Elephant

cygnet74. I'd just like to say that I've read a lot of your posts, seen you around the boards, and couldn't agree more with you. You make very valid points and are a huge asset to this site. Keep it up.
 
thanks ben! has anyone ever told you that you resemble giovanni ribisi if he had been cast in a remake of taxi driver?
 
haha, funny that you say that. I actually cut my hair into a mohawk because I wanted to be Travis for Halloween. About 1 in a 100 people got it. Actually, a lot of people thought I was trying to be Maverick from Top Gun. Couldn't understand that, but whatever. I'm growing my hair long again but can't wait to cut it all off into a mohawk again. Glad this has a lot to do with Elephant.
 
f*ck elephant, let's talk about your haircut!!!

they thought you looked like maverick? were you playing beach volleyball in your jeans at the time? "mother goose, you pussy!!!"
 
cygnet74 said:
that's a fairly short-sighted view of what a film is "supposed" to be. what you've described is the task of entertainment; which should only apply to jerry bruckheimer and disneyland. a responsibility to entertain doesn't apply to a filmmaker like van sant. in fact, i think the reverse may be true... that the responsibility lies with the audience to engage with what they're being presented with, if they are going to get anything out of it beyond an occasional distraction from their popcorn. you may not see it, but i'm telling you that the visible foreground does, in fact, comprise more than the obvious.
Click to expand...

I didn't say a movie has to "entertain" I merely said keep interest, which would include the audience engaging the ideas of the film. This movie did not do that for me.
 
cygnet74 said:
if that's all you see, then you don't "get" minimalism. minimalist filmmakers opt for the voluntary banishment of any loud ornaments to reveal something substantial. instead of attractive, spectacular devices the filmmaker focuses only on the fundamental. that much you seem to grasp, but to truly "get" it, you have to understand why. and that differs from film to film and artist to artist. but generally, the minimalist artist believes every truth is revolutionary and that the true heart of things uncovers the invisible, bringing it into the light where it can be shared and better understood.
Click to expand...

I agree with you here. I just do not enjoy, and therefore do not appreciate, the minimilast style as done here. Just a personal taste. I am not the type that only likes hollywood style movies but some minimilast work is to far off of my taste for me to appreciate.
 
living.jpg


HATED IT!
 
LOLZ. What are the odds? I guess I should have read that Face/Off thread after all...no, I think I'd rather not. No one wants to hear how much I hate that movie. Good eye, though!
 
Zak Forsman said:
Gerry is the real "scene stealer"...
this scene was from satantango was in gerry with tumbleweeds instead of trash.

Bela Tarr -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8DOQFccj00
Van Sant -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRE5RZijKD0 (trailer, scene is at 1m37s)

as well as this scene from werckmeister harmonies focusing on the rhythm of footsteps...

Bela Tarr -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSyv_um9LEU
Van Sant -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV2z4copeLQ
Click to expand...

Gus Van Zant has not hidden his admiration of Bela Tarr

That being said; are we supposed to be impressed by either of these filmmakers examples ? You want to see truly mezmerizing long takes;

see Scorsese, see De Palma, see Tarantino

Following two guys in an alley is nothing but bad steadicam work.

if that's all you see, then you don't "get" minimalism. minimalist filmmakers opt for the voluntary banishment of any loud ornaments to reveal something substantial. instead of attractive, spectacular devices the filmmaker focuses only on the fundamental. that much you seem to grasp, but to truly "get" it, you have to understand why. and that differs from film to film and artist to artist. but generally, the minimalist artist believes every truth is revolutionary and that the true heart of things uncovers the invisible, bringing it into the light where it can be shared and better understood.
Click to expand...

Whether some one gets it or not is a moot point in thier liking of it. A bare white walled room with a single white chair in the middle is minimilist but has as much substance as a blank canvas. Minimilist art and artists like Van Zant have a place in cinema; but it doesn't mnean it's all good, just another point on the curve.

Chastizing others for not getting it is pretentious at best.

You can pretend and assume to know the hidden mysteries and meanings of the layers presented in these works but unless the filmmaker has told you what it was he was trying to do its all what youre getting from it. If these filmmakers told us the significant meaning of a said sequence it'd probably burst a ton of bubbles.

that's a fairly short-sighted view of what a film is "supposed" to be. what you've described is the task of entertainment; which should only apply to jerry bruckheimer and disneyland. a responsibility to entertain doesn't apply to a filmmaker like van sant. in fact, i think the reverse may be true... that the responsibility lies with the audience to engage with what they're being presented with, if they are going to get anything out of it beyond an occasional distraction from their popcorn. you may not see it, but i'm telling you that the visible foreground does, in fact, comprise more than the obvious.
Click to expand...

Short sighted ? Zaaaaaaaaaak.

Saying someones Gerry and the lack of entertainment value is for lack of Disney or Bruckheimer is asinine. I agree that an artist does not have a responsibility to entertain but it doesn't mean it's going to be any good because of it.

Bruckheimer and Van Zant couldn't be farther apart on the cinematic curve and I doubt any poster here is not liking Gerry for lack of Michael Bay directing it.
 
John_Hudson said:
Gus Van Zant has not hidden his admiration of Bela Tarr
Click to expand...
I know that. he hasn't hidden his "admiration" for drinking either. but that doesn't clear him of using it irresponsibly.

John_Hudson said:
That being said; are we supposed to be impressed by either of these filmmakers examples ? You want to see truly mezmerizing long takes;

see Scorsese, see De Palma, see Tarantino

Following two guys in an alley is nothing but bad steadicam work.
Click to expand...
well, i think we're seeing two different things. bela's long takes (to my eye) are like poetry. like being able to move around within a living painting. he will often seemingly "freeze" his actors and let the camera float through their space observing them in their environmental and social context. the other filmmaker's you mentioned are equally mezmerizing but its more for the technical achievement of their choreography.

John_Hudson said:
Whether some one gets it or not is a moot point in thier liking of it. A bare white walled room with a single white chair in the middle is minimilist but has as much substance as a blank canvas. Minimilist art and artists like Van Zant have a place in cinema; but it doesn't mnean it's all good, just another point on the curve.

Chastizing others for not getting it is pretentious at best.
Click to expand...
well, i think what you described (chair in an empty room) is a superficial view of minimalism. and without context, it does lack substance. but what if that shot came at the end of a film about an old woman who had always been seen sitting in that chair? suppose we know she had used it later to hang herself. and what if seeing that empty chair, which now carries the contextual weight of her suicide, holds some significance to an experience in the viewer's own life, beyond the world of the film. all of that is no less trite but any context begins to add layers to the substance of a minimalist shot. even if our understanding of minimalism is limited to the misunderstanding that its defined as the absense of objects within the frame.

as for my pretentiousness: if studying and, god forbid, developing a sensitivity to and understanding of seemingly impenetrable art, and trying to explain to someone who hasn't that, yes, there is more there than you think there is.... well, it isn't. I'm not claiming any level of importance. I'm countering the assertion that it doesn't exist. it was a response to the old "nothing happens" argument that you and I both know is the refuge of the intellectually lazy.

John_Hudson said:
You can pretend and assume to know the hidden mysteries and meanings of the layers presented in these works but unless the filmmaker has told you what it was he was trying to do its all what youre getting from it. If these filmmakers told us the significant meaning of a said sequence it'd probably burst a ton of bubbles.
Click to expand...
i welcome any filmmaker that can "burst my bubble" and help me open my eyes and expand my understanding of things!!! I don't pretend to know the hidden mysteries. i work to uncover them. when i see a film that inspires me, i will obsess over it, research it, study it, read crtiques and essays and interviews with the filmmaker so that i can inform my own ideas about it. and that, often, is what filmmakers like bela tarr want: a subjective experience for the viewer; an interpretation. that's very much a part of minimalism. stripping it down creates a bit of a blank canvas for us to fill in the gaps with our own understandings of life and love and pain and why some dog won't stop barking or why there's so much trash in the street or why the rhythm of footsteps holds significance or meaning or poetry. for many it doesn't. but for the few that it does, it's like nourishment for the mind and soul.


John_Hudson said:
Short sighted ? Zaaaaaaaaaak.

Saying someones Gerry and the lack of entertainment value is for lack of Disney or Bruckheimer is asinine. I agree that an artist does not have a responsibility to entertain but it doesn't mean it's going to be any good because of it.

Bruckheimer and Van Zant couldn't be farther apart on the cinematic curve and I doubt any poster here is not liking Gerry for lack of Michael Bay directing it.
Click to expand...
i don't think i suggested otherwise. I was suggesting that a minimalist filmmaker's responsibility is not to entertain, not to put on a song and dance, not to put on a magic show. those are the realm of amusement parks and showmen. instead, i suggested that there are other things that people like me look for. and further, that the audience has a bigger responsibility (horror!) to use their goddam heads!
 
Last edited:
For me, John, you are missing the point.

Scorcese, DePalma, and Tarantino are different types of filmmakers, and their films are more plot+narrative drivenm. I think if you asked these filmmakers if there was a difference between a tracking shot in one of their films ,versus a Tarr tracking sequence, they would tell you there is a huge difference because they are different beasts.
Bela Tarr/Van Sant(Elephant, Gerry) type of films generate a different kind of excitement, or a different kind of "mesmerizing". I could never fully and objectively explain what is going on in Werckmeister Harmonies, because each time I watch it I get a different reaction. I think this is the main reason I am so drawn to it. Its meditative stimuli involves my imagination wholly different and doesn't hold me captive to plot.
These films are obviously not for everyone...and for the millionth time, it doesn't mean that I think people are inferior if "they don't get it", it is just a matter of different taste.

"Whether someone gets it or not is a moot point in their liking of it"

"Getting something" is completely the point. It involves a deeper understanding of what is there to be studied or appreciated. If you don't get it at some level, you probably won't like it.
Minimalism doesn't mean material minimalism, as in a white room with only a chair, it refers more to the eradication of the expected. Minimalism in so many ways, is a counter-point to traditional, manipulative technique. It tries to lose the baggage of filmmaking cues that exist for entertainment's sake.

"You can pretend and assume to know the hidden mysteries and meanings of the layers presented in these works but unless the filmmaker has told you what it was he was trying to do its all what youre getting from it."

The incovering of these layers, on a person to person basis, is exactly the experience that these movies produce if you are one to receive it. Maybe my brain is pretending, but I feel like I am uncovering it on some personal level. That is what blows me away. I feel like it is a canvas that is left perfectly unfinished, or is designed to have the appearance that it is perfectly unfinished, and I am the agent who gets to complete it. (Differently each time, no doubt!) I feel like Tarr and Tarkovsky have so much trust in me as an audience member, and they know that their kind of film is not about tying all loose ends.
 
It involves a deeper understanding of what is there to be studied or appreciated.
Click to expand...

(Sound of Buzzer and Red Flashing Light)

No. It does not involve a deeper understanding; that is the exact kind of prentenciousness (Is that a word?) I cringe at. I emplore the use of a different word to get this point across.

A person can understand it and still not get it or like it or want it. I strongly think that exploring Personality psychology is a better way of determining who get's what in art.

-

I agree, more or less, with the rest of your take on this, from them generating a different type of excitement too art being embraced differently for every person and the reasons being their own.

These films are obviously not for everyone...and for the millionth time, it doesn't mean that I think people are inferior if "they don't get it", it is just a matter of different taste.
Click to expand...

Exactly. These films are for a minorty; like abstract art. I appreciate them being on the curve, I even take some inspiration from them. They do belong. But I liken them to a chapter to be studied and then it's best to move forward onto more advanced and rich techniques in telling my story

For example, I first discovered Terrence Malick with The Thin Red Line and at first glance just did not like it; I had just walked across the street from the hyper-realism of Saving Private Ryan I practically was dozing off at times

In time, I began to appreciate and take from Malicks work. There is a scene when young G.I. is head down in the elephant grass in a lull in the fighting and in front of him is a Carnivirous plant he messes with. I found this to be a wonderfully poignant moment in a film about war. Later, we see a similiar shot of a baby bird lying alive on the ground, dying from the battle ...

It is compositions like these that speak wonderfully. But at times, it can get self indulgent; see The New World

=

What I don't like about we're referring to is that it just too much of too little. There is NO peak or valley, no creshendo/decreshendo to contrast these quiet, gentler moments .

I'm rambling. I cannot emphasize how much I welcome all points of the curve into the filmstream library.

=

Side note; On my next short, I am forsaken all hand-held work and sticking with more tradtional methods of telling the story, static, locked-down, dolly ...

I see my next project as not only an oppurtunity for growth, but one for experimentation using traditional mis-ebn-scene and minimalist capture of the scenes in question. Stay tuned.
 
John_Hudson said:
I appreciate them being on the curve, I even take some inspiration from them. They do belong. But I liken them to a chapter to be studied and then it's best to move forward onto more advanced and rich techniques in telling my story
Click to expand...

I just had to point out that this comes off as pretentious in favor of mainstream films. Calling these works simplistic and to say that they lack richness is kind of silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top