Crash

I can make up quotes from the ether as well. Gordon JL kindly linked where his quote came from...you do not. Umm...I'll ask again out of curiosity (since you refuse to answer) have you shot anything to date? Also, are you related to Tarkovsky perhaps? You've been teabagging him all over the boards.
 
crazyczech said:
I can make up quotes from the ether as well. Gordon JL kindly linked where his quote came from...you do not. Umm...I'll ask again out of curiosity (since you refuse to answer) have you shot anything to date? Also, are you related to Tarkovsky perhaps? You've been teabagging him all over the boards.
Click to expand...
I said yes in the previous post.

LINK FOR SOURCE: (I'm not a liar, though you wish I was.)

http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia.com/TheTopics/interview.html#On_Mirror

at the top of the page...
 
I decided to humor Coltrain so I read the entire Tarkovsky interview. OMG what a pompous, combative, miserable soul. I promise I'm not saying this to infuriate you Coltrain. He argues the interviewer on every point, speaks in high, grandoise esoterics and manages to show his jealousy of commercial directors by slamming Spielberg. If anyone wants to see where Coltrain gets his song and dance...please read this article. It reads like a Christopher Guest mockumentary. Quite entertaining actually.
 
Tarkovsky's obvious jealousy with Spielberg is pathetic. Spielberg makes movies to tell stories...the fact he makes money shows that he picks the RIGHT stories to tell. No one is stopping Tarkovsky from the choices he makes. His quote from another article where he says (so arrogantly) people in London were lined up around the block to see his filmography attests to his vanity and wish to be recognized. If he were a pure "artist" as he portrays himself, with no care for the masses, he should have screened his movies in Coltrain's garage. Just my opinion.
 
I get my song and dance from every artist.

If you liked what Tarkovsky had to say, you would laugh your head off at what Robert Bresson has said. He puts Tarkovsky to shame in this category.
 
The reason I pointed to that quote was to show that Tarkovsky's Mirror did in fact have a story. Though the artist says it is the most complicated of his films, it does not mean that the story is complicated; it was intended to not be. First, you argue that there is no real story, and then you argue that it has a very complicated story.

But that doesn't matter; I see your point Coltrain, and have no problem with you making films that are focused primarily on the visual aspects. That's who you are, and I think it's unique.

Just don't be a dumbass.
 
The point is, none of you could say, because you haven't seen it.

If you had, you would agree with me.
 
I'm going to find and see this film; but let's not jump to what I would agree or disagree with. You still flip-flopped on the "There is no story" and then "The story is super complex" so I'm a little put off my the merit of this discussion anyway.

IN fact; I am not even sure how we went from Crash being a wannbe Magnolia to THE MIRROR

Qouting 'Acquarello from Strictly Film School' doesn't mean anything to me. The guy is a

"Acquarello is a NASA design engineer, web developer, cineaste, writes film program notes for the National Gallery of Art, and is a member of the Cinemarati web alliance for film commentary."

which is great; I mean, who the flock am I right? All I am saying is that his opinion does not neccasarily hold anymore weight than ours in my book. So he has a job writing program notes; so.

I read a majority of the article; I can totaly appreciate what he says and his beliefs and ideals in terms of filmmaking. In fact, I think we can all learn something from this angle. I also think he took himself way too seriuosly and should relax.

He makes mention of 'true and commercial cinema' and I'm digging that; again I can make pop-corn to entertain the masses and find joy in this or I can make 'art' and provide my 'vision' in an all too serious plane of cinema. I just want to make films. PEriod. MY mood, the prject, my goals and where I am at in maturity (or immaturity) in terms of Filmmaking will determine that. It was like when Speilbeg finally did a seriosu film (Color Purple). Or even better when he did SCHINDLERS LIST. That film was not COMMERCIAL; that was art, that was Cinema. But I want to make War of Worlds as much as that one.

I agree with T that generally speaking, the WEST is not Cultured at all. I agree
100% that the WEST's idea of culture lies in consumption.

Again; I dig his approach but lighten up man. It's filmmaking. It could be Oil on Canvas and I'd say "Lighten up. It's a painting." (And I can paint)

I dont know; I still find this 'niche cineaste' stifling and borish.
 
I never flip-flopped, I still would say there is no "story".

The reason Tarkovsky would say that it is simple, is because he doesn't want anyone desperately trying to "figure it out", it isn't a puzzle and shouldn't be viewed as one. His comments were also more specifically refering to there being "symbols", which he never used, but many would think that they were seeing them.

I "understand" Mirror, and everyone should be able to, but they wouldn't and that is where the problem lies.
 
Coltrain, you have an abrasive way about you.

Just back off a little, man. Cool it with the bold statements and my way or the high way attitude.

Its ok to like entertaining, well told stories. There is nothing wrong with liking them and there is nothing wrong with those who make them.

Yes all filmmakers have different goals and visions, and you may prefer a certain type, but don't discount anything and everything that doesn't fit into one small niche.

I admire those who can like The Mirror and at the same time can like Ace Ventura.

While you may say you are that type of person, your comments in this and other threads certainly indicate that that is not the case. There is a conflict between your true feelings and the bold claims you make in these threads. Don't say that Spielberg or some other directors is weak because he is a storyteller.

Spielberg is a master storyteller and does it better than any other filmmaker I can think of. And I can promise you that you love some of the films he has made

Just cool it man.

BTW, have you seen Crash?
 
Coltrain said:
A wannabe Magnolia.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. It was like Grand Canyon without the soul.

Crash is completely contrived tripe. Most of the characters (Brendan Fraser, the Persian doctor, the little girl) aren't even one dimensional, they're zero dimensional -- this movie is insincere.

And for the record, the Persian doctor can load a revolver, but she missed the word "BLANKS" on the box?

I thought Million Dollar Baby sucked, and I imagine this script was unsold until MDB started to do well. Haggis' characters are movie-of-the-week material at best, and the only things that keep his movies from crashing and burning are the great actors (of which, Tony Danza was not one).
 
uhrql,

strongly disagree. i thought this movie was great. i do, however, understand how someone not interested in its core theme, racism, or how they went about exploring it, could become quickly detached. i also believe that living in L.A. immediately increases the liklihood of enjoying this movie. don cheadle's voice over at the beginning of the movie (in which he discusses people purposefully crashing into each other) is about as true an assessment of Los Angeles as I've ever heard.

Also, the scenes where the little girl runs to her dad, and Matt Dillon rescues the lady in the car, were the two best scenes I've seen in a movie in ten years. Absolutely amazing.

If there is a fault, it might be in the overlong ending, and the "you're free now, go!" nonsense with the refugees. Though it was cool to see Ludacris get redeemed. And it was a great shot having that Korean(?) kid stare into the lit up store window.

and for the record, the girl didn't "miss" the word "blanks" on the box. that's why she bought them. So that her father wouldn't kill anyone.

c.g.
 
Coltrain said:
One more thing, this statement is false. It is much harder to make a film using only the essential (the images) then it is to use all of the secondary aspects. Most filmmakers today fail because they rely so heavily on the elements that are unnecessary to create their "films", that what is produced doesn't resemble film (or what I would consider film) at all.
Click to expand...
Hey guys, I'd like to put my two cents in. I'm just a guy that likes to watch and make movies. I thought we made movies for the audience and as long as they liked it, it was all good. I'm sure that there are those who only make for themselves and that's cool. But speaking for the unwashed ignorant masses, we just want to have fun. We want to be entertained, amazed, amused (and yes informed but not beat up with it), etc. In my book there's no such thing as a bad movie as long as somebody is willing to pay to watch it.:evil:
 
c.g._eads said:
and for the record, the girl didn't "miss" the word "blanks" on the box. that's why she bought them. So that her father wouldn't kill anyone.
Click to expand...

I would say that is debatable. She asks "for the ones in the red box" not for blanks -- I understand the plot device is ruined if she asked for blanks. We can agree that there is a certain level of ambiguity in the storytelling. In my opion though, to imply that she was willing to help her father buy a real gun and then arm him with fake bullets (in LA) is the kind of contrived garbage I resent in the movie.
 
uhrgl said:
I would say that is debatable. She asks "for the ones in the red box" not for blanks -- I understand the plot device is ruined if she asked for blanks. We can agree that there is a certain level of ambiguity in the storytelling. In my opion though, to imply that she was willing to help her father buy a real gun and then arm him with fake bullets (in LA) is the kind of contrived garbage I resent in the movie.
Click to expand...


but then the gun store owner asks her if she knows what those are and she says says yes. I'd say she knew what she was doing.

jesse
 
uhrgl said:
I would say that is debatable. She asks "for the ones in the red box" not for blanks --
Click to expand...

It was pretty clear she intentionally bought blanks. Especially when the gun shop worker asked "Are you sure? You know what those are?"

The fact that it was the red box ruined it for my friend, who I saw the film with. As he put it, everyone knows blanks come in red boxes.

-CJ
 
damned if she did, damned if she didn''t. can't win with you, huh uhrql. anyway, i thought it was a nice setup and a nice payoff, as did the two audiences I watched it with, as pretty much everybody gasped both times. but that's the thing with movies. you can always find faults with the movies you hate, and always mysteriously ignore them in the movies you love. i'm guilty of both.
 
This movie reminded me alot of Amores Perros (a little bit of Grand Canyon too). But it's not as good as Amores Perros. Really enjoyed the scene with the little girl, her father, and the crazed middle eastern man. Very powerful. But this film seemed to reenforce white people's fears of Blacks and disdain for Asians, and Mexicans and all other "minorities". All the whites are racists, and all the blacks are dispicable--either criminals or sell-outs. Two scenes bugged the **** out of me: the two black guys hijacking the DA's car (totally reenforcing white people's fears of young black males); and the cop saving the black woman from the car wreck. What the ****! He molests her the night before then happens to be at the scene of the crash the next day to save her life. Is this how the cop redeams himself? By gaining even more power over the victim? Come on. The woman should have died and the cop should have failed in saving her. Great performances, but this movie is WAY overrated.
 
Just saw the movie last night. It was good, but not great. I was expecting something that was going to blow me away, but it didn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top