Irréversible, Hulk, dvdbeaver
Mikko Pihkoluoma
without thinking about the film. I don't know if that's a sign of substance
or emotional/intellectual impact, but... who I'm kidding here... it's a
direct sign of emotional/intellectual impact. Although I'm still hesitant
about whether or not it actually has any substance at all...
The problem is this: It's far too easy to call the film sensationalist
empty piece of shit. My old fashioned mind wants to believe that someone
capable of constructing that many structural elements into a film with a
sense of perfection (the rape is EXACTLY in the middle of the film, uniting
violent first part of the movie with the sexual latter part of the movie)
wants to say something. It sounds too dumb to be true that the film's
message is "Time Ruins Everything", or anything that has to do with anything
directly expressed in the film.
I can't believe the director is homophobic, or antigay, although his
film clearly makes an arch from dark homosexual violence to light
heterosexual beauty... The film seems to be smarter than that...
Maybe the whole film's point is messing with your mind, both emotionally
and intellectually. Everything is dead WRONG in this film, except that it's
perfectly wrong(!). Maybe it has something to do with how people try to
search meaning where it isn't (acts of violence; coincidental random
unfortunate accidents, etc...)... Or maybe Noé just took Bunuel's advice,
that we should only watch films that hurt us ( -- the only way we're truly
going to learn things about ourselves), to his heart.
Hulk.
Don't go see it. It's drastic. Serious. Largely unfunny and very dumb.
dvdbeaver.com
If you didn't know this place already you should definitely check it out.
They're collection of comparisons and reviews isn't gigantic, but the
quality of the films picked is really the best cinema on DVD.
The comparisons are thorough and excellent.
Mikko
--
mpihkolu at welho dot com
"When I consider contemporary man I see her as a choir singer, who opens and
closes her mouth in synch with the rhythm of the music, but without uttering
a note. After all, everybody else is singing! She just pretends to be
singing along as she is convinced that the others' singing is sufficient.
She behaves like this because she has lost faith in the significance of her
own personal actions.
Contemporary man is without faith, completely without hope that he might be
able to influence the society he or she lives in through his or her own
behavior.
[...]
The only meaning of life lies in the effort that is demanded in growing
spiritually, to change and develop into something different than what we
were at birth. If we during the span of time between birth and death can
achieve this, in spite of the fact that it is difficult and that progress
may seem slow at times, then we have indeed served humanity."
- Andrei Tarkovsky
Henry the Horse
"Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:bg1a89$5vs$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
< The problem is this: It's far too easy to call the film sensationalist
empty piece of shit. >
Easy doesn't mean necessarily wrong. Technically perfect and structurally
curious as may be, it's nothing more.
< I can't believe the director is homophobic, or antigay, although his film
clearly makes an arch from dark homosexual violence to light heterosexual
beauty... >
Nah, it just tried to offend any kind of people that would be outspoken
about it. I don't know how it was in France, here nobody took much notice.
It was quickly here and gone. Most reviewers said just the same I said
above, though I have to admit that a couple of the ones I most respect loved
the movie.
< [...] Or maybe Noé just took Bunuel's advice, that we should only watch
films that hurt us ( -- the only way we're truly going to learn things about
ourselves), to his heart. >
Buñuel was one of the best filmmakers ever - these two shouldn't even be
mentioned in the same sentence!
< Hulk.
Don't go see it. It's drastic. Serious. Largely unfunny and very dumb. >
If it tried to be a bit more funny it could have been a way better movie...
< dvdbeaver.com
If you didn't know this place already you should definitely check it out.
They're collection of comparisons and reviews isn't gigantic, but the
quality of the films picked is really the best cinema on DVD. The
comparisons are thorough and excellent. >
I didn't know that site. Someone's obviously having great fun with his
bitrate measuring software, but the few reviews I've randomly read seem
interesting, yes.
Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Mikko Pihkoluoma
>
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:bg1a89$5vs$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>
> < The problem is this: It's far too easy to call the film sensationalist
> empty piece of shit. >
>
>
> Easy doesn't mean necessarily wrong. Technically perfect and structurally
> curious as may be, it's nothing more.
I've got two words for you: Killer's Kiss
> < I can't believe the director is homophobic, or antigay, although his
film
> clearly makes an arch from dark homosexual violence to light heterosexual
> beauty... >
>
>
> Nah, it just tried to offend any kind of people that would be outspoken
> about it. I don't know how it was in France, here nobody took much notice.
> It was quickly here and gone. Most reviewers said just the same I said
> above, though I have to admit that a couple of the ones I most respect
loved
> the movie.
I haven't found ANY good reviews about the film, and I don't necessarily
mean reviews that would give it praise, but just something that would go
beyond "this film isn't for everyone".
> < [...] Or maybe Noé just took Bunuel's advice, that we should only watch
> films that hurt us ( -- the only way we're truly going to learn things
about
> ourselves), to his heart. >
>
>
> Buñuel was one of the best filmmakers ever - these two shouldn't even be
> mentioned in the same sentence!
Why not?
Can you give me an example of a filmmaker whose first films were technically
impressive films with an understanding of cinematic structure and never
turned out to make good films?
Despite the forced comparisons, I'm not saying Noé is a new Kubrick or
Buñuel or Hitchcock, but... I think there's something there.
> < Hulk.
> Don't go see it. It's drastic. Serious. Largely unfunny and very dumb. >
>
>
> If it tried to be a bit more funny it could have been a way better
movie...
I agree.
> < dvdbeaver.com
> If you didn't know this place already you should definitely check it out.
> They're collection of comparisons and reviews isn't gigantic, but the
> quality of the films picked is really the best cinema on DVD. The
> comparisons are thorough and excellent. >
>
>
> I didn't know that site. Someone's obviously having great fun with his
> bitrate measuring software, but the few reviews I've randomly read seem
> interesting, yes.
The best comparisons I've ever seen.
Henry the Horse
<< [Irreversible] Easy doesn't mean necessarily wrong. Technically perfect
and structurally curious as may be, it's nothing more. >>
< I've got two words for you: Killer's Kiss >
You mean this guy has the potential to make the new 2001?
< I haven't found ANY good reviews about the film, and I don't necessarily
mean reviews that would give it praise, but just something that would go
beyond "this film isn't for everyone". >
The good reviews I read (in Spanish) say more or less the same as damnfine
did.
<< Buñuel was one of the best filmmakers ever - [he and Noe] shouldn't even
be mentioned in the same sentence! >>
< Why not?
Can you give me an example of a filmmaker whose first films were technically
impressive films with an understanding of cinematic structure and never
turned out to make good films? >
Buñuel wasn't exactly a master of "technical impresiveness" in the sense you
mention. If anything, that comparison says that there's an enormous
difference between "technically great" and "great film".
I'm not picking on you since you're the first to speak of forced
comparisons, but Irreversible and Un Chien Andalou are absolutely different
ways of understanding cinema.
< Despite the forced comparisons, I'm not saying Noé is a new Kubrick or
Buñuel or Hitchcock, but... I think there's something there. >
Saying that I personally doubt it would be an understatement, but who knows,
time will tell...
Mikko Pihkoluoma
>
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:bg2q22$u68$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>
> << [Irreversible] Easy doesn't mean necessarily wrong. Technically perfect
> and structurally curious as may be, it's nothing more. >>
>
> < I've got two words for you: Killer's Kiss >
>
>
> You mean this guy has the potential to make the new 2001?
No.
I'm saying: full understanding of cinematic form and willingness to stylish
with it has always been a sign of a great director. And honestly, I don't
think 'Irréversible' is even as shallow as than 50% of Hitchcock. Psycho,
The Birds?
> < I haven't found ANY good reviews about the film, and I don't necessarily
> mean reviews that would give it praise, but just something that would go
> beyond "this film isn't for everyone". >
>
>
> The good reviews I read (in Spanish) say more or less the same as damnfine
> did.
Alrighty...
> << Buñuel was one of the best filmmakers ever - [he and Noe] shouldn't
even
> be mentioned in the same sentence! >>
>
> < Why not?
>
> Can you give me an example of a filmmaker whose first films were
technically
> impressive films with an understanding of cinematic structure and never
> turned out to make good films? >
>
>
> Buñuel wasn't exactly a master of "technical impresiveness" in the sense
you
> mention.
I know that. Although he has these small things he does with the camera
that just move you more than most directors... Like in That Obscure Object
of Desire he makes a half circle around the dinner table at the beginning...
Perfect.
> If anything, that comparison says that there's an enormous
> difference between "technically great" and "great film".
Not as enormous as you would like to think...
The point here is that 'Irréversible' isn't merely technically impressive
but it has structural coherence that's well... not seen everyday!
> I'm not picking on you since you're the first to speak of forced
> comparisons, but Irreversible and Un Chien Andalou are absolutely
different
> ways of understanding cinema.
Really?
If I would have to compare 'Irréversible' to a film in history of cinema I
couldn't find anything more close to it than 'Un Chien Andalou'... Both
films' energy and premise come from the same idea: to shock the bourgeois
mind. They're both experimenting with form and using technical tricks in
somewhat new ways. Both films are exceptionally violent and graphic.
Surely Dali and Buñuel played more with the narrative than Noé does, but I
still can't see what's this understanding of cinema that's so much higher
and holier in UCA... However I think I need to stress here that I find UCA
a far bigger triumph; for one thing the film surpasses its original
intentions..
Mikko
--
mpihkolu at welho dot com
"The only meaning of life lies in the effort that is demanded in growing
Henry the Horse
< I'm saying: full understanding of cinematic form and willingness to
stylish with it has always been a sign of a great director. >
But we've never wholly agreed on what exactly is to "stylish with it".
< And honestly, I don't think 'Irréversible' is even as shallow as than 50%
of Hitchcock. Psycho, The Birds? >
I can only reccomend you watch The Birds again. Don't be fooled but its
exterior!
Anyway... Most of the time Hitchcock didn't try to put exceedingly deep
meanings into his films.
< [...] Can you give me an example of a filmmaker whose first films were
technically impressive films with an understanding of cinematic structure
and never turned out to make good films? >
Aronofsky, to name one.
Of course, further discusion will only prove that "technically impressive"
and "understanding of cinematic structure" are much more subjective terms
than you think...
< I know that. Although he has these small things he does with the camera
that just move you more than most directors... Like in That Obscure Object
of Desire he makes a half circle around the dinner table at the beginning...
Perfect. >
Yet Buñuel vigorously hated technique.
<< If anything, that comparison says that there's an enormous difference
between "technically great" and "great film". >>
< Not as enormous as you would like to think... >
Well, that's what we've been arguing about forever! I still remember our
discusions on Moulin Rouge...
< The point here is that 'Irréversible' isn't merely technically impressive
but it has structural coherence that's well... not seen everyday! >
That's true. But that's still very far from what a great film is. In my own
definition, a great film has to have both form and substance. I don't see
any substance at all in Irreversible.
< If I would have to compare 'Irréversible' to a film in history of cinema I
couldn't find anything more close to it than 'Un Chien Andalou'... Both
films' energy and premise come from the same idea: to shock the bourgeois
mind. They're both experimenting with form and using technical tricks in
somewhat new ways. Both films are exceptionally violent and graphic. >
In my opinion, this is an extremely superficial comparison, really.
Again in my opinion: to "shock the bourgeois mind" alone means nothing. And
certainly less today than in 1930.
To shock is interesting in itself but doesn't make a film good or bad.
< Surely Dali and Buñuel played more with the narrative than Noé does, but I
still can't see what's this understanding of cinema that's so much higher
and holier in UCA... >
Forget about "higher and holier". It's just 1,000,000 times better.
I do appreciate your passionate nature, but really...
< However I think I need to stress here that I find UCA a far bigger
triumph; for one thing the film surpasses its original intentions.. >
Isn't that alone an enormously big, titanic, gigantic difference?
The log
>of Hitchcock. Psycho, The Birds? >
>
>
>I can only reccomend you watch The Birds again. Don't be fooled but its
>exterior!
I think The Birds is actually my second favourite Hitchcock film after The Lady
Vanishes- it's killingly frightening, funny in parts and I love the way
Hitchcock has you believing it's going to be a cheesy technicolor screechfest
which is then thrown back at you by it ACTUALLY being frightening.
Peace,
The log- I know what I like
Mikko Pihkoluoma
>
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:bg300e$75d$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>
> < I'm saying: full understanding of cinematic form and willingness to
> stylish with it has always been a sign of a great director. >
>
>
> But we've never wholly agreed on what exactly is to "stylish with it".
Oh dear...
> < And honestly, I don't think 'Irréversible' is even as shallow as than
50%
> of Hitchcock. Psycho, The Birds? >
>
>
> I can only reccomend you watch The Birds again. Don't be fooled but its
> exterior!
Hmm...
> Anyway... Most of the time Hitchcock didn't try to put exceedingly deep
> meanings into his films.
Yes, which is why I find majority of it rather boring.
> < [...] Can you give me an example of a filmmaker whose first films were
> technically impressive films with an understanding of cinematic structure
> and never turned out to make good films? >
>
>
> Aronofsky, to name one.
Oh Phlease! He's done two (2) movies!
We don't know what kind of films he will turn out to make...
> Of course, further discusion will only prove that "technically impressive"
> and "understanding of cinematic structure" are much more subjective terms
> than you think...
You still didn't answer my question.
> < I know that. Although he has these small things he does with the camera
> that just move you more than most directors... Like in That Obscure Object
> of Desire he makes a half circle around the dinner table at the
beginning...
> Perfect. >
>
>
> Yet Buñuel vigorously hated technique.
Yes in his later years, but still used it to some great effect in TOOoD.
> << If anything, that comparison says that there's an enormous difference
> between "technically great" and "great film". >>
>
> < Not as enormous as you would like to think... >
>
>
> Well, that's what we've been arguing about forever! I still remember our
> discusions on Moulin Rouge...
I don't adore the film. It's a fun movie... But structurally speaking
Luhrman has never been an interesting director/writer. He makes a flashy
show of a scene but that's about as interesting as his directing gets.
> < The point here is that 'Irréversible' isn't merely technically
impressive
> but it has structural coherence that's well... not seen everyday! >
>
>
> That's true. But that's still very far from what a great film is. In my
own
> definition, a great film has to have both form and substance. I don't see
> any substance at all in Irreversible.
Neither do I.
But I see some hypothetical potential in this cinematic mind.
> < If I would have to compare 'Irréversible' to a film in history of cinema
I
> couldn't find anything more close to it than 'Un Chien Andalou'... Both
> films' energy and premise come from the same idea: to shock the bourgeois
> mind. They're both experimenting with form and using technical tricks in
> somewhat new ways. Both films are exceptionally violent and graphic. >
>
>
> In my opinion, this is an extremely superficial comparison, really.
Give me a better comparison that proves a different understanding of cinema
then.
> Again in my opinion: to "shock the bourgeois mind" alone means nothing.
And
> certainly less today than in 1930.
I don't see anything virtous or deep about shock effect. I walked out of
Takashi Miike's 'Visitor Q' and skipped 'Audition'. (I have grown more
tolerant to different types of cinema after that though..) I can't explain
it to you, but 'Irréversible' feels like more although it really isn't.
It's really the perfect structure that makes such an impression on me.
> To shock is interesting in itself but doesn't make a film good or bad.
I happen to think 'Paths of Glory', 'Day of the Fight' and 'Killer's Kiss'
were all content-wise some of the worst crap I've ever seen, but I still
could see that they weren't created by a talentless director.
> < However I think I need to stress here that I find UCA a far bigger
> triumph; for one thing the film surpasses its original intentions.. >
>
>
> Isn't that alone an enormously big, titanic, gigantic difference?
Yes, but it has NOTHING to do with a different understanding of cinema.
Mikko
--
mpihkolu at welho dot com
"When I consider contemporary man I see her as a choir singer, who opens and
closes her mouth in synch with the rhythm of the music, but without uttering
a note. After all, everybody else is singing! She just pretends to be
singing along as she is convinced that the others' singing is sufficient.
She behaves like this because she has lost faith in the significance of her
own personal actions.
Contemporary man is without faith, completely without hope that he might be
able to influence the society he or she lives in through his or her own
behavior.
[...]
Henry the Horse
"The log" <row...@aol.comPLICATE> escribió en el mensaje
news:20030728160702...@mb-m01.aol.com...
< I think The Birds is actually my second favourite Hitchcock film after The
Lady Vanishes- it's killingly frightening, funny in parts and I love the way
Hitchcock has you believing it's going to be a cheesy technicolor
screechfest which is then thrown back at you by it ACTUALLY being
frightening. >
Exactly! And how it makes you believe at first it's going to be "typical
Hitchcock", and then he goes and breaks every one of his own rules - about
how innocents should end up unhurt, how the viewer has to have more
information than the characters, the whole lot. I guess that film must have
been very controversial in its time.
And I definitely have to rewatch The Lady Vanishes soon! After reading your
post I realized I don't remember all that much about it...
Henry the Horse
<< But we've never wholly agreed on what exactly is to "stylish with it". >>
< Oh dear... >
What, you thought you had convinced me? :)
<< Anyway... Most of the time Hitchcock didn't try to put exceedingly deep
meanings into his films. >>
< Yes, which is why I find majority of it rather boring. >
That's your privilege, of course, but I thought you'd be more excited at
least about his numerous technical prowesses...
<< Aronofsky, to name one. >>
< Oh Phlease! He's done two (2) movies!
We don't know what kind of films he will turn out to make... >
No, but both you and I suspect the same. Confess! :)
<< Of course, further discusion will only prove that "technically
impressive" and "understanding of cinematic structure" are much more
subjective terms than you think... >>
< You still didn't answer my question. >
Which question? (I'm not picking on you, I mean it.)
<< Yet Buñuel vigorously hated technique. >>
< Yes in his later years, but still used it to some great effect in TOOoD. >
No, he hated it his whole life, even more during the 40's and 50's.
< [Moulin Rouge] I don't adore the film. It's a fun movie... But
structurally speaking Luhrman has never been an interesting director/writer.
He makes a flashy show of a scene but that's about as interesting as his
directing gets. >
Cool, because, except for the "fun movie" part, the rest is exactly what I
said at the time! :)
<< That's true. But that's still very far from what a great film is. In my
own definition, a great film has to have both form and substance. I don't
see any substance at all in Irreversible. >>
< Neither do I.
But I see some hypothetical potential in this cinematic mind. >
Maybe... who knows. I don't completely discard the possibility. The man
obviously knows about cinema.
<<< If I would have to compare 'Irréversible' to a film in history of cinema
I couldn't find anything more close to it than 'Un Chien Andalou'... Both
films' energy and premise come from the same idea: to shock the bourgeois
mind. They're both experimenting with form and using technical tricks in
somewhat new ways. Both films are exceptionally violent and graphic. >>>
<< In my opinion, this is an extremely superficial comparison, really. >>
< Give me a better comparison that proves a different understanding of
cinema then. >
OK, but we won't agree...
At the time, Dalí and Buñuel were not even trying to make cinema per se -
they were trying to make art. I assume you believe in Surrealism as a real
art current - to shock the bourgeois was a necessary means for a complete
change in all orders of life, social and otherwise. I don't see any of that
at all in Irresistible - what does that film really try to say, what is its
point, its higher purpose?
< I don't see anything virtous or deep about shock effect. I walked out of
Takashi Miike's 'Visitor Q' and skipped 'Audition'. (I have grown more
tolerant to different types of cinema after that though..) I can't explain
it to you, but 'Irréversible' feels like more although it really isn't. It's
really the perfect structure that makes such an impression on me. >
I think I do understand you, but remember that we think very differently
about this. Even if I agreed that Irresistible has such a great structure,
I'd still think the same. The things that really move me in cinema are
elsewhere.
<< To shock is interesting in itself but doesn't make a film good or bad. >>
< I happen to think 'Paths of Glory', 'Day of the Fight' and 'Killer's Kiss'
were all content-wise some of the worst crap I've ever seen, but I still
could see that they weren't created by a talentless director. >
And Noé is a very talented director, I'll grant you that. That's still
different from a talented filmmaker.
I'm not saying he won't be. Again, who knows. But for now the evidence
doesn't seem to point that way (IMO).
<<< However I think I need to stress here that I find UCA a far bigger
triumph; for one thing the film surpasses its original intentions.. >>>
<< Isn't that alone an enormously big, titanic, gigantic difference? >>
< Yes, but it has NOTHING to do with a different understanding of cinema. >
I, er, can't afford myself the pleasure of agreeing with you on this. At
all.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(Sorry, crosspost practice...)
Mikko Pihkoluoma
>
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:bg41rc$3sb$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>
> << But we've never wholly agreed on what exactly is to "stylish with it".
>>
>
> < Oh dear... >
>
>
> What, you thought you had convinced me? :)
No I thought you could do better than that.
> << Anyway... Most of the time Hitchcock didn't try to put exceedingly deep
> meanings into his films. >>
>
> < Yes, which is why I find majority of it rather boring. >
>
>
> That's your privilege, of course, but I thought you'd be more excited at
> least about his numerous technical prowesses...
Well not really. Although I like the use of colours in Vertigo, etc...
> << Aronofsky, to name one. >>
>
> < Oh Phlease! He's done two (2) movies!
> We don't know what kind of films he will turn out to make... >
>
>
> No, but both you and I suspect the same. Confess! :)
Mhmhm,,,...
I hope that he will co-work with a good writer, maybe that will get him to
places...
> << Of course, further discusion will only prove that "technically
> impressive" and "understanding of cinematic structure" are much more
> subjective terms than you think... >>
>
> < You still didn't answer my question. >
>
>
> Which question? (I'm not picking on you, I mean it.)
An example of a director with remarkable talent for technical and structural
elements of filmmaking who didn't turn out to make good films.
> << That's true. But that's still very far from what a great film is. In my
> own definition, a great film has to have both form and substance. I don't
> see any substance at all in Irreversible. >>
>
> < Neither do I.
> But I see some hypothetical potential in this cinematic mind. >
>
>
> Maybe... who knows. I don't completely discard the possibility. The man
> obviously knows about cinema.
What's even more exciting in my opinion is that he knows the right kind!
> <<< If I would have to compare 'Irréversible' to a film in history of
cinema
> I couldn't find anything more close to it than 'Un Chien Andalou'... Both
> films' energy and premise come from the same idea: to shock the bourgeois
> mind. They're both experimenting with form and using technical tricks in
> somewhat new ways. Both films are exceptionally violent and graphic. >>>
>
> << In my opinion, this is an extremely superficial comparison, really. >>
>
> < Give me a better comparison that proves a different understanding of
> cinema then. >
>
>
> OK, but we won't agree...
>
> At the time, Dalí and Buñuel were not even trying to make cinema per se -
> they were trying to make art. I assume you believe in Surrealism as a real
> art current - to shock the bourgeois was a necessary means for a complete
> change in all orders of life, social and otherwise. I don't see any of
that
> at all in Irresistible - what does that film really try to say, what is
its
> point, its higher purpose?
The only way I'm able to read a meaning to 'Irréversible' is that it depicts
how it feels like to be a subject of violence. It recreates that feeling in
you not only emotionally but intellectually. You try to make sense of it
all, but everything just feels wrong -- how it shouldn't go.
Noé is also conscious sociopolitically, which is a good sign for the
future...
But none of this makes it a good film (I've never really admitted that it is
a good film) or give it meaning. I don't think it has any, really. Its main
point seems to be the faked, staged documentation of violence. Bringing that
to the consciousness of people or something like that.
Having said that I don't think Dalí or Buñuel really had much to say with
UCA either. It was made to insult. It was created to make a big fuzz (which
it did). The film has more, but the "understanding of cinema" as a tool
doesn't seem too far away from how Noé uses it in 'Irréversible'.
Mikko
--
mpihkolu at welho dot com
"The only meaning of life lies in the effort that is demanded in growing
Henry the Horse
< [Irreversible] But none of this makes it a good film (I've never really
admitted that it is a good film) or give it meaning. >
So, according to my idea of cinema, that film's not a good one, and
according to your opposite ideas, it's not good either. Again I get the
feeling that I have no idea what on earth were we arguing about.
< Having said that I don't think Dalí or Buñuel really had much to say with
UCA either. It was made to insult. It was created to make a big fuzz (which
it did). The film has more, but the "understanding of cinema" as a tool
doesn't seem too far away from how Noé uses it in 'Irréversible'. >
I already answered that, see previous post. The point they wanted to make
had *nothing* to do with cinema. So it's no use discussing their
"understanding of cinema as a tool" at that time.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
>
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:bg5eml$bdq$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>
> < [Irreversible] But none of this makes it a good film (I've never really
> admitted that it is a good film) or give it meaning. >
>
>
> So, according to my idea of cinema, that film's not a good one, and
> according to your opposite ideas, it's not good either. Again I get the
> feeling that I have no idea what on earth were we arguing about.
I don't think we've been "arguing" here really... "I'm just trying to find
out where you're coming from..." ...and you conviniently snipped all of the
points that were left open...
And I don't think I said it was a bad film either... I can't really decide
whether it was good or bad, which is a good sign ;] I might be able to
decide that if I watched the film again in its entirety, but it's not one of
those films you want to see again...
Summary:
1. 'Irréversible' is undeniably somewhat fascinating.
2. History of cinema knows a great deal of films (some of which I brought
up) that have absolutely no meaning whatsoever, but they are revisited,
enjoyed and hailed as masterpieces.
3. 'Irréversible' isn't entertaining, has no interesting characters, tells a
stupid story, but will undoubtedly engage the viewer emotionally. However
that doesn't justify its existence (at least in your opinion), because the
film isn't entertaining in any traditional way...
?
If the point of 'Irréversible' is to fuck up the concept of cinema, it's a
bloody brilliant piece of work... Still somewhere in my bones I'm afraid
Noé is a gigantic idiot who really tried to make a film with this destiny
time shitty thing that's in the film presented very unintellectually...
> < Having said that I don't think Dalí or Buñuel really had much to say
with
> UCA either. It was made to insult. It was created to make a big fuzz
(which
> it did). The film has more, but the "understanding of cinema" as a tool
> doesn't seem too far away from how Noé uses it in 'Irréversible'. >
>
>
> I already answered that, see previous post. The point they wanted to make
> had *nothing* to do with cinema. So it's no use discussing their
> "understanding of cinema as a tool" at that time.
Their point had a lot to do with cinema and especially the avant gardist
movements of the period. UCA was made to insult these people who were doing
experimental cinema... It was also a direct attack towards any understanding
of cinema as it really tried to avoid any kind of interpretation (which is,
of course, impossible).
That's at least what I've read Buñuel say about the film.
Mikko
--
mpihkolu at welho dot com
"When I consider contemporary man I see her as a choir singer, who opens and
closes her mouth in synch with the rhythm of the music, but without uttering
a note. After all, everybody else is singing! She just pretends to be
singing along as she is convinced that the others' singing is sufficient.
She behaves like this because she has lost faith in the significance of her
own personal actions.
Contemporary man is without faith, completely without hope that he might be
able to influence the society he or she lives in through his or her own
behavior.
[...]
Henry the Horse
< I don't think we've been "arguing" here really... "I'm just trying to find
out where you're coming from..." ...and you conviniently snipped all of the
points that were left open... >
I was just trying to avoid going about the same things time after time.
There are a lot of things where it's already very clear where we two stand.
< And I don't think I said it was a bad film either... I can't really decide
whether it was good or bad, which is a good sign ;] I might be able to
decide that if I watched the film again in its entirety, but it's not one of
those films you want to see again...
Summary:
1. 'Irréversible' is undeniably somewhat fascinating. >
Not for me, but I respect your view. For me it's just "somewhat
interesting". Hey, I'm the one who's into "cut and paste jobs" like
Casablanca!
< 2. History of cinema knows a great deal of films (some of which I brought
up) that have absolutely no meaning whatsoever, but they are revisited,
enjoyed and hailed as masterpieces. >
Are you referring to Un Chien Andalou? Surrealism *always* has meaning. Dalí
on his own has meaning. Buñuel on his own has meaning. Rejection of meaning
is called Dadaism, and it's a different thing.
< 3. 'Irréversible' isn't entertaining, >
Yes!
< has no interesting characters, >
Yes! Yes!
< tells a stupid story, >
Yes! Yes! Yes!
< but will undoubtedly engage the viewer emotionally. >
Yes, if you consider motion sickness an emotion.
< However that doesn't justify its existence (at least in your opinion),
because the film isn't entertaining in any traditional way... >
Nor in any new way.
< If the point of 'Irréversible' is to fuck up the concept of cinema, it's
a bloody brilliant piece of work... Still somewhere in my bones I'm afraid
Noé is a gigantic idiot who really tried to make a film with this destiny
time shitty thing that's in the film presented very unintellectually... >
I agree with your bones.
< Their point had a lot to do with cinema and especially the avant gardist
movements of the period. UCA was made to insult these people who were doing
experimental cinema... It was also a direct attack towards any understanding
of cinema as it really tried to avoid any kind of interpretation (which is,
of course, impossible).
That's at least what I've read Buñuel say about the film. >
Buñuel was famous for saying one thing one day and the opposite the next
day. Kind of like Fellini. It's advisable not to take their comments too
literally. But in any case, let's take it literally for a moment: Was
Irreversible made to insult experimental cinema? No. Is it an attack towards
any understanding of cinema? No. The only thing where they coincide is in
its spirit of "épater le bourgeois" - the most superficial aspect. Heck, the
same can be said about Cannibal Holocaust.
Still, I understand what you said. I just don't agree with the comparison.
Apart from the subjective aspects, objectively: Un Chien Andalou was
revolutionary - Irreversible isn't. Un Chien Andalou was the culmination of
a new art current - Irreversible isn't. Un Chien Andalou was hated or loved
in its time, but it was extremely polemic - Irreversible tried the same, but
it only caused very minor polemic for a short time and then was pretty much
forgotten.
Nothing of the above should mean that Irreversible is necessarily a bad
film, of course. (If I hated it that's my problem etc.)
In any case, you have to understand we two come from very different, let's
say equally respectable, places - You think cinema today is at a dead end,
and thus experimentation of any kind is essential. I, on the contrary, I'm
quite happy with traditional cinema, so I enjoy some experiments, going
foward and all that, but I don't give the whole thing the same importance as
you do - it's much easier for me to discard something like Irreversible as
technically brilliant but ultimately uninteresting and unengaging.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
>
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:bg69r6$8ug$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>
> < I don't think we've been "arguing" here really... "I'm just trying to
find
> out where you're coming from..." ...and you conviniently snipped all of
the
> points that were left open... >
>
>
> I was just trying to avoid going about the same things time after time.
> There are a lot of things where it's already very clear where we two
stand.
Yes, but your extremely unwilling to realize how important aspect of
filmmaking, or quality to become a great filmmaker, understanding for
cinematic structure and technical prowess is.
> < And I don't think I said it was a bad film either... I can't really
decide
> whether it was good or bad, which is a good sign ;] I might be able to
> decide that if I watched the film again in its entirety, but it's not one
of
> those films you want to see again...
>
> Summary:
>
> 1. 'Irréversible' is undeniably somewhat fascinating. >
>
>
> Not for me, but I respect your view. For me it's just "somewhat
> interesting".
Which means roughly the same thing.
> < 2. History of cinema knows a great deal of films (some of which I
brought
> up) that have absolutely no meaning whatsoever, but they are revisited,
> enjoyed and hailed as masterpieces. >
>
>
> Are you referring to Un Chien Andalou?
No. I'm referring to Psycho and The Birds.
> Surrealism *always* has meaning. Dalí
> on his own has meaning. Buñuel on his own has meaning. Rejection of
meaning
> is called Dadaism, and it's a different thing.
There was an extremely dadaistic nature in making UCA... Just like there is
a certain degree of dadaism in Lynch's work, which I am sure you're the
first person to deny.
> < 3. 'Irréversible' isn't entertaining, >
>
>
> Yes!
>
>
> < has no interesting characters, >
>
>
> Yes! Yes!
>
>
> < tells a stupid story, >
>
>
> Yes! Yes! Yes!
>
>
> < but will undoubtedly engage the viewer emotionally. >
>
>
> Yes, if you consider motion sickness an emotion.
Oh phhlllease.
And, yes, I consider motion sickness an emotion.
> < However that doesn't justify its existence (at least in your opinion),
> because the film isn't entertaining in any traditional way... >
>
>
> Nor in any new way.
Give me a simple example of a film that is even moderately similar to
'Irréversible'.
> < Their point had a lot to do with cinema and especially the avant gardist
> movements of the period. UCA was made to insult these people who were
doing
> experimental cinema... It was also a direct attack towards any
understanding
> of cinema as it really tried to avoid any kind of interpretation (which
is,
> of course, impossible).
> That's at least what I've read Buñuel say about the film. >
>
>
> Buñuel was famous for saying one thing one day and the opposite the next
> day. Kind of like Fellini. It's advisable not to take their comments too
> literally.
Then give me some evidence of the things he said the other day. Or at least
explain what he said... Discounting my sources by saying "well he said a lot
of things" is just unacceptable discussion behaviour.
> But in any case, let's take it literally for a moment: Was
> Irreversible made to insult experimental cinema? No. Is it an attack
towards
> any understanding of cinema?
Yes it is.
It's not really art and it's not entertainment.
The biggest question the film leaves to me is this: Why would anyone want
to see this film? And yet I keep thinking about the film everyday...
Henry the Horse
< Yes, but your extremely unwilling to realize how important aspect of
filmmaking, or quality to become a great filmmaker, understanding for
cinematic structure and technical prowess is. >
Cinematic structure: Very important.
(Though, say, Un Chien Andalou has no structure, but that's an exception.)
Technical prowess: A bonus, but not essential.
(See Woody Allen's best films: Annie Hall for instance.)
<<< 'Irréversible' is undeniably somewhat fascinating. >>>
<< Not for me, but I respect your view. For me it's just "somewhat
interesting". >>
< Which means roughly the same thing. >
Really? Good, then.
<<< History of cinema knows a great deal of films (some of which I brought
up) that have absolutely no meaning whatsoever, but they are revisited,
enjoyed and hailed as masterpieces. >>>
<< Are you referring to Un Chien Andalou? >>
< No. I'm referring to Psycho and The Birds. >
Movies in which *you* find no meaning whatsoever, contrary to more or less
the whole rest of the world.
It amazes that you can't see more than the surface in a film like The Birds
particularly.
< There was an extremely dadaistic nature in making UCA... Just like there
is a certain degree of dadaism in Lynch's work, which I am sure you're the
first person to deny. >
So, you find no meaning in Un Chien Andalou, then you say it's Dada.
And yes, I completely deny anything Dadaistic in Lynch's work. There are
certainly Surrealistic elements in his cinema (as I posted on another thread
some time ago), but certainly not Dada.
Did you read or see, say, Ubu King? (That's theatre, not cinema.) This is
Dadaism. Lynch is anything except non-sequitur. Even his most abstract work,
Eraserhead, has a definite story with a definite meaning, told in symbols.
<<< [Irreversible... again] but will undoubtedly engage the viewer
emotionally. >>>
<< Yes, if you consider motion sickness an emotion. >>
< Oh phhlllease.
And, yes, I consider motion sickness an emotion. >
Well, I don't.
<<< However that doesn't justify its existence (at least in your opinion),
because the film isn't entertaining in any traditional way... >>>
<< Nor in any new way. >>
< Give me a simple example of a film that is even moderately similar to
'Irréversible'. >
Now that's arguing for arguing sake. Re-read please: I don't find
Irreversible *entertaining* in any traditional way or any new way.
So, I don't really give a damn about how incredibly original or new
Irreversible is. Though since you ask... Irreversible is more intense than
usual. That's a good thing. And that's that.
<< Buñuel was famous for saying one thing one day and the opposite the next
day. Kind of like Fellini. It's advisable not to take their comments too
literally. >>
< Then give me some evidence of the things he said the other day. Or at
least explain what he said... Discounting my sources by saying "well he said
a lot of things" is just unacceptable discussion behaviour. >
[Warning: Sorry but, for a minute I'm going to get extremely angry. Read at
your own risk.]
However much I like you, I don't care *at all* what you consider acceptable
discussion behaviour. You're not exactly an example of coherence yourself.
[Ok, back to normal...]
You're invited to take a course in Spanish, come to my house and read my
cinema books. Meanwhile, please read what I said about the subject a couple
of posts ago.
<< [...] Is it an attack towards any understanding of cinema? >>
< Yes it is.
It's not really art and it's not entertainment.
The biggest question the film leaves to me is this: Why would anyone want
to see this film? And yet I keep thinking about the film everyday... >
So why exactly is it an attack towards any understanding of cinema, then? If
it's not art and it's not entertainment that's its problem, really. If it's
because you think about it every day, well, I really can't answer that.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
>
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:bg83k4$o3b$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>
> < Yes, but your extremely unwilling to realize how important aspect of
> filmmaking, or quality to become a great filmmaker, understanding for
> cinematic structure and technical prowess is. >
>
>
> Cinematic structure: Very important.
I'm glad we agree on this.
Wouldn't you say that there is a brilliantly structured film underneath the
Memento-gimmick in 'Irréversible'?
> (Though, say, Un Chien Andalou has no structure, but that's an exception.)
Of course. UCA is exception to everything!
> Technical prowess: A bonus, but not essential.
> (See Woody Allen's best films: Annie Hall for instance.)
Yes Annie Hall is superb, but my personal favourite is Husbands & Wives.
> <<< History of cinema knows a great deal of films (some of which I brought
> up) that have absolutely no meaning whatsoever, but they are revisited,
> enjoyed and hailed as masterpieces. >>>
>
> << Are you referring to Un Chien Andalou? >>
>
> < No. I'm referring to Psycho and The Birds. >
>
>
> Movies in which *you* find no meaning whatsoever, contrary to more or less
> the whole rest of the world.
>
> It amazes that you can't see more than the surface in a film like The
Birds
> particularly.
I was twelve or eleven when I saw it.
> < There was an extremely dadaistic nature in making UCA... Just like there
> is a certain degree of dadaism in Lynch's work, which I am sure you're the
> first person to deny. >
>
>
> So, you find no meaning in Un Chien Andalou, then you say it's Dada.
No, no, no no, no no, no no, no no, no no, no no, no.
I find a lot of meaning in UCA. But according to my understanding of
dadaism (which I confirmed by the first google result
http://tinyurl.com/iq6x) UCA had a lot of dadaism in its creation process
(picking the most irrational ideas possible, something that felt good
without a thought as to why exactly). And didn't surrealism develop *from*
dadaism? Wasn't UCA a early surrealist piece of work?
> And yes, I completely deny anything Dadaistic in Lynch's work. There are
> certainly Surrealistic elements in his cinema (as I posted on another
thread
> some time ago), but certainly not Dada.
>
> Did you read or see, say, Ubu King?
No.
> (That's theatre, not cinema.) This is
> Dadaism. Lynch is anything except non-sequitur. Even his most abstract
work,
> Eraserhead, has a definite story with a definite meaning, told in symbols.
I know what you mean, but I don't think you understand me...
My understanding of art is that the creative force of this or that piece of
art, especially in Lynch (and UCA), has (sometimes) only vague links to the
meaning this or that piece of art later captures. I say later because I
find that films realize their meanings (fully) after editing...
I don't know if some people think that this makes art somehow pretentious,
but to me, people who worked this way, seemed to impact me more.
I would certainly call the dinner table and eraserhead scenes rather
dadaist. Not merely surrealist, but dadaist.
> << Buñuel was famous for saying one thing one day and the opposite the
next
> day. Kind of like Fellini. It's advisable not to take their comments too
> literally. >>
>
> < Then give me some evidence of the things he said the other day. Or at
> least explain what he said... Discounting my sources by saying "well he
said
> a lot of things" is just unacceptable discussion behaviour. >
>
>
> [Warning: Sorry but, for a minute I'm going to get extremely angry. Read
at
> your own risk.]
>
> However much I like you, I don't care *at all* what you consider
acceptable
> discussion behaviour. You're not exactly an example of coherence yourself.
I'm aware of that.
I still hate the way you disregard points I find extremely essential to the
discussion. (I can still remember how you treated the whole plot
discussion)
> << [...] Is it an attack towards any understanding of cinema? >>
>
> < Yes it is.
> It's not really art and it's not entertainment.
> The biggest question the film leaves to me is this: Why would anyone want
> to see this film? And yet I keep thinking about the film everyday... >
>
>
> So why exactly is it an attack towards any understanding of cinema, then?
If
> it's not art and it's not entertainment that's its problem, really. If
it's
> because you think about it every day, well, I really can't answer that.
The fact that it's neither, but doesn't feel empty (and I don't think I'm
alone here), although it almost is, attacks at least my understanding of
cinema.
Keith Gow
<fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
>"Henry the Horse" wrote...
>>
>> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
>> news:bg83k4$o3b$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>>
>>
>> < Yes, but your extremely unwilling to realize how important aspect of
>> filmmaking, or quality to become a great filmmaker, understanding for
>> cinematic structure and technical prowess is. >
>>
>>
>> Cinematic structure: Very important.
>
>I'm glad we agree on this.
>
Okay, I haven't seen the film you are discussing, but let me be the
first to BWAHAHA here... Mikko, I'm not sure you know the meaning of
the term cinematic structure since you attack it at every opportunity
and now you claim it's "very important"?
-- Keith Gow --
Henry the Horse
<< Technical prowess: A bonus, but not essential.
(See Woody Allen's best films: Annie Hall for instance.) >>
< Yes Annie Hall is superb, but my personal favourite is Husbands & Wives. >
OK, the example is equally good.
<< It amazes that you can't see more than the surface in a film like The
Birds particularly. >>
< I was twelve or eleven when I saw it. >
Yet you're very quick to judge it.
< No, no, no no, no no, no no, no no, no no, no no, no. I find a lot of
meaning in UCA. But according to my understanding of dadaism (which I
confirmed by the first google result http://tinyurl.com/iq6x) UCA had a lot
of dadaism in its creation process (picking the most irrational ideas
possible, something that felt good without a thought as to why exactly). >
The starting point to create a work of art was not so different from Dadaism
to Surrealism. The difference is in the end result.
< And didn't surrealism develop *from* dadaism? >
Yes, more or less. Why?
< Wasn't UCA a early surrealist piece of work? >
That's what I was trying to tell you. It's you who insisted on Dadaism.
To be fair, I see that some consider Un Chien Andalou to be a kind of bridge
between the two movements.
<< Did you read or see, say, Ubu King? >>
< No. >
You'd understand Dadaism better than reading 1,000 URLs. And (most
important) I'm sure you'd enjoy it a lot.
But that may be difficult, since I'd reccomend watching it instead of
reading it if you're not used to reading theatre.
< I know what you mean, but I don't think you understand me... My
understanding of art is that the creative force of this or that piece of
art, especially in Lynch (and UCA), has (sometimes) only vague links to the
meaning this or that piece of art later captures. I say later because I
find that films realize their meanings (fully) after editing... >
Lynch always knows what he wants to tell long before shooting. He later adds
to it, but the film never changes its meaning. Mulholland Drive is a whole
different story, of course, but that has nothing to do with art movements -
though some would say ABC acts surrealistically enough.
< I don't know if some people think that this makes art somehow pretentious,
but to me, people who worked this way, seemed to impact me more. >
It's somewhat ironic due to my own line of work, but don't overestimate
editing. It's extremely important and can add a whole lot to a movie and
blah blah blah, but the essentials are usually kept - in fact it's generally
used to bring the final film closer to what the filmmaker (or the studio)
intended from the beginning.
Otherwise, you could call George Lucas the ultimate Surrealist.
(That last sentence lends itself to some jokes, but you know what I mean.)
< I would certainly call the dinner table and eraserhead scenes rather
dadaist. >
The dinner table, maybe. The eraserhead (if you mean the pencil factory
scene), definitely not - it's 100% Surrealism. In any case, don't brand
films because of one scene.
< Not merely surrealist, but dadaist. >
Not "merely"? LOL.
< I still hate the way you disregard points I find extremely essential to
the discussion. (I can still remember how you treated the whole plot
discussion) >
Yes, I kept replying for far too long on that thread.
Now I try to disregard points when I feel both you and I have clearly stated
our positions about something.
<< [Irreversible... one more time] So why exactly is it an attack towards
any understanding of cinema, then? If it's not art and it's not
entertainment that's its problem, really. If it's because you think about it
every day, well, I really can't answer that. >>
< The fact that it's neither, but doesn't feel empty (and I don't think I'm
alone here), although it almost is, attacks at least my understanding of
cinema. >
I don't agree with damnfine on how he values the movie, but his arguments
are closer to my own understanding of cinema.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:30:58 +0300, "Mikko Pihkoluoma"
> <fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
>
> >"Henry the Horse" wrote...
> >> Cinematic structure: Very important.
> >
> >I'm glad we agree on this.
> >
>
> Okay, I haven't seen the film you are discussing, but let me be the
> first to BWAHAHA here... Mikko, I'm not sure you know the meaning of
> the term cinematic structure since you attack it at every opportunity
> and now you claim it's "very important"?
If you're talking about narrative here...
If I were to be so simple and state that the most important thing in cinema
is story, meaning, etc, it would mean that the medium is secondary. And I do
not, cannot, believe that.
Strictly speaking story is not a cinematic element; it's not unique to
cinema (and this is why I think it could live, to certain extent, without
it). What is essentially unique to cinema is how it manipulates the viewer's
comprehension of time and space (while he sits in the dark room). Music
adds a level to this (of which I'm not fully aware, because music is just a
big mystery to me); mostly emotional, supportive and (ideally) rhytmical.
And when I say structure I don't merely mean the plot, plot beats, narrative
constructions or any of that -- what is most important to me is how these
things or (ideally) the themes of the film work with this time-space
continuum I tried to explain in the paragraph above. So it's not about
writing as such... and I'm beginning to learn that writing might help...
it's about how the director pulls the strings of the film -- how he senses
the "whole".
Mikko Pihkoluoma
>
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:bgdq2d$14g$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>
> << Technical prowess: A bonus, but not essential.
> (See Woody Allen's best films: Annie Hall for instance.) >>
>
> < Yes Annie Hall is superb, but my personal favourite is Husbands & Wives.
>
>
>
> OK, the example is equally good.
I thought the use of lighting and the framing of some of the shots in its
"documentarist" way was very impressive...
> << It amazes that you can't see more than the surface in a film like The
> Birds particularly. >>
>
> < I was twelve or eleven when I saw it. >
>
>
> Yet you're very quick to judge it.
Yes I am, because since then I've seen quite a many Hitchcock films that
really need some kind of jackass interpretation to gain meaning.
> < And didn't surrealism develop *from* dadaism? >
>
>
> Yes, more or less. Why?
It was to be understood as an "introduction" to the sentence below. You
can't take it out of context.
> < Wasn't UCA a early surrealist piece of work? >
>
>
> That's what I was trying to tell you. It's you who insisted on Dadaism.
>
> To be fair, I see that some consider Un Chien Andalou to be a kind of
bridge
> between the two movements.
Now, finally.
Thank you for understanding what I meant.
> << Did you read or see, say, Ubu King? >>
>
> < No. >
>
>
> You'd understand Dadaism better than reading 1,000 URLs. And (most
> important) I'm sure you'd enjoy it a lot.
>
> But that may be difficult, since I'd reccomend watching it instead of
> reading it if you're not used to reading theatre.
I'm not used to reading anything... I'm the laziest reader (who wants to
read) I know.
> < I know what you mean, but I don't think you understand me... My
> understanding of art is that the creative force of this or that piece of
> art, especially in Lynch (and UCA), has (sometimes) only vague links to
the
> meaning this or that piece of art later captures. I say later because I
> find that films realize their meanings (fully) after editing... >
>
>
> Lynch always knows what he wants to tell long before shooting. He later
adds
> to it, but the film never changes its meaning.
You say film, but that certainly wasn't the deal with Twin Peaks...
Change is a tricky word... I wouldn't say TP turned 180 degrees in its
meaning but it certainly developed and thus changed its meaning *during* the
process.
> < I don't know if some people think that this makes art somehow
pretentious,
> but to me, people who worked this way, seemed to impact me more. >
>
>
> It's somewhat ironic due to my own line of work, but don't overestimate
> editing. It's extremely important and can add a whole lot to a movie and
> blah blah blah, but the essentials are usually kept - in fact it's
generally
> used to bring the final film closer to what the filmmaker (or the studio)
> intended from the beginning.
Yes I was unclear about things... I didn't mean only editing. I meant the
whole shooting process but we've been here haven't we?
> < I would certainly call the dinner table and eraserhead scenes rather
> dadaist. >
>
>
> The dinner table, maybe. The eraserhead (if you mean the pencil factory
> scene), definitely not - it's 100% Surrealism. In any case, don't brand
> films because of one scene.
I didn't say Eh was a dadaistic film. I said: "Just like there is
a certain degree of dadaism in Lynch's work, which I am sure you're the
first person to deny."
> < I still hate the way you disregard points I find extremely essential to
> the discussion. (I can still remember how you treated the whole plot
> discussion) >
>
>
> Yes, I kept replying for far too long on that thread.
>
> Now I try to disregard points when I feel both you and I have clearly
stated
> our positions about something.
But the irritating thing with discussing with you is that you only state
your opinion, unwilling to go deeper and explain yourself better and perhaps
re-estimate your opinion in context to this or that topic.
Henry the Horse
< If I were to be so simple and state that the most important thing in
cinema is story, meaning, etc, it would mean that the medium is secondary.
And I do not, cannot, believe that. >
Thank God you're not so simple...
< Strictly speaking story is not a cinematic element; it's not unique to
cinema (and this is why I think it could live, to certain extent, without
it). What is essentially unique to cinema is how it manipulates the viewer's
comprehension of time and space (while he sits in the dark room). >
That's not unique to cinema, literature does the same.
< And when I say structure I don't merely mean the plot, plot beats,
narrative constructions or any of that -- what is most important to me is
how these things or (ideally) the themes of the film work with this
time-space continuum I tried to explain in the paragraph above. So it's not
about writing as such... and I'm beginning to learn that writing might
help... it's about how the director pulls the strings of the film -- how he
senses the "whole". >
What you're saying is basically the most traditional definition of
cinema -the combination of elements.
Henry the Horse
< I thought the use of lighting and the framing of some of the shots in its
"documentarist" way was very impressive... >
It seems you define "technical prowess" as basically "anything I like".
<<<< It amazes that you can't see more than the surface in a film like The
Birds particularly. >>>>
<<< I was twelve or eleven when I saw it. >>>
<< Yet you're very quick to judge it. >>
< Yes I am, because since then I've seen quite a many Hitchcock films that
really need some kind of jackass interpretation to gain meaning. >
It seems you define "jackass interpretation" as basically "anything I didn't
get".
<<< And didn't surrealism develop *from* dadaism? >>>
<< Yes, more or less. Why? >>
< It was to be understood as an "introduction" to the sentence below. You
can't take it out of context. >
???
<< To be fair, I see that some consider Un Chien Andalou to be a kind of
bridge between the two movements. >>
< Now, finally. Thank you for understanding what I meant. >
It's not that I misunderstand you on purpose. Some times I may not
understand you, others I think you're wrong, and on some things we even
agree...
< I'm not used to reading anything... I'm the laziest reader (who wants to
read) I know. >
And don't you think that some of your trouble with narrative and screenplays
etc. may come from this?
<< Lynch always knows what he wants to tell long before shooting. He later
adds to it, but the film never changes its meaning. >>
< You say film, but that certainly wasn't the deal with Twin Peaks... Change
is a tricky word... I wouldn't say TP turned 180 degrees in its meaning but
it certainly developed and thus changed its meaning *during* the process. >
But what does developing a series over time have to do with Lynch being
Dadaist, or a little Dadaist?
<< It's somewhat ironic due to my own line of work, but don't overestimate
editing. It's extremely important and can add a whole lot to a movie and
blah blah blah, but the essentials are usually kept - in fact it's generally
used to bring the final film closer to what the filmmaker (or the studio)
intended from the beginning. >>
< Yes I was unclear about things... I didn't mean only editing. I meant the
whole shooting process but we've been here haven't we? >
Certainly.
< I didn't say Eh was a dadaistic film. I said: "Just like there is a
certain degree of dadaism in Lynch's work, which I am sure you're the first
person to deny." >
And I answered that you can't correctly say that just because of a single
scene in a movie.
< But the irritating thing with discussing with you is that you only state
your opinion, unwilling to go deeper and explain yourself better and perhaps
re-estimate your opinion in context to this or that topic. >
How can I, when you contradict yourself not only from one post to another,
but inside the same post? Or maybe I fail to understand you. Whatever it is,
I've reestimated my positions here in the past, but I fail to see anything
to make me do that in your posts. I insist: maybe it's my problem and I
don't understand what you're really saying, but that's how it is.
About going deeper... tell me on what do you want me to, and I'll be glad to
do it, if it's not something we haven't covered enough already.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
>
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:bge2mo$e7e$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> cinema (and this is why I think it could live, to certain extent, without
> it). What is essentially unique to cinema is how it manipulates the
viewer's
> comprehension of time and space (while he sits in the dark room). >
>
>
> That's not unique to cinema, literature does the same.
If you wanted to understand me you could. But now you're just being a huge
pain in the ass.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
>
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:bge47e$fbj$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>
> < I thought the use of lighting and the framing of some of the shots in
its
> "documentarist" way was very impressive... >
>
>
> It seems you define "technical prowess" as basically "anything I like".
Of course.
Isn't that obvious?
> <<<< It amazes that you can't see more than the surface in a film like The
> Birds particularly. >>>>
>
> <<< I was twelve or eleven when I saw it. >>>
>
> << Yet you're very quick to judge it. >>
>
> < Yes I am, because since then I've seen quite a many Hitchcock films that
> really need some kind of jackass interpretation to gain meaning. >
>
>
> It seems you define "jackass interpretation" as basically "anything I
didn't
> get".
Oh boy...
You said yourself that most of his films do not try to have a meaning.
> <<< And didn't surrealism develop *from* dadaism? >>>
>
> << Yes, more or less. Why? >>
>
> < It was to be understood as an "introduction" to the sentence below. You
> can't take it out of context. >
>
>
> ???
Can't you understand how two sentences don't mean the same thing if they're
seperated?
> << To be fair, I see that some consider Un Chien Andalou to be a kind of
> bridge between the two movements. >>
>
> < Now, finally. Thank you for understanding what I meant. >
>
>
> It's not that I misunderstand you on purpose.
Maybe not all the time.
> < I'm not used to reading anything... I'm the laziest reader (who wants to
> read) I know. >
>
>
> And don't you think that some of your trouble with narrative and
screenplays
> etc. may come from this?
Yes I do.
And if I didn't I don't think I would have admitted it when we originally
touched the subject weeks ago... Google it up if you can't remember that.
> << Lynch always knows what he wants to tell long before shooting. He later
> adds to it, but the film never changes its meaning. >>
>
> < You say film, but that certainly wasn't the deal with Twin Peaks...
Change
> is a tricky word... I wouldn't say TP turned 180 degrees in its meaning
but
> it certainly developed and thus changed its meaning *during* the process.
>
>
>
> But what does developing a series over time have to do with Lynch being
> Dadaist, or a little Dadaist?
The Red Room came into being in a very dadaist sense... Lynch saw the image
and put a scene in the series. Then later rationalized how it connects with
rest of the series.
I am 100% sure that he doesn't always know what his images mean when he
makes scenes out of them... He works intuitively.
> < I didn't say Eh was a dadaistic film. I said: "Just like there is a
> certain degree of dadaism in Lynch's work, which I am sure you're the
first
> person to deny." >
>
>
> And I answered that you can't correctly say that just because of a single
> scene in a movie.
Yes I can.
"A certain degree of dadaism" does not mean that e.g. at least one third of
this or that needs to be dadaist -- it's an indefinitive expression for
christ's sake...
> < But the irritating thing with discussing with you is that you only state
> your opinion, unwilling to go deeper and explain yourself better and
perhaps
> re-estimate your opinion in context to this or that topic. >
>
>
> How can I, when you contradict yourself not only from one post to another,
> but inside the same post?
Where do I contradict myself?
> Or maybe I fail to understand you. Whatever it is,
> I've reestimated my positions here in the past, but I fail to see anything
> to make me do that in your posts. I insist: maybe it's my problem and I
> don't understand what you're really saying, but that's how it is.
>
> About going deeper... tell me on what do you want me to, and I'll be glad
to
> do it, if it's not something we haven't covered enough already.
I don't know if we were going in circles before, but we certainly are now...
And even if there were points left open I don't think I need to discuss them
with you.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
>
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:bge2mo$e7e$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
> narrative constructions or any of that -- what is most important to me is
> how these things or (ideally) the themes of the film work with this
> time-space continuum I tried to explain in the paragraph above. So it's
not
> about writing as such... and I'm beginning to learn that writing might
> help... it's about how the director pulls the strings of the film -- how
he
> senses the "whole". >
>
>
> What you're saying is basically the most traditional definition of
> cinema -the combination of elements.
I wasn't trying to be somehow original if that's what you think.
Besides I wasn't making a definition of cinema. What's more important here
is to understand which elements are most important.
Henry the Horse
<<< Strictly speaking story is not a cinematic element; it's not unique to
cinema (and this is why I think it could live, to certain extent, without
it). What is essentially unique to cinema is how it manipulates the viewer's
comprehension of time and space (while he sits in the dark room). >>>
<< That's not unique to cinema, literature does the same. >>
< If you wanted to understand me you could. But now you're just being a huge
pain in the ass. >
I was trying to emphasize, in a semi-civil tone, that a big deal of your
problems with cinema come from a significant lack of knowledge.
I hope you find someone else to discuss these things with.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
>
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:bgfq4u$gvf$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>
> <<< Strictly speaking story is not a cinematic element; it's not unique to
> cinema (and this is why I think it could live, to certain extent, without
> it). What is essentially unique to cinema is how it manipulates the
viewer's
> comprehension of time and space (while he sits in the dark room). >>>
>
> << That's not unique to cinema, literature does the same. >>
>
> < If you wanted to understand me you could. But now you're just being a
huge
> pain in the ass. >
>
>
> I was trying to emphasize, in a semi-civil tone, that a big deal of your
> problems with cinema come from a significant lack of knowledge.
I am ready to accept that as a fact if you're fair enough to tell me what is
this lack of knowledge, *exactly*. I am sure that there is a
significant "lack of knowledge" and even lack of experience on my part, but
I can't see how it has anything to do with the points I'm making here...
Does my lack of story-based-cultural-conditioning make my views about what
cinema really is less valid?
It dumbfounds me that you wouldn't accept the striking differences between
these two mediums... An understanding of that would not make you a hater of
narrative in cinema...
> I hope you find someone else to discuss these things with.
I don't think I will...
Mikko
--
mpihkolu at welho dot com
Christopher Nolan about seeing 2001: ASO at the age of eight:
"It's not a film you really need to get - you just need to enjoy it. All my
friends went to see it and loved it. It's such a wonderful spectacle and as
a kid you don't worry about whether you get it or not, you just enjoy it for
what it is, in a more impressionistic way. You enjoy the experience, and
then you enjoy arguing with your friends about what it was all about. I
think there in a tendency, particularly in Hollywood, to underestimate kids
and the way in which they respond to narratives. I think that if you show
something incredible and take them to a different world, you don't
necessarily have to be telling them the clearest or most obvious story."
Henry the Horse
< It dumbfounds me that you wouldn't accept the striking differences between
these two mediums... An understanding of that would not make you a hater of
narrative in cinema... >
Which two media? Literature and cinema? I only made one comment about it
and, forgive me, but it's undeniable.
What you're looking for isn't there either.
<< I hope you find someone else to discuss these things with. >>
< I don't think I will... >
Probably. To say something positive, have you considered joining some kind
of cinema classes? Maybe not a full career, but it would give you great
information on the basis of cinema, which maybe would help you to, er,
perfect your ideas.
< Christopher Nolan about seeing 2001: ASO at the age of eight: [...] >
Has that anything to do with our comments about The Birds? I saw 2001 at 9
or 10 and was fascinated by it. I saw The Birds sometime later and didn't
get it. Again, these are two completely different things - 2001 is a
wonderful visual experience regardless of if you understand it or not, The
Birds is a stupid movie if you can't see deeper into it.
Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
PS- Sorry for the snippage, but I gave fair warning...
Keith Gow
<fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
>"Keith Gow" wrote...
>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:30:58 +0300, "Mikko Pihkoluoma"
>> <fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
>>
>> >"Henry the Horse" wrote...
>
>> >> Cinematic structure: Very important.
>> >
>> >I'm glad we agree on this.
>> >
>>
>> Okay, I haven't seen the film you are discussing, but let me be the
>> first to BWAHAHA here... Mikko, I'm not sure you know the meaning of
>> the term cinematic structure since you attack it at every opportunity
>> and now you claim it's "very important"?
>
>
>If you're talking about narrative here...
>
>If I were to be so simple and state that the most important thing in cinema
>is story, meaning, etc, it would mean that the medium is secondary. And I do
>not, cannot, believe that.
>
Well you might not be that simple... But to suggest that it's not
important and then to say "cinematic structure" is very important
means that you obviously have a different dictionary than I.
For narrative and cinematic structure aren't mutually exclusive. You
need one to have the other.
>Strictly speaking story is not a cinematic element;
Says you.
>it's not unique to
>cinema (and this is why I think it could live, to certain extent, without
>it).
What is unique to cinema?
>What is essentially unique to cinema is how it manipulates the viewer's
>comprehension of time and space (while he sits in the dark room).
As Henry says, literature does the same thing.
>Music
>adds a level to this (of which I'm not fully aware, because music is just a
>big mystery to me); mostly emotional, supportive and (ideally) rhytmical.
>
You're willing to concede that music adds a level but story does not?
Can I have some of what you're smoking? Better still, maybe you should
just lay off it...
>And when I say structure I don't merely mean the plot, plot beats, narrative
>constructions or any of that -- what is most important to me is how these
>things or (ideally) the themes of the film work with this time-space
>continuum I tried to explain in the paragraph above. So it's not about
>writing as such... and I'm beginning to learn that writing might help...
>it's about how the director pulls the strings of the film -- how he senses
>the "whole".
>
You still insist on separating these things out like "cinematic
structure" can exist without "story" or "music" or, well, whatever
else you think isn't unique to cinema...
-- Keith Gow --
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 18:58:22 +0300, "Mikko Pihkoluoma"
> <fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
>
> >"Keith Gow" wrote...
> >> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:30:58 +0300, "Mikko Pihkoluoma"
> >> <fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
> >>
> >> >"Henry the Horse" wrote...
> >
> >> >> Cinematic structure: Very important.
> >> >
> >> >I'm glad we agree on this.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Okay, I haven't seen the film you are discussing, but let me be the
> >> first to BWAHAHA here... Mikko, I'm not sure you know the meaning of
> >> the term cinematic structure since you attack it at every opportunity
> >> and now you claim it's "very important"?
> >
> >
> >If you're talking about narrative here...
> >
> >If I were to be so simple and state that the most important thing in
cinema
> >is story, meaning, etc, it would mean that the medium is secondary. And I
do
> >not, cannot, believe that.
> >
>
> Well you might not be that simple... But to suggest that it's not
> important and then to say "cinematic structure" is very important
> means that you obviously have a different dictionary than I.
>
> For narrative and cinematic structure aren't mutually exclusive. You
> need one to have the other.
Un Chien Andalou.
> >What is essentially unique to cinema is how it manipulates the viewer's
> >comprehension of time and space (while he sits in the dark room).
>
> As Henry says, literature does the same thing.
How?
Literature inspires reader's imagination, but it does not manipulate the
viewer's physical comprehension of time and space. Maybe you loose track of
time when you read a good book but it's not the same thing. Films have their
own physical diegetic timeline which is unique to any other art form.
(Books have diegetic timelines I guess too but they're so bloody vague and
can never even hope to tackle the hypnotical impact of cinema)
> >Music
> >adds a level to this (of which I'm not fully aware, because music is just
a
> >big mystery to me); mostly emotional, supportive and (ideally) rhytmical.
> >
>
> You're willing to concede that music adds a level but story does not?
No. Story can and usually does add a level, but it's not a basic element of
cinema like cinematography and music are.
I'm not against stories per se. I just wish cinema wasn't so predominantly
about telling stories. Because I think it could be more... I think telling
stories is fine, but its domination of cinema is absurd to me, because I
think there is better use for cinema... The best 40 minutes of television,
'The Body', hardly has a plot, or much of a story. Depiction of certain
feelings in compact situation is what feels closest to cinematic narrative.
Mikko
--
mpihkolu at welho dot com
Christopher Nolan about seeing 2001: ASO at the age of eight:
"It's not a film you really need to get - you just need to enjoy it. All my
Mikko Pihkoluoma
>
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:bgggq4$4t7$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>
> < It dumbfounds me that you wouldn't accept the striking differences
between
> these two mediums... An understanding of that would not make you a hater
of
> narrative in cinema... >
>
>
> Which two media? Literature and cinema? I only made one comment about it
> and, forgive me, but it's undeniable.
>
> What you're looking for isn't there either.
Show it to me.
> << I hope you find someone else to discuss these things with. >>
>
> < I don't think I will... >
>
>
> Probably. To say something positive, have you considered joining some kind
> of cinema classes? Maybe not a full career, but it would give you great
> information on the basis of cinema, which maybe would help you to, er,
> perfect your ideas.
Yes I have considered doing that, and perhaps I will do that in the next
semester...
> < Christopher Nolan about seeing 2001: ASO at the age of eight: [...] >
>
>
> Has that anything to do with our comments about The Birds?
No.
Sig quotes don't need to be connected to anything.
What I wish that quote would say is that we might have different kind of
cinema if children weren't dumded down (may I say conditioned) with stupid
narratives like The Lady and the Tramp, Johnny English, Spy Kids, etc...
Mikko
--
mpihkolu at welho dot com
Christopher Nolan about seeing 2001: ASO at the age of eight:
"It's not a film you really need to get - you just need to enjoy it. All my
Keith Gow
<fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
It's sixteen minutes long. It can afford to be nothing more than
surrealist images.
>> >What is essentially unique to cinema is how it manipulates the viewer's
>> >comprehension of time and space (while he sits in the dark room).
>>
>> As Henry says, literature does the same thing.
>
>How?
>
>Literature inspires reader's imagination, but it does not manipulate the
>viewer's physical comprehension of time and space. Maybe you loose track of
>time when you read a good book but it's not the same thing.
I'm not sure how you mean.
>Films have their
>own physical diegetic timeline which is unique to any other art form.
>(Books have diegetic timelines I guess too but they're so bloody vague and
>can never even hope to tackle the hypnotical impact of cinema)
>
I think this is a ridiculous notion.
>> >Music
>> >adds a level to this (of which I'm not fully aware, because music is just
>a
>> >big mystery to me); mostly emotional, supportive and (ideally) rhytmical.
>> >
>>
>> You're willing to concede that music adds a level but story does not?
>
>No. Story can and usually does add a level, but it's not a basic element of
>cinema like cinematography and music are.
>
This is an unsupportable statement. It's random and means nothing. You
say it in a vain attempt to support your own argument. But just
because you write it doesn't make it fact.
>I'm not against stories per se. I just wish cinema wasn't so predominantly
>about telling stories. Because I think it could be more...
Yes, it could be more about manipulating time and space... whatever
that means. Oh, yeah, it means to make a two hour non-narrative film
feel like it's going on forever...
>I think telling
>stories is fine, but its domination of cinema is absurd to me, because I
>think there is better use for cinema... The best 40 minutes of television,
>'The Body', hardly has a plot, or much of a story. Depiction of certain
>feelings in compact situation is what feels closest to cinematic narrative.
I think using "The Body" as an example of non-narrative storytelling
is just plain stupid. Because it clearly does have a story even if it
is dominated by the study of characters.
But using one chapter in a 144 chapter saga to argue for non-narrative
cinema is pointless because one chapter doesn't require narrative, but
a self-contained *full-length* feature does.
I'm not completely against non-narrative work, but it's rare and
almost never done as a full-length work.
-- Keith Gow --
Henry the Horse
<<< What is essentially unique to cinema is how it manipulates the viewer's
comprehension of time and space (while he sits in the dark room). >>>
<< As Henry says, literature does the same thing. >>
< How?
Literature inspires reader's imagination, but it does not manipulate the
viewer's physical comprehension of time and space. >
Not if you don't read.
< Maybe you loose track of time when you read a good book but it's not the
same thing. >
What Keith said has nothing to do with that.
< Films have their own physical diegetic timeline which is unique to any
other art form. >
Every medium has that.
< (Books have diegetic timelines I guess too but they're so bloody vague and
can never even hope to tackle the hypnotical impact of cinema) >
100% wrong.
< No. Story can and usually does add a level, but it's not a basic element
of cinema like cinematography and music are. >
Ah... interesting. In which way story is not basic but music is?
If you at least thought none of the two are basic, that would have made a
little sense.
Henry the Horse
<< Which two media? Literature and cinema? I only made one comment about it
and, forgive me, but it's undeniable.
What you're looking for isn't there either. >>
< Show it to me. >
This one's easy: read a book.
<< To say something positive, have you considered joining some kind of
cinema classes? Maybe not a full career, but it would give you great
information on the basis of cinema, which maybe would help you to, er,
perfect your ideas. >>
< Yes I have considered doing that, and perhaps I will do that in the next
semester... >
I'm sure you'll enjoy it. Really.
< What I wish that quote would say is that we might have different kind of
cinema if children weren't dumded down (may I say conditioned) with stupid
narratives like The Lady and the Tramp, Johnny English, Spy Kids, etc... >
Everybody take their children to see The Falls!
Joshua Zyber
news:bgj1ou$one4j$1...@ID-185440.news.uni-berlin.de...
> < (Books have diegetic timelines I guess too but they're so bloody
vague and
> can never even hope to tackle the hypnotical impact of cinema) >
>
> 100% wrong.
Mikko should attempt to read some Faulkner or Virginia Wolfe and then
make stupid statements like that.
Maybe it's just that there are no good Finnish authors?
Mikko Pihkoluoma
>
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:bgijb0$qi8$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>
> << Which two media? Literature and cinema? I only made one comment about
it
> and, forgive me, but it's undeniable.
> What you're looking for isn't there either. >>
>
> < Show it to me. >
>
>
> This one's easy: read a book.
Go fuck yourself in animal porn land where you belong.
... Henry ... I didn't wish to continue this discussion in this way but
it's you who chose to attack me personally because you learned a piece of
information about how I didn't spend my childhood. I read books, yes, but
not a lot. And very few of them have anything to do with telling stories.
Despite the fact that I'm the slowest reader in my circle of friends who are
all interested in arts, I think I read the most. Last book I read was
Dostojevsky's The Gambler, I finished it three weeks ago. Currently I'm
reading James Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man and Buñuel's
autobiography, plus two magazines, one newspaper, thousands of lines of
newsgroups and other web material...
> << To say something positive, have you considered joining some kind of
> cinema classes? Maybe not a full career, but it would give you great
> information on the basis of cinema, which maybe would help you to, er,
> perfect your ideas. >>
>
> < Yes I have considered doing that, and perhaps I will do that in the next
> semester... >
>
>
> I'm sure you'll enjoy it. Really.
And I'm sure you'll enjoy fucking horses. Really.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
Mirror, La Regle du Jeu, L'avventura, Last Year at Marienbad, The Thin Red
Line...
None of these films have fixation on telling a story (even though each of
them have stories or part of stories in them), yet they're capable of
constructing profound coherent cinematic structures.
> >> >What is essentially unique to cinema is how it manipulates the
viewer's
> >> >comprehension of time and space (while he sits in the dark room).
> >>
> >> As Henry says, literature does the same thing.
> >
> >How?
> >
> >Literature inspires reader's imagination, but it does not manipulate the
> >viewer's physical comprehension of time and space. Maybe you loose track
of
> >time when you read a good book but it's not the same thing.
>
> I'm not sure how you mean.
I mean how film can actually give you a true illusion of time within its
narrative (and this doesn't need a story really. Just a simple documentation
of an event). And how impossible it is to have any time impact on you with
literature.
A camera can move in time and space but words can only vaguely describe a
space and express that time has passed but words cannot express time as
humans perceive it, as a flowing continuum... Nor can it give you a feeling
of spatial movement.
Words are pretty good for expressing string of thoughts, character's inner
psychology, stream of memories even, but not physical experience (/
imitation) of time and space.
> >> >Music
> >> >adds a level to this (of which I'm not fully aware, because music is
just
> >a
> >> >big mystery to me); mostly emotional, supportive and (ideally)
rhytmical.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You're willing to concede that music adds a level but story does not?
> >
> >No. Story can and usually does add a level, but it's not a basic element
of
> >cinema like cinematography and music are.
> >
>
> This is an unsupportable statement. It's random and means nothing. You
> say it in a vain attempt to support your own argument. But just
> because you write it doesn't make it fact.
How is it random?
Can't you see the hierarchy?
In order there to be stories in cinema it needs a) visuals and/or b)
sound.
I include music as a basic element because silent films weren't mostly
silent...
> >I think telling
> >stories is fine, but its domination of cinema is absurd to me, because I
> >think there is better use for cinema... The best 40 minutes of
television,
> >'The Body', hardly has a plot, or much of a story. Depiction of
certain
> >feelings in compact situation is what feels closest to cinematic
narrative.
>
> I think using "The Body" as an example of non-narrative storytelling
> is just plain stupid. Because it clearly does have a story even if it
> is dominated by the study of characters.
Everything in cinema can be interpreted to have a story. And I'm not against
that. I'm against the argument that story is the most important thing in
cinematic expression.
> But using one chapter in a 144 chapter saga to argue for non-narrative
> cinema is pointless because one chapter doesn't require narrative, but
> a self-contained *full-length* feature does.
Have you seen La Règle du jeu? Yes it has at least half-a-story in it, and,
oh yes, it has a narrative... But do these elements make the film what it
is? Is this film about telling a good story? Does it even tell a (good)
story?
> I'm not completely against non-narrative work, but it's rare and
> almost never done as a full-length work.
Is that proof of its weakness?
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> Mikko should attempt to read some Faulkner or Virginia Wolfe and then
> make stupid statements like that.
>
> Maybe it's just that there are no good Finnish authors?
Despite the shit between us I wish you could post directly to me if you want
to say something to me. Or am I in your kill-file?
And yes there are not many good Finnish authors... There are some who can
make you laugh and there was one who won a nobel prize and perhaps a couple
of others worth reading (I haven't read them), but not that many...
Anyhow that hardly proves anything... Certainly there are more good Finnish
writers than filmmakers.
Is it so hard to understand that I wish it was more a visual medium it is?
Joshua Zyber
news:bgj8si$9ta$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> Despite the shit between us I wish you could post directly to me if
you want
> to say something to me. Or am I in your kill-file?
You're not in my killfile yet, but I do find that responding to you
directly is largely futile as the conversation quickly descends into
childish insults.
Now I expect you to tell me to go fuck a horse.
Henry the Horse
<< This one's easy: read a book. >>
< Go fuck yourself in animal porn land where you belong. >
Oh, go lick Greenaway.
And now that we've taken that out of our chests...
< ... Henry ... I didn't wish to continue this discussion in this way but
it's you who chose to attack me personally because you learned a piece of
information about how I didn't spend my childhood. I read books, yes, but
not a lot. And very few of them have anything to do with telling stories. >
As usual, I'm afraid you didn't understand me.
I couldn't care less if you don't read much.
The fact is, first you say you don't read, then you feel qualified to have
strong opinions on what literature can or can't do. And yet you don't feel
there's any contradiction in that. *That's* what grates me. Comprende?
< Despite the fact that I'm the slowest reader in my circle of friends who
are all interested in arts, I think I read the most. Last book I read was
Dostojevsky's The Gambler, I finished it three weeks ago. Currently I'm
reading James Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man [...] >
Maybe you need more obvious examples. As Josh said, read Faulkner or
Virginia Wolfe. Or, better yet, read The Naked Lunch.
Then come back here and say that literature can't play with time and space.
In fact, I really reccomend you The Naked Lunch. You may find that some of
the things you feel cinema lacks, ironically you can find in literature.
<< I'm sure you'll enjoy it. Really. >>
< And I'm sure you'll enjoy fucking horses. Really. >
Forget about cinema studies. Go directly to West Point.
Henry the Horse
< Mirror, La Regle du Jeu, L'avventura, Last Year at Marienbad, The Thin Red
Line...
None of these films have fixation on telling a story (even though each of
them have stories or part of stories in them), yet they're capable of
constructing profound coherent cinematic structures. >
The only way in which I can understand this answer is if you've been
misinterpreting everything we've been telling you for the last months.
This is really, really useless.
< How is it random?
Can't you see the hierarchy?
In order there to be stories in cinema it needs a) visuals and/or b)
sound.
I include music as a basic element because silent films weren't mostly
silent... >
Live music was added to cinema *after* adding the story element.
<< I'm not completely against non-narrative work, but it's rare and almost
never done as a full-length work. >>
< Is that proof of its weakness? >
Non-narrative cinema, when it's good, it's good *because* it is an
exception.
If it was the norm, no one (even you) would be much into cinema.
Henry the Horse
< Is it so hard to understand that I wish it was more a visual medium it is?
>
Hey, cool, now if it's narrative it's less visual.
Keep up the good work!
Mikko Pihkoluoma
>
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:bgj6mt$7mn$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>
> << This one's easy: read a book. >>
>
> < Go fuck yourself in animal porn land where you belong. >
>
>
> Oh, go lick Greenaway.
Now that was actually funny! (and I'm honest here)
Oh, I love you Henry!
> And now that we've taken that out of our chests...
>
>
> < ... Henry ... I didn't wish to continue this discussion in this way but
> it's you who chose to attack me personally because you learned a piece of
> information about how I didn't spend my childhood. I read books, yes, but
> not a lot. And very few of them have anything to do with telling stories.
>
>
>
> As usual, I'm afraid you didn't understand me.
>
> I couldn't care less if you don't read much.
>
> The fact is, first you say you don't read, then you feel qualified to have
> strong opinions on what literature can or can't do. And yet you don't feel
> there's any contradiction in that. *That's* what grates me. Comprende?
You know what grates me? That you continually disregard my position because
I'm still young and I'll get old and wise like you, and then I'll see it's
YOU who are right...
These are basic differences between two mediums.
Cinema is physically visual, literature is mentally "visual". Not the same
thing. Cinema can manipulate. With literature it's so much dependent on the
reader's imagination. Cinema can show you a sense of time. Literature can
only get a grasp of that indirectly, but cinema can do it directly by its
nature -- moving pictures...
> < Despite the fact that I'm the slowest reader in my circle of friends who
> are all interested in arts, I think I read the most. Last book I read was
> Dostojevsky's The Gambler, I finished it three weeks ago. Currently I'm
> reading James Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man [...] >
>
>
> Maybe you need more obvious examples. As Josh said, read Faulkner or
> Virginia Wolfe. Or, better yet, read The Naked Lunch.
I might do that...
But I still don't think literature can ever have *that* impact on me... (and
I'm reading Joyce for crying out loud!)
It's just the difference of expression.
Literature isn't even a continual art form. It consists of particles. Lego
blocks vs. marble statue... See the difference?
Joshua Zyber
> You know what grates me? That you continually disregard my position
because
> I'm still young and I'll get old and wise like you, and then I'll see
it's
> YOU who are right...
Has it ever occurred to you that people our age say this sort of thing
to people your age because we have been in your exact position at one
time and remember how foolish we sounded?
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> wrote in message
> news:bgj8si$9ta$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> > Despite the shit between us I wish you could post directly to me if
> you want
> > to say something to me. Or am I in your kill-file?
>
> You're not in my killfile yet, but I do find that responding to you
> directly is largely futile as the conversation quickly descends into
> childish insults.
"Read a book" is not something I'm going to tolerate from Henry or from
anyone in this newsgroup.
He deserved a slap in the face.
unclejr
> You're not in my killfile yet, but I do find that responding to you
> directly is largely futile as the conversation quickly descends into
> childish insults.
>
> Now I expect you to tell me to go fuck a horse.
Henry, perhaps?
-Junior
Mikko Pihkoluoma
Okay, tell me how you went through all this
visual-narrative-space-time-continuum dilemma bullshit back in the first
year of college?
Other people are just as welcome to tell me stories how they didn't want to
see stories...
Mikko Pihkoluoma
>
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:bgj8ec$9pe$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>
> < Mirror, La Regle du Jeu, L'avventura, Last Year at Marienbad, The Thin
Red
> Line...
>
> None of these films have fixation on telling a story (even though each of
> them have stories or part of stories in them), yet they're capable of
> constructing profound coherent cinematic structures. >
>
>
> The only way in which I can understand this answer is if you've been
> misinterpreting everything we've been telling you for the last months.
If you had paid more attention back when I asked you to explain what was
really the plot of Breathless and what was so important about that film's
story, we wouldn't have to go through this now...
I can accept that everything has a story, but I'm not willing to accept that
stories are so important. I don't think that the story of Breathless makes
the film important. Moreover I don't feel at all that La Règle du jeu is
about telling a story.
I'm not against narrative. I'm against (and tired of) comments that story is
the most important element in cinema.
> This is really, really useless.
Maybe.
> < How is it random?
> Can't you see the hierarchy?
> In order there to be stories in cinema it needs a) visuals and/or b)
> sound.
>
> I include music as a basic element because silent films weren't mostly
> silent... >
>
>
> Live music was added to cinema *after* adding the story element.
I didn't know that. I thought the pre-cinema fantasmograph stuff, or
whatever, sometimes played music in the background...
> << I'm not completely against non-narrative work, but it's rare and almost
> never done as a full-length work. >>
>
> < Is that proof of its weakness? >
>
>
> Non-narrative cinema, when it's good, it's good *because* it is an
> exception.
>
> If it was the norm, no one (even you) would be much into cinema.
That is so not what change is about... It's not about replacing one
dictatorship with another... I just would feel more happy if cinema was more
alive and rich than it is now. If there were actually some new ideas..
Joshua Zyber
news:139de3b3.03080...@posting.google.com...
> > Now I expect you to tell me to go fuck a horse.
>
> Henry, perhaps?
Henry's a sweet boy, but he's not my type.
Joshua Zyber
> > Has it ever occurred to you that people our age say this sort of
thing
> > to people your age because we have been in your exact position at
one
> > time and remember how foolish we sounded?
>
> Okay, tell me how you went through all this
> visual-narrative-space-time-continuum dilemma bullshit back in the
first
> year of college?
What do you think college is for? It's to get all this pretentious
bullshit out of your system so that you can move on to be a
well-balanced adult when you graduate.
High school is for drinking and acting like a buffoon. College is for
studying and acting like a pretentious ass.
Yes, we've been where you are right now. The exact specifics of the
argument may have been different, but the learning curve was not.
Henry the Horse
<< Oh, go lick Greenaway. >>
< Now that was actually funny! (and I'm honest here)
Oh, I love you Henry! >
Oh you, you sweet potato you...
< You know what grates me? That you continually disregard my position
because I'm still young and I'll get old and wise like you, and then I'll
see it's YOU who are right... >
Well, part of it is this, yes. It's my place to say that and yours to tell
me to go fuck a horse. I'd say that's not only how it goes, but also how it
should be.
However... 19 or 20 is not 11 or 12 either. Heck, I met some of the usuals
here when they were 16 or 17, and was amazed by their knowledge. The thing
is, it's OK to question everything, but you should at least respect that
some people know maybe not better, but certainly more, than you.
I'm not talking about myself here - I have never had proper cinema studies.
But I did spend *5 friggin' years* between 20 and 25 reading a lot about
cinema structure and analizing *every* movie I watched, good or bad. Then it
was something like 300 movies a year. So I really think I learnt
*something*.
< These are basic differences between two mediums.
Cinema is physically visual, literature is mentally "visual". Not the same
thing. Cinema can manipulate. With literature it's so much dependent on the
reader's imagination. Cinema can show you a sense of time. Literature can
only get a grasp of that indirectly, but cinema can do it directly by its
nature -- moving pictures... >
So you think moving pictures are always literal? Then I might have an even
more "experimental" mind that you.
Anyway, do read The Naked Lunch. I'm sure you'll know what I'm talking
about.
< I might do that... But I still don't think literature can ever have *that*
impact on me... (and I'm reading Joyce for crying out loud!) It's just the
difference of expression. >
Well, his Ulysses would make my point perfectly clear too, if you have the
enormous will necessary to read it.
< Literature isn't even a continual art form. It consists of particles. Lego
blocks vs. marble statue... See the difference? >
Er... no. I'm not being cynical - I don't understand what you mean.
Henry the Horse
"Joshua Zyber" <jzy...@SPAM-SPAM-GO-AWAY.mindspring.com> escribió en el
mensaje news:bgjtta$89t$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
< Has it ever occurred to you that people our age say this sort of thing to
people your age because we have been in your exact position at one time and
remember how foolish we sounded? >
Hah! That's *exactly* what I thought while reading Mikko's post.
Henry the Horse
< "Read a book" is not something I'm going to tolerate from Henry or from
anyone in this newsgroup.
He deserved a slap in the face. >
Mmm... this is getting kinky... are you gonna tie me up or something too?
"Henry did a bad, bad thing..."
Henry the Horse
"unclejr" <wat...@kenyon.edu> escribió en el mensaje
news:139de3b3.03080...@posting.google.com...
<< Now I expect you to tell me to go fuck a horse. >>
< Henry, perhaps?
-Junior >
Hey, junior (sorry, couldn't help it.) You a perv or sumthin? It's Henry the
Horse, not Henry the Whore.
Of course,
~Henry the Who... er, the Horse~
Henry the Horse
< Okay, tell me how you went through all this
visual-narrative-space-time-continuum dilemma bullshit back in the first
year of college? >
It's not necessarily that (I've *always* loved narrative), but I think
everyone has gone through a phase of "anything that's experimental is better
than anything that it's not".
Then one eventually gets bored. And then yesterday I saw Finding Forrester
and I thought what a run-of-the-mill movie, but at least it wasn't
disgusting as Even Cowgirls Get The Blues was. Plus it had *my* (ahem) Anna
Paquin being cuter than ever, almost to Natalie Portman level and... er...
what were we talking about..?
Henry the Horse
< If you had paid more attention back when I asked you to explain what was
really the plot of Breathless and what was so important about that film's
story, we wouldn't have to go through this now... >
If *you* had paid more attention, no one ever said that plot is always the
most important thing in cinema.
But to contend that Breathless doesn't have a story is just wrong.
Narrative is 99% of the time the backbone of a film. A film needs that
backbone, but it isn't always the most important aspect of a movie. I think
that's what everybody's been saying all along.
Now, you may see an extremely beautiful woman (say, Helena Bonham Carter).
You won't judge her beauty by looking at her backbone, but I can assure you
she wouldn't look half as pretty without a backbone. You know what I mean?
(If you do, please tell me.)
< I didn't know that. I thought the pre-cinema fantasmograph stuff, or
whatever, sometimes played music in the background... >
I certainly don't know about that. Of course, those things were at first
played in fairs, and they do have music in them... But maybe you're right
and some of them played music, I have no idea.
Oh, and some of those films were totally stories...
< That is so not what change is about... It's not about replacing one
dictatorship with another... I just would feel more happy if cinema was more
alive and rich than it is now. If there were actually some new ideas.. >
Well, I do have a new idea which would certainly be beneficial for cinema:
banish popcorn in theaters.
Though maybe that's not the kind of idea you're looking for...
Henry the Horse
"Joshua Zyber" <jzy...@SPAM-SPAM-GO-AWAY.mindspring.com> escribió en el
mensaje news:bgk05p$fs9$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
< Henry's a sweet boy, but he's not my type. >
Ah, you're just angry because I didn't say how much jealous I am of your
screen... oops.
Joshua Zyber
> Then one eventually gets bored. And then yesterday I saw Finding
Forrester
> and I thought what a run-of-the-mill movie, but at least it wasn't
> disgusting as Even Cowgirls Get The Blues was. Plus it had *my* (ahem)
Anna
> Paquin being cuter than ever, almost to Natalie Portman level and...
er...
> what were we talking about..?
Tell me you've seen Hurlyburly.
Henry the Horse
"Joshua Zyber" <jzy...@SPAM-SPAM-GO-AWAY.mindspring.com> escribió en el
mensaje news:bgk4os$a2b$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
< [...] And then yesterday I saw Finding Forrester and I thought what a
run-of-the-mill movie, but at least it wasn't disgusting as Even Cowgirls
Get The Blues was. Plus it had *my* (ahem) Anna Paquin being cuter than
ever, almost to Natalie Portman level and... er... what were we talking
about..? >>
< Tell me you've seen Hurlyburly. >
No, dammit! It lasted only a week here at the time, and I missed it... I
haven't seen it published here on DVD either (though it probably has.)
Was Anna a total, complete, absolute dear in there? Rhetoric question of
course...
Of course,
~Henry, A Horse In Love~
Mikko Pihkoluoma
>
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:bgjtb6$2tu$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>
> << Oh, go lick Greenaway. >>
>
> < Now that was actually funny! (and I'm honest here)
> Oh, I love you Henry! >
>
>
> Oh you, you sweet potato you...
Glad you found your sense of humour...
Good to see you the way you were.
> < You know what grates me? That you continually disregard my position
> because I'm still young and I'll get old and wise like you, and then I'll
> see it's YOU who are right... >
>
>
> Well, part of it is this, yes. It's my place to say that and yours to tell
> me to go fuck a horse. I'd say that's not only how it goes, but also how
it
> should be.
>
> However... 19 or 20 is not 11 or 12 either. Heck, I met some of the usuals
> here when they were 16 or 17, and was amazed by their knowledge. The thing
> is, it's OK to question everything, but you should at least respect that
> some people know maybe not better, but certainly more, than you.
>
> I'm not talking about myself here - I have never had proper cinema
studies.
> But I did spend *5 friggin' years* between 20 and 25 reading a lot about
> cinema structure and analizing *every* movie I watched, good or bad. Then
it
> was something like 300 movies a year. So I really think I learnt
> *something*.
I know all this is... maybe the truth ;]
...but I also know that you still haven't understood my positon on this
timespacecontinuum thing that relates to non-narrative thoughts...
> < These are basic differences between two mediums.
>
> Cinema is physically visual, literature is mentally "visual". Not the same
> thing. Cinema can manipulate. With literature it's so much dependent on
the
> reader's imagination. Cinema can show you a sense of time. Literature can
> only get a grasp of that indirectly, but cinema can do it directly by its
> nature -- moving pictures... >
>
>
> So you think moving pictures are always literal?
I don't like the word literal here... What do you mean exactly?
> < Literature isn't even a continual art form. It consists of particles.
Lego
> blocks vs. marble statue... See the difference? >
>
>
> Er... no. I'm not being cynical - I don't understand what you mean.
Literature consists of words, sentences, chapters.
Cinema consists of particles (24 per sec) that seem like a continuum to
us... this illusion is important. It creates the originality of cinema as a
way of expression.
That illusion of continuum, of movement, is why cinema is MADE for spatial
and time manipulation.
Trichome pointed it out to me what I didn't want to say out loud (and I
still don't so this is Trichome talking ;]):
1. I'm a modernist "where Modernism is the period and the belief that each
medium should be used for the purposes which are unique and inherent to the
medium."
2. "Literature can fragment time and space, but that's not Modernist in
character."
3. "In the Post-modernist sense, the original purposes don't matter, rather
the combinations and possibilities which relate to the chaos of contemporary
civilization and thought."
Like Magnolia ends:
Do you see?
::a pretty woman smiling::
Henry the Horse
< Glad you found your sense of humour...
Good to see you the way you were. >
Everything proceeds ciclically... It's always the same with us both!
< I know all this is... maybe the truth ;] ...but I also know that you still
haven't understood my positon on this timespacecontinuum thing that relates
to non-narrative thoughts... >
Maybe... I certainly fail to see in which way is it different from cinema to
literature. It seems to me you're mentioning the way things are achieved
rather than the achievement itself, which I think is pretty much the same.
Both cinema and literature have the capability to take you out of your own
"reality" and put you into a different one, with its own time and space. Of
course, it's natural that every person is partial to one medium over others,
but I don't see it as something objective to the medium.
Hey, have you finished The Naked Lunch yet? (j/k)
I say that because it will maybe be more clear discussing specific examples.
<<< Cinema is physically visual, literature is mentally "visual". Not the
same thing. Cinema can manipulate. With literature it's so much dependent on
the reader's imagination. Cinema can show you a sense of time. Literature
can only get a grasp of that indirectly, but cinema can do it directly by
its nature -- moving pictures... >>>
<< So you think moving pictures are always literal? >>
< I don't like the word literal here... What do you mean exactly? >
You say that literature relies too much on the reader's imagination. That's
true, of course. But isn't it the same case with some cinema? I mean, take
Eraserhead... We tend to look at it as a puzzle and try to unlock what
everything means, but apart from that, if we forget about the baby and the
sperm and all, we're looking at a perfectly structured world. It's obvious
that what we see isn't literal, but the mood (not the meaning) is instantly,
er, graspable (?), *identifiable* by anyone. (Same with Lost Highway, though
it may be a less obvious example.)
So, my question was if really cinema doesn't need as much of the reader's
imagination as literature does. Regardless of the fact that one only uses
words and the other uses both words and images.
< Literature consists of words, sentences, chapters. Cinema consists of
particles (24 per sec) that seem like a continuum to us... this illusion is
important. It creates the originality of cinema as a way of expression.
That illusion of continuum, of movement, is why cinema is MADE for spatial
and time manipulation. >
I really still fail to see the difference. The same as literature uses
words, sentences and chapters, cinema uses images, scenes and, yes,
chapters - though they're not named like this, but almost any film is
divided into three clear parts, each of those equally subdivided into two
parts.
Then of course we have the kind of films that are made to be understood as a
collection of chapters, like Apocalypse Now (to for once not mention a
Kubrick example).
In any case, I *think* I understand what you say, but as I mentioned, I
think it's more a question of, let's say, tools, than of the end result.
< Trichome pointed it out to me what I didn't want to say out loud (and I
still don't so this is Trichome talking ;]):
1. I'm a modernist "where Modernism is the period and the belief that each
medium should be used for the purposes which are unique and inherent to the
medium." >
That's a very tricky one, so no doubt it's Trichome. :)
To make it short, we still don't know which purposes (as opposed to tools)
are unique and inherent to the medium. Meaning, that's a swell sentence, but
it could be interpreted in a million different ways. On bad hands, that
sentence could be used to say Lynch's work is completely irrelevant (though
obviously that's not what I think).
< 2. "Literature can fragment time and space, but that's not Modernist in
character." >
There are "pure" arts, and there are "mixed" (or composite, or however it's
said in English) arts.
Literature (as painting, sculpture...) is a "pure" art. Cinema is a "mixed"
art in that it's that, a mixture of elements or techniques.
This is important because, if you really think about it, it denies the "both
literature and cinema fragment time and space, but cinema is Modernist and
literature isn't".
That takes care of the *unique* part.
Plus, why is fragmenting time and space not Modernist in character? Isn't
that *inherent* to the medium? It's been doing it for thousands of years
before cinema did.
< 3. "In the Post-modernist sense, the original purposes don't matter,
rather the combinations and possibilities which relate to the chaos of
contemporary civilization and thought." >
Now you've (Mikko or Trichome or both) have lost me completely. I mean, I
*think* I agree with the definition (I'm not an expert on Post-Modernism
exactly), but I haven't a clue on how it relates to this discussion.
I mean, the way I see it, this last point is undeniably valid both for
literature and cinema, or any other art equally...
So, to quote Talking Heads minus David Byrne:
"What are words worth?
What are words worth? - words
Words in papers, words in books
Words on TV, words for crooks
Words of comfort, words of peace
Words to make the fighting cease
Words to tell you what to do
Words are working hard for you
Eat your words but don't go hungry
Words have always nearly hung me
Aooah ooah oo oo oo" (This last part is not really important though.)
< Like Magnolia ends:
Do you see?
::a pretty woman smiling:: >
Like Eyes Wide Shut ends... er, let's not go there. :)
No, really, sorry, the truth is that I'm more confused than before about how
all that applies to your ideas...
Trichome
"Joshua Zyber" <jzy...@SPAM-SPAM-GO-AWAY.mindspring.com> wrote:
MAN FROM ANOTHER PLACE
(subtitled)
This is a formica table. Green is its
color.
53. CONTINUED:
He touches the table.
FIRST WOODSMAN
(subtitled)
Our world.
MAN FROM ANOTHER PLACE
(subtitled)
With chrome. And everything will
proceed cyclically.
--
Texts available: Grandmother, EM, Eraserhead FAQ, Dune, WaH;
TP:episode guide, timeline, allusions, symbols, Log Lady intros,
Laura's Secret Diary, Cooper's autobioy, On the Air, LH, MD pilot.
Joshua Zyber
> < Tell me you've seen Hurlyburly. >
>
>
> No, dammit! It lasted only a week here at the time, and I missed it...
I
> haven't seen it published here on DVD either (though it probably has.)
The movie is seriously flawed, but has some great dialogue and
performances. It's the only time I've ever been able to stand Meg Ryan
in a movie.
> Was Anna a total, complete, absolute dear in there? Rhetoric question
of
> course...
Actually..... Oh, you should just see it.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
>
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:bgk6j2$7rk$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> < I know all this is... maybe the truth ;] ...but I also know that you
still
> haven't understood my positon on this timespacecontinuum thing that
relates
> to non-narrative thoughts... >
>
>
> Maybe... I certainly fail to see in which way is it different from cinema
to
> literature. It seems to me you're mentioning the way things are achieved
> rather than the achievement itself, which I think is pretty much the same.
> Both cinema and literature have the capability to take you out of your own
> "reality" and put you into a different one, with its own time and space.
Of
> course, it's natural that every person is partial to one medium over
others,
> but I don't see it as something objective to the medium.
An image is worth a thousand words.
Both (if not all) arts have the capability to take you to another world, but
cinema shows, or can show, a more concrete, physical world. Book can tell
you we're following Danny riding his tricycle, but only cinema (only Kubrick
;]) can make you feel like you're REALLY riding the tricycle WITH Danny.
Physicality vs. mentality.
It creates a different end result. Technique is very important to me....
even if end result was seeminly similar.
> Hey, have you finished The Naked Lunch yet? (j/k)
>
> I say that because it will maybe be more clear discussing specific
examples.
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man does pretty much the same I
assume... at least it has that flow of consciousness... No chapters...
> <<< Cinema is physically visual, literature is mentally "visual". Not the
> same thing. Cinema can manipulate. With literature it's so much dependent
on
> the reader's imagination. Cinema can show you a sense of time. Literature
> can only get a grasp of that indirectly, but cinema can do it directly by
> its nature -- moving pictures... >>>
>
> << So you think moving pictures are always literal? >>
>
> < I don't like the word literal here... What do you mean exactly? >
>
>
> You say that literature relies too much on the reader's imagination.
That's
> true, of course. But isn't it the same case with some cinema? I mean, take
> Eraserhead... We tend to look at it as a puzzle and try to unlock what
> everything means, but apart from that, if we forget about the baby and the
> sperm and all, we're looking at a perfectly structured world. It's obvious
> that what we see isn't literal, but the mood (not the meaning) is
instantly,
> er, graspable (?), *identifiable* by anyone. (Same with Lost Highway,
though
> it may be a less obvious example.)
>
> So, my question was if really cinema doesn't need as much of the reader's
> imagination as literature does. Regardless of the fact that one only uses
> words and the other uses both words and images.
The beauty of cinema that everything can be "interpreted" as "literal". That
everything we see feels like concrete, real. Of course symbolical
interpretation is needed, but Eh makes surreal feel real which is really the
power of the film...
> < Literature consists of words, sentences, chapters. Cinema consists of
> particles (24 per sec) that seem like a continuum to us... this illusion
is
> important. It creates the originality of cinema as a way of expression.
>
> That illusion of continuum, of movement, is why cinema is MADE for spatial
> and time manipulation. >
>
>
> I really still fail to see the difference. The same as literature uses
> words, sentences and chapters, cinema uses images, scenes and, yes,
> chapters - though they're not named like this, but almost any film is
> divided into three clear parts, each of those equally subdivided into two
> parts.
But a word, or a sentence, cannot represent a particle of time (because
words and sentences are constructed by letters) because our comprehension of
time is a flowing continuum. 24 images per second can make an illusion of a
second passing by. Literature can never make that mentally which cinema can
do *physically*.
> Then of course we have the kind of films that are made to be understood as
a
> collection of chapters, like Apocalypse Now (to for once not mention a
> Kubrick example).
>
> In any case, I *think* I understand what you say, but as I mentioned, I
> think it's more a question of, let's say, tools, than of the end result.
Can't you see how different the end result can be?
> < Trichome pointed it out to me what I didn't want to say out loud (and I
> still don't so this is Trichome talking ;]):
>
> 1. I'm a modernist "where Modernism is the period and the belief that each
> medium should be used for the purposes which are unique and inherent to
the
> medium." >
>
>
> That's a very tricky one, so no doubt it's Trichome. :)
>
> To make it short, we still don't know which purposes (as opposed to tools)
> are unique and inherent to the medium. Meaning, that's a swell sentence,
but
> it could be interpreted in a million different ways. On bad hands, that
> sentence could be used to say Lynch's work is completely irrelevant
(though
> obviously that's not what I think).
Yes it can be interpreted million different ways...
Modernism starts from the nature of things. A camera can flow in space (ever
seen Tarkovsky?), but literature or any other art form for that matter can't
do that.
Technique is essential to me... "The medium is the message" is really at the
heart of this search for pure cinema. If we take use -- develop -- of the
inherent qualities, techniques of cinema that alone creates substance worth
a million stories.
And now you're going to furiously disagree with me...
> < 2. "Literature can fragment time and space, but that's not Modernist in
> character." >
>
>
> There are "pure" arts, and there are "mixed" (or composite, or however
it's
> said in English) arts.
>
> Literature (as painting, sculpture...) is a "pure" art. Cinema is a
"mixed"
> art in that it's that, a mixture of elements or techniques.
But modernism is trying to search for more pure cinema...
> This is important because, if you really think about it, it denies the
"both
> literature and cinema fragment time and space, but cinema is Modernist and
> literature isn't".
It's not that cinema is modernist and literature isn't.
Literature that goes in great depths within narrators psyche sounds to me
rather modernist of literature... First person storytelling feels like a
modernist use of literature... Because that's what literature does best...
> That takes care of the *unique* part.
It's not about who did what first... It's about what best suits the medium.
> Plus, why is fragmenting time and space not Modernist in character? Isn't
> that *inherent* to the medium? It's been doing it for thousands of years
> before cinema did.
Bits and pieces vs. continuum of a shot... The endless corridors of The
Shining, or the hotel in Last Year at Marienbad, give you a sense of
continuation that literature cannot give you.
> < 3. "In the Post-modernist sense, the original purposes don't matter,
> rather the combinations and possibilities which relate to the chaos of
> contemporary civilization and thought." >
>
>
> Now you've (Mikko or Trichome or both) have lost me completely. I mean, I
> *think* I agree with the definition (I'm not an expert on Post-Modernism
> exactly), but I haven't a clue on how it relates to this discussion.
>
> I mean, the way I see it, this last point is undeniably valid both for
> literature and cinema, or any other art equally...
Yes it is. So is Modernism.
They're just different ways to understand mediums. You have a more
Post-Modernist understanding of cinema... I want more Modernism...
> So, to quote Talking Heads minus David Byrne:
>
> "What are words worth?
> What are words worth? - words
>
> Words in papers, words in books
> Words on TV, words for crooks
> Words of comfort, words of peace
> Words to make the fighting cease
> Words to tell you what to do
> Words are working hard for you
> Eat your words but don't go hungry
> Words have always nearly hung me
>
> Aooah ooah oo oo oo" (This last part is not really important though.)
>
>
> < Like Magnolia ends:
>
> Do you see?
> ::a pretty woman smiling:: >
>
>
> Like Eyes Wide Shut ends... er, let's not go there. :)
LOL !!
Henry the Horse
< [Cinema & Literature] Both (if not all) arts have the capability to take
you to another world, but cinema shows, or can show, a more concrete,
physical world. Book can tell you we're following Danny riding his tricycle,
but only cinema (only Kubrick;]) can make you feel like you're REALLY riding
the tricycle WITH Danny.
Physicality vs. mentality.
It creates a different end result. Technique is very important to me....
even if end result was seeminly similar. [...] >
Well, quite obviously they are different media with their own unique set of
techniques, like any other art form.
For what it's worth, you could also say that cinema is chained *because* it
always has to depict something real, something physically existent in some
way, while with literature you have more liberty to present things directly
as they come from your mind. (Though language is of course a barrier, it's a
smaller one than in cinema.) So what you say can be as much an advantage as
a handicap.
In any case, both have to equally be decoded by the brain - in that sense
cinema is more direct, while literature is more abstract and thus capable of
more.
But I think I understand what you mean. Not that I completely agree, though.
Because it leads to a kind of pissing contest between the two media, and my
position is that both have the potential to completely achieve their
potential.
< [The Naked Lunch] A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man does pretty
much the same I assume... at least it has that flow of consciousness... No
chapters... >
No, it's a very different thing. The Naked Lunch is less about structure and
more about what you mentioned - putting you into a wholly different world
(the author's hallucinations), in such a way that you completely fail to
separate one from the other, thus creating a time-space continuum of its
own.
OK, now I'm going to make some snippage since I think we've already made our
points on this...
< But modernism is trying to search for more pure cinema... >
I understand that. But like hard drugs, that's better in theory but not
necessarily in practice...
< It's not that cinema is modernist and literature isn't.
Literature that goes in great depths within narrators psyche sounds to me
rather modernist of literature... First person storytelling feels like a
modernist use of literature... Because that's what literature does best...
>
Ah, then I didn't understand that correctly.
< It's not about who did what first... It's about what best suits the
medium. >
OK, but I still think that the story backbone is what best suits the cinema
medium. Look, I'll even agree that that's not necessarily the only way to
approach cinema - but for now it's the best one.
<< I mean, the way I see it, this last point is undeniably valid both for
literature and cinema, or any other art equally... >>
< Yes it is. So is Modernism.
They're just different ways to understand mediums. You have a more
Post-Modernist understanding of cinema... I want more Modernism... >
OK, why not? As I said, I accept I'm out of my depth with this level of
theory.
All along your point is that your understanding of cinema is purer. I'm not
sure about that, but I wouldn't have a big problem accepting that either -
as I said, I don't think purer is always necessarily better.
<< Like Eyes Wide Shut ends... er, let's not go there. :) >>
< LOL !! >
Well, there's an underlying bit of truth to that, in my opinion. As I've
said before, my limitations prevent me from theorizing too much - I prefer
to just watch what I like...
Trichome
"Henry the Horse" <RuatC...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:bgk6j2$7rk$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
> < Trichome pointed it out to me what I didn't want to say out loud (and I
> still don't so this is Trichome talking ;]):
>
> 1. I'm a modernist "where Modernism is the period and the belief that each
> medium should be used for the purposes which are unique and inherent to the
> medium." >
>
> That's a very tricky one, so no doubt it's Trichome. :)
No, (and it seems I'm always saying that, heh): It's so simple that
it SEEMS very tricky (as is much Lynch-speech).
> To make it short, we still don't know which purposes (as opposed to tools)
> are unique and inherent to the medium. Meaning, that's a swell sentence, but
> it could be interpreted in a million different ways.
It's true I gave a partial definition of Modernism - it was a
fragment in conversation, hastily composed; but if you care to read the
definition below, you'll see that I was actually axiomatically,
atomically concise. The plastic arts were freed from the tyranny of
representation, and the agenda was to demonstrate the inherent qualities
in each medium (as they came to be defined by the artists).
Mikko, sorry that the definition below identifies you as supporting a
European, male hegemonic order. ; )
> Plus, why is fragmenting time and space not Modernist in character? Isn't
> that *inherent* to the medium? It's been doing it for thousands of years
> before cinema did.
Originally, I think I hedged my bet, saying that fragmenting time and
spage wasn't what the NOVEL was about. But I'm not fount of wisdom
about Literature, and even I recognize that very important
chronologically framented narratives were written in the Age of
Modernism. Woolf, Joyce, were ahead of the curve, compared to the other
media. I would disagree that one of writing's inherent functions was to
chop up and re-order time. Story-telling is overwhelmingly linear
through history, po-mo tricks like flash-backs aside.
> < 3. "In the Post-modernist sense, the original purposes don't matter,
> rather the combinations and possibilities which relate to the chaos of
> contemporary civilization and thought." >
>
> Now you've (Mikko or Trichome or both) have lost me completely.
> I mean, I *think* I agree with the definition (I'm not an expert on
> Post-Modernism exactly), but I haven't a clue on how it relates to
> this discussion.
Po-mo drops the Modrenisnt agenda which was to find the most
painterly paintings, the most cinematic movies, etc.; and Po-mo then
talks about how that was bull, and uses the media to serve the ends of
multiculturalism and the destruction of hegemonic orders. (like I
really know enough to use the word "hegemonic")
Read this definition, it will either answer some questions, or it
will entangle and collapse the entire discussion into a super-dense
super-string; and if that doesn't do it, Godwin's Law should suffice:
everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler.
http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fina/glossary/p_list.html#postmodernism
POSTMODERNISM: It is something of a gross oversimplification,
considering that modernism and postmodernism are difficult concepts
circulating in disputed territory, but it is safe to say at least that
modernism tended to have faith in the perfectibility of mankind through
technology and rationalistic planning. It is now felt that these were
instruments of white European males interested only in maintaining their
own hegemony, so the result was a certain homogeneity which disallowed
cultural differences. Art which seemed to illustrate, foster or
otherwise exemplify values like faith in perfectibility and rationalism
was modernist art. In contrast, today's emphasis on the cultures of
women, peoples of colour, and gays and lesbians might be seen as
postmodernist by default. Examples of modernism include such things as
Le Corbusier's house designs and Piet Mondrian's geometric abstraction,
both of which were supposed not only to be aesthetic but, more
importantly, to affect viewers in salutary ways. That the world could
always supposedly be improved upon also led to two other characteristics
of modernism in the arts: that art could progress, suggesting that the
worst thing one could do would be to repeat something which had been
done before, and that the way to progress in art was to focus on its
only essential characteristic -- i.e., that painting would only be about
painting, sculpture would only be about sculpture, etc., as in
formalism. In contrast, postmodernism seems gleefully to assert that
there is nothing new under the sun and that works which speak only about
their essential characteristics really say nothing at all about the
human condition. Colloquially, what is often simply described as "modern
art" included types of work which actively critiqued modernist values,
so while it might have been chronologically modern it was not modernist.
In fact, what might be called anti-modernist art bears many of the
characteristics of what we now call postmodernism. For example, neither
Dada nor Surrealism had any faith in reason, preferred uncertainty,
adapted imagery from other cultures and eras, and exploited irony,
mockery and humour. (Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q, a reproduction of the Mona
Lisa with a mustache and those letters applied summarily, is a prime
example.) All of these traits appear in postmodernism. For example, in
postmodern architecture we find allusions to illogical mixtures of
historical building styles, many of the references turning the source on
its ear in the same way as historical mannerism. See, for example, the
use of the unexpected in James Stirling's Neue Staatsgalerie in
Stuttgart or Charles Moore's Piazza d'Italia in New Orleans. Because of
its critical stance towards the certainty and homogeneity of modernist
tradition, postmodernism is far too complex to characterize with one
simple set of stylistic criteria. In any case, it is more a matter of
any attitude which invokes an unconventional fusion or overt diversity
of historical and/or cultural styles (e.g., David Salle), with
particular emphasis on critique, irony or mockery (e.g., Guerilla
Girls). Charles Jencks, for example, describes it as "characteristically
double-coded and ironic..., [emphasizing] conflict and discontinuity of
traditions, because this heterogeneity most clearly captures our
pluralism." Linda Hutcheon asserts that postmodernism and parody are
nearly synonymous. Warren Montag argues that "We act within a specific
conjecture only to see that conjecture transformed beneath our feet,
perhaps by our intervention itself, but always in ways that ultimately
escape our intention or control, thereby requiring new interventions ad
infinitum" (see Postmodernism and Its Critics, ed. E. A. Kaplan, for
these and many other explanations). One of the better known proponents
of postmodernism is Jean-François Lyotard, whose Postmodern Condition: A
Report on Knowledge offers lengthy meditations on the subject. In the
introduction, for example, he defines it simply as "incredulity towards
metanarratives," where "metanarrative" means the set of values and
expectations underlying faith in reason and science. Elsewhere he argues
that a postmodern work is not made according to preestablished rules and
cannot therefore be judged by applying familiar categories of analysis;
in fact, the very purpose of the work is to search for and create new
sets of rules and categories.
-----------------------------------------
I now return you to the chaos that is
"Re: Irréversible, Hulk, dvdbeaver".
Trichome
Henry the Horse
"Trichome" <proph...@earthlink.net> escribió en el mensaje
news:prophit1970-E276...@nnrp01.earthlink.net...
< It's true I gave a partial definition of Modernism - it was a fragment in
conversation, hastily composed; but if you care to read the definition
below, you'll see that I was actually axiomatically, atomically concise.
The plastic arts were freed from the tyranny of representation, and the
agenda was to demonstrate the inherent qualities in each medium (as they
came to be defined by the artists). >
To show you how much I know - I mistook Modernism for the Spanish art
movement of the same name. It kinda made sense, too, since it postulated
simplification and a return to the purity of nature.
The definition you provide is actually an eye opener for me. I begin to
understand part of Mikko's words.
< Mikko, sorry that the definition below identifies you as supporting a
European, male hegemonic order. ; ) >
That kind of backwards criticism always seems to me a little, er,
nowadays-centric. For a very long time, there was only a European, male
hegemonic order - However wrong that was, there was nothing else!
< Originally, I think I hedged my bet, saying that fragmenting time and
spage wasn't what the NOVEL was about. But I'm not fount of wisdom about
Literature, and even I recognize that very important chronologically
framented narratives were written in the Age of Modernism. Woolf, Joyce,
were ahead of the curve, compared to the other media. I would disagree that
one of writing's inherent functions was to chop up and re-order time.
Story-telling is overwhelmingly linear through history, po-mo tricks like
flash-backs aside. >
I was referring to the ability to twist the reader's perception of time, to,
say, purposedly make a minute seem like years and vice-versa, as done by
people like Proust.
But both you and Mikko are right on this. On the heat of the moment, I
mentioned it as if it had been common practice forever, which is not true
(that I know of).
< Po-mo drops the Modrenisnt agenda which was to find the most painterly
paintings, the most cinematic movies, etc.; and Po-mo then talks about how
that was bull, and uses the media to serve the ends of multiculturalism and
the destruction of hegemonic orders. (like I really know enough to use the
word "hegemonic") >
Never mind - as I confessed earlier, I'm totally out of my depth on this...
From reading that extract you provided, I wouldn't say I completely identify
with Post-Modernism, but certainly much more than I do with Modernism.
I don't know about establishing that there's nothing new under the sun,
(that's a little conservative even for me) but I found a great truth (IMO)
in that "works which speak only about their essential characteristics really
say nothing at all about the human condition."
< Read this definition, it will either answer some questions, or it will
entangle and collapse the entire discussion into a super-dense super-string;
and if that doesn't do it, Godwin's Law should suffice: everyone who
disagrees with me is Hitler. >
I swear by St Condoleezza, I'm afraid that in this New American Century,
being compared to Hitler will eventually turn out to be more a compliment
than an insult...
Of course,
~Henry the Super-Dense Horse~
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> In article <bgkdmb$pbhbb$1...@ID-185440.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> "Henry the Horse" <RuatC...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
> > news:bgk6j2$7rk$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
tools)
> > are unique and inherent to the medium. Meaning, that's a swell sentence,
but
> > it could be interpreted in a million different ways.
>
> It's true I gave a partial definition of Modernism - it was a
> fragment in conversation, hastily composed; but if you care to read the
> definition below, you'll see that I was actually axiomatically,
> atomically concise. The plastic arts were freed from the tyranny of
> representation, and the agenda was to demonstrate the inherent qualities
> in each medium (as they came to be defined by the artists).
Hasty definitions are always better than the full fledge theory of any
movement in art... Anyway I'm glad you provided more background
information as it seems to have brought helluva lot more sanity to this
conversation.
> Mikko, sorry that the definition below identifies you as supporting a
> European, male hegemonic order. ; )
Yeah, I'm a real macho-wife-beater! ;P
Well I did try to wash my hands out of calling myself a modernist because I
knew that there's only parts of the movement I'm interested in....
Mikko Pihkoluoma
Yes I know... but I don't have that much problem with metaphorical / literal
mess-up in cinema. I don't dislike ambiguity. Have you seen Punch
Drunk-Love yet?
I certainly don't agree that that film needs to be taken non-literally... At
least not to the depths Peter Tonguette took it in his review...
> In any case, both have to equally be decoded by the brain - in that sense
> cinema is more direct, while literature is more abstract and thus capable
of
> more.
Well... Capable of different things.
> But I think I understand what you mean. Not that I completely agree,
though.
> Because it leads to a kind of pissing contest between the two media, and
my
> position is that both have the potential to completely achieve their
> potential.
I don't see a pissing contest between these two mediums.
Mainly because I l_o_ve cinema and I just like some books...
> < [The Naked Lunch] A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man does pretty
> much the same I assume... at least it has that flow of consciousness... No
> chapters... >
>
>
> No, it's a very different thing. The Naked Lunch is less about structure
and
> more about what you mentioned - putting you into a wholly different world
> (the author's hallucinations), in such a way that you completely fail to
> separate one from the other, thus creating a time-space continuum of its
> own.
There's not enough time in the world for all things... But I might look into
it. Is the Cronenberg film good?
> < It's not about who did what first... It's about what best suits the
> medium. >
>
>
> OK, but I still think that the story backbone is what best suits the
cinema
> medium. Look, I'll even agree that that's not necessarily the only way to
> approach cinema - but for now it's the best one.
It seems like the best one for now... And I might even agree.
> << Like Eyes Wide Shut ends... er, let's not go there. :) >>
>
> < LOL !! >
>
>
> Well, there's an underlying bit of truth to that, in my opinion. As I've
> said before, my limitations prevent me from theorizing too much - I prefer
> to just watch what I like...
Yes... But I laughed because I could picture you as Nicole (or maybe me?)
saying that there's something we need to do as soon as possible...
Henry the Horse
<< For what it's worth, you could also say that cinema is chained *because*
it always has to depict something real, something physically existent in
some way, while with literature you have more liberty to present things
directly as they come from your mind. (Though language is of course a
barrier, it's a smaller one than in cinema.) So what you say can be as much
an advantage as a handicap. >>
< Yes I know... but I don't have that much problem with metaphorical /
literal mess-up in cinema. >
Oh, neither do I, quite the contrary. But I was referring to the theoretical
possibilities and limitations of those two media.
< I don't dislike ambiguity. Have you seen Punch Drunk-Love yet? >
Don't get me started! I don't think you have those problems in Finland, but
in Spain we're getting the worst heat wave in a century. My computer has
overheated three times in the last week. Each time I've lost what I was
downloading.
I didn't know God cared so much about copyright issues!
< I certainly don't agree that that film needs to be taken non-literally...
At least not to the depths Peter Tonguette took it in his review... >
Well, since I haven't seen the film nor read that review...
<< In any case, both have to equally be decoded by the brain - in that sense
cinema is more direct, while literature is more abstract and thus capable of
more. >>
< Well... Capable of different things. >
More, different, whatever... No argument here, as I said I'm the first to
not like the comparison -though I admit again it was I who brought it up...
<< But I think I understand what you mean. Not that I completely agree,
though. Because it leads to a kind of pissing contest between the two media,
and my position is that both have the potential to completely achieve their
potential. >>
< I don't see a pissing contest between these two mediums. Mainly because I
l_o_ve cinema and I just like some books... >
But I was not talking about personal tastes, just, er, rambling theoretical!
If someone put a gun to my head, I'd also choose cinema over literature.
< [Naked Lunch] There's not enough time in the world for all things... But I
might look into it. >
You won't be wasting your time!
< Is the Cronenberg film good? >
In my opinion? It's incredible, great, a must-see. (Then again, I'm a big
Cronenberg fan.)
But it's not an adaptation of the book. It's, let's say, kind of like the
movie Adaptation in this regard.
<< OK, but I still think that the story backbone is what best suits the
cinema medium. Look, I'll even agree that that's not necessarily the only
way to approach cinema - but for now it's the best one. >>
< It seems like the best one for now... And I might even agree. >
Don't be foolish! Don't you know that if you and I ever agree, a chain
reaction will begin that eventually will blow up the planet?!
< Yes... But I laughed because I could picture you as Nicole (or maybe me?)
saying that there's something we need to do as soon as possible... >
Tom the Horse! Mikkole Kidman! Unthinkable!
Mikko Pihkoluoma
>
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:bgmd14$vjg$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>
> Don't get me started! I don't think you have those problems in Finland,
but
> in Spain we're getting the worst heat wave in a century. My computer has
> overheated three times in the last week. Each time I've lost what I was
> downloading.
>
> I didn't know God cared so much about copyright issues!
Heh. There has been the worst heat wave I can remember, but heat wave in
Finland isn't quite the same as heat wave in Spain!
> < Is the Cronenberg film good? >
>
>
> In my opinion? It's incredible, great, a must-see. (Then again, I'm a big
> Cronenberg fan.)
What's that special about Cronenberg? Really? I saw Crash and thought it was
pretty awful. I liked DeadRingers but I don't know...
> << OK, but I still think that the story backbone is what best suits the
> cinema medium. Look, I'll even agree that that's not necessarily the only
> way to approach cinema - but for now it's the best one. >>
>
> < It seems like the best one for now... And I might even agree. >
>
>
> Don't be foolish! Don't you know that if you and I ever agree, a chain
> reaction will begin that eventually will blow up the planet?!
Heh, we caused the heat wave in Europe!
> < Yes... But I laughed because I could picture you as Nicole (or maybe
me?)
> saying that there's something we need to do as soon as possible... >
>
>
> Tom the Horse! Mikkole Kidman! Unthinkable!
LOL !!
Henry the Horse
< Heh. There has been the worst heat wave I can remember, but heat wave in
Finland isn't quite the same as heat wave in Spain! >
Lucky for you... we've reached 45ºC at some points...
< What's that special about Cronenberg? Really? I saw Crash and thought it
was pretty awful. I liked DeadRingers but I don't know... >
Well, let's say I absolutely love his ability to create a certain kind of
morbid feel. Though he has made some bad films (yes, I don't like Crash
either, and I think his latest, Spider, is really weak no matter what some
reviewers say) that mood is still there in spades. Let's say I feel a
fascination-rejection for his treatment of decaying flesh and mind.
As for Dead Ringers, for me it's not only his best film but one of my
absolute favourites. Plus, it's the *only* movie I've ever watched that
makes me feel physically ill. I bought the DVD and it still took me 6 months
until I decided to watch it. If that is actually good or bad, well, I don't
know.
(And, if I finally can't convince you to read Naked Lunch, do watch the
film - though it's an entirely different thing, but I think you'll like it.)
<< Don't be foolish! Don't you know that if you and I ever agree, a chain
reaction will begin that eventually will blow up the planet?! >>
< Heh, we caused the heat wave in Europe! >
No! It's all Greenaway's fault! Without him we wouldn't have begun arguing!
See the dangers of non-narrative cinema? :)