High cinema

e_e

nyarlothothep wrote: »

TDK is one film which I criticise above as being so po-faced that it's absurd.

That film has great black humor though in regards to the joker. Him walking away from the hospital is a great piece of physical comedy.

e_e

nyarlothothep wrote: »

that destroyed the world of the Anchorman, it was no longer internally consistent.

Huh? The world was totally absurd from the outset.

Lukehandypants

e_e wrote: »

That film has great black humor though in regards to the joker. Him walking away from the hospital is a great piece of physical comedy.

Incendently when they were shooting that scene and the joker presses the button for the bomb and it doesn't go off because there was a real fault with the bomb and it took a few seconds for the charge to detonate.

johnny_ultimate

nyarlothothep wrote: »

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.

You see this is what I have a problem with. There is no magic formula to film, and not everything needs to contain 'a bit of comedy'. If anything, the obsessive control Tarkovsky exerts over the style, mood and tone of Stalker would be significantly undermined if he stuck in a bit of light relief - not that some filmmakers haven't managed to fit some black comedy or gags into overwhelmingly miserable experiences, but again there's no equation for these things. It's a dark, sombre film (albeit not lacking in real beauty at times - both aesthetically and philosphically), and I'm not sure how a few laughs would in any way suit that. Some film will always be deadly serious, some utterly frivolous, a lot in between the two poles. But we need them all in equal measure, and each distinctive vision deserves a distinctive, internally consistent approach.

I also think it's a radical oversimplification to suggest all 'art' cinema - and yeah, it's a troublesome phrase, but I'll use it just for simplicity's sake - is po-faced. I'm really digging the films of Hong Sangsoo at the moment, who few would count as anything other than a fringe, offbeat voice in cinema. There's incredibly long takes (ten minute scenes without a cut, sometimes), thematic ambiguity and very unusual self-reflective ponderings on cinematic language and rules. It's slow, serious Cinema with a capital C. And yet his films are very often riotously funny and overflowing with relateable characters / recognizable emotions. Sad Professor is right saying a lot of what is perceived as 'art cinema' now, in Ireland, is or was considered mainstream once upon a time or somewhere else in the world. But, putting that aside for a moment, when you look at stuff like Ozu, Renoir, Dreyer, Bergman, Rohmer, Truffaut, Godard, Rosselini and so many more their work is tremendously warm and/or playful. The films of Chris Marker - who made films that almost resemble academic essays more than anything in the multiplex at the moment - pretty much leap off the screen with raw cinematic energy, joy and enthusiasm. A more contemporary director like Leos Carax makes madcap, zany films bursting with life and humour, but will forever be relegated to arthouse theatres. 'Art cinema' isn't this cold, clinical place - humour, emotion and aesthetic hyperactivity define many of the most critically lauded, subversive works in the history of cinema. Heck, I'd put the most fun I had at the cinema last year - Spring Breakers - resolutely in the 'serious cinema' camp, despite its absolute absurdity and hilarity.

Yes, there are many films out there that are grim and difficult, with almost stereotypical long takes and patience testing ambiguities. I guess depending on your mood sometimes these could fall into the realm of self-parody - there's certainly been a few I've failed to warm to or engage with, either because of the film itself or my own mood on the day. But no director should be forced to compromise their vision. Some of the most gruelling, miserable films I've ever watched - Satantango, Shoah, Jeanne Dielman (if you think Stalker is rough going, try any of the above) - are some of the most rewarding. It's not just about mindless entertainment - it's about how they ensnare you in their rhythm, how they force you to engage and interpret the images, how you'll still be thinking about them for days afterwards. Sometimes cinema needs to be deadly serious and test the audience. When a director gets it right, it's the kind of immense and intense cinema you'll never forget. I'm not going to pretend I'm always in the mood for Tarkovsky or Tarr, but I sure as hell would not exchange the time I've spent with their respective films.

nyarlothothep

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

You see this is what I have a problem with. There is no magic formula to film, and not everything needs to contain 'a bit of comedy'. If anything, the obsessive control Tarkovsky exerts over the style, mood and tone of Stalker would be significantly undermined if he stuck in a bit of light relief - not that some filmmakers haven't managed to fit some black comedy or gags into overwhelmingly miserable experiences, but again there's no equation for these things. It's a dark, sombre film (albeit not lacking in real beauty at times - both aesthetically and philosphically), and I'm not sure how a few laughs would in any way suit that. Some film will always be deadly serious, some utterly frivolous, a lot in between the two poles. But we need them all in equal measure, and each distinctive vision deserves a distinctive, internally consistent approach.

I also think it's a radical oversimplification to suggest all 'art' cinema - and yeah, it's a troublesome phrase, but I'll use it just for simplicity's sake - is po-faced. I'm really digging the films of Hong Sangsoo at the moment, who few would count as anything other than a fringe, offbeat voice in cinema. There's incredibly long takes (ten minute scenes without a cut, sometimes), thematic ambiguity and very unusual self-reflective ponderings on cinematic language and rules. It's slow, serious Cinema with a capital C. And yet his films are very often riotously funny and overflowing with relateable characters / recognizable emotions. Sad Professor is right saying a lot of what is perceived as 'art cinema' now, in Ireland, is or was considered mainstream once upon a time or somewhere else in the world. But, putting that aside for a moment, when you look at stuff like Ozu, Renoir, Dreyer, Bergman, Rohmer, Truffaut, Godard, Rosselini and so many more their work is tremendously warm and/or playful. The films of Chris Marker - who made films that almost resemble academic essays more than anything in the multiplex at the moment - pretty much leap off the screen with raw cinematic energy, joy and enthusiasm. A more contemporary director like Leos Carax makes madcap, zany films bursting with life and humour, but will forever be relegated to arthouse theatres. 'Art cinema' isn't this cold, clinical place - humour, emotion and aesthetic hyperactivity define many of the most critically lauded, subversive works in the history of cinema. Heck, I'd put the most fun I had at the cinema last year - Spring Breakers - resolutely in the 'serious cinema' camp, despite its absolute absurdity and hilarity.

Yes, there are many films out there that are grim and difficult, with almost stereotypical long takes and patience testing ambiguities. I guess depending on your mood sometimes these could fall into the realm of self-parody - there's certainly been a few I've failed to warm to or engage with, either because of the film itself or my own mood on the day. But no director should be forced to compromise their vision. Some of the most gruelling, miserable films I've ever watched - Satantango, Shoah, Jeanne Dielman (if you think Stalker is rough going, try any of the above) - are some of the most rewarding. It's not just about mindless entertainment - it's about how they ensnare you in their rhythm, how they force you to engage and interpret the images, how you'll still be thinking about them for days afterwards. Sometimes cinema needs to be deadly serious and test the audience. When a director gets it right, it's the kind of immense and intense cinema you'll never forget. I'm not going to pretend I'm always in the mood for Tarkovsky or Tarr, but I sure as hell would not exchange the time I've spent with their respective films.

I'm not saying there should be, just that a lot of art cinema does seem to follow a formula. 12 years a Slave isn't art cinema but I was completely unsurprised by how it turned out, and I have the same issue with art films in that they unfold exactly as I'd expect them to. Big Bad Wolves would be a film where the humour works and yet doesn't simultaneously, it feels forced but emphasises the pathos of the narrative. Stalker was ok, it has some striking visuals but overall it felt a bit cheap, it felt mostly shot on location, which it was, not that they could have helped this as they had no budget. The end was cool though.

johnny_ultimate

You keep generalising this concept of 'art cinema' based on a small handful of films. Cinema is so almost incomprehensibly diverse that I can't see any reason to reduce it down to that level. Check out some of the films and directors I mentioned above - there's barely anything connecting them other than the fact they reside outside the mainstream.

I'm not sure what to say about your comment on Stalker's production values, other than I think Tarkovsky created one of the most haunting sci-fi settings of all time, particularly the contrast between the cold industrial dystopia of the opening and closing segments and the wild, uncontrolled wildlife of The Zone. The way he uses colour in the film is also extraordinarily vivid and rich. It's perfectly using recognisable settings, but imbuing them with a surreal, uneasy edge. Again, countless great films were shot entirely or largely on location - many simply do not suit a studio setting.

Zubeneschamali

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Saying 2001 is the 1968 equivalent of Gravity is utter bollocks, rewatch 2001.

I agree they are very different: 2001 was the #1 box office movie in the US in 1968, Gravity only made it to #8.

Lukehandypants

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I agree they are very different: 2001 was the #1 box office movie in the US in 1968, Gravity only made it to #8.

I don't really think that makes any difference.
Justin beiber sells 6 million albums, does that make him better than the Beatles?
Gravity has some of the same themes as 2001, rebirth, technology, the earth.

nyarlothothep

Ugh, watching Tarkovsky, gotta say this guy is massively overrated and having seen a good few art films I think 99% of them suffer from 'emperor's new clothes syndrome.' Or hey, maybe it's just different tastes. For example I will watch an episode of Buffy any day over an art film because I find the latter just doesn't do it for me.

e_e

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I think 99% of them suffer from 'emperor's new clothes syndrome.'

Kinda stepping into condescension there mate.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Or hey, maybe it's just different tastes.

Right answer. You might like these films more if you just opened up to them and took the chip off your shoulder.

Lukehandypants

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Ugh, watching Tarkovsky, gotta say this guy is massively overrated and having seen a good few art films I think 99% of them suffer from 'emperor's new clothes syndrome.' Or hey, maybe it's just different tastes. For example I will watch an episode of Buffy any day over an art film because I find the latter just doesn't do it for me.

Well that's it then maybe "art house" films ain't for u, I mean u have all the right words to critique them but their just not in the right order.

e_e

Lukehandypants wrote: »

u have all the right words to critique them

I don't think so. "Pretentious", "arty" and "emperor's new clothes" are as vague and arbitrary as film criticisms get.

nyarlo not to completely disregard your opinion but you need to be more specific and stop being so flippant by putting all these films in a neat little disapproving box. Thing about slow, non-narrative or experimental films is that you have to acquire a taste for them. It's all too easy to be weened on Hollywood and then outright dismiss anything different from the norm.

Maybe Tarkovsky isn't for you but the great thing about what you call """art""" films is how varied they can be. No need to generalize especially when the term "art" can apply to any kind of film.