High cinema

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.

nyarlothothep

Lukehandypants wrote: »

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

Ah you're amusing.

Sad Professor

Let's keep it friendly please.

e_e

nyarlothothep wrote: »

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,

Po-faced is defined as "humourless and disapproving" and is used in a derogatory manner towards something that is too serious. In what way are any of those films too serious? You may as well complain about Anchorman being too tongue-in-cheek.

Incidentally I don't think Strange Colour is even remotely trying to be taken seriously at all, in fact one of the things I love about it is how open it is to any kind of interpretation.

e_e

nyarlothothep wrote: »

So what do you think constitutes an arty shot?

I don't believe in the term "arty". A shot can be artfully done for sure, but it can apply to both The Lego Movie and something by Godard.

Why is it always used in the negative anyway? If I saw a shot that was visually striking in a unique way I'd call it "artful", because it doesn't have the same negative baggage to it. People just ignorantly use terms like "arty" to dismiss anything that's outside of their comfort zone and trying to do something different.

nyarlothothep

e_e wrote: »

Po-faced is defined as "humourless and disapproving" and is used in a derogatory manner towards something that is too serious. In what way are any of those films too serious? You may as well complain about Anchorman being too tongue-in-cheek.

Incidentally I don't Strange Colour is even remotely trying to be taken seriously at all, in fact one of the things I love about it is how open it is to any kind of interpretation.

Po-faced as in overly serious, to the point of self-parody. And yes Anchorman is too tongue in cheek to the extent that it breaks the rule of suspension of disbelief. Strange Colour was just a technically beautiful exercise but there were no smiley, happy people in it. It was all so serious and earnest in its artistic intent. One can make an art house film that doesn't have to be that serious yet a moving/inspiring experience. But in my experience a lot of art films involve slow shots, silent acting and clocks ticking. Has anyone watched Stalker? Or any Tarkovsky, I'm going to subject myself to another one of his pretentious, philosophical films.

nyarlothothep

e_e wrote: »

I don't believe in the term "arty". A shot can be artfully done for sure, but it can apply to both The Lego Movie and something by Godard.

Why is it always used in the negative anyway? If I saw a shot that was visually striking in a unique way I'd call it "artful", because it doesn't have the same negative baggage to it. People just ignorantly use terms like "arty" to dismiss anything that's outside of their comfort zone and trying to do something different.

Yeah but in Django I thought those close ups of food were so pretentious, like Tarantino saying "I'm still an auteur!!!" Like the blood flowing from the elevator in The Shining, that's an amazing shot, that's a shot you can say is directorially inspired and it works within the context of the film, it's not Kubrick wearing a badge saying that he's an auteur, he's is an auteur. I don't mind difference, I want difference, but not difference designed to convince people that it's different, it should be difference from the heart.

Just to add about po-facedness, it doesn't just apply to art-house. It applies to the Dark Knight series which is also one of the most right wing pieces of cinema I've ever watched, the noble lie, Slavoj Zizec talks about the noble lie in The Dark Knight and how people can't know the truth, they need to believe in authority, the lie that defends it and that rang true with my initial reaction to the film when I saw it in 2008, I felt it was an apologia for the Iraq war and the torture that came from it. And in The Dark Knight Rises I found this to be an apologia for right wing neo liberalism. Basically an updated Atlas Shrugged, and then the commies ie Bane were just depicted as madmen bent on destruction, pure nihilism designed to just the pragmatic right wing response, the loss of greater aspirations with a concentration on the here and now, the gritty fundamentals of practicality, via self indulgent nihilism or dark/cynical cinema. I liked The Dark Knight Rises though as I felt it suffered less from Nolan's montage trailers and the explicit repetition of the central theme, also Tom Hardy put in an incredible performance but the politics those films convey are very off putting to me.

e_e

Ugh don't break out the p word now, it's the word people naively jump to when they don't get something.

I find Tarkovsky's films inspiring, I think you're bringing too much baggage to them as uber-serious movies.

e_e

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Yeah but in Django I thought those close ups of food were so pretentious, like Tarantino saying "I'm still an auteur!!!".

What? Maybe he just likes the way food looks, no need to read into it to such a crazy degree.

Food = pretentious now, apparently. :pac:

Mickeroo

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Po-faced as in overly serious, to the point of self-parody. And yes Anchorman is too tongue in cheek to the extent that it breaks the rule of suspension of disbelief. Strange Colour was just a technically beautiful exercise but there were no smiley, happy people in it. It was all so serious and earnest in its artistic intent. One can make an art house film that doesn't have to be that serious yet a moving/inspiring experience. But in my experience a lot of art films involve slow shots, silent acting and clocks ticking. Has anyone watched Stalker? Or any Tarkovsky, I'm going to subject myself to another one of his pretentious, philosophical films.

I'm not sure if what you're saying makes any sense to anyone but yourself tbh. There is no "rule" for suspension of disbelief in a film that makes no attempt to be believable just as a film with a serious subject matter cannot be "too serious". The term po-faced could be applied to something like maybe The Dark Knight as the tone is very serious but there could easily have been room for more levity (not that I wanted more levity) where as in something like Stalker moments of broad comic relief would feel extremely out of place.

nyarlothothep

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm not sure if what you're saying makes any sense to anyone but yourself tbh. There is no "rule" for suspension of disbelief in a film that makes no attempt to be believable just as a film with a serious subject matter cannot be "too serious". The term po-faced could be applied to something like maybe The Dark Knight as the tone is very serious but there could easily have been room for more levity (not that I wanted more levity) where as in something like Stalker moments of broad comic relief would feel extremely out of place.

Stalker was ok, it's just that it could have been less somnambulic and I don't think a bit of comedy would have gone amiss, not much though. TDK is one film which I criticise above as being so po-faced that it's absurd. I am purely against Nolan's cinematic vision which is inherently conservative and self destructively nihilistic, his films are an advertisement for fascism, but I like The Dark Knight Rises because it was well made. Anchorman 2 crossed that boundary when Brick became so ridiculous that he was speaking to the audience, that destroyed the world of the Anchorman, it was no longer internally consistent.