What is post modern era in film? Pls explain?!!!!!!
Doc
I was recently talking to a drama student who informed me that we are
in the post-modern era of film making. Not wanting to show my
ignorance I didn't ask her what that meant. Can somebody please
explain to me what the post modern era exactly represents. I have a
fair idea that films by Tarantino (sp?) and Kids and Clerks would all
be considered post modern. But what is so special about them?
Hervey
Postmodernism is an ambiguous category, but I would say that postmodern
art is characterized by a mixture of styles and fragmentation.
Postmodernism is against comprehensive, omniscient narratives and instead
affirms multiple perspectives. Also, the individual is not a singular
subjective, but is composed of multiple identities or subjectivities that
conlict and negotiate with eachother. Postmodernism (again, this is not a
coherent philosophy but a general perspective) also distrusts binaries,
such as "high" and "low" culture.
For this reason, Tarantino's might be called postmodern because the
narrative is fragmented, it obviously quotes from other films and
glorifies pop culture (hence "Pulp Fiction"). I am not a film theorist--I
study literature. A film theorist might be able to help you better with
the notion of "postmodern film".
Shaun
Hound of Cullen
In article <hervey-0609...@cnc012040.concentric.net>,
her...@cris.com (Hervey) wrote:
This is a good brief summary. The only thing I think I'd add is that most
postmodern art is both self-aware and self-referential. So, a PoMo film
would acknowledge its "filminess" in some way. In "Pulp Fiction" for
instance, the scene where Vince and Whatsername (Uma) are at dinner.
Putting Travolta back on a dance floor calls to mind his role in "Saturday
Night Fever". Doing it in a restuarant where all of the waiters and
waitresses are dressed like film stars made me focus on Travolta the actor
rather than the character he was playing.
Hope this helps.
Hound
--
Monster Grendel's tastes are plainish
Breakfast? Just a couple Danish
Henry M. Wieman
In article <hervey-0609...@cnc012040.concentric.net>,
her...@cris.com (Hervey) wrote:
>I would say that postmodern
>art is characterized by a mixture of styles and fragmentation.
>Postmodernism is against comprehensive, omniscient narratives and instead
>affirms multiple perspectives. Also, the individual is not a singular
>subjective, but is composed of multiple identities or subjectivities that
>conlict and negotiate with eachother. Postmodernism (again, this is not a
>coherent philosophy but a general perspective) also distrusts binaries,
>such as "high" and "low" culture.
I posted my response on the past film group, but I agree with this response
even more than I agree with my own :)
>
>For this reason, Tarantino's might be called postmodern because the
>narrative is fragmented, it obviously quotes from other films and
>glorifies pop culture (hence "Pulp Fiction"). I am not a film theorist--I
>study literature. A film theorist might be able to help you better with
>the notion of "postmodern film".
>
>Shaun
Henry M. Wieman | "Can you answer? Yes I can!
wie...@ma.ultranet.com | But what would be the answer,
Call me Hank | To the Answer Man?"
| -Robert Hunter in St. Stephen
Brian John Wright
: > I was recently talking to a drama student who informed me that we are
: > in the post-modern era of film making. Not wanting to show my
: > ignorance I didn't ask her what that meant. Can somebody please
: > explain to me what the post modern era exactly represents. I have a
: > fair idea that films by Tarantino (sp?) and Kids and Clerks would all
: > be considered post modern. But what is so special about them?
Postmodern can also be defined as an art form which takes the
approach that assumes that everything that CAN be done already has. For
example, the horror films of Joe Dante don't rely on the ol' cliche that
"Oh no, I don't believe in werewolves" (and then a werewolf eats the guy)
- the characters within the film have seen enough horror movies like Joe
Dante's to behave a little more intelligently. Instead of simply
offering a cliche, it become ABOUT the cliche.
-Brian
AdrlPiett
: > I was recently talking to a drama student who informed me that we are
: > in the post-modern era of film making. Not wanting to show my
: > ignorance I didn't ask her what that meant. Can somebody please
: > explain to me what the post modern era exactly represents. I have a
: > fair idea that films by Tarantino (sp?) and Kids and Clerks would all
: > be considered post modern. But what is so special about them?
If a film can be described as a cross between 'something' and 'another
thing' with 'some of that' thrown in, then it is post-modern.
Zach Douglas
In article <50nj3t$l...@hermes.is.co.za>, dd...@pixie.co.au says...
>
>I was recently talking to a drama student who informed me that we are
>in the post-modern era of film making. Not wanting to show my
>ignorance I didn't ask her what that meant. Can somebody please
>explain to me what the post modern era exactly represents. I have a
>fair idea that films by Tarantino (sp?) and Kids and Clerks would all
>be considered post modern. But what is so special about them?
>
From my readings in marketing, post-modernism in broad terms has a variety
of different meanings, and as far as a defintive definition for film goes -
the jury seems to be out on this one.
But, from _my_ understanding some elements of Post-Moderism include:
Reviving the past vs. looking to the future (tarantino, Clerks fascnication
with star wars)
Ambiguousness vs. Definition (Tarantino again)
Non-linearity vs. strict linearity (guess who?)
I seem to have lost the text which has all the X V. Y on it and there were
about 20 of them. Another aspect in film seems to be _pastiche_ ala
Tarantino - that is taking from earlier works and subtly poking fun at a
genre by using it's elements - yet it's not quite Parody - an example being
David Lynch's _Blue Velvet_. A lot of people won't even get that it's
'funny'.
Well, I hope that's a start. I could be totally off the mark, but I think
I'm partially correct on most points at least.
Zach Douglas
In article <zisbo-06099...@stdwebmaster.bbn.com>, zi...@aol.com
says...
>
>This is a good brief summary. The only thing I think I'd add is that
>most postmodern art is both self-aware and self-referential. So, a PoMo fi
Oh yeah! That too...
I think further, more obvious examples would be things like the sub-titles
in pulp fiction ('12 minutes later') or the box that Mia draws in the air
that shows up like a cartoon - obviously reminding us that this isn't real,
it's just a movie. This can also be seen in Trainspotting when Kevin (I
think is his name in the movie) goes to the 'toilet' when the word's 'the
filthiest' and 'in Scotland' appear on both sides of 'toilet'!!
Very much influenced by Tarantino.
I might be going out on a limb but other examples might be Lone Star, 12
Monkeys, Kids, Clerks (as mentioned).
Another aspect which I'm not entirely sure about either, seems to be a
'passitivity' of characters - something like a Catcher in the Rye.
Characters do more wandering around and philosophizing than they do going
about with a set plan in mind - like John Wayne - always with a mission to
complete. (IE Clerks, Kids where they just sorta 'hang out')
Zach Douglas
In article <50st3t$b...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, bjwr...@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca
says...
>
>: In article <50nj3t$l...@hermes.is.co.za>, dd...@pixie.co.au (Doc) wro
>te:
>- the characters within the film have seen enough horror movies like J
>oe Dante's to behave a little more intelligently. Instead of simply
>offering a cliche, it become ABOUT the cliche.
Wow! Exactly, makes sense. It seems we've cut out a decent defintion thus
far. Again backing examples, and again going back to Tarantino in Dusk to
Dawn where he has Seth actually SAY 'Are we talking about real vampires, or
just ones we've seen in some movie'!
Also supporting the self-reference to the art itself as mentioned in the
previous post. This again seeps out even in Tarantino's rewrites in Crimson
Tide where the Captain makes the soldier answer his trivia question about a
submarine film from the past.
I hope I know what I'm talking about!
Interesting thread.
Hound of Cullen
In article <50u352$2...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>, za...@hub.ofthe.net (Zach
Douglas) wrote:
:In article <zisbo-06099...@stdwebmaster.bbn.com>, zi...@aol.com
:says...
:>
:>This is a good brief summary. The only thing I think I'd add is that
:>most postmodern art is both self-aware and self-referential. So, a PoMo fi
:>lm would acknowledge its "filminess" in some way. In "Pulp Fiction"
:
:Oh yeah! That too...
:
:I think further, more obvious examples would be things like the sub-titles
:in pulp fiction ('12 minutes later') or the box that Mia draws in the air
:that shows up like a cartoon - obviously reminding us that this isn't real,
:it's just a movie.
I'd forgotten that completely when I wrote my post. Excellent example.
:I might be going out on a limb but other examples might be Lone Star, 12
:Monkeys, Kids, Clerks (as mentioned).
Hmmm... I'm not really sure about either Lone Star or 12 Monkeys. 12
Monkeys is more of a Science Fiction flick, which doesn't mean that it
_isn't postmodern, just that it takes its structure from accepted SF
tropes. Within an SF background, 12 Monkeys is rather straight. To be
honest, I don't see how Lone Star would be a postmodern film. I saw it as
a pretty straightforward character study. Again, I'm not saying your
wrong. Convince me. :)
:Another aspect which I'm not entirely sure about either, seems to be a
:'passitivity' of characters - something like a Catcher in the Rye.
:Characters do more wandering around and philosophizing than they do going
:about with a set plan in mind - like John Wayne - always with a mission to
:complete. (IE Clerks, Kids where they just sorta 'hang out')
Well, I'd counter with John Woo, who's over-the-top actioners have always
struck me as postmodern (with his cinematic references to previous action
films, and the totally unbelievable violence). His characters are anything
but passive.
David Mendes
I don't think "Kids" should be called post-modern. No matter if you like
the film or if you don't. It's a film about people. Characters are more
important than plot. Those were the issues of all the "new cinemas" (so,
modern cinema), from Italian neo realism to French "nouvelle vague". Films
about films, genre films that pretend not to be only genre films just
because the filmmaker is sooooo smart, those are post-modern films, from
Win Wenders to Quentin Tarantino.
All IMHO
AdrlPiett <adrl...@aol.com> wrote in article
<50tc36$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>...
>
> : > I was recently talking to a drama student who informed me that we are
> : > in the post-modern era of film making. Not wanting to show my
> : > ignorance I didn't ask her what that meant. Can somebody please
> : > explain to me what the post modern era exactly represents. I have a
> : > fair idea that films by Tarantino (sp?) and Kids and Clerks would all
> : > be considered post modern. But what is so special about them?
>
Peter Thomas Chattaway
I'm not so sure I'd define "post-modern" as any film that refers to other
films. That's "intertextuality", to be sure, but it could just as easily
be "pre-modern". I'm particularly thinking right now of a Buster Keaton
flick, made in the 1920s, which had a shot near the end where he suddenly
turns into Erich von Stroheim. That's "intertextuality", but I'd be hard
put to call it "post-modern" -- or is satire somehow exempt from
post-modernism?
(Then again, a recent review of a Bugs Bunny festival in Vancouver said
of `Beanstalk Bunny', a spoof of Jack & The Beanstalk, that this cartoon
proved that "post-modernism wasn't born yesterday", so what do *I* know ... )
--
Peter T. Chattaway | "Sure I'm prejudiced! None of my best friends are
Culture Editor, | idiots!" -- Larry Niven
The Ubyssey | "It's a good thing money can't buy happiness. We
pet...@unixg.ubc.ca | couldn't stand the commercials." -- David Gerrold
George W. Harris
In Mon, 09 Sep 1996 15:02:20 -0400 of yore, zi...@aol.com (Hound of Cullen)
wrote thusly:
=Hmmm... I'm not really sure about either Lone Star or 12 Monkeys. 12
=Monkeys is more of a Science Fiction flick, which doesn't mean that it
=_isn't postmodern, just that it takes its structure from accepted SF
=tropes. Within an SF background, 12 Monkeys is rather straight. To be
=honest, I don't see how Lone Star would be a postmodern film. I saw it as
=a pretty straightforward character study. Again, I'm not saying your
=wrong. Convince me. :)
Well, 12 Monkeys gains a lot of resonance from the
inclusion of media images in scenes which lend thematic unity
to the movie. For example, the continuous cartoon soundtrack
which is playing in the background in the scene where Jeffrey
Goines is first scene, with its images of lunacy, or the cartoon
playing in the motel where Cole has Dr. Railly tied up, about the
scientist who has invented the time tunnel. Granted, these aren't
as blatently post-modern as the elements in Pulp Fiction (another
of those was the use of grainy black & white images in the rear
projection during Willis' cab ride after the fight), but they do
represent something of a mixture of images that is characteristic
of post-modernism. The use of cartoons to provide thematic
unity is consistent with postmodernism's blurring of the line
between high & low culture (cv. the cartoon that the young Bruce
Willis in Pulp Fiction is watching when Christopher Walken tells
him the story of his father's gold watch.
=Hound
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* fifty states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris gha...@dur.mindspring.com