For those of us who hate Hollywood films... [Archive] - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

Jay_Blanchard

04-15-2004, 06:31 AM

There, I'm logged on now.

First of all, this is a forum for people who hate Hollywood film. If you like it, don't post here.

I started this thread because when the "film discussion" board first came on, "Dogville" was one of the first films mentioned. I figured at least someone here appreciated good cinema.

No, this is not a joke. And sorry John, but if you've never heard of Stan Brakhage, you pretty much don't have the right to hold a camera.

"Short film" is discussed as if it were a four-letter word, yet i've seen 2-3 minute long films that have more content & stylistic and intellectual depth that the majority of films coming out of the money factories in California.

For anyone who wants to discuss film as an art form and not just as mindless escapist nonsense, check out the ILX "I Love Film" site:

ilx.wh3rd.net/newquestions.php?board=35

And Anartiste, you got one thing right--you certainly like your "bubble gum". I'd expect more from someone from France--your nation pretty much invented the concept of the avant-garde. Are you plowing over the poetics of jean cocteau for the primate-response explosions and eye candy of michael bay?

it's too bad really. this camera could have such a democratizing effect for filmmakers, but it seems like 99% of its users just want to make a cheapened re-enactment of the standard garbage already being produced.

David Jimerson

04-15-2004, 06:39 AM

Wow! Hey! I never fully understood before this post that "art" has a such a concrete, ironclad, narrow, and immutable definition!

Nor did I understand that "democratizing" means "lock-step conformity with pretentious nonsense"!

Guess I still need to learn a few things, alas . . . :'(

J.R. Hudson

04-15-2004, 07:47 AM

Jay? Jay! Jay.

It's you? You're running this smack? Let me clarify if I may:

First, I (and anyone else) can post wherever we want. Especially a post such as this. This is exactly the kind of post that gets the fires going and fuels our passions.

Second, good cinema is subjective isn't it?

Third, I have heard of Brakhage but am not familar with his work. Now come on. Stop. Honestly. "No right to hold a camera?" Jay, Jay, Jay.

Fourth, A Short Film is no way a 'Four Letter' word in my book. When I proclamied "Short Films" I was just surprised that they were not features and it is most likley one of the reasons I have not seen or become aware of them. I love Short Films. Come on now.

Fifth, I share the same sentiment as most I think in the perception of the 'Holloywood' Film. The 'Bubblegum'. The 'Popcorn'. The 'Crap.' Are there HOLLYWOOD films released that I do like? Hell yes. I would love to know what you consider a HOLLYWOOD film specifically? That is a very broad term.

Brad_Thames

04-15-2004, 10:12 AM

Stan who? I gotta put up my camera and go research this guy.

BLWolf

04-15-2004, 10:30 AM

I had never heard of Stan Brakhage before. What kind of complete and total loser am I? :-/ ::)

I'm going to do a little research on him. I hope his work doesn't turn out to be some totally obscure stuff that elitist cinephile douchebags call art and use to look down on those who haven't heard of him.

J.R. Hudson

04-15-2004, 10:54 AM

Booyaa!

Guest

04-15-2004, 11:13 AM

Someone mentioned "Morvern Callar", which I saw the other day and think it's a masterpiece. Really, it's work like this that made me want to pick up a camera in the first place.

Brakhage has taught me too much to mention, even if I'd prefer making narrative films. His editing and images have permiated throughout Hollywood films and music videos for decades. His body of work is intimidating, to put it mildly. [His friend, Ken Jacobs, was a professor of mine and is as great as Brakhage I'd say].

And more of a personal response, I bought this camera not because I could "go up" against Hollywood types, but for making small films, personal films, out of the realm of big business. There's a big price to pay for making films on a big budget, and artistic vision comes third to business and salaries. This is a terrific piece of work, allowing one to control their own visual pallate. If only one could hold up a tape to light and see movement frame by frame.

So really, whatever your cup of tea is, make films. Different films. Things are happening in this world right now worth showing, don't ignore them! For three grand, you can make a grand statement and have it look pretty wonderful.

ML

Daniel_Runyon

04-15-2004, 11:21 AM

How (and How Not) to Do it:
An Open Letter to the Next Generation of American Filmmakers

http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/indievision/opentext.htm

J.R. Hudson

04-15-2004, 11:22 AM

You nailed it for me in "make films, different films..."

Different bodies of work speak in different ways to each person whether its Brackhage or The A Team (You get the point!). I read up on Brackhage this morning, and while it does indeed not sound like my cup of tea (although visual imagery I can appreciate in any genre of medium) it is an impressive resume; I'll keep an eye out for his work that I can watch for myself.

I wonder if Jay will still let me 'hold' my DVX?

Jay_Blanchard

04-15-2004, 02:09 PM

I never told anyone what they could and could not watch--I only requested a forum for people who aren't interested in mainstream film.

I appreciate Michael Lieberman's post, which was the only response that seems fitting in this forum. The rest of you just seem like you've all gotten huffy for me putting down your favorite movies. Guess what--I'm used to people putting down the films that interest me for being "artsy" or "pretentious" or whatever other phrase that a person coins something as when they're afraid to admit they don't understand it.

You've got millions of people out there who think Star Wars is the next thing since sliced bread. So at least let the few of us who think its garbage have our own quiet little haven to discuss the films we find meaningful.

I have no problem bickering back and forth about the merits of films, but to be honest, I've been through these debates a thousand times & I would rather just have a discussion with people with similar tastes.

Jay_Blanchard

04-15-2004, 02:10 PM

Also, Mike, you're incredibly lucky to have studied under Ken Jacobs--I'm a big fan of his work.

Do you participate in the Frameworks listserv?

David Jimerson

04-15-2004, 03:13 PM

I never told anyone what they could and could not watch

No, you just presumed to decide who does and does not have the "right to hold a camera" while at the same time whining about "democracy."

The rest of you just seem like you've all gotten huffy for me putting down your favorite movies.

I couldn't care less, actually. What got me "huffy" is the sneering, pretentious attitude not toward the films, but toward the people . . . all the while whining about "democracy." I guess, according to you, it's only "democracy" if people do what you want them to.

You've got millions of people out there who think Star Wars is the next thing since sliced bread. *So at least let the few of us who think its garbage have our own quiet little haven to discuss the films we find meaningful.

You make it sound like it's an either/or proposition.

Terry_Lasater

04-15-2004, 03:56 PM

You go, David! ;)

Jay,

If you want some respect... you better show us something to respect.

And it's certainly not your attitude. We will pounce on someone with an asshole attitude. >:(

J.R. Hudson

04-15-2004, 04:15 PM

Jay

You still havent told me what your idea is of the HOLLYWOOD FILM and what is NOT. Back up with some facts will ya? I mean, at least say something with substance.

You know I am quite surprised really by your posts and the defensive hositility you are taking. Really. I am curious; define for me what the HOLLYWOOD film is and why you hate it so much. You've had this conversation a thousand times and you are in no mood to debate? I'm sure most of us will agree on what is Hollywood and what is not in your mind. You think I give a fuck if you like Star Wars or Jaws? Come on man.

David Jimerson

04-15-2004, 04:37 PM

Besides, I'm not so constricted in thought or in taste that I don't recognize the possibility of *liking* a movie even though I *know* it's bad. Nor am I so indoctrinated that I automatically enjoy every single movie that I can appreciate as objectively good.

Phil

04-15-2004, 06:29 PM

We have chewing gums here in France called "Hollywood". They're the most popular in the country.

I'm personally fond of the "Hollywood Power Mint" dragées. I chew them two by two. Much more powerful than TicTacs. They refresh the breath and keep you awake. Really good gums actually.

Unless you swallow them of course… *:-/

In the midst of this discussion there's a comment on gum! That's priceless. My breath is kickin, I need a piece... :D

Jay_Blanchard

04-16-2004, 06:47 AM

I don't really have the time to go into this thoroughly, so i won't. this is also not what i wanted for this post. i've been through these debates a thousand times between film school & other forums & i'm sick of explaining my position. i'd rather just discuss with like-minded people.

john, first of all, i think you took my comment about "holding the camera" a little too much to heart. it was basically just hyperbole. saying you've never heard of stan brakhage is like saying you've never heard of orson welles or steven spielberg-his output has been far greater, in every meaning of the word as far as i'm concerned.

as for my definition of "hollywood film", i left it deliberately narrow, because there are many exceptions to standard Hollywood fare-- indie narratives, underground, documentary, experimental/avant-garde, etc. not everyone thinks of being a filmmaker as working on a set with dozens of other folks with a script & a big budget. in fact, that's the last thing that some folks every want to do.

i simply wanted a forum for people who engage in this type of filmmaking or are interested in it. i'm being accused of snobbery, yet it seems any time i try to introduce an alternative to narrative filmmaking on this site, it gets snubbed. so fuck it--i'll stick to Frameworks and ILX for good film discussion and debate. it's better than the petty name calling that's making up the bulk of this forum.

rsbush

04-16-2004, 08:13 AM

Don't go Jay!
Thanks for the heads up to the Jem Cohen/Elliot Smith film, it's downloading as we speak. Can't believe I wasn't aware of it. Lately I've seen "The 70's A Decade Under the Influence" which was an IFC thing I think but a very imformative documentary. Great lessons to be learned there. Another was "Interview with the Assassin", I'm not big on the conceit that the whole thing plays as a documentary but it works. Ray Barry stars in it, he's a spectacular theater artist who's rarely used well in films who shines in this. I've also recently seen "Decalogue" by Krzysztof Kieslowski a series of 10 one hour dramas made for Polish TV. I really admire how Kieslowski's handles character so cinematically. And last night a friend and I watched Kill Bill Vol. 1, YAWNNN.

J.R. Hudson

04-16-2004, 08:28 AM

Point taken Jay and thanks fro clarifying. (I'm running to the closet to get my DVX). As much as I love the Hollywood film I have a diversified range of taste in all Art mediums; kind of goes back to the "IF it's good, it's good no matter what it is".

My film taste can run the spectrum but I lean towards the Hollywood branded film moreso than the experimental, non-narrative and like.

But...

I HATE the formula HOLLYWOOD crap but when 'they' do do it right, it's amazing. Now we can be friends again.

:D

Jay_Blanchard

04-16-2004, 10:10 AM

Gotta make it quick or I'll miss my flight to NAB & sunny Vegas! 8)

John--never meant to have any bitter feelings; i think we just both wrote things that sounded right in our heads and ended up sounding harsh in print. no hard feelings!

And I don't hate everything that comes out of Hollywood, but I'm more of a fan of film as an individual art form. Smaller scale, more difficult/obscure ideas, radical approaches. I'm not saying that this never happens with a Hollywood produced film, but it's more rare because of the politics involved with a commercial piece. When you get $100 million dollars to make a film, there is generally a vested interest in profit by the financiers, and severe limitations have to be made in order to gain the largest audience. It's kind of like the way a politician will be ferociously left-wing until he enters the presidential election and takes a quick turn to the center (unless you're Howard Dean--and I am a Vermonter!).

Anyway, no time to get into that right now. rsbush, i'd definitely like to speak with you more about this. "decalogue" is amazing! definitely join the ILX "I Love Film" forum; you'll love it.

BLWolf

04-16-2004, 01:21 PM

---"I don't really have the time to go into this thoroughly, so i won't. this is also not what i wanted for this post. *i've been through these debates a thousand times between film school & other forums & i'm sick of explaining my position. *i'd rather just discuss with like-minded people."

Then why bring it up so condescendingly in an open discussion forum if discussing this topic is so very tiresome to you except with people who share your exact same opinion? If you've been through this debate a thousand times and you're sick of defending your position, then why begin the thread in such an antagonistic fashion? You put yourself in the position of having to defend your opinion by being so abrasive straight out of the gate. It's perfectly obvious that this forum is filled with fans of Spielberg and Lucas; can it be possible that somehow you thought that your comment about them deserving to be "dragged out into the street and shot" would not immediately generate a negative attitude towards you and your topic? Why not just say, "Hey everyone, check out these cool non-mainstream, non-Hollywood filmmakers. I see their work being superior to much of what H'wood churns out because of blah blah blah . . ." and open the discussion in a positive way?

---"saying you've never heard of stan brakhage is like saying you've never heard of orson welles or steven spielberg-his output has been far greater, in every meaning of the word as far as i'm concerned."

I had never heard of Stan Brakhage, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I thank you for bringing him to my attention. I plan to explore his work. Has he ever made a feature-length film? It seems that people who do only shorts are mostly destined to remain obscure. I enjoy good short films, btw.

---"as for my definition of "hollywood film", i left it deliberately narrow, because there are many exceptions to standard Hollywood fare-- indie narratives, underground, documentary, experimental/avant-garde, etc. * not everyone thinks of being a filmmaker as working on a set with dozens of other folks with a script & a big budget. *in fact, that's the last thing that some folks every want to do."

I like all kinds of films for all kinds of different reasons. And, some of the films that I love are the types films that you seem to dislike. I love Spielberg's and Lucas's "Raiders of the Lost Ark" for example. One of the great things about film is that it is a form of expression that allows you to experiment, innovate, and explore from pre- through post-, but as you know it's not the purpose of all films to do these things. However, the avenues of exploration are wide open to those who choose to walk a singular path.

---"i simply wanted a forum for people who engage in this type of filmmaking or are interested in it. *i'm being accused of snobbery, yet it seems any time i try to introduce an alternative to narrative filmmaking on this site, it gets snubbed. *so fuck it--i'll stick to Frameworks and ILX for good film discussion and debate. *it's better than the petty name calling that's making up the bulk of this forum."

I believe that there is a place on this forum to discuss every manner of filmmaking in a civilized, positive fashion, and I would gladly be exposed to different "non-mainstream" filmmakers and ideas. But, if every time you introduce the topic you get "snubbed" I'm not surprised if this is the tone in which you always chose to introduce it. Stick to Frameworks and ILX if you wish, but I would welcome a constructive thread about the topic that you initally raised, even though, given the choice, I would rather be involved in well-made, quality "Hollywood" films over obscure "art-house" stuff; but that's just me. I didn't specifically see any name calling in this thread unless you're referring to your use of the word "goons" to describe S & L.

J.R. Hudson

04-16-2004, 01:29 PM

Booya!!!

http://bestanimations.com/Animals/Mammals/Dogs/Wolves/Wolf-01.gif

BLWolf

04-16-2004, 01:34 PM

LOL :D

David Jimerson

04-16-2004, 01:37 PM

Balto?

Michael_Lieberman

04-17-2004, 11:45 AM

My only regret when watching young filmmakers' work (I am a budding one myself) is the reliance on creating something which one can reference to another creator, specifically another artist's work. And by referencing, I don't mean switching color filters in mid-shot like Godard in "Pierrot le fou," but by creating a tone which may be reminiscent of something else. That story has already been told. We've seen it already. Filmmakers (and I assume most of us can agree) believe there are only a few set ways to make film, be it based on the narrative cross-cutting of Griffith, the montage of Eisenstein, the visual poetry of Murnau or Bela Tarr, etc. These things only matter when business comes into play, no?

When one "pitches" a film, there has to be a "catcher" to accept or reject this. But why must a middle man interfere with your work? Assuming 90% of the art of filmmaking is dominated by weekend box-office numbers, speaking in business terms, why must those 10% conform to making something which may conform to this agenda. I bring this up because anyone who picks up a camera uses it as an external device, attached by the hand, to project something one feels worth showing. Why interrupt this by gliding your camera to something someone has done thusfar? Where's the chance or risk at shooting something we've already seen?

I apologize for speaking with such broad strokes, but it bothers me that so much creativity can be squandered for the sake of "succeeding" in a "business" where filmmakers are the pawns in an elaborate chess game of box office numbers. Who will tell the story or record an event of something one is around, but haven't seen on film before, and being afraid or unsure that this would be interesting to anyone but one's self? This can be applicable to documentary or experimental, or non-Hollywood-type narratives as well. We need a reshaping of cinema with every new film, not a reinforcement of old rules in a language which decays more rapidly than street slang.

Mike

Anartiste

04-17-2004, 07:12 PM

I don't think there anything "new" in art.

I do think, though, that there are two major actors in the process of artistic creation : the artist and the person who recieves the art (reader, listener, viewer...) Maybe this reality is even more crucial in cinema than in the other art forms, as it deals with symbols to achieve its goal : to stimulate the collective unconscious.

Cinema has to be universal to be good. By "universal", I don't mean "seen by everyone", but "accessible to anyone". It's not a question of box office of course — it can even be very demanding to the spectators ; but it has to be universal because all films, even non-narrative ones, even the ones telling stories of animals, only talk about one thing : human nature. That's the reason why I (pure product of my parisian conditionning) can be totally emotionaly involved in a chinese film, a cultural environment I know very little about except for the most superficial part.

The Hollywood system and the "cinema d'art et d'essai", each of them for different reasons, forget about this too often. The first one forgets that the masses are made of individuals, the second one forgets that the individual belongs in a mass (human beings are gregarian animals, like it or not).

Cinema in all its forms — from the most underground avant-garde to TV commercials — is probably the most powerful recycling factory ever created. Moviemakers have always used clichés ; the great ones more than the others, but with the genius of hijacking them. Godard was very aware of that and he never claimed doing something else than the mainstream industry. He just said he did it in another language.

I don't think anybody creates anything new in art, and even less in cinema. All you can do is using codes widely accepted and render them in an original way. But the codes are still there. They have to be there, or your work is going to be nothing but a monologue between you and yourself. Of course, you'll always find some people who'll think this monologue is fascinating, but this will happen by chance or because they're snobbish, not because you have revealed to them something universal, something all human beings can share.

Unless you really know the codes — why they're here, how they evolved — you'll never succeed to break them. All you're gonna do is going against them, the way an adolescent does the contrary of what his parents do. Going against something means you're not freed from it ; you're just as prisonner of the old way as someone who blindly obeys the old way. You're his negative reflection, not a free artist. A free artist accepts the codes, the things done before him/her. They're his/her backstore supplies.

Examples ?

David Lynch is famous worldwide for his deconstructing the story foundations. But look at his films : they're made with very classical scenes *— a trigger event, a conflict, a resolution. All he does (with an immense talent as far as I'm concerned) is joining these classical scenes in a very unique way.

Alain Resnais became very notorious when he released "Hiroshima mon amour" or "L'année dernière à Marienbad" for his revolutionizing the drama, but he could do so thanks to his perfect knowledge of dramaturgy he had aquired fduring a decade as an editor. He later made more academic movies that were (according to my tastes) just as good. He simply chose the appropriate form for the stories he had to tell.

Anartiste

04-17-2004, 07:13 PM

To conclude this too long (i need to cut it in two !), rather doctorial and somehow pretentious post, I'll talk about Africa.

I went to Guinea five years ago to study percussions. Up to then, I thought that African music was mostly a question of "feeling the rhythm" and "letting yourself be carried by the groove". Clichés, clichés, clichés (and a bit of colonial subconscious remainings probably)...

I was totally wrong. What I discovered there was a very very codified music, not based on notation but on oral tradition. If you play the second djembé part on "Koukou" (a very classical rhythm), you have to go tap-tadap-tititap-tadap-tititap... all the time, and nothing else, or everybody around — musicians, dancers and listeners — will get really mad at you. Everyone in the band has a part to play. Only the solists can improvise. It's very much like classical music, with one difference though. A major one :

A rhythm like "Koukou" has been played in Western Africa for more than six centuries, and it's still alive. Every generation brings its own innovative brick to the building. When the Mozart requiem is invariably performed with the very same notes for 200 years, "Koukou" is still evolving from generation to generation , from village to village, every time with the same basis, but every time with very noticeable variations, thanks to oral tradition. And believe me, when it's getting hot, it's getting really wild, and new notes come to life, that humanity has never heard before. All that within a very codified traditional frame.

This revelation (it sure was one) freed me from my religion for originality. I realised that it was only me who wanted to be taken as a unique person, someone different from the others. It was my ego that drove me, not my artistic quest.

Nowadays, there's nothing more banal than being special. A proof ? That's what they tell you all day long in the commercials : "you're special." The illusion of uniqueness is the new religion of the western world. A very profitable one : it makes you buy thousands of useless things.

David Jimerson

04-17-2004, 07:31 PM

Nowadays, there's nothing more banal than being special. A proof ? That's what they tell you all day long in the commercials : "you're special." The illusion of uniqueness is the new religion of the western world. A very profitable one : it makes you buy thousands of useless things.

YOU ARE NOT A DELICATE SNOWFLAKE.

Anartiste

04-17-2004, 07:39 PM

I would love to, though. Truly. But my fingers go faster than my will. Sorry David if I bugged you. It's becoming a bad habit... :-[.

David Jimerson

04-17-2004, 07:43 PM

No, no . . . that was a line from "Fight Club" saying exactly what you said in that paragraph.

:)

Michael_Lieberman

04-18-2004, 12:51 AM

I do think you can make unique works by exactly your examples: Lynch and Resnais are two great filmmakers. You do need to know the cinematic language, as well as be willing to deconstruct it, if you want to challenge its form. The way to create a new cinematic language is to reshape the old, as ones don't spontaneously become created. But you can also go against these "codes" and be freed by challenging them; the reshaping, "rerendering" of these codes is itself going "against" what we'd expected from them. You may be going with the flow of a genre or narrative expectations (to cite narrative exclusively), but you are confounding the viewer.

I'm not against cliches either...look no further than the great Douglas Sirk, who took a form (the woman's picture, melodrama) and reshaped it (as film IS a giant recyling factory, I agree), creating not only highly emotional and personal works, but films which very much work within the language of the melodrama. But his reshaping created an addendum to the language, which I would deem as "new".

But is anything new? Where's Jacques Derrida when you need him?

As for being universal, I think with each part of the world, things are different (cultural, social, political), but we all look for the humanity within characters or images, forming that crucial link between maker and viewer. One can make an anti-anti-communist Cold War picture (The Manchurian Candidate, for example) and have it be relevant in, say, Japan. For me, it's not is it universal and if it is how is it, but what can be said of a film that is, and what does that say about the two worlds (the nation in which the film was made, as well as its maker, to the viewer and wherever he or she lives and the nation in which they live)?

David Jimerson

04-18-2004, 10:18 AM

Where's Jacques Derrida when you need him?

Probably off somewhere trying to prove that black is white except when it's black.

;)

J.R. Hudson

04-18-2004, 10:32 AM

I just want to make something like Black Hawk Down.

Contact_Therapy

04-19-2004, 02:23 AM

I just want to make something like Black Hawk Down. *

Hey John, you have great taste! ;)

What did you think of the camera work in the action scenes of G.I. Jane?

J.R. Hudson

04-19-2004, 09:50 AM

Pure Ridley. :D Too bad the story was kind of lame (I mean really, a chick in the Seals? preparing for the feminist attack now). But technically the movie was cool.

SteveTaylor

05-23-2004, 11:59 AM

Jay,

You might enjoy participating in www.cinemaelectronica.com

Steve.

David Jimerson

05-23-2004, 04:36 PM

Pure Ridley. *:D *Too bad the story was kind of lame (I mean really, a chick in the Seals? *preparing for the feminist attack now). *But technically the movie was cool.

Not to mention that SEALs aren't GIs . . .

J.R. Hudson

05-23-2004, 04:40 PM

Totally true. They embellished most of this storyline combining Rangers and Seals mainly. I dont think the Navy 'authorized or cooperated' on this one. A chick in the SF? Come on.

Zot

05-25-2004, 04:44 PM

Why not talk about actual movies instead of theory? I think it's funny that Jay mentioned that you shouldn't hold a camera if you don't know who Brakhage is because the vast majority of Brakhage films were made without the use of a movie camera (he paints directly on leader most often). Anyways I hate Ridley Scott's recent output (as well as his son's) but Blade Runner and Alien are GENIUS and give any filmmaker anywhere a run for their money including Bresson and Tartovsky and Bergman and whoever. That is probably an unpopular notion with those who like arthouse fare but oh well.

J.R. Hudson

05-25-2004, 06:50 PM

Why not talk about actual movies instead of theory? I think it's funny that Jay mentioned that you shouldn't hold a camera if you don't know who Brakhage is because the vast majority of Brakhage films were made without the use of a movie camera (he paints directly on leader most often). * *Anyways I hate Ridley Scott's recent output (as well as his son's) but Blade Runner and Alien are GENIUS and give any filmmaker anywhere a run for their money including Bresson and Tartovsky and Bergman and whoever. *That is probably an unpopular notion with those who like arthouse fare but oh well.

Ridleys son is a filmaker? Are we talking about Tony here? You didnt like Gladiator or BHD? ???

David Jimerson

05-25-2004, 07:16 PM

Tony's his brother.

J.R. Hudson

05-25-2004, 09:38 PM

Exactly. :)

I dig T Scott. Damn Scott brothers.

Zot

05-26-2004, 08:54 AM

Jake Scott is his son. I think might have directed that new Denzel Washington movie and some medievel nonsense with Liv Tyler.

Yeah, I don't really like arguing movies so much, because people kind of get defensive and I feel guilty, but no I didn't like BHD or Gladiator. I think Ridley still has a keen visual sense of course. The scripts seem rather weak to me. I think most scripts are rather weak these days actually. The technical achievements of Hollywood are amazing so why can't they find somebody to write a movie without every cliche and recycled theme and just plain bad storytelling. Just so I don't pin this on the Americans alone, I saw the British export "Love, Actually" the other day. Jesus. I was such incredible garbage that I couldn't believe it. Then I watched a second rate Billy Wilder Movie from the 60's "Kiss Me, You Fool". It was like a quantum leap forward in sophistication, intelligence and humour. If a forty year old movie is more "modern" than the latest blockbuster, I think there is a problem. Just my opinion.

J.R. Hudson

05-26-2004, 09:56 AM

I agree with you! No worry on arguing with me about movies; if you dont like it, you dont like it. We all have different tastes. Tony Scott directed the new Denzel film "Man on Fire"

His son Jake directed Plunkett & Macleane!

Beeblebrox

05-28-2004, 01:33 AM

Film is film. And it's ALL art. The artificial categories applied to them don't really mean anything to the form itself. Does the audience care if the financing came from France or a major Hollywood studio? Hell, even within the studio system are a myriad of sources for financing. And then there's the range of artists working within that system.

To dismiss it all with such a broad stroke is as stupid and ignorant and narrow-minded as those who dismiss so-called art films (a redundant term if ever there was one). The great irony being that those who narrow-mindedly dismiss Hollywood films take such great pride in their open-mindedness. It's rubbish. They're as narrow-minded and slave to their tastes as the next schlub they turn their noses down to. Look at Jay's desperation to surround himself with only those "like-minded" with him.

And that's really what we're talking about here is taste. Sure, we all make assumptions based on it. But taste, particularly in MOVIES (I mean, let's get some perspective here, people), does not make one more educated, special, intelligent, insightful, or anything but someone with different taste.

Movies are a uniquely populist medium. They have always been first and foremost entertainment. While there's nothing wrong with trying to elevate the art form and expand what film can accomplish, neither is there anything wrong with embracing the nature of film as a narrative medium, an artform for the masses.

Jay_Blanchard

05-28-2004, 11:41 AM

All right, I've kept off of this joyride that I started for a while in order to keep out of repetitious debate, but Beeblebrox's comments are just too misguided to pass up.

It's a common debate goal of 1st year film students to render a misguided postmodernist analysis like "all film is art" or some rubbish like that. Hate to break it to you, but there are tools that act as an arbiter of quality, and then differ based on the artistic medium, the episteme or period of the work you're judging, and the genre of the work itself. To simply state that "all film is art" negates the process of creating art in the first place, eliminates any critical analysis & insults all who create it. If such a philosophy is true, then why bother to edit a film? Or even make more films at all. It's simply a fatalist, relativist stance that usually comes from the mouths of babes who don't find a need to create a cognitive argument and think that Wittgenstein is the be-all, end-all of human understanding.

Also, no one said anything about the source of financing being a factor that an audience cares about. It's the limitations on creation that are imposed by such financing that create the problems. I don't know if you've actually worked professionally in this field, but if you have, you would find very quickly that producers who have a vested economic interest in a film (especially one with a large budget) will make considerable impositions on a project. Unless you've achieved an untouchable status in the studios (and there aren't many of them), you rarely have the freedom to tell a story the way you want to. Concessions are made to ponder to even the lowest minds, controversial segments are cut in order to not offend, and a brilliant 3-hour film is cut down to 90 shallow minutes. That's Hollywood for you.

It's funny, I never said anything like "nothing good ever came out of Hollywood" or "people who like Hollywood filmmaking are morons", but apparently people hear what they want to. Some of my favorite films are from major Hollywood studios; many of them are not.

And I can't help but laugh anytime I hear someone refer to film as being an "inherently populist medium". Film started as a individual pursuit, either viewed completely alone by staring into a tiny box or in a very small group watching on a small screen. and the first films were not narrative at all, but simply single shot vignettes. Avant-garde cinema has just as long of a history as the narrative cinema, with the post-cubists, Futurists & Surrealists making hand-painted and cameraless works at the same time Eisenstein and D.W. Griffith were creating the classical narrative forms.

And if you think the "nature" of film is as a narrative medium, you might want to dust of your textbooks. If you want to take the stance of "all films is art", you might want to approach your argument from a more defined perspective, say, in the context of other 19th-21st century art forms and movements? unless, of course, you don't want to be "open-minded".....

Jay_Blanchard

05-28-2004, 11:59 AM

"Why not talk about actual movies instead of theory? I think it's funny that Jay mentioned that you shouldn't hold a camera if you don't know who Brakhage is because the vast majority of Brakhage films were made without the use of a movie camera (he paints directly on leader most often)"

Hate to burst your bubble, Zot, but the majority of Stan's films were shot with either 16mm or Super 8. Although he experimented with hand painted and cameraless works in his early years, he did not evolve to pure abstraction (only paint on leader) until the late 80's/early 90's. Not that this really has anything to do with my argument, but I figured I would set the facts straight.

The argument has come up as to why i don't list individual films and why I prefer to discuss these issues with "like-minded" individuals. It's for the simple reason that I understand that this style of filmmaking is not everyone's cup of tea. I could list 500 great avant-garde/underground/experimental films, but the likelihood is that few would make an effort to watch them. Say you're a big "Lord of the Rings" fan--would you rather spend your time discussing the films with someone who has no interest in watching the movies or reading the books & trying to argue with them why they should, or would your time be better spend discussing the nuances of the material with people who love the material & characters as much as you do?

Again, I'll state that I started this post simply and purely as a discussion board for people who have an interest in a particular area of filmmaking. 99% of the population is into Hollywood fare; just leave the other 1% alone to discuss the things they enjoy.

Guest

05-28-2004, 06:01 PM

Tarkovsky, Bresson, Antonioni, Dreyer, Tarr, and Bergman is all I have to say...

Not Brakhage or Spielberg.

Coltrain

05-28-2004, 06:04 PM

Tarkovsky, Bresson, Antonioni, Dreyer, Tarr, and Bergman is all I have to say...

Not Brakhage or Spielberg.

Yep

Beeblebrox

05-28-2004, 10:30 PM

To simply state that "all film is art" negates the process of creating art in the first place, eliminates any critical analysis & insults all who create it.

Um, no it doesn't. If you make a film, you're creating art. If that's an insult to anyone making a film, then they're as pretentious and full of themselves as you are.

It doesn't eliminate critical analysis either, unless your thinking is so narrow-minded that you can't analyse art outside of your own personal taste. Does it suddenly render it IMPOSSIBLE to study film as art if you acknowledge that Die Hard is art as much as Blue Velvet is?

If not, it's probably because you mistakenly believe that the term art automatically infers a level of high quality (or you're just that intellectually challenged). To say that art must infer quality is to deny the existence of bad art. And there's plenty of bad art.

I don't know if you've actually worked professionally in this field, but if you have, you would find very quickly that producers who have a vested economic interest in a film (especially one with a large budget) will make considerable impositions on a project.

Yes, I do work in this business. Do you? Because your posts reek of naivety, an assumption of what working in Hollywood must be like from someone who's only read books about the subject.

I've worked on studio projects and indie projects, and the impositions heaped on the director by the producer are a pain in the ass in both cases. Every filmmaker who ever lived has dealt with limitations. All of them.

And if you think the "nature" of film is as a narrative medium, you might want to dust of your textbooks. If you want to take the stance of "all films is art", you might want to approach your argument from a more defined perspective, say, in the context of other 19th-21st century art forms and movements? unless, of course, you don't want to be "open-minded".....

Yay, you can read a textbook. At some point, and I hope it's soon, you'll stop just reading about film or watching film and actually participate. I think a great deal of appreciation for film as art, and I mean ALL film, comes out of doing, not just reading and watching from the sidelines. I think you might broaden your "if I don't like it, it means it's crap" view.

J.R. Hudson

05-29-2004, 03:52 PM

Well put Beeblebrox.

I agree. Art is perceptive (am I using this in the right context?) to each each individual; one persons Monet is anothers Velvet Elvis.

Unfortunately there are people that will refuse to acknowledge this simple fact and attempt to diminish or discredit soley on their own tastes.

Anartiste

06-11-2004, 03:53 AM

Hello there. How are you doing ?

I'm back from Corsica (the most perfect island in the world, believe me) where I spent a week forgetting about the urging vanity of the modern world through six daily walking hours in the forest.

So I'm kind of juicy while delightfully jumping into this thread.

Unless we all have the same definitions of words, this discussion will remain worthless. In such occasions, the dictionnary is the only possible peacemaker, so I just looked into mine, and here's what I found and (perhaps rather badly) translated from French into English.

Art :
1/ Use of theoric and technical knowledge to a practical achievement (the art of medecine, of drawing...)
2/ Means employed in an esthetic creation.
3/ Faculty, talent, skill, craft.
4/ Subject of endless (and sometimes onanistic) arguments on DVXuser.com

Here it is. So says mister D. (within the pityful limitations of my modest translation of course ; I'd very much like to read what yours say)

To consult my dictionnary — especially about the words that have lost their original meaning, whose signification has gone soft in our overmediatized era — is always a soothing experience for me. To go back to the source for words like Art, Love, Faith, Objectivity, Drama is worth a thousand posts, sometimes — not that I find this thread boring or useless, but rather revealing of our desperate need to affirm our positions.

Which is after all a perfectly normal thing for artists.

So I guess there are many artists in this place. How many of us are good is another story — and it's not ours to decide anyway, as our art stops belonging to us at the very moment we release it.

So let's all practise our art, folks, and argue on the results rather than on the definition of the word. It's gonna be more interesting.

J.R. Hudson

06-11-2004, 02:11 PM

rsbush

07-02-2004, 04:14 AM

Art, like love is a totally meaningless word. It is purely subjective. That said, I've made a living in the visual arts for almost 30 years and have never met one person any good at what they do who considers everything they've done as "art".

travis

07-02-2004, 12:20 PM

I have never care about hollywood films.
But i hate how hollywood tries to get the domain of the cinema.
And how they treat artist.
I read the open letter. Was funny to see was written by Carney. I just read his book about Cassavettes. That book, or better, the life of JOhn Cassavettes is a great examples of what hollywood tries to do with artist. And is fun to see how someone reach the art freedom sayin no to hollywood.
Hollywood didnt understand Murnau, Stroheim, Chaplin, Welles... Jarmusch, etc...
If we want to do art we can´t even think about hollywood. Would you understand if a great cooker wants to work in McDonalds...

We have to have the strengh of Cassavettes, the humanity of Chaplin, the ethics of Rosselini, the beuty of Murnao, the anarchist view of Buñuel, the punk of Stroheim and Von triers...
Just a few examples that are imposible to imitate.
It is very easy to imitate hollywood.

travis

07-02-2004, 12:23 PM

... and the eyes of Vertov

David Jimerson

07-02-2004, 12:35 PM

Hollywood didn't understand Chaplin?

J.R. Hudson

07-02-2004, 01:23 PM

I have never care about hollywood films.

Everytime I hear this from someone I want to just puke. What does this mean? What is a Hollywood film? What is not? Enlighten us.

ChuckS

07-02-2004, 06:42 PM

Anartiste probably said it best – “So let's all practice our art, folks, and argue on the results rather than on the definition of the word. It's going to be more interesting.”

What is a Hollywood film? Simply stated, it’s a film produced by a Hollywood studio. Hollywood has the ability, experience, technology, creativity, money, people and equipment needed to produce the best movie ever produced anywhere, but they choose not too. Hollywood studios are risk averse, so they will not underwrite a new director or great story unless it meets the formula for box office receipts. If you are Steven Spielberg, George Lucas or Jerry Bruckheimer you can produce anything you want – of course, the world needs another CSI.

Many people are critical of the Hollywood system, me being one of them, but this system did not happen overnight. Over the past three or four decades, the studios have become a monopoly that openly conspires against the deployment of any new distribution infrastructure. When the adult film industry embraced the VCR, prompting Sony and Panasonic to launch the VCR into the mainstream, the studio system, led by Jack Valenti and the MPAA tried to litigate magnetic recording into extinction. Mr. Valenti testified to congress that “the introduction of magnetic tape to the home is to Hollywood what Jack the Ripper is to a woman home alone,” I don’t even know what that means – but he could not have been more wrong.

Eventually Sony and Panasonic capitulated, Sony purchased Tri Star, Panasonic purchased Universal and both started selling and renting movies from their own libraries, forcing the other major studios to quickly join the club. This was the beginning of explosive growth in the independent film market. It took the studio system more than 15 years and hundreds of millions of dollars to buy up the independents, along with Blockbuster and all of the major broadcast studios.

Today, history is repeating itself. DVD (funny shaped VCR) growth is projected to continue at a rate exceeding that of the entire TV and motion picture production industries combined. The U.S. market for TV and film production grew at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.6% from 1998 to 2002 to a value of $8.9 billion; it is forecast to grow at a CAGR of 5.9% between 2003 and 2007. In the DVD market, total spending reached $11.3 billion in 2002, up 67% from 2001, and is projected to grow at a CAGR of 40.6% through 2006. Interestingly enough, the same idiot is making the same ignorant cry to congress. For the past several years a coalition of major studios, led by Disney and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) have lobbied congress for copyright protections to be built into any new media technology. There is an unmistakable irony of major studios' protracted public efforts to protect their content from pirates, while doing little to distinguish potential customers from potential offenders. They spend billions promoting a desire for their products, and now are spending millions more to discourage access to them. Hello!!!
What does this mean for our DVX’s? It means that there is an insatiable appetite for content and with the explosive growth of DVD, which like VCR’s in the early days is largely outside the control of the major studios, it will be possible to produce independent projects for sale direct to the consumer thereby once again creating an “INDEPENDENT FILM MARKET.” Imagine that…

Of coarse we’d better hurray before the studio system does everything it can to rain on our parade. Fortunately Jack Valenti just retired – please somebody throw him a party. ;D

TylerGred

07-02-2004, 07:00 PM

I personally hate most art house movies. They bore me and I find myself laughing at them most of the time. What is wrong with just trying to make an entertaining film? Oh yeah and for the guy talking shit about Scott. I dare you to try and make a horror movie half as good as Alien...

Phil

07-02-2004, 07:08 PM

Rule number one of Film Club. Entertain the audience.
Rule number two of Film Club. Entertain the audience.

I'm with Tyler (Durden?) Gred. Entertain the audience.

Josh_Boelter

07-02-2004, 07:51 PM

Personally, I dig diversity in film. One of my favorite movies of all time is There's Something About Mary. Love that flick. One of my other favorites is Krzysztof Kieslowski's Three Colors trilogy. I really liked The Station Agent, Spellbound, and yes, Spider-Man. Why do we either have to be art house snobs or Hollywood sheep? Can't we enjoy diversity in film?

For me, it's the same with any art form. I love the Beastie Boys, Chick Corea, and Igor Stravinsky. I love Marc Chagall and Bill Waterson's Calvin and Hobbes. I say celebrate it all. Sometimes I just want to be entertained, sometimes I want something deeper. It's all good.

Mike_Donis

07-02-2004, 07:55 PM

Make a good movie.

Mike_Donis

07-02-2004, 07:57 PM

That's all you need to do, in my books!

(I figured it needed it's own post to emphasize it more)
Let's stop judging movies by their TYPE or CONTENT...let's judge them by how we LIKE them, in a gutteral instinct...Why must there be this segregation between "hollywood" movies and "non-hollywood" movies? *Nobody would dare say ALL "Hollywood" movies suck, and nobody would dare say ALL "artsy" films suck. *ACCEPT EACH MOVIE FOR WHAT IT IS! :P

Just make a good one!

J.R. Hudson

07-02-2004, 08:26 PM

ChuckS is my new best friend. :D

ChuckS

07-02-2004, 10:44 PM

Hey Hohn,

Why's that?

J.R. Hudson

07-02-2004, 11:18 PM

For the articulate well thought out take. :)

Stanrick_Kubley

07-02-2004, 11:44 PM

Yeah, it's like acting. Is naturalism best? Is stagish performance best? Both work. Good acting is good acting. And a good movie is a good movie.

Plus, it's important to keep in mind that Hollywood is the mainstream. Indie films (and foreign films to a degree) are alternatives...to Hollywood. They all influence each other. Plus, Hollywood produces enough good movies each year to justify its existence, so why knock it?

Woodson

07-03-2004, 12:14 AM

All I can say in my opinion...

There are great and bad films from all kinds of categories, if it's from Hollywood, Indie, Guerrilla, Foreign, Art House etc.

I can say my fave films are from all those different categories.
There are films that influence me one way or another from those categories.

In films, things have been pretty much done over and over again. It is really hard to try to create something that hasn't been done, and I know alot of people including me sometimes get frustrated to do something that hasn't been done. I don't think that should be the important thing. The important thing is to create something with passion. Something that is deep to yourself and not what people will say about it. Do the film because of what you would like to see, not what the audience will care about. Alot of us have been watching films all our life, watching different styles, having our fave. filmmakers, all these things somehow enter our brains, and we create art from what we feel. Things like that influence us, and I think it's great. I think it makes us positive, and makes us want to get out there and start shooting.

Lately I've been in to Asian Films, they have been aspiring me alot.

For those who think David Lynch is original(I'm not pointing fingers here, but from other boards alot ppl say he is) well I don't think he is. There were alot of filmmakers that did what Lynch does these days. Example Luis Buñuel, Roman Polanski;Watch the movie The Tenant directed by and starring Polanski and you will see a Lynchian movie directed a decade before Lynch was even on the scene.

Michael_Lieberman

07-03-2004, 09:24 AM

I love Hollywood films, but not the Hollywood films of today. And the definition of Hollywood is fragmented into a thousand pieces, and really, what most people mean is "mainstream multiplex entertainment," given studios have financed such great works as "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "Elephant" in the past year. There are no independent producers either, unless your work is shown in 5 screens nationwide (or if you're Mel Gibson or Michael Moore, where the distributors are not yet dependent).

My big hubbub with Hollywood is exactly what someone tapped earlier, which is that the money, equipment, writers, directors, and actors are all there for the next masterpiece, but the talents are not harvested completely. Many say that the movie industry should be based on "Give the people what they want": well, how the hell do "we" know what "they" want? It's an irrelevant question. Did most people really WANT "2001: A Space Odyssey" in 1969 or "Mulholland Drive" in 2001? Probably not, but the respected artists challenged film viewers, which is what most filmmakers ought to be doing, no? Giving instant gratification by the dumpster load to the American public keeps the public in the same place, or even a few steps back, no?

If film is an art form at all, which I believe it to be, one would think the main object of business would be to invest in potentially challenging works of art. There's nothing wrong with dumb entertainment, but when a multiplex is showing twelve films in a theater and all twelve are dumb entertainments (and to be fair, 2 might be worth seeing), one can imagine the frustration in wanting to see something remotely smart and challenging.

Multiplexes don't necessarily need to show Brakhage or reissues of JL Godard's many masterpieces, but if the mindset would change slightly to include, say, world cinemas and documentaries, as well as the occassional reissue of a Hitchcock or Welles film, we'd be acknowledging film as not an art in keeping the audience docile and dumb, but including works that at least attempt to be articulate and intellectual, as well as highly entertaining.

travis

07-03-2004, 03:28 PM

Chaplin could not get any financial from his last movies. He was kicked out in the McCarthy times. And all the industry help McCarthy in his fight.
Yeah later on they gave him a honorif oscar for his career.

It is hard to define a hollywood movie. And my english is horrible but i will try to say what, in my opinion, is a hollywood film.
Those that think more about the profits than the artistic result.
Those who have a target (normally retard people)
Those who hide reality and try to sell a beutiful world full of starts. In others words they are more concern about the names that sign the product and not for the ideas.

Of course there´s some holywood movies that are great but normally they have a long way to get produced. They are the exception of the rule. An exist cause an artist sometimes can managed well into this codicius jungle. Copolla had made great films into the system but he had to fight hard in order to get what he want. No one in Hollywood wanted Marlon Brando in Godfather. It was a non comerrcial actor by these days. And the first screening of the movie all the executives got mad at Gordon Willis´s work.
Of course when the movie suceed all were happy and love Coppola.