Top Ten Signs You Have No Business Watching Movies......
PAVELB1
....because you obviously don't realize it's a movie.
1. You bitched about water being deadly to the aliens in Signs.
2. You said the weather couldn't possibly change that fast in Day
After Tomorrow.
3. You bitched about the events in U-571.
4. You bitched about Brits not being represented in Saving Private
Ryan.
5. You bitched about the virus upload in Independence Day.
6. You bitch about the so-called nobleness of the Indians in Dances
With Wolves.
7.
8.
9.
10.
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>2. You said the weather couldn't possibly change that fast in Day
>After Tomorrow.
I saw this the other night, & sat there thinking the weather wasn't
changing fast enough.
When, in the opening scene, the Dennis Quaid character jumps over
(twice) a chasm to retrieve some ice samples, & you think he couldn't
possibly do anything stupider, but then he does by trudging all the
way to Manhattan in an Ice Age, it's the kind of thing that makes a
viewer long for a tornado to land slap on him.
Grand Inquisitor
> 5. You bitched about the virus upload in Independence Day.
>
If you actually swallow the virus upload I'd argue that you have no
business watching movies.
> 6. You bitch about the so-called nobleness of the Indians in Dances
> With Wolves.
>
Right, because American Indians lived in total peace and harmony with
eachother and nature.....
7. You don't like Kubrick, Tarkovsky, Fellini, black and white, or
silent movies. (this one could come back to haunt me if I find out one
of my favorite directors didn't like any of these)
8. You've ever thought better of a movie than it deserved, strictly
because it was independent. (there ARE people who think this way)
9. You restrict your lists to just ten (why stop at ten? Because we
have a base ten number system?)
10. You thought poorly of a movie just because of its politics (i.e.,
Birth of a Nation bashers).
11. You thought poorly of a movie just because everybody else likes it.
--
"I like the cover: 'DON'T PANIC.' It's the first sensible thing I've
heard all day."
--Arthur Dent
Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost
PAVELB1
<zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>PAVELB1 wrote:
>> 5. You bitched about the virus upload in Independence Day.
>>
>
>If you actually swallow the virus upload I'd argue that you have no
>business watching movies.
Let me introduce you to the concept of 'Homage'
>
>> 6. You bitch about the so-called nobleness of the Indians in Dances
>> With Wolves.
>>
>
>Right, because American Indians lived in total peace and harmony with
>eachother and nature.....
I wasn't there so I don't know....but i know they certainly didn't in
Dances With Wolves.
>
>7. You don't like Kubrick, Tarkovsky, Fellini, black and white, or
>silent movies. (this one could come back to haunt me if I find out one
>of my favorite directors didn't like any of these)
>
>8. You've ever thought better of a movie than it deserved, strictly
>because it was independent. (there ARE people who think this way)
>
>9. You restrict your lists to just ten (why stop at ten? Because we
>have a base ten number system?)
>
>10. You thought poorly of a movie just because of its politics (i.e.,
>Birth of a Nation bashers).
>
>11. You thought poorly of a movie just because everybody else likes it.
Good Ones. Here's one related to 7)
12. If you don't realize that your favorite actor/actress/director has
nothing but praise for LOTR/Spielberg/Tarentino/Tom Hanks/Depp....and
if you told your favorite actor/actress/director about the ones you
despise, they would tell you to fuck off.
Grand Inquisitor
>>If you actually swallow the virus upload I'd argue that you have no
>>business watching movies.
>
>
> Let me introduce you to the concept of 'Homage'
>
Would this be the De Palma version of "homage"?
> Good Ones. Here's one related to 7)
>
Thank you. I try.
> 12. If you don't realize that your favorite actor/actress/director has
> nothing but praise for LOTR/Spielberg/Tarentino/Tom Hanks/Depp....and
> if you told your favorite actor/actress/director about the ones you
> despise, they would tell you to fuck off.
Debatable, some great directors have some down-right goofy tastes.
Billy Wilder liked Die Hard. Kubrick did not like Hitchcock's movies.
Peter Weir liked Godard, and I don't need to go there....
how...@brazee.net
On 8-Jun-2004, PAVELB1 <pav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 7.
We wish movie makers would think a little so that they make even more
entertaining movies without distracting us with such inane stupidity.
It isn't that hard.
Nick Macpherson
>1. You bitched about water being deadly to the aliens in Signs.
I did.
>2. You said the weather couldn't possibly change that fast in Day
>After Tomorrow.
>
I Did.
>3. You bitched about the events in U-571.
Yes.
>4. You bitched about Brits not being represented in Saving Private
>Ryan.
Yes. I'm detecting a pattern here.
>5. You bitched about the virus upload in Independence Day.
>
Oh my God yes!
.>6. You bitch about the so-called nobleness of the Indians in Dances
>With Wolves.
That one too.
Okay, I've got no business watching movies. I'll stop.
Nick Macpherson
>>2. You said the weather couldn't possibly change that fast in Day
>>After Tomorrow.
>
>I saw this the other night, & sat there thinking the weather wasn't
>changing fast enough.
>
>When, in the opening scene, the Dennis Quaid character jumps over
>(twice) a chasm to retrieve some ice samples, & you think he couldn't
>possibly do anything stupider, but then he does by trudging all the
>way to Manhattan in an Ice Age,
But it does provide Dennis Quaid with the immortal line, "I've walked that far
before in the snow."
Robert Keser
> PAVELB1 <pav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >2. You said the weather couldn't possibly change that fast in Day
> >After Tomorrow.
>
> I saw this the other night, & sat there thinking the weather wasn't
> changing fast enough.
What struck me was that Emmerich was pumping out the hoariest
emotional climaxes (as shameless as the plane flying serum to save
the life of Carole Lombard and James Stewart's son in Made For
Each Other), only they can't withstand real scrutiny. So, when
the ambulance driver shows up to rescue "Peter Pan", it takes only
a second to start thinking: Where are they going to take him? He's
in the freakin' hospital already, and that's now deserted and the
whole city is abandoned.
>
>
> When, in the opening scene, the Dennis Quaid character jumps over
> (twice) a chasm to retrieve some ice samples, & you think he couldn't
> possibly do anything stupider, but then he does by trudging all the
> way to Manhattan in an Ice Age, it's the kind of thing that makes a
> viewer long for a tornado to land slap on him.
The same way, when Quaid phones to say Dad's coming, the
inescapable thought is: What's he going to do when he gets there?
How can he possibly make everything all right? (If you ask me,
Emmerich missed out on a fine opportunity to shift genres and
introduce global-warming-based cannibalism).
Or is Emmerich pulling a Verhoeven, brassing off all the script's
clichés like "Show Girls" did?
--Bob Keser
Nick Macpherson
>What struck me was that Emmerich was pumping out the hoariest
>emotional climaxes (as shameless as the plane flying serum to save
>the life of Carole Lombard and James Stewart's son in Made For
>Each Other), only they can't withstand real scrutiny. So, when
>the ambulance driver shows up to rescue "Peter Pan", it takes only
>a second to start thinking: Where are they going to take him? He's
>in the freakin' hospital already, and that's now deserted and the
>whole city is abandoned.
>
Not to mention those Russian cosmonauts stuck on the space station rhapsodizing
on the pollution-free beauty of post-disaster Earth, just like Major Tom in
Bowie's "Space Oddity": "Planet Earth is blue and there's nothing I can do."
PAVELB1
>> When, in the opening scene, the Dennis Quaid character jumps over
>> (twice) a chasm to retrieve some ice samples, & you think he couldn't
>> possibly do anything stupider, but then he does by trudging all the
>> way to Manhattan in an Ice Age, it's the kind of thing that makes a
>> viewer long for a tornado to land slap on him.
>
>The same way, when Quaid phones to say Dad's coming, the
>inescapable thought is: What's he going to do when he gets there?
>How can he possibly make everything all right? (If you ask me,
>Emmerich missed out on a fine opportunity to shift genres and
>introduce global-warming-based cannibalism).
>
At one point i thought the film was going to take a hard right turn
into reality, and tanks were gonna start rolling into Mexico.
A more interesting film would be The Day after The Day After Tomorrow.
madkevin
"Grand Inquisitor" <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:FRmxc.6147$ih7...@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
....
>
> 7. You don't like Kubrick, Tarkovsky, Fellini, black and white, or
> silent movies...
Or "Singin' In The Rain".
Kevin "But Always... Dignity!" Cogliano
Robert Keser
Right, but then you'd have to hack off the last ten feel-good minutes.
Or the last half hour, if you count the end credits (which reveal,
by the way, that the whole shebang was largely produced in
Montreal).
--Bob Keser
Robert Keser
Were they supposed to be cosmonauts? I couldn't figure out if
the crew was just a multi-culti conglomeration of nationalities,
or were Americans re-enacting "Marooned" while talking a little
funny, or what. (It ain't all my fault, though: I missed a few minutes
here and there from making *three* separate trips to complain
that a big smear of dust was obscuring a good quarter of the
screen).
--Bob Keser
Nick Macpherson
>> Not to mention those Russian cosmonauts stuck on the space station
>rhapsodizing
>> on the pollution-free beauty of post-disaster Earth, just like Major Tom in
>> Bowie's "Space Oddity": "Planet Earth is blue and there's nothing I can
>do."
>
>Were they supposed to be cosmonauts? I couldn't figure out if
>the crew was just a multi-culti conglomeration of nationalities,
>or were Americans re-enacting "Marooned" while talking a little
>funny, or what.
They started out as a multi-culti crew but by the end of the movie they all
sounded like Russians. It's just one of those things that happens in The Day
After Tomorrow, like those wolves that start out as routine captive zoo wolves
but mutate into glowing eyed CGI monsters straight out of LOTR or Harry Potter.
Your Pal Brian
> Okay, I've got no business watching movies. I'll stop.
It's really just a waste of time anyway.
Brian
Brigid Nelson
>
>
>>3. You bitched about the events in U-571.
>
>
> Yes.
>
And rightly so. U-571 was a glorified Star Trek episode.
brigid
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>They started out as a multi-culti crew but by the end of the movie they all
>sounded like Russians. It's just one of those things that happens in The Day
>After Tomorrow, like those wolves that start out as routine captive zoo wolves
>but mutate into glowing eyed CGI monsters straight out of LOTR or Harry Potter.
I thought they were werewolves!
Someone sent me off to see the movie because there was a tsunami in
it. Imagine my relative disappointment when I see a wind-generated
storm surge instead! Beforehand, I knew the movie was about
meteorological phenomena, so I was wondering how they were going to
work a tsunami into the story. Sure enough, they actually didn't.
--
Hope, Joy, Youth, Peace, Rest, Life, Dust,
Ashes, Waste, Want, Ruin, Despair, Madness,
Death, Cunning, Folly, Words, Wigs, Rags,
Sheepskin, Plunder, Precedent, Jargon, Gammon, and Spinach
Ms.Goodwrench
news:j31cc05v7vseitilh...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:39:49 GMT, Grand Inquisitor
> <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>PAVELB1 wrote:
>>
>>> 6. You bitch about the so-called nobleness of the Indians in Dances
>>> With Wolves.
>>>
>>
>>Right, because American Indians lived in total peace and harmony with
>>eachother and nature.....
>
> I wasn't there so I don't know....but i know they certainly didn't in
> Dances With Wolves.
>>
Folks seem to forget the Pawnees that are shown killing Stands With a
Fist's family in flashback. The extended version also shows a more
brutal celebration of the Lakotas, complete with body parts hanging from
a tree.
Why are Pawnees always portrayed as The Bad Indians? If I was Pawnee,
that would piss me off.
--
Ms.Goodwrench
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for
'entrepreneur'." - George W. Bush
Grand Inquisitor
> Were they supposed to be cosmonauts? I couldn't figure out if
> the crew was just a multi-culti conglomeration of nationalities,
> or were Americans re-enacting "Marooned" while talking a little
> funny, or what. (It ain't all my fault, though: I missed a few minutes
> here and there from making *three* separate trips to complain
> that a big smear of dust was obscuring a good quarter of the
> screen).
>
> --Bob Keser
>
>
I would have requested more dust.
Grand Inquisitor
>>7. You don't like Kubrick, Tarkovsky, Fellini, black and white, or
>>silent movies...
>
>
> Or "Singin' In The Rain".
What is so great about Singin' in the Rain? It's just singing and
dancing, how does that make a movie? You make such a big deal out of
it, so defend it.
Nick Macpherson
>> Okay, I've got no business watching movies. I'll stop.
>
>It's really just a waste of time anyway.
Yeah, I know. I had a good go of it while it lasted. But I really don't have
any business watching movies if I can't appreciate cinematic glories like
Signs, Independence Day, U-571 and The Day After Tomorrow. I'll stop watching
movies now before the situation progresses to the point I say something about
how Singin' In the Rain isn't any good because it's just people singing and
dancing. From now on, it's Balzac novels and Doctor Who tapes for me.
madkevin
> madkevin wrote:
> >>7. You don't like Kubrick, Tarkovsky, Fellini, black and white, or
> >>silent movies...
> >
> >
> > Or "Singin' In The Rain".
>
> What is so great about Singin' in the Rain? It's just singing and
> dancing, how does that make a movie? You make such a big deal out of
> it, so defend it.
Well, Shakespeare is mostly words, and Tarkovsky is only a bunch of photographs.
Same difference, right?
"Singing and dancing" doesn't make a movie - it makes a "musical". Some people -
by which I mean, some people who aren't you - might even consider that the
*definition* of a musical, in the same way that spaceships signal
"science-fiction" and the words "Directed By Joel Schumacher" indicate a
steaming pile of shit.
So, let's start there: "Singin' In The Rain" is a musical. Now, if you don't
like musicals, then I can't (or, more specifically, won't) help you. If you find
no pleasure in people singing, dancing, and occassionally singing while they're
dancing, then you're clearly hopeless. Let's assume you're not a complete
retard, though, and talk about what makes "Singin' In The Rain" the best musical
of all time:
1) The songs. I can't stress this enough, but the songs kick ass. Even the
glaring rip-off that is "Make 'Em Laugh" is a corker. "Singin' In The Rain"
actually started life as an excuse to trot out the back catalogue of some of the
old MGM tunes; amazingly, they wrote the movie around what songs they wanted to
use. (Which is why that the songs only have a tangental relationship to the
story, unlike most MGM musicals). Which leads me to...
2) The story: The real stroke of genius of "Singin' In The Rain" is that they
chose to set it during a tremendously interesting period of Hollywood history -
the sounds revolution. This affords the movie with some rich comedy veins to
mine, my favourite being the screening of the costume romance picture where the
sounds goes horribly out of synch. But that's just the wrapper for a standard
boy-meets-girl story, with the boy charmingly played by Gene Kelly and the girl
being the heart-stoppingly adorable Debbie Renyolds. Like "Casablanca", or
"Citizen Kane", "Singin' In The Rain" is one of those films that is literally
perfectly cast - was Jean Hagen ever funnier? Or Donald O'Connor? The story,
thankfully, doesn't take itself particularily seriously, which gives the movie
plenty of time for...
3) The dancing: And what dancing! "Singin' In The Rain" is like a primer for
every possible cool form of dance - the vaudeville wackiness of "Make 'Em Laugh"
or "Moses Supposes", ballet (with the growl-inducing Cyd Charisse, no less!),
the Busby-Berkeley "Broadway Melody" segment, tap, jazz, and every combination
thereof. But the heart of the movie is as simple as it is perfect: Gene Kelly,
dancing and singing on a soundstage pouring with Hollywood rain, discovering the
magical line between dancing and splashing around in a puddle. Is there any
scene, in any movie, better or more famous than that?
No doubt, none of this will impress you for reasons which, luckily, I can't
fathom. But if you don't like "Singin' In The Rain", you may want to question
why you even watch movies in the first place.
Kevin "Donen" Cogliano
Grand Inquisitor
> So, let's start there: "Singin' In The Rain" is a musical. Now, if you don't
> like musicals, then I can't (or, more specifically, won't) help you. If you find
> no pleasure in people singing, dancing, and occassionally singing while they're
> dancing, then you're clearly hopeless. Let's assume you're not a complete
> retard, though, and talk about what makes "Singin' In The Rain" the best musical
> of all time:
>
I don't like musicals. I just can't get into them. I don't demand
absolute realism, but musicals are just hokey.
> No doubt, none of this will impress you for reasons which, luckily, I can't
> fathom. But if you don't like "Singin' In The Rain", you may want to question
> why you even watch movies in the first place.
I also don't see why people view musicals as being a part of cinema.
Musicals are from the stage, putting them on screen isn't anything
special, no matter how intricate the dancing or camerawork.
madkevin
> I also don't see why people view musicals as being a part of cinema.
> Musicals are from the stage, putting them on screen isn't anything
> special, no matter how intricate the dancing or camerawork.
Drama is "from the stage", so I guess those don't count either? Honestly, at
this stage I can't tell if you're really serious, or you're just pulling my leg.
But quite frankly, if you ARE being serious, you are beyond all hope.
Kevin "Here There Be Tygers" Cogliano
PAVELB1
wrote:
I didn't say you had to appreciate them....you do however need to be
able to recognize homages and not criticize works of fiction for not
including other nationalities soldiers in the film when there's no
reason too.
Tom Baker rocks.
jayembee
> PAVELB1 wrote:
>> 5. You bitched about the virus upload in Independence Day.
>
> If you actually swallow the virus upload I'd argue that
> you have no business watching movies.
I didn't swallow it by any means, but I'm willing to give
it a pass. It's so obviously a clever -- or at least it
would've been clever if Devlin and Emmerich hadn't been so
ham-handed about it -- modern-day update for the Martians
being defeated by bacteria in THE WAR OF THE WORLDS (of
which ID4 is so transparently a remake).
-- jayembee
jayembee
> madkevin wrote:
>
>>> 7. You don't like Kubrick, Tarkovsky, Fellini, black
>>> and white, or silent movies...
>>
>> Or "Singin' In The Rain".
>
> What is so great about Singin' in the Rain? It's just
> singing and dancing, how does that make a movie?
OK, Quis. I've had some amount of respect for your opinions
here and in other newsgroups, but this comment was just...
well...no getting around it, I guess...one of the dumbest
comments I've read on Usenet in a long time.
Nota bene: It's not that you apparently don't like SITR
that I find dumb -- some films, no matter how revered,
just don't do it for some people (I, myself, don't like
GONE WITH THE WIND or THE GODFATHER).
It's the second comment. Saying SITR is "just singing and
dancing" is like saying that 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is just
monkeys and spaceships.
-- jayembee
Grand Inquisitor
Drama is more universal. I wouldn't film somebody's magic act and call
it "cinema."
And I am being dead serious. I worry about *you*.
--
"Waddup peeps? Let's get this Constizzitutional Party started!"
--Madison
Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost
Grand Inquisitor
larry legallo
<zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>madkevin wrote:
>> So, let's start there: "Singin' In The Rain" is a musical. Now, if you don't
>> like musicals, then I can't (or, more specifically, won't) help you. If you find
>> no pleasure in people singing, dancing, and occassionally singing while they're
>> dancing, then you're clearly hopeless. Let's assume you're not a complete
>> retard, though, and talk about what makes "Singin' In The Rain" the best musical
>> of all time:
>>
>
>I don't like musicals. I just can't get into them. I don't demand
>absolute realism,
Seeing that you're a Star Trek fan, I should hope not.
>but musicals are just hokey.
But Ghost of Mars is a cerebral feast?
>> No doubt, none of this will impress you for reasons which, luckily, I can't
>> fathom. But if you don't like "Singin' In The Rain", you may want to question
>> why you even watch movies in the first place.
>
>I also don't see why people view musicals as being a part of cinema.
When it's filmed with a motion picture camera, and then shown to
people on a big screen in a movie theater, that makes it part of
cinema.
>Musicals are from the stage,
Nearly all Kubrick movies are from books. So what?
>putting them on screen isn't anything
>special, no matter how intricate the dancing or camerawork.
Oh, grow up.
madkevin
> Drama is more universal. I wouldn't film somebody's magic act and call
> it "cinema."
You'd be wrong. If you film it, it's cinema. That's what "cinema" means. It may
not be GOOD cinema, but you can bet your ass it's a fucking movie.
Plus: Drama is more universal than SINGING or DANCING? Once again, you've proven
me wrong: THAT is ABSOLUTELY the DUMBEST THING YOU'VE EVER SAID. It may in fact
be in the running for the dumbest thing ever said by anybody since the beginning
of Usenet. Is there any culture on the entire PLANET that doesn't sing or dance?
Isn't music considered to be, literally, the universal language? Do you honestly
think cultures were ACTING IN PLAYS before they were SINGING AND DANCING????
Seriously, ARE YOU ON CRACK RIGHT NOW????????
>
> And I am being dead serious. I worry about *you*.
I can't imagine why.
Kevin "I MEAN, COME ON!!!!" Cogliano
madkevin
> I'm just saying what everybody else is too brain-washed to realize.
If one or two persons disagree with you, maybe. When every single person in the
history of ever disagrees with you, then you pretty much have to admit the
possibility that you're dead, dead wrong.
But, please, use that big throbbing brain of yours to tell us why we're all so
brainwashed by one of the most joyous, purely entertaining movies of all time.
Unless, of course, you merely think things are true simply because you, Jacob,
say them.
Kevin "Escape From The Planet Of The Robots!" Cogliano
how...@brazee.net
me, but it isn't movies. I separate out fantasy from reality.
In the same way, I have no problem watching musicals. It's entertainment
like going to a concert is. Just because people are pretending it's
happening in real life doesn't make the singing and dancing less
entertaining. I think the opposite is true.
And I can still enjoy a horror movie without believing I am in danger.
Grand Inquisitor
> You'd be wrong. If you film it, it's cinema. That's what "cinema" means. It may
> not be GOOD cinema, but you can bet your ass it's a fucking movie.
>
Technically, yes, but just putting something on film is not making it
organic to the art form.
> Plus: Drama is more universal than SINGING or DANCING? Once again, you've proven
> me wrong: THAT is ABSOLUTELY the DUMBEST THING YOU'VE EVER SAID. It may in fact
> be in the running for the dumbest thing ever said by anybody since the beginning
> of Usenet. Is there any culture on the entire PLANET that doesn't sing or dance?
> Isn't music considered to be, literally, the universal language? Do you honestly
> think cultures were ACTING IN PLAYS before they were SINGING AND DANCING????
> Seriously, ARE YOU ON CRACK RIGHT NOW????????
>
Once again my words are misunderstood. Perhaps it's my fault for not
clarifying but I've always valued eloquence. When I said "drama is more
universal" I meant it was more universal AMONG THE ARTS. You can have
drama on the written page, but not singing or dancing (well, not very
successfully anyway).
--
You think you've figured me out but you haven't. ;-)
Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost
Grand Inquisitor
>>I don't like musicals. I just can't get into them. I don't demand
>>absolute realism,
>
>
> Seeing that you're a Star Trek fan, I should hope not.
>
I get the feeling there's an indirect implication, apart from Star
Trek's lack of realism, going on here.
>
>>but musicals are just hokey.
>
>
> But Ghost of Mars is a cerebral feast?
>
So you aren't a fan of at least a few less-then-cerebral movies? I used
to be like that. I eschewed anything that wasn't on the level of
Kubrick or Tarkovsky (yes, I mention them a lot), but after a while I
softened and my understanding of the art expanded. I started liking
Star Trek, for one.
>>I also don't see why people view musicals as being a part of cinema.
>
>
> When it's filmed with a motion picture camera, and then shown to
> people on a big screen in a movie theater, that makes it part of
> cinema.
>
I meant people act like musicals are intrinsic to film, as if they
somehow expand the limits of the medium, like Keaton did with film
comedy or Tarkovsky did with introspection and time.
I disagree, even the most complex Busby Berkely sequence is, to me,
nothing more than a stage act in front of a camera. I kind of like the
Harry Potter movies, but I don't treat them as serious movies, I treat
them like what they are, novels put on the screen.
Grand Inquisitor
> If one or two persons disagree with you, maybe. When every single person in the
> history of ever disagrees with you, then you pretty much have to admit the
> possibility that you're dead, dead wrong.
>
PLENTY of people don't like musicals.
> But, please, use that big throbbing brain of yours to tell us why we're all so
> brainwashed by one of the most joyous, purely entertaining movies of all time.
> Unless, of course, you merely think things are true simply because you, Jacob,
> say them.
I, Jacob, do not believe something is true because I say it is.
Otherwise I would say "I'm holding a million dollars" and :::poof::: it
would appear. But when I say something with conviction you can believe
I've given it serious thought.
Put it this way, I can like the music in a musical. I can admire the
skill of the dancers. But that's where it stops. I never find myself
admiring the camerawork in a musical, or the photography, or the acting,
or the script, or the editing, or the pacing, or any of the other things
that make a movie a movie.
Your Pal Brian
> > Drama is more universal. I wouldn't film somebody's magic act and call
> > it "cinema."
>
> You'd be wrong. If you film it, it's cinema. That's what "cinema" means. It may
> not be GOOD cinema, but you can bet your ass it's a fucking movie.
>
He should check out The Mystery of Picasso even though (and I'm just guessing here,
but I think I'm right) he doesn't like Picasso.
Brian
madkevin
> Once again my words are misunderstood. Perhaps it's my fault for not
> clarifying but I've always valued eloquence. When I said "drama is more
> universal" I meant it was more universal AMONG THE ARTS.
In that case, it's STILL not more universal than SINGING AND DANCING, which are
ALSO ART FORMS. How's that for eloquence?
Kevin "How Do You Get To Carnegie Hall?" Cogliano
madkevin
> madkevin wrote:
> > If one or two persons disagree with you, maybe. When every single person in
the
> > history of ever disagrees with you, then you pretty much have to admit the
> > possibility that you're dead, dead wrong.
> >
>
> PLENTY of people don't like musicals.
PLENTY of people like Limp Biskit. So what? But try and find another real film
nut who doesn't like "Singin' In The Rain".
>
> > But, please, use that big throbbing brain of yours to tell us why we're all
so
> > brainwashed by one of the most joyous, purely entertaining movies of all
time.
> > Unless, of course, you merely think things are true simply because you,
Jacob,
> > say them.
>
> I, Jacob, do not believe something is true because I say it is.
> Otherwise I would say "I'm holding a million dollars" and :::poof::: it
> would appear. But when I say something with conviction you can believe
> I've given it serious thought.
What I believe is you've given it what you think is serious thought. That's not
exactly the same thing.
>
> Put it this way, I can like the music in a musical. I can admire the
> skill of the dancers. But that's where it stops. I never find myself
> admiring the camerawork in a musical, or the photography, or the acting,
> or the script, or the editing, or the pacing, or any of the other things
> that make a movie a movie.
So, then, is that the fault of the movie.... or you?
Let me put it this way: What would you think of somebody who said exactly the
same thing you said about, say, Westerns: "I can like the horses in a Western. I
can admire the skill of the gunfights. But I never find myself admiring the
camerwork in a Western, or the photography, or the acting, or the script, or the
editing, or the pacing, or any of the other things that make a movie a movie."
(Feel free to replace 'Western' with "gangster movie", or "crime drama", or
"screwball comedy", or "neo-realist film", or LITERALLY ANY OTHER POSSIBLE MOVIE
GENRE.) Wouldn't you - rightfully - think that person was an idiot?
You still haven't explained why we're all brainwashed. Surely you can easily
surmise the answer to such a trivial question, even to us po' dumb folks?
Kevin "Manchurian" Cogliano
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>So you aren't a fan of at least a few less-then-cerebral movies? I used
>to be like that. I eschewed anything that wasn't on the level of
>Kubrick or Tarkovsky (yes, I mention them a lot),
Yes, you do.
>I meant people act like musicals are intrinsic to film, as if they
>somehow expand the limits of the medium, like Keaton did with film
>comedy or Tarkovsky did with introspection and time.
Aren't you about 16 million miles off the track? Or are you actually
implying that you dislike "Singin' in the Rain" because it's not
"intrinsic to film"? Have you been reading Siegfried Kracauer?
>I disagree, even the most complex Busby Berkely sequence is, to me,
>nothing more than a stage act in front of a camera.
I'd love to see a play from all sides of the action, including the
top! What theater do _you_ go to?
Stephen Cooke
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, madkevin wrote:
>
> > Drama is more universal. I wouldn't film somebody's magic act and call
> > it "cinema."
>
> You'd be wrong. If you film it, it's cinema. That's what "cinema" means. It may
> not be GOOD cinema, but you can bet your ass it's a fucking movie.
You mean Penn And Teller Get Killed?
swac
jayembee
> I'm just saying what everybody else is too brain-washed
> to realize.
Arguing that "everybody else is too brain-washed" because they
happen to love a well-regarded movie is just as specious an
argument as someone else claiming that someone who doesn't
like the same movie is "just being contrary" or "doesn't
want to look like just one of the sheep".
Pick *any* highly-regarded film or filmmaker -- CITIZEN KANE
or SEVEN SAMURAI, Kubrick or Fellini -- and if Person A gushes
with admiration for them, there's going to be a Person B who
thinks Person A is just "brain-washed".
-- jayembee
Grand Inquisitor
> "Grand Inquisitor" <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:2J8yc.28534$Oa7....@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
>
>
>>Once again my words are misunderstood. Perhaps it's my fault for not
>>clarifying but I've always valued eloquence. When I said "drama is more
>>universal" I meant it was more universal AMONG THE ARTS.
>
>
> In that case, it's STILL not more universal than SINGING AND DANCING, which are
> ALSO ART FORMS. How's that for eloquence?
Drama spans across all art forms. Singing and dancing do not.
Grand Inquisitor
No, I don't. I have no respect for avant-garde, one of the greatest art
hoaxes ever perpetrated. One day, hundreds of years from now, painters
and sculptors will look back and wonder what in the heck made otherwise
intelligent people accept such dreck as genuine art.
Grand Inquisitor
>>I meant people act like musicals are intrinsic to film, as if they
>>somehow expand the limits of the medium, like Keaton did with film
>>comedy or Tarkovsky did with introspection and time.
>
>
> Aren't you about 16 million miles off the track? Or are you actually
> implying that you dislike "Singin' in the Rain" because it's not
> "intrinsic to film"? Have you been reading Siegfried Kracauer?
>
I dislike Singin' in the Rain because I don't care for musicals, on the
stage or otherwise. I'm also making the argument that musical movies
are an island unto themselves, they don't really have much to do with
the art form. Let me Google this Siegfried guy...no, I am have not read
anything by this guy.
>
>>I disagree, even the most complex Busby Berkely sequence is, to me,
>>nothing more than a stage act in front of a camera.
>
>
> I'd love to see a play from all sides of the action, including the
> top! What theater do _you_ go to?
I don't go to the theater. Plays hold little appeal for me.
Grand Inquisitor
> PLENTY of people like Limp Biskit. So what? But try and find another real film
> nut who doesn't like "Singin' In The Rain".
>
Here's one who doesn't. Why do I need to find another? Singin' in the
Rain didn't impress me, it didn't make me laugh, it almost made me fall
asleep at certain parts but I kept slogging through it because of all
the praise. What was entertaining about it? What does this movie offer
apart from singing and dancing? What more do you want me to say?
Instead of demanding that I explain why I don't like it, how about
explaining why on earth this dull movie is put on top ten lists with the
likes of 8 1/2 and City Lights?
>>I, Jacob, do not believe something is true because I say it is.
>>Otherwise I would say "I'm holding a million dollars" and :::poof::: it
>>would appear. But when I say something with conviction you can believe
>>I've given it serious thought.
>
>
> What I believe is you've given it what you think is serious thought. That's not
> exactly the same thing.
>
So now it's down to insulting my intelligence?
> Let me put it this way: What would you think of somebody who said exactly the
> same thing you said about, say, Westerns: "I can like the horses in a Western. I
> can admire the skill of the gunfights. But I never find myself admiring the
> camerwork in a Western, or the photography, or the acting, or the script, or the
> editing, or the pacing, or any of the other things that make a movie a movie."
> (Feel free to replace 'Western' with "gangster movie", or "crime drama", or
> "screwball comedy", or "neo-realist film", or LITERALLY ANY OTHER POSSIBLE MOVIE
> GENRE.) Wouldn't you - rightfully - think that person was an idiot?
>
I would tell them to see Stagecoach, the Searchers, and the Good, the
Bad, and the Ugly. If they *still* said the same thing, I'd leave them
in peace but I wouldn't think they were an idiot. As I said, some of
the best directors have very different opinions on certain movies than I
do, so if I made those kinds of ultimatums then I'd be calling a lot of
great directors "idiots."
> You still haven't explained why we're all brainwashed. Surely you can easily
> surmise the answer to such a trivial question, even to us po' dumb folks?
>
That is what puzzles me. By all rights Singin in the Rain should have
been forgotten years ago. Why do people like you still take it seriously?
jayembee
> PLENTY of people don't like musicals.
And I used to be one of them. I got better.
> Put it this way, I can like the music in a musical. I can
> admire the skill of the dancers. But that's where it stops.
> I never find myself admiring the camerawork in a musical,
> or the photography, or the acting, or the script, or the
> editing, or the pacing, or any of the other things that
> make a movie a movie.
God only knows why. I certainly notice, pay attention to,
and admire all those things in musicals. Even if you argue
that the camera is typically static during a musical number,
and that there's no real acting per se going on during them,
etc., etc., musicals aren't wall to wall singing and dancing.
There are substantial sequences in between the musical numbers
that are no different in terms of cinematography, editing,
dialogue, acting, and so forth than in any non-musical film.
Since your issue is with musicals in general, and not SITR
in particular, let's examine a different musical -- one
that's completely divorced from the Arthur Freed style of
MGM musical.
Ever see the 1936 version of SHOW BOAT? Would you really
argue that the James Whale who directed FRANKENSTEIN, BRIDE
OF FRANKENSTEIN, and THE INVISIBLE MAN suddenly lost his
ability to block and pace a film because he's now doing a
musical? Would you really argue that the moody camerawork
of John Mescall for BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN and MAGNIFICENT
OBSESSION, suddenly became pedestrian when he worked on
SHOW BOAT? Would you really argue that Irene Dunne doesn't
act her heart out as much in SHOW BOAT as she does in any
of her other films?
Damn. I think I just talked myself into rewatching it tonight.
-- jayembee
Robert D. Mahan
You think you're something special, but you're not. ;-)
>
> Grand Inquisitor
> http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost
jayembee
> I meant people act like musicals are intrinsic to film,
> as if they somehow expand the limits of the medium, like
> Keaton did with film comedy or Tarkovsky did with
> introspection and time.
You can't compare a genre with a person. For your analogies
to work, you have to say something like:
"I meant people act like...Donen somehow expanded the limits
of the musical like Keaton did with film comedy or Tarkovsky
did with introspection and time."
or
"I meant people act like musicals...somehow expand the limits
of the medium, like film comedy or introspection and time."
> I disagree, even the most complex Busby Berkely sequence
> is, to me, nothing more than a stage act in front of a
> camera.
Nonsense. One of the more common characteristics of a Busby
Berkley sequence, for example, are overhead shots of the
numbers, something that a person in the audience of a stage
musical not only does not get, but *can*not get.
If anything, this is underscored by the Berkley parody in
THE PRODUCERS, during the "Springtime for Hitler" number,
in which we, as the film audience, see an overhead shot of
the chorus line forming a swastika: something that the
stage audience in the film simply could not see. It's a
purely cinematic trope in a scene that's supposed to be
of a stage presentation, because it only makes sense to
the film audience.
Even if you were right about the film musical not expanding
the limits of film, there's still the point that the film
musical expands the limits of the musical. And it does it
in a purely *cinematic* fashion, which makes it as much
cinema as any other movie you care to name.
-- jayembee
Grand Inquisitor
>>You think you've figured me out but you haven't. ;-)
>
>
> You think you're something special, but you're not. ;-)
Resorting to personal insults, are we? I refer you to my first comment.
--
You think you've figured me out but you haven't. ;-)
Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost
Grand Inquisitor
> Even if you were right about the film musical not expanding
> the limits of film, there's still the point that the film
> musical expands the limits of the musical. And it does it
> in a purely *cinematic* fashion, which makes it as much
> cinema as any other movie you care to name.
But why should *we* care? Let Broadway producers get their ascots in a
knot over movie musicals. As I've said, they are an island unto
themselves, like documentaries. They are altogether different from
"normal movies," and don't truly belong in a discussion with them.
Stephen Cooke
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Grand Inquisitor wrote:
> That is what puzzles me. By all rights Singin in the Rain should have
> been forgotten years ago. Why do people like you still take it seriously?
I have no idea. I guess people like Stanley Kubrick and Martin Scorsese
are all morons.
swac
Just like Hume Cronyn.
Nick Macpherson
>> > Drama is more universal. I wouldn't film somebody's magic act and call
>> > it "cinema."
>>
>> You'd be wrong. If you film it, it's cinema. That's what "cinema" means. It
>may
>> not be GOOD cinema, but you can bet your ass it's a fucking movie.
>
>You mean Penn And Teller Get Killed?
>
And for those of us who grew up in the seventies and knew Orson Welles as that
over the hill fat guy doing magic tricks on talk shows:
how...@brazee.net
On 11-Jun-2004, Grand Inquisitor <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> But why should *we* care? Let Broadway producers get their ascots in a
> knot over movie musicals. As I've said, they are an island unto
> themselves, like documentaries. They are altogether different from
> "normal movies," and don't truly belong in a discussion with them.
All movies belong in one genre island or another.
Grand Inquisitor
>
>>That is what puzzles me. By all rights Singin in the Rain should have
>>been forgotten years ago. Why do people like you still take it seriously?
>
>
> I have no idea. I guess people like Stanley Kubrick and Martin Scorsese
> are all morons.
>
I have never read of Kubrick liking Singin in the Rain. In fact I have
read that Kubrick used it in ACO *partly* to mock it.
In any case, he also liked The Godfather, a movie I don't care one whit
for, so I'm free to disagree with him.
Everybody has asked me why I don't like it, nobody has answered why they
like it.
--
This signature brought to you by Coca-Cola(tm)
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>Everybody has asked me why I don't like it, nobody has answered why they
>like it.
Not true. Your nemesis Kevin outlined in thorough detail just why he
thinks it's a great movie.
Nick Macpherson
> Let Broadway producers get their ascots in a
>knot over movie musicals. As I've said, they are an island unto
>themselves, like documentaries. They are altogether different from
>"normal movies," and don't truly
belong in a discussion with them.
Wow, you make musicals seem like the homosexuals in Far from Heaven, living a
sad, subterranean existence away from "normal" society. That line about
Broadway producers getting their ascots in a twist does have a slight
homophobic undertone. Hmmm, maybe that's why you don't like musicals, too many
gay connotations.
It's pointless arguing with you but what about movies like, oh, Cabaret (or a
bit further along in the seventies, Phantom of the Paradise and New York, New
York, plus dozens of others from other decades), *musicals* that literally have
no choice but to have "singing and dancing" because they're about professional
entertainers! If the musical is such a degraded art form (hell, it's not even
an art form) how does one make a movie about musicians and performers without
lowering himself or herself into that dreadful theatrical dead-end of having
people sing and dance?
madkevin
> Drama spans across all art forms. Singing and dancing do not.
What does that even mean? You can't sing dramatically? You can't tell a story
through dance? Couldn't you say the same thing about tragedy, or comedy? Do you
have any idea what you're even talking about?
Carlos Saura - for my money, the best director of dance who ever lived - made a
tremendous film called "Blood Wedding", which films the rehersal for a flamenco
musical. The actors are shown only in their rehersal clothing, not in costume.
There's no dialogue - the entire story is told through music and dancing. It's
completely spellbinding.
But of course, to watch it you'd have to eventually leave the library and find a
copy at a video store, so I suppose you'll never, ever see it.
Kevin "Open Vs. Empty" Cogliano
madkevin
> > He should check out The Mystery of Picasso even though (and I'm just
guessing here,
> > but I think I'm right) he doesn't like Picasso.
> >
>
> No, I don't. I have no respect for avant-garde, one of the greatest art
> hoaxes ever perpetrated. One day, hundreds of years from now, painters
> and sculptors will look back and wonder what in the heck made otherwise
> intelligent people accept such dreck as genuine art.
Picasso is avant-garde? Add "painting" to the list of art forms you don't
understand.
Kevin "Glossary" Cogliano
madkevin
> I don't go to the theater. Plays hold little appeal for me.
Imagine our surprise.
Kevin "Beckett" Cogliano
madkevin
> jayembee wrote:
> > Even if you were right about the film musical not expanding
> > the limits of film, there's still the point that the film
> > musical expands the limits of the musical. And it does it
> > in a purely *cinematic* fashion, which makes it as much
> > cinema as any other movie you care to name.
>
> But why should *we* care?
Because it's artistically satisfying to watch, dummy. Why should we care about
archeologists played by Harrison Ford? Why should we care about gumshoes played
by Humphrey Bogart? Why should we care about a space station on Solaris, or a
bunch of French soldiers on trial in WWI, or some dude named Kane?
Have you figured out that you're wrong yet, or are you still sticking to the
"brainwashed" theory?
Kevin "Rolling Thunder" Cogliano
madkevin
> madkevin wrote:
> > PLENTY of people like Limp Biskit. So what? But try and find another real
film
> > nut who doesn't like "Singin' In The Rain".
> >
>
> Here's one who doesn't. Why do I need to find another?
To prove that you can?
> Singin' in the
> Rain didn't impress me, it didn't make me laugh, it almost made me fall
> asleep at certain parts but I kept slogging through it because of all
> the praise. What was entertaining about it? What does this movie offer
> apart from singing and dancing? What more do you want me to say?
I've already explained what MORE it offers, at great length. Any number of
critics and essayists over the years have ALSO explained it. Why do you keep
asking me - and them - to repeat ourselves?
>
> Instead of demanding that I explain why I don't like it, how about
> explaining why on earth this dull movie is put on top ten lists with the
> likes of 8 1/2 and City Lights?
>
Repeating myself yet again: I did. Read it again. It's a few posts up.
> >>I, Jacob, do not believe something is true because I say it is.
> >>Otherwise I would say "I'm holding a million dollars" and :::poof::: it
> >>would appear. But when I say something with conviction you can believe
> >>I've given it serious thought.
> >
> >
> > What I believe is you've given it what you think is serious thought. That's
not
> > exactly the same thing.
> >
>
> So now it's down to insulting my intelligence?
When I take the time to explain something, and you either ignore it or refuse to
understand it, I should think you're a genius maybe?
>
> > Let me put it this way: What would you think of somebody who said exactly
the
> > same thing you said about, say, Westerns: "I can like the horses in a
Western. I
> > can admire the skill of the gunfights. But I never find myself admiring the
> > camerwork in a Western, or the photography, or the acting, or the script, or
the
> > editing, or the pacing, or any of the other things that make a movie a
movie."
> > (Feel free to replace 'Western' with "gangster movie", or "crime drama", or
> > "screwball comedy", or "neo-realist film", or LITERALLY ANY OTHER POSSIBLE
MOVIE
> > GENRE.) Wouldn't you - rightfully - think that person was an idiot?
> >
>
> I would tell them to see Stagecoach, the Searchers, and the Good, the
> Bad, and the Ugly. If they *still* said the same thing, I'd leave them
> in peace but I wouldn't think they were an idiot. As I said, some of
> the best directors have very different opinions on certain movies than I
> do, so if I made those kinds of ultimatums then I'd be calling a lot of
> great directors "idiots."
Why do you insist that a director's opinion means anything at all? I figured out
a long, long time ago that most of my favourite artists like stuff I wouldn't
touch with a ten-foot pole. That's like saying you won't watch a movie because
the Queen Of England or the Easter Bunny doesn't like it.
You yourself said that Kubrick disliked Hitchcock. Is he right? Of course not.
Does that somehow devalue Kubrick's own movies. Of course not. Does it mean that
Kubrick was better at making movies than he was at watching them? We have a
winner!
>
> > You still haven't explained why we're all brainwashed. Surely you can easily
> > surmise the answer to such a trivial question, even to us po' dumb folks?
> >
>
> That is what puzzles me. By all rights Singin in the Rain should have
> been forgotten years ago. Why do people like you still take it seriously?
So.... you CAN'T explain why we're all brainwashed. I'm shocked - shocked! - to
discover that.
We take it seriously because it's the best musical of all time, and one of the
best films of the classic Hollywood era. We take it seriously for the same
reason we take "Casablanca" seriously. We see things - get ready for the irony -
that you don't.
Kevin "Dead People" Cogliano
madkevin
<dobe...@DROPsocal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2vlkc0pn741sqs2of...@4ax.com...
> Grand Inquisitor <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Everybody has asked me why I don't like it, nobody has answered why they
> >like it.
>
> Not true. Your nemesis Kevin outlined in thorough detail just why he
> thinks it's a great movie.
Which apparently doesn't count. But, please, let's all remember: Jacob's
realllly smart, and we're all realllly brainwashed.
Kevin "No, Really" Cogliano
Your Pal Brian
> > I have no respect for avant-garde, one of the greatest art
> > hoaxes ever perpetrated. One day, hundreds of years from now, painters
> > and sculptors will look back and wonder what in the heck made otherwise
> > intelligent people accept such dreck as genuine art.
Picasso agreed with you:
"I do not have the effrontery to consider myself an artist at all, not in the
grand old meaning of the word: Giotto, Titan, Rembrandt, Goya were great
painters. I am only a public clown - a mountebank."
Anyway, you really should check that film, Mystery Of... Clouzot directed
it. If it's not "cinema" I'll eat my hat.
Here's a review:
http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/mysterypicasso.php
Then madkevin wrote:
> Picasso is avant-garde? Add "painting" to the list of art forms you don't
> understand.
Eh? If he ain't, who is?
Brian
Your Pal Brian
> "Grand Inquisitor" <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:jSiyc.28583$Oa7....@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
> > madkevin wrote:
> > > PLENTY of people like Limp Biskit. So what? But try and find another real
> film
> > > nut who doesn't like "Singin' In The Rain".
> > >
> >
> > Here's one who doesn't. Why do I need to find another?
>
> To prove that you can?
>
If I recall, our own eternal newbie the Avocado Avenger hated this flick. So that's
two.
Brian
A.E. Jabbour
Well, consider that this is the same genius who recently
regaled us with his theory that:
"Part of my problem with [Shakespeare] is he locks
himself into iambic pentameter, which causes a distinct
lack of eloquence."
So, just add to the mix that musicals aren't really cinema, that
SINGING IN THE RAIN is a boring, worthless non-movie, and that
theatre, not a particular kind of theatre (musicals, absurdist,
drama, etc.) but theatre IN GENERAL, holds no appeal for him
and one is left with quite an interesting picture of a confused
man.
I have heard all sorts of attacks levelled against Shakespeare. I
have never, ever heard someone say that his problem was that he
wasn't able to be eloquent.
--
A.E. Jabbour
"Dancer in the Dark" is one of the most sadistic
films I've ever seen, but it also raises the
possibility that sadism might be, in spite of itself,
a species of love." - A.O. Scott
Nick Macpherson
>But try and find another real
>> film
>> > > nut who doesn't like "Singin' In The Rain".
>> > >
>> >
>> > Here's one who doesn't. Why do I need to find another?
>>
>> To prove that you can?
>>
>
>If I recall, our own eternal newbie the Avocado Avenger hated this flick. So
>that's
>two.
>
>Brian
>
GI's right about one thing: Stanley Kubrick didn't like Singin' in the Rain.
He said it was stale. So there's three. But that's not the point. Anyone can
dislike the key film in any genre. Thre are people who don't like The Bride of
Frankenstein (I think there are, but I've never come across any), but anyone
who doesn't like The Bride of Frankenstein isn't going to make a blanket
condemnation of the entire horror genre for whatever nonsense reasons (I'm
trying to think of an equivalent but my brainwashed mind can't come up with
anything as insane as "musicals aren't cinematic".)
People don't have to like a film genre. If musicals were more popular with
modern filmgoers, they'd be making more of them. But GI has this fundamentalist
craziness that won't allow him to just leave a genre he's uncomfortable with
well enough alone and move on to something he likes (because it's not in the
Born Again mindset to say, oh, I don't much care for it, but that's just my own
personal taste). He has to try to prove his superiority over the genre (or over
Shakespeare, or modern art), even if it makes him look like a basket-case in
the process.
madkevin
"Your Pal Brian" <brian...@iFreedom.com> wrote in message
news:40CA8DC2...@iFreedom.com...
> Then madkevin wrote:
>
> > Picasso is avant-garde? Add "painting" to the list of art forms you don't
> > understand.
Picasso painted in many styles, not just cubism (which is what I assume Big Quiz
meant by "avant-garde"). It's like calling Miles Davis "avant-garde", or
Fellini, or Dan Clowes: it isn't relevant to their entire body of work.
Kevin "Sketches Of Spain" Cogliano
madkevin
"A.E. Jabbour" <aej17D...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2ivqp0F...@uni-berlin.de...
> I have heard all sorts of attacks levelled against Shakespeare. I
> have never, ever heard someone say that his problem was that he
> wasn't able to be eloquent.
See, I think the main problem with Big Quiz is, like Wallace Shawn in "The
Princess Bride", I don't think his words mean what he thinks they mean. Which is
weird, because he's really good at seeing things other people don't. I know
that, because he said so, so it therefore absolutely must be true.
Kevin "Inconceivable!" Cogliano
Stephen Cooke
On 12 Jun 2004, Nick Macpherson wrote:
> GI's right about one thing: Stanley Kubrick didn't like Singin' in the Rain.
> He said it was stale.
Okay, I've looked through a few Kubrick books, and poked around on Google,
and I can't find anything supporting this. I'm not denying he felt that
way, if he didn't like Hitchcock then anything's possible, but I'm curious
to know where this originates from.
From what I understand about the use of Singin' In the Rain, in the home
invasion scene stems from two things: 1) it was one of the few songs
McDowell knew how to sing in it's entirety (or close to it) and 2)
both McDowell and Kubrick agreed that it was the perfect song to express
Alex's euphoria at indulging in a little of the ol' ultra violence.
Maybe Kubrick was just jealous that he couldn't find the same combination
of lenses and film stocks to recreate those colours...
swac
"There's no evidence of the existence of a Singing Cavalier *anywhere* in
my cross-indexed Napoleon collection!"
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>He has to try to prove his superiority over the genre (or over
>Shakespeare, or modern art), even if it makes him look like
>a basket-case in the process.
He's a youth, & that's what youths do: they look around them (assuming
they read anything at all) & see others positing theories &
postulating stretched-out opinions & advancing what they take to be
new ideas, & they try doing this themselves, all the while enjoying
that sense of command over their environment that such activity
generates -- in youth.
It typically happens to teens & young twentysomethings when they study
some subject they already have an interest in.
miss guydid
> larry legallo wrote:
> >>I don't like musicals. I just can't get into them. I don't demand
> >>absolute realism,
> >
> >
> > Seeing that you're a Star Trek fan, I should hope not.
> >
>
> I get the feeling there's an indirect implication, apart from Star
> Trek's lack of realism, going on here.
>
> >
> >>but musicals are just hokey.
> >
> >
> > But Ghost of Mars is a cerebral feast?
> >
>
> So you aren't a fan of at least a few less-then-cerebral movies? I used
> to be like that. I eschewed anything that wasn't on the level of
> Kubrick or Tarkovsky (yes, I mention them a lot), but after a while I
> softened and my understanding of the art expanded. I started liking
> Star Trek, for one.
>
> >>I also don't see why people view musicals as being a part of cinema.
> >
> >
> > When it's filmed with a motion picture camera, and then shown to
> > people on a big screen in a movie theater, that makes it part of
> > cinema.
>
> I meant people act like musicals are intrinsic to film, as if they
> somehow expand the limits of the medium, like Keaton did with film
> comedy or Tarkovsky did with introspection and time.
>
> Harry Potter movies, but I don't treat them as serious movies, I treat
> them like what they are, novels put on the screen.
i don like musicals either. in general anyway. now, i take this to
mean you don't like 'the musical' and isn't opposed to music, use of
music, or visual music.
i think in some way, the best of silents are musicals--as opposed to
'the musical'--in the sense that the image has an autonomy like music.
they are like visual sonatas or symphonies. they vibrate, grow, flow,
ripen before our eyes. it's no wonder that most silents were
accompanied by music. in fact, you should watch 'faust' with music of
your own choosing because that cheapass organ accompaniment on most
videos suck.
andrei rublev can also be appreciated musically and in the final color
sequence, fine art, cinema, history, religion, and music all meld into
one.
dreyer's vampyr, why that's like the musical equivalent of some
symphonic movement which i can't recall. spooky sublime.
in fack, much of art can be expressed or appreciated musically, from
literature, paintings, architecture, etc. and music can be
appreciated narratively, visually, architecturally. listening to
symphonic music is like wandering thru a hall of sound and of course
there was spector's wall of sound.
and there are non-musicals with an almost musical quality, like ten
days that shook the earth, the icecapades in alexander nevsky, triumph
of the will, and olympiad. triumph of the will is like a mass
blood-n-iron musical rally and the images in olympiad soar like high
notes.
and there are concert films that do justice to music, like woodstock,
stop making sense, etc. whether you like rock or not is beside the
point. the filmmakers understood the nature, strength, quality of the
musical acts they were capturing and used proper visual schemes to
accomodate and convey its thrust and power. same can be said for
spaghetti westerns. the final shootout in good bad and ugly is like a
standing-still musical performance. and before that, tuco's wild
running about the cemetary is musicalish.
now, what about the 'musical'. i'm almost inclined to agree with you
because i can't stand the bulk of them.
i'm not talking of beautiful romantic stuff like umbrellas of cherbug
which i love with every cell in me body.
nor am i talking about hard day's night which i love too.
by 'musical' we mean the hollywood musical and their copycats. i find
most of these cheesy, kitschy, phonyass, annoying, insipid, dumbass,
repetitious, and boring. now, i'm not gonna knock astaire who was a
great dancer. and i wouldn't mind watching some of his dance numbers.
but most of his movies are repetitious to a fault, and minus the
dancing they give us just alot of boringass gabbing.
and there are musicals which have a great number or two but are
surrounded with fillers. they are like rock albums with one or two
great songs with rest being crap.
take showboat. i love 'ole man rivuh' but rest makes me sick.
take oklahoma. has two great numbers but alot of dull insipid ones.
south pacific? saw some snippets and don't wanna watch it.
and hybrid musicals oftentimes confuses the plot or lose themselves in
showboating. take cotton club which has some great numbers but what
does the story have to do with the music and the music with the story?
it uses the music as an excuse to make a gangster movie and vice versa
and fails as both, ultimately.
west side story has some great music and great dancing but here the
problem is not the music but when they don't sing and dance. then it
just goes dull.
sound of music is sound of muck.
but i love some musicals. singing in the rain is a pure joy and not
least because it laughs at the musical, at itself. it celebrates
kitsch as kitsch with no pretension of respectability whatsoever. and
it's got great music, fun story, engaging characters, and lots of
goodies. and if you think 'broadway melody' sequence is not cinematic
you need glasses or brain surgery. this is much more than merely
recording of a stage production. it's the perfect harmonization of
performance and cinematic possibilities which is so different than
today's mtv style where the visual style totally embellishes over the
performance.
singing in the rain is also great because it's smartly aware of the
weaknesses of the musical genre. there's better pacing, snappier and
wittier dialogue, visual finesse, perfect timing in dance and
nondance, etc. it's a fine-tuned music box, a movie that captures all
the essence of greatness of musicals while dispensing with all the
irrelevant bulk and fillers. unlike most musicals, it never stalls or
stagnates. it's light as air and keep hopping and zipping forward.
i also love seven brides for seven brothers and not least for its
enlightened politics. great athletic dance numbers, lots of fun
songs, and good humored ribbing and winking throughout.
and there are musicals which i grudgingly like...
hair and jesus christ superstar cuz i saw them at an impressionable
age. hair, which i re-saw, hasn't stood the test of time(it was
actually dated when it was made), and things that once cracked me
up--black boy/white boy, i got my life--just irritated me. i still
like 'aint got no', 'how can people be so heartless', 'let the
sunshine'. and the farmboy acidtrip is too funny as a concept to
dismiss. but i wanna know why twyla tharp is held in such high esteem?
her choreography is the worst shit in the world. martha she aint.
not that martha would have choreographed hair but twyla is the billy
joel of dance.
absolute beginners has one stunning scene but is mostly crap.
now, the musical reached its kitschy apotheosis in Bollywood. some of
these are so outlandish that you can either go insane, laugh oneself
silly to neardeath--usually me--, or find them oddly fascinating for
their too-muchness.
but bollywood musicals spell out the problem of the hollywood musical.
it's a genre that relies too much on artifice, glitz, slickness,
plasticity, cosmeticism, gauchery.
it's not so much the music and dancing i don't like as the phony way
they're conceived and presented. heck, i wouldn't mind watching a film
about 5 beautiful women in the open fields amidst trees, a stream,
mountains, etc. whirling and leaping and dancing and emoting. but
hollywood musical owes to much to broadway with its low-middle brow
appeal aching to be high-middle brow respectability. it be kitsch, and
kitsch, whether broadway or commie rally, aint sugar in my coffee. and
i say this despite the fack that i don't drink coffee. love the aroma
though.
now, why do i dislike musicals generally when other genres are equall
sorryass in bulkish terms? yes, most most westerns and noir and drama,
etc suck too. but the difference music really bores into you. it
affects you directly and totally. if a western is none too good, you
can ignore it while you watch it and enjoy the general formulaic plot.
but when music is bad or even just mediocre, it's irrating as hell.
suppose 'paint your wagon' was just a western. it'd be an okay
forgettable movie. but with music, it's an unforgettably painful
movie.
and precious few musicals have great music. and if the music aint
great, it's bad, like what that cop said in reservoir dogs: if you
aint a great actor, you a bad actor.
but wizard of oz, singing in the rain, seven brides, some of west side
story, etc are wonders to behold.
jayembee
> jayembee wrote:
>>
>> Even if you were right about the film musical not expanding
>> the limits of film, there's still the point that the film
>> musical expands the limits of the musical. And it does it
>> in a purely *cinematic* fashion, which makes it as much
>> cinema as any other movie you care to name.
>
> But why should *we* care? Let Broadway producers get their
> ascots in a knot over movie musicals.
You need to start working on your reading comprehension. I
didn't say that we have to care about whether movie musicals
expand the limits of the musical *per se*.
I said that they expand those limits "in a purely *cinematic*
fashion, which make [them] as much cinema as any other movie
you care to name."
> As I've said, they are an island unto themselves, like
> documentaries. They are altogether different from "normal
> movies," and don't truly belong in a discussion with them.
The same could be said for science fiction.
Cinematically speaking -- that is, in terms of the medium
itself, and how a film is put together -- the difference
between SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and most any other film of
any other genre is insignificant.
A script is written, storyboards are created, costumes are
made, locations are chosen, sets are built, camera angles
are chosen, lighting is evaluated, the frame composition
is set-up, the action is blocked out, the performers perform,
the images are captured, the narrative structure is finalized
through editing.
It doesn't matter whether it's Stanley Donen or Stanley
Kubrick. It's all cinema.
-- jayembee
Grand Inquisitor
>>Drama spans across all art forms. Singing and dancing do not.
>
>
> What does that even mean? You can't sing dramatically? You can't tell a story
> through dance? Couldn't you say the same thing about tragedy, or comedy? Do you
> have any idea what you're even talking about?
>
I made mention of this earlier. I gave novels as an example. Drama can
be put into any art form, but singing and dancing cannot, they are not
as universal. You can't put dancing in a novel. You can describe it
but that's not the same thing.
Grand Inquisitor
> Picasso painted in many styles, not just cubism (which is what I assume Big Quiz
> meant by "avant-garde"). It's like calling Miles Davis "avant-garde", or
> Fellini, or Dan Clowes: it isn't relevant to their entire body of work.
>
> Kevin "Sketches Of Spain" Cogliano
Everything I've read described him as avant-garde.
Grand Inquisitor
>>I don't go to the theater. Plays hold little appeal for me.
>
>
> Imagine our surprise.
>
More intellectual snobbery.
Grand Inquisitor
> madkevin <madk...@golden.net> wrote:
>
>>"Grand Inquisitor" <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:oEiyc.14813$ih7....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>>
>>
>>>I don't go to the theater. Plays hold little appeal for me.
>>
>>Imagine our surprise.
>>
>>Kevin "Beckett" Cogliano
>
>
> Well, consider that this is the same genius who recently
> regaled us with his theory that:
>
> "Part of my problem with [Shakespeare] is he locks
> himself into iambic pentameter, which causes a distinct
> lack of eloquence."
>
> So, just add to the mix that musicals aren't really cinema,
True.
> that
> SINGING IN THE RAIN is a boring, worthless non-movie,
I didn't say worthless. Anybody into dancing might get something out of
it. But I don't consider it necessary viewing for movie fans by any means.
> and that
> theatre, not a particular kind of theatre (musicals, absurdist,
> drama, etc.) but theatre IN GENERAL, holds no appeal for him
I take that back, I like puppet shows. Okay, now that your laughter has
subsided let me explain what I meant, I'm not talking about something
you hire for a kids birthday, I mean puppetry, the art itself. You
wouldn't believe the skill some marionettists have.
> and one is left with quite an interesting picture of a confused
> man.
Please tell me what I am confused about. I don't speak out of
ignorance. I've seen musicals. I've seen plays (I've even been in one
professionally produced play, but I won't get into that). I've seen and
read multiple works of Shakespeare. What's worse, my own opinions, or
your inability to accept and respect my opinions?
Grand Inquisitor
There is always some interdependency between, say, comedy and detective
noir.
Grand Inquisitor
> Wow, you make musicals seem like the homosexuals in Far from Heaven, living a
> sad, subterranean existence away from "normal" society.
I said normal movies. Don't put words in my mouth for a straw man argument.
> That line about
> Broadway producers getting their ascots in a twist does have a slight
> homophobic undertone.
I'm not scared of homes at all. In fact, I live in one! :-O
> Hmmm, maybe that's why you don't like musicals, too many
> gay connotations.
>
I like music. Just not musicALS. If I were to exclude a particular art
form because a lot of homosexuals were involved, surely I'd exlude
music? Or movies, for that matter...
> It's pointless arguing with you but what about movies like, oh, Cabaret (or a
> bit further along in the seventies, Phantom of the Paradise and New York, New
> York, plus dozens of others from other decades), *musicals* that literally have
> no choice but to have "singing and dancing" because they're about professional
> entertainers! If the musical is such a degraded art form (hell, it's not even
> an art form) how does one make a movie about musicians and performers without
> lowering himself or herself into that dreadful theatrical dead-end of having
> people sing and dance?
I personally dislike musicals. No surprise. But I appreciate the skill
that goes into them and I can appreciate the opinion of somebody who
likes them. But I definitely disagree that musical movies should be
considered in the same sphere as non-musicals.
Grand Inquisitor
> Have you figured out that you're wrong yet, or are you still sticking to the
> "brainwashed" theory?
Still stickin'.
Grand Inquisitor
> I've already explained what MORE it offers, at great length. Any number of
> critics and essayists over the years have ALSO explained it. Why do you keep
> asking me - and them - to repeat ourselves?
>
I meant why we as film fans specifically, should like it.
> Why do you insist that a director's opinion means anything at all?
I can learn more about film from one page of Sculpting in Time than I
can from an entire book by a critic.
> I figured out
> a long, long time ago that most of my favourite artists like stuff I wouldn't
> touch with a ten-foot pole.
Same here, which is why I don't base my opinions on what directors or
critics think but what I personally think. However, I am more likely to
trust a director's opinion than a critics.
> You yourself said that Kubrick disliked Hitchcock. Is he right? Of course not.
> Does that somehow devalue Kubrick's own movies. Of course not. Does it mean that
> Kubrick was better at making movies than he was at watching them? We have a
> winner!
>
Then since I'm so awful at watching movies maybe I'm really good at
making them? :-D
> So.... you CAN'T explain why we're all brainwashed. I'm shocked - shocked! - to
> discover that.
>
Heck, I still can't figure out why so many people watch reality shows,
but I know it's a lot of hooey.
Grand Inquisitor
> GI's right about one thing:
Just one? Aw....
> Stanley Kubrick didn't like Singin' in the Rain.
> He said it was stale. So there's three. But that's not the point. Anyone can
> dislike the key film in any genre. Thre are people who don't like The Bride of
> Frankenstein (I think there are, but I've never come across any), but anyone
> who doesn't like The Bride of Frankenstein isn't going to make a blanket
> condemnation of the entire horror genre for whatever nonsense reasons (I'm
> trying to think of an equivalent but my brainwashed mind can't come up with
> anything as insane as "musicals aren't cinematic".)
>
Singin in the Rain ain't the only musical I've seen.
larry legallo
And musicals don't overlap into other genres? There haven't been
musical comedies, musical melodrama, musical Westerns, musical kiddie
gangster films...? Is All That Jazz a musical? Purple Rain? The
Blue Angel? South Park?
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>I made mention of this earlier. I gave novels as an example. Drama can
>be put into any art form, but singing and dancing cannot, they are not
>as universal. You can't put dancing in a novel. You can describe it
>but that's not the same thing.
But the novelist is creating drama through description, too. Writers
can describe dance, painting, drama, architecture, &c., so that we
experience the art sharply.
Implicit in your opinion that drama is more universal than singing &
dancing is the judgment that universality ipso facto means better. I
think that's dubious.
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>> Picasso painted in many styles, not just cubism (which is what I assume Big Quiz
>> meant by "avant-garde"). It's like calling Miles Davis "avant-garde", or
>> Fellini, or Dan Clowes: it isn't relevant to their entire body of work.
>
>Everything I've read described him as avant-garde.
Maybe he was avant-garde avant la lettre?
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>> and that
>> theatre, not a particular kind of theatre (musicals, absurdist,
>> drama, etc.) but theatre IN GENERAL, holds no appeal for him
>
>I take that back, I like puppet shows. Okay, now that your laughter has
>subsided let me explain what I meant, I'm not talking about something
>you hire for a kids birthday, I mean puppetry, the art itself. You
>wouldn't believe the skill some marionettists have.
You are so bizarre.
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>I personally dislike musicals.
Alternatively, don't make the mistake of assuming that those of us who
love musicals love shitty movies like "South Pacific" or "The King &
I" or "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers." I have a hunch that at least
some of what you despise about musicals (those big gut-busting numbers
with a chorus of dancers & broad, roguish humor & hearty yuk-yuks) the
rest of us also despise. It's the "family entertainment" in so many
musicals that most of us can't stand.
If "Singin' in the Rain" feels like the worst aspects of family
entertainment to you, your wiring may be at fault.
John Harkness
or, of course, he was avant-garde about a hundred years ago.
John Harkness
Grand Inquisitor
> Implicit in your opinion that drama is more universal than singing &
> dancing is the judgment that universality ipso facto means better. I
> think that's dubious.
Not really....I started by saying that drama was more universal because
I was arguing that musicals were adopted from the stage, where drama (or
comedy for that matter) is not necessarily adopted from the stage (as
somebody implied).
Grand Inquisitor
>>I take that back, I like puppet shows. Okay, now that your laughter has
>>subsided let me explain what I meant, I'm not talking about something
>>you hire for a kids birthday, I mean puppetry, the art itself. You
>>wouldn't believe the skill some marionettists have.
>
>
> You are so bizarre.
How many times I've heard that, but I'm giving you too much ammo. You
doubt the artistic value of puppetry?
Grand Inquisitor
> Grand Inquisitor <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I personally dislike musicals.
>
>
> Alternatively, don't make the mistake of assuming that those of us who
> love musicals love shitty movies like "South Pacific" or "The King &
> I" or "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers." I have a hunch that at least
> some of what you despise about musicals (those big gut-busting numbers
> with a chorus of dancers & broad, roguish humor & hearty yuk-yuks) the
> rest of us also despise. It's the "family entertainment" in so many
> musicals that most of us can't stand.
>
Actually it's the "family entertainment" aspect that kept me away from
non-Leone *westerns* for a long time, until I couldn't take any more
recommendations for The Searchers and I actually buckled down to watch
it. Speaking of buckling, that's what my knees were doing after I
watched it. I was so impressed by what I saw I almost didn't make it up
a set of stairs. I hardly slept that night. The Searchers opened my
eyes to westerns.
BUT, in spite of all the musicals I've seen (from Disney films to Rocky
Horror Picture Show), I've never been "made a believer." Sorry. I feel
like movie musicals are one great put-on.
Nick Macpherson
>> GI's right about one thing: Stanley Kubrick didn't like Singin' in the
>Rain.
>> He said it was stale.
>
>Okay, I've looked through a few Kubrick books, and poked around on Google,
>and I can't find anything supporting this.
Not exactly a primary source but this is what I was referencing:
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/12.05.02/singin-0249.html
> I'm not denying he felt that
>way, if he didn't like Hitchcock then anything's possible,
He liked Spielberg's 1941. Anything is possible.
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>>>I take that back, I like puppet shows. Okay, now that your laughter has
>>>subsided let me explain what I meant, I'm not talking about something
>>>you hire for a kids birthday, I mean puppetry, the art itself. You
>>>wouldn't believe the skill some marionettists have.
>>
>> You are so bizarre.
>
>How many times I've heard that, but I'm giving you too much ammo. You
>doubt the artistic value of puppetry?
No! You're obtuse, too.
But to start talking about bloody puppets out of nowhere. . . you're a
weirdo! And I mean no disrespect when I say that.
Of course, all of this reminds me of a Bergman I haven't seen: "From
the Life of the Marionettes"
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>> Implicit in your opinion that drama is more universal than singing &
>> dancing is the judgment that universality ipso facto means better. I
>> think that's dubious.
>
>Not really....I started by saying that drama was more universal because
>I was arguing that musicals were adopted from the stage, where drama (or
>comedy for that matter) is not necessarily adopted from the stage (as
>somebody implied).
What's it adopted from? The canvas? The potter's wheel?
Nick Macpherson
Young people and teenagers open themselves up to new experiences and new forms
of artistic expression. They don't shut down. They don't smugly pat
themselves on the back because they're smart enough and daring enough to think
Shakespeare lacked eloquence, the last 100 years of art have been a fraud, that
Godard is no better than some drive-in hack the dweebs who watch MST3K like to
feel superior to. Maybe I'd be more sympathetic if I hadn't spent my 20s
reading Burroughs, Malcolm X, Pynchon and Kerouac, watching splatter movies and
listening to the Smiths and the Velvet Underground and hating Reagan and
Thatcher.
how...@brazee.net
On 12-Jun-2004, Grand Inquisitor <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> I didn't say worthless. Anybody into dancing might get something out of
> it. But I don't consider it necessary viewing for movie fans by any
> means.
I think it is necessary for movie fans to be aware of influential examples
of all sub-genres. They should also be aware of what are considered the
best of their sub-genre and why.
With this in mind, which musicals do you think would allow a movie fan to
meet this need?
how...@brazee.net
On 12-Jun-2004, Grand Inquisitor <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> It is my belief that any movie done as a musical would be better done as
> a non-musical.
A Hard Day's Night ???
John Harkness
Singin' In the Rain?
Anyone who can't appreciate Stanley Donen can't appreciate Stanley
Kubrick, either.
John Harkness
Grand Inquisitor
>>Not really....I started by saying that drama was more universal because
>>I was arguing that musicals were adopted from the stage, where drama (or
>>comedy for that matter) is not necessarily adopted from the stage (as
>>somebody implied).
>
>
> What's it adopted from? The canvas? The potter's wheel?
Well, movies owe a great deal to the stage, novels, poetry,
illustration, and photography.