I'm totally agreeing with you here, it was another one of my criticisms.
Hate Citizen Kane? Think The Godfather is overrated? It's okay, you're among friends
- Thread starter iamWZA
- Start date
I'm totally agreeing with you here, it was another one of my criticisms.
+1. They keep explaining stuff to the audience with every speech. I thought I was the only one too...
I liked the colors of Avatar, as well as the metaphor, however cliched.
I have a 13 year old, so I enjoyed his enjoyment of it, if that makes sense (watching Harry Potter for the 11 millionth time now.)
Some films have "redeeming" features if you can enjoy just one small part of it. I was happy to watch Lindsey Lohan when I got dragged by the then 6 year old kid to the "Love Bug" or whatever that was. Gotta have **something** for the adults! :huh:
MPB
Well-known member
the last scene in Andrei Rublev is awesome. and Solaris really resonated for me.
of course, after screening a few Tarkovsky films with friends, i've developed a theory. as much as i love Tarkovsky, i have to be honest, his films are hard work. and long. it seems i'm not the only one who has dozed off for at least a few minutes during his films, usually going back for another screening to get the parts i may have missed.
i postulate that this is not accidental! the fact that the films induce a semi-somnambulant state allows the psyche to engage the text in a manner entirely consistant with Tarkovsky's method and thematic intent.
MPB
Well-known member
Chris Adler
Veteran
Most people will never think enough about The Shining to get it. That's just one of the reasons I find it brilliant.
I am always amazed by how people's perception of art differs. Because, yeah, it's a cliche about "subjective taste", but I keep thinking - rather idealistically - that there must be some objective measure of quality, so you can say "good film" or "bad film"; maybe you can't rank them as #1, #2, #3 etc., but surely you can tell that any film of Ed Wood is bad, while some films by, say, Hitchcock, are good. At least this much can't we agree on? Because if not, then it's all 100% arbitrary and why would art criticism even exist, if it's all 100% subjective?
But then I read a thread like this, and start doubting it. It really does seem like it's almost 100% subjective. There is no rhyme or reason. Because intelligent people, knowledgeable about film, whose opinions I respect, have totally incomprehensible judgments about good and bad films. Go figure. Just goes to show - it's all subjective.
As just one example, I'll cite this: Godfather and it's (first) sequel Godfather II. To me, it's as clear as day that Godfather (original) is a masterpiece - acting, camera work, pacing, story. Yes, it has flaws, but those are minor compared to its virtues. But then we get to Godfather II and sorry, but I see it as trash. Trash. It's shallow exploitive soap opera type drama with soap opera acting, set ups, dramatic arcs as if from a schoolboy's idea of a play, completely lacking in discipline, sprawling and self-indulgent - above all fake, fake, fake, trading on the dramatic setups from the first Godfather, bringing nothing of its own. I absolutely hated it, and felt it was a artistic betrayal by Coppola. Now, to me, it's as clear as day. But I am also sure that to someone else it's clear as day that the opposite is true. I'm not putting myself above anyone else - but simply saying it's a feeling like going outside and seeing the bright sun and saying "it's a beautiful day", and your friend goes outside and says "no, it's a dark night". As shocking, and feels as obviously "wrong". And I would seem equally obviously wrong to my friend. Go figure.
Which is why I've given up arguing artistic merits of almost any film. Because it seems we can disagree just about anything when it comes to art, and there's no "objective" measure to say who is right and who wrong.
But then I read a thread like this, and start doubting it. It really does seem like it's almost 100% subjective. There is no rhyme or reason. Because intelligent people, knowledgeable about film, whose opinions I respect, have totally incomprehensible judgments about good and bad films. Go figure. Just goes to show - it's all subjective.
As just one example, I'll cite this: Godfather and it's (first) sequel Godfather II. To me, it's as clear as day that Godfather (original) is a masterpiece - acting, camera work, pacing, story. Yes, it has flaws, but those are minor compared to its virtues. But then we get to Godfather II and sorry, but I see it as trash. Trash. It's shallow exploitive soap opera type drama with soap opera acting, set ups, dramatic arcs as if from a schoolboy's idea of a play, completely lacking in discipline, sprawling and self-indulgent - above all fake, fake, fake, trading on the dramatic setups from the first Godfather, bringing nothing of its own. I absolutely hated it, and felt it was a artistic betrayal by Coppola. Now, to me, it's as clear as day. But I am also sure that to someone else it's clear as day that the opposite is true. I'm not putting myself above anyone else - but simply saying it's a feeling like going outside and seeing the bright sun and saying "it's a beautiful day", and your friend goes outside and says "no, it's a dark night". As shocking, and feels as obviously "wrong". And I would seem equally obviously wrong to my friend. Go figure.
Which is why I've given up arguing artistic merits of almost any film. Because it seems we can disagree just about anything when it comes to art, and there's no "objective" measure to say who is right and who wrong.
MPB
Well-known member
i dunno, i think it's possible to recognize certain traits, skills or intentions without placing the same value on them as someone else does. we don't have to discuss a film entirely in subjective terms. we ought to be able to recognize a film's success at achieving certain things regardless of personal taste. that's why being able to explain your view is helpful.
like many of us here i imagine, i did my fair share of critical studies in film school. after reading and writing countless essays it became clear to me that you can probably find something in any text to support any argument you care to make. but that's not to say that you can't have a real discussion, too.
like many of us here i imagine, i did my fair share of critical studies in film school. after reading and writing countless essays it became clear to me that you can probably find something in any text to support any argument you care to make. but that's not to say that you can't have a real discussion, too.
Absolutely!
Not to mention that most of my "criticism" when Iwas younger (as a joint Philososphy & Photography major) was:
1) Ego driven - trying to seem important, right, different,or just to win,
2) Socially/culturally driven - wanting to listen to coolbands, be the first to discover ... Violent Femmes, Nick Cave, Talking Heads, etc...., or
3) Culturally driven - a product of my socio economic class,upbringing, learned tastes, or
4) Experience driven - I didn't have it, so I valuedinsight/experimentation more than mastery, downplaying the value of 20 years ofexperience in the field.
Most of our intellectual arguments serve only to support ourpreconceived beliefs, perceptions, biases, etc.
As a **professional**, one of my main goals is to be able tolook at things somewhat (more) objectively. To see why others value them, whatthe director, DP, etc. was trying to accomplish, why people made the choicesthey did.
There is a lot to be learned from some very, very talentedpeople who spent their lives learning, perceiving, testing, and applying thoseskills. I think you could arbitrarily say "yes" or "no" toanything, and then justify it.
If you look at the statistical distribution of"genius", there are probably 1,000+ people working today who are asintelligent, creative, insightful, or talented as a Leonardo di Vinci, or a Beethoven,or Escher (or Marcel Duchamp, to name my favorite.) It is just mathematics, thesize of the world today and the standard deviation from the "norm."
Then again, how many $$ million have I made on any singleproject in my life? How many still photos have I sold for more than $100K in mylife? How many magazine covers published, paintings at the Louvre, songwritingdeals, etc.?
Uh .... none.
But I think this thread in a way is an admission of our ownfailing - to appreciate or care about whatever it is - than it is a commendationof the films themselves. There is already a pretty large pool of"backers" for all of these films.
Michael
Last edited:
Bruce Watson
Veteran
I love Citizen Kane. If I actually had a top-10 list, it would certainly be in it. I also love The Third Man; best actor's entrance I've ever seen in a film, and the night scenes and sewer scenes are wonderful cinematography.
There were some excellent silent films. The General is just an amazing film, even today. Buster Keaton was, and is, indescribable. I still don't know how he did it. Wings is surprisingly good; the images of the actors actually flying the planes while acting (and actually operating the cameras in their copious spare time) was as innovative as anything I've seen in cinema. The Battleship Potemkin is the granddaddy of a whole lot of techniques still used in film. I can't count the number of variations I've seen of the famous stairway scene, but none are as good as the original which is still completely breathtaking.
My favorite Hitchcock is Rear Window, but I admit to being a serious Jimmy Stewart fan anyway. Vertigo and Notorious are both right in there too.
Then there's Lawrence of Arabia; amazing cinematography. If you want an epic, it's hard to beat this one.
Double Indemnity is one of the great film noir masterpieces. And one of Barbara Stanwyck's finest roles. That woman could act! And this film has some of the best lighting I've seen.
Swing Time is an amazingly underrated film. The best of the Astaire / Rogers films, it's usually belittled as "just a dance film" but on the contrary, it had a story to tell and it told it well and uniquely. As difficult and demanding as the dances were, the film wasn't about them. It used them to tell the story. Which is why I like it.
I could go on and on and on, but I don't want to completely bore people, even on a Sunday afternoon. So I'll end it with my three favorite films. All as different from each other as they can possibly be. And those three are:
1) Casablanca. The La Marseillaise scene is the epitome of defiance.
2) Blade Runner. So good I can't find words to describe it.
3) Ratatouille. Perhaps the best animated feature. A great story, told by a master storyteller. And a film that anyone interested in color and color theory should see.
But did I mention... no, I'm done. Really. Sigh...
There were some excellent silent films. The General is just an amazing film, even today. Buster Keaton was, and is, indescribable. I still don't know how he did it. Wings is surprisingly good; the images of the actors actually flying the planes while acting (and actually operating the cameras in their copious spare time) was as innovative as anything I've seen in cinema. The Battleship Potemkin is the granddaddy of a whole lot of techniques still used in film. I can't count the number of variations I've seen of the famous stairway scene, but none are as good as the original which is still completely breathtaking.
My favorite Hitchcock is Rear Window, but I admit to being a serious Jimmy Stewart fan anyway. Vertigo and Notorious are both right in there too.
Then there's Lawrence of Arabia; amazing cinematography. If you want an epic, it's hard to beat this one.
Double Indemnity is one of the great film noir masterpieces. And one of Barbara Stanwyck's finest roles. That woman could act! And this film has some of the best lighting I've seen.
Swing Time is an amazingly underrated film. The best of the Astaire / Rogers films, it's usually belittled as "just a dance film" but on the contrary, it had a story to tell and it told it well and uniquely. As difficult and demanding as the dances were, the film wasn't about them. It used them to tell the story. Which is why I like it.
I could go on and on and on, but I don't want to completely bore people, even on a Sunday afternoon. So I'll end it with my three favorite films. All as different from each other as they can possibly be. And those three are:
1) Casablanca. The La Marseillaise scene is the epitome of defiance.
2) Blade Runner. So good I can't find words to describe it.
3) Ratatouille. Perhaps the best animated feature. A great story, told by a master storyteller. And a film that anyone interested in color and color theory should see.
But did I mention... no, I'm done. Really. Sigh...
I don't think it's a fair assessment to say you either get The Shining and love it, or you don't and hate it. If that's what you're trying to say.
Not sure what all this is about, but I saw Casablanca above, and I remember the screenwriter of Casablanca looking back on it:
“Just a routine assignment,” Epstein said. “Frankly, I can’t understand its staying power. If it were made today, line for line, each performance as good, it’d be laughed off the screen. It’s such a phony picture. Not a word of truth in it. It’s camp, it’s kitsch. It’s . . . ****!” -Julius Epstein, shortly before his death
“Just a routine assignment,” Epstein said. “Frankly, I can’t understand its staying power. If it were made today, line for line, each performance as good, it’d be laughed off the screen. It’s such a phony picture. Not a word of truth in it. It’s camp, it’s kitsch. It’s . . . ****!” -Julius Epstein, shortly before his death
"Most of our intellectual arguments serve only to support ourpreconceived beliefs, perceptions, biases, etc."
That depends on what you're arguing about. If there is no single answer, and it is not a factual discussion, as in the meaning of art, then yes. But you cannot generalize this statement to other areas. That's a "know nothing" argument, itself a preconceived bias that an answer to a question cannot be found, because there are no answers. Can't buy that, sorry. Science is based on the idea that there are answers and you set out to answer them. The scientific method itself is an "intellectual argument" to get at the meaning of facts and evidence.
That depends on what you're arguing about. If there is no single answer, and it is not a factual discussion, as in the meaning of art, then yes. But you cannot generalize this statement to other areas. That's a "know nothing" argument, itself a preconceived bias that an answer to a question cannot be found, because there are no answers. Can't buy that, sorry. Science is based on the idea that there are answers and you set out to answer them. The scientific method itself is an "intellectual argument" to get at the meaning of facts and evidence.
tom_wise
Well-known member
I'll play. But only because I believe I don't need no stinkin' justification! Though that won't stop me from justifying when I WANT to!
Fav's of my lifetime:
Outlaw Josey Wales (there's just something about Spitting on Dead peoples heads that thrills me!) Seen this movie appx 238 times, but who's counting?
American History X : Fuukin DOF Master!
Apocalypse Now Redux or Original
Jungle Fever. Spike Lee Joint~
Worst Movie I've seen in recent times: Joan Of Arc Directed by Christian Duguay.
Fav's of my lifetime:
Outlaw Josey Wales (there's just something about Spitting on Dead peoples heads that thrills me!) Seen this movie appx 238 times, but who's counting?
American History X : Fuukin DOF Master!
Apocalypse Now Redux or Original
Jungle Fever. Spike Lee Joint~
Worst Movie I've seen in recent times: Joan Of Arc Directed by Christian Duguay.
Jawa Ex Machina
Veteran
I agree with this, but it's fair though to say it's easy to not appreciate something you misunderstand. The Shining is one helluva complicated film, and if you just look at the surface you're missing out.
Either way, as I said earlier, never hate a film. What's the point? Where does that get you? What do you gain from that?
I can't see any positive outcome of hating any film at all.
Batutta
Major Contributor
I really wasn't a fan of the Redux. I thought the added scenes undercut alot of what made the original work so well. Primarily Willard's relationship with the other crew members became too friendly. It dissipated the unspoken tension between him and the crew. I thought the original was near perfect. Redux slightly less.
