Jump to content

the oscars / best director


John Holland

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No one said you had to be humble or hide your opinion, but if your going to make statement like "Eh....none of the directors nominated were the best directors of the year" and "The whole thing was kind of a joke" you better expect to take a few hits for such an opinionated statement,......

 

More wise words...Good for you James!

 

Cesar Rubio.

 

I must add this statements to James views...(on you better expect some hits...)

 

 

Also...I do not at all feel that, "Everything in America is crap." Who are you? Cesar Rubio's midwestern Twin?

 

You'd better be prepared for a "troll" to defend himself... :angry:

 

Cesar Rubio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why?

 

It's the same with Shatner.

 

Directing actor's isn't all about giving them onset directions. The director has already done a great deal by just casting a particular actor. In this case, we know what kind of performance we are going to get from Nicholson.

 

Shatner basically gives the same performance over and over again. I guess this also goes with the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More wise words...Good for you James!

 

Cesar Rubio.

 

I must add this statements to James views...(on you better expect some hits...)

You'd better be prepared for a "troll" to defend himself... :angry:

 

Cesar Rubio.

 

 

Please don't ruin this one, Cesar. Seriously...don't ruin it, please. You obviously have no interest in the actual debate/argument/discussion/whatever. Your only objective (as it was in the previous thread) is to put people down and troll. This thread's already in enough trouble and no one can understand what you're writing.

 

I made a simple opinionated statement, that I didn't expect to get taken as far or as personally as it did, but I'm still going to appologize: I'm sorry to everyone that James and I took this thread way off track...let's move on.

Edited by Robert Lachenay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't ruin this one, Cesar. Seriously...don't ruin it, please. You obviously have no interest in the actual debate/argument/discussion/whatever. Your only objective (as it was in the previous thread) is to put people down and troll. This thread's already in enough trouble and no one can understand what you're writing.

 

I made a simple opinionated statement, that I didn't expect to get taken as far or as personally as it did, but I'm still going to appologize: I'm sorry to everyone that James and I took this thread way off track...let's move on.

 

Are you sure that I am the one who is "ruin" it?

 

Anyways, apology accepted...lets move on.

 

Cesar Rubio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm done posting about this. After reading James' last post, I don't feel I have anything more to say: this has become a dumb argument. I'm just going to reinforce two things (that are really irrelevant, given the original subject of this thread): Without Chaplin and Eisenstein, there would have been nothing. That's not a matter of opinion, it is fact.

No, That is an opinion.

 

They were so far ahead of thier time in practicing genuine auteurship, mise-en-scène, and trying to articulate visceral, untangible, unfilmable things, that it wasn't until Welles, then post-time french-new wave (ie Godard and Truffaut) that this idea was seen again. Eisenstein's montage theory helped breathe life into film, just as Chaplins removal of the sterile theatricality of earlier films did. They are essentially the backbone of everything that came after...they are what gave directors the okay to direct. The fact that you mention Lucas in the same sentence as Eisenstein kills your argument right there. Regardless of the differences in thier influences over cinema, Eisensteins was invariably greater.

 

See this is what I consider the hight of intellectual snobbery. Lucas revolutionizes the film industry by making it possible for ANYTHING a writer or director's imagination can produce to be put on film and YOU have the unmittigated arrogance to completely dismiss such a monumental acheivement as though it is vitually (pardon the pun) unimportant. If ANYTHING Eisenstein and Lucas definately SHOULD be mentioned together because their efforts parralleled each other. Where Eisenstein used images to produce emotional impact, Lucas used technology to expand the possibilites of those images, yet all you see is a guy who figured out a way to put more realistic spaceships on film. For someone as smart as you are you certainly are short sighted.

 

As far as the oscars: yes, it is about ratings (that doesn't detract from anything, but it's a fact). They pick films that a large portion of the public have seen so that the public can interact and relate with the show itself. No one would sit watching for 5 or so hours if they hadn't seen any of the material presented...there would be no way for them to relate and , as a result, no reason to watch. Didn't anyone else think it a bit funny that Eddie Murphy and Will Smith got a nom? They certainly played thier parts well, but I can think of at least 10 other people who belonged up there instead of them.

 

Now this is the hieght of cynicisum. Just because these guys don't happen to feel that YOUR choises, whiich OBVIOUSLY can't be WRONG, weren't the best efforts, there MUST be some kind of conspiriouscy to get ratings. Oh Brother! If Murphy and Smith were nominated out of turn, it probably had more to do with a sense of political correctness and an attempt to make up for past wrongs done to people of color by the motion picture industry in years past. I actually feel Peter O'Toole was a victim of this political correctness as well. While there is NO Doubt, Forrest Whitaker di an incredable job with The last King of Scotland, as I said previously a career SHOULD be taken into account when voting is done and a man who has been nominated 8 times for an Oscar certainly deserves one. I'm ALSO sure YOU can think of AT LEAST 10 other people who should have been nominated, THAT dosen't suprise me in the least.

 

From the perspective of a serious filmgoer: Yes, it is a bit of a joke how watered down the awards ceremony is. I can also garuntee you that Scorsese cares less about winning an oscar than most of the people in favor of him winning one did....in fact, he's probably more content with having won a palm d'or when Antonioni, Bergman, Truffaut, Godard, Coppola, Aiazaka, Tarkovsky, Kubrick and Bresson were in their peak form (and probably that he's arguably directed 2 of the top 100 films ever made).

 

The real joke is that NONE of these other great artists were on your list. From his post awards interview, it was obvious it did bother him that he hadn't won one up to that point. He mentioned how everyone keeped saying when was he going to win one. There is no doubt, Scorsese probably relished recieving the Cannes award but I would bet this meant more to him. His filmmaking style may be European but he was long conficted with the desire to make a good old fashioned Hollywood film. When New York, New York failed he realized he was a European style filmmaker, but the fact that the American film industry showed their collective appreciation by awarding him their highest honor, must have been more gratifying from a personal standpoint.

 

But this is an argument I don't want to have. All I did was state my opinion (and I felt it was in a pretty level-headed way), and I get jumped on. Do some better things with your time, because your arguments are quite weak (eisenstein also dabbled in hollywood production, does that make him an American filmmaker too?) and actually just...there's no need for them...I didn't do anything to warrant them, merely stated how I felt about the Oscar director awards. There was no need for you to respond with a direct attack (and a quite uninformed one I might add).

 

If you think I'M rough, wait till the critics let loose on you over some film you made that they didn't like. If you're so thin skinned that this little exchange ruffles your feathers then MAYBE you ought to consider another profession. You want to revolutionize the film industry and yet can't take a little discourse from someone who disagrees with you? Ya, you'll make a GREAT trail-blazer. As for being uninformed, you seem to be informed only with opinions, THOSE you're good at and as for "Eisenstein also dabbled in hollywood production, does that make him an American filmmaker too?", if his entire career had been spent in Hollywood or his subject matter was mostly American, yes. In case you didn't know, this wasn't the case, so NO, Dabbling doesn't count.

 

Also...I do not at all feel that, "Everything in America is crap." Who are you? Cesar Rubio's midwestern Twin? I simply felt that, this year, the better directing efforts were from non-american filmmakers (Ummm...except for DAVID LYNCH, you know...because he'd be VERY American). I also really don't like associating one's nationality with his work....in this day and age (unlike 70 years before), that is completely irrelevent. I think Scorsese, Lynch and Paul Thomas Anderson are some of the best currently working directors, and I felt Altman was probably top 3 in the world prior to his death. Don't make such assumptions you can't back up. And they aren't European "Art Films." Sorry. They were films with perfectly normal narrative storylines (minus Inland Empire, the only American film I mentioned), that had much raw and affecting impacts on the audience. Fricken' Greenaway=an "art film." Grow up and learn to appreciate different styles and ways of telling a story, because european films are hardly made up of "art films." (btw...have you not seen Altman's 3 women or Scorsese's After Hours?)

 

Saw em both actaully enjoyed 'em a lot. Of the 2 I prfered After Hours. I've seen a LOT of foriegn films I loved. La Strata is one of my top 5 favorite films. As for growing up, you're the one who wanted to sit in coffee houses and discuss film, well this is it Bucko, or did you REALLY just want to sit in coffee houses and have everyone agree with YOU about film? I'd say your the one who needs to do a little growing up. Not everyone is going to agree with you so get use to it, sonny.

 

I never said anything about these directors being ahead of the curve...and I can garuntee you that in sideache, days of glory, volver and the wind that shook the barley, you know EXACTLY what they are saying through thier work and they are a pleasure to watch. Get off your soap box...it has nothing to do with America vs Europe or "Art Films" vs Commercial Successes. These were the films directors I felt (as is my right, is it not?) gave far superior efforts. That's it...that's all there is.

 

When you make a statement like "Eh....none of the directors nominated were the best directors of the year. The whole thing was kind of a joke and, in all honesty." ESPECIALLY when a genius like Martin Scorsese or Clint Eastwood is up there, then you've thrown down the guantlet, my friend. Don't be surprised when someone picks it up. B)

 

Oh dear i wish i hadnt started this topic now , everyone calm down .

 

John, relax, this is just a discussion of film, no one's armed :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In some very old Kubrick interview, he said that Chaplin and Eisenstein are the two poles of filmmaking.

fortunately they're not mutually exclusive.

 

If one doesn't want to think of Eisenstein as an artist, you can think of him, along with Dziga-Vertov's camera mischief as the foundations of modern TV commercials.

So Sergei Mikhailovich also has a lot to answer for. His hands are almost as dirty as Stalin's.

 

Is the summer blockbuster really an artistic advance?

Ponder that as Hillary and Obama fight over who should reap those summer profits.

 

Well it changed the way films were marketed which allowed producers to get their money back right away. Because of this, it allowed for, in fact encouraged much bigger and more expensive epic films with a slightly less of a chance for financial failure if the formula of big stars in high profile projects were followed and inevitable made sequiels to the sucessful ones a financial imparitive. This allowed these epic films to be done on a scale befitting them. The result was movies like the Star Wars trilogy, Titanic, The Matrix trilogy, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, King Kong, the Alien films, ET, Apocalypse Now, Close Encounters, Jurrassic Park, Die Hard, many great films were able to be made. I think epics are as much art if done well as any small personal independent made. So yes the summer Blockbuster was an artistic advance, but an advance with a double edge to it. Generally, the blockbusters overshadow any smaller films trying to be realeased at the same time, BUT because the blockbusters are generally always reaslesed in summer, that leaves other release dates, though somewhat less desirable, open for smaller films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said: for me, this discussion is over. I really don't want to add or respond to anything. Scorsese is a genius, but doesn't belong up there for every outing (I mean Kundun, Cape Fear, The Color of Money?). I simply named the directors I felt were far more qualified to get nods from the academy. Case closed...nothing more to be said. I don't want to discuss this anymore, because it's frustrating.

 

Taking from my other thread, I asked if anyone wanted to meet for coffee because I'll be moving to Minneapolis and don't know much about the area. It's nice to meet new people and make new acquaintances upon moving to a new area. You're rather mean-spirited in using something like that as a condescending remark toward me. I didn't ask for it and I've hardly treated you with the cruel patronization that you've been treating me with (did I ever undermine you with bitter, sarcasstic remarks, or did Isimply discuss?) I mean in all honesty...as you've shown...you know a lot less about the older filmmakers than you seem to think you know. I'm no film student and it's not that important, but if you're going to start some stupid argument, you better fricken' know how important Chaplin, Eisenstein and Lang were and not compare them in the same sentence as Spielberg, Kubrick and Lucas (Citizen Kane was basically a compilation of thier best technical and narrative principles...countless eisenstein inspired montages...without eisenstein, chaplin and lang, there would be no 2001, Apocolypse Now, or The Godfather, as kubrick excercises thier patented techniques and the entire ending of Apocolypse and the Godfather is just a giant utilization of the "intellectual montage." I mean look at the countless filmmakers who make the exact same films in nrrative style and stylistic technique as Griffis did at the dawn of cinema...Ford, Hawks...none of those guys are complete originals like th ebig three were, and absolutely none of them are responsible for "the summer blockbuster." I think you're confused on how much of an impact American Cinema actually had on the way we see things today. It was a cumulative, international effort, and by no means was America at the forefront of contributions. Also, for the record, Lucas and Spielberg...as far as how they "Revolutionized" the film industry...are but specks in comparison to at least 30 auteurs to have come before them...but as I said, I really don't want to go any deeper into this discussion, your low blow comment about the coffee just really rubbed me the wrong way. Usually, when someone uses such a thing to back up his point--as well as a fricken IMDB quote--it shows that they don't havemuch to contribute to the discussion).

 

And it's La Strada...and Days of Glory and the Wind that Shook the Barley WERE epics.

Edited by Robert Lachenay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And my comment about the Oscars isn't the "height of cynicism," I feel that it's a fair assessment (as does scorsese himself in his discussion with Ebert post-age of innocence about the impact of the oscars). I didn't say they simply projected blockbuster crap, just that they picked films forthe best picture and director nod (and often actor and actress) that a HUGE population of American filmgoers have seen. That way the audience can relate more with the production and actually feel something when a person or piece loses or wins. I mean Little Miss Sunshine was a good, fun film...but it was up there because it's gained an unforseen, domestic cult following (especially upon its DVD release)...and it sort of snuffed out films I think any serious filmgoer would agree were MUCH more qualified to be up for best pic. True it's more difficult to make a good comedy than tragedy, but there were plenty of better films that worked better as tragedis than LMS did as a comedy. The point is: they pick films that the public can relate with. It's a multi-multi MILLION dollar production and they aren't going to squandered it on zero audience...otherwise it'd just be in a tent like the spirit awards.

 

 

But I'm sorry...I keep adding stuff. I don't mean to keep going around in circles.

 

Respond how you will: I'm seriously finished posting on this thread.

Edited by Robert Lachenay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean Little Miss Sunshine was a good, fun film...but it was up there because it's gained an unforseen, domestic cult following (especially upon its DVD release)...and it sort of snuffed out films I think any serious filmgoer would agree were MUCH more qualified to be up for best pic. True it's more difficult to make a good comedy than tragedy, but there were plenty of better films that worked better as tragedis than LMS did as a comedy. The point is: they pick films that the public can relate with. It's a multi-multi MILLION dollar production and they aren't going to squandered it on zero audience...otherwise it'd just be in a tent like the spirit awards.

 

John,

 

This is just an observation, and not meant as a dig, but I believe that the above is the same type of comment that got you the title of elitist by another forum member. The statement refers to the average moviegoer as if his or her opinion of a film's real quality or merit were only formed viscerally, and based in ignorance. That type of message also suggests that only industry and film savvy experts are able to actually determine what makes a movie worthy of critical praise and/or an award like an Oscar.

 

Please bare with me while I give you an example of what I mean. I recently had a conversation with a young man, who is in his senior year at University of Utah. His major is city planning, and we were discussing what I believe to be some of the most unintelligent highway design that I have experienced anywhere in the country. I am referring specifically to the I-15 renovations that were done prior to and to facilitate the 2002 Olympics traffic. Many of the new on and off ramps are quite literally death traps.

 

Anyway, he and I went back and forth on the issue of competence and design-understanding among the so-called professionals who design such projects, until he finally looked me in the eye and told me that people like him - in his future roll as city planner - are needed to figure out what is good for the average person, because that person doesn't understand the real difference between good and bad design (roads and such). My response was immediate and in the form of a question. I asked him if he actually believed that the average, blue-collar joe, who navigated the same roads, day in and out for decades, didn't know the difference between a well or poorly designed road? Better yet, would that same joe likely not have an intelligent idea regarding to how to better route a particular road, on/off ramp, etc.? The student was taken off guard by my question, although he did eventually acknowledge that he got the message.

 

He (the future city planner) and we (the film industry professionals) would be wise to realize that our job is to first look at our project designs from the POV of the people who will actually use them. Only after that understanding has been achieved, should we turn to our technical expertise for the purpose of creating a product that will satisfy our customer, audience, what have you. Within those criteria is, I believe, where one is free to express his or her creative abilities, and not in a way that technically and intellectually flys over the heads of the people for whom those projects were created. That is poor design.

 

Movies are made for the general public. They (we) are the "serious filmgoer". Ask any Blockbuster manager how many films the average customer watches per month, and you might be surprised. Industry folks, e.g., film students, critics, DP's, etc., are not necessarily the "serious filmgoers". Critics, IMO, are generally no better qualified to evaluate the merits of a given film than is the average joe on the street. Critics just gift-wrap their opinions in pseudo-intellectual hyperbole, in order to make themselves sound more qualified than they actually are.

 

The point is that dismissing or underestimating the average joe's ability to understand what makes a good road, movie, something which that joe uses on a daily basis, is condescending, which is why it comes off as elitist. Moreover, such a POV is shortsighted.

 

As for Little Miss Sunshine, it is not a success because the average moviegoer doesn't know better. Rather, it is successful because its story is one to which most human beings can relate on a very personal level. It exposes the imperfect - almost absurd - nature of the human condition in the most compassionate way - making one feel that, in spite of our incurable imperfections and immense differences, we can still have faith in humanity. It was, IMO, a brilliant film.

 

My two cents.

 

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi Ken dont think anyone on here has called me an [ elitist ] more of a numb nut i should think for not being to keen on most of David Lynch's films .

 

I was referring to Robert Lachenay. Look at the quote in my last post. I wrote John, but I meant Robert. My mistake. You see? Human imperfections.

Edited by Ken Cangi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Movies are made for the general public. They (we) are the "serious filmgoer". Ask any Blockbuster manager how many films the average customer watches per month, and you might be surprised. Industry folks, e.g., film students, critics, DP's, etc., are not necessarily the "serious filmgoers". Critics, IMO, are generally no better qualified to evaluate the merits of a given film than is the average joe on the street. Critics just gift-wrap their opinions in pseudo-intellectual hyperbole, in order to make themselves sound more qualified than they actually are.

I think one needs to make the disctinction between art and entertainment. Entertainment is indeed made for the general public (in the case of movies, this is the Teen and Twen crowd) and its success can be meassured by its popularity and box-office.

 

On the other hand there are films that do not aim to entertain people, but are pieces of art. The average Joe will in general not like such films (if he sees them in the first place), because they do not conform to his expectations (i.e. to have a good time). That does not mean that the average Joe is not intelligent enough to appreciate an art film (because he is), but appreciation of art is not something that is innate, but must be acquired. I do not necessarily mean getting a certain knowledge (because I think good art should be universally understood), but an open-mindedness towards the different experiences that cinema can provide one with. Unfortunately many people do not want to make that effort.

 

For instance I find it incredibly disheartening to overhear people who refuse to see a film because it is in black&white. Around Christmas a magazine here in London even mentioned a Frank Capra film, but said that it being in B&W was a 'drawback'.

 

As such I value the opinions of the serious movie-goes and critics much more because they bring the open-mindedness necessary to not want a film to conform to their expectations, but to accept it for what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

 

This is just an observation, and not meant as a dig, but I believe that the above is the same type of comment that got you the title of elitist by another forum member. The statement refers to the average moviegoer as if his or her opinion of a film's real quality or merit were only formed viscerally, and based in ignorance. That type of message also suggests that only industry and film savvy experts are able to actually determine what makes a movie worthy of critical praise and/or an award like an Oscar.

 

 

Okay...perhaps I'm just expressing my feelings incorrectly because that is not at all what I meant ot insinuate. It really isn't. The initial point that this quote was derived from was that way, way back, James said something along the lines of, "There's a reason the academy picked those films and not your stupid, european art films." (referring to sideache, days of glory, and the wind that shook the barley). What I'm trying to say is that there IS a reason they picked the film they picked: They were all good films (excluding babel, imo, but that's just my opinion), but were films that were all fully available to the general public. The reason the films I mentioned and thier directors were not entered was because it would disclude the audience from interacting with the show itself: the oscars. I mean look at it this way...in 1996, breaking the waves was probably about as strong of a film as you could get, however (at the time) it wasn't recieved by enough people to gain a spot among the best pic/best director noms, where it most certainly deserved. I'm not saying ANYTHING about the "average filmgoer"...that is not my statement. My commenst are directed 100% toward the academy and how they for thier choices. It IS rating based (however I am not at all insinuating they lack merit), and the films, actors and directors they select are those that a large number of people will be able to say, "Hey, I've seen those films," and in turn interact with the program.

 

So it was not at all about the "Average" movie goer....more about how they formed thier choices. IMO, little miss sunshine was great, but lost it in its final scenes...I feel that, if they were going to go that route, perhaps children of men or a few other films deserved a spot in the best pic place, instead of LMSS.

Edited by Robert Lachenay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm sorry for the bad grammar...it won't let me edit and I have a problem proof reading.

 

I'm not an elitist...that's simply the impression James is trying to give others through his remarks. I'm gladd Million Dollar Baby got the Oscar...hey...I'm glad the English Patient got it. I don't believe in terms like "the average movie goer," and I despise hostility toward foreign cinema as if it were simply "pretentious arthouse dribble." All I did, in my origianl post that got blown way out of proportion, was give my opinion that there were 4 other directors who deserved the award/nom much more than those nominated for thier work in 06. I wasn't saying they were better directors than Scorsese or Greengrass or Eastwood or etc...just that the work they did in thier '06 films had more merit in my eyes. The reason I said it was "a joke" is because it really seemed to me like they were patronizing scorsese, as if this award was inevitable, regardless of tthe other directors and thier work, because they failed to give it to him for Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Age of Innocence, Taxi Driver and LToC, on and on (films that were so far beyond anything else running that year that it was a cinematic SIN not to give him the statue...and no oscar for the friggen' departed--a great film, but peanuts in comparison to his other work--could make up for it). And if that were to be so, I would have just as soon seen Lynch, Almodovar, Loach, and others up there, as they really made an attempt to transcend and take thier work to the next, very personal level. I really don't understand how this argument came about...I felt justified in giving that opinion, but apparently I wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one needs to make the disctinction between art and entertainment. Entertainment is indeed made for the general public (in the case of movies, this is the Teen and Twen crowd) and its success can be meassured by its popularity and box-office.

 

I have a problem with this comment, because it assumes that films like LMS are made for public consumption. This movie falls squarely in the genre of indie filmmaking, and the maker was clear about why he made it and what inspired him - that having little to do with selling box-office tickets to teens and tweens. Its popularity was a result of his having told a story that related to and moved human beings. I dare say that he did it in a very artful way.

 

On the other hand there are films that do not aim to entertain people, but are pieces of art. The average Joe will in general not like such films (if he sees them in the first place), because they do not conform to his expectations (i.e. to have a good time).

 

"To have a good time" can mean different things to different people. Being emotionally moved - even in a traumatic way - by a film can create a feeling of satisfaction for a particular movie patron. Being moved by the sheer beauty of cinematography can for another, as can an avant-garde plot, for yet another. I would agree that it shouldn't be requisite to seek to "entertain" people with every film, although one should strive to move the film patron in a way that satisfies his and her senses.

 

As such I value the opinions of the serious movie-goes and critics much more because they bring the open-mindedness necessary to not want a film to conform to their expectations, but to accept it for what it is.

 

I disagree with the idea that critics are necessarily more open-minded about films. My experience with many so-called professional critics? reviews is that quite a few of those folks seem to want to paint themselves as more intellectually enlightened than the average movie patron. Consequently, they pan any flick that has even the slightest hint of mass appeal attached to it. I have also noticed that many critics immediately fall in line will the opinions of their more popular or powerful brethren rather than to take an independent position that might make them look clueless among those more influential critics. That type of attitude, IMO, could hardly be classified as open-minded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I have a problem with this comment, because it assumes that films like LMS are made for public consumption. This movie falls squarely in the genre of indie filmmaking, and the maker was clear about why he made it and what inspired him - that having little to do with selling box-office tickets to teens and tweens. Its popularity was a result of his having told a story that related to and moved human beings. I dare say that he did it in a very artful way.

If you want to talk about 'Little Miss Sunshine' in particular, then I must say that in my book it is not an art film as I understand them. It has a classical narrative structure, it makes you identify with the characters, it is shot in a very conventional way (intensified continuity as David Bordwell calls it) and as such, despite its quirky character, it is as conventional as any Hollywood film and is obvioulsy aimed at the general filmgoing public.

 

This by the way is not supposed to be in any way a criticism of a film that I thought was very entertaining, merely an observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm happy for Marty regardless of the questionable nominees for this year. He'd been shafted so many times, and directorially "The Departed" was a superb film, so I have no problem with him winning it this year.

 

How convenient though, that Coppola, Lucas and Spielberg were presenting that night...ha ha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to talk about 'Little Miss Sunshine' in particular, then I must say that in my book it is not an art film as I understand them. It has a classical narrative structure, it makes you identify with the characters, it is shot in a very conventional way (enhanced continuity as David Bordwell calls it) and as such, despite its quirky character, it is as conventional as any Hollywood film and is obvioulsy aimed at the general filmgoing public.

 

This by the way is not supposed to be in any way a criticism of a film that I thought was very entertaining, merely an observation.

 

I agree with you in that LMS wouldn't be classified as an art film "in the generally accepted sense". It is, however, and more related to my earlier point, an indie film as opposed to a commercial or studio film. Although it does basically follow a classical narrative structure, it could still technically be considered in the art film genre by virtue of the fact that it is an indie film rather than a studio film. I think a better distinction is that LMS would never be considered an experimental or avant-garde film.

 

I completely disagree that LMS is as conventional as any Hollywood film. That is not to say that certain indies aren't just studio wannabes incognito. I just don't feel that LMS is one of them.

Edited by Ken Cangi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope you guys read my last posts. This has nothing to do with art films or...I don't know what. The discussion got sidetracked and went into a debate about film influence and artistic integrity and blah, blah, blah. All this came from the simple fact that I had an opinion that there were 4 other films that had direction that blew me away and led me to believe that they deserved being up there, but would never be afforded that opportunity, due to thier limited American release...nor would they have won, due to the almost inevitable, reserved Oscar for Scorsese (and don't get me wrong...he did a brilliant, almost Hitchcockian job in the Departed...I just felt it was nowhere near the quality of the films he got shafted for and that the directors I named were much moreinnovative and noticeably invested much more of themselves into thier work). That was the part I was referring to as being "the joke." If you didn't know they were absolutely going to give him the oscar, then I don't know what to tell you. Like I said: "Appeal, appeal, appeal and audience interaction." It had become fully aware to people who had never even heard of scorsese before, that he "has been shafted countless times and has it a'comin'. "

 

Days of Glory...Sideache...both fit into the normal narrative structure, they were just so deeply moving, well performed and detailed (as moving and detailed as the wind that shook the barley, volver--which inexplicably got no foreign film nod--and inland empire) that I felt they trumped the directing efforts of the academy's noms and transcended any possible predictability that one might expect from the genre's the belong. I don't think labels are important...and, to me, what is "entertaining" is seeing something new...something refreshing...something that makes me breathe and get all tensed up with excitement. I want visceral and intellectual...I've seen too much to simply be pleased with retreads. The films I mentioned were not retreads and thier directors excercised such care in making them that they'll last in my memory (as this whole thing was my own, personal opinion, no?) for far longer than United 93...The Departed...Babel...etc.

 

This isn't elitist stuff....it's my opinion about a few films. I've had trouble articulating some of the things I feel and have had to re-word them for people to better understand, but we all make mistakes and I won't ever claim to be some intellectual or talented debater. I'm sorry if I've come off as being confrontational or have given a poor impression...that was not my intention. I havent given any condescending remarks (elitist, average movie goer, etc....) toward those who disagree with me and have taken a lot of heat from a poster who, instead of simply stating his own opinion on the oscars, has retreated into bad mouthing me and side tracking this entire thread into the irrelevant. I imagine this thread was created to promote discussion and as a forum for our opinions of the awards ceremony, sunday night....let's not continue using it for tense, irrelevant arguments. I don't want to leave anymore of a bad impression (if I have), nor do I want to get any bad impression of others. I respect your opinions as long as they aren't used to start personal confrontation with other posters...please respect mine too, as that's all my original post was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Directing actor's isn't all about giving them onset directions. The director has already done a great deal by just casting a particular actor. In this case, we know what kind of performance we are going to get from Nicholson.

 

Shatner basically gives the same performance over and over again. I guess this also goes with the former.

 

Jack consistently gives the same over the top performance and does whatever business he wants to do.

 

From what I've read, Shatner is considered undirectable. Hecomes to the set with his performances locked in. On 'Star Trek', if another character had a good line he would insist it be given to Kirk, even if were that character's only line in that episode.

 

Though for some reason Jack isn't considered quite the joke Bill is.

Edited by Leo Anthony Vale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...And sorry my grammar and word choice aren't that great...and sorry for sort of poorly expressing some of my thoughts. I'm def not super smart or good at writing essays, and I don't really feel like reading back over what I've written to pick out/fix what mistakes I've made.

 

Jack consistently gives the same over the top performance and does whatever business he wants to do.

 

 

That's really not true about Nicholson. Perhaps now in his older age, but he certainly has been able to vary his performances throughout his career. I mean Chinatown, the shining, about schmidt...many of his earlier films...they are completely different performances. It depends on what role you want him to play...he does have his patented over-the-top villain performance (which must have developed during the first burton batman film) that many directors order-in for thier own purposes. In the departed, this role was needed...it was the sort of careless, visceral, bostonian accent that balanced out the divide between the characters played by Damon and DiCaprio...it also conveyed a constant sense of unease that seeped into the other scenes and helped give them the atmosphere they needed to enhance the filmgoer's experience.

Edited by Robert Lachenay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think epics are as much art if done well as any small personal independent made. So yes the summer Blockbuster was an artistic advance, but an advance with a double edge to it. Generally, the blockbusters overshadow any smaller films trying to be realeased at the same time, BUT because the blockbusters are generally always reaslesed in summer, that leaves other release dates, though somewhat less desirable, open for smaller films.

 

I'm hardly anti-epic. '2001', 'The Leopard', 'fall of the Roman Empire', 'Ivan the terrible', 'war and Peace' and 'the seven Samurai' are among my favorites. Even 'Khartoum' and maybe 'Gladiator' thou in a number of ways its a rip off of "Fall of the Roman Empire', and I don't believe the writer's claim he never saw it, unless he read the comic book instead.

 

The blockbuster has degenerated into mindless pootertoon franchises. Maybe okay for video game players,

but more meat would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope you guys read my last posts. This has nothing to do with art films or...I don't know what. The discussion got sidetracked and went into a debate about film influence and artistic integrity and blah, blah, blah. All this came from the simple fact that I had an opinion that there were 4 other films that had direction that blew me away and led me to believe that they deserved being up there, but would never be afforded that opportunity, due to thier limited American release...nor would they have won, due to the almost inevitable, reserved Oscar for Scorsese (and don't get me wrong...he did a brilliant, almost Hitchcockian job in the Departed...I just felt it was nowhere near the quality of the films he got shafted for and that the directors I named were much moreinnovative and noticeably invested much more of themselves into thier work). That was the part I was referring to as being "the joke." If you didn't know they were absolutely going to give him the oscar, then I don't know what to tell you. Like I said: "Appeal, appeal, appeal and audience interaction." It had become fully aware to people who had never even heard of scorsese before, that he "has been shafted countless times and has it a'comin'. "

 

Days of Glory...Sideache...both fit into the normal narrative structure, they were just so deeply moving, well performed and detailed (as moving and detailed as the wind that shook the barley, volver--which inexplicably got no foreign film nod--and inland empire) that I felt they trumped the directing efforts of the academy's noms and transcended any possible predictability that one might expect from the genre's the belong. I don't think labels are important...and, to me, what is "entertaining" is seeing something new...something refreshing...something that makes me breathe and get all tensed up with excitement. I want visceral and intellectual...I've seen too much to simply be pleased with retreads. The films I mentioned were not retreads and thier directors excercised such care in making them that they'll last in my memory (as this whole thing was my own, personal opinion, no?) for far longer than United 93...The Departed...Babel...etc.

 

This isn't elitist stuff....it's my opinion about a few films. I've had trouble articulating some of the things I feel and have had to re-word them for people to better understand, but we all make mistakes and I won't ever claim to be some intellectual or talented debater. I'm sorry if I've come off as being confrontational or have given a poor impression...that was not my intention. I havent given any condescending remarks (elitist, average movie goer, etc....) toward those who disagree with me and have taken a lot of heat from a poster who, instead of simply stating his own opinion on the oscars, has retreated into bad mouthing me and side tracking this entire thread into the irrelevant. I imagine this thread was created to promote discussion and as a forum for our opinions of the awards ceremony, sunday night....let's not continue using it for tense, irrelevant arguments. I don't want to leave anymore of a bad impression (if I have), nor do I want to get any bad impression of others. I respect your opinions as long as they aren't used to start personal confrontation with other posters...please respect mine too, as that's all my original post was.

 

Would you like some cheese to go with that whine. If you're going to put words in my mouth at least have the decency to write better lines. You are completely ellitist with reguards to film. The fact that you would so readilly dismiss the most successful director in the history of cinema and the man completely revolutionalized the way films are made as specks in film history shows the depth of that ellitism. The arrogance with which you state emphatically that sideache, days of glory, and the wind that shook the barley will be remembered far longer that Babel or The Departed is mind boggeling. . III don't know a lot about film history? No I know a LOT about film history, I just don't revere it with the same kind od fanatisium you seem to have. First of all Eisenstein was not working alone when he was forming his montage theories. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari had already shown the impact of images and non realistic elements to convey abstracts such as insanity 5 years before Strike. Dziga Vertov, Lev Kuleshov, Vsevolod Pudovkin ALL worked with motage. Griffith was one of the first to recognize the power of edithing to create emotional impact well before Eisenstein. Eisenstein's work was hopelessly tied to politics amd Maxism which I believe weaked his credibilty with reguards to pue artistic intent where as Pudovkin saw montage as a way to express interpersonal relationships and create a more intimate emotional impact. However that was 90 years ago and we have moved on sence then. La Strata is an EPIC!!!??? Kurosawa's Ran maybe but La Strata? Do you even KNOW what an epic is? My biggest problem with you is you don't see the EPIC as art unless of course it's made by Kurosawa, which in my humble opinion is redicules. Star Wars is one of the greatest peices of art I've ever seen yet it's artist genius is completely lost on you. It draws from the culmination of every myth ever told, and this was intentional by Lucas. When he was crafting the story, he drew from his studies and classes in myth to gather the element he needed to tell the story. It remains, 30 years after it's inital release, a source of inspiration and joy to millions. What Lucas did to make this epic work visually and by nessesity in order to be able to tell this story the way he felt he had to litterally change the way movies are now made. NOT ONLY by being able to creat fantasitical creatures and nonexistant lands but in very natualistic settings and in films that you can't tell that the image has been manipulated, but the impact of the manipulated image is felt on a deeply emotional level. Myth and legend have always been the source of great art. The Illyad and the Oddessy. Bewulf, Camelot, Sinbad, and countless others all are art, movies before there was the technogy to make movies. Shakespeare's plays were epic. Bertolt Brecht created what was deemed "Epic Theater" . Yet you dismiss anything that dosen't fall into your definition of quality as something well below art and anyone who enjoys this as people who know nothing about film. Amazing! Did it ever occur to you that the reason "a HUGE population of American filmgoers have seen " the movies that were nominated is because they were VERY GOOD movies, artfully done and skillfully exicuted and maybe the films you felt were snubbed didn't in fact communicate to their audeances as well as the ones that were nominated? NO, of course not, It doesn't jive with your definision of art. You say inflamitory things like I know nothing about film and I'm attacking you personally when in actuallity I'm attacking your stance on film as art. You act as though your statements are some kind of edict from the All Mighty himself because you uttered them and because I think your statments are flat wrong that that means I know nothing about film. I know this that the definition of art can't be contained in that walled in box you've set out as criteria and that YOUR definition or as you so eloquently put it, your humble opinion, is not a law that must be adhered to as the gospel according to Robert. Just because you've studied some film history and drawn certain concusions doesn't make them correct. To be honest when you make statements like how rediculas it is to compare the accomplishments of Chaplin, Eisenstein and Lang in the same sentence as Spielberg, Kubrick and Lucas, shows me just how narrow-minded and stuck intellectual dogma you really are, It also tells me you can't look at the big picture which is a really big detrament for a director at ANY time in history. You are right about one thing though, this is growing tiresome. You can't debate a man who already has all the answers, so why try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hardly anti-epic. '2001', 'The Leopard', 'fall of the Roman Empire', 'Ivan the terrible', 'war and Peace' and 'the seven Samurai' are among my favorites. Even 'Khartoum' and maybe 'Gladiator' thou in a number of ways its a rip off of "Fall of the Roman Empire', and I don't believe the writer's claim he never saw it, unless he read the comic book instead.

 

The blockbuster has degenerated into mindless pootertoon franchises. Maybe okay for video game players,

but more meat would be nice.

 

I actually prefered The Magnificent Seven myself. You missed a few. The The Lord of the Rings trilogy was as good as ANYTHING on your list and I've seen them all. So were Jaws, The StarWars series, Radiers of the Lost Ark, Preditor, Alien and Aliens, Titanic, and so, SOOO many others. Sure there are some bad movies. I HATE the Saw films. I also hated the Dukes of Hazzard, but in all honesty, if it hadn't been for Catherine Bach in those Daisy Dukes I probably would have never even seen any of the original series and even with that I only saw a half dozen episopes or so. But you have to admit when a Blockbuster hits, it certainly lives up to it's name and with so much money invested in one film, there's certainly enough incentive for thr film makers to make a movie people want to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CINELEASE

CineLab

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Film Gears

Visual Products

BOKEH RENTALS

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...