For those of us who hate Hollywood films...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...

[quote author=John Hudson link=board=movies;num=1081972841;start=30#39 date=04/19/04 at 09:50:06]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.[/quote]

Not to mention that SEALs aren't GIs . . .
 
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...

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.
 
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...

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.
 
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...

[quote author=Zot link=board=movies;num=1081972841;start=30#43 date=05/25/04 at 16:44:10]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.[/quote]

Ridleys son is a filmaker? Are we talking about Tony here? You didnt like Gladiator or BHD? ???
 
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...

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.
 
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...

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!
 
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...

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.
 
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...

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".....
 
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...

"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.
 
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...

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

Not Brakhage or Spielberg.
 
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...

[quote author=Carl Clarksburg link=board=movies;num=1081972841;start=45#52 date=05/28/04 at 18:01:40]Tarkovsky, Bresson, Antonioni, Dreyer, Tarr, and Bergman is all I have to say...

Not Brakhage or Spielberg.[/quote]

Yep
 
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...

[quote author=Jay_Blanchard link=board=movies;num=1081972841;start=45#50 date=05/28/04 at 11:41:31]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.[/quote]

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.
Click to expand...

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".....
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...

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.
 
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...

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.
 
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...

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".
 
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top