Elephant

[Zak Forsman]

No. It does not involve a deeper understanding; that is the exact kind of prentenciousness (Is that a word?) I cringe at.

of course there are deeper levels of understanding in life. just as I can't rebuild an engine in the same way that my mechanic (as far as I know) can't intuit the meanings at the heart of Bela Tarr's films. i must be misunderstanding your assertion, because it seems a strange thing to say: that people can't have different understandings of a thing, or that their life experience can't educate them or make them more sensitive to the depths that other people can't see or outright dismiss.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Yes ! I rented Werkmeister Harmonies on my hiatus of film self loathing.

It was alright. I found overdone pointless at times and other times found it beautifully shot and leaving me moved.

I do subscribe to one shot advancing the next shot and having purpose; shots doing their job and moving forward ...

If that makes sense. I am willing (and wanting) too see more of his work; but I termed my Netflix account after 2 months. After watching this I wasn't like OMG I just have to rent more of Tarr unlike after watching De Palma films.

I'm not a huge fan of Lynch, but recently went back and watched Blue Velvet; after viewing that I immediatley rented Wild At Heart and The Elephant Man on the next Que if that means anything

 

[Zak Forsman]

I'm not a huge fan of Lynch, but recently went back and watched Blue Velvet; after viewing that I immediatley rented Wild At Heart and The Elephant Man on the next Que if that means anything

okay then ignore my previous post because i must have misunderstood you. right there, is an example of how your appreciation has "deepened" with time.

 

[c.g._eads]

I think the point here is that this movie was terrible. It's an example of a filmmaker seeing just how far he can push the envelope of what he can get away with. His casting of the girlish boy in the lead role reaked of a crush. And then there was the completely nonsensical, only there for his own personal stimuli scene of the two boys having sex before they shot up the school (or kissing or whatever). Come on! And the ten minute takes. Go see Children Of Men to watch someone who knows what to do with a ten minute take. Two minutes would've been completely sufficient. He stretches that to five times that length to what? To see what he could get away with. Minimilism works in other forms of art because you don't sit there and stare at or listen to them for 2 straight hours. You look for maybe a few minutes, leave, come back another time, look again. But forcing us to sit through this excercise in pretentiousness was a cruel joke and he sucked all of you into it - well, those who liked it anyway.

Terrible film. TERRIBLE.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

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.

Ahhhhhh but wait a second Isaac.

I say they lack richness and are simplistic too me; not you or anyone else who embraces them. Me telling you, you just don't understand it is an entirely different vibe and accusation and really dismissive of a persons opinion and likes, isn't it ?

of course there are deeper levels of understanding in life. just as I can't rebuild an engine in the same way that my mechanic (as far as I know) can't intuit the meanings at the heart of Bela Tarr's films. i must be misunderstanding your assertion, because it seems a strange thing to say: that people can't have different understandings of a thing, or that their life experience can't educate them or make them more sensitive to the depths that other people can't see or outright dismiss.

So you are saying that you have a deeper understanding ? That your life experiences have enabled you to be more sensitive to these depths ?
I find that people take in art for different reasons due to Personality psychology as I stated above.

I don't think life experience is what influences their tastes in any artform (I don't doubt it has a minimal affect; hell, walking out to get the mail can have an effect on your life).

I've met far too many people from far too many vast lifestles, situations and lfe experiences with so many eclectic tastes that I firmy believe it is in us from birth.

Your mechanic (as a dumbass as he is) just may be more attune to the work of Bela Tarr than you think. (Rolling eyes)

 

[J.R. Hudson]

okay then ignore my previous post because i must have misunderstood you. right there, is an example of how your appreciation has "deepened" with time.

For what it is worth; it is the usual regulars here in Film Discussion is what makes this place worth coming back too.

Not just film critics that you'd find over at a film board, but filmmakers.

:beer:

 

[Zak Forsman]

Ahhhhhh but wait a second Isaac.

I say they lack richness and are simplistic too me; not you or anyone else who embraces them. Me telling you, you just don't understand it is an entirely different vibe and accusation and really dismissive of a persons opinion and likes, isn't it ?

it's not dismissive to tell someone that what they're dismissing as "nothing happens" is a dismissal of the film's deeper layers. ...that was fun

So you are saying that you have a deeper understanding ? That your life experiences have enabled you to be more sensitive to these depths ?
I find that people take in art for different reasons due to Personality psychology as I stated above.

I don't think life experience is what influences their tastes in any artform (I don't doubt it has a minimal affect; hell, walking out to get the mail can have an effect on your life).

well, it's my opinion that life experience is an emotional, intellectual and often spiritual education. as those aspects of your humanity change and develop thru experience, they reveal greater depths in everything from your relationship with friends and family, to your work to, to your sense of purpose, and yes, even in your appreciation of art.

I've met far too many people from far too many vast lifestles, situations and lfe experiences with so many eclectic tastes that I firmy believe it is in us from birth.

from birth? how long ago was it when you saw Blue Velvet for the first time? what changed between then and now? your appreciation hadn't revealed more in that film than it had the first time you saw it?

Your mechanic (as a dumbass as he is) just may be more attune to the work of Bela Tarr than you think. (Rolling eyes)

he's no dumbass. the man has an understanding of and appreciation for something that if i were to try my hand at, i just wouldn't "get it". and that is the sentiment i'm trying to express here. we are not all capable of seeing and understanding things in the same way.

For what it is worth; it is the usual regulars here in Film Discussion is what makes this place worth coming back too.

Not just film critics that you'd find over at a film board, but filmmakers.

:beer:

i have long since left those boards. much more interesting to converse with those that "do"; even if we don't do it as often a we should. :beer:

which reminds me, i took the week off so i could get some writing done. so i need to go do that right now. can't direct a feature without writing the blueprint or else i really will be making a film where "nothing happens".

 

[Pen Cap Chew]

I think the point here is that this movie was terrible. It's an example of a filmmaker seeing just how far he can push the envelope of what he can get away with. His casting of the boyish girl in the lead role reaked of a crush. And then there was the completely nonsensical, only there for his own personal stimuli scene of the two boys having sex before they shot up the school (or kissing or whatever). Come on! And the ten minute takes. Go see Children Of Men to watch someone who knows what to do with a ten minute take. Two minutes would've been completely sufficient. He stretches that to five times that length to what? To see what he could get away with. Minimilism works in other forms of art because you don't sit there and stare at or listen to them for 2 straight hours. You look for maybe a few minutes, leave, come back another time, look again. But forcing us to sit through this excercise in pretentiousness was a cruel joke and he sucked all of you into it - well, those who liked it anyway.

Terrible film. TERRIBLE.

Sad thing is Elephant is a masterpiece compared to Gus' "Last Days". Now that is a TERRIBLE POINTLESS exercise in filmaking. I think Gus thinks if he just leaves the camera running on a blank wall or something we'll sense something poignant but it's only in his head. Nonetheless, I love Gus. Drugstore Cowboy is one of my favorites and I have faith that someday he'll make something awesome again.

 

[Zak Forsman]

I think the point here is that this movie was terrible. It's an example of a filmmaker seeing just how far he can push the envelope of what he can get away with. His casting of the boyish girl in the lead role reaked of a crush. And then there was the completely nonsensical, only there for his own personal stimuli scene of the two boys having sex before they shot up the school (or kissing or whatever). Come on! And the ten minute takes. Go see Children Of Men to watch someone who knows what to do with a ten minute take. Two minutes would've been completely sufficient. He stretches that to five times that length to what? To see what he could get away with. Minimilism works in other forms of art because you don't sit there and stare at or listen to them for 2 straight hours. You look for maybe a few minutes, leave, come back another time, look again. But forcing us to sit through this excercise in pretentiousness was a cruel joke and he sucked all of you into it - well, those who liked it anyway.

Terrible film. TERRIBLE.

you mean... nothing happens? or you just don't like what did happen? because you'd be wrong about the first one. and wouldn't trust your perception of the film anyway seeing as the lead was not a girl. his name was john. and the two killers did not have sex. they kissed.

Sad thing is Elephant is a masterpiece compared to Gus' "Last Days". Now that is a TERRIBLE POINTLESS exercise in filmaking. I think Gus thinks if he just leaves the camera running on a blank wall or something we'll sense something poignant but it's only in his head. Nonetheless, I love Gus. Drugstore Cowboy is one of my favorites and I have faith that someday he'll make something awesome again.

would you really say it had no point? or that the points it did make were ones you couldn't care less about? the latter makes sense. but if it's the former than you're just spouting empty rhetoric.

 

[c.g._eads]

Sad thing is Elephant is a masterpiece compared to Gus' "Last Days". Now that is a TERRIBLE POINTLESS exercise in filmaking. I think Gus thinks if he just leaves the camera running on a blank wall or something we'll sense something poignant but it's only in his head. Nonetheless, I love Gus. Drugstore Cowboy is one of my favorites and I have faith that someday he'll make something awesome again.

Yes, after I saw this movie I wondered, "Why did he stop at ten minutes with his takes? Why not shoot on video and shoot for 60 minutes and make the film 10 hours long? I mean, if he really wants to push the envelope, what's the point in stopping so soon. He could've easily made this film a day. Maybe then he would've been truly satisfied."

Just out of curiosity, for the people who like these long minimalist takes where nothing happens. What would've been the limit for you? If nothing would've happened for another ten minutes, would you still have been on board? 30 minute takes? When does minimalism become absurd? Or does it not matter as long as the intent is there?

 

[Zak Forsman]

Just out of curiosity, for the people who like these long minimalist takes where nothing happens. What would've been the limit for you? If nothing would've happened for another ten minutes, would you still have been on board? 30 minute takes? When does minimalism become absurd? Or does it not matter as long as the intent is there?

as long as there is a gun, or a sexy girl, or drug use or someone is making references to pop culture, the shot can go on forever as far as i'm concerned. [/sarcasm]

i'm not at fault if you can't see what's being communicated to you by Van Sant. i understand it. others understand it. you need a more robust understanding of art, it seems. i'm sure you have a good understanding of entertainment, but this is a different animal. come back when you can acknowledge that something is happening and that it's simply not to your taste.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

I'm not saying life experience does not shape us; no no no

I do belive our personality is predetermined; some are brainiacs, alternative, artists, atheletes, Type A, etc

Obviously a more complicated discussion than a few our posts can highlight

 

[Zak Forsman]

I'm not saying life experience does not shape us; no no no

I do belive our personality is predetermined; some are brainiacs, alternative, artists, atheletes, Type A, etc

Obviously a more complicated discussion than a few our posts can highlight

true dat! :thumbup: ...off to write.

 

[c.g._eads]

as long as there is a gun, or a sexy girl, or drug use or someone is making references to pop culture, the shot can go on forever as far as i'm concerned. [/sarcasm]

i'm not at fault if you can't see what's being communicated to you by Van Sant. i understand it. others understand it. you need a more robust understanding of art, it seems. i'm sure you have a good understanding of entertainment, but this is a different animal. come back when you can acknowledge that something is happening and that it's simply not to your taste.

Are you saying that Van Sant is deliberately trying to not entertain me? If so, thank you for clearing up why I hated this movie! Now if only someone would've told me that before I walked in.

Let me tell you what I *believe* Van Sant's intention was when he made the choices that he did in this movie. The long takes were supposed to convey the more "realistic" rhythms of life. In real life, someone doesn't make a snappy remark and then get followed up immediately by an even snappier comeback (a la some Kevin Williamson screenplay). In real life there are pauses. There is distance. The person in reality will think of that comeback much later in the day, then find a way to get back at that person later. In real life, we don't walk out of a room and magically appear next to our car. In real life we have to actually walk down the hall, out the door, through the parking lot, and to the car. Van Sant wanted to follow these people through their real-time routines so as to build the same real-life tension one would find IN real life.

The problem is it doesn't work because he pushes it so far out of the realm of accesibility. There's still a film language and a real-life language. There's still a reason why that hilarious 40 minute conversation you had with your best friend sits like a big lump of **** when you put it on film. Why NOBODY laughs. Because direct translation from real life doesn't work on film. And that's my point here. Why did he stop at a 120 minute movie? If he's going to go, why not go all the way? The reason is, is because even Van Sant has limits. Even he knows there's a boundry. What he doesn't know, is that he stretched the boundry way too far in this film and the only people who like it are people who like to pretend it exists on this plane of other-worldly intellectualism... Oh, and the French. And that right there should tell you a whole lot about the merits of this film.

That being said, it was better than The Island.

 

[Zak Forsman]

Are you saying that Van Sant is deliberately trying to not entertain me? If so, thank you for clearing up why I hated this movie! Now if only someone would've told me that before I walked in.

that's right. van sant is no longer an entertainer.

Let me tell you what I *believe* Van Sant's intention was when he made the choices that he did in this movie. The long takes were supposed to convey the more "realistic" rhythms of life. In real life, someone doesn't make a snappy remark and then get followed up immediately by an even snappier comeback (a la some Kevin Williamson screenplay). In real life there are pauses. There is distance. The person in reality will think of that comeback much later in the day, then find a way to get back at that person later. In real life, we don't walk out of a room and magically appear next to our car. In real life we have to actually walk down the hall, out the door, through the parking lot, and to the car. Van Sant wanted to follow these people through their real-time routines so as to build the same real-life tension one would find IN real life.

if he was interested only in making things as they are in real life, there wouldn't have been slow motion shots, there wouldn't be the cubist shifts in perspective.

The problem is it doesn't work because he pushes it so far out of the realm of accesibility. There's still a film language and a real-life language. There's still a reason why that hilarious 40 minute conversation you had with your best friend sits like a big lump of shi* when you put it on film. Why NOBODY laughs. Because direct translation from real life doesn't work on film. And that's my point here. Why did he stop at a 120 minute movie? If he's going to go, why not go all the way? The reason is, is because even Van Sant has limits. Even he knows there's a boundry.

done well, it works for me. and Van Sant isn't necessarily doing it that well. he's imitating the work of greater artists. and the reason events from your own life dont work in a film is because there they may lack depth, or context or that essential element of poetry. it's not because they aren't interesting.

What he doesn't know, is that he stretched the boundry way too far in this film and the only people who like it are people who like to pretend it exists on this plane of other-worldly intellectualism... Oh, and the French. And that right there should tell you a whole lot about the merits of this film.

right.... i'm pretending to be rewarded by this particular brand of filmmaking. what kind of a thing is that to say? how would you react if i said your "mainstream-elitist" views are a facade? it adds nothing. it means nothing. it's insulting.

 

[AloysiusK]

"What he doesn't know, is that he stretched the boundry way too far in this film and the only people who like it are people who like to pretend it exists on this plane of other-worldly intellectualism... Oh, and the French. And that right there should tell you a whole lot about the merits of this film."

Thanks for telling me how I feel.... for the personal condescension and attack....and for letting me know that my wife,who is French, is inferior to your opinions. She'll appreciate your racist slur.
You are the type of person that makes it very difficult to have a thoughtful discussion with others who have differences of opinion. Grow up.

 

[c.g._eads]

"What he doesn't know, is that he stretched the boundry way too far in this film and the only people who like it are people who like to pretend it exists on this plane of other-worldly intellectualism... Oh, and the French. And that right there should tell you a whole lot about the merits of this film."

Thanks for telling me how I feel.... for the personal condescension and attack....and for letting me know that my wife,who is French, is inferior to your opinions. She'll appreciate your racist slur.
You are the type of person that makes it very difficult to have a thoughtful discussion with others who have differences of opinion. Grow up.

calm down brother. That was a joke.

 

[Pen Cap Chew]

would you really say it had no point? or that the points it did make were ones you couldn't care less about? the latter makes sense. but if it's the former than you're just spouting empty rhetoric.

Actually I'm one of the few who liked Elephant more or less. The meandering in that film didn't bother me so much. I was referring to Last Days as being Terrible and Pointless. I'm a huge Cobain fan (see my Username LOL) and that film was disrespectful to Kurt as it pictured him as a mumbling moron and little else. It was a pointless film. It offered nothing.

 

[Zak Forsman]

Actually I'm one of the few who liked Elephant more or less. The meandering in that film didn't bother me so much. I was referring to Last Days as being Terrible and Pointless. I'm a huge Cobain fan (see my Username LOL) and that film was disrespectful to Kurt as it pictured him as a mumbling moron and little else. It was a pointless film. It offered nothing.

i know which film you were talking about. and you didn't see anything in there about self-imposed isolation, the affect of the music business on an artist, drug use, nature, death, macaroni & cheese, etc. regardless of how you or i felt about how successful the film was as a work of art, doesn't negate the "points" that were being made along the way. to dismiss it as pointless, is again, lazy.

and your username is a perfect example of what i've been hammering away at here. you're username had no meaning to me other than the visual image it encouraged. but with that little bit of information, i now have (albeit on a smaller level) a deeper appreciation for it. so just because I couldn't see it, doesn't mean there wasn't something deeper hidden there.

 

[Pen Cap Chew]

"self-imposed isolation, the affect of the music business on an artist, drug use, nature, death, macaroni & cheese, etc."

That's just a simple list that any ten-year-old kid could come up with. Gus didn't do much with that list. Hmmm, I'll have a mumbling moron stumbling around for two hours, trying to make mac n cheese, hiding out from bandmates, etc. Big deal. The film uncovered squat, it didn't even try. I'll just turn the camera on and see what happens. Nothing did. Therefore, pointless.