Xixax Film Forum

admin note: split from The Squid and the Whale (http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?p=206127#206127)

Maybe my nose is too close to the mirror.  I think that cinema needs to be shaken, not stirred.  All these ironic and satiric characters, these egoistic recreations of 70s film, I'm growing tired of them.  I get that your personal story can be told through folk music and hip shoes.  Bring on the exciting westerns, do a period piece, an action movie, a gangster movie, a sci-fi movie, a horror movie, something.

I walk out of The Squid, what do I get?  Nothing.  It was a pretty boring story with bland characters.  Remember when movies made you think?  This one drew on numerous parallels.  It disguises itself as an open ended movie, but there's a pretty tight lid on top of what would happen after the movie ends.  The characters are resolved, the issues debated.  Between here and there there's little else.  Some jokes to look at, you know.  I always hear the compliment to Scorsese that his characters are the same at the end as they were at the beginning, well, Baumbach  has one upped him here, the characters are their same boring selves in every scene.  I agree that this makes the film different from Wes Andersons', but I disagree that this is an improvement or advantage.  A proper comparison might be:  Mike Leigh meets Woody Allen and they both fall asleep mid-conversation.

Like I said, it's not the film's fault in as much that it would have to be a completely different film for me to like it.  For what it was going for, hell yeah, right on the head.  I just don't think it was worth going for, which is an entirely subjective opinion.

mod : Broken Flowers :: me : The Squid.

Quote from: Losing the Horse:Maybe my nose is too close to the mirror.  I think that cinema needs to be shaken, not stirred.  All these ironic and satiric characters, these egoistic recreations of 70s film, I'm growing tired of them.  I get that your personal story can be told through folk music and hip shoes.  Bring on the exciting westerns, do a period piece, an action movie, a gangster movie, a sci-fi movie, a horror movie, something.

Ah, but how is doing a genre picture shaking cinema?

(Feel free to split this one at any time.  Cinema does need to be shaken, but this is hardly a place to make a stir.)

I have my ideas.  I wanna hear yours first.

Quote from: onomabracadabra
Ah, but how is doing a genre picture shaking cinema?

(Feel free to split this one at any time.  Cinema does need to be shaken, but this is hardly a place to make a stir.)

I have my ideas.  I wanna hear yours first.

The conversation evolved naturally from the topical movie, and I don't feel I've gone too far off topic.  Well except I'm about to.

I think that when talented, smart, creative people are put into projects that they do not want to be doing, or would not do without prompt, the results are incredibly interesting.  If not always good.  I think a lot of contemporary filmmakers settle for the ideas in their head.  Rather than attempting to progress the art of filmmaking, rather than attempting perhaps to reflect on what has come before them, the importance of their work, their role as artists, their potential influence on an audience, they simply go forward with images of their childhood, their favorite songs, their friends' favorite jokes.  I do not want to blame the success of prior auteurs on this movement, although I hope someone else does, but I do wish to say that the gap between a movie completely controlled by the studio and a movie mostly controlled by the artist (the filmmaker, right), has become completely fucking out of hand.

What was important about genre was that it was limiting.  It was something filmmakers had to work their way out of.  It was an immediate creative challenge, which could only be solved creativelly.  I'm not saying I want all genre films, but as genre films are a very endearing part of cinema, I'm saying that I would like some of these talented individuals to take the bull by the horn.  I would like to see them go for something beyond daily routine.  Snippets of real life.  It's a philosophy of New Wave cinema which has been stretched out of proportion.

For a second I'd like to refer to Romanek discussing music videos, how music videos have no limitations, and how he forces those upon himself when he makes a video.

Quote from: Losing the Horse:All these ironic and satiric characters, these egoistic recreations of 70s film, I'm growing tired of them.

You were expecting something else from the trailer and the man who co-wrote Life Aquatic?

Quote from: Losing the Horse:The conversation evolved naturally from the topical movie, and I don't feel I've gone too far off topic.  Well except I'm about to.

I think that when talented, smart, creative people are put into projects that they do not want to be doing, or would not do without prompt, the results are incredibly interesting.

I disagree.  I think when artists are thrust into things they don't want to be doing, they are usually distracted and just want to get the job done.  They would rather save their energy or thumb their noses at the assignment with their tongues firmly in cheek, and then and only then does something new come about -- out of disdain and contempt.

Quote from: Losing the Horse:If not always good.  I think a lot of contemporary filmmakers settle for the ideas in their head.

Since when has this been a bad thing?

Let's look at that.

"Settle for the ideas in their head(s)."

What's wrong with that?  I'd love if I could simply settle for the ideas in my head.  Perfect.  Then you have something.

Furthering the art of filmmaking is an idealistic, altruistic statement, and only comes about once a filmmaker has truly embraced the ideas in his head and incorporated his perceptions of what filmmaking can and should be to him.  It is these different perceptions, only, that continue to grow filmmaking as an art.  To adhere to what has already been established as convention is what deadens any hope of progress.

Quote from: Losing the Horse:Rather than attempting to progress the art of filmmaking, rather than attempting perhaps to reflect on what has come before them, the importance of their work, their role as artists, their potential influence on an audience, they simply go forward with images of their childhood, their favorite songs, their friends' favorite jokes.

Agreed.

Therein lies the dichotomy.  The general public can only appreciate what has already been established as art.  They only like films which have built on other films.  Other expectations.  Once something new comes along, there are very few who appreciate and embrace it.  Star Wars was built on Kurosawa's foundation.  That's the prime example of innovation, and even it had to come from somewhere.  Kurosawa based a lot of his work on Shakespeare.  Shakespeare, some would say, is an invention of the Roman Catholic church.  The wool being pulled over the eyes of the public, which is all cinema is anyway.  It goes round and round in this circle, this cycle.  It's all been done, just a matter of how that makes the impact memorable.  Which goes back to style, a perception of what is innovative, what is new, being the most important thing.

Quote from: Losing the Horse:I do not want to blame the success of prior auteurs on this movement, although I hope someone else does, but I do wish to say that the gap between a movie completely controlled by the studio and a movie mostly controlled by the artist (the filmmaker, right), has become completely fucking out of hand.

It's gotten so there IS no independent cinema anymore.  Even the most independent companies are conglomerates, and they need to turn a profit to succeed.  This stifles creativity.  Another cycle comes in.  Another renaissance is due, sure, but where will it come from?  2004 could've been better.  As could 2003.  I haven't seen too many films this year myself, so I can't comment on 2005.  But my favorite time of year is approaching, and if I'm not blown away at least once or twice during the Good season, I'll definitely start to question what the next step is, who the next innovators will be.

In this, I'm constantly reminded of Greenaway, whose philosophy is sound, but his execution is sorely lacking.  Tulse Luper, of which I've only seen half, was a startling film in its use of editing, only because it was so unconventional.  But that unconventionality only can go so far before it wears on tiresome.  Greenaway seemed to have stumbled on something new in cinema, and talked about how it could be used, but had no idea how to use this new tool he's discovered.  What frustrates about Greenaway is how he talks about how cinema is dead and the new artform should be the DVD-ROM, because of its non-linearity.  This gets into fourth-and-fifth dimensional thinking here (the fifth being the dimension of the mind, of perception, of choice -- and I'm really off on a tangent here, so I'll leave it at that).

The problem with Greenaway's idea, though, is that he forgets that cinema is only a little over 100 years old and graphic art has thousands of years.  Cinema is a baby, there is so much undiscovered about it, and we seem to be in a state of stifled growth because those who choose to innovate aren't able to reach the public with their innovations.  People want 80-minute sitcoms.  They want to be entertained, want their minds to be turned off.  What film was "meant to be used for" isn't even the question.  Some people have the perception that entertainment is the be-all-end-all.  I'm looking for something more.  Lynch is admirable in his belief that film expresses emotion.  I don't really like Godard too much, but his idea that film should express an idea is a sound one.  My knee jerks, though, when he insists that you must feel about a girl, and you can't feel about a film.  He must not have ever sat in the dark, felt, touched a girl whilst watching a film he shared a love of.  There is feeling there.  There is communication that is stronger than what words can express.  That's the kind of emotion Lynch touches, which is why his visual essays are so admirable even though they are often a bit sloppy.

What I look for is a balance.  Philosophy seems to be rejected in film, because there is such a fine line to walk before a film gets preachy, and that's what is so hard to avoid for someone who wishes to get intellectual in his filmmaking.  This is why Kubrick was so brilliant.  He was able to push philosophy through his characters without any pretention.  It was true sleight of hand.  It's no WONDER it took him 12 years from Full Metal Jacket to make Eyes Wide Shut.  It's no WONDER he worked on that film for upwards of 30 years all told.

Quote from: Losing the Horse:What was important about genre was that it was limiting.  It was something filmmakers had to work their way out of.  It was an immediate creative challenge, which could only be solved creativelly.  I'm not saying I want all genre films, but as genre films are a very endearing part of cinema, I'm saying that I would like some of these talented individuals to take the bull by the horn.  I would like to see them go for something beyond daily routine.  Snippets of real life.  It's a philosophy of New Wave cinema which has been stretched out of proportion.

Cinema is about capturing a moment.  This is why people take pictures.  I had written a whole essay about this to go with Million Dollar Baby, but spring was such chaos for me that I never did finish it.  Snippets of life, yes, that is the way to go.  New Wave had those ideas, and that was one thing Godard could be thanked for.  But genre is too constricting, and for someone to take the bull by the horns, so to speak, for me, would me for them to meld and mix and match genres in such a way as to create something new that people can really latch onto even if they haven't lived it themselves.

Again, cinema is about perception.  A filmmaker is presenting to you a perception of reality, saying for you to take it as what it's worth.  This is what I see, and I'm presenting it to you.  How well you respond to it says a lot about how valid you perceive that perception.  The more successful films, you'll note, always sell the audience on the idea that the perception of reality presented is feasible.

Quote from: Losing the Horse:For a second I'd like to refer to Romanek discussing music videos, how music videos have no limitations, and how he forces those upon himself when he makes a video.

If music videos have no limitations (which is a false statement, let's be honest, because no medium has no limitations), then he should rejoice instead of putting more limitations on himself to play some silly game.  The best results come from creative solutions to preexisting problems, and not problems put in place for mere obfuscation.  I'm now reminded of the Von Trier documentary (that I have not yet seen) where five short films were to be made with certain criteria in place [Five Obstacles/Obstructions?]).  This is an exercise which seems interesting at first, but also appears to be masturbation on both their parts.  A waste of time.  When those problem solving skills could be used to innovate instead of, well, masturbate.

Hot off the tail of Where the Truth lies, a film which truly gripped me, I cannot help but find your argument redundant, if not modest.  Philosophy and emotion, what are these but cloudings of pure emotion.  A philosopher only hopes to explain what is already in our heads, no, which is emotion, no, which can be explained.  Which we believe if we believe in cinema.

There is no minute point in your paragraphs which I hold particular disdain for, but rather I see your point, and am still ambivalent about the specific course you would like to see film go towards.  Mixing genres I am not talking about, I am saying that the role of the filmmaker should be to mix fantasy with reality, to make art truth, to make our daily lives seem impossible, rather than immediate, rather than frogs on a table to be disected.

And while my passion for Where the Truth Lies might fade with liquor's intentions, while it might dwindle in hindsight and perspective, I wish to say that the film, however connected to the history of cinema it might be; was whole, it was the most serious I have seen film taken in a long, long, long time.  Certainly in the theater.  And, of course with a suspicious smile, I would of course add that it was genre.  That I was able to immediately connect with the characters, with their story, with their plights, with their tugs and their pulls.  As Vonnegut said, "Let others bring chaos to order, I will bring order to chaos."

You talk to me about perception, which I agree with, but I only ask for truth.  And while I may be scorned, I will say that Where the Truth Lies was a much more honest film to me than The Squid could ever have been, if only because it required the filmmaker to be the observer.  And here we may seep into sociology and you may say that you believe in structural functionalism and I may say I believe in symbolic interaction.  Then of course we might both being arguing the nature of cinema, and then we would both be winning.

You want to talk Star Wars with me?  I would much rather talk Peckinpah.  I would much rather talk Suzuki.  I would much rather talk Altman.  Talk Carpenter.  Cronenberg.  Waters.  Von Trier.  Jarmusch.  Almodovar.  Polanski.  Schrader.  Haynes.  Ford.  Whale.  Lubitsch.  Hell, PTA.  QT.  Wes Anderson.  Spike Jonze.  Kubrick.  Hitchcock.

Although reading over I don't quite feel that I've made my point, at least should it be furthered until the next post.

Also, in complete agreement about independent cinema.

Quote from: Losing the Horse:Hot off the tail of Where the Truth lies, a film which truly gripped me, I cannot help but find your argument redundant, if not modest.  Philosophy and emotion, what are these but cloudings of pure emotion.  A philosopher only hopes to explain what is already in our heads, no, which is emotion, no, which can be explained.  Which we believe if we believe in cinema.

Please explain what any or all of the sentences in this paragraph mean.

Don't you see?
It is pure, unadulterated Truth!
And therefore, no, ergo, no, thus it is Cinema!

Or it's liquor's best intentions.

Not sure which, really.

Kind of a toss-up for me. Personally.

I might have been trying to say that the avenues of academia have no course in film greater than truth.  Or that I think cinema should be the purest expression of man, and that man can only be that pure as the observer.  Which is easiest to do when?  In genre.  

It is hard to tell though, I admit.

Look, I didn't know I was greedy until I was shown to be greedy, right.  But maybe you guys were told you were, or were easily convinced.  I didn't know I was a cheat until I cheated, right.  No, that's not going to do.  Look.  You guys are quick, okay, on the up and up.  Me.  I've never learned a damn thing in my life from what's happened to me.  Completely second hand, honestly.  I have total lack of control over my feelings.  Numb.  Completely numb.

I'll summarize the paragraph:  All I can know is what I see when I see it.

i'm gonna split this thread now cos i can see it leading to a very entertaining nervous breakdown.

Quote from: Pubricki'm gonna split this thread now cos i can see it leading to a very entertaining nervous breakdown.

Yes, it seems like someone's losing their horse. (Horse, which is sanity, no, which is pure emotion, no, which can be explained. Which we believe if we believe in cinema.)

Interesting thread. Lots of food for thought, lots to disagree with... things get sticky when we start saying what cinema "is"...

Anyway, check out a man who writes much much better on the subject than I ever could. Even though we all may disagree with the majority of what he says, there's not many out there who do this with more passion.

Ladies and gentleman, I give you Mr Ray Carney.

Read read read and enjoy: http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/acad/forms.shtml

I like what Losing the Horse is saying.  Look at what Richard Linklater was able to do with a genre movie in School of Rock.  It can make for interesting juxtaposition when independent auteurs are forced to work within a genre.  I wouldn't want too many of these movies, but it can be an interesting contrast to the postmodern-nothing-ever-happens type of movies that are becoming all too common.  

Quotebut I do wish to say that the gap between a movie completely controlled by the studio and a movie mostly controlled by the artist (the filmmaker, right), has become completely fucking out of hand.

Essentially, we need to find a medium, and  a new group of directors that will shake things up.  

More from me later.

Quote from: JimmyGator

Essentially, we need to find a medium, and  a new group of directors that will shake things up.

Won't it be us? The people trying to reject what's happening?

Do you mean filmmakers at xixax are the future of cinema, or our generation in general?

I like this thread.

Quote from: JimmyGatorI like what Losing the Horse is saying.  Look at what Richard Linklater was able to do with a genre movie in School of Rock.  It can make for interesting juxtaposition when independent auteurs are forced to work within a genre.

"School of Rock" is a genre flick?  Just by virtue of being a comedy?  So any comedy about anything is thus a genre movie?

What, then, is a non-genre movie?  It can only be drama, presumably, and it can't be set in the old west, or in space, or in a historical era, or in a war... It can't have ghosts or monsters, or car chases or explosions... it can't have anyone coming-of-age... or solving a mystery.... really, the only movies that seem to apply are present-day-set dramas in which the characters do everyday things in a realistic setting.  So isn't that sort of movie then a genre itself?

Could it be, perhaps, that the term "genre movie" is meaningless?  Or, more accurately, the distinction between a "genre movie" and a "non-genre movie"?

Or is genre just a code word for "formula"?  To use an analogy, it's like the distinction between limericks, haikus, and sonnets versus free verse.  Free verse has no limitation, but most of the great poems of all time fit into a known structure.  Is that kind of what Losing the Horse was saying regarding genre films?  Do I sound as confused as I am?  Should we perhaps define some of the terms of the debate before basing our arguments on them?

:yabbse-undecided: ?

School of Rock is a different take on the formula of the new teacher whose radical teaching style greatly inspires the students and causes opposition from the Establishment.  

Horror and comedy are genres.  Genres have their own specific formulas, conventions, and cliches.

Yes, School of Rock is more of a formula movie, and it may have not been the best example.  Nontheless, what I meant to convey was that when you put an Indie director in a Hollywood setting, something interesting can be happen.  Linklater was restricted from doing a movie where all the characters to do is talk the whole movie and there is no resolution, and was force to do a family comedy, resuting in a very well done Hollwood movie.

Quote from: Losing the Horse:I think cinema should be the purest expression of man, and that man can only be that pure as the observer. Which is easiest to do when?  In genre.

Genre is only an artificial purity. If you're trying to get to "the expression of man" and "the truth," genre seems a shallow place to do it.

I don't see the necessity of genre. I think the medium provides enough structure, if you're sufficiently unafraid of possibilities.

Are you saying that "the purest expression of man" is found only in observation? That people are what they observe? Or is that just hyberbole?

Quote from: Losing the Horse:I think a lot of contemporary filmmakers settle for the ideas in their head.  Rather than attempting to progress the art of filmmaking, rather than attempting perhaps to reflect on what has come before them, the importance of their work, their role as artists, their potential influence on an audience

I think this statement is at odds with your initial disdain for irony. Recontextualization, deconstruction, irony... postmodernism in general I think is largely on your side in terms of reflection, but it also does not declare itself the end. It's simply criticism to make way for new ideas. Tearing down (and exposing the absurdity of) the old in favor of the new without actually providing the new. Someone has to do it. And it won't be done in genres.

Quote from: onomabracadabraThe general public can only appreciate what has already been established as art.  They only like films which have built on other films.  Other expectations.  Once something new comes along, there are very few who appreciate and embrace it.  Star Wars was built on Kurosawa's foundation.

Were the majority of Star Wars fans familiar with Kurosawa?

I think it has more to do with inner-circle artistic influences, passed down from generation to generation and medium to medium. You can almost unconditionally find that something that seems new was influenced by something old, sure. But I think the connection you make between that and public perception is weak. If the public thinks something is new and loves it for being new, and only the artists know it's old, how can you say they appreciated it for its heritage?

Also, I think there's something innate in humans that compels them to seek the new. They have to be trained to expect things.

Quote from: onomabracadabraAgain, cinema is about perception.  A filmmaker is presenting to you a perception of reality, saying for you to take it as what it's worth.  This is what I see, and I'm presenting it to you.  How well you respond to it says a lot about how valid you perceive that perception.  The more successful films, you'll note, always sell the audience on the idea that the perception of reality presented is feasible.

What about the hypothetical? The imaginary? The abstract? (No wonder people are stuck with genre.)

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: onomabracadabraThe general public can only appreciate what has already been established as art.  They only like films which have built on other films.  Other expectations.  Once something new comes along, there are very few who appreciate and embrace it.  Star Wars was built on Kurosawa's foundation.

Were the majority of Star Wars fans familiar with Kurosawa?

I think it has more to do with inner-circle artistic influences, passed down from generation to generation and medium to medium. You can almost unconditionally find that something that seems new was influenced by something old, sure. But I think the connection you make between that and public perception is weak. If the public thinks something is new and loves it for being new, and only the artists know it's old, how can you say they appreciated it for its heritage?

Also, I think there's something innate in humans that compels them to seek the new. They have to be trained to expect things.

I like what JB said here, but would like a slot for correction. Star Wars was not built on the foundation of Kurosawa. Their ties are as slim as slim can be. Star Wars comes from old serials Lucas watched as a boy in the 1940s.

It's a good discussion. A spirited one that leads to larger thought. I just do not feel compelled to get in the thick of this and argue. The points are too general. It also requires the idea that in film there lies a great theory. I'm much too circumstantial for that.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: onomabracadabraThe general public can only appreciate what has already been established as art.  They only like films which have built on other films.  Other expectations.  Once something new comes along, there are very few who appreciate and embrace it.  Star Wars was built on Kurosawa's foundation.

Were the majority of Star Wars fans familiar with Kurosawa?

I think it has more to do with inner-circle artistic influences, passed down from generation to generation and medium to medium. You can almost unconditionally find that something that seems new was influenced by something old, sure. But I think the connection you make between that and public perception is weak. If the public thinks something is new and loves it for being new, and only the artists know it's old, how can you say they appreciated it for its heritage?

Also, I think there's something innate in humans that compels them to seek the new. They have to be trained to expect things.

I like what JB said here, but would like a slot for correction. Star Wars was not built on the foundation of Kurosawa. Their ties are as slim as slim can be. Star Wars comes from old serials Lucas watched as a boy in the 1940s.

It's a good discussion. A spirited one that leads to larger thought. I just do not feel compelled to get in the thick of this and argue. The points are too general. It also requires the idea that in film there lies a great theory. I'm much too circumstantial for that.

I'll go one further and say it's (Star Wars) more Joseph Campbell, the universal story.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI like what JB said here, but would like a slot for correction. Star Wars was not built on the foundation of Kurosawa. Their ties are as slim as slim can be. Star Wars comes from old serials Lucas watched as a boy in the 1940s.

Exactly.  "Star Wars" came from Kurosawa the same way that humans came from monkeys.  Common ancestors.

Quote from: killafilm

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: onomabracadabraThe general public can only appreciate what has already been established as art.  They only like films which have built on other films.  Other expectations.  Once something new comes along, there are very few who appreciate and embrace it.  Star Wars was built on Kurosawa's foundation.

Were the majority of Star Wars fans familiar with Kurosawa?

I think it has more to do with inner-circle artistic influences, passed down from generation to generation and medium to medium. You can almost unconditionally find that something that seems new was influenced by something old, sure. But I think the connection you make between that and public perception is weak. If the public thinks something is new and loves it for being new, and only the artists know it's old, how can you say they appreciated it for its heritage?

Also, I think there's something innate in humans that compels them to seek the new. They have to be trained to expect things.

I like what JB said here, but would like a slot for correction. Star Wars was not built on the foundation of Kurosawa. Their ties are as slim as slim can be. Star Wars comes from old serials Lucas watched as a boy in the 1940s.

It's a good discussion. A spirited one that leads to larger thought. I just do not feel compelled to get in the thick of this and argue. The points are too general. It also requires the idea that in film there lies a great theory. I'm much too circumstantial for that.

I'll go one further and say it's (Star Wars) more Joseph Campbell, the universal story.

That I disagree with. Star Wars is soap opera compared to that man's work. George Lucas just likes to quote that book as reference for his films to garner the series respect the same way he does for Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress.

can't it be "ALL"?

I can't think of another film that details the 'Heros' journey, as interpreted by Josheph Campbell, as well as A New Hope.  The films structure is flawless.  The man himself, Campbell, was a huge supporter of Star Wars.

I also think there is a direct link from The Hidden Fortress to C-3P0 and R2.  Not just thrown out there for 'respect.'

the last time western cinema was truly shaken was when Dogme 95 kicked everyone's ass with fun nongenre movies (then it slowly became a genre.)
the eastern cinema's slowly settling right now, but it bursted out in the early 2000s with a strong of over the top genre movies, be they action, martial arts, gangster, sci-fi, animation, or comedy.
and middle eastern films, the little that I've seen from festivals and such, have been pretty radical (women filmmakers breaking out, as well as politically subversive films breaking out) but I haven't seen or read enough to determine whether or not it's shaking shit up.
I think both generic and non-generic pictures can stir the cinema, you just need enough bored filmmakers.  nothing's wrong with being dormant, cinemas can be viewed in cycles and movements (mostly in hindsight, of course), and without the occassional sitting and collecting, how can it be shaken?

I agree Dogme 95 was a great movement for cinema.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: Losing the Horse:I think cinema should be the purest expression of man, and that man can only be that pure as the observer. Which is easiest to do when?  In genre.

Genre is only an artificial purity. If you're trying to get to "the expression of man" and "the truth," genre seems a shallow place to do it.

I don't see the necessity of genre. I think the medium provides enough structure, if you're sufficiently unafraid of possibilities.

Are you saying that "the purest expression of man" is found only in observation? That people are what they observe? Or is that just hyberbole?

Quote from: Losing the Horse:I think a lot of contemporary filmmakers settle for the ideas in their head.  Rather than attempting to progress the art of filmmaking, rather than attempting perhaps to reflect on what has come before them, the importance of their work, their role as artists, their potential influence on an audience

I think this statement is at odds with your initial disdain for irony. Recontextualization, deconstruction, irony... postmodernism in general I think is largely on your side in terms of reflection, but it also does not declare itself the end. It's simply criticism to make way for new ideas. Tearing down (and exposing the absurdity of) the old in favor of the new without actually providing the new. Someone has to do it. And it won't be done in genres.

(This analogy will properly employ the homeless man, an American favorite):  If I ask a homeless man to make a movie about himself, I will probably get a melodramatic, overblown recount of what I can already gather, with perhaps the additional information he eats rats.  Or maybe he'll make it realistic and I could have just followed him around.

Now, if I ask a homeless man to make a movie about a rich man, and then see how he views wealth from the vantage point of a homeless man, I could learn a great deal more about the psychology of a homeless man.

I am quicker to trust material and be receptive to material in which I feel that the artist was caught not looking.  In which the artist was forced to imagine himself inside of a person not himself.  I think that is a great deal more telling than actually putting yourself on screen.  Woody Allen's films not about Woody Allen tell more about him, I think.  Not his mannerisms, the places he goes, the girls he likes, the things that happen to him, etc, but more about the nature of Woody Allen.  

The genre film is simply the writer imagining himself as someone else.  Which is my favorite way to receive material, and, more important to the conversation, a method which demands creativity.

I agree that the new will not come about in genre form, but I disagree that the post-modern movement is an advance.  I'd say it's a couple of steps back.  I really want to see what the steps forward are going to be.

I think pete had a really good line:  "I think both generic and non-generic pictures can stir the cinema, you just need enough bored filmmakers."

I'm bored as fuck.  Personally.

Quote from: Losing the Horse:I'm bored as fuck.  Personally.

how can that be true when not even a week ago you had  the best theatrical experience you have had in your lifetime?

Losing the Horse. makes a good argument, regardless of whether or not you agree with it.  

I don't know if genre films are the way to go, but cinema certainly needs to be stirred again.

Quote from: Losing the Horse:Now, if I ask a homeless man to make a movie about a rich man, and then see how he views wealth from the vantage point of a homeless man, I could learn a great deal more about the psychology of a homeless man.

but that only accounts for one type of filmmaker--the type with great imagination and works best when he is being most subjective.  Then you have other types of filmmakers, more objective ones, who get a lot of mileage because they understand what they're writing about.  Collateral was really fun because Michael Mann seemed to understand everything about a hitman, a cabbie, and a lawyer--way more than any generic conventions allow.  Shattered Glass was so good because it was such a small story pretty much all about journalism.  Initial D, a Hong Kong movie that just came out this year, incorporated petty details conerning modified cars and driving techniques (especially drifting) and made them into major plot points.  Those are films made by filmmakers that rely way more on facts than the imagination (obviously you need imagination to make these facts engaging to the audience) but I find the way you dismiss this madeup homeless guy's attempt to make a movie to be quite unfair.  Have you seen In America?  Or Dark Days?

Quote from: modage

Quote from: Losing the Horse:I'm bored as fuck.  Personally.

how can that be true when not even a week ago you had  the best theatrical experience you have had in your lifetime?

Haha.

That was an interesting night overall.  

I need to see the movie sober.

There was another page.  Who knew.  

Quote from: pete

Quote from: Losing the Horse:Now, if I ask a homeless man to make a movie about a rich man, and then see how he views wealth from the vantage point of a homeless man, I could learn a great deal more about the psychology of a homeless man.

but that only accounts for one type of filmmaker--the type with great imagination and works best when he is being most subjective.  Then you have other types of filmmakers, more objective ones, who get a lot of mileage because they understand what they're writing about.  Collateral was really fun because Michael Mann seemed to understand everything about a hitman, a cabbie, and a lawyer--way more than any generic conventions allow.  Shattered Glass was so good because it was such a small story pretty much all about journalism.  Initial D, a Hong Kong movie that just came out this year, incorporated petty details conerning modified cars and driving techniques (especially drifting) and made them into major plot points.  Those are films made by filmmakers that rely way more on facts than the imagination (obviously you need imagination to make these facts engaging to the audience) but I find the way you dismiss this madeup homeless guy's attempt to make a movie to be quite unfair.  Have you seen In America?  Or Dark Days?

In the beginning I think you're agreeing with me, as I know Mann isn't a hitman cabbie or lawyer, but by the end you're talking about In America.

As for the beginning, people incorporating facts into imaginative films I'm all for.  As for the end, I haven't seen Dark Days, but I've seen In America twice.  In the theater I was very bored, and later on HBO I was only a little bored.  But I don't want to argue against every real life story, there's room for them in cinema, my argument is that we've given them too much room.

michael mann was a cabbie.

o.

Quote from: Losing the Horse:

Quote from: modage

Quote from: Losing the Horse:I'm bored as fuck.  Personally.

how can that be true when not even a week ago you had  the best theatrical experience you have had in your lifetime?

Haha.

That was an interesting night overall.  

I need to see the movie sober.

now we're getting to the bottom of it, you need to lose the heroin.

seriously tho, i agree with your argument (kubrick was the greatest example of it), but also recognize Polkablues' points of confusion which are yet to be addressed..

nothings right, i'm TORN.

Quote from: Pubrick
nothings right, i'm TORN.

Haha how goofy.

Quote from: Gamblourgoofy

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ergocomics.cl%2Fimagenes%2Fimg%2F20040725162834.jpg&hash=6bbb0e3f2ba7c1662abd4596ec4ff0957dd1d048)

Quote from: Losing the Horse:(This analogy will properly employ the homeless man, an American favorite):  If I ask a homeless man to make a movie about himself, I will probably get a melodramatic, overblown recount of what I can already gather, with perhaps the additional information he eats rats.  Or maybe he'll make it realistic and I could have just followed him around.

Now, if I ask a homeless man to make a movie about a rich man, and then see how he views wealth from the vantage point of a homeless man, I could learn a great deal more about the psychology of a homeless man.

So you think the primary function of film is to reveal something about how the filmmaker perceives the world? If that's what you want to do, alright, but I don't see what special quality genre has that promotes introspection. (It can be more convenient for the viewer, I'll give you that. It's easier to detect because you can just strip away the genre elements and see what remains.) But I don't see how it's more meaningful than non-genre film. You may be grabbing the easiest answer...

Quote from: Losing the Horse:I am quicker to trust material and be receptive to material in which I feel that the artist was caught not looking.  In which the artist was forced to imagine himself inside of a person not himself.  I think that is a great deal more telling than actually putting yourself on screen.

Are filmmakers necessarily repressed and locked-up human beings when they're making films? Is any glimmer of one's essence only revealed by accident, in opposition to the filmmaker's conscious intent? In genre, maybe. But I think a lot more can be done elsewhere. Many artists are a little more open than you're assuming, and I think the implications of non-genre filmmaking, when the filmmaker learns how to deal with them, are endlessly empowering. And you may be a victim of optical illusion here... when something like that comes out in a genre film, it's surprising, and I think the contrast inflates those moments out of proportion. I'm entirely unconvinced that genre qualitatively reveals more.

Quote from: Losing the Horse:I disagree that the post-modern movement is an advance.  I'd say it's a couple of steps back.  I really want to see what the steps forward are going to be.

Maybe you can elaborate on that, because I don't think it makes sense. Post-modernism is two steps back from what? Modernism? Post-modernism opened the floodgates to virtually absolute artistic freedom. That's all it is though, really, an opening. But that's crucial. And hardly regressive.

Actually, I think I would be okay with the permanence of post-modernism. Maybe it just means the end of decades-long movements. Maybe we're past that stage of artistic sloth. Maybe things don't have to happen in movements. Why not in bursts, in trends that appear and expire only to be rediscovered and recontextualized later, in epiphanies spreading simultaneously in different directions, which combat old ideas and inspire new ones?

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanActually, I think I would be okay with the permanence of post-modernism. Maybe it just means the end of decades-long movements. Maybe we're past that stage of artistic sloth. Maybe things don't have to happen in movements. Why not in bursts, in trends that appear and expire only to be rediscovered and recontextualized later, in epiphanies spreading simultaneously in different directions, which combat old ideas and inspire new ones?

I've always been wondering about the idea of post-modernism in film. Other arts are much clearer about where classical/modern/post-modernism all begin and end, but what about my film? From my own reading, let me make a suggestion:

Modernism in film begins with the French New Wave. It was the first major movement to break classical structure and also search for stories that broke trend with genre restrictions. Since then, progressive films have aligned themselves with the same ideals as French New Wave. A film like Million Dollar Baby, while throwing a finger to a controversial topic, is really a classical work.
For Post-Modernism, I cite Going Places, made in 1974, as the introductary film. It not only mocked stylistic inventions of the French New Wave, but tested the extremes of morality. From having characters who are guiltless about theft and rape, the film is not made to apologize for their actions. It highlights their actions in a way that question our own morality. Examples of excellent current Post-Modernist films are Natural Born Killers and When Will I Be Loved. Both films strive to challenge the convention of morality commonplace in society.
Challenging 'morality' is, I believe, the largest task in current cinema today. Stylistically, for the established structure of films, I do not know what else we can do. Like Kubrick strived to do before he died, all we have yet to do is wholly change the structure of film.
This may be a premature and an underdeveloped argument, but I'll defend it.

But, still. It's hard to really label trends and movements in proper context. I enjoy the label of the Tarantino Generation, but I can see how that easily would dribble into labels for just about everything.

Quote from: polkabluesWhat, then, is a non-genre movie?  It can only be drama, presumably, and it can't be set in the old west, or in space, or in a historical era, or in a war... It can't have ghosts or monsters, or car chases or explosions... it can't have anyone coming-of-age... or solving a mystery.... really, the only movies that seem to apply are present-day-set dramas in which the characters do everyday things in a realistic setting.  So isn't that sort of movie then a genre itself?

Could it be, perhaps, that the term "genre movie" is meaningless?  Or, more accurately, the distinction between a "genre movie" and a "non-genre movie"?

Or is genre just a code word for "formula"?

I think it is. Or we could say that a genre movie takes on a given subject and in doing so observes certain rules and conventions that have been observed in the past when dealing with the same subject. It may even mimick, reference, or all but duplicate its ancestors. When genre films are imaginative or fantastical (as with westerns or popular science fiction), they do so within the constraints of a previously established universe, which itself is enough to call them "genre films."

I'd say that "comedy" and "drama," for example, are not real genres. There are funny movies and dramatic movies that follow a particular comedic formula or a particular dramatic formula.

Quote from: polkabluesFree verse has no limitation, but most of the great poems of all time fit into a known structure.

I think that's because free verse is extremely new in the context of literary history. (And commercial media has all but marginalized poetry.) But I'd disagree anyway. Gertrude Stein, anyone?

I find that poetic structure (in all but the most extreme cases) limits and suffocates more than it enables. It usually necessitates slant rhyme, which I hate, awkward syntax rearrangement (like "I stepped upon the stick / and the flowers I did pick"), and filler (which most often includes clichés and conventions). Poetic structure is great for satire, though, mostly because of the absurdity and cuteness of the structure.

I don't think genres are so much formulas as they are habits.  a filmmaker growing up with certain types of influences will develop certain types of habits.  but genres, according to them snobby good-for-nothing academics emcompass a bigger scope, that cover both semantics and syntax or something.  ah my brain is hurting from trying to recall those useless classes (except for late night xixax posts I suppose.)
films are harder to define by their contemporary movements (modernism post modernism post structuralism...etc.) than other mediums because unlike literature and architecture and painting, films are mostly popular entertainment, like folk songs, directed towards the folks.  the ones that align themselves to their contemporaries, like the French in the 60's, tend to end up quite contrived and shallow (they weren't bad films; they just seemed like snobby young kids making phony splashes) with quite transparent intentions.

wow, I almost wanna leave this paragraph sitting here so I can take a look at it again in the morning to see if I made any sense or not.  But, instead, I'm gonna click on "submit" in 3, 2,

Quote from: petefilms are harder to define by their contemporary movements (modernism post modernism post structuralism...etc.) than other mediums because unlike literature and architecture and painting, films are mostly popular entertainment, like folk songs, directed towards the folks.

That's true. Most movies don't even warrant critical comment, but are still given it. But, like I've said, I don't care too much for labels. Modernism and such is just an interesting idea for trying to apply to films.

You can warm up a little to some of this discussion. I'm sure if you got an academic in here, he'd say none of us really represented academics anyways. We're all just kinda trying.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: Losing the Horse:(This analogy will properly employ the homeless man, an American favorite):  If I ask a homeless man to make a movie about himself, I will probably get a melodramatic, overblown recount of what I can already gather, with perhaps the additional information he eats rats.  Or maybe he'll make it realistic and I could have just followed him around.

Now, if I ask a homeless man to make a movie about a rich man, and then see how he views wealth from the vantage point of a homeless man, I could learn a great deal more about the psychology of a homeless man.

So you think the primary function of film is to reveal something about how the filmmaker perceives the world? If that's what you want to do, alright, but I don't see what special quality genre has that promotes introspection. (It can be more convenient for the viewer, I'll give you that. It's easier to detect because you can just strip away the genre elements and see what remains.) But I don't see how it's more meaningful than non-genre film. You may be grabbing the easiest answer...

Well.  We're talking about right now, and what I'm tired of are these slice-of-life films.  This all sprouted from one, right.  I see what Pete was saying about earlier back and the onslaught of genre films, but I wouldn't say that it was the kind of filmmakers who were adept at making introspective films making the genre films then.  My argument is that if filmmakers once again started entering lives that were not their own the films would be more meaningful, and hopefully we could go from there.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: Losing the Horse:I am quicker to trust material and be receptive to material in which I feel that the artist was caught not looking.  In which the artist was forced to imagine himself inside of a person not himself.  I think that is a great deal more telling than actually putting yourself on screen.

Are filmmakers necessarily repressed and locked-up human beings when they're making films? Is any glimmer of one's essence only revealed by accident, in opposition to the filmmaker's conscious intent? In genre, maybe. But I think a lot more can be done elsewhere. Many artists are a little more open than you're assuming, and I think the implications of non-genre filmmaking, when the filmmaker learns how to deal with them, are endlessly empowering. And you may be a victim of optical illusion here... when something like that comes out in a genre film, it's surprising, and I think the contrast inflates those moments out of proportion. I'm entirely unconvinced that genre qualitatively reveals more.

I completely disagree that it's surprising, and if anyone here has ever attempted to write a genre film I think they would agree.  Not to mention the long list of filmmakers who have made genre films that have been revealing, personal films.  This list is back on page two.  Again, I'm not at all against realistic films, but I'm completely over the gush of them lately  Who makes the genre films these days?  Genre filmmakers.  Who makes the personal films?  Personal filmmakers.  Why the line, why the timidness to cross the line?  When I go to Best Buy, why do I have to perch myself in the drama section?  Why is the new director most inclined to do do drama, mostly from his own life.  Look at what fills the indie releases.  Horror directors come along here and there and stay in horror.  Action may come along and stay in action.  Thinking about it though, diretors are still crossing into genre, but how, with the same detached, ironic way in which they confront drama.  Maybe it's not even the drama I'm tired of just, just the goddamned detachment.  Let me keep replying and find out.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: Losing the Horse:I disagree that the post-modern movement is an advance.  I'd say it's a couple of steps back.  I really want to see what the steps forward are going to be.

Maybe you can elaborate on that, because I don't think it makes sense. Post-modernism is two steps back from what? Modernism? Post-modernism opened the floodgates to virtually absolute artistic freedom. That's all it is though, really, an opening. But that's crucial. And hardly regressive.

Actually, I think I would be okay with the permanence of post-modernism. Maybe it just means the end of decades-long movements. Maybe we're past that stage of artistic sloth. Maybe things don't have to happen in movements. Why not in bursts, in trends that appear and expire only to be rediscovered and recontextualized later, in epiphanies spreading simultaneously in different directions, which combat old ideas and inspire new ones?

This would fit it right along modern society.  Which I would think to be sad.  Why do something then abandon it?  Why can't we build on something, keep pushing it forward?

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanActually, I think I would be okay with the permanence of post-modernism. Maybe it just means the end of decades-long movements. Maybe we're past that stage of artistic sloth. Maybe things don't have to happen in movements. Why not in bursts, in trends that appear and expire only to be rediscovered and recontextualized later, in epiphanies spreading simultaneously in different directions, which combat old ideas and inspire new ones?

I've always been wondering about the idea of post-modernism in film. Other arts are much clearer about where classical/modern/post-modernism all begin and end, but what about my film? From my own reading, let me make a suggestion:

Modernism in film begins with the French New Wave. It was the first major movement to break classical structure and also search for stories that broke trend with genre restrictions. Since then, progressive films have aligned themselves with the same ideals as French New Wave. A film like Million Dollar Baby, while throwing a finger to a controversial topic, is really a classical work.
For Post-Modernism, I cite Going Places, made in 1974, as the introductary film. It not only mocked stylistic inventions of the French New Wave, but tested the extremes of morality. From having characters who are guiltless about theft and rape, the film is not made to apologize for their actions. It highlights their actions in a way that question our own morality. Examples of excellent current Post-Modernist films are Natural Born Killers and When Will I Be Loved. Both films strive to challenge the convention of morality commonplace in society.
Challenging 'morality' is, I believe, the largest task in current cinema today. Stylistically, for the established structure of films, I do not know what else we can do. Like Kubrick strived to do before he died, all we have yet to do is wholly change the structure of film.
This may be a premature and an underdeveloped argument, but I'll defend it.

But, still. It's hard to really label trends and movements in proper context. I enjoy the label of the Tarantino Generation, but I can see how that easily would dribble into labels for just about everything.

I like what you're saying.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: polkabluesWhat, then, is a non-genre movie?  It can only be drama, presumably, and it can't be set in the old west, or in space, or in a historical era, or in a war... It can't have ghosts or monsters, or car chases or explosions... it can't have anyone coming-of-age... or solving a mystery.... really, the only movies that seem to apply are present-day-set dramas in which the characters do everyday things in a realistic setting.  So isn't that sort of movie then a genre itself?

Could it be, perhaps, that the term "genre movie" is meaningless?  Or, more accurately, the distinction between a "genre movie" and a "non-genre movie"?

Or is genre just a code word for "formula"?

I think it is. Or we could say that a genre movie takes on a given subject and in doing so observes certain rules and conventions that have been observed in the past when dealing with the same subject. It may even mimick, reference, or all but duplicate its ancestors. When genre films are imaginative or fantastical (as with westerns or popular science fiction), they do so within the constraints of a previously established universe, which itself is enough to call them "genre films."

I'd say that "comedy" and "drama," for example, are not real genres. There are funny movies and dramatic movies that follow a particular comedic formula or a particular dramatic formula.

Agreed.  As I was talking about genre being a box earlier back.  It's constraints on the filmmaker.  'Present-day-set dramas in which the characters do everyday things in a realistic setting' sure, let's call it a genre, but it's entirely too open ended and from what I can see causing the filmmakers to become way too self-indulgent.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: polkabluesFree verse has no limitation, but most of the great poems of all time fit into a known structure.

I think that's because free verse is extremely new in the context of literary history. (And commercial media has all but marginalized poetry.) But I'd disagree anyway. Gertrude Stein, anyone?

I find that poetic structure (in all but the most extreme cases) limits and suffocates more than it enables. It usually necessitates slant rhyme, which I hate, awkward syntax rearrangement (like "I stepped upon the stick / and the flowers I did pick"), and filler (which most often includes clichés and conventions). Poetic structure is great for satire, though, mostly because of the absurdity and cuteness of the structure.

I like what you're saying.

Quote from: peteI don't think genres are so much formulas as they are habits.  a filmmaker growing up with certain types of influences will develop certain types of habits.  but genres, according to them snobby good-for-nothing academics emcompass a bigger scope, that cover both semantics and syntax or something.  ah my brain is hurting from trying to recall those useless classes (except for late night xixax posts I suppose.)
films are harder to define by their contemporary movements (modernism post modernism post structuralism...etc.) than other mediums because unlike literature and architecture and painting, films are mostly popular entertainment, like folk songs, directed towards the folks.  the ones that align themselves to their contemporaries, like the French in the 60's, tend to end up quite contrived and shallow (they weren't bad films; they just seemed like snobby young kids making phony splashes) with quite transparent intentions.

wow, I almost wanna leave this paragraph sitting here so I can take a look at it again in the morning to see if I made any sense or not.  But, instead, I'm gonna click on "submit" in 3, 2,

It makes sense.  And what you are hitting on is, again, back from my reply to Jeremy, sitting on something, it becoming a habit, and then finding out how to break out of that habit.  I think I'm going to concentrate my argument here on the selfishness of the filmmaker to tell his own story without any intention of breaking out of his own box.  So, instead of a defined box, a genre, a place for filmmakers to meet, it becomes a story from 1984 and the neighborhood I came from, a story of how my father passed away, a story of how my grandma was silly and her brother rude.  There is no reference point for films anymore, therefore progression is not linear, which has created some great films, but it has spread to a new group of filmmakers who only know that method.  

It is the indie movement post-94 that has the bulk of these self-indulgent films, and now filmmakers know only that.  How many of you are in film school?  How many of you know the kid whose hero is Wes Anderson and he hates old films?  How many of you know the kid whose favorite movie is from Kevin Smith?  These are their reference points to filmmaking.  It is this group that especially worries me.  The Squid and the Whale is not a part of that group I suppose, but the rammifications of the film being praised are what worries me.

Woody Allen (who I keep talking about for some reason) says he goes on campus tours now and people say, "I love your movies, who is Bergman," and that worries him.  It worries me too.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Quote from: petefilms are harder to define by their contemporary movements (modernism post modernism post structuralism...etc.) than other mediums because unlike literature and architecture and painting, films are mostly popular entertainment, like folk songs, directed towards the folks.

That's true. Most movies don't even warrant critical comment, but are still given it. But, like I've said, I don't care too much for labels. Modernism and such is just an interesting idea for trying to apply to films.

You can warm up a little to some of this discussion. I'm sure if you got an academic in here, he'd say none of us really represented academics anyways. We're all just kinda trying.

Yeah.

Quote from: Losing the Horse:It is the indie movement post-94 that has the bulk of these self-indulgent films, and now filmmakers know only that.  How many of you are in film school?  How many of you know the kid whose hero is Wes Anderson and he hates old films?  How many of you know the kid whose favorite movie is from Kevin Smith?  These are their reference points to filmmaking.  It is this group that especially worries me.  The Squid and the Whale is not a part of that group I suppose, but the rammifications of the film being praised are what worries me.

I couldn't agree more.  These ironic films are becoming all the too common and we need to move away from that.   They're almost becoming a genre in itself.  This is what scares me about the future of cinema, more than anything.

The discussion of movements really interests me, but I got school.  More later.  

Good thread, so far.

Quote from: Losing the Horse:I completely disagree that it's surprising, and if anyone here has ever attempted to write a genre film I think they would agree.  Not to mention the long list of filmmakers who have made genre films that have been revealing, personal films.  This list is back on page two.  Again, I'm not at all against realistic films, but I'm completely over the gush of them lately  Who makes the genre films these days?  Genre filmmakers.  Who makes the personal films?  Personal filmmakers.  Why the line, why the timidness to cross the line?  When I go to Best Buy, why do I have to perch myself in the drama section?  Why is the new director most inclined to do do drama, mostly from his own life.  Look at what fills the indie releases.  Horror directors come along here and there and stay in horror.  Action may come along and stay in action.  Thinking about it though, diretors are still crossing into genre, but how, with the same detached, ironic way in which they confront drama.  Maybe it's not even the drama I'm tired of just, just the goddamned detachment.  Let me keep replying and find out.

ooh, you just got me with this bit.  i see your point.  and i dont know how much this has to do with your original argument, but as a seperate argument i'm interested by this idea.  not that i think this is the way to save cinema neccesarily, but at the very least we'd get some interesting films.  probably a lot of failures but atleast some interesting ones.  

i guess in the same way its facinating to see bill murray/jim carrey/steve martin play a more dramatic role going AGAINST all their comedic instincts it'd be interesting to see more directors step out of their comfort zone and do something different.  i guess Life Aquatic (adventure) was an attempt at that.  Punch-Drunk Love (comedy) probably too.  and Kill Bill (action).  but sometimes you just get Kundun or Age of Innocence.  sometimes you just need a genre filmmaker to challenge genre like in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.  but then that becomes a formula, it can only really work the first time.

i dont think i or ghostboy was claiming that Squid was pushing cinema forward but it was still a good film.  not every movie can do that, and if those are your expectations then you're in for a lot of disappointment.  you're usually lucky to get 2 or 3 films a year which you can love and hold above all else.

I'm not totally following Losing the Horse.  It seems to me that you almost want there to be no Auteurs in cinema.  That you want directors to jump out of their comfort genre and ahem Lose themselves.  I mean maybe that's taking it a bit extreme, the directors having no Face.  But my thing is do you watch a Gore Verbinski, whom I like, and go 'that's a Verbinski movie?'

No?

Verbinski to me is someone who jumps around terribly well but has no Face.  Someone like Kubrick, or Soderbergh can mix it up and still feel the same.  While people may try to immitate this current 'indie' cinema I don't see how it can last.  Wes will not be the same Wes ten years from now.  It reminds me of how Spielberg says he couldn't make Close Encounters now.  I don't know if any of that makes sense So...

How long can Wes Anderson make Wes Anderson movies?  I'll bet you not very long.  How long can these type of movies go?   I'll bet you not very long.  Wes is scared to say anything and hides behind irony, which is pretty representative of our generation--not just in film.  We're way too cynical.  

I like the whole idea of auteurs having a lot of creative control, but right now the same kind of movies are being made with the same aforementioned problems.  They're "comfort zone" lacks any sincerety.

So I kinda like what Losing the Horse is saying--it'd be interesting to see these directors be forced to work within a genre, especially someone like Anderson.   Would it force them to say something and open up as opposed to just being clever?  However, it wouldn't be necesary if the same type of movies weren't being made.

Quote from: JimmyGatorWes is scared to say anything and hides behind irony

Give me one example of this.

Hmmm, well let me revise my statement:  it's not that he isn't saying anything with his movies, I just don't feel his heart is in it.  The point of the movie is not the real point.

He doesn't seem to care about the characters.  He just sets them up to say and do odd, clever things.  I'm having trouble explaining, so if anyone here agrees with me, feel free to do so.

Quote from: JimmyGatorHmmm, well let me revise my statement:  it's not that he isn't saying anything with his movies, I just don't feel his heart is in it.  The point of the movie is not the real point.

He doesn't seem to care about the characters.  He just sets them up to say and do odd, clever things.  I'm having trouble explaining, so if anyone here agrees with me, feel free to do so.

i disagree with you. a lot.

the odd, clever things are in his movies are merely characters unapologetically being themselves-- leaving tension between people unresolved and putting it baldly onto film. it's a sort of awkwardness that real life doesn't have-- but that doesn't mean that he's not making statements about what people actually do to each other in real life.

Wes's characters don't really say that much odd clever things.  They tell odd clever jokes, but when they're honest with each other they say really short brutal things.  I think you criticize Wes Anderson the one some people criticize Tarantino: you trash his imitators more than you trash him.  You describe Wes Anderson's movies like they're napoleon dynamite.

Okay, I know I'm not gonna win this argument cause I'm not exactly sure what I want to say, or exactly how I feel.   Let me say, I am a huge fan of Rushmore and Royal Tenabaums.  However, ever since i saw life aquatic, i've been thinking alot about how i feel about wes anderson.   the scene when steve and ned crash just felt so contrived to me--like, "okay, here's the emotionally poignant scene that needs to be in the movie."  the more i think about it, it seems like the drama in his movies is there to just fill space between the funny parts.  

ah, i'm so frustrated cause I can't say what I want to say.  Just know that I like Wes Anderson, I just think that he spurred a lot of bad films which I feel are too detached and pride themselves on being subtly clever (Garden State).  

Maybe more from me when I can figure out what I want to say.

EDIT:

Quoteyou trash his imitators more than you trash him.

you're probably right, and for that, i apologize.  but the "type" of film he has inspired is really bad for movies in the long run.  what i like about PTA is that he rejects post-modernism in his movies and really says something that he means.  and that's why kevin smith hates magnolia--it actually says something, which our cynical and snide generation marks off as pretentious.

ANOTHER EDIT:

But I should probably retract that because it's not like a movie like Garden State doesn't say anything--i mean look at all that bad dialogue in that movie.  it's just...i don't know...somethings missing.....ah forget it.

That's the problem with imitators.  They usually imitate the surface aspects of unique filmmakers like Tarantino or Wes Anderson without getting at the core of what made their films good.  The Tarantino imitators just copy the ironic, comedic violence with characters who take the violence in stride, but without the cleverness.  A copy of something fresh is not fresh.

Likewise, the WA imitators just take those detached, often lackadaisical characters, and none of the real emotional depth or resonance of WA's films.  Rushmore and Royal Tenenbaums have relatable characters.  The worst of the imitators is Napoleon Dynamite, which just scrapes the surface of WA's films.  It has the weird characters and "clever" dialogue, and that's it.  It's all weirdness and catchphrases.  Garden State tries for the emotional resonance, but it doesn't have that effortlessness.  It's too blatantly manipulative.  Indie soundtrack + irony is the formula of many films.

napoleon dynamite, aside from those symmetrical shots, really has nothing to do with wes anderson though.  the comedy is way broad and the stereotypes are way more middle American.  it's a film made by hipsters living in LA.  I still feel like ND is a superhero movie misunderstodd by everyone.

Yeah, yeah.  And I don't dislike Wes Anderson (honestly this 2nd and third films are among my favorites of the past 15 years), but what his films have come to represent for other filmmakers--indie soundtracks, irony, "poignant" (not w/ Napoleon Dynamite but certainly with Garden State) moments.   There's a sense of detachment in these films that they're heart isn't really there, which is really a sign of how our generation is--we're just not quite there.  we're not that all involved.  we stand from back of the room and make cynical remarks.  nihilists.   we hide any sincerity behind irony.  

that's kinda what i was trying to say.  it was wrong for me to say that wes anderson isn't sincere, because that really isn't the case.

i think you're making mass generalizations.  'our generation' is probably as detached as any other generation was.  attempts at sincerity don't neccesarily make better movies, sometimes they make really shitty ones.  wes anderson has a unique voice and he (nor any other filmmaker) can be blamed for any shitty imitations spawned by their work.  tarantino is not responsible for boondock saints, he may have inspired it but he can't be held responsible.  if the helicopter scene felt contrived it's either that the moment didn't quite work for you OR enough other moments didn't work for you in the film that when it came time for a big moment like that you werent responsive to it.  if you read interviews with anderson i dont think he considers his work 'ironic' or 'detatched' at all.

essentially, i'm one of those guys that thinks "anderson concentrates too much on being stylized and think he stands at a distance to smirk at his characters,"  like modage stated in the squid and the whale thread.  

maybe our generation is just as detached as any other generation--i wouldn't know because i didn't live then.  based on my experience, i find our generation to be cynical to just not care as much about things around us, and i think this is reflected in cinema.  

what's great about PTA is that he is apart of small group of directors (Scorsese, Spike Jones)--and I'm about to quote Ebert--"in championing an extroverted self-confidence that rejects the timid post-modernism of the 1990s. These are not movies that apologize for their exuberance, or shield themselves with irony against suspicions of sincerity."

i feel that a lot of these indie filmmakers that are making these films in lieu of Wes Anderson (and it's probably very unfair for me to group him into this category) are an example of this type of filmmaking that PTA rejects.  The "Wes Anderson type" of movie is becoming all too common.  

So to get back to Losing the Horse's point--maybe it would be interesting to see these directors work in genre, and see what it would turn like.  I don't know...  

...maybe I'm completely wrong about this, but that's just how I feel.

more LTH/JB/GT and less JimmyGator please.

the persons who are angry in this thread should start trying appreciating other stuff apart from movies. that is all.

Quote from: Pubrickmore LTH/JB/GT and less JimmyGator please.

you're right.  i sound like a complete idiot in this thread.   :cry: i'll shut up now.

I'll chime in.

With the new crop of filmmakers, I'm not enthusiastic. Wes Anderson is essentially a cult filmmaker. He makes films that really are for his audience. With how much linkage his last three films have, there was little doubt his core of fans were going to be displeased. Him making his films doesn't necessarily bother me, but the weight they are given does. Where many eye great talent in his work, I just see someone who filled another niche. His next project, animation, unlikely will have any semblance of true progression. Just another avenue for his brand of storytelling. As he continues to make films, the only progression I really see is the budget. I hope to be proven wrong.

Tarantino is not responsible for Boondock Saints, but the opportunism of his films and their success allowed for a film like Boondock Saints to get made and released. There will always be people who have aspirations to make the new gore fest. Not all of them will claim Tarantino their inspiration, but they can thank him for dusting off a welcome mat into Hollywood.

My problem is that these two filmmakers are two of the biggest faces for Independent Cinema in the United States. This country has too much freedom. Totalitarianism has some advantages. Their filmmakers, when given budget to make a film, handle their stories with better care and weight because they realize how lucky they are to be making a film. We're allowing too many films to get made that have no ambition and reek of geekiness.