High cinema

nyarlothothep

I decided to have a 'cultural weekend' and watched Scorcese's Taxi Driver, and Stalker by Tarkovsky. I thought Taxi Driver was quite good but not the amazing film that everyone has been talking about since 1976. I'm guessing it was probably revolutionary for its time but take away the novel elements (dude turns vigilante, the you talking to me line) and you've got a fairly linear narrative of a dude turning vigilante. De Niro's performance was exceptional and I thought the film perfectly captured New York's urban decay in the 70s, the atmosphere was great, however ultimately I felt it was a bit mundane. Out of Scorcese's work I thought Goodfella's was more deserving of the accolade of an amazing film.

Onto Stalker, I found the idea interesting, I know they had to shoot it a second time after the film prints were destroyed so they were on a tight budget, however I found the film incredibly tedious, the settings were just wilderness and decayed industrial interiors partially submerged in water. Actually the industrial scenes worked in a way as they were reminiscent of Giger paintings. However, I'm not entirely sure whether they were in the zone or a modernist interpretation of the zone which stripped it of its alien qualities substituting them with symbolic/minimalist set designs. The shots were incredibly long, lasting over minutes. I can respect the cinematography and the intention but I found it a bit meh. It just didn't really go anywhere, it was like a modernist play or something, I would have preferred at least some elements of alien activity. One review stated that the slow pace allows you to project your own thoughts into the film, however I find that problemmatic to some extent with this film, that you're distanced from the action because of a lack of it. You're no longer in the film but placed in an intellectual/philosophical mood by it but really the philosophical thoughts one might have are of the pub variety, with little rigour. I make this criticism sparingly as 2001 is an example of such a film yet I always found it really good because I think it was an example of really well made 'art film.'

I've seen a few art films, The Visitor, Strange Colour etc and the one thing I notice about all of them is they are remarkably po-faced and slow moving wearing idiosyncratic shots on their sleeves and often with sparse dialogue. I wonder by making these signals about having a serious intent that we're led to expect them to be brilliant when they're about as good as the average popcorn flick? Just another point about shots, I think Kubrick really mastered the auteur shot, his particular shots were genuinely iconic and genius, I don't think the same for close ups of foods (eg Tarantino) or some of the shots in Taxi Driver, which were well chosen (eg the birds eye view at the end) but not necessarily inspirational.

ThirdMan

You're criticising art films for being po-faced and yet you use terms like high cinema and auteur shot. I think you're in your element to be honest.

Lukehandypants

2001 an art film?

Sad Professor

Stalker, yes, but Taxi Driver and 2001 are not art films, so I’m not really sure what you mean by high cinema.

krudler

Lukehandypants wrote: »

2001 an art film?

It's certainly not popcorn fodder, it's methodically paced and deliberately slow moving, doesn't spoon feed an audience as to it's intentions and there are a load of questions to be answered at the end. Brainless cinema it ain't.

I love Taxi Driver but hate the porno sax on the soundtrack, it's awful.

delbertgrady

I don't think Taxi Driver is remotely mundane. I think a modern audience might be conditioned by other "vigilante" films as to how soon the action is due to kick in. I remember watching it over twenty years ago with someone who knew the gist of it, but who'd never seen it before, and - upon seeing Travis walking down the street and take a slug from his hip flask after the opening scene - took it that this was a sign that some carnage would soon follow. Which of course, it doesn't.

The way New York is filmed in a verite style adds a realism that is lacking from most contemporary films. It has frequent stylistic elements that were almost revolutionary at the time, certainly for an American studio picture, but might seem mundane now, not least because we've had almost forty years of copycats.

Despite the lurid subject matter, this was not an art picture, and some of the mise-en-scene was unorthodox, even by seventies standards: the Godard-inspired slow zoom and close up of the Alka Seltzer in the glass (sure, it's a steal, but it's an effective steal), the famous shot in the hallway where the camera pans away from Travis when he's on the payphone to Betsy and just lingers on the vacant corridor, the overhead sequence at the end. These are still striking moments.

I rate it very highly. It is a film that will continue to be discovered by new generations for many years, and not solely because Tarantino namechecks it, or because the poster looks good on the wall, or because you can get a cool t-shirt with Travis on it, but because Schrader's creation encapsulates very human conditions of isolation and loneliness, and watching a film where you can empathise with the protagonist on that level alone is as valid now as it was in 1976.

Lukehandypants

krudler wrote: »

It's certainly not popcorn fodder, it's methodically paced and deliberately slow moving, doesn't spoon feed an audience as to it's intentions and there are a load of questions to be answered at the end. Brainless cinema it ain't.

I love Taxi Driver but hate the porno sax on the soundtrack, it's awful.

2001 is a big budget sci fi movie, think Gravity for 1968.
The music is amazing on taxi driver Bernard Hermann at his best and his last film soundtrack.

ThirdMan

Lukehandypants wrote: »

2001 an art film?

Sad Professor wrote: »

Stalker, yes, but Taxi Driver and 2001 are not art films, so I’m not really sure what you mean by high cinema.

krudler wrote: »

It's certainly not popcorn fodder, it's methodically paced and deliberately slow moving, doesn't spoon feed an audience as to it's intentions and there are a load of questions to be answered at the end. Brainless cinema it ain't.

But there's a lot of crossover between 'art films' and films that are 'works of art'.

I pulled this definition of 'art films' from Wikipedia: "An art film is "intended to be a serious artistic work, often experimental and not designed for mass appeal"; they are "made primarily for aesthetic reasons rather than commercial profit", and they contain "unconventional or highly symbolic content."

2001 is a serious artistic work that is often experimental and which contains unconventional or highly symbolic content. But is it an 'art film'? I honestly don't care. I'm sure these terms are useful in certain contexts but they have no bearing on my approach to cinema. If I don't like a film I just don't like it, full stop. I don't give it brownie points because it's impenetrable.

krudler

Lukehandypants wrote: »

2001 is a big budget sci fi movie, think Gravity for 1968.
The music is amazing on taxi driver Bernard Hermann at his best and his last film soundtrack.

Well yeah but 2001 isn't audience friendly popcorn fodder either.

I like the music in Taxi Driver bar the love theme, its awful, the rest of the score is brilliant though, especially the main theme. The opening when the cab emerges from the steam with that music is fantastic.

Lukehandypants

krudler wrote: »

Well yeah but 2001 isn't audience friendly popcorn fodder either.

I like the music in Taxi Driver bar the love theme, its awful, the rest of the score is brilliant though, especially the main theme. The opening when the cab emerges from the steam with that music is fantastic.

Yeah it aint excatly popcorn and it does have complex issues about birth, technology, science, space exploration.
The book is a good read too except it's Saturn they go to instead to Jupiter, but it's turned out better that it's Jupiter because of the chances of life on europa is very likely.

ThirdMan

Lukehandypants wrote: »

2001 is a big budget sci fi movie, think Gravity for 1968.

And The Thin Red Line and Saving Private Ryan are both big-budget WW2 movies. That's correct up to a point, but it leaves out so much.

Lukehandypants

ThirdMan wrote: »

And The Thin Red Line and Saving Private Ryan are both big-budget WW2 movies. That's correct up to a point, but it leaves out so much.

It sure does.
Private Ryan was a here is what happens in war,warts and all.
Whereas thin red line was more about the musings of war and why we fight and Is it right to fight?

e_e

nyarlothothep wrote: »

they are remarkably po-faced

In what way?

To me mainstream films are a lot more po-faced whereas art films tend to be a lot looser and thus allow the viewer to interpret it for themselves. It's the opposite of pretention imo.

e_e

Also I kind of loathe terms like "art film" and "high cinema" etc. It suggests an elitism in the films that is rarely even there and puts very interesting and unique films in an unncessary box.

Lukehandypants

e_e wrote: »

In what way?

The op is using fancy language to describe what he thinks are art house films.
When taxi driver and 2001 are not art house films.

e_e

Lukehandypants wrote: »

The op is using fancy language to describe what he thinks are art house films.
When taxi driver and 2001 are not art house films.

But I think we really need to nail what defines an art film though. Those 2 are kinda borderline cases to me.

Lukehandypants

e_e wrote: »

But I think we really need to nail what defines an art film though. Those 2 are kinda borderline cases to me.

Not made by a major studio would be a start.

e_e

Lukehandypants wrote: »

Not made by a major studio would be a start.

Yeah that can delineate some, but even then in the 60s and 70s you got a few auteurs making completely unique and adventurous works within the studio system. I think 2001 can fall under that umbrella.

Here's some qualifiers I'd use:

-Decidedly non-narrative.
-No major stars.
-No defining message for the audience.
-More emphasis on conveying ideas through aesthetics than working off a script.
-Raising questions rather than giving answers.

Lukehandypants

e_e wrote: »

Yeah that can delineate some, but even then in the 60s and 70s you got a few auteurs making completely unique and adventurous works within the studio system. I think 2001 can fall under that umbrella.

Here's some qualifiers I'd use:

-Decidedly non-narrative.
-No major stars.
-No defining message for the audience.
-More emphasis on conveying ideas through aesthetics than working off a script.
-Raising questions rather than giving answers.

I was gonna post points similar to them.
U could apply all those points to any Michael Bay transformers film

e_e

"Slow cinema.", "Non-narrative.", "Auteur movies.", "Experimental" or "Abstract Film" are both more specific about these movies and less condescending tbh.

e_e

Lukehandypants wrote: »

I was gonna post points similar to them.
U could apply all those points to any Michael Bay transformers film

Yeah except that the aesthetics are ****e, the questions aren't interesting and the stars a little too major. Also the failure is that it's trying to be narrative too.

Lukehandypants

e_e wrote: »

Yeah except that the aesthetics are ****e, the questions aren't interesting and the stars a little too major. Also the failure is that it's trying to be narrative too.

Megan Fox, who?
Rosie Huntingdon never acted again
Shia Le beef stars in lars von trier movies now which could be considered art house.

e_e

Point is he was major though. Hell wasn't he the highest grossing actor at one point?

Lukehandypants

e_e wrote: »

Point is he was major though. Hell wasn't he the highest grossing actor at one point?

Yeah i think he was for two weeks in 2008

krudler

Lukehandypants wrote: »

I was gonna post points similar to them.
U could apply all those points to any Michael Bay transformers film

You could argue that Bay is an auteur too :pac:

Sad Professor

Defining art film in terms of aesthetics is a futile exercise except when applied to the cinema of a particular country and era. Traditionally an arthouse film was a film that played in arthouse theatres, i.e. cinemas that specialised in foreign language, independent and repertory screenings as opposed to the mainstream cinemas showing the latest Hollywood fare. The distinction still exists somewhat but has been eroded over the years. The IFI is best example of such a cinema in Ireland. Truly independent cinemas are being wiped out or being forced to show more mainstream films to survive, as can be seen with the Lighthouse.

I’d also be wary of redefining a 40 year old film as an art film using modern definitions of mainstream. 2001 was mainstream at the time. The fact that Kubrick was able to make films of such artistic integrity yet still have them be seen by a mainstream audience is what makes him the greatest American filmmaker IMO.

ThirdMan

Sad Professor wrote: »

The fact that Kubrick was able to make films of such artistic integrity yet still have them be seen by a mainstream audience is what makes him the greatest American filmmaker IMO.

I thought Kubrick was British until I was about 21. Can anyone tell me where I got this idea from? Or was I just uniquely misinformed?

Sad Professor

He lived and worked in Britain for most of his life.

ThirdMan

Sad Professor wrote: »

He lived and worked in Britain for most of his life.

Ah, I see.

Lukehandypants

ThirdMan wrote: »

Ah, I see.

And all of the shining was made in London.

krudler

Sad Professor wrote: »

He lived and worked in Britain for most of his life.

Wasn't he terrified of flying? so made everything in the UK

Lukehandypants

krudler wrote: »

Wasn't he terrified of flying? so made everything in the UK

Yep he was.

ThirdMan

krudler wrote: »

Wasn't he terrified of flying?

No, that was Mr. T.

nyarlothothep

Ugh, splitting hairs over labels, most of the responses are so predictable I started skipping over them. Let's not have this descend into a 'what is indie debate.' Sigh, to reiterate, Taxi Driver can be regarded as 'high cinema' as in generally very well regarded dealing with big socio-economic/political and psychological themes. Ditto for Stalker and then I went onto talk about art films. And yes, Taxi Driver has some arty shots and pacing and no I'm not saying it's arthouse. Anyway my general point is that I think most high cinema films are overrated and I think arthouse films get a generally positive reception based on being constitutive of the underdog (this is ok) and establishing a line of communication with the audience which says 'I am a serious film dealing with profound issues, take me seriously and believe that I am great.' I find most if not all art house films lacklustre. Saying 2001 is the 1968 equivalent of Gravity is utter bollocks, rewatch 2001. And yup, I would say that there is an underlying pattern which connects 2001 to arthouse, it may not be quintessentially art house but it draws upon the mood, style, pacing and tone that is identifiable in arthouse films, I don't believe in the philosophy of separating things into neat, tiday, little categories.

Already I am bored of discussing names/labels, picking, small, at terms and what they may or may not mean, I wish to talk about the mechanics of these films, the big picture as it were, not the petty and trivial, not what goes where into this or that discrete category. Let us discuss Tarkovsky. Defend his work. Defend art house cinema. Someone got the right idea about Taxi Driver, pointing out why it's good: this is interesting discussion.

Lukehandypants

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Ugh, splitting hairs over labels, most of the responses are so predictable I started skipping over them. Let's not have this descend into a 'what is indie debate.' Sigh, to reiterate, Taxi Driver can be regarded as 'high cinema' as in generally very well regarded dealing with big socio-economic/political and psychological themes. Ditto for Stalker and then I went onto talk about art films. And yes, Taxi Driver has some arty shots and pacing and no I'm not saying it's arthouse. Anyway my general point is that I think most high cinema films are overrated and I think arthouse films get a generally positive reception based on being constitutive of the underdog (this is ok) and establishing a line of communication with the audience which says 'I am a serious film dealing with profound issues, take me seriously and believe that I am great.' I find most if not all art house films lacklustre. Saying 2001 is the 1968 equivalent of Gravity is utter bollocks, rewatch 2001. And yup, I would say that there is an underlying pattern which connects 2001 to arthouse, it may not be quintessentially art house but it draws upon the mood, style, pacing and tone that is identifiable in arthouse films, I don't believe in the philosophy of separating things into neat, tiday, little categories.

Already I am bored of discussing names/labels, picking, small, at terms and what they may or may not mean, I wish to talk about the mechanics of these films, the big picture as it were, not the petty and trivial, not what goes where into this or that discrete category. Let us discuss Tarkovsky. Defend his work. Defend art house cinema. Someone got the right idea about Taxi Driver, pointing out why it's good: this is interesting discussion.

If sir could show me how 2001 and Gravity are not connected please do I would be intrested to hear ur opinion.
U seem to make a lot of hot air about a subject u seem to not really know that much about.
Also for someone to intrested in labels u started a thread called high film which I initially thought was about getting high and goin to the cinema but it turned out to be someone trying to show of about a topic they didn't really know about and comes off looking elitist and pretentious.

AerynSun

ThirdMan wrote: »

No, that was Mr. T.

Sucker foo'!!

nyarlothothep

Lukehandypants wrote: »

If sir could show me how 2001 and Gravity are not connected please do I would be intrested to hear ur opinion.
U seem to make a lot of hot air about a subject u seem to not really know that much about.

And yet here you are asking me if I could show you how 2001 and Gravity are not connected, ah this makes me laugh. If sir could learn how to not use text speak that would be a start.

Lukehandypants

nyarlothothep wrote: »

And yet here you are asking me if I could show you how 2001 and Gravity are not connected, ah this makes me laugh. If sir could learn how to not use text speak that would be a start.

Sorry my mistake. (damm the app for my phone)
Show my why 2001 wasn't Gravity for 1968.
Because I see many similarities in them.
And I laugh at ur not wanting to pigeon hole things since u started a thread like called high film which sounds terribly elitist to me.

e_e

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Already I am bored of discussing names/labels, picking, small, at terms and what they may or may not mean,

I find this hard though because they're such vague and arbitrary labels. Like what constitutes an "arty shot"? You need to be more specific.

I agree that we should discuss things on a film by film basis though. Which is why I take exception to you labelling them all as "po-faced".

Lukehandypants

e_e wrote: »

I find this hard though because they're such vague and arbitrary labels. Like what constitutes an "arty shot"?

I agree that we should discuss things on a film by film basis though. Which is why I take exception to you labelling them all as "po-faced".

The overuse of fancy language and phrases that the OP may have over heard in the IFI while attempting to buy a latte, would suggest more posturing than knowledge, arty shot what the hell does that mean? A shot that last over 90 seconds and stays on the wide with no coverage?

nyarlothothep

Lukehandypants wrote: »

Sorry my mistake.
Show my why 2001 wasn't Gravity for 1968.
Because I see many similarities in them.
And I laugh at ur not wanting to pigeon hole things since u started a thread like called high film which sounds terribly elitist to me.

I'm a total elitist, I see all of you as my minions and smoke a big cuban cigar using 100 dollar bills whilst wearing a monocle. Only people such as I have cultural weekends watching high cinema. Gravity is a rollercoaster ride in space, 2001 is an exploration of human evolution, alien contact, AI, the nature of higher dimensional physics, ontological questions concerning life and death, space exploration etc. It's a veritable masterpiece in my opinion, probably the greatest film ever made. Gravity is good fun, I really enjoyed it but it is just a high concept film based around gravity, nothing less, nothing more.

AerynSun

The visiting Boardsie with no knowledge of anything filmy, floated across the screen in a filmy white something reminiscent of Helena Bonham-Carter in anything Tim Burton. Or rather, she didn't float... the camera panned in a steady right-left motion shot that conveyed a sense of the disconnect, the 'backwardsness' of this occurrence. It seemed pretty arty to her... before the scene dissolved into a montage of beach images from Chariots of Fire. Loved that film.

Finé.

Lukehandypants

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I'm a total elitist, I see all of you as my minions and smoke a big cuban cigar using 100 dollar bills whilst wearing a monocle. Only people such as I have cultural weekends watching high cinema. Gravity is a rollercoaster ride in space, 2001 is an exploration of human evolution, alien contact, AI, the nature of higher dimensional physics, ontological questions concerning life and death, space exploration etc. It's a veritable masterpiece in my opinion, probably the greatest film ever made. Gravity is good fun, I really enjoyed it but it is just a high concept film based around gravity, nothing less, nothing more.

I thought 2001 was one hell of a ride too.
Sure u spend the last 20 minutes goin through a star gate with trippy lights.

Gravity and 2001 have lots in common in terms of filmmaking. They are both cutting edge movies the use the tools to make films available at that time to amazing effect.
Gravity has stuff to say about the humanity too about how we are all drifting like Sandra buttocks character.
And look hey I know the story in Gravity is a bit naff.

e_e

Honestly when I saw the thread title I didn't know whether it was about watching movies stoned or some theatre at the top of a skyscraper. :pac:

Lukehandypants

e_e wrote: »

Honestly when I saw the thread title I didn't know whether it was about watching movies stoned or some theatre at the top of a skyscraper. :pac:

Same here, but it turns out it's just some smug elitist fella making himself look silly.

AerynSun

e_e wrote: »

Honestly when I saw the thread title I didn't know whether it was about watching movies stoned or some theatre at the top of a skyscraper. :pac:

And then there are films like Terence Malick's... that even though you're stone cold sober leave you feeling like you must have been smoking something while you were watching them.

Lukehandypants

I have watched 2001 many times on magic mushrooms which is delightful particularly at the end for the Stargate and then stick on echos by pink floyd and it syncs up perfectly.

Mickeroo

e_e wrote: »

Honestly when I saw the thread title I didn't know whether it was about watching movies stoned or some theatre at the top of a skyscraper. :pac:

I had an essay prepared on why Half Baked is the greatest film ever made and now it was all for nothing.

nyarlothothep

Lukehandypants wrote: »

I thought 2001 was one hell of a ride too.
Sure u spend the last 20 minutes goin through a star gate with trippy lights.

Gravity and 2001 have lots in common in terms of filmmaking. They are both cutting edge movies the use the tools to make films available at that time to amazing effect.
Gravity has stuff to say about the humanity too about how we are all drifting like Sandra buttocks character.
And look hey I know the story in Gravity is a bit naff.

So that's your connection, they're both in space and used cutting edge technology. Alright then, I guess 2001 is the same as Star Wars and Star Wars is the same as Star Trek and Star Trek is the same as Solaris etc. What a ridiculous comparison. Seriously stop, you're just demonstrating that you know nothing. And seriously stop crying about fancy words, it's pathetic and of course I'm perfectly entitled to feel smug and superior with 'fellas,' (as you so colloquially put it) like you around.

nyarlothothep

e_e wrote: »

I find this hard though because they're such vague and arbitrary labels. Like what constitutes an "arty shot"? You need to be more specific.

I agree that we should discuss things on a film by film basis though. Which is why I take exception to you labelling them all as "po-faced".

Aren't they though, check out The Visitor, po-faced all round, Strange Colour, po-faced definitely, Stalker, uber po-faced. Po-faced=serious, and therefore you should take it seriously, the director is saying that they're a serious film maker, it's all a song and dance, manipulating audience expectations and audiences bringing their culturally inherited expectations to the cinema. If you don't dance to the tune then the audience will write off your film as lesser. But this same tune gives rise to sacred cows which aren't so great, like Taxi Driver, but this is my opinion, I respect that it's a well made film, just not the revelation that a lot of people think it is. Ditto for Tarkovsky.

So what do you think constitutes an arty shot? I would say anything deliberately unusual that draws attention to itself as 'a shot.' The auteur shot, 'this is my signature shot, a close up of feet or food,' deliberately out of place in the action to signify that it is a shot, highlighting the craft of film.

Lukehandypants

nyarlothothep wrote: »

So that's your connection, they're both in space and used cutting edge technology. Alright then, I guess 2001 is the same as Star Wars and Star Wars is the same as Star Trek and Star Trek is the same as Solaris etc. What a ridiculous comparison. Seriously stop, you're just demonstrating that you know nothing. And seriously stop crying about fancy words, it's pathetic and of course I'm perfectly entitled to feel smug and superior with 'fellas,' (as you so colloquially put it) like you around.

If u can't see the connection, u shouldn't be watching films.