Crash

it really shows you how stupid and ignorant people can be
Click to expand...

If that was interesting I could sit at home and watch the news ;). I'll have to go see the movie though. Sounds intriguing at least.
 
Because I don't analyze, I thought I would provide an analysis that gets to the point:

Crash is another example of the types of "serious drama" that are so celebrated in Hollywood/North American media culture. They focus entirely too much effort on writing and acting, without much thought to vision. These types of films are written in order to be excessively heavy in order to appeal to actors that want momentously somber roles that they "can sink their teeth into" after collecting a guilty paycheque on their previous project. The problem is that these types of projects often confuse themselves on the way to their final destination. They spend so much time in staging the important actions and huge events while simultaneously allowing enough elaborate showcases for its acting talents, they usually forgot about how their images and how those images relate to one another, and worse, how these images may weaken their position.
 
re: Coltrain

re: Coltrain

Mumbo jumbo...mumble...psuedo-intellectual assertion....mumble...bitterness...grumble...paycheque...no real valid point...damn I live in Wichita.
 
Whose analysis is that? Or rather who did the thinking for you? Just curious, I'd like to read the rest of it.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Whose analysis is that? Or rather who did the thinking for you? Just curious, I'd like to read the rest of it.
Click to expand...
Some dude did the thinking for me.
 
crazyczech said:
Mumbo jumbo...mumble...psuedo-intellectual assertion....mumble...bitterness...grumble...paycheque...no real valid point...damn I live in Wichita.
Click to expand...
I didn't write it.

You should come visit sometime.
 
re:coltrain

re:coltrain

"Films are about images, that's all"

Sorry you feel that way. I guess you think books are only about letters and sculpture about clay. I would love to check out anything you've contributed to the film world or at least the Screen grabs/video clips page. Please pass on any link to something you've done. Looking forward to seeing it...

ps Could you enlighten me to what God's will is in term's of filmmaking?
 
crazyczech said:
Sorry you feel that way. I guess you think books are only about letters and sculpture about clay.
Click to expand...

There wouldn't be books without letters, there wouldn't be sculptures without clay and there wouldn't be films without the recorded images.

Don't be sorry. I'm the one who is right.
 
Checked out the book you said represented your thoughts on filmmaking. I found gems like: "Passionate for the appropriate." "Apply myself to insignificant (non-significant) image." "Empty the pond to get the fish."

Wow...that really helped me see inside your head. Nonsensical ramblings from a drunken Frenchman. Quite insightful. I think you can find better books or better yet...make a film and learn from your mistakes.

Since film is only image (no writing, no sound, no lighting, no editing...etc.) it must be easy to make one. Still waiting for an example of your work that pieces together Bresson's babblings, the Bible, God's will and only images. I await...

oh by the way it's not a question of 'who wins' in this back-and-forth. I'm just trying to understand your take on filmmaking. Your comments are a bit naive and can use clarification. Reading an old book by a French filmmaker doesn't make one better just as watching Jaws a hundred times doesn't make one Spielbergian. (though you do pick up a couple things).

Best of luck and make some films to share with us.
 
All I have in reply, is that I never said "only images", what I did say is that film is "about the images". They are most important and everything else is secondary. A film like Crash, forgets this. Most films do.
 
crazyczech said:
Since film is only image (no writing, no sound, no lighting, no editing...etc.) it must be easy to make one.
Click to expand...

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.
 
That's assuming that filmmakers have complete control over their films until final cut. Which on major blockbusters is rarely the case. When you put stuff through the studio machine, add up all those rewrites, demands, counterdemands, it's pretty amazing that anything good comes out of the system. Of course with digital you can make your own stuff. Doesn't mean anyone will like it, understand it, or think it's brilliant, but no ones stopping you.

I love definitions of film, it's like everyone's got their own box and and they're allowed to put three things in it. And it's so easy to debate what film is and isn't, it demands that you take a side.
 
I saw the film yesterday and really loved it.

I thought it was the best film to tackle race issues since "Do the Right Thing". It also reminded me of "The House of Sand and Fog", in which all the characters seem to be simultaneously good and bad (much like life).

Chris
 
Coltrain said:
All I have in reply, is that I never said "only images", what I did say is that film is "about the images". They are most important and everything else is secondary. A film like Crash, forgets this. Most films do.
Click to expand...

Filmmakers are essentially storytellers. The main objective is to tell a story and to communicate a message; the visuals, in my opinion, are secondary.

The same goes with other visual art forms; there is always a message the artist attempts to communicate.

Some filmmakers prefer to aid the storytelling aspect using visuals, while others would try to aid the visuals with the story (sort of an avant-garde type of thing). In both cases, they are not about the images, although the focus of the films may change between the visuals and the storytelling, but are "about the message".

I guess you could argue that the images are the "most important" element in the storytelling process, but one could also argue that all of the elements are equally important, as they all serve an important role in communicating the artists message. One could also argue that since the message lies within the writing/script of a film, that that should be the "most important".

My point is, it's about the story, or at least, the message.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top