Yu Tu Mama Tambien = Porn disguised as art (spoilers)
Rebel without a Kenton
She does one guy, she does another guy, then they all have a three way
at the end. There is no point to it, no deep message, no subtext.
Overrated soft core porn disguised as art. Was there supposed to be some
kind of coming of age story in there somewhere ? Did the growing up take
place when they learnt how to go down on a woman ? Why the hell did
every one rave about this movie ?
damnfine
What the hell do you think you're doing assumg there's a line between porn
and art? Why can't it be both?
--
/^\damnfine/^\
"Somewhere in Texas, a village is being deprived of its idiot."
John Harkness
wrote:
>"Rebel without a Kenton" wrote:
>> She does one guy, she does another guy, then they all have a three way
>> at the end. There is no point to it, no deep message, no subtext.
>> Overrated soft core porn disguised as art. Was there supposed to be some
>> kind of coming of age story in there somewhere ? Did the growing up take
>> place when they learnt how to go down on a woman ? Why the hell did
>> every one rave about this movie ?
>
>What the hell do you think you're doing assumg there's a line between porn
>and art? Why can't it be both?
Good point.
John Harkness
Nick Macpherson
>>"Rebel without a Kenton" wrote:
>>> She does one guy, she does another guy, then they all have a three way
>>> at the end. There is no point to it, no deep message, no subtext.
>>> Overrated soft core porn disguised as art. Was there supposed to be some
>>> kind of coming of age story in there somewhere ? Did the growing up take
>>> place when they learnt how to go down on a woman ? Why the hell did
>>> every one rave about this movie ?
>>
>>What the hell do you think you're doing assumg there's a line between porn
>>and art? Why can't it be both?
>
>Good point.
>
Can porn, by definition, be art? Once porn becomes art, doesn't it stop being
porn?
John Harkness
wrote:
Joke response. It doesn't stop being porn if it's done right.
There's always the derogatory declension -- What I like is erotic art,
what you like is porn.
Where does one categorize relatively mainstream "art" films that
contain absolute hardcore footage -- Romance, Pola X? If the presence
of hardcore sex scenes don't disqualify the films as art, then porn
can be art, or vice versa.
There's certainly films that tried to breach the wall from the other
side -- Devil in Miss Jones, going all the way back to the 70s, is a
very "arty" film. There's a few -- Night Dreams, Cafe Flesh, I suppose
Andrew Blake's films, though they're really an attempt to put hardcore
into a softcore look, all gauzy and rich looking.
John Harkness
Rebel without a Kenton
"damnfine" <damn...@ihug.com.au> wrote:
> "Rebel without a Kenton" wrote:
> > She does one guy, she does another guy, then they all have a three way
> > at the end. There is no point to it, no deep message, no subtext.
> > Overrated soft core porn disguised as art. Was there supposed to be some
> > kind of coming of age story in there somewhere ? Did the growing up take
> > place when they learnt how to go down on a woman ? Why the hell did
> > every one rave about this movie ?
>
> What the hell do you think you're doing assumg there's a line between porn
> and art? Why can't it be both?
It can, just in this case it isn't. There's no art in this movie. If you
think there's art in giving horny people something to jerk off to with
little to no substance or intention behind the imagery, then good for
you.
damnfine
> > What the hell do you think you're doing assumg there's a line between
porn
> > and art? Why can't it be both?
>
> It can, just in this case it isn't.
But that isn't what you've described in this post. You've made it clear that
you think there is a definable line. Otherwise what you've written makes no
sense.
> There's no art in this movie.
Yes, Kenton. OK, Kenton.
V01TeK
> It can, just in this case it isn't. There's no art in this movie.
Every movie is art.
--
"Be your own God"
Chris
Steven Litvintchouk
> There's always the derogatory declension -- What I like is erotic art,
> what you like is porn.
>
> Where does one categorize relatively mainstream "art" films that
> contain absolute hardcore footage -- Romance, Pola X?
> can be art, or vice versa.
Caligula (1979) is another one.
Beyond that, standards of taste in movies have changed so much that
movies once considered "porn" now seem tame, almost mainstream, by
comparison.
Emmanuelle (1974) was rated X, but if it were produced today it would
likely have gotten rated only R. Certainly the photography and
geographic location shots are way above average for a "porn" movie,
either in 1974 or now.
-- Steven L.
Rebel without a Kenton
"damnfine" <damn...@ihug.com.au> wrote:
> "Rebel without a Kenton" wrote:
> > > What the hell do you think you're doing assumg there's a line between
> porn
> > > and art? Why can't it be both?
> >
> > It can, just in this case it isn't.
>
> But that isn't what you've described in this post. You've made it clear that
> you think there is a definable line.
> Otherwise what you've written makes no
> sense.
Because I think this movie is pretending to be something more than
simply porn means I think there is a definable line between porn and art
? OK Ben, whatever Ben....If I'm seperating anything it's the
intent/pretensions of the film from it's actual content.
>
>
> > There's no art this movie.
>
> Yes, Kenton. OK, Kenton.
Yup.
EGTea
"Rebel without a Kenton" <kobNOSPA...@kob.id.au> wrote in message
news:kobNOSPAMPLEASEE-02...@news.syd.swiftel.com.au...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> She does one guy, she does another guy, then they all have a three way
> at the end. There is no point to it, no deep message, no subtext.
> Overrated soft core porn disguised as art. Was there supposed to be some
> kind of coming of age story in there somewhere ?
Better hope so. The director's current project is the next "Harry Potter"
movie.
Can't wait for the scene with Ron and Hermoine and Professor McGonnigle in
the Weasleys' flying car...
Nick Macpherson
>>Can porn, by definition, be art? Once porn becomes art, doesn't it stop
>being
>>porn?
>>
>There's always the derogatory declension -- What I like is erotic art,
>what you like is porn.
>
Which I heard Eric Jong say once without any irony or humor. (But I'll defer
on making any comments on feminism and erotica to Tony Gaza.)
On the other hand, there's William Burroughs, who said back when he was facing
obscenity charges for The Naked Lunch, said that while he was happy people were
defending his work on the grounds that it was "art", he'd still want to be
defended even it was "pornography".
>Where does one categorize relatively mainstream "art" films that
>contain absolute hardcore footage -- Romance, Pola X? If the presence
>of hardcore sex scenes don't disqualify the films as art, then porn
>can be art, or vice versa.
Stanley Kauffman, in his review for Shampoo, reckoned that eventually the
sexual revolution in American movies would lead to hardcore sex as a matter of
routine. But it never happened. I was surprised at the blow job in the
unrated cut of In the Cut. But the movie never followed up on it. From then
on, it was strictly routine erotic thriller territory.
>There's certainly films that tried to breach the wall from the other
>side -- Devil in Miss Jones, going all the way back to the 70s, is a
>very "arty" film. There's a few -- Night Dreams, Cafe Flesh, I suppose
>Andrew Blake's films, though they're really an attempt to put hardcore
>into a softcore look, all gauzy and rich looking.
Andrew Blake has to be dullest filmmaker alive, all that chic high fashion
lesbian and soft bondage crap. Horrible.
The best hardcore movie I've ever seen, and I'm not sure of the director, is
Coming Attractions, with John Leslie and Sharon Thorpe (one of my faves) as a
bickering couple on a road trip to Vegas, getting lost in their private sexual
fantasies. That one verged on being art. Too bad this stuff doesn't get
decent DVD releases.
I guess it depends on how you define porn (kinda like defining "film noir").
You can go with the strict genre definition, and say its anything with fucking
and sucking, or you can go with a generalized definition, pornography as
something degrading and sordid (bringing The Passion of the Christ into the
discussion--you know all about that because people like Calvin Rice were so
pissed when you called the movie "Catholic porn"), in which case it either
can't be art, or can be art but bad art.
EGTea
"John Harkness" <jhXaYr...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:0kfi70tcibjmoa4b0...@4ax.com...
There is a difference between art and pornography. Porn is in focus.
John Harkness
wrote:
>>From: John Harkness jhXaYr...@sympatico.ca
"Catholic torture porn" -- a subgenre, like nunsploitation.
John Harkness
John Harkness
wrote:
>>From: John Harkness jhXaYr...@sympatico.ca
>
>>>Can porn, by definition, be art? Once porn becomes art, doesn't it stop
>>being
>>>porn?
>>>
>>There's always the derogatory declension -- What I like is erotic art,
>>what you like is porn.
>>
>Which I heard Eric Jong say once without any irony or humor. (But I'll defer
>on making any comments on feminism and erotica to Tony Gaza.)
>
>On the other hand, there's William Burroughs, who said back when he was facing
>obscenity charges for The Naked Lunch, said that while he was happy people were
>defending his work on the grounds that it was "art", he'd still want to be
>defended even it was "pornography".
>
>>Where does one categorize relatively mainstream "art" films that
>>contain absolute hardcore footage -- Romance, Pola X? If the presence
>>of hardcore sex scenes don't disqualify the films as art, then porn
>>can be art, or vice versa.
>
>Stanley Kauffman, in his review for Shampoo, reckoned that eventually the
>sexual revolution in American movies would lead to hardcore sex as a matter of
>routine. But it never happened. I was surprised at the blow job in the
>unrated cut of In the Cut. But the movie never followed up on it. From then
>on, it was strictly routine erotic thriller territory.
>
OF course, the blowjob in In The Cut was a fake -- that was a dildo.
>>There's certainly films that tried to breach the wall from the other
>>side -- Devil in Miss Jones, going all the way back to the 70s, is a
>>very "arty" film. There's a few -- Night Dreams, Cafe Flesh, I suppose
>>Andrew Blake's films, though they're really an attempt to put hardcore
>>into a softcore look, all gauzy and rich looking.
>
>Andrew Blake has to be dullest filmmaker alive, all that chic high fashion
>lesbian and soft bondage crap. Horrible.
Oh, no disagreement whatsoever. If I want to watch porn, I want to see
porn -- give me the late Bruce Seven -- the films look like crap, but
he seems to get actors right in touch with their darkest side.
>
>The best hardcore movie I've ever seen, and I'm not sure of the director, is
>Coming Attractions, with John Leslie and Sharon Thorpe (one of my faves) as a
>bickering couple on a road trip to Vegas, getting lost in their private sexual
>fantasies. That one verged on being art. Too bad this stuff doesn't get
>decent DVD releases.
>
Sharon Thorpe? That's real old school.
Getting back to Kauffman's comment, it never happened because of home
video. Late 70s, early 80s, people were making adult films with
budgets and occasionally shooting schedules -- there's a fascinating
commentary on The Opening of Misty Beethoven talking about how long it
took Metzger to shoot the film (and Metzger's hardcore comes awfully
close to the art-porn fusion)
Once the theatrical market dies and the start making stuff for
straight to HVid, there's no budgets and no time -- it's mostly one
day wonders.
People like Bob Chinn (sort of the model for Burt Reynolds character
in Boogie Nights) were actually trying to develop filmmaking chops
and get performances out of their actors.
Of course, in performance terms, worth remembering that a lot of the
actors in the early days were more or less failed legit actors --
which really shows when the occasional porn actor turns up with lines
in a mainstream film. They basically have trouble holding the screen
against even minor mainstream actors. But a failed legit actor -- like
Leslie, or Paul Thomas -- is superior to today's breed of non-actors.
>I guess it depends on how you define porn (kinda like defining "film noir").
>You can go with the strict genre definition, and say its anything with fucking
>and sucking, or you can go with a generalized definition, pornography as
>something degrading and sordid (bringing The Passion of the Christ into the
>discussion--you know all about that because people like Calvin Rice were so
>pissed when you called the movie "Catholic porn"), in which case it either
>can't be art, or can be art but bad art.
I've always liked whichever Supreme Court justice who said "I know it
when I see it."
John Harkness
Nick Macpherson
>go with a generalized definition, pornography as
>>something degrading and sordid (bringing The Passion of the Christ into the
>>discussion--you know all about that because people like Calvin Rice were so
>>pissed when you called the movie "Catholic porn"), in which case it either
>>can't be art, or can be art but bad art.
>
>"Catholic torture porn" -- a subgenre, like nunsploitation.
>
>John Harkness
Am I alone in thinking that the nunsploitation subgenre was invented by Jacques
Rivette with the very unsexy (it has all the elements of nunsploitation but it
doesn't show anything) La Religieuse?
John Harkness
<araz...@no.hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:37:19 -0400, in rec.arts.movies.past-films,
>John Harkness <jhXaYr...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>On 11 Apr 2004 13:09:12 GMT, nmacp...@aol.com (Nick Macpherson)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>From: John Harkness jhXaYr...@sympatico.ca
>>>
>>>>>"Rebel without a Kenton" wrote:
>>>>>> She does one guy, she does another guy, then they all have a three way
>>>>>> at the end. There is no point to it, no deep message, no subtext.
>>>>>> Overrated soft core porn disguised as art. Was there supposed to be some
>>>>>> kind of coming of age story in there somewhere ? Did the growing up take
>>>>>> place when they learnt how to go down on a woman ? Why the hell did
>>>>>> every one rave about this movie ?
>>>>>
>>>>>What the hell do you think you're doing assumg there's a line between porn
>>>>>and art? Why can't it be both?
>>>>
>>>>Good point.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Can porn, by definition, be art? Once porn becomes art, doesn't it stop being
>>>porn?
>>
>>Joke response. It doesn't stop being porn if it's done right.
>>
>>There's always the derogatory declension -- What I like is erotic art,
>>what you like is porn.
>>
>>Where does one categorize relatively mainstream "art" films that
>>contain absolute hardcore footage -- Romance, Pola X? If the presence
>>of hardcore sex scenes don't disqualify the films as art, then porn
>>can be art, or vice versa.
>
>
>Isn't the point of porn to be graphic for the sake of arousing and
>titillating its audience--the viewer can vicariously live through the
>actors?
Sort of like Jerry Bruckheimer movies?
>
>Do you think the sex scenes in Romance were meant to sexually arouse
>the viewer? The actors didn't even look aroused or interested (other
>than Siffredi).
>While it seems the scenes were explicit just for the sake of being
>explicit (or "true to life"), I don't think they were intended to turn
>anyone on. Breillat seemed to have intended the opposite--showing sex
>as cold, not always satisfying, not always engaging, sometimes
>one-sided and dull (at least for the woman). The vagina as a
>servicing hole (cf. the examination scene), not a portal to pleasure.
>It was all thoroughly unsexy and unerotic (in my opinion).
>
I'm not arguing for the eroticism of Pola X or Romance -- these are
films by people trying to make intellectual points. I'm suggesting
that if the presence of hardcore footage doesn't disqualify a film
from the art category, than a film can be both.
John Harkness
steve
On 11-Apr-2004, Steven Litvintchouk <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> Emmanuelle (1974) was rated X, but if it were produced today it would
> likely have gotten rated only R. Certainly the photography and
> geographic location shots are way above average for a "porn" movie,
> either in 1974 or now.
And (if I'm not mistaken...I know it was one of the emmanuelle series) cool
music as well. In fact, Robert Fripp sued the filmmakers for unauthorized
use of "Lark Tongues in Aspic part II"...the arrangement was nicely done,
too, with french horns...been forever since I saw the film at a midnight
showing at my college.
steve
--
"A man was severely injured today in the Knutsford area."
Benny Hill
T
Yep. It can, and _must_, but rarely does aspire to be. Well, it aspires.
But it fails to reach it.
It. (Well, artistic license on my part.)
> Once porn becomes art, doesn't it stop being
> porn?
Nope.
TBerk
Grand Inquisitor
> Better hope so. The director's current project is the next "Harry Potter"
> movie.
>
> Can't wait for the scene with Ron and Hermoine and Professor McGonnigle in
> the Weasleys' flying car...
>
>
Ew...Ron...
--
"Don't ask me, I'm just a girl!"
--Hilary Clinton
Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost
Rebel without a Kenton
"V01TeK" <voit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > It can, just in this case it isn't. There's no art in this movie.
>
> Every movie is art.
Really ? What was artful about the close up of the cum floating in the
swimming pool ? Was it like a metaphor for mankind or something ?
madkevin
"EGTea" <EG...@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:9Ndec.460567$Po1.4...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> Better hope so. The director's current project is the next "Harry Potter"
> movie.
He also did "A Little Princess", so I don't think his stories-about-childhood
skills are much in question. Anyway, even if he was some crazy Mexican
pornographer, wouldn't that still be an improvement over Chris Columbus?
Kevin "Great Expectations" Cogliano
Nick Macpherson
> I was surprised at the blow job in the
>>unrated cut of In the Cut. But the movie never followed up on it. From then
>>on, it was strictly routine erotic thriller territory.
>>
>
>OF course, the blowjob in In The Cut was a fake -- that was a dildo.
>
Really? Tinto Brass is right. If you use a dildo in your movie instead of a
real penis, then it's not pornography.
>>The best hardcore movie I've ever seen, and I'm not sure of the director, is
>>Coming Attractions, with John Leslie and Sharon Thorpe (one of my faves) as
>a
>>bickering couple on a road trip to Vegas, getting lost in their private
>sexual
>>fantasies. That one verged on being art. Too bad this stuff doesn't get
>>decent DVD releases.
>>
>Sharon Thorpe? That's real old school.
>
I'm an old school porn fan. I gave up on watching the new stuff because the
turnover in new talent got too rapid with too many performers knocking out as
many tapes as possible in a year to finance school, business, publicize a
career as a stripper, etc. I like the idea of a porn performer having a "body
of work". I liked the failed legit actors and hippies and feminists and drug
addicts and criminals that made up the 70s adult film industry. It's telling
that more people watch porno now than ever but no one can name a modern porn
star (exception being a novelty item like Ron Jeremy). The concept of "porn
star" died with the end of big screen porn.
damnfine
> > But that isn't what you've described in this post. You've made it clear
that
> > you think there is a definable line.
> > Otherwise what you've written makes no
> > sense.
>
> Because I think this movie is pretending to be something more than
> simply porn means I think there is a definable line between porn and art
> ?
That's the clear and unambiguous implication of your words, yes.
damnfine
> > > It can, just in this case it isn't. There's no art in this movie.
> >
> > Every movie is art.
>
> Really ? What was artful about the close up of the cum floating in the
> swimming pool ? Was it like a metaphor for mankind or something ?
So something has to contain metaphor in order to be art?
EGTea
"madkevin" <madk...@golden.net> wrote in message
news:t4idnbvxge1...@golden.net...
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe I'm not the righty guy to ask, because I don't think
Columbus is bad.
>
>
artyw
> > It can, just in this case it isn't. There's no art in this movie.
>
> Every movie is art.
Then some movies belong here:
http://www.museumofbadart.org/
(So far they just have paintings. They could expand)
Steven Litvintchouk
> I guess it depends on how you define porn (kinda like defining "film noir").
> You can go with the strict genre definition, and say its anything with fucking
> and sucking, or you can go with a generalized definition, pornography as
> something degrading and sordid (bringing The Passion of the Christ into the
> discussion--you know all about that because people like Calvin Rice were so
> pissed when you called the movie "Catholic porn"), in which case it either
> can't be art, or can be art but bad art.
Have you ever seen those deliberately violent and exciting videos of
tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, etc., that they show on the Weather
Channel as features? Media critics have long referred to that stuff as
"weather porn."
-- Steven L.
Fallen Templar
(in message <20040411122247...@mb-m18.aol.com>):
> Am I alone in thinking that the nunsploitation subgenre was invented by
> Jacques Rivette with the very unsexy (it has all the elements of
> nunsploitation but it doesn't show anything) La Religieuse?
La Religieuse (1966) is a fairly early nunsploitation film, but I certainly
wouldn't say Jacques Rivette invented the genre.
Even before La Religieuse there were erotic nun films like Black Narcissus
(1947) and Mother Joan of the Angels (1961). The latter film was based on a
book by Aldous Huxley "The Devils of Loudon" which gave rise to a more
infamous film by Ken Russell "The Devils" (1971).
It is *this* film which (while again I wouldn't say *created* nunsploitation)
gave rise to a sort of "golden age" of nunsploitation films. For some reason
in European cinema, especially in Italian cinema, if a movie does well, the
goal of every motion picture studio for the next couple years is to copy it.
They did it with the sword & sandal films, the spaghetti westerns, the
Exorcist, and later, with zombie movies.
Nunsploitation was no exception.
Anyway, getting back to the origins of nunsploitation, as long as there has
been film, there have been nunsploitation films.
The recently released DVD "The Good Old Naughty Days" compiles some of the
earliest examples of pornography in film history (from 1905 to 1930). Among
them are two nunsploitation films "Mr. Abbot Bitt at Convent" (1925) and
"Homework" (1920).
Even before that, nun exploitation was prevelant in fiction. Take Geoffrey
Chaucer's Canterbury Tales for example. And remember,the movie you mentioned,
La Religieuse, was based on a book written in the late 18th century (Denis
Diderot started writing it in 1760 and it was first published in 1780).
In addition to books, the tale of the wayward was depicted in art, paintings,
and wood carvings.
So when was nunsploitation invented? I would say shortly after the nun was
invented!
For more information on nunsploitation films and the nunsploitation genre,
check out the movie database at http://www.nunsploitaiton.net
--
Designated poster for www.nunsploitation.net
"You must have the devil in you to succeed in any of the arts."
--Voltaire
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>> Really ? What was artful about the close up of the cum floating in the
>> swimming pool ? Was it like a metaphor for mankind or something ?
>
>So something has to contain metaphor in order to be art?
No, that's only true of religion.
Rebel without a Kenton
"damnfine" <damn...@ihug.com.au> wrote:
> "Rebel without a Kenton" wrote:
> > > > It can, just in this case it isn't. There's no art in this movie.
> > >
> > > Every movie is art.
> >
> > Really ? What was artful about the close up of the cum floating in the
> > swimming pool ? Was it like a metaphor for mankind or something ?
>
> So something has to contain metaphor in order to be art?
No, my defenition of art is something that touches people, and with Y Tu
Mama Tambien the viewers will only be touching themselves - in the most
literal sense.
And since art is subjective, you can't proove me wrong when I say Y Tu
has no artistic merit whatsoever.
Rebel without a Kenton
"damnfine" <damn...@ihug.com.au> wrote:
> "Rebel without a Kenton" wrote:
> > > But that isn't what you've described in this post. You've made it clear
> that
> > > you think there is a definable line.
> > > Otherwise what you've written makes no
> > > sense.
> >
> > Because I think this movie is pretending to be something more than
> > simply porn means I think there is a definable line between porn and art
> > ?
>
> That's the clear and unambiguous implication of your words, yes.
There's no art in this film, therefore it cannot be classified as
porn-art, merely porn. An example of porn-art, would be something like
Boogie Nights.
damnfine
> > So something has to contain metaphor in order to be art?
>
> No, my defenition of art is something that touches people
And I could say my definition of art is something that wears a little pink
ribbon. If you're going to attach your own personal meanings to words all
the time it kinda renders the whole concept of language completely useless.
damnfine
> > That's the clear and unambiguous implication of your words, yes.
>
> There's no art in this film
It's a piece of creative work.
monsieurblob
> at the end. There is no point to it, no deep message, no subtext.
> Overrated soft core porn disguised as art. Was there supposed to be some
> kind of coming of age story in there somewhere ? Did the growing up take
> place when they learnt how to go down on a woman ? Why the hell did
> every one rave about this movie ?
welcome to maribel verdú? our very own celestine, still manages to get
me hard ons the bitch, ten million times fitter than shitty wannabes
like penelope cruz or eleonor watling. these two are so pathetic, so
disgusting, its amazing the projection they have. verdu is so goddam
fit she is the fittest of em all ever in spain.
and now on the civilised side, 27 horas is our own very terra trema,
workers at the docks unemployed, verdu a drug adict, in a vicious
circle. when under a good director, verdu is even better
but there's not much of a deal in y tu mama tambien. it just happened
to be liked in the u.s.. that dont make it good, that dont make it new
wave. it just means you dont get, you dont like foreign cinema.
and thats your fucking problem. shouldnt have put up those
protectionist measures and screwed up any fair chance of foreign films
reaching your countries.
we'll continue enjoying world cinema. and when we want to, we'll dub
it into our language. we'll see more; its fairer on the makers, a
pleasure for the viewers
Rebel without a Kenton
"damnfine" <damn...@ihug.com.au> wrote:
> "Rebel without a Kenton" wrote:
> > > That's the clear and unambiguous implication of your words, yes.
> >
> > There's no art in this film
>
> It's a piece of creative work.
It's an adaption of Debbie Does Dallas.
Rebel without a Kenton
"damnfine" <damn...@ihug.com.au> wrote:
> "Rebel without a Kenton" wrote:
> > > So something has to contain metaphor in order to be art?
> >
> > No, my defenition of art is something that touches people
>
> And I could say my definition of art is something that wears a little pink
> ribbon. If you're going to attach your own personal meanings to words all
> the time it kinda renders the whole concept of language completely useless.
But we're not just talking about any word, we're talking about art.
damnfine
> > > > That's the clear and unambiguous implication of your words, yes.
> > >
> > > There's no art in this film
> >
> > It's a piece of creative work.
>
> It's an adaption of Debbie Does Dallas.
No, it isn't. And if it was, it'd still be a piece of creative work.
damnfine
> > > No, my defenition of art is something that touches people
> >
> > And I could say my definition of art is something that wears a little
pink
> > ribbon. If you're going to attach your own personal meanings to words
all
> > the time it kinda renders the whole concept of language completely
useless.
>
> But we're not just talking about any word, we're talking about art.
It's still just a word. Yes, it has various definitions, but none of those
definitions is "what Kenton thinks touches people".
Rebel without a Kenton
"damnfine" <damn...@ihug.com.au> wrote:
> "Rebel without a Kenton" wrote:
> > > > No, my defenition of art is something that touches people
> > >
> > > And I could say my definition of art is something that wears a little
> pink
> > > ribbon. If you're going to attach your own personal meanings to words
> all
> > > the time it kinda renders the whole concept of language completely
> useless.
> >
> > But we're not just talking about any word, we're talking about art.
>
> It's still just a word. Yes, it has various definitions, but none of those
> definitions is "what Kenton thinks touches people".
I'm sorry you can't discern the difference between opinion and fact. I'm
merely expressing an opinion that Y Tu is pornography with no artistic
merit. You are yet to suggest anything to the contrary other than "it is
a piece of creative work"... which it is, but it isn't much of one.
If your point is that pornography is an art form of it's own then I
agree with you, but we're getting into semantics now and it's still an
overrated, shit movie pretending to be something more than it is.
damnfine
> > It's still just a word. Yes, it has various definitions, but none of
those
> > definitions is "what Kenton thinks touches people".
>
> I'm sorry you can't discern the difference between opinion and fact.
You stated your personal opinion as fact. Furthermore, you use the word
"art" in your own extremely limited sense without any kind of qualification.
> If your point is that pornography is an art form of it's own then I
> agree with you,
That isn't my argument, but it's surprising that you agree with it since
your original post indicates that you consider porn and art to be mutually
exclusive.
> but we're getting into semantics now and it's still an
> overrated, shit movie pretending to be something more than it is.
Or perhaps you just have shit taste.
The_Phantom
Rebel without a Kenton wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> She does one guy, she does another guy, then they all have a three way
> at the end. There is no point to it, no deep message, no subtext.
> Overrated soft core porn disguised as art. Was there supposed to be some
> kind of coming of age story in there somewhere ? Did the growing up take
> place when they learnt how to go down on a woman ? Why the hell did
> every one rave about this movie ?
At least it is 100 times better than the Overblown, CGI driven, Wooden
Acting that was called Matrix Revolutions.
Give me a film like Y Tu Mama Tambien anyday over that piece of
Hollywood Crap!!
Rebel without a Kenton
"damnfine" <damn...@ihug.com.au> wrote:
> "Rebel without a Kenton" wrote:
> > I'm sorry you can't discern the difference between opinion and fact.
>
> You stated your personal opinion as fact.
Wrong. see above.
> Furthermore, you use the word
> "art" in your own extremely limited sense without any kind of qualification.
Just as well we have people like you who are 'qualified' (at great
expense) to be able to deride that some guys cum landing in a swimming
pool is art.
> > If your point is that pornography is an art form of it's own then I
> > agree with you,
>
> That isn't my argument, but it's surprising that you agree with it since
> your original post indicates that you consider porn and art to be mutually
> exclusive.
At which point did I do that ?
Rebel without a Kenton
The_Phantom <ghostw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Why ? At least Matrix Revolutions had something you couldn't see
anywhere else.
damnfine
> > Furthermore, you use the word
> > "art" in your own extremely limited sense without any kind of
qualification.
>
> Just as well we have people like you who are 'qualified' (at great
> expense) to be able to deride that some guys cum landing in a swimming
> pool is art.
Ugh, I meant qualification as in "a restriction or modification", with
respect to your personal definition of the word "art", you twit. I wasn't
questioning YOUR personal qualifications. Although...
I'll assume that "deride" was a typo.
> > > If your point is that pornography is an art form of it's own then I
> > > agree with you,
> >
> > That isn't my argument, but it's surprising that you agree with it since
> > your original post indicates that you consider porn and art to be
mutually
> > exclusive.
>
> At which point did I do that ?
The subject line.
Chris Mayer
Just to be straight you think it is valid for someone to say The Mona
Lisa is not art, for example?
Rebel without a Kenton
"damnfine" <damn...@ihug.com.au> wrote:
> "Rebel without a Kenton" wrote:
> > > Furthermore, you use the word
> > > "art" in your own extremely limited sense without any kind of
> qualification.
> >
> > Just as well we have people like you who are 'qualified' (at great
> > expense) to be able to deride that some guys cum landing in a swimming
> > pool is art.
>
> Ugh, I meant qualification as in "a restriction or modification", with
> respect to your personal definition of the word "art", you twit. I wasn't
> questioning YOUR personal qualifications. Although...
I know what you meant, it was a play on words, reading into the subtext
of what you were saying.
>
> I'll assume that "deride" was a typo.
>
>
> > > > If your point is that pornography is an art form of it's own then I
> > > > agree with you,
> > >
> > > That isn't my argument, but it's surprising that you agree with it since
> > > your original post indicates that you consider porn and art to be
> mutually
> > > exclusive.
> >
> > At which point did I do that ?
>
> The subject line.
Oh yes because I use an equals sign must make it a mathamatical equation
(ie. fact) right ?
Seruhndipuhtee
"Rebel without a Kenton" <kobNOSPA...@kob.id.au> wrote in message
news:kobNOSPAMPLEASEE-16...@news.syd.swiftel.com.au...
> In article <40795...@news.iprimus.com.au>,
> "V01TeK" <voit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > It can, just in this case it isn't. There's no art in this movie.
> >
> > Every movie is art.
>
> Really ? What was artful about the close up of the cum floating in the
> swimming pool ? Was it like a metaphor for mankind or something ?
(s)cum always floats to the top ... very insightful remark on the human
condition ... or is that office politics, i forget :-)
Seruhndipuhtee
>
> And since art is subjective, you can't proove me wrong when I say Y Tu
> has no artistic merit whatsoever.
the problem with that argument is that you can't prove the other guy wrong
either ...
Rebel without a Kenton
Chris Mayer <chrism...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >No, my defenition of art is something that touches people, and with Y Tu
> >Mama Tambien the viewers will only be touching themselves - in the most
> >literal sense.
> >
> >And since art is subjective, you can't proove me wrong when I say Y Tu
> >has no artistic merit whatsoever.
>
> Just to be straight you think it is valid for someone to say The Mona
> Lisa is not art, for example?
Yes, since it's their own opinion. I would however disagree with them.
damnfine
> > Ugh, I meant qualification as in "a restriction or modification", with
> > respect to your personal definition of the word "art", you twit. I
wasn't
> > questioning YOUR personal qualifications. Although...
>
> I know what you meant, it was a play on words, reading into the subtext
> of what you were saying.
Sure it was.
Rebel without a Kenton
"damnfine" <damn...@ihug.com.au> wrote:
> "Rebel without a Kenton" wrote:
> > > Ugh, I meant qualification as in "a restriction or modification", with
> > > respect to your personal definition of the word "art", you twit. I
> wasn't
> > > questioning YOUR personal qualifications. Although...
> >
> > I know what you meant, it was a play on words, reading into the subtext
> > of what you were saying.
>
> Sure it was.
Whatever makes you feel better about yourself. dickhead.
Chris Mayer
So, just to be totally clear, you are saying there is nothing in the
world which can be classified objectively as art.
Rebel without a Kenton
Chris Mayer <chrism...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:42:59 +1000, Rebel without a Kenton
> <kobNOSPA...@kob.id.au> wrote:
>
> >In article <3mik70tkrr6pvek2s...@4ax.com>,
> > Chris Mayer <chrism...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >No, my defenition of art is something that touches people, and with Y Tu
> >> >Mama Tambien the viewers will only be touching themselves - in the most
> >> >literal sense.
> >> >
> >> >And since art is subjective, you can't proove me wrong when I say Y Tu
> >> >has no artistic merit whatsoever.
> >>
> >> Just to be straight you think it is valid for someone to say The Mona
> >> Lisa is not art, for example?
> >
> >Yes, since it's their own opinion. I would however disagree with them.
>
> So, just to be totally clear, you are saying there is nothing in the
> world which can be classified objectively as art.
Nope.
Chris Mayer
<kobNOSPA...@kob.id.au> wrote:
>In article <kpok70tb21sf4ej43...@4ax.com>,
> Chris Mayer <chrism...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:42:59 +1000, Rebel without a Kenton
>> <kobNOSPA...@kob.id.au> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3mik70tkrr6pvek2s...@4ax.com>,
>> > Chris Mayer <chrism...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >No, my defenition of art is something that touches people, and with Y Tu
>> >> >Mama Tambien the viewers will only be touching themselves - in the most
>> >> >literal sense.
>> >> >
>> >> >And since art is subjective, you can't proove me wrong when I say Y Tu
>> >> >has no artistic merit whatsoever.
>> >>
>> >> Just to be straight you think it is valid for someone to say The Mona
>> >> Lisa is not art, for example?
>> >
>> >Yes, since it's their own opinion. I would however disagree with them.
>>
>> So, just to be totally clear, you are saying there is nothing in the
>> world which can be classified objectively as art.
>
>Nope.
So clear me up then, what can be classifified objectively as art and
what can't?
meat n potatoes
> "Rebel without a Kenton" wrote:
> > at the end. There is no point to it, no deep message, no subtext.
> > Overrated soft core porn disguised as art. Was there supposed to be some
> > kind of coming of age story in there somewhere ? Did the growing up take
> > place when they learnt how to go down on a woman ? Why the hell did
> > every one rave about this movie ?
>
> and art? Why can't it be both?
because if it's art, it aint porn. porn is failed art.
larry legallo
<ftem...@nunsploitation.net.HABIT> wrote:
>For more information on nunsploitation films and the nunsploitation genre,
>check out the movie database at http://www.nunsploitaiton.net
Thanks. I finally have a decent rebuttal for when my grandfather says
the internet isn't good for anything.
V01TeK
> No, my defenition of art is something that touches people,
Now, that's a pretty stupid definition. Or are definitions subjective, too?
> And since art is subjective, you can't proove me wrong when I say Y Tu
> has no artistic merit whatsoever.
See above.
--
"Be your own God"
Chris
V01TeK
> So clear me up then, what can be classifified objectively as art and
> what can't?
It would appear that Kenton is saying the word "art" is meaningless, and
that we can all define it in our own way. Therefore, I can define art as
"caffeine" while my friend could define art as "zebra crossing"
V01TeK
> Why ? At least Matrix Revolutions had something you couldn't see
> anywhere else.
Yeah - the most ineptly handled third part ever. Truly unique.
Dgates
wrote:
>
>> Why ? At least Matrix Revolutions had something you couldn't see
>> anywhere else.
>
>Yeah - the most ineptly handled third part ever. Truly unique.
Really? I thought part 3 blew part 2 away. I was bored stiff during
part 2 and actually watched part 3 a second time the other night...
and enjoyed it again!
--
dga...@spamfreelinkline.com
Ian Galbraith
wrote:
>> No, my defenition of art is something that touches people,
>Now, that's a pretty stupid definition. Or are definitions subjective, too?
>> And since art is subjective, you can't proove me wrong when I say Y Tu
>> has no artistic merit whatsoever.
>See above.
Well porn touches me, maybe not in the places Kenton imagines but
under this definition it is art.
Ich Bin Eine Kenton
"V01TeK" <voit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why ? At least Matrix Revolutions had something you couldn't see
> > anywhere else.
>
> Yeah - the most ineptly handled third part ever. Truly unique.
Better than wrapping everything up in a neat little package ala LOTR.
V01TeK
>
> Better than wrapping everything up in a neat little package ala LOTR.
You'll have to explain how tying up the plot makes something an inferior
film.
Let's not forget that LOTR is fifty years old, shall we?
Dgates
wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Better than wrapping everything up in a neat little package ala LOTR.
>
>You'll have to explain how tying up the plot makes something an inferior
>film.
I really enjoyed most of the LOTR trilogy, but I will agree about the
"inevitable ending" part.
There is something a little tidy about a trilogy where, halfway
through the first film (and armed with the title of the third film),
we can figure out exactly how the whole thing will end.
>Let's not forget that LOTR is fifty years old, shall we?
That's true. It came before a lot of other similar stories, and yet
still rises above most of them.
But I still wouldn't have minded if something hadn't quite gone down
such a straight path. Heck, I was two thirds of the way through the
original Star Wars trilogy and I didn't know how it was going to end.
--
dga...@spamfreelinkline.com
John Harkness
wrote:
Neither did George Lucas.
John Harkness
Ian Galbraith
wrote:
[snip]
>I really enjoyed most of the LOTR trilogy, but I will agree about the
>"inevitable ending" part.
>There is something a little tidy about a trilogy where, halfway
>through the first film (and armed with the title of the third film),
>we can figure out exactly how the whole thing will end.
You knew that Frodo would claim the ring then Gollum would snatch it
from Frodo and fall to his death? Somehow I doubt that.
If you're referring to Sauron's inevitable defeat, well yes of course
he was always going to be defeated, the manner of it wasn't
predictable however. Neither was the extended epilogue where we see
the cost of victory.
[snip]
Ich Bin Eine Kenton
"V01TeK" <voit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Better than wrapping everything up in a neat little package ala LOTR.
>
> You'll have to explain how tying up the plot makes something an inferior
> film.
> Let's not forget that LOTR is fifty years old, shall we?
it's not an inferior film, just an inferior ending. Anyway, the plots
not the reason I like the Matrix Revolutions so I'm not going to get
into a debate on the story.
V01TeK
> he was always going to be defeated, the manner of it wasn't
> predictable however. Neither was the extended epilogue where we see
> the cost of victory.
This is all irrelevant, anyway! Kenton seems to think M:Rev is superior just
because its finale is so wilfully obscure as to make it unguessable. There
is no inherent superiority here, because if you could write off a movie by
the mere fact you knew the good guys were going to win most of us wouldn't
go to the movies.
Ich Bin Eine Kenton
"V01TeK" <voit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm not writing off the entire movie, just the ending, which is too
willfully obvious, long, and neatly concluded as to make it boring,
Dgates
>On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 15:01:17 -0700, Dgates <dga...@nospamlinkline.com>
>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>I really enjoyed most of the LOTR trilogy, but I will agree about the
>>"inevitable ending" part.
>
>>There is something a little tidy about a trilogy where, halfway
>>through the first film (and armed with the title of the third film),
>>we can figure out exactly how the whole thing will end.
>
>You knew that Frodo would claim the ring then Gollum would snatch it
>from Frodo and fall to his death? Somehow I doubt that.
Before I reply, keep in mind that I liked LOTR. I just wouldn't have
minded if there had been some more surprises in the final chapter.
That said: No, I didn't know that, right at the end, there would be
the one-minute scene you describe. For that one minute there, where
Frodo weakened, I thought "Now, THIS is interesting!" But then it was
quickly reversed and the moment was gone.
>If you're referring to Sauron's inevitable defeat, well yes of course
>he was always going to be defeated, the manner of it wasn't
>predictable however.
Well, they seemed to make it pretty clear. Throw the ring into that
lava. That's how ya do it, and that's the only way to do it.
A far cry from Luke defeating Vader but refusing to kill him and then
the... Well, you know.
>Neither was the extended epilogue where we see
>the cost of victory.
Again, keep in mind that I really enjoyed ROTK (and TTT) when I ask
this...
I remember the exteneded epilogue, but I don't recall what the cost of
victory was. Can you please remind me?
--
dga...@spamfreelinkline.com
Tony Whitaker
"Sex and Lucia"
"Baise Moi"
"Swimming Pool"
"Boogie Nights"
"Eyes Wide Shut"
Mucho much mo porno in these movies.
"V01TeK" <voit...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:407f6...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Ian Galbraith
wrote:[snip]
>>If you're referring to Sauron's inevitable defeat, well yes of course
>>he was always going to be defeated, the manner of it wasn't
>>predictable however.
>Well, they seemed to make it pretty clear. Throw the ring into that
>lava. That's how ya do it, and that's the only way to do it.
I meant that with Frodo claiming the ring and then fighting Gollum
there was an element of unpredictability.
>A far cry from Luke defeating Vader but refusing to kill him and then
>the... Well, you know.
Which was not believable.
>>Neither was the extended epilogue where we see
>>the cost of victory.
>Again, keep in mind that I really enjoyed ROTK (and TTT) when I ask
>this...
>I remember the exteneded epilogue, but I don't recall what the cost of
>victory was. Can you please remind me?
The passing of the elves, Frodo's inability to find peace. Although I
have to admit I'm probably reading more into these events from the
books.
Tony Whitaker
"Tony Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3SYgc.1122$gH6...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
meat n potatoes
life of jesus.
V01TeK
thought "Now, THIS is interesting!" But then it was
> quickly reversed and the moment was gone.
>
>
Reversed? He sails off in a ship to Valinor! His life is over!
> Well, they seemed to make it pretty clear. Throw the ring into that
> lava. That's how ya do it, and that's the only way to do it.
>
It wasn't exactly thrown in.
> A far cry from Luke defeating Vader but refusing to kill him and then
> the... Well, you know.
>
(original LOTR screenplay) SAURON: Frodo, I am your father.
>
> I remember the exteneded epilogue, but I don't recall what the cost of
> victory was. Can you please remind me?
Frodo dies!
(or lives, as the graffiti would have it)
Dgates
Spoilers for ROTK, I guess...
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:26:37 -0700, "V01TeK" <voit...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>thought "Now, THIS is interesting!" But then it was
>> quickly reversed and the moment was gone.
>>
>>
>
>Reversed? He sails off in a ship to Valinor! His life is over!
>
>>
>> I remember the exteneded epilogue, but I don't recall what the cost of
>> victory was. Can you please remind me?
>
>Frodo dies!
>(or lives, as the graffiti would have it)
Wow, I hate to be totally stupid, but...
Are you saying that somehow Frodo giving in for a minute and deciding
to keep the ring rather than throw it into the lava constituted his
"dying?" And that when he got on that ship, that was him dying?
I never got that feeling from watching the three films. It seemed to
me that going off on the ship with the elves represented eternal life,
or at least a much longer life than Frodo could expect by staying in
his little village.
So... Does getting on the ship means that Frodo *died*? Was there
something in the films to tell us that?
--
dga...@spamfreelinkline.com
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>Are you saying that somehow Frodo giving in for a minute and deciding
>to keep the ring rather than throw it into the lava constituted his
>"dying?" And that when he got on that ship, that was him dying?
>
>I never got that feeling from watching the three films. It seemed to
>me that going off on the ship with the elves represented eternal life,
>or at least a much longer life than Frodo could expect by staying in
>his little village.
>
>So... Does getting on the ship means that Frodo *died*? Was there
>something in the films to tell us that?
The mythic reference is obviously to King Arthur, who was transported,
wounded, to Avalon in a barge. In some versions, Arthur is dead &
carried to Avalon (the Isle of the Dead). Frodo is Arthur, Sam is Sir
Bedevere, Merlin is Gandalf, the three queens are the elves, the sword
Excalibur is Sting, etc. In some tellings of the myth, Arthur is dead
& carried to Avalon.
"Alas, my lord Arthur," Bedevere cried, "what shall become of me if ye
are leaving me lonely?"
"Comfort thyself," said the king in a faint voice, "and do as well as
thou mayest, for in me ye may no longer trust. For I will go into the
vale of Avalon to heal me of my grievous wound, and if thou hear never
more of me, pray for my soul."
Sir Bedevere stood watching till the barge went from his sight in the
mists of evening, and then he wept a little. . . . [Henry Gilbert's
"King Arthur's Knights"]
Dgates
>Dgates <dga...@nospamlinkline.com> wrote:
>
>>Are you saying that somehow Frodo giving in for a minute and deciding
>>to keep the ring rather than throw it into the lava constituted his
>>"dying?" And that when he got on that ship, that was him dying?
>>
>>I never got that feeling from watching the three films. It seemed to
>>me that going off on the ship with the elves represented eternal life,
>>or at least a much longer life than Frodo could expect by staying in
>>his little village.
>>
>>So... Does getting on the ship means that Frodo *died*? Was there
>>something in the films to tell us that?
>
>The mythic reference is obviously to King Arthur, who was transported,
>wounded, to Avalon in a barge. In some versions, Arthur is dead &
>carried to Avalon (the Isle of the Dead). Frodo is Arthur, Sam is Sir
>Bedevere, Merlin is Gandalf, the three queens are the elves, the sword
>Excalibur is Sting, etc. In some tellings of the myth, Arthur is dead
>& carried to Avalon.
I don't mean to be dense here, but are you saying that the information
that Frodo was dead or dying at the end of the third film is ONLY
conveyed by the viewer's memory of the Arthur legend -- that it's not
up there on the screen?
--
dga...@spamfreelinkline.com
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>I don't mean to be dense here, but are you saying that the information
>that Frodo was dead or dying at the end of the third film is ONLY
>conveyed by the viewer's memory of the Arthur legend -- that it's not
>up there on the screen?
Well, here's what I think: The third film doesn't clearly indicate
that Frodo is dying, although there's a little talk about the "old
wound" from the <ahem> uh ... ringwraiths? (did I get that name
right?) On top of that, Frodo's been carrying this evil little ring
for many months, undergoing all sorts of ordeals. One sort of has the
impression, after it's all over, that he is suffering more from
psychic wounds rather than physical -- wounds that don't necessarily
kill him, but <ahem> ... uh ... change him somehow ... ? He'll never
be the same old ... er ... young Frodo -- he has lost innocence. But,
heck, don't we all?
what am I doing talking about "The Return of the King"?
Thou
When European mythology refers to Faerie, Elves and a bunch of other
(mostly feminine) characters/deities, it is referencing aural record of a
pre-celtic Brone Age civilisation which existed where Ireland is today.
Very little remains of the matriarchal culture which once lived there
(their original language is wholly lost, only scraps of their religion(s)).
No, I'm not some new-age kook, these remains of this culture are well
documented.
Its more likely these folk were just assimilated and gradually usurped by
the expansionist Celts of sothern Europe, but their decline and
trancendence into myth had changed the symbolic meaning of the West and the
ocean in European mythology.
King Arther and countless other stories reference this.
Frodo's journey into the West represents his death, no two ways about it.
Going to Valinor aint a bad way to go though, in accordance with his martyr
status.
Incidentally, wasn't it Parsifal who farewelled Arthur?
I know most of this from reading:
"Occidental Mythology" - Joseph Campbell
"The Hero with 1000 Faces" - Joseph Campbell
"Germanic Legend and Fable" - G???
James
"Dgates" <dga...@nospamlinkline.com> wrote in message
news:2hkb80tq3stp694ak...@4ax.com...
>
> I don't mean to be dense here, but are you saying that the information
> that Frodo was dead or dying at the end of the third film is ONLY
> conveyed by the viewer's memory of the Arthur legend -- that it's not
> up there on the screen?
No No. None of that crap. V01Tek was taking the piss with his "Frodo dies!"
comment.
V01TeK
>
> Wow, I hate to be totally stupid, but...
>
> Are you saying that somehow Frodo giving in for a minute and deciding
> to keep the ring rather than throw it into the lava constituted his
> "dying?"
No. That was just the ring's power claiming him.
>And that when he got on that ship, that was him dying?
>
Metaphorically, yes.
> I never got that feeling from watching the three films.
That's easily understandable. It would have been hard for Peter Jackson to
make this explicit without either a clumsy dumbing down of the material, or
(more) lengthy expositional dialogue.
It seemed to
> me that going off on the ship with the elves represented eternal life,
> or at least a much longer life than Frodo could expect by staying in
> his little village.
>
Well, yes and no. I understand your misgivings if you haven't read the books
because Tolkien practically wrote a whole other book to explain the "going
over the seas" bit (the Silmarillion, not reccommended for the faint-hearted
or casual fans).
Yes, the elves will have a form of eternal life. Frodo will die eventually,
though, but the main point is that neither the elves nor Frodo will ever be
able to return. Frodo is, in effect, giving up the rest of his life for an
uncertain fate.
> So... Does getting on the ship means that Frodo *died*? Was there
> something in the films to tell us that?
>
Sort of, and yes. It was pretty clear the Frodo's life was no longer his own
to live and that it was a final goodbye.
V01TeK
> it's not an inferior film, just an inferior ending.
The ending of Matrix Revolutions was one of the worst parts in a long list
of crappy features.
Dgates
SPOILERS FOR MATRIX REVOLUTIONS...
SPOILERS FOR MATRIX REVOLUTIONS...
SPOILERS FOR MATRIX REVOLUTIONS...
SPOILERS FOR MATRIX REVOLUTIONS...
SPOILERS FOR MATRIX REVOLUTIONS...
SPOILERS FOR MATRIX REVOLUTIONS...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:41:07 -0700, "V01TeK" <voit...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> it's not an inferior film, just an inferior ending.
>
>The ending of Matrix Revolutions was one of the worst parts in a long list
>of crappy features.
You didn't like the ENDING? I mean, I can see not liking the long
battle scenes or the war cliches, or even the fact that in four hours
of combined parts 2 and 3, the films couldn't put in the effort to
really give us a sense of Smith taking over the *entire* Matrix,
but...
The ending of Neo giving up his life to make peace between the
machines and the humans didn't work for you?
I suppose, if you reply, we won't exactly be the first two guys ever
on Usenet to have this discussion. Maybe we should Google the
previous hundreds of guys first and see how the conversation will end.
:-)
--
dga...@spamfreelinkline.com
Dgates
wrote:
>> It seemed to
>> me that going off on the ship with the elves represented eternal life,
>> or at least a much longer life than Frodo could expect by staying in
>> his little village.
>>
>
>Well, yes and no. I understand your misgivings if you haven't read the books
>because Tolkien practically wrote a whole other book to explain the "going
>over the seas" bit (the Silmarillion, not reccommended for the faint-hearted
>or casual fans).
>Yes, the elves will have a form of eternal life. Frodo will die eventually,
>though, but the main point is that neither the elves nor Frodo will ever be
>able to return. Frodo is, in effect, giving up the rest of his life for an
>uncertain fate.
>
>> So... Does getting on the ship means that Frodo *died*? Was there
>> something in the films to tell us that?
>>
>
>Sort of, and yes. It was pretty clear the Frodo's life was no longer his own
>to live and that it was a final goodbye.
I'm with you there. It was clear that he had "grown" far beyond what
the hobbits in his village were likely to understand. A quiet growth
that, I suppose, comes with great pain. It reminded me of the quiet
De Niro returning from Vietnam in The Deer Hunter.
And I could also see that Frodo was "giving up the rest of his life
for an uncertain fate." But I didn't see that as a bad thing. I saw
it as him having transcended so much that he was ready to move to the
next level in some way.
I might compare it to Jonathan Livingston Seagull... which would be
odd, since the growth in that story was definitely accompanied by a
willingness to sacrifice everything in *this* life...
I'll have to rethink this a bit, since this all started with me
supporting the "neat little package" idea.
--
dga...@spamfreelinkline.com
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 15:01:17 -0700, Dgates <dga...@nospamlinkline.com>
>wrote:
>>But I still wouldn't have minded if something hadn't quite gone down
>>such a straight path. Heck, I was two thirds of the way through the
>>original Star Wars trilogy and I didn't know how it was going to end.
>
>Neither did George Lucas.
When I saw the first movie, I knew that everything in this epic space adventure
would eventually climax with Ewoks. It was Destiny. Or something.
--Kevin
Relaxification
> In article <c5bejj$2qi299$1...@ID-138038.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> "damnfine" <damn...@ihug.com.au> wrote:
>
> > "Rebel without a Kenton" wrote:
> > > She does one guy, she does another guy, then they all have a three way
> > > at the end. There is no point to it, no deep message, no subtext.
> > > Overrated soft core porn disguised as art. Was there supposed to be some
> > > kind of coming of age story in there somewhere ? Did the growing up take
> > > place when they learnt how to go down on a woman ? Why the hell did
> > > every one rave about this movie ?
> >
> > What the hell do you think you're doing assumg there's a line between porn
> > and art? Why can't it be both?
>
> It can, just in this case it isn't. There's no art in this movie. If you
> think there's art in giving horny people something to jerk off to with
> little to no substance or intention behind the imagery, then good for
> you.
I disagree. I found the film had a lot to say about class, for
example. Did you really think it was all about sex? I think the sex
was incidental to the rest of the film.
When you were 17 did you think about sex a lot? Did you have sex a
lot? I did. I thought the film captured that obsession nicely - the
way, when you're 17, you're either trying to get laid, or getting
laid. Or smoking pot. Or drinking.
To place the story in that milieu, then slide in class commentary and
spoiler
include the older woman's death at the end seemed to me nearly
perfect. What's life about if not eating, shitting, fucking, loving,
and dying?
Or, you could rent a porno, I guess...
V01TeK
>
> SPOILERS FOR MATRIX REVOLUTIONS...
> SPOILERS FOR MATRIX REVOLUTIONS...
> SPOILERS FOR MATRIX REVOLUTIONS...
> SPOILERS FOR MATRIX REVOLUTIONS...
> SPOILERS FOR MATRIX REVOLUTIONS...
> SPOILERS FOR MATRIX REVOLUTIONS...
>
>
>
>
>
> machines and the humans didn't work for you?
>
No. Hey, I might have cared more for Neo's sacrifice if I'd seen him
onscreen for more than half an hour (generous estimate). And the sacrifice
itself was poorly directed - the weight of the even was hardly depicted.
> I suppose, if you reply, we won't exactly be the first two guys ever
> on Usenet to have this discussion. Maybe we should Google the
> previous hundreds of guys first and see how the conversation will end.
Well, you can. I don't really care.
;) (obligatory winking smiley to show that I don't hate you or want to kill
you for liking the M:Rev. I'll just wink a lot)
V01TeK
>
> I'm with you there. It was clear that he had "grown" far beyond what
> the hobbits in his village were likely to understand. A quiet growth
> that, I suppose, comes with great pain. It reminded me of the quiet
> De Niro returning from Vietnam in The Deer Hunter.
>
Yes!
> And I could also see that Frodo was "giving up the rest of his life
> for an uncertain fate." But I didn't see that as a bad thing. I saw
> it as him having transcended so much that he was ready to move to the
> next level in some way.
>
Yes, that's one way of looking at it. It's not a "bad" thing, but it
certainly is bittersweet, whichever way you look at it.