Started by wilder, January 19, 2016, 11:27:11 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: modage on April 07, 2017, 06:38:34 PMI was skeptical about this from the trailers and just thinking that I'm not sure I had any interest in a movie that sets out to completely recreate some kitschy forgotten style of filmmaking without attempting to add something new to it. (Even if that something new is a feminist POV not present in the mid-60s films this is referencing, I still didn't think that would be enough). Not even the near unanimous praise really made me think that this would rise above that issue for me, but finally I broke down and decided to see for myself.And while this is an A+ recreation of that late 60s style of filmmaking, I still have to shrug. Biller has an amazing eye for detail and every shot, outfit, color, etc. is spot on but to what end? There is a difference in taking some cues from other eras and incorporating some different non-period appropriate elements to make something interesting but to simply recreate for the sake of it, I'm not sure what the point of it is other than camp value. For me you can put it on the pile with Hobo With A Shotgun and the other post-Grindhouse exercises in irony. Also: 2 hours, Jeeezus Christ. As a 20-30 minute short it's cute, but as a feature, eh.
Quote from: modage on April 09, 2017, 12:03:58 PMNot slamming the message just questioning the mode of delivery.
Quote from: modage on April 09, 2017, 09:21:03 PMQuote from: jenkins on April 09, 2017, 12:05:35 PMhonestly you said you didn't understand the point and it was awkward.Sorry, what was the point?
Quote from: jenkins on April 09, 2017, 12:05:35 PMhonestly you said you didn't understand the point and it was awkward.
Quote from: wilder on March 29, 2017, 06:55:14 PMIt's such a rich film, there's so many... not influences because that seems a little reductive. You're taking those cinematic influences and doing something entirely different with it, rather than anything derivative.It's more that I've just watched so many movies in my life so I'm just taking from that general experience of cinema and not from trying to copy any specific type of movie, so I think people who have watched as many movies as I have may understand what I'm doing a little bit better because they won't have the style be such a block in terms of what I'm doing. I think if you've seen as many movies as I have, you'll actually realise that it's not a pastiche. You'll realise that out of maybe hundreds or thousands of films you've seen, that you actually haven't seen a film like it.I realised when I was writing it and making it that it was a completely original film. What bothers me about being compared to sexploitation directors is that their films were made for a specific audience and a specific market and a specific time. That time doesn't exist anymore, where filmmakers were breaking apart censorship codes to try to rebel; where sexuality and nudity were seen as a new frontier, and this in of itself being interesting to people. It was sort of a liberal left achievement to be able to go into more explicit forms of filmmaking. So that time isn't now, it's passed. Ironically, the emphasis on the sexuality and nudity of the heroine in The Love Witch is quite low. It's much more about Elaine's interior life and the things that happen to her. Comparing the contexts of old sexploitation films and cinema now – they were making the most explicit movies they possibly could and showing as much female flesh as they possibly could, and I'm living in a time where what I'm showing is tamer than what you see on cable television, so surely it's kind of a strange comparison to make.I think what men fail to see is this phenomenon of how women are excluded from so much of cinema in terms of their fantasies, their desires, their concerns, so they don't actually understand when they see a movie that is different, that comes from a female consciousness and concerns female fantasies, how different that is. I think that's the most interesting thing about my film in a way, how it actually is able to depict women without showing them in terms of male fantasy.Definitely. A big part of that when watching the film is that it really embodies the female gaze. Would you be happy with that label? Is that something you tried to achieve?Oh yes, absolutely! My whole goal in creating cinema is to see how I can create cinema from a female gaze, and it doesn't always have to be feminist; it can be more that it's coming from a female consciousness. Sometimes people use the term 'feminist' in kind of a meaningless, generic way.Would you be happy with your film being labelled a feminist work or would you qualify that in a certain way?No, I think it is feminist, I just think that a lot of the people that use the word 'feminist' don't know what it means. It's a little strange, because if someone can say it's sexploitation and yet it's feminist, it means they may not know what either of those words actually mean because it's an oxymoron; you can't have both. You can say it's an erotic film that's feminist, but you can't talk about exploitation being feminist, issues like that.Also, I think there's a way in which the word feminist has been co-opted for use by people who are not feminist at all in their thinking and ideas. For example, the sex industry tries to co-opt the word 'feminist' to talk about their thinking, their ideas. They think of these old sexploitation movies as being feminist because they're allowing women to express their sexuality 'freely', but they would also call a lot of hardcore pornography feminist because they'll say the woman is enjoying herself. This is why the word 'feminist' is pernicious, because different people will use it for different agendas.I would say my film is feminist in almost a purer way, and so I don't like the word 'feminist', because it's used for movies that contain really ridiculous female superheroes for a lot of men to enjoy, for cinema that's really quite misogynistic, and it's just used too much nowadays in silly, meaningless ways. I feel like when people are using the word, they should be using it seriously or not at all. It weakens the movement, it makes the term completely meaningless, so that kind of usage takes a lot of power away from it.