Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club - Page 106

Thomas J. · 01-08-2007, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rich_d

Thomas,

I don't see the relevance to talking about Edison era films, short films, documentaries, film clips or an 8 mm from your Great Aunt Lola's birthday party. They hardly represent the Greatest Films in History list. (No offense to Great Aunt Lola).

Rich, thanks for another great soundbite. So, it is impossible for a documentary to make a great film?

It is impossible to argue that rare footage from the turn of the century makes for great film?

lol.

Thomas J. · 01-08-2007, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by george kaplan

What he did was tell a straight narrative story (let's face it, Blow Up is as straightforward and wonderful a narrative as anything that ever came out of the Hollywood studio system) until the very end, and then he jumped to a ridiculous ending that said, "fuck you, that great story I was telling you, I'm not going to tell you how it ends, cause I'm the director and you're not

"

I'm going to make one last ditch effort to get through to you people.

To remove Blow Up's ending, thus streamlining it, mainstreaming it, is to alter the film's intentions. As a serious film cinephile, you can't do that.

Let me use some other filmmaker to try to get my point across. Let's see...hmmm...okay, I know.

You can't argue:
"Written on the Wind, All That Heaven Allows, Imitation of Life, man, I HATE those films. Why did Douglas Sirk resort to such over the top melodrama and cliche. I've come to the conclusion that Sirk was either too lazy or too stupid to come up with something original rather than hackneyed and maudlin. If only the plots had been more original and less, I don't know, unbearibly trite, then they would have been good films. "

If you criticize those films on those grounds, then you just didn't GET them. To take a film to task on grounds of what you wish the film had intended to accomplish rather than what the film itself intends to accomplish, is ill-advised. Perhaps, just maybe, it is YOU who are too lazy or too stupid rather than the filmmakers. (Admittedly, it is up to the filmmakers to pull off their intentions, but again, that brings me back the matter of fact that it is about the film's intent).

Thomas J. · 01-08-2007, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam_S

emphasis mine:

Still trying to figure out how this doesn't apply to Man With a Movie Camera, Un Chien Andalou, Earth, Potemkin, etc. Likewise some of the Japanese and Chinese films of the 20s and 30s were less rooted in literature than they were in the particular theatre traditions of those cultures, such as No, so is that a third variation to go with literature and Architecture? Should I also bring up Bollywood? it is hardly based in the narrative of western literature. So that gives us four. Should I go on? Please explain why the otherness of Architecture (you're the one setting it up as other to literature, not me) is so revolutionary in comparison to the breadth and variety of what came before, because there have been many cinemas not rooted in literature.

You missed my point with your world trade center example. It is the choosing that creates the art--and in the case of cinema also creates a narrative. Go back to some of the dadaists films of the 1910s-20s. They can seem like random bits of black white and gray, sometimes mixed in with text, sometimes just by itself. But the films were carefully constructed. In many instances more so than some non-avante garde films, and that construction is a narrative process for the artist, deciding what comes before and what comes after. So the audience is still receiving a narrative because of the choice and the construction, whether or not its apparent.

First let me clear the air. Adam, I don't have beef with you, and I know you don't with me. You're obviously an articulate and well-versed fella, so I truly take your opinion seriously. For this reason, I would like to read your opinion as to why L'Avventura is not a good film. So far, you have been rejecting my reasons for why it IS a good film rather than giving your reasoning for thinking it a bad film.

I also want to say that Antonioni didn't invent a new kind of cinema; rather, he was the first to do so successfully. Un Chien Andalou is not bretheren to L'Avventura. I already explained Earth. Potemkin, c'mon, not even close.

Antonioni was the first to do what he did at such an extremely high level of success.

Some people say Christopher Columbus didn't discover America. The Native Americans did before him, or the Vikings did, etc. I say, wrong. He DID discover America. The Vikings may have located America first, but they didn't tell the rest of the world, so that "discovery" doesn't amount to much. Columbus was, in a sense, the first to successfully discover America.

I'm not saying L'Avventura was the first film to bring that kind of cinema to the masses. But, in a way, it was the first film to do what it did at such a high level for a wide audience.

george kaplan · 01-08-2007, 10:32 PM

Quote:

You can't argue:
"Written on the Wind, All That Heaven Allows, Imitation of Life, man, I HATE those films. Why did Douglas Sirk resort to such over the top melodrama and cliche. I've come to the conclusion that Sirk was either too lazy or too stupid to come up with something original rather than hackneyed and maudlin. If only the plots had been more original and less, I don't know, unbearibly trite, then they would have been good films. "

Thomas J. · 01-09-2007, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by george kaplan

What if I presented you with a film that you had never seen, never heard of, and I did not tell you who directed it, or what their intention was? You have absolutely no way of telling what the director was truly trying to acheive, and hence no way of knowing how well he did so (you could guess, but there's no way to verify your hypothesis). Now, under such a scenario, are you unable to make a judgment about the film?

Same as always...I would watch the film, try to understand why the film was made, what its trying to say or do to me, and then ascertain how well it does that, whether it be an intellectual experience and/or some sort of emotional experience (evoke excitement, humor, awe, etc.).

Is there absolutely no chance in your view that Sirk's films went over your head, or, more pointedly, you don't even care if they went over your head? That second part of the question, not even caring if you "got" it, I truly don't understand such an approach to the filmgoing experience.

Adam_S · 01-09-2007, 02:35 AM

When Thomas said to George,

Quote:

You can't argue:
"Written on the Wind, All That Heaven Allows, Imitation of Life, man, I HATE those films. Why did Douglas Sirk resort to such over the top melodrama and cliche. I've come to the conclusion that Sirk was either too lazy or too stupid to come up with something original rather than hackneyed and maudlin. If only the plots had been more original and less, I don't know, unbearibly trite, then they would have been good films. "

it was the most amusing thing I've read all day.

Classic! Either Thomas knows George extremely well or he picked melodrama by happenstance.

Adam_S · 01-09-2007, 03:08 AM

Quote:

So far, you have been rejecting my reasons for why it IS a good film rather than giving your reasoning for thinking it a bad film.

Actually I've been probing the historical support for your architecture argument because I'm intrigued by the concept. I'll think about writing why I think it's a bad film, but it's a complicated issue tied up with my thoughts on art in general, the ego of the auteur, elevation of the auteur, the question of talent and expression, the author's contract with his audience as well as my personal views on the film. somewhere in all that is a fraction that weighs in the historical context.

Quote:

I also want to say that Antonioni didn't invent a new kind of cinema; rather, he was the first to do so successfully. Un Chien Andalou is not bretheren to L'Avventura. I already explained Earth. Potemkin, c'mon, not even close.

Antonioni was the first to do what he did at such an extremely high level of success.

I thought you did say he invented a new cinema. whoops.
and the second sentance measuring the success seems more like your opinion of what he did than an actual measure.

Quote:

Some people say Christopher Columbus didn't discover America. The Native Americans did before him, or the Vikings did, etc. I say, wrong. He DID discover America. The Vikings may have located America first, but they didn't tell the rest of the world, so that "discovery" doesn't amount to much. Columbus was, in a sense, the first to successfully discover America.

In a way, this tells me so much, and confirms many positions I was inferring you held based on your postings about Antonioni. I think we think about history from fundamentally different approaches.

george kaplan · 01-09-2007, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Same as always...I would watch the film, try to understand why the film was made, what its trying to say or do to me, and then ascertain how well it does that, whether it be an intellectual experience and/or some sort of emotional experience (evoke excitement, humor, awe, etc.).

Is there absolutely no chance in your view that Sirk's films went over your head, or, more pointedly, you don't even care if they went over your head? That second part of the question, not even caring if you "got" it, I truly don't understand such an approach to the filmgoing experience.