Cannes 2003

Started by MacGuffin, May 25, 2003, 03:01:04 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3
User actions

Mesh

#30
May 27, 2003, 11:59:25 AM
Quote from: godardianA.  I think the last good Gus van Sant film was To Die For, which is my personal favorite of all of his, despite its violation of his auteur status.

B. ...the astonoshingly, thoroughly bad Possession).

A.  What, because Buck Henry wrote it?  I think it still retains a strong Van Sant signature....

B.  OK movie at best.

SoNowThen

#31
May 27, 2003, 12:09:03 PM
Buck Henry = great fucking writer.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Gold Trumpet

#32
May 27, 2003, 02:39:39 PM
P, Again, you lack reason for what I say and how my long writing is bad for everyone (especially considering you and others read it) or implies I think I am smarter than anyone else. But for what reasons you did in going against me, I don't think you really are arguing for these movies because I agree with you in every aspect that realism comes out of the story and such and how it can effectively communicate with the audience. This is my point and my argument is that dogme doesn't really set its discipline in filmmaking to best utilize its story. First off, the stories aren't that far removed from typical dramas anyways. Breaking the Waves follows a unique story but throws in the towel at the end with its ending that can be seen in Hollywood land anytime because it serves to make us feel completely good only. Dancer in the Dark mixes a brutal story with the most artificial of genres, the musical and the approach to shooting the musical as raw really captures very little. Dogme thinks these stories are unique and are deserving of this format but they are not. Simple stories that can be more effective when told just simply. Perfect match but the films act as low budget actions films always filled with stress and action and drama when it is not even near the case.

I don't believe full on realism can be attained in the movies. Only various things that resemble realism but still highly artificial can be obtained. Each movie is different for what it requires to best utilize its story.

~rougerum

Gold Trumpet

#33
May 27, 2003, 02:54:28 PM
JB, Yep, bad writing to blame again, but here is a better (I hope) translated version of what I wanted to say for that portion:

Full realism, like the life of a day for any of us, can never be realized in cinema. Cinema does though have its own realism and that realism seems like a realism in responce to a highly cliche or standard story that comes closer to making the story more real or interesting. Instead of movies trying to go for real life interesting, they should go for the more interesting reality that only movies can bring.

~rougerum

Cecil

#34
May 27, 2003, 08:02:31 PM
Quote from: children with angelsAlthough I actually agree with what GT has to say. I wouldn't say Dogme films are "lazy", just that the realism they hope to capture through their techniques will never work the way they intend it to.

and its that irony that makes it interesting. (or maybe the irony was their intention)

godardian

#35
May 27, 2003, 08:06:16 PM
Quote from: Mesh
Quote from: godardianA.  I think the last good Gus van Sant film was To Die For, which is my personal favorite of all of his, despite its violation of his auteur status.

B. ...the astonoshingly, thoroughly bad Possession).

A.  What, because Buck Henry wrote it?  I think it still retains a strong Van Sant signature....

B.  OK movie at best.

Yeah, but he didn't write it... but you're right. It's really just a technical violation of the dictionary definition, because it does feel like a van Sant film, much more so than the subsequent handful...

I'm not sure what is meant by B. That you find Possession okay at best? I appreciated the through-the-rainy-window bit with the composition and camera, but it was just so damn conventional and so very corny, especially coming from Neil Labute. I proudly brandish my expectations that a LaBute film be sharp. And I found that Shape of Things only half made up for it.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Jeremy Blackman

#36
May 28, 2003, 01:11:52 PM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetJB, Yep, bad writing to blame again, but here is a better (I hope) translated version of what I wanted to say for that portion:

Full realism, like the life of a day for any of us, can never be realized in cinema. Cinema does though have its own realism and that realism seems like a realism in responce to a highly cliche or standard story that comes closer to making the story more real or interesting. Instead of movies trying to go for real life interesting, they should go for the more interesting reality that only movies can bring.

~rougerum

Point taken, and I agree with you... but I don't at all think of Dancer in the Dark as a movie that tries to simulate reality. I mean.. it's a musical drama/tragedy. It really is a surreal movie.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3
User actions