see the shit we have to put up with in Canada?

Started by SoNowThen, October 23, 2003, 02:00:36 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1 2
User actions

SoNowThen

October 23, 2003, 02:00:36 PM
Please read this review and feel free to rage about this dolt. Why do I get the feeling his movies lick balls? And he cites Godard -- HA! -- blasphemy.

His name is Reg Harkema. And this is an article/interview with him.

"What is hinted at in that statement is Harkema's boredom/disgust with much of the studio and independent scene in the US. While he cites Harmony Korine's work (Gummo, julien donkey-boy) as "hugely influential," he is not so enthralled with other American voices that have been shouting (and shouted about) south of the border recently. He'd rather be thought of as an homage-giver to the masters than one of the recent inde crowd. About an article which called A Girl Is A Girl "faux-Godard," Harkema counters, "It's like people used to say about the Marx Brothers; Bad Marx Brothers is better than anything else out there. So better faux-Godard than true Paul Thomas Anderson or Kevin Smith, as far as I'm concerned."

His dedication to creating interesting and provocative cinema also sets him in opposition to much of the independent filmmaking in British Columbia. While he is quick to cite directors whose work he loves - "One of my big influences right now is Blaine Thurier (Low Self-Esteem Girl). Blaine Thurier could have made 100 great films for the money that Paul Thomas Anderson spent raining frogs" - he has harsh words for some in the movie business here. "

Man, I kid you not, if it wasn't bad LA funded TV show production people, it was uber-pretentious underground indie hack jobbers. This dumb cock is the reason people will never want to see Canadian indie cinema. Fuck you, British Columbia.

For a dose of his "interesting and provocative" work, see http://www.inmediagroup.com/mffilms/story.html

dear lord, it sounds like those terrible fucking synopsis' from shitty film school movies....

This shit is the bane of cinema, and must be stopped. Oh wait, no one outside of three people involved in the Van Film Festival care about this guy. Good, let's keep it that way.
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.

mutinyco

#1
October 23, 2003, 02:06:07 PM
Oh, you love it! Admit it! I think you'd probably be on his side if he didn't dislike PTA.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

SoNowThen

#2
October 23, 2003, 02:08:33 PM
Good lord, I hope you're kidding. You should read another review where he talks about Godard, and how he's put references in his movie to "underline the contextual relationship between the existential motivation of corporate America and it's blah blah blah". He's a hardcore socialist who uses his movies to preach his bullshit message and disguises it with some Godard tricks. Which is even worse!!
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.

godardian

#3
October 23, 2003, 02:29:13 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenGood lord, I hope you're kidding. You should read another review where he talks about Godard, and how he's put references in his movie to "underline the contextual relationship between the existential motivation of corporate America and it's blah blah blah". He's a hardcore socialist who uses his movies to preach his bullshit message and disguises it with some Godard tricks. Which is even worse!!

Well... Godard was/is a hardcore socialist, too, it should be remembered.

However, it sounds like this guy is just a loudmouth who would like to get attention with his remarks. There's not really any trace of the wit and sardonicism and the sort of disingenuous naivete Godard had in his quotes...
""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.

SoNowThen

#4
October 23, 2003, 02:31:17 PM
They asked Godard about all his movies dealing with Mao, and what he was going after, and he said it was a symbol to be used, just like a bottle of coca cola in his earlier films. Like you said, he had wit.
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.

TheVoiceOfNick

#5
October 23, 2003, 05:30:22 PM
This is why Canadien cinema will never succeed commercially...

mutinyco

#6
October 23, 2003, 05:48:57 PM
Maybe if they change it to Canadien instead of Canadian it will be better...
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Ravi

#7
October 23, 2003, 06:09:52 PM
Are this guy's films any good?

TheVoiceOfNick

#8
October 23, 2003, 06:14:15 PM
Quote from: mutinycoMaybe if they change it to Canadien instead of Canadian it will be better...

Which is the noun and which is the adjective?  I was saying as the noun, so it'd be "Canadien" or "Canadian"?  One of life's greatest mysteries...

Squawks

#9
October 26, 2003, 08:14:34 AM
You can't judge the entire Canadian film industry based on one man's comments. Come on. The reason Canadian film will never succeed is because the public doesn't want to see movies with people they've never heard of and most of the movies that would have a good chance finding a mass audience don't spend any money on advertising. The only advertisements for a Canadian movie I've seen in a long time were for some "American style" action movie called Foolproof and that was only because it had Ryan Reynolds in it so the producers thought it would draw a big enough audience. Watch Last Night, the Red Violin, Last Wedding, Perfect Pie, Spider, Flower & Garnet, Expecting, just some of the great Canadian films I've seen in the past few years. There will always be people who don't think much of Paul Thomas Anderson from all countries.

Xixax

#10
October 26, 2003, 09:32:19 PM
No, not really.

The reason Canadian cinema will never succeed is because Canada Sucks.
Quote from: Pas RapportI don't need a dick in my anus to know I absolutely don't want a dick in my anus.
[/size]

NEON MERCURY

#11
October 26, 2003, 09:42:27 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenWhile he cites Harmony Korine's work (Gummo, julien donkey-boy) as "hugely influential," ..

..thats all you need to read.... :roll:

Recce

#12
October 26, 2003, 09:53:26 PM
Quote from: XIXAXNo, not really.

The reason Canadian cinema will never succeed is because Canada Sucks.

Oh, now you've jsut started some shit.
"The idea had been growing in my brain for some time: TRUE force. All the king's men
                        cannot put it back together again." (Travis Bickle, "Taxi Driver")

Cecil

#13
October 26, 2003, 10:02:50 PM
"aboot"

need i say more?

SoNowThen

#14
October 27, 2003, 08:48:02 AM
Quote from: XIXAXNo, not really.

The reason Canadian cinema will never succeed is because Canada Sucks.


Hahaha, so true!!

Well, our hockey, beer, and women are cool.
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.
Print
Go Up Pages1 2
User actions