Are movies moving closer to surrealism?
Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...
it seems to me movies are geting stranger, weirder, and more surreal, or better
ABSTRACT than ever. More twist endings with intricate plots (The Game, Fight
Club, Sixth Sense, The Others), more generally 'strange' movies (Donnie Darko,
Vanilla Sky, Waking Life [slightly], Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, Being John
Malkovich) movies with intricate plots (Memento, Mulholland Drive, etc.) seem
to be zombie-like crawling from beneath the grave of the subconscious and have
made their way to the cineplex to see daylight. Some very complex and
challenging films. Films that wouldn't have been made years back. I think 1999
set this new resurgence of surrealism in film off. With movies like Fight Club
and Sixth Sense and Being John Malkovich.
I may or may not have a point here, just some crazy idea I came up with.
Peace...of mind...
--------------------------------
"It's my head, Craig!! It's my HEAD!!!" --- John Malkovich in "being john
malkovich"
Come to www.famous-sumatran-doowop-whalemusic.com for free komodo dragon
teeth...
MY NAME IS MANFRED STEINER AND I'M A SCHIZOPHRENIC..
Morehits4u
>From: phara...@aol.combackdoor
Oh yeah thats what we need...more
mullholland memento vanilla sky wrapped
in a nice bow....toss in some lsd and
how about some ecstacy to complete
the trifecta.
Before you complain, remember how it was - before you got on the internet.
J. Alexander Panic
news:20020106010027...@mb-fw.aol.com:
> Just a thought that crossed my mind one day. I'm a big fan of
> surrealism, and it seems to me movies are geting stranger, weirder, and
> more surreal, or better ABSTRACT than ever. More twist endings with
> intricate plots
I think you're right. I think the current wave of this started with Pulp
Fiction.
Love,
me
http://www.juicycerebellum.com
"'It's All Geek To Me' coming tomorrow!"
ELMathews
>> more surreal
really? more like these posts are.
Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...
>mullholland memento vanilla sky wrapped
>in a nice bow....toss in some lsd and
>how about some ecstacy to complete
>the trifecta.
I'm serious. Movies are getting more intricate and abstract. Peace...of mind...
--------------------------------
"It's my head, Craig!! It's my HEAD!!!" --- John Malkovich in "being john
malkovich"
MY NAME IS MANFRED STEINER AND I'M A SCHIZOPHRENIC..
I HAVE A DISEASE AND I DONT KNOW WHERE MY HEAD IS...
Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...
>>> more surreal
>
>really? more like these posts are
Wow. Do you realize this adds absolutely nothing to the thread, and that this
is just dead space...?
MadNetter
"J. Alexander Panic" <viti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns918F1961ED804v...@137.192.100.18...
Here are some bonus questions for this thread:
1) When did Howard Hawks make "The Big Sleep"?
2) When did Dali and Bunuel make "Un Chien Andalou"?
3) When did Kubrick make "2001"?
4) When did Lynch make "Eraserhead"?
5) When did Jodorowsky make "El Topo"?
6) Who is Man Ray?
And the big one...
7) When did the surrealist art movement start?
Kevin "Context, People, Context!" Cogliano
Ruth
John Harkness
Panic) wrote:
>phara...@aol.combackdoor (Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...) wrote in
>news:20020106010027...@mb-fw.aol.com:
>
>> Just a thought that crossed my mind one day. I'm a big fan of
>> surrealism, and it seems to me movies are geting stranger, weirder, and
>> more surreal, or better ABSTRACT than ever. More twist endings with
>> intricate plots
>
>I think you're right. I think the current wave of this started with Pulp
>Fiction.
>
>Love,
>me
What's surreal or abstract about Pulp Fiction? Where's the twist
ending? It's just got a screwy time structure -- as does Reservoir
Dogs -- a trick which Tarantino picked up from either Godard or old
films noirs.
John Harkness
ELMathews
>is just dead space...?
>
that's my forte. btw -- boring thread.
Paul D. Crittenden
It's all about technology, folks. We now have the technology to bring
dinosaurs back to life on the big screen. What's next? The inner
world, obviously.
Paul
Nothing is real
-The Beatles
Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...
Yeah? Boring reply. And your comment made the thread no better, btw. Peace...of
Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...
>
>1) When did Howard Hawks make "The Big Sleep"?
>2) When did Dali and Bunuel make "Un Chien Andalou"?
>3) When did Kubrick make "2001"?
>4) When did Lynch make "Eraserhead"?
>5) When did Jodorowsky make "El Topo"?
>6) Who is Man Ray?
>
>And the big one...
>
>7) When did the surrealist art movement start?
>
>Kevin "Context, People, Context!" Cogliano
Well, I was originally referring to the currrent trend of Hollywood, which I
think started with Usual Suspects and maybe even Seven, of intricate plots,
twist endings, and strange-abstract scripts. The above guys have nothing to do
with anything...
Granted, the Surrealist Movement started in, the late 19th century. But as with
all movements, its died and been resurrected probably numerous times by
numerous artists. Sometimes independent of a new wave or fad. I'm just speaking
of CURRENTLY with films like Mulholland Drive, Vanilla Sky, and Memento.
Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...
>ending? It's just got a screwy time structure -- as does Reservoir
>Dogs -- a trick which Tarantino picked up from either Godard or old
>films noirs.
Yeah, I'm not so sure about Pulp Fiction resurrecting surrealism (although it
did with the time thing, as we would later see in movies like "Go" and
"Memento"). This surreal abstract vein that everybody seems to mainline from
started with Being John Malkovich and Fight Club, and continued from there.
Peace---of mind...
MadNetter
"Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk..." <phara...@aol.combackdoor> wrote in
message news:20020107212721...@mb-ci.aol.com...
> >Here are some bonus questions for this thread:
> >
> >1) When did Howard Hawks make "The Big Sleep"?
> >2) When did Dali and Bunuel make "Un Chien Andalou"?
> >3) When did Kubrick make "2001"?
> >4) When did Lynch make "Eraserhead"?
> >5) When did Jodorowsky make "El Topo"?
> >6) Who is Man Ray?
> >
> >And the big one...
> >
> >7) When did the surrealist art movement start?
> >
> >Kevin "Context, People, Context!" Cogliano
>
> Well, I was originally referring to the currrent trend of Hollywood, which
I
> think started with Usual Suspects and maybe even Seven, of intricate
plots,
> twist endings, and strange-abstract scripts. The above guys have nothing
to do
> with anything...
>
> Granted, the Surrealist Movement started in, the late 19th century. But as
with
> all movements, its died and been resurrected probably numerous times by
> numerous artists. Sometimes independent of a new wave or fad. I'm just
speaking
> of CURRENTLY with films like Mulholland Drive, Vanilla Sky, and Memento.
And my post was an attempt to illustrate the twist endings and intricate
plots are nothing new to Hollywood. ("The Big Sleep" has a plot about a
thousand times more complex than "The Usual Suspects".)
"Abstract" is not the same as "surreal". About the only truly surreal
Hollywood film I've seen recently is "Being John Malkovich", and even that
is more of a magic-realism kind of thing. Visually, "The Cell" had some
definite cribs from surrealism, but the movie itself was about as linear as
it gets.
As others have also pointed out, film noir (which is the most direct
antecedent of stuff like "Pulp Fiction" and "Seven") is a reoccurring style
in Hollywood. In many ways, noir never really went away, although "Touch Of
Evil" managed to put it in a coma for a while.
In other words, I don't believe the trend you're referring to is current.
Unless, of course, you've never heard of Howard Hawks.
Kevin "Film School 101" Cogliano
Man...An Ancient Race
the critical praise, now that was surreal.
ELMathews
pon
Surrealism is often defined as "having an oddly dreamlike quality."
Not the best definition, but certainly one that doesn't inherently tie
itself to any one medium. If we use the aforemention definition,
there's been several movies that had an odd dreamlike quality about
them in recent years. "Mullholland Drive," "Vanilla Sky," and "Eyes
Wide Shut" spring to mind (not necessarily as examples of good movies,
mind, just that they seems to exhibit dreamlike qualities). "Being
John Malkovich" might fit because of its tone. As you say, the
subject matter does seem to fall more under the rubric of magic
realism, but the tone of the piece seemed to have much in line with a
Maritte painting.
> As others have also pointed out, film noir (which is the most direct
> antecedent of stuff like "Pulp Fiction" and "Seven") is a reoccurring style
> in Hollywood. In many ways, noir never really went away, although "Touch Of
> Evil" managed to put it in a coma for a while.
>
> In other words, I don't believe the trend you're referring to is current.
> Unless, of course, you've never heard of Howard Hawks.
I don't think the original poster meant that Hollywood had stumbled
across something original, merely that there was a resurgence of an
interesting style that was pleasing to him. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
publius ovidius
Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...
>plots are nothing new to Hollywood. ("The Big Sleep" has a plot about a
>thousand times more complex than "The Usual Suspects".)
But you dont think surrealism is even slightly, in a way, coming back? With
Being John Malkovich, Vanilla Sky, Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, etc? True,
surrealism has always been here and always will, unless im missing your point,
but there seem to be more surreal scripts coming out of Hollywood than ever
before. Besides the careers of people like Howard Hawks, Man Ray, Luis Bunuel,
etc. surrealsim has generated, sparsely, a number of movie scripts. But my
point was, never before has this been with such a frequency as between the
years 1997 and 2001.
>"Abstract" is not the same as "surreal".
Agreed.
>About the only truly surreal
>Hollywood film I've seen recently is "Being John Malkovich", and even that
>is more of a magic-realism kind of thing.
I would motion Vanilla Sky and Mulholland Drive and maybe (MAYBE), in terms of
visuals and narrative, Waking Life, as recent movies with a hint of surrealism.
>Visually, "The Cell" had some
>definite cribs from surrealism, but the movie itself was about as linear
>as
>it gets.
Same as Waking Life...
>In other words, I don't believe the trend you're referring to is current.
>Unless, of course, you've never heard of Howard Hawks.
I think it is. Since 1997, with movies like Lost Highway, Dark City, The Game,
Vanillla Sky, the new surrealist-abstract trend has picked up some wind.
Moreso, and with more frequency, in the form of noir films of the past decade.
POINT BEING: Films are getting more and more abstract. Probably as a
counterpart to hyper-realism, or cinema verite. I dont know, I'm rambling now,
I may have lost my point. Peace...of mind...
Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...
>across something original, merely that there was a resurgence of an
>interesting style that was pleasing to him. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
Exactly. Couldn't have said it better. Peace...of mind...
MadNetter
"Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk..." <phara...@aol.combackdoor> wrote in
> >And my post was an attempt to illustrate the twist endings and intricate
> >plots are nothing new to Hollywood. ("The Big Sleep" has a plot about a
> >thousand times more complex than "The Usual Suspects".)
>
> But you dont think surrealism is even slightly, in a way, coming back?
With
> Being John Malkovich, Vanilla Sky, Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, etc?
True,
> surrealism has always been here and always will, unless im missing your
point,
> but there seem to be more surreal scripts coming out of Hollywood than
ever
> before. Besides the careers of people like Howard Hawks, Man Ray, Luis
Bunuel,
> etc. surrealsim has generated, sparsely, a number of movie scripts. But my
> point was, never before has this been with such a frequency as between the
> years 1997 and 2001.
Well, in a word, no. Mostly because I don't agree with your definition of
"surrealism" - i.e., any film that eschews logic or has trippy visuals.
Perhaps it's better if we use the term "weird".
Now, I haven't seen "Vanilla Sky", but it was my understanding that there is
some sort of explanation for what is going on. (I've also heard it's a
stupid explanation, but be that as it may.) If there is an explanation, then
it can't very well be abstract, can it?
Basically, I disagree with your use of these terms, when what I really think
you mean is that you believe films are getting "weirder", and moving further
away from a strictly realistic portrayal of life. Unfortunately, I also
don't think that's true either, as I can't remember the last time I saw
something as odd as, say, "Pee Wee's Big Adventure" or "Brazil" in a
theatre.
Catch my drift? Here's an exercise: list all of the films since 1997 that
you would put into the "weird" category, and I'll pick a four-year period in
the past - let's say, 1967-1971 - and we'll see what we come up with.
Kevin "Sound Good?" Cogliano
Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...
No sh**. Still, you made a boring reply to a thread which you claim to be
boring, therefore making your presence on it obsolete. Bye..of mind...
Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...
>you mean is that you believe films are getting "weirder", and moving further
>away from a strictly realistic portrayal of life. Unfortunately, I also
>don't think that's true either, as I can't remember the last time I saw
>something as odd as, say, "Pee Wee's Big Adventure" or "Brazil" in a
>theatre.
Yes, I think the term still applies here, as "surreal". Or better yet,
abstract, where "weird" is defined in my dictionary as "Of an odd and
inexplicable character; strange; fantastic" OR "mysterious in the sense of the
occult --- bizarre, grotesque, eccentric [key word], or markedly unconventional
['nother one of them key word big babies]" to where 'ABSTRACT' is defined as
"Considered apart from concrete existence" OR "Not easily understood;
abstruse". Or as with 'SURREALISM': "A 20th Century literary and artistic
movement that attempts to express the workings of the subconscious by FANTASTIC
IMAGERY [abstract, weird] and incongruous juxtaposition of subject matter.
Under these definitions, movies like Memento -- which deals with the ambiguity
of memory and plays little tricks with the subconscious mind and how it
translates information -- or Mulholland Drive, or Vanilla Sky, or Waking Life,
or Fight Club (slightly. which is less surreal and more abstract and weird.)
Hope that made sense. My mind is a mish mash right now.
>Catch my drift? Here's an exercise: list all of the films since 1997 that
>you would put into the "weird" category, and I'll pick a four-year period
>in
>the past - let's say, 1967-1971 - and we'll see what we come up with.
Cool! I'll be glad too engage in this little 'matching game', LOL.
"Abstract, weird, surreal, whatever you wanna call it"
1997 to 2001, random order
- The Game
- Fight Club
- Dark City
- Existenz
- Lost Highway
- Being John Malkovich
- Memento
- Vanilla Sky
- Mulholland Drive
- Waking Life
- much of Brothers Quay most recent work
- as with Jan Svankmajer
- Pi (much more like your 'weird' film)
All I can think of right at the moment.
Peace...of mind...
MadNetter
"Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk..." <phara...@aol.combackdoor> wrote in
Now, originally, you were saying that you think Hollywood is releasing more
"weird" films, so I don't think The Brothers Quay or Svankmajer should
count. (Besides, they were doing their thing way before 1997.) I'll stick to
just American films - no Bunuel or Godard, 'cause that would be too easy.
In more or less chronological order:
Don't Look Back
Eat Your Make Up!
Oh Dad, Poor Dad, Mama's Hung You In The Closet And I'm Feeling So Sad
The Trip
2001: A Space Odyssey
Candy
Greetings
Lonesome Cowboys
Psych-Out
Targets
Wild In The Streets
Blue Movie
The Illustrated Man
The Secret Cinema
Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls
Brewster McCloud
Multiple Maniacs
Zabrieskie Point
THX-1138
A Clockwork Orange
And I haven't even scratched the surface. Please note that I am no way
saying that these movies are *better* than your list (well, except for
"Don't Look Now" and "Clockwork Orange" and "2001". And maybe "Wild In The
Streets".) In fact, I would heartily recommend never watching "Blue Movie"
unless you're really desperate. I was just looking at quantity, not quality.
Kevin "Your Serve" Cogliano
Bob
>
Not movies. I think the world is moving to the surreal.
Bob
Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...
>"weird" films, so I don't think The Brothers Quay or Svankmajer should
>count. (Besides, they were doing their thing way before 1997.) I'll stick
>to
>just American films - no Bunuel or Godard, 'cause that would be too easy.
Well, for one, I wasn't saying this is the FIRST time EVER surrealism has made
it's little cameo in films. KEY WORDS: I meant, that "weird", abstract,
surreal, or whatever you wanna call it is becoming sort of a new trend, as more
"abstract" [re: strange or fantastic] scripts are greenlighted. It's no secret
that movies like the Dr. Mabuse films, the silent German Expressionist films,
Antonioni, Bunuel, a-yo-yo-yo-yoy and all those guys made careers off surreal
films. And that was way back...THEN. I had to reestablish that fact 'cos that
was my original point. That point got lost somewhere in this back-and-forth
trade off. And yes, youre right, Quay and Svankmajer are foreign. And even
using my first question in this thread, their flicks dont count being that
their films aren't out of Hollywood per se. So yeah, scratch those out.
>In more or less chronological order:
>
>Don't Look Back
>Eat Your Make Up!
Is this "Don't Look Now"? The Nicholas Roeg film? I couldn't find any movie
with that title released in that time period. The title "Dont Look Back" of
course. "Eat Your Make Up", never heard of it. Sounds sorta like Eating Raoul
or something.
>Oh Dad, Poor Dad, Mama's Hung You In The Closet And I'm Feeling So Sad
>The Trip
>2001: A Space Odyssey
Yet to see the 1st. The Trip I heard explained by Pauline Kael as a psychedelic
mindtrip movie, so if she's right then yeah, that would qualify. 2001? I have a
slight tiny qualm with this. I guess I've never looked at Kurbick's film in
this light (as surreal, no. Abstract? I think a case can be made for that).
>Candy
>Greetings
>Lonesome Cowboys
>Psych-Out
I think you've seen way more films than me. Because this is my first exposure
to ALOT of the titles in your whole list. I realize though, alot of your movies
are "psychedelic" movies released during the Sixties. And everybody knows it
was the trend back then, to rebel, or go against the system, which inexplicably
produced a string of "acid movies" or "trip movies", mostly films with that
psychedelic edge to it. So, here, you can either say that we're BOTH talking
Surrealist trends here. You are talking the 60's. And I'm talking late 90's. My
original point was that Surrealism was making a reemergence. It's most likely a
tenuous trend that'll pick up steam then die off when the well is dry, as with
every single golden egg trend in Hollywood since the idea of the Blockbuster
arose. I was just pointing this out. In other's minds, though I've yet to see
proof for, there may be no trend to them, subjectively speaking. It's just an
observation I made after watching Vanilla Sky. Surrealism and Abstraction (your
"weird" films) is slowly and silently, picking up wind and speed. That's all.
>Targets
>Wild In The Streets
>Blue Movie
>The Illustrated Man
>The Secret Cinema
>Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls
I've either read about or heard stuff about the above films but never seen it,
so youre dealing with someone who hasn't got an extensive knowledge on film
history. Not having watched most of your movies. But I'll make do with what I
got. Beyond The Valley Of the Dolls impresses me as a campy, schlocky flick.
i'm not sure if its surreal or not. Whenever I see this film (or any other on
this list for that matter) I'll have to get to writing something about it on
here, if I feel like it.
>Brewster McCloud
>Multiple Maniacs
>Zabrieskie Point
>THX-1138
>A Clockwork Orange
Zabriskie Point and Clockwork I've seen. This capsule review right here I'm
reading of Brewster McCloud says its offbeat and "not for all tastes" (LOL) but
thats all I have to go on. Zabriskie I watched distracted. Have to rent it
again for whatever I missed. Clockwork Orange is definitely surreal science
fiction. Turned me off first watch. Never saw its merits. Quality-wise I mean.
>And I haven't even scratched the surface. Please note that I am no way
>saying that these movies are *better* than your list (well, except for
>"Don't Look Now" and "Clockwork Orange" and "2001". And maybe "Wild In The
>Streets".) In fact, I would heartily recommend never watching "Blue Movie"
>unless you're really desperate. I was just looking at quantity, not quality.
OK. Your list has been duly noted. I must reiterate though. Most of these films
come from almost the same type of trend I'm speaking of now upon us in 2002.
The whole 'psychedelic thing of the 60's'. Quantity wise, you have shown me
alot of films. More than my list. But if this is an argument just over the
NUMBER of surrealist films BEFORE 1997, I'm a little short. Original point was,
the Surrealist Movement potentially picking up speed in the late 90's. (Where
that'll take cinema I dont know. I tend to think most of the filmgoing world
will respond with a frigid shoulder to complex surreal films in this day and
age. But if this dog has its day, I'm all for it. It'll be strange to stomach
Burger King commercials with Dali and Kafka homages. I just am not sure if the
American public is ready for a Surrealist Movement en masse. Just noting the
possible rise of its appearance in films, less as a conscious aesthetic than a
gimmick perhaps, is what the focal point of my question was. ("Are movies
moving closer to surrealism?")) Your movies are from a slightly different
ballpark as the 1990's fad: an artistic brush stroke employed for more trendy
movies. An actual fad, like the hula hoop, that actually became quite popular
with its intended audience. The films post-1997 to me, at least, seem to have a
little more heart in it. Individual filmmaking careers of the past
notwithstanding, modern directors are beginning to employ surrealist techniques
more as a narrative device. Sometimes simply to astonish. Other times, with the
RIGHT directors (I'm thinking of David Lynch who IMO, is the only true
surrealist in mainstream filmmaking today. And Spike Jonze too. With his debut,
BJM) simply to appeal to the subconscious mind and to MOVE with the "eccentric"
image. The "weird" films of the 60's were mostly a fad. That's my impression,
even though I may be wrong. Not altogether excluding their validity as surreal,
though that's another argument (wouldnt mind arguing that point in later
posts). Quantity wise you have, a case. But my rebuttal is that those films
were a part of a fad too. Psychedelic movies, on your side. On my side, just
that grunge, modernist, dream-logic, weirdo, irrational flip side of the coin.
When you originally argued the late 90's spate was, itself, a trend (unless I'm
mistaken, maybe thats not what you said....) yet I'm pointing out now that the
60's films you listed, although I have not watched all of them, are themselves
a trend too.
sh*t. I'm lost. Hope my ramble makes some cohesive sense.
Now it's your serve...
Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...
Indeed. Wholeheartedly agree. And as the world gets even more and more surreal,
so will films. Art imitating life. (Such an overused cliche in movies)
Peace...of mind...
MadNetter
"Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk..." <phara...@aol.combackdoor> wrote in
Er, yes, I meant the Nicholas Roeg film, "Don't Look Now". Which came out in
'73, and not '67. So, feel free to ignore it.
> >Oh Dad, Poor Dad, Mama's Hung You In The Closet And I'm Feeling So Sad
> >The Trip
> >2001: A Space Odyssey
>
> Yet to see the 1st. The Trip I heard explained by Pauline Kael as a
psychedelic
> mindtrip movie, so if she's right then yeah, that would qualify. 2001? I
have a
> slight tiny qualm with this. I guess I've never looked at Kurbick's film
in
> this light (as surreal, no. Abstract? I think a case can be made for
that).
>
"The Trip" is a Corman-produced, Jack Nicholson directed LSD movie. Trust
me, it qualifies. Hell, it's barely coherent.
The whole point of this is to illustrate that what you term "weird" movies
is not a trend, but a constant. You seemed to believe that MORE "weird"
films were being released. I maintain that weird films are pretty much a
constant sub-theme in Hollywood. I could pick this many (if not more) films
from any given five-year period in Hollywood history.
> >Targets
> >Wild In The Streets
> >Blue Movie
> >The Illustrated Man
> >The Secret Cinema
> >Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls
>
> I've either read about or heard stuff about the above films but never seen
it,
> so youre dealing with someone who hasn't got an extensive knowledge on
film
> history. Not having watched most of your movies. But I'll make do with
what I
> got. Beyond The Valley Of the Dolls impresses me as a campy, schlocky
flick.
> i'm not sure if its surreal or not. Whenever I see this film (or any other
on
> this list for that matter) I'll have to get to writing something about it
on
> here, if I feel like it.
>
Dude, the bartender in "Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls" is supposed to be
Martin Boorman (the Nazi, to answer your next question), Z-Man turns out to
be female, and it was written by Roger Ebert. If that isn't surreal, I don't
know what is.
Basically, I disagree - I don't think that a filmic Surrealist Movement is
picking up steam, as you put it, starting in the late nineties. I disagree
for two reasons:
1) I don't agree with your definition of "Surrealist", as you're divorcing
it entirely from it's historic origins and meaning. (For example, what
specifically do you think is Surrealist about "Memento"?)
2) There have been films as strange, or stranger, as the ones you refer to
since Hollywood began.
That all. But, at least now you have a list of brain-damaging films to get
caught up on.
Kevin "Cup Of Fur" Cogliano
Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...
>Er, yes, I meant the Nicholas Roeg film, "Don't Look Now". Which came out
>in
>'73, and not '67. So, feel free to ignore it.
Ignored...
>The Trip" is a Corman-produced, Jack Nicholson directed LSD movie. Trust
>me, it qualifies. Hell, it's barely coherent.
I'll have to rent that one day.
>The whole point of this is to illustrate that what you term "weird" movies
>is not a trend, but a constant.
Constant? You sure? Maybe a few pepperings here and there, but a constant I
doubt.
>You seemed to believe that MORE "weird"
>films were being released. I maintain that weird films are pretty much a
>constant sub-theme in Hollywood. I could pick this many (if not more) films
>from any given five-year period in Hollywood history.
Well, I wont ask u to do that again. But I still say Constant = Not True.
>Dude, the bartender in "Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls" is supposed to be
>Martin Boorman (the Nazi, to answer your next question), Z-Man turns out
>to
>be female, and it was written by Roger Ebert. If that isn't surreal, I don't
>know what is.
LOL...OK.
>Basically, I disagree - I don't think that a filmic Surrealist Movement
>is
>picking up steam, as you put it, starting in the late nineties. I disagree
>for two reasons:
k...
>1) I don't agree with your definition of "Surrealist", as you're divorcing
>it entirely from it's historic origins and meaning. (For example, what
>specifically do you think is Surrealist about "Memento"?)
Yeah, you're right. Memento ain't Surrealist per se. But if not weird or
surreal, its definitely abstract. With its backwards structure and time
twisting narrative; coupled with Truth, memory, and the ambiguity of the
subconscious mind, its more abstract than surreal. So I was wrong in labeling
it so.
>2) There have been films as strange, or stranger, as the ones you refer
>to
>since Hollywood began.
I still doubt this though.
>That all. But, at least now you have a list of brain-damaging films to get
>caught up on.
Yes, indeed, I do...
Jeff Coleman
"Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk..." <phara...@aol.combackdoor> wrote in
message news:20020114010733...@mb-cj.aol.com...
> >1) I don't agree with your definition of "Surrealist", as you're
divorcing
> >it entirely from it's historic origins and meaning. (For example, what
> >specifically do you think is Surrealist about "Memento"?)
>
> Yeah, you're right. Memento ain't Surrealist per se. But if not weird or
> surreal, its definitely abstract. With its backwards structure and time
> twisting narrative; coupled with Truth, memory, and the ambiguity of the
> subconscious mind, its more abstract than surreal. So I was wrong in
labeling
> it so.
That's not surrealist or abstract, that's "Post-Modern" :)
Seriously, it's not really "abstract"--a painting by Hans Hoffman or Franz
Kline, that's abstract. Something like The Beatles "Yellow Submarine" has a
lot of stuff that's both surreal AND abstract. There's a lot of abstract in
the psychedelic swirls at the end of 2001.
Memento's playing with time, like Pulp Fiction's or Citizen Kane's, is what
you'd call "Post-Modern".
If you really needed a term for it :)
Jeff
--
www.isaacpriestley.com
Latest album "Days of Being Dumb"
available for download now!
Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...
>
>Seriously, it's not really "abstract"--a painting by Hans Hoffman or Franz
>Kline, that's abstract. Something like The Beatles "Yellow Submarine" has
>a
>lot of stuff that's both surreal AND abstract. There's a lot of abstract
>in
>the psychedelic swirls at the end of 2001.
>
>Memento's playing with time, like Pulp Fiction's or Citizen Kane's, is what
>you'd call "Post-Modern".
>
>If you really needed a term for it :)
>
>Jeff
OH OK. Kool. Thanks for the correction. Peace...of mind...
--------------------------------
"My every little step set in a star/ retina scarred/ tred on a sled of bedbugs
got my dead head in a jar" -- Aesop Rock
"Get an economy-sized clue..." -- David Foster Wallace, "Infinite Jest"
I AM an ADD CHARLIE CHAPLIN.