling and filmmaking.
The film needed a base. It needed a composition to the filmmaking that wouldn't overdue the story. That composition would lead to the use of effects. Yet the film begins with effects and tells the story afterward. Even the very best and most imaginative films of camera trickery hold up more naturally than Reqiuem does. An example would be Richard Lester's The Knack. It has all the daring of film trickery to sustain the length of five versions of Reqiuem for a Dream. Yet it is a perfectly imagined and executed film.
Wow. I really think you're off-base on this one. Way, way off-base. Out of the stadium and standing in the far corner of the parking lot off-base. Requiem for a Dream is a story and a film that would be powerful even if every scene was told in one static shot. The performances, the subject matter, and the power of Selby's language could sustain a radio play if one were so inclined. The "camera trickery" serves to amplify and subjectify the storytelling, not to mask weak narrative.
And I feel like to view Aronofsky's aspirations for the film as avant garde would be a mistake. If anything, he took a huge step back from avant garde in the move from "Pi" to "Requiem". There's very little that Aronofsky attempted in the film that hadn't been attempted many times before and used very successfully in other narrative films (for a great example of a film full of techniques that people confused as being revolutionary in "Requiem", just watch John Frankenheimer's "Seconds". All those subjective camera and editing techniques were there back in 1966, in a mainstream Hollywood movie).
GT, when you're on a roller coaster, do you spend the whole time counting the bolts and gauging how high up you are?
Quote from: polkablues on August 31, 2006, 02:14:13 AM
Requiem for a Dream is a story and a film that would be powerful even if every scene was told in one static shot.
Thanks for beyond-argument fanboy identification. Next!
Quote from: RegularKarate on August 31, 2006, 01:22:47 PM
GT, when you're on a roller coaster, do you spend the whole time counting the bolts and gauging how high up you are?
Were you on the old board? As far as back as I can remember, you treated every review of mine with a one sentence rebuttal to undermine my entire stance. Some comments were actually harsh. These days they are kind of affectionate. Always in transition, do you have names for your periods of yelling at me? Does this one have a name?
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on September 03, 2006, 11:57:09 PM
Quote from: RegularKarate on August 31, 2006, 01:22:47 PM
GT, when you're on a roller coaster, do you spend the whole time counting the bolts and gauging how high up you are?
Were you on the old board? As far as back as I can remember, you treated every review of mine with a one sentence rebuttal to undermine my entire stance. Some comments were actually harsh. These days they are kind of affectionate. Always in transition, do you have names for your periods of yelling at me? Does this one have a name?
Yes, of course I was on the old board (or were you being sarcastic?).
You're right, I've treated a good deal of your reviews with one sentence replies.... and they used to be harsh. I used to get upset at you and your reviews, but I got over it... I don't dislike you at all, but the truth of the matter is that you often take an awful lot of time to make yourself look like you just don't have taste-buds.
You view everything as formula, examining it for it's ingredients and judging it by number and chemical make-up, but you never actually taste it... you never experience it. I think you blind yourself by turning everything into a mathematical equation.
I think you're a good person and you're serious about film so I try not to get onto you or show my annoyance with your reaction to certain things as often as I used to and probably more often than not, I actually agree with most of what you have to say, I just wish sometimes that you could actually feel a movie instead of examine it with litmus paper and a calculator.
I hope this doesn't seem too mean. I hold you in high regard and hope you can take all this into consideration. Maybe it's not true, but it certainly comes across like that a good deal of the time.
Quote from: RegularKarate on September 04, 2006, 12:31:07 AM
I hope this doesn't seem too mean. I hold you in high regard and hope you can take all this into consideration. Maybe it's not true, but it certainly comes across like that a good deal of the time.
My evolution is all in the due process of just finding my voice. I respond very emotionally to movies, but I also have the science of criticism to learn and try to apply. Intelligence often takes prescendence. Thanks for the consideration though.
As it so happens, a few years ago you mentioned I likely was likely the exact opposite in real life as I was here. Very correct. I'm nothing more than goofball prodigy of Loyd Dobbler. I don't take myself serious at all. I talk sports with wannabee jocks and bullshit with everyone else. I even had a girlfriend who was earmarked to go to a major university and her family was very dissapointed when meeting me. They assumed I represented everything that would hold her back. So I introduced her to Say Anything. Hell, even past co workers assumed the only movies I like were pornos. Took me years to convince them I liked art films. They assumed it was just another weird side note in everything I did.
And yea, I forgot you were on the old board. Sue me. The way Godardian and Modage are transfixed on this board I sometimes think they were also there. I have to remember they werent. It was a long time ago. You were lost in the process during that last post.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on September 03, 2006, 11:57:09 PM
Quote from: polkablues on August 31, 2006, 02:14:13 AM
Requiem for a Dream is a story and a film that would be powerful even if every scene was told in one static shot.
Thanks for beyond-argument fanboy identification. Next!
Just for that, I'm putting together of string of quotes of yours that make no sense whatsoever. Strap in...
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on August 31, 2006, 12:50:51 AM
each scene came from the vortex of just a disjointed effect.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on August 31, 2006, 12:50:51 AM
There was no breath for presenting the scene typically or even with other effects.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on August 31, 2006, 12:50:51 AM
It needed a composition to the filmmaking that wouldn't overdue the story. That composition would lead to the use of effects.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on August 31, 2006, 12:50:51 AM
It has all the daring of film trickery to sustain the length of five versions of Reqiuem for a Dream.
And from now on, since engaging you with words and opinions has no obvious effect, I will only respond to your posts with this: :shock:
Here's an example...
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on September 04, 2006, 12:45:24 AM
Intelligence often takes prescendence.
:shock:
Pathetic.
Look at your original reply. You used your first 3 sentences to just detail how wrong I was. It wasn't geniune, it was patronizing. You just got a similar reply back. I wasn't being serious. So go on, carry a grudge. I'll forget about this anyways.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on September 04, 2006, 05:59:24 PM
You used your first 3 sentences to just detail how wrong I was.
And then I used the rest of the post to explain why I thought that... so what's the problem?
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on September 04, 2006, 05:59:24 PM
It wasn't geniune, it was patronizing.
I assure you, it was both.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on September 04, 2006, 05:59:24 PM
I wasn't being serious.
And I assumed it was clear that neither was I. If not, here's a little after-the-fact disclaimer: I wasn't being serious either.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on September 04, 2006, 05:59:24 PM
I'll forget about this anyways.
Please don't forget the part about things you say not making sense. If there are coherent thoughts behind such sentences as "each scene came from the vortex of just a disjointed effect," I would like to know what they are.
Please don't get me wrong, I greatly respect the fact that you're one of the only people around here who tries to apply an academic filter to his writing about film, but this pattern of "controversial viewpoint expressed in frequently malapropic writing" followed by "righteous indignation at imagined personal attacks in rebuttal" and finished off with "snippet of personal biography to help us understand that you're different, really, from the persona we perceive you as being" is getting tired. Somewhere, hidden deep down in your writing, are interesting ideas. But when I disagree with them, I'll let you know, and I'll let you know why. I expect the same from you and everyone else on this board. No grudges, no martyr bullshit, and some skin thick enough to recognize snark and not take it personally.
you and RK are not entirely wrong in your assessment of GT but on the subject of his writing i don't think it's that hard to get, not as much as it used to be anyway, so i'll see if i can explain the stuff u highlighed. for fun i guess..
Quote from: polkablues on September 04, 2006, 05:06:59 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on August 31, 2006, 12:50:51 AM
each scene came from the vortex of just a disjointed effect.
he's saying that every scene took place from the perspective of a fancy camera move or heavy-handed cinematic bravado. aronofsky's overwhelming desire to communicate a subjective point of drama in the story, be it a person's craziness or the distance between marion and harry, actually becomes a hollow exercise in a LACK of dimension.
Quote from: polkablues on September 04, 2006, 05:06:59 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on August 31, 2006, 12:50:51 AM
There was no breath for presenting the scene typically or even with other effects.
GT is rephrasing his point that aronofsky decided from the very beginning to marry the attempt at ultra-subjectivity, a decision which came to the detriment of scenes that could hav benefited from a bit of restraint. in aronofsky's case restraint here means loosening up the reins.
Quote from: polkablues on September 04, 2006, 05:06:59 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on August 31, 2006, 12:50:51 AM
It needed a composition to the filmmaking that wouldn't overdue the story. That composition would lead to the use of effects.
he continues the point: that with restraint would come a new perspective not predetermined and actually free to new possibilities that would go beyond the reduction of the story to a single train of thought. he is saying it would have been more organic.
Quote from: polkablues on September 04, 2006, 05:06:59 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on August 31, 2006, 12:50:51 AM
It has all the daring of film trickery to sustain the length of five versions of Reqiuem for a Dream.
he's saying that richard lester out-performed aronofsky with The Knack... And How to Get It. not because the film used more camera trickery but because it was more organic and regenerated naturally as the film progressed so that by the end of it, according to GT, lester has amassed the equivalent value of five worthwhile feature films. where requiem has barely sustained the length of one.
I don't know GT. Sometimes I don't know what to think of what you say here. I mean is cool, cause I like reading full lenght opinions like yours instead of the usual two liners that poblate xixax, but sometimes you say things that seem to be, like Pete says, way off base.
Now Requiem is a movie I haven't watched in ages. I own it but back when I bought it a few years ago, everytime some friend came to my house to watch a movie, they wanted to see Requiem. Is an impressionable film for impessionable people. For all I know, a lot of my friends like it for the wrong reasons, or at least for incomplete ones. I saw it so many times back then that I grew tired of it and haven't watched it for years. The same happened with the Kubrick movies. Visually trippy movies are an easy sell to hipster post teenagers who believe they like "good cinema"...even though and taking all that in account, I would never say that Requiem is "not any good at all"...I mean dude, sometimes your words are so dramatic, they are distracting from what you're really trying to say...
I get your point about the blocking of the scenes, what I don't get is why is it such a problem?? Why should it be that at least some scenes were blocked on a different or more "standard" way...what's with all this strange rules about dramatization, blocking, genres and things you have?? And why do you think the film wants to be avant garde?? Who said that? Certainly to me, Requiem for a Dream is not even trying to be avant garde..who would try that nowadays for real anyway?? You seem to give movies intentions and aspirations they don't have, and then condemn them cause they don't achieve those inexistent intentions and aspirations...
In any case, they way scenes are structured in requiem is one of the films's strenghts, not viceversa. The subjectivity is what makes it so emotionally engaging.
The Style of this film is hyper kinetic. It's one of those experience films that you just need to watch. For me it was a complete punch the stomach and when I saw it when it first came out I was amazed. I bought it on DVD and watched it a couple times and each time I got more and more exasperated and depressed. If I ever want to be blown away and become sad at the same time, I'll watch this one.
Quote from: Alexandro on September 11, 2006, 12:48:01 PM
I don't know GT. Sometimes I don't know what to think of what you say here.
Join RK and a few others. Your disbelief is going to continue. I'm not going to change. I'm going to learn from my mistakes, but I'm not ever going to be a nice reviewer. Also, I'm not going to reply to your arguments. All answers I could give would tread on what has already been said. Pubes elaborated on my mini review quite well. Most of your reply is just continuing disbelief that I can hold so many positions that go against popular belief.
I do want to make one thing known. Its that I don't go against popular belief to just do it. People before have implied thats all I do. I really do believe in what I say and try to challenge myself to not settle for the easy disagreeances. I'm still not very good at critical thought. I'm just glad some people have come around to my personality to see some enough validity in my arguments to be able to just disagree. It makes me want to stay on the board instead of leave.
Hell, I'll likely never leave. I'll likely never lessen the intensity of my viewpoints either. I'll always enjoy the fact I see my opinions are disagreed upon all the time but yet my opinions will be referenced in favor of positions elsewhere. Its a decent edge of the board to carry.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on September 11, 2006, 02:54:57 PM
Quote from: Alexandro on September 11, 2006, 12:48:01 PM
I don't know GT. Sometimes I don't know what to think of what you say here.
Join RK and a few others. Your disbelief is going to continue. I'm not going to change. I'm going to learn from my mistakes, but I'm not ever going to be a nice reviewer. Also, I'm not going to reply to your arguments. All answers I could give would tread on what has already been said. Pubes elaborated on my mini review quite well. Most of your reply is just continuing disbelief that I can hold so many positions that go against popular belief.
No my friend, you're wrong. I don't have a continuos disbelief that you can hold so many positions that go against popular belief. I never thought you disagree just for disagreeing. I think you sincerely say the things you say. But I think you're confused. You're trying waaay too hard to be "critical" and "though" and end up "finding" errors and bad things in movies where they are inexistent. As I said, you accuse movies of having intentions and aspirations only clear to you (never mentioned by anyone else and certainly not by the filmmakers of the movies in question) and then proceed of condemning the films for not achievign what they never ttried to achieve anyway. Requiem never tried to be avant garde, Caché never tried to be genre and only genre, and so on...
What's sad is that you seem to reduce movies, films, ideas, pieces of a person's or a groups of person's humanity and artistical expression, things that can't be really measured in any exact way, precisely to formulas, rules, recipes, and theories that don't and really can't hold up against imagination and creative expression, I think by definition. I try tog o to every film with an open mind, and to be honest, perhaps I might be a bad critic, cause it's rare that I get out of the theatre or turn off the dvd player in huge dissapointment. Every time a movie does something unusual or that seems a little odd or out of place, more and more as years pass I find myself asking why not? instead of why?...
And look, I'm not saying that's the way it is for you, ok? I'm not saying you're a cold ass critic who tries too hard to find things to complain about in medium to great movies, or that you don't have the seinsibilities of other persons to just let yourself go and enjoy films for what hey are instead of what in your filled up mind films should be...All I'm saying is that's how it sounds...
Quote from: Alexandro on September 12, 2006, 01:12:02 PM
Requiem never tried to be avant garde, Caché never tried to be genre and only genre, and so on...
1.) Did I ever define avant garde? Do you know how many definitions of avant garde exist? My use of avant garde in describing Requim for a Dream was a footnote
after my criticisms. Go back to my critical points. They are what counts. They are also very much in line with adaquate reasoning of looking at the film. Your stuck on avant garde. Get over it because I never defined what it meant.
2.) I don't even understand your Cache point. Many things were argued among many people. I think a few points have been forgotten. I argued about the uniqueness of Cache in the respect of genre in the European model. I said the film was fine, but I was arguing against it being the masterpiece that The Piano Teacher was. No one can deny that the shell of the film has a genre mentality. The larger questions about what genre represents to dig at larger drama and ideas is what is important.
If you disagree that this question shouldn't be asked and has no merits to the filmmakers intentions, then say why. Or you can just realize that 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.
Quote from: Alexandro on September 12, 2006, 01:12:02 PM
What's sad is that you seem to reduce movies, films, ideas, pieces of a person's or a groups of person's humanity and artistical expression, things that can't be really measured in any exact way, precisely to formulas, rules, recipes, and theories
Its called having a fucking perspective. Its called using your experience and education to look at films. I don't have greater theories. I don't have greater plans. I don't associate with film school ideas. Look at other people on this board. They all have tastes and are more likely to appreciate certain films while disliking others. Most of them hardly go any length to say "why" but I'm sure if they did it would also look like they had preconceived notions of what they like and don't like in films. They'd just have a fucking taste.
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.
Quote from: Alexandro on September 12, 2006, 01:12:02 PM
that don't and really can't hold up against imagination and creative expression, I think by definition.
The filmmaker's experience overrides logical thinking, huh?
Quote from: Alexandro on September 12, 2006, 01:12:02 PM
I try tog o to every film with an open mind, and to be honest, perhaps I might be a bad critic, cause it's rare that I get out of the theatre or turn off the dvd player in huge dissapointment. Every time a movie does something unusual or that seems a little odd or out of place, more and more as years pass I find myself asking why not? instead of why?...
Look, I try to have an open mind too. Many times I ignore previous comments about a movie before I see it. 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. The brain can rationalize anything. It can find an excuse for everything. Pyschriatry makes use of having people look at blots of ink on paper and asking them what they think it looks like. The images really just look like nothing but blots of ink on paper, but the intangible element that pyschriatists realize about people is that the human brain really can see forms out of any chaos. Its just how the brain works.
Quote from: Alexandro on September 12, 2006, 01:12:02 PM
And look, I'm not saying that's the way it is for you, ok? I'm not saying you're a cold ass critic who tries too hard to find things to complain about in medium to great movies, or that you don't have the seinsibilities of other persons to just let yourself go and enjoy films for what hey are instead of what in your filled up mind films should be...All I'm saying is that's how it sounds...
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.
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.
Quote from: Alexandro on September 12, 2006, 04:13:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Alexandro on September 12, 2006, 04:13:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Alexandro on September 12, 2006, 04:13:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Alexandro on September 12, 2006, 04:13:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Alexandro on September 12, 2006, 04:13:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Alexandro on September 12, 2006, 04:13:57 PM
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.
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.