David Vinelli

I agree entirely with what you said, Bryan. Dom, it is recent. Doesn't mean it didn't start earlier, but anyhow early 20th century is recent as well considering history of art. While Dali was a "poseur hack", albeit a very, very talented draftsman, Bunuel wasn't and never took himself seriously. The Chien Andalou, I don't have any sympathy for that kind of film, but I can't say it is what you accuse me of saying because it was meant to look so, and Bunuel had a great laugh reading what highbrows and cinephiles saw in it. Vertov, I can't speak of him; Malevich neither. Duchamp's Fontaine was also meant as derision against the all too serious establishment. What you call the total abstraction movement is a scam, followed by minor people posing as artists who didn't understand what people like Duchamp or others 'initiators' had in mind. You might be a weirdo if you can stare at one painting for hours, that depends on you. But Rothko was a great artist. I haven't seen Children of Men. But since you say it's so good, I'll check it out asap. Thanks

I don't ask you what you think, don't care about it, certainly won't pretend it has any credibility, and thank you for your concern.

Well, I seem to be irritating some people here so I'll try to be as short as possible, and then go. David- I think 'artist' is a word bestowed far too often, and especially today where many, many businessmen, because that's what they are, come off as artists of some kind to sell their crap. I'm of those who think we're living in a cultural disaster, and while I understand the way you think, and respect it, I'm afraid that kind of political correctness is part of the problem. Hip-hop is crap - how arrogant it is to say that, but it's a fact, and people with some education, however little, shouldn't be afraid to say it. Ashamed, maybe, but not afraid. But then how do we define 'legitimate'? That's a question I can't answer, but then, if anything is just a matter of personal opinion, why not say Hitler was a profound humanist who worked in the interest of his nation, his people, and so on? You would say, he's killed people, and then make up a rule, when you harm other people, you can't be right. You see, there are rules. Same thing in art, but they're just so hard to define sometimes that people tend to say there aren't any, and others take advantage of that to pretend they're artists and exhibit plastified bodies of executed Chinese dissidents, phalluses representing Justin Bieber or I don't know what. What I'm saying is, art is based on communication, it has to, and narrative is one of its most obvious forms. There's nothing arbitrary in that. One other form could be documentary, but there the emphasis is on information. Could a phone book be art? It can certainly done with art, though. Brian and Mr. Borowski- Some of them were experimental. They had to be because the whole thing was new. But I'm not talking about experimenting, which is vital, but about the films we know under the label "experimental films". It's been said Kubrick was inspired by some Belson piece of film for that famous sequence. Good for him. He could as well have been inspired by a kaleidoscope, a rainbow, flowers, particular lens flare…or a rug. That's his business, he thought it looked cool and did his thing, but that doesn't mean the object of the inspiration was vital, indispensable or has any value at all, let alone artistic. Aside from the book, 2001 had more to do with the then ongoing spatial program, which owed a lot to the Nazi development of V1 and V2 rockets. That doesn't give any sort of justification or value to these weapons and this kind of research. And by the way, the sequence may be visually impressive, doesn’t it interesting or important. Shelly- Now that's something I like to read and I'm sure it does make sense, but I don't know enough, about the craft etc, so I'm not sure I can answer intelligently. In the past, not only did great painters ask such things but they went to the great masters of the time to learn a certain brush stroke, that technique to mix colors, how to compose, etc. You seem to be saying that, after all, it's all subjective. But there are good movies, and bad ones; good cinematography, and bad cinematography. You can't always justify everything by saying 'I meant this', 'I want to express that', 'I felt so'. Otherwise American Pie 2 is a masterpiece and Citizen Kane, pretentious hogwash. Don't you think? Now I'm beginning to bore myself so I won't write anything more on the subject, but I'm looking forward to your answers. Thanks and good luck.

No, quite the opposite. Was that an attempt at some kind of insult?

PS#2: David, the difference with jazz, and almost all musical forms, is that although they're not a "narrative" form in the strictest sense of the word, they do convey a story, well, something, a message, thoughts. What purpose would there be in art if not to say something? To me, such films as Mothlight are dead, it's like staring at a concrete wall. Some people think THAT is art, but I disagree and have no sympathy whatsoever for that kind of thing.

I'm not against a little chat by any means. By "experimental", I'm referring to that particular current, not the experimental quality some films have, or cinema as a whole had in its beginnings. I mean fancy, arty stuff. As for the rug, I can't say it has much storytelling potential, but certainly not less than Mothlight. My original question was basically how can you be experimental now in film-making, which is something I'd love to know, but David Mullen more or less answered the question. PS: And if you're big fans of that particular category of films I denigrate, rightly or not, please don't take what I say to heart, I don't mean to offend anyone here.

In my opinion, no. All art forms are narrative to a certain extent. Lascaux, the Sistine chapel, a painting by Monet, a Shakespeare play, a John Ford film, all tell a story, be it in one frame or several. To me, "experimental" cinema is a recent scam, as is most of what is done in modern art. Do you think Mothlight tells a story? I'd prefer to be staring at a rug instead.

Yes, of course you're right, technically, but I'm thinking serious stuff, not Andy Warhol, Jeff Koons and the likes. If you want to include those people then, yes, you should include advertising, experimental movies like Mothlight, pseudo-artistic things like 'the Wall', etc.

There's been many evolutions from Lascaux to Van Gogh though. Perhaps some art forms are in the end more fecund than others - by which I don't mean to say they're worth more or anything. But overall I think your statement is very true. Adrian, I'll see to it and give you a call in some fifty years. In the meantime, the best of luck to you both and thanks again.

I don't agree, but I see your point. Thank you. It's funny though no one else wants to give their opinion on this.

No homework, just opinions, and I thank you for giving yours. I think it's obvious film hasn't such diversity, our palette is limited, but it doesn't mean we can do nothing and I agree that film is moving and not just a still picture. You accuse me of being naive, childish or I don't know what, well maybe, but I didn't say a word about the tools. Personally I don't care that the tools haven't evolved (they have though, I mentioned CGI and stuff earlier, didn't I). We, human beings, haven't evolved in the last five hundred years, doesn't mean art hasn't. There's development, in all art forms, music, painting, sculpture, but in film, I think it's somewhat limited. Do you think Social Network will be remembered in, say, twenty years for its cinematography and themes? Or Tree of Life? Or Transformers?

Maybe you're right. But, Citizen Kane was and still is regarded as a milestone and great innovation: low angle shots, deep focus, narration style etc. Has there been anything as significant in the last 10-15 years? If so could you please tell me what? And in what field can you now be innovative? You can forget about new angles, everything's been done. Every color treatment, or filters, or every kind of lighting have been used. Tracking shots are not a problem anymore, you could even make a whole feature film in one shot. Outrageous violence and sadism have been depicted, and are barely shocking to today's audience, not to speak of the ethical and artistic value of such devices. Flashbacks are outmoded, actors are getting worse than ever, so I don't know. In painting you had the Renaissance, then the baroque style, academism, etc, impressionism, expressionism, cubism and so on. It's unfortunately impossible in film to have such variety of visual style.

I'm afraid I wasn't very clear: I meant aesthetically speaking or "storytelling wise". Like Citizen Kane or 2001 were ground-breaking, is there anything in our time that might be called that, or that must yet be done? Now that you can do everything digitally, including long tracking shots, etc, I feel there's not much challenge left cinematographically speaking, so I'm asking for ideas and opinions. What is good cinematography in our day? Just beautiful colors and correct exposure?

Hi I'd like to know your thoughts: what is innovation nowadays in film making and cinematography? Now that everything has been done, more or less, in our era of CGI and so on, what might you call groundbreaking, avant-garde etc?