Just wanted to put this on out there... Crowe uses this phrase on the commentary of Say Anything, and I think it's one of the most true and sad and wonderful statements I've ever heard. I love it. It also has alot to say about his movies in general.
i disagree strongly with that statement. his intentions are good, but optimism in films only feed the idiots who prefer illusion to despair.
but mainly, im a pessimist and optimists piss me off 8)
cynic. in my view, (which has gone full-circle) cinema is meant to be there as escapist entertainment, (i'm quite happy now) and as a result 90 per cent of the time should end happily. those interested in 'socially conscious' cinema should watch a spot of sullivan's travels.
cameron crowe is one of top three favourite filmmakers, by the way.
I think the cinema that has the strongest affect on me is the kind that fills me with equal amounts of happiness and sadness - shows you the worst and the best in life. Films that are purely uplifting - or purely depressing - definitely have their place and can be amazing, but are essentially failing to tell the whole truth. There aren't many films that do what I'm describing. I'd say Magnolia is one. Vanilla Sky is another (although bad in a number of respects, I think the final minute or two ranks among the best). Buffalo 66, definitely...
I agree. It's a common misconception that a happy ending denotes "selling out." Show the bad, show the good, laugh, cry, cheer, piss your pants- that's a good movie.
Quote from: The Walking Clichecinema is meant to be there as escapist entertainment
oh so thats what cinema "is?"
escapist entertainment is only ONE of the many forms cinema can take. how DARE YOU say that cinema is "meant" to have one and only one purpose
im too pissed off to write more for now.
The whole 'optimism as a revolutionary act' concept isn't really to do with escapism as I see it: it's a complete acknowledgment of how fucked up everything is, and then taking it to the next level by trying to find some hope within it, going against it with pure - maybe naive - optimism...
Quotebut optimism in films only feed the idiots who prefer illusion to despair.
well, geez, i guess this makes me an "idiot" who prefers illusion to despair. the fact is, films of the like cameron crowe makes and billy wilder made are all to do with the sour and the sweet...and the fact is that a film that ends on the sour having delivered two hours of sour isn't emotionally rewarding.
do you think people who are truly in despair want to go and see a film about depression? that they want their lives rubbed in their faces? or do they want to go and see something with ginger rogers and fred astaire in that will refresh them like a cool glass of champagne?
frankly, i don't have much time for film which deals solely with depression and despair and poverty because most of the time the film-makers are only interested in the picturesque poor and depressed, when these people would be better off with the illusion. hence my contention that film should be escapist fare.
tell me, big cameron crowe fan are you?
You have to understand that Cecil B is hardcore and reminds us constantly through his use of smileys. :roll:
by the way, cecil b., just read your 'shape of cinema to come'. hmm. i get the feeling we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
as a film-maker i plan on delivering my own cinematic manifesto. a blueprint. no, wait. even better. a mission statement. i've dubbed it 'look ma, no hands'. i think you'll find it interesting, and i'll make sure you get it.
I like movies that are good and depressing, but I also like to smile. I'm not against any sort of feeling a movie compells me to feel, as long as it gets me there honestly (without any overt manipulation).
I have to admit, also, that I do appreciate a movie that has a chance to end, with perfect legitimacy, on a negative note, but pushes past that. THIS DOES NOT MEAN I LIKE IT WHEN A HAPPY ENDING IS JUST TACKED ON, however. But movies like Buffalo 66, or Run Lola Run (or Princess And The Warrior) don't need to prove a point by ending bleakly, and they've developed characters whose momentary joy at the end of the film is far more powerful than any other conclusion.
Quote from: The Walking Cliche
frankly, i don't have much time for film which deals solely with depression and despair and poverty because most of the time the film-makers are only interested in the picturesque poor and depressed
i may be wrong, but you come off as only seeing the films that play in the local multiplex, and liked jerry maguire cause it makes you feel good and hated angelas ashes cause its too depressing. give me a few examples of these kinds of films (depression & despair) that youre referring to.
you see, i didn't like angela's ashes, at least the movie.(hmm...it was ok.) the book ends on a high...his passage to america representing his final escape from the desperation of 30s ireland. the film was patchy, lost a lot of the humour through not having an older frank as an omniscient narrator right the way through (not that i'm saying it should have had one, just that it lost the humour of the book - a lot of it was in the language) and as far as i can remember (i've only seen it the once) chopped off the last third of the book...losing what was a more satisfying emotional conclusion.
you have to ask where the move adaptation of 'tis is...maybe it's not there because there wasn't that fantastic a response to a.a.?
by the way, i work in a video store. i do most often go the multiplex to see films (i wouldn't describe it as local) because that's where most of the films i'm eager to see are on. i catch everything else (and i do mean pretty much everything - i get seven free rents a week) on video and dvd. i can't pretend to be a movie renegade when my favourite movie of all time remains raiders of the lost ark, hotly followed by back to the future...it just isn't me.
Quote from: cecil b. dementedQuote from: The Walking Cliche
frankly, i don't have much time for film which deals solely with depression and despair and poverty because most of the time the film-makers are only interested in the picturesque poor and depressed
i may be wrong, but you come off as only seeing the films that play in the local multiplex, and liked jerry maguire cause it makes you feel good and hated angelas ashes cause its too depressing. give me a few examples of these kinds of films (depression & despair) that youre referring to.
There's nothing wrong with people who only see the mainstream movies. Growing up in South Carolina before blockbuster took over the world those were the only movies that were avaliable to me. I was lucky to get a Woody Allen movie.
by the way, with regards to the sort of depressing films i was talking about, the one which springs to mind the most readily is 8mm. so much shit happens to this guy, and in the end, he's worse off than he was at the beginning, with no real levity throughout.
mind you, i'm probably not being very controversial in calling 8mm a piece of crap. :wink:
in fact, i remember reading a draft of that script where at the end the guy drives himself into a wall on purpose and dies! i was like, geez...
Yeah, but 8mm sucked period. What about something like, oh, say...Requiem For A Dream? Or (even better) The War Zone? These are great films which are nothing if not complete downers.
a short film about killing is pretty brutal. I watched it two years ago in freshman intro. to cinema and i still can't get it out of my mind.
Actually, i didn't like the war zone, felt it was tim roth trying to do a nil by mouth, to the point where ray winstone had to go ape-shit. and again, not much levity to go around.
requiem for a dream, however, is a different story.
a) there are light moments throughout, bits that make you laugh - check jared leto with the cop's gun - and until about halfway through they seem to be having a good time. so. but -
b) it's a movie about drugs. not entirely, but mostly. and as a result, as an audience we know that things are going to go very bad indeed, unless the film-maker wants to be interpreted as irresponsible (or is in fact just irresponsible without realising it.) happily, darren aronofsky and hubert selby jr. are neither of these things (well, at least not the latter). so what i guess i'm saying is, it's not a total downer, even if the ending is.
and visually it's a bloody good watch.
it's entertainment with a message. not darkness just for the sake of it.
I had to turn 8mm off it was so bad. Have you seen Dancer In The Dark? That's a depressing movie for when you need a good cry, and it's very well done. Saying that movies shouldn't make you realize problems we have in our lives is just not a very well thought out argument. That's like saying that the only good books are happy ones. While I love when movies take me out of life and I can just check my brain at the door and enjoy them, I don't feel like that's the only way to make a good film. I like when movies make you think. If you can watch a movie and get really depressed, you start to think about why you became depressed. If a movie can make you feel something for its characters, it's done its job. If a character makes you feel some kind of emotion, even hatred, a movie has done its job. Kids is a good example of a depressing movie that assesses a trouble in our society (unprotected, casual sex among minors with STD's floating around) but it makes you wonder what the director/writer was trying to do. Things that happen in Kids happen all the time and there's a message. After watching it, my sister started crying and said, "this movie is awful. I hate it." But the movie made her feel something. She connected with the people in the movie and it got through to her. By no means did she think the filmmakers did a poor job in making a movie, they just succeeded so well that we're forced to think about the horrible things we saw. I've started to rant, but I think the point is gotten. Movies that are happy and movies that are sad have their place. If you choose to like one or the other, that's fine, but don't say that one type of movie should not be made just because they depress you.
Tell me, walking cliche, did you see "The Life of David Gale"? If do, what did you think?
Quote from: RecceTell me, walking cliche, did you see "The Life of David Gale"? If do, what did you think?
ha.
Personally, there are movies for every kind of emotional mood im in. I happen to hold Cameron Crowe's "optimistic" movies in high regard, because I can watch them when I'm feeling happy, and be satisfied, and I can watch them when im down, and come out feeling satisfied as well. But that doesnt mean I dont enjoy or value a completely depressing movie, they all have their place in my heart and mind, although when it comes down to it, i would identify more with Crowe's vision, than rather trying to make depressing films. I personally think that independant/artsy cinema is many times too brooding and full of itself, again this is my opinion, but I would personally try to make optimistic cinema, there is plenty of depressing, shocking, explicit for the sake of titillating, bleak and brooding cinema to go around.
:crazyeyes:
8mm sucked.
i was referring to something more along the lines of "the bicycle thief." a film like this is "depressing" and was not meant as pure escapist entertainment. yet it is a milestone in the history of cinema.
speaking of cinema meant to be escapist entertainment and ONLY escapist entertainment, what about godard? whos, lets say, ANTI-escapit entertainment films changed cinema forever.
whether you actually enjoy these films or not, you cannot deny the impact they had on the industry and the way they changed filmmaking forever.
Quote from: The Walking ClicheActually, i didn't like the war zone, felt it was tim roth trying to do a nil by mouth.
That's funny, I was actually going to mention Nil By Mouth first, and then I decided to use The War Zone instead since its a bit more extreme.
hmm. i don't deny godard's films, particularly the early new wave, are important (or at least are regarded as important - the difference is something to be argued about elsewhere i guess). perhaps the fact that they are important is what troubles me the most. (hmm...liked king lear, though.)
to be honest, i'm not even sure there's that much difference between what came before the new wave and the new wave itself. of course, everyone talks about the american influence on a bout de souffle, but essentially, isn't it just a reaction to the american influence on what the french are most touchy about, the infringement on their "culture"? (excuse the quotes. after all, i'm english) wasn't the new wave simply them hitting back with matters of style?
Quote`New Wave' is to film as Perrier is to water - there's a real style here, but it is of a relatively synthetic nature.
so, here's the argument; cecil b., those films you mentioned...undoubtedly milestones - but were they simply technical and/or sociological milestones? it's simply my opinion that they had a disproportionately large influence. i haven't given it much thought, but i may even like the richard gere version better. at the very least, it's a close run thing, despite the obvious hold - it's a remake by an object of satire in the original...
would it have worked better with a better story as a platform? again, i guess something that should probably be debated elsewhere.
but hang on, let's get back to the point. at least for a second.
bonanzataz, why do you think that a "happy" film (i'm becoming uncomfortable with that phrase. optimistic might be better.) means that you should check your brain at the door? you know, they are allowed to make you think too. the mpaa doesn't pull them for that.
i pointed out that i like angela'a ashes. it's fairly grim most of the time (although there are obvious moments of joie de vivre not really brought up in the film) but ends on an upbeat note. this is the argument isn't it? optimism over despair in the movies? i'd hate to think that it has become something it's not...
it's my contention that the best movies are the ones where an emotional journey has taken place for the protagonist...and i happen to think that they work the best with an up-beat ending. there are exceptions...remember i said 90%?..it's somewhere near the top if you wanna check. regardless, this remains my conviction.
call me an iteration of the spielberg generation.
by the way, we haven't had the life of david gale out here yet. i think it's out next week.
I'd say this is one of the best discussions we've had on this site yet.
well, certainly i'm having a good time.
with regards to kids...need it even have been a movie? larry clarke, ex-photographer, needed to say something substantial about kids of today. but look at the nature of the film...it's documentary masquerading as movie. it's my opinion that once you enter the theatre, however old you are, you're elevated (or perhaps you descend :wink: ) to a place where only your imagination can take you, and yet surely the purpose of kids is to educate - "this is what the kids of today are up against" - and so that movie left me wondering need it have been a movie at all?
QuotePerhaps there are just some stories that need to be told within the confines of a real documentary.
especially... well, actually i've just found this line from a video review of it at empireonline.co.uk which kind of says everything i wanted to say:
QuoteBut, ultimately, the unrelenting grim tone and Clarke’s generally unnerving, leering stance towards his subjects hardly make it a prime candidate for must have.
you see what i'm saying? once again this movie, which has undoubtedly fantastic performances, is let down by the lack of levity. without optimism, audiences switch off.
Quote from: The Walking Clichebut were they simply technical and/or sociological milestones?
would it have worked better with a better story as a platform?
are you talking about the lack of box office success? i dont know about bicycle thief, but breathless did quite a bit of money when it came out.
i think having a more optimistic ending to bicycle thief wouldve killed it. the film had something to say about italy at the time and thats what it did. maybe a happy ending wouldve gotten the film to make more money, but it wouldve ruined it. if the film would be re-released today, it would bomb with regular audiences. yet this very movie is partly responsible for what cinema is like today, including the kinds of film the regular audience do like.
there is a way of giving hope without being unrealistically optimistic. example: mrs. doubtfire. its still sad, but it gives hope.
i disagree with crowe because i dont think it will "work." regular moviegoers will just enjoy the happy ending cause thats what they go to the movies for, but it wont make them try to improve their lives for the better. what pisses me off about overly-optimistic (i dont think crowe is OVERLY-optimistic) films is that they seem to say "its all right folks. the world is perfect and we dont need to improve our behaviour or anything." which is why i make the "depressing" films, because they say "hey asshole, dont pretend like these kinds of things arent happening. lets do something about this." regular moviegoers dont like that because they go to the movies to forget about these types of depressing subject matters. hence my statement.
dont get me wrong. i believe there should be every kind of films out there. but right now i think there is WAY TOO MUCH of the uncreative hollywood fluff and not enough "important" films... films with social meaning and importance.
Quote from: The Walking Cliche
it's my contention that the best movies are the ones where an emotional journey has taken place for the protagonist...and i happen to think that they work the best with an up-beat ending.
this is my favorite emotional journey upbeat/sad ending.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.e4engineering.com%2Fcontent_images%2Fthelma.gif&hash=877195725a45555770885e178782f6caf94d9639)
i wasn't really talking about how much money those movies made, because let's face it, the amout of money a film makes has not got an awful lot to do with how good it is.
kind of like the oscars.
in all seriousness, i was questioning how good the new wave films are. i'm not disputing their "importance" (check my previous comments), or how much money they made (but which in my opinion is still very important and should be no. 2 on things films must do).
the professional critics who i trust the most when reading reviews have a similar opinion to me. with regards to a bout de souffle, they write nice things, acknowledge the importance, and award the film four out of five - where elsewhere they give jaws, or ocean's eleven (2002), or butch cassidy and the sundance kid five out of five. and these are not fickle journalists working for some trashy tabloid, but empire magazine reviewers.
Quotewhat pisses me off about overly-optimistic (i dont think crowe is OVERLY-optimistic) films is that they seem to say "its all right folks. the world is perfect and we dont need to improve our behaviour or anything."
i agree with your sentiment. but hang on a second. i would argue that a film like you described above isn't a film - it's a celine dion music video (or at the very least terrible movies). every film needs an antagonist of some sorts - (bob sugar in jerry maguire is a good example, although the antagonist doesn't have to be a person) - and 99 per cent of the time they are a mirror to the bad things/people in society.
do you see what i'm getting at? in my opinion - and steel yourself for it - "cinema" which is designed to shock the viewer out of their apathy is fundamentally flawed because it's overt manipulation. the audience is smart to it. the greed displayed by bob sugar, like the colour black, would not stand out as much without the emotional journey of jerry maguire - who goes from black to white.
the same with the apartment. the callousness of J.D. Sheldrake stands out more because of Bud Baxter's sensitivity which he acquires after saving miss kubelik, having previously been a guy who only cared about his next hike up the corporate ladder. these two are both optimistic films, and make better points because they are.
"the sweet smell of success", and it's lovechild with "his girl friday", "the hudsucker proxy" despite almost being a big-screen cartoon, are more examples.
so you see, you can make points more subtly without having to insult the audience by saying "hey, asshole". the films which fail the most in their intended desire to get an important message across are the ones nobody goes to because they're called "Loudly Protesting My Social Significance".[/quote]
I'd say I'm more of an optomist than a pessimist...maybe more of a realist, I don't know...anyway, I definitely do love Cameron, he's a fucking awesome filmmaker.
Ummm...I guess I don't really know what to say that hasn't already been said. I think optomism is great...of course, there is a point where it becomes unrealistic and grating, Cameron Crowe's films don't even come close to that point I don't think and honestly...I don't like any film, anbody or anything at all that does reach that grating point of optomism. Then it just becomes ignorance...it's no longer cool...it's just annoying. Some say that Amelie reaches that point...but to me, it really doesn't...it is very optomistic but not to the annoying point, it's inarguably a feel good film overall, I think it really uses some good measure though, there are two or three pretty dark parts to off set the mood...it's a perfect movie. So, that's my conclusion...I love optomism to a point...it's the same thing with pessimism...there's a point where it just becomes too much...it works both ways. Overly cynical people and overly optomistic people are no fun to be around...the world is so much more complex than just GREAT and HORRIBLE...black and white, it's cliche but it's fucking true.
Quote from: ebeaman69Overly cynical people and overly optomistic people are no fun to be around
im cynical, but i dont think im "overly" cynical. i just say overly cynical things because to me its funny.
Quote from: cecil b. dementedQuote from: ebeaman69Overly cynical people and overly optomistic people are no fun to be around
im cynical, but i dont think im "overly" cynical. i just say overly cynical things because to me its funny.
Well, that's cool then I think. I'm fine with cynical people and yes, it is funny. There's just a point where I don't like it.
you know, it's true, angry cynicism is pretty funny. in fact, in jerry maguire, the funniest part, in my opinion - actually, i'll just quote it...
QuoteJERRY
Don't you even see -- I'm
finished. I'm fucked. Twenty-four
hours ago, I was hot. Now... I'm
a cautionary tale!
Tidwell looks at Jerry, impassive.
JERRY
(continuing)
See this jacket I'm wearing? You
like it? I don't really need it,
because I'm CLOAKED IN FAILURE.
I lost the number one draft pick
the night before the draft. They
will teach my story to other
agents on "do not do this" day in
agent school. Why? Let's recap.
Because a hockey player's kid made
me feel like a superficial jerk,
I had two slices of bad pizza,
went to bed, grew a conscience and
wrote a 25-page Manifesto of Doom!
it truly baffles me why tom cruise doesn't do more light-ish comedy like this. nothing is guaranteed to make me laugh more than whenever he gets mad with frustration at rod in this movie. instead he does mission impossible three, which he could probably do in his sleep. or born on the fifth of july, just to prove what a 'serious' actor he is. mega-stars should not forget that the greatest leading man of all time was cary grant, who never did anything more 'serious' than 'an affair to remember'.
coming back to the original point, i think we've just about run out of steam on this optimism v. pessimism debate. i would like to say that i think that, despite the vociferous complaints of the members on here, i think it's a good and wise thing that the number of optimistic films being produced (mainly by hollywood) outweigh the pessimistic by such a large margin. no matter how artistic a spin you want to put on it, movie-making is a business in a similar way sports is. and people are going to see optimistic movies more so than pessimistic films. and i think the ratio of terrible up- films to great ones is about the same as terrible down- films to great ones.
by the way, i think saying you're a realist is a big cop-out. :P
the 25 paged manifesto part wasnt in the movie.
i just cut and pasted it from drew's script-o-rama, man. i guess it was edited out. :multi:
Quote from: The Walking Clichemovie-making is a business in a similar way sports is. and people are going to see optimistic movies more so than pessimistic films.
yes, but if you look at it that way, theres a market for every kind of film.
youre giving cinema too many restrictions: "escapist-entertainment," "business..." yes it is those things but so much more also.
Quote from: The Walking Cliche
by the way, i think saying you're a realist is a big cop-out. :P
its funny, cause when you really think about it, an optimist can say hes a realist just as much as a pessimist can.
That's true, never thought of it that way. Everybody is a realist in their own eyes.
Well, I guess I don't know what I am then...I guess I'm an optomist if I had to choose.
i don't think i'm giving "cinema" (again, this is a term i try not to use. david lean made "cinema". eisenstein made "cinema". i prefer talking about pictures, movies or films) restrictions. i do think for a movie to be successful, it has to do at least two things;
1) be good (vague, i know. perhaps that should be amended to "tell a good story".)
2) at least make its money back.
you know, it's written that in the last fifty to one hundred years man has perfected the form of both the novel and the song. everything else is simply an experiment which is worthy, perhaps even quite good, but doomed to failure because it would have been better in the perfect form. how far away is hollywood from the perfect cinematic form - the inciting incident, the point of no return, the three act stucture, the false ending, etc, etc?
Quote from: The Walking Cliche
you know, it's written that in the last fifty to one hundred years man has perfected the form of both the novel and the song. everything else is simply an experiment which is worthy, perhaps even quite good, but doomed to failure because it would have been better in the perfect form. how far away is hollywood from the perfect cinematic form - the inciting incident, the point of no return, the three act stucture, the false ending, etc, etc?
interesting concept. do you think that maybe there exists no perfect cinematic form? but instead just endless possiblities, and everyone has there own interpretation/ opinion of what the perfect form is?
of course, there are always things which can be done differently in cinema, and people can have their own opinions of what the perfect cinematic form is.
(i feel i should point out at this juncture that this does not mean to say that there will ever be the perfect film. where's the perfect novel? or the perfect song? let's just clear that one up before i get misquoted.)
but the thing about opinions is that quite often they're wrong. and scientifically speaking, there's no evidence to suggest that in time, hollywood won't perfect the form. (and it probably will be hollywood because they produce the most films per year with the most money invested into the story part of the process. plus, i believe that they are already closing in on the formula.)
there is a theory which goes some way to explaining the perfect form hypothesis. it goes like this: with everything you come across in terms of art, your brain as a natural reaction will attempt to 'solve' it. all the best art has mystery to it, and you have to subject yourself to the art in an attempt to 'solve' it.
i'm sure everyone who reads this was desperate to see the usual suspects again having watched it the first time around. indeed, the usual suspects is perhaps the cleverest film of all time - i must have seen it upwards of 15 to 20 times now, and it still took me a little while to figure out this: none of what verbal kint says is the truth, and whilst there were undoubtedly elements of the truth in his lies, even attempting to guess at his motives is futile (why go all that way to rub out a guy because he's seen your face, and then leave another guy half alive so he can paint a picture of you?).
another one i remember vividly is mr. smith goes to washington. throughout the philebuster the thought kept going through my mind - how is he going to win against such dispecable foes with such resources at their disposal? it's the mystery and the need to 'solve' films which drives people on to look in an in-depth manner at the structure of good films and bad in an attempt to spot the similarities and differences. once the film has been 'solved' we can admire the handiwork, but it loses the magic of that first time you saw it - perhaps this is what people refer to when they call it the magic of the big screen.
here's more evidence for the argument: when was the last time you heard a stupid person say of a film with a decent plot 'i didn't get it' or 'i didn't understand it', 'it was too weird'. they either do not have enough intelligence (i find this unlikely. i read somewhere that the i.q. of the average film-goer jumps 25 points when they cross the threshhold of the theatre.) or they aren't clever enough to apply themselves to the story and 'solve' it, so they dismiss it as weird. (there's a subtle difference there.)
one of the simplest films ever also happens to be one of my personal favourites. i was just beginning to study film theory off my own bat when i saw 'swingers' for the first time, which is as neat and tidy as they come, with enough intrigue and character development to keep the viewer watching. on second inspection however, the structure of the movie is really simple.
so have a look at your favourite movies and see how simple they are. i'd be willing to bet that more of them conform than perhaps you'd thought. i haven't seen 'cecil b. demented' but it would make for an interesting study - have you checked it for hidden irony?
what do you mean exactly when you talk about the perfect form? a structure (3 acts, plot points...) or an actuall story formula (like boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back)? or is it in the very core of the film (theres x amount of characters and something happens), or a combination of all those things?
i think i understand what youre saying, though. if we take memento for example, yes the film is told backwards but the introduction, rising action, climax, and resolution are still in the right order. therefore, its only the surface of things that change.
thats fine if youre film has a plot, even if its character driven. what about a film where all there is is images and sounds. pure abstract filmmaking. no characters, no plot. if someone enjoyed such a film, how can you say that this person is wrong? the best you can say is call him ignorant IF its the only film hes ever seen. but if hes seen tons of films, all sorts of films, and is aware of the history of cinema, then he is not ignorant at all.
i think that a perfect form would only make the film enjoyable for as many people as possible (being impossible to please absolutely EVERYONE). whereas that abstract film i refered to above would only please 5 people. calling the first film better because more people like it is fine (if thats what your opinion of what a good film does is), but denying the other one its right of existence is rediculous. in the end, they are both just films... neither of them is either good or bad, they are just films. whether they are good or bad is only an opinion.
Quote from: The Walking Cliche
i haven't seen 'cecil b. demented' but it would make for an interesting study - have you checked it for hidden irony?
LOL you should check this film out, im curious to see what you think of it.
Hi, I just joined recently, so you'll have to bare with me, I have some catching up to do. But I want to say that I don't believe someone who doesn't know cinematic history should be called ignorant. You don't need this kind of knowledge to know what you appreciate and what you don't. Though I agree that it can only help develop one's tastes.
Anyway, I wasn't involved in the whole debate so take my opinion lightly for now.
Quote from: JulkeHi, I just joined recently
welcome to the madness :yabbse-thumbup:
Quote from: JulkeI want to say that I don't believe someone who doesn't know cinematic history should be called ignorant.
why do you think that people who know nothing about past films and who hardly watch any films cant recognize the cliches that we all know and hate?
theres nothing wrong with being ignorant cinema-wise.... not everyone is a die-hard film lunatic. but maybe if the studios released "fresher material", people would be smarter about cinema.
what's wrong with cliches? i love 'em! :wink:
anyhoo, you should know what i'm going to say about abstract film-making. by definition, it doesn't meet the first of my two pre-set conditions for films...
although it would be exempt from the perfect form theory, because there's just no way you could apply it.
look at the way critics review films - they place an absolute premium on entertainment (or at least how enthralled they are by the film). i'm not denying the film's right to exist, but just because one person loved, say, 8mm with an unhealthy passion, this does not make 8mm as good as E.T.
thus, abstract films are, i think by definition, always going to be second place to conventional film-making.
i'm not even sure ytou could describe it as film in the same way that i-spy is a film. it's probably a different kind of art. a "moving picture" maybe...
i've never been a big fan of abstract art.
Quote from: The Walking Clichewhat's wrong with cliches? i love 'em! :wink:
anyhoo, you should know what i'm going to say about abstract film-making. by definition, it doesn't meet the first of my two pre-set conditions for films...
although it would be exempt from the perfect form theory, because there's just no way you could apply it.
look at the way critics review films - they place an absolute premium on entertainment (or at least how enthralled they are by the film). i'm not denying the film's right to exist, but just because one person loved, say, 8mm with an unhealthy passion, this does not make 8mm as good as E.T.
thus, abstract films are, i think by definition, always going to be second place to conventional film-making.
i'm not even sure ytou could describe it as film in the same way that i-spy is a film. it's probably a different kind of art. a "moving picture" maybe...
i've never been a big fan of abstract art.
well. i guess thats that.
I agree that people who match more films recognize the clichés, but someone who knows the clichés for what they are and actually likes them shouldn't be called ignorant.
But I agree that people who've seen more older films and films other than mainstream can tell better than some other, but once again, it's a matter of choice. We chose to get involved and learn more about our passion, these other people didn't and that's why studios keep making mainstream movies, because it has a large audience. I don't think studios should sotp making mainstream films, what do I care about them, I just don't pay to see them, but I agree that they should make more fresher films as you put it. The problem is in the proportion. Though in the end, I assume that people would benefit from seeing other types of films. It's all about being open minded. I've been studying film for a long time now and I still find some blockbusters good and interesting. And who can blame me for that.
i just found this quote from sean penn: "movies are too important to be considered only as entertainment. If you want to be entertained, buy an eight-ball and a hooker."
so i guess he forgot all about Spicoli ? :P
man, im so sick of this
Quote from: cecil b. dementedmovies are too important to be considered only as entertainment
ONLY
ONLY!!!!!
OOOOOOOOONLY!!!!!
too much caffeine?
i was merely commenting on the latter part of his quote, rather than that.
hm.
Quote from: cecil b. dementedi really really really really really HATE coffee. maybe thats whats wrong with me.
Quote from: ProgWRX
i was merely commenting on the latter part of his quote, rather than that.
hm
sean penn is such a pretentious, hypocritical shit. i mean, he was in friends for chrissake! and that short film he made for the 9/11 short film compendium stank.
The phrase is also used in Jerry Maguire, by Dorothy..
QuoteDOROTHY
I loved your memo, by the way.
He stops. Turns. She flashes the well-thumbed copy in her
purse. Jerry takes a step closer, interested and flattered.
JERRY
Thanks... actually, it was just a
"Mission Statement."
Ray has taken Jerry's free hand, and begun swinging on him.
DOROTHY
I think in this age, optimism like
that... it's a revolutionary act.
JERRY
(eager for feedback)
You think so?
DOROTHY
Oh tsht. Yes.
JERRY
I appreciate that, because some of
that stuff... you know, it was two
in the morning and...
8)
i think when i first saw jerry maguire and heard that line, i thought he was being sarcastic.
you mean Cameron as a writer, when he wrote that dialogue?
yeah
I'm certain that wasn't intended to be ironic. There's a vein of self-depreciating humour related to idealism running through the movie in general, granted, but there's a big difference between acknowledging the perhaps ridiculous optimism of your ambitions and mocking them.
I'm a little embarassed I didn't remember that line from Maguire - considering I started the thread. But the fact that it's recurred backs up the point that - however cynical one part of him, or others, may feel - he truly means it...
Does anybody here think they can link what Crowe truly means to his autobiographical "Almost Famous"?
Quote from: CinephileDoes anybody here think they can link what Crowe truly means to his autobiographical "Almost Famous"?
His huge porno collection.
Fair enough.