[quote=“Angel”]
You want my honest opinion? The arthouse label is bullshit. Regretfully, I have to use it sometimes to point out things to people. But I hate it. Cause it’s such a self-important term.
Most people choose to define arthouse as films not in English. Because apparently foreign countries aren’t as prone to making commercial garbage.
Guy Maddin is a genius. I honestly think that. I honestly think Andy Warhol’s Vinyl is a masterpiece. I think L’Avventura is one of the greatest films ever made. I think Martin Arnold’s experimental work are some of the most complex and artful films I have ever seen.
But you know as well as I that there are people out there who “don’t own a television”, "read Ernest Hemingway and drink Lattes who will say the same thing as I, but on the inside they don’t really mean it. Because they don’t understand. They just don’t get it. But it’s not cool among the intellectual community to like anything remotely commercial.
They are the market. And put enough pretentious “art for the sake of art” in there and they will buy into it.
[/quote]
I agree with the arthouse thing. It’s a very superior term.
[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]
Without those blockbuster movies you wouldn’t have your precious arthouse stuff, because some of the money the blockbusters make, the studios will then put into smaller (sometimes prestige-) projects.
[/quote]
That’s only if the filmmakers making the precious stuff work under studios. Most of my favorite “arthouse” filmmakers work outside of a studio.
Like, the reason Atom Egoyan gets to keep making his films is all thanks to TIFF and has nothing to do with the American studio giants.
You’re being very general here, Kenneth, as usual.
[quote=“F.W.”]
I agree with the arthouse thing. It’s a very superior term.
What do you think of Stan Brakhage?
[/quote]
I fucking love Stan Brakhage. His films are right up my alley. When it comes to experimental film, I am generally not a big fan of stop-motion stuff (I mentioned the Quay brothers before), but filmmakers like Brakhage, Len Lye, Norman McLaren I love. I also love Kenneth Anger and the Kuchar brothers a great deal.
[quote=“Angel”]
I fucking love Stan Brakhage. His films are right up my alley. When it comes to experimental film, I am generally not a big fan of stop-motion stuff (I mentioned the Quay brothers before), but filmmakers like Brakhage, Len Lye, Norman McLaren I love. I also love Kenneth Anger and the Kuchar brothers a great deal.
[/quote]
Kenneth Anger’s editing is OUT THERE, man. I love that guy.
But Brakhage has been a huge influence on my life and I can’t even explain it. I teared up during Window Water Baby Moving.
[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]
Yeah OK, not all arthouse movies of course, but many of them.
[/quote]
And most experimental filmmakers worth their intelligence in salt wouldn’t work for a studio on a studio budget, would they?
[quote=“F.W.”]
But Brakhage has been a huge influence on my life and I can’t even explain it. I teared up during Window Water Baby Moving.
[/quote]
My first contact with Brakhage was Dog Star Man. I felt so incredibly vulnerable whilst watching it and I can’t even begin to explain why.
Edit: I just merged your last two posts into one, F.W., because they were so close together. It’s not against the rules of anything, but it’s cleaner to address more than one quote in the same post rather than make two separate posts.
Why so much snobism on a Tarantino fan forum? The guy is all about what looks and sounds cool. Yet, you people talk of the absence of deepness in the Spielberg movies. Whaaat? Why do we care if there is no deepness? It doesn’t means the movie is shit. Movies are also enteirtainement you know… I mean, anyone who loves Tarantino work should know that…
Does that mean I can’t enjoy “deep” movies? No, it just mean I really enjoy watching any genre of movies. You talk like if people enjoying Transformer are all stupids. Tell you something, close-minded people will always look more stupid, no matter what. Look at you god damnit, you’re telling everyone you are superior. Like wtf, it’s a movie. Transformer 2 had awesome special effects, something worth watching at the theater I think. Theaters are there for big screen and big sound, so I say it’s pretty much appropriate… But the thing is, Transformers never pretended to be “deep”, so why would you go all bitchy about that.
[quote=“Glaurung”]
Why so much snobism on a Tarantino fan forum? The guy is all about what looks and sounds cool. Yet, you people talk of the absence of deepness in the Spielberg movies. Whaaat? Why do we care if there is no deepness? It doesn’t means the movie is shit. Movies are also enteirtainement you know… I mean, anyone who loves Tarantino work should know that…
Does that mean I can’t enjoy “deep” movies? No, it just mean I really enjoy watching any genre of movies. You talk like if people enjoying Transformer are all stupids. Tell you something, close-minded people will always look more stupid, no matter what. Look at you god damnit, you’re telling everyone you are superior. Like wtf, it’s a movie. Transformer 2 had awesome special effects, something worth watching at the theater I think. Theaters are there for big screen and big sound, so I say it’s pretty much appropriate… But the thing is, Transformers never pretended to be “deep”, so why would you go all bitchy about that.
[/quote]
[quote=“Glaurung”]
Why so much snobism on a Tarantino fan forum? The guy is all about what looks and sounds cool. Yet, you people talk of the absence of deepness in the Spielberg movies. Whaaat? Why do we care if there is no deepness? It doesn’t means the movie is shit. Movies are also enteirtainement you know… I mean, anyone who loves Tarantino work should know that…
Does that mean I can’t enjoy “deep” movies? No, it just mean I really enjoy watching any genre of movies. You talk like if people enjoying Transformer are all stupids. Tell you something, close-minded people will always look more stupid, no matter what. Look at you god damnit, you’re telling everyone you are superior. Like wtf, it’s a movie. Transformer 2 had awesome special effects, something worth watching at the theater I think. Theaters are there for big screen and big sound, so I say it’s pretty much appropriate… But the thing is, Transformers never pretended to be “deep”, so why would you go all bitchy about that.
[/quote]
I agree for the most part and I already said in an earlier post that in Transformer’s defense it never tried to be anything other than a commercial film. But it still doesn’t make it good.
I have no problem with films made for money, but I still expect a level of quality. Kitchen sink, French New Wave, old Hollywood, new Hollywood, avant-garde, chanbara, erotica, v-cinema, exploitation. I like it all.
The criteria for each may differ slightly, but there is still a consistent level of quality I expect from all genres and movements.
I guess we could say Transformer 2 is innovative in the special effects area, though it lacked much other important things. Still, it didn’t felt like I wasted my 10$. I was always “WHOA” and “OMYGOD” -ing. You people still enjoy a good firework even though there is no story so why act different for a movie.
[quote=“Glaurung”]
I guess we could say Transformer 2 is innovative in the special effects area, though it lacked much other important things. Still, it didn’t felt like I wasted my 10$. I was always “WHOA” and “OMYGOD” -ing. You people still enjoy a good firework even though there is no story so why act different for a movie.
[/quote]
Well, cause I’d never pay for fireworks. Also, because I am an elitist douchebag.
I don’t hate Spielberg though, so there you have it!
[quote=“F.W.”]
I prefer John Flynn or Jack Starrett for my action.
Where a car actually blew up and it wasn’t just typed into a computer to blow up.
[/quote]
That’s why the Mad Max films were so good and Hong Kong in the old days. Because fuck safety, let’s see some big fucking explosions and dangerous stunts!
[quote=“Angel”]
That’s why the Mad Max films were so good and Hong Kong in the old days. Because fuck safety, let’s see some big fucking explosions and dangerous stunts!
[/quote]
Exactly. I wanna know everyone was at risk of DEATH when that stunt was pulled off.
films don’t have to be deep they just have to be entertaining and have some artistic merit. Personally I don’t find Michael Bay movies entertaining. I love James Camerons stuff though - but theres a big difference.
[quote=“blue_lou_boyle”]
films don’t have to be deep they just have to be entertaining and have some artistic merit. Personally I don’t find Michael Bay movies entertaining. I love James Camerons stuff though - but theres a big difference.
[/quote]
Years ago I had a similar debate with someone on this forum. The gist of it was that when you delve into how films are made and into the critical analysis of films, technical brilliance and story techniques such as foreshadowing and metaphor become exciting and entertaining in of themselves.
But if by saying a film doesn’t have to be “deep”, you are referring to basically the substance of the film, then I agree to some extent. I’ve never believed in the “style over substance” argument. There are some instances where experimentation with technique and with visual form is the focus and not ideologies or narrative.
But generally, I think that “stylish” action is not enough to carry a film. Which is what distinguishes the Bays and Ratners from the talented directors working in Hollywood.
James Cameron and Robert Zemeckis (and even Spielberg in my opinion) use the Hollywood form to create satisfying (and subsequently commerically successful) films. Foreshadowing, set up and pay off, in a technically brilliant Hollywood film everything is connected and explained in the most efficient manner. Back to the Future is a prime example of this. Everything in that film means something. Nothing is wasted.
[quote=“Angel”]
Years ago I had a similar debate with someone on this forum. The gist of it was that when you delve into how films are made and into the critical analysis of films, technical brilliance and story techniques such as foreshadowing and metaphor become exciting and entertaining in of themselves.
But if by saying a film doesn’t have to be “deep”, you are referring to basically the substance of the film, then I agree to some extent. I’ve never believed in the “style over substance” argument. There are some instances where experimentation with technique and with visual form is the focus and not ideologies or narrative.
But generally, I think that “stylish” action is not enough to carry a film. Which is what distinguishes the Bays and Ratners from the talented directors working in Hollywood.
James Cameron and Robert Zemeckis (and even Spielberg in my opinion) use the Hollywood form to create satisfying (and subsequently commerically successful) films. Foreshadowing, set up and pay off, in a technically brilliant Hollywood film everything is connected and explained in the most efficient manner. Back to the Future is a prime example of this. Everything in that film means something. Nothing is wasted.
[/quote]
Couldnt have put it better - thats exactly what I think. Even in terms of substance I’ve heard that all of James Cameron’s films have a marxist subtext, might be stretching things a bit but I respect the guys talent and intellect - it comes across in his movies. Terminator and Aliens are action masterpieces.
[quote=“Glaurung”]
Why so much snobism on a Tarantino fan forum? The guy is all about what looks and sounds cool. Yet, you people talk of the absence of deepness in the Spielberg movies. Whaaat? Why do we care if there is no deepness? It doesn’t means the movie is shit. Movies are also enteirtainement you know… I mean, anyone who loves Tarantino work should know that…
Does that mean I can’t enjoy “deep” movies? No, it just mean I really enjoy watching any genre of movies. You talk like if people enjoying Transformer are all stupids. Tell you something, close-minded people will always look more stupid, no matter what. Look at you god damnit, you’re telling everyone you are superior. Like wtf, it’s a movie. Transformer 2 had awesome special effects, something worth watching at the theater I think. Theaters are there for big screen and big sound, so I say it’s pretty much appropriate… But the thing is, Transformers never pretended to be “deep”, so why would you go all bitchy about that.
[/quote]
There is a big big difference between Tarantino and Spielberg. Even SUPER “art” snobs that can’t stand Tarantino can point the differences out. As a “art” film fan, believe me, there are alot of “art” fans that can’t stand Tarantino. Man we should make up a new word for “art film”, I hate that I have to keep writing it.
We aren’t saying Spielberg’s movies isn’t “fun”, we are saying he is just in it for the $$$$$$$. Tarantino on the other hand lives film, every second, and wants to make as many films (without pulling a Woody Allen) before he reaches the age limit that he wants to cut off from.
Still, it didn’t felt like I wasted my 10$. I was always “WHOA” and “OMYGOD” -ing. You people still enjoy a good firework even though there is no story so why act different for a movie. 