Xixax Film Forum

based on gamblor's suggestion here it is.

-sl-

Whoever said 50s should really justify it. I thought about it myself. But when I thought about Brando, Kubrick, Billy Wilder, Kurosawa, Hitchcock, Bergman, Fellini, seems like too many great reasons to vote for the 50s. However, I guess when I think of the 50s, I think of musicals and melodramas, while not bad types of films, they're definitely boring as hell to me and can be seen as overdone and even tacky. It's an acquired taste.

From the same point of view, I could argue against the 80s, citing Scorsese, Amadeus, the sci-fi greats like Aliens, Blade Runner, but then past that it's all Spielberg and cheesy 80s utter shit. Spielberg's films are great, but we all know Spielberg can't be taken too seriously. The 80s goes down the tubes much quicker than the 50s.

No one wants to say the 90s because it's too soon. There were great moments in independent cinema, and these are movies we've truly grown up with, but seriously, I think the 90s were more mediocre than we can consider. The truly great 90s movies off the top of my head: Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction, Fargo, but past that, I can only see that all the new directors are cashing on cheap or cute premises. (this is a broad, sweeping generalization). They're all wannabe greats, but not the real thing. Even Tarantino, the savior of modern auteurs, is starting to whither, or has been for a while.

Quote from: life_boyI don't think I've seen anything made between 1900 and 1910.

I don't think I'm alone, either.

Is this thread about American cinema only?

I wouldn't say so. I mentioned international directors in my argument a few posts up.

Gamblor you use the word great a lot. Does a film have to be great to be a good film? And do filmmakers have to be great, to be good filmmakers? The 90s did have a lot of good films, but they aren't "wannabe great" films. I would hope that the filmmakers didn't have "greatness" on their mind while making their movies. I know a lot of wannabe filmmakers now . . . all they have is "greatness" on their minds and it bleeds into their work, and instead of telling solid stories they create watered down facsimiles of all the "greats" they've ever admired.

Quote from: MI know a lot of wannabe filmmakers now . . . all they have is "greatness" on their minds and it bleeds into their work, and instead of telling solid stories they create watered down facsimiles of all the "greats" they've ever admired.

Ok, so you just proved my point?

Well, this is a subjective poll, right? Hence the reason I'm giving my opinion, which contains subjective views, i.e. my own. If it were size 9, would you understand?

I can define "great" for you: great movies never get old.

Quote from: Gamblor Posts Drunk

Quote from: MI know a lot of wannabe filmmakers now . . . all they have is "greatness" on their minds and it bleeds into their work, and instead of telling solid stories they create watered down facsimiles of all the "greats" they've ever admired.

Ok, so you just proved my point?

So you're calling all the 90s filmmakers obsessed with being "great"?

Quote from: Sigur RósIs this thread about American cinema only?

no.

the best movies prior to the 70s didn't come out of America so they should be included, and besides i'm not an american.  but you can have whatever criteria you want, it's subjective; hence the poll.





oh yeah and life_boy i don't know if you're taking a stab but...

"The Frenchman Louis Lumiere is often credited as inventing the first motion picture camera in 1895. But in truth, several others had made similar inventions around the same time as Lumiere. What Lumiere invented was a portable motion-picture camera, film processing unit and projector called the Cinematographe, three functions covered in one invention.

The Cinematographe made motion pictures very popular, and it could be better be said that Lumiere's invention began the motion picture era. In 1895, Lumiere and his brother were the first to present projected, moving, photographic, pictures to a paying audience of more that one person."

i didn't include those five years but if you want i can include the 1890s too?  just let me know.

i apologize if you're not taking a stab and just writing matter of factly but there is so much hostility in this thread it's infectious.

-sl-

Quote from: M

Quote from: Gamblor Posts Drunk

Quote from: MI know a lot of wannabe filmmakers now . . . all they have is "greatness" on their minds and it bleeds into their work, and instead of telling solid stories they create watered down facsimiles of all the "greats" they've ever admired.

Ok, so you just proved my point?

So you're calling all the 90s filmmakers obsessed with being "great"?

i got to say, i love gamblor's attitude!  a certain amount of objectivity on the issue.  i think the main issue is that these are very talented artist (ie. david fincher and the sort) with nothing to say.  we all love the art they make but there doesn't seem to be the level of depth that a godard would have had.  it's too inundated with gloss because of the system they work in.

but you forgot to mention being john malcho, a simple plan and boogie nights with goodfellas, pulp fiction, and fargo

-sl-

I voted 80s, especially since Attack of the Summer Blockbusters is around the corner.

Quote from: Gamblor Posts Drunk

Quote from: M

Quote from: Gamblor Posts Drunk

Quote from: MI know a lot of wannabe filmmakers now . . . all they have is "greatness" on their minds and it bleeds into their work, and instead of telling solid stories they create watered down facsimiles of all the "greats" they've ever admired.

Ok, so you just proved my point?

So you're calling all the 90s filmmakers obsessed with being "great"?

Which directors and films?

socketlevel, I totally agree. my roommate stole this term from someone, but Spike Jonze really opened the way for Charlie Kaufman to be the first writer-auteur, and BJM is a very important movie, I think. Boogie Nights of course, A Simple Plan, I haven't seen that in a long time. I think we can add Gilliam, but still his best was Brazil in the 80s, ironically.

Quote from: M
Which directors and films?

Fincher - everything (I like Se7en but it's not great)
Singer - Usual Suspects
Gus Van Sant - my god, everything, especially Psycho. he only got good with Elephant, which is 00
For god's sake, do I need to name off the crap-fests of all these years.

halfway through reading this thread i forgot it was for the worst decade. so ignore one of the votes the 60s has, and put it on the 80s.

Quote from: socketleveli apologize if you're not taking a stab and just writing matter of factly but there is so much hostility in this thread it's infectious.

I was writing matter of factly.  I know I haven't seen anything made between those years except a couple of Lumiere shorts.  I honestly don't think I'm the only one.  I'm aware of it's importance, but without having seen much from that period it is hard to judge the greatness/"worstness" of it.  That's all I meant by it.  Apology: accepted.

It's really hard to have this argument in hindsight cause unless your living in that period and got to experience the films firsthand and the way they were viewed it's hard to say. The films we see as great from a certain decade may not even have been seen much in that decade it was in. This is a shoddy poll and the results will not be correct. With that said, i'm voting for the 80's.

I remeber the 70's vividly and I remember the 80's vividly, and I can say that the 80's sucked.  The only good thing about the 80's is that it made the 70's seem all the better.

There were a few good films in the 80's, but the majority of the films were aimed at 12 year olds.  The endless clones of Porky's and Friday the 13th became wearisome.

The 90's seem great in retrospect, and the current decade is pretty good so far.  But 20 years later, the 80's still haven't gotten better in retrospect.

Quote from: soixanteI remeber the 70's vividly and I remember the 80's vividly, and I can say that the 80's sucked.

I trust the old man's opinion.

Quote from: soixanteThe 90's seem great in retrospect, and the current decade is pretty good so far.  But 20 years later, the 80's still haven't gotten better in retrospect.

Again. Trust.

Quote from: M

Quote from: soixanteI remeber the 70's vividly and I remember the 80's vividly, and I can say that the 80's sucked.

I trust the old man's opinion.

Quote from: soixanteThe 90's seem great in retrospect, and the current decade is pretty good so far.  But 20 years later, the 80's still haven't gotten better in retrospect.

Again. Trust.

Thank you.  One thing that never changes is the older generation takes a dump on the younger generation for being "weaker," which I think is horseshit.  Watching a lot of movies in the 90's, I thought, this really reminds me of the 70's, in terms of quality and variety.

Right now is an exciting time for cinema.  There are plenty of interesting films and filmmakers.  The people who carp about how bad movies are today don't see any of them.  Stuff like Donnie Darko, Napoleon Dynamite, I Heart Huckabees, Dogville, Punch-Drunk Love, Memento and Elephant shows that the future of cinema is bright.

I could imagine in 2021, Donnie Darko will be considered a classic alongside Wizard of Oz and Star Wars.

Quote from: soixanteRight now is an exciting time for cinema.  There are plenty of interesting films and filmmakers.  The people who carp about how bad movies are today don't see any of them.  Stuff like Donnie Darko, Napoleon Dynamite, I Heart Huckabees, Dogville, Punch-Drunk Love, Memento and Elephant shows that the future of cinema is bright.

I could imagine in 2021, Donnie Darko will be considered a classic alongside Wizard of Oz and Star Wars.

I hope you're wrong in 2021, that movie has film student written all over it, and the movie has redeemable qualities only because the director didn't know how to properly tell a story, making the ambiguity the attraction (go listen to the commentary and you'll laugh your ass off how nothing he intended to say in the film, much to his ignorance, made it to celluloid).  Then he releases a director's cut trying to clear it all up and still nothing is accomplished.

all the examples, minus elephant and Punch-Drunk are overly referential and soooo fucking self indulgent, getting back to Gamblor's original point.  and it's a strong point at that!  these filmmakers love film too much that they don't seem to create film organically, but rather, it seems like they're taking a fanboy appropriating approach.  i just imagine richard kelly saying, "shit i love that scene in the shinning, i need a scene like that in this."  rather than objectively looking at the story and conceiving the best way to shoot it.

the craft in contemporary filmmaking is impeccable.  that's the difference separating it from the 80s in my opinion, it was horrible then.  

no one has brought up that there hasn't been a massive film movement since the 70s.  which is a strong connection to the veracity of the unimportance of today's films.  they're just a hodge podge of rip off scenes that often don't make a unified whole with little to no point.

-sl-

Socketlevel, are you and Gamblor saying that filmmakers who are cinephiles are lesser filmmakers than those that have the natural hootzpah? Because they look to those that have come before them as inspiration, they are weak and puny and should not be respected?

Name some of those hodge podges of ripoff scenes whose sum totals have no point.

-M-

Quote from: MSocketlevel, are you and Gamblor saying that filmmakers who are cinephiles are lesser filmmakers than those that have the natural hootzpah? Because they look to those that have come before them as inspiration, they are weak and puny and should not be respected?

Name some of those hodge podges of ripoff scenes whose sum totals have no point.

-M-

in terms of originality i'd have to say yes, they are lesser and it's to their demise in the history books that they don't hate anything.  they love everything, so they don't give a shit about what is important.  it's a weak everything-is-relative stance, fuck that.  that's not an opinion, it's just appropriation.  the french new wave was started because of a loath for popular cinema form, and neo realism, and so many other movements.  Philosophy is built upon analyzing and then taking a stance on what you think is the weakest link to the stance that precedes your own.

the great director's were always cynical bastards.  von trier hates a lot, vant sant hates a lot, korine hates a lot, wenders hates a lot, and the list goes on and on, but most importantly Kubrick hated more than all of them combined and that may be one of the reasons why he's the god of filmmaking.  so this unsatisfied feeling they have seems to account for a set doctrine in their films.  don't you think their could be a co-relation between this apathy and great cinema?  

soderberg loves all these guys, so he is the ultimate chameleon and copy cat for it; with fincher and richie and so on.  soderberg started off caring but then he met all these beautiful people and felt great about himself so his films, even though technically beautiful, feel hollow.  tarantino is the same way, but he's the god of appropriation so i kind of respect how he works.  but it's still stagnant cinema, with nothing to prove.

i don't need to tell you the specific scenes cause they're limitless and they'll tell you on the commentaries anyway, go rent fight club.  but if you really want me to i will.  i just think the everything-is-relative stance is somewhat complacent and lacks evolution.  complacent because it is seen as counter culture when it's not, it's just being affraid of confrontation.  lacks evolution because it promotes a behavior in which nothing new can be added.  however, that's how change comes about, through discord.

lol, now i'm not che... but i do take cinema seriously, and back in the 70s so did the audience.  it seems that the art has been taken away.  fuck everyone sees it, look at the oscar winners now.  do they win because they're art? naw... that used to be some factor but the joan rivers element destroyed all that.  it just seems logical to me.  progressive change never happened in the hollywood system so they squelch it, no capital to be had.

Dogma 95 was the last to try this, and it makes me feel happy, not cause i want to make movies that way, but the independent spirit, and the spirit for change is still alive.

-sl-

fuck i'm melodramatic, i want to puke.