Fight Club & Deep Movies & Artistic Freedom &...
RoyBoy
but the last paragraphs of each post...touch on a really
big topic...it could be its own thread.
Avdoulos <joh...@bigpond.com>:
>> Buy the way, I thought Scott's Gladiator was one of the most overrated
>> movies of its year. It was OK. Crowe was great but overall it was a
>> poor rip-off of Ben Hur and Braveheart. Sorry if I have offended fans
>> of the movie. Maybe deep movies e.g. BladeRunner are a thing of the
>> past? If so, pity!!!!
Well BR was a weird movie...it was very deep (deeper than
even arty films), but was released as a mainstream movie.
BR is an exception in a way. However, deep movies are
not a thing of the past...Fight Club is a deep movie, clever,
hip and action packed. Fight Club is what BR should have
ideally been...a commercial, artistic and intellectual success.
Fight clud is pretty and straight forward enough for people to feel
comfortable with...and it had a slick commercial feel to it
(the very thing they were fighting worked in their favor),
an irony that a movie against commercialism is a commercial
success does rub the politically correct and academics the
wrong way...
yet there was enough integration of themes without it being
preachy to give it significance. (ie. look at the conditions that
exist on Paper St.)
Actually I was pulled away from this post and was able to
figure it out. BR was ahead of its time...Fight Club was
on the money and was more direct in its "assault" of the
issues. Fight Club had great voice overs...>:')...
anyone care to make a comparison? I need to go to
the video store. I suggest someone make this a
seperate thread...bah nevermind I will...
Lukas:
>There will always be deeper movies. But the sad fact is that they reach
>a smaller audience which makes it not commercially as interesting for
>the big movie studios, so fewer of those are made. It's easer, and
>likelier to make lots of money, to just make an action-filled film with
>bigger explosions and CGI instead of making an intelligent story.
As true as this is...there can be hidden meaning in those
blockbusters, and I'm talking beyond the (theme) if the movie.
Does it come as a cohesive whole like BR...I guess not...
but it can still be there.
Netrunner:
***
There are some recommendations on the website, (BR related), but the
fact is that moviemaking is a commercial enterprise. There are no
major movies that are made without attempting to gain a profit, for
obvious reasons. But that leads to compromises. Occasionally people
dare to make movies that will appeal only to a relatively small
audience, but still hope to make their money back. We can only wish
for more of those. (As video becomes digital and memory gets cheaper
and SFX get cheaper, movie making becomes a real possibility using a
home computer to edit and there will be more movies made that dare to
push the envelope.)
Netrunner.
***
Like Troops...ehehehe...
"All suspects are guilty, period. Otherwise, they wouldn't be
suspects would they?"
ArchNacho
news:n4wm7.24087$at.44...@news1.busy1.on.home.com
> Well BR was a weird movie...it was very deep (deeper than
> even arty films), but was released as a mainstream movie.
> BR is an exception in a way. However, deep movies are
> not a thing of the past...Fight Club is a deep movie, clever,
> hip and action packed. Fight Club is what BR should have
> ideally been...a commercial, artistic and intellectual success.
>
> Fight clud is pretty and straight forward enough for people to feel
> comfortable with...and it had a slick commercial feel to it
> (the very thing they were fighting worked in their favor),
> an irony that a movie against commercialism is a commercial
> success does rub the politically correct and academics the
> wrong way...
> yet there was enough integration of themes without it being
> preachy to give it significance. (ie. look at the conditions that
> exist on Paper St.)
>
> Actually I was pulled away from this post and was able to
> figure it out. BR was ahead of its time...Fight Club was
> on the money and was more direct in its "assault" of the
> issues. Fight Club had great voice overs...>:')...
> anyone care to make a comparison?
BR was still a lot better, IMO. I thought it was sometimes too obvious that
the directors/script writers/crew thought to themselves "Bwahahaha, we're
really clever! And just to prove it, we'll do _THIS_!" in Fight Club. Don't
know if anyone understands what I mean here, but hopefully some of you will.
Also, there were a couple of situations where, if you thought it over, it
wasn't quite realistic that there was only one person... And I think it was
sometimes trying too hard to be popular, when they should've been
concentrating more on the message they were trying to send. Don't get me
wrong, it's a great movie, but I don't think it's quite up there with BR.
"Requiem for a Dream", however, is one of the best movies I've seen in a
long, long time. It really hits you, hard. I don't think I've ever felt sick
after a movie before, but "Requiem..." made you want to close your eyes and
hope it would all go away near the end. It just grabs you and won't let you
go until it's over. This is the one movie I think could actually keep kids
from trying drugs. Most anti-drug movies have no effect at all, but I really
think "Requiem..." could make a difference, if only more people had seen
it... Has anyone else here seen it? Other opinions?
> As true as this is...there can be hidden meaning in those
> blockbusters, and I'm talking beyond the (theme) if the movie.
> Does it come as a cohesive whole like BR...I guess not...
> but it can still be there.
"Most Hollywood movies stink. It's time to open our eyes and watch some
movies from other parts of the world!"?
Seriously, though, if there are hidden meanings in blockbusters, it's very
rarely intentional, and can only be spotted by those who overanalyze them.
The bottom line of the vast majority of blockbusters is "Our studio wants
more money!".
> Netrunner:
> ***
> There are some recommendations on the website, (BR related), but the
> fact is that moviemaking is a commercial enterprise. There are no
> major movies that are made without attempting to gain a profit, for
> obvious reasons. But that leads to compromises. Occasionally people
> dare to make movies that will appeal only to a relatively small
> audience, but still hope to make their money back. We can only wish
> for more of those. (As video becomes digital and memory gets cheaper
> and SFX get cheaper, movie making becomes a real possibility using a
> home computer to edit and there will be more movies made that dare to
> push the envelope.)
> Netrunner.
> ***
I hope you're right, but I fear you're not. The problem is that "home made"
movies are rarely anywhere near as good as a good movie with a decent
budget. Not necessarily a big budget, but they should have a decent budget.
It's quite possible to make pretty good movies with a tiny budget, but I
think the best ones are those that fall somewhere in-between a typical
Hollywood budget and a tiny indie-budget. The budget should be so small that
it forces the crew to be creative, but not so small that it limits their
creativity. However, the simple fact also remains that you need good
directors and actors to make good movies. Talents like Akira Kurosawa,
Darren Aronofsky or Stanley Kubrick are very rare and good actors are almost
as hard to find (well, you can always find 'good' actors, but rarely great
ones). What will always be in favor of the small independent productions,
though, is that they have much greater artistic freedom and, well,
independence than those movies that are funded by large film studios.
Unfortunately, good distribution is almost impossible...
norman stansfield
>movies from other parts of the world!"?
>
>Seriously, though, if there are hidden meanings in blockbusters, it's very
>rarely intentional, and can only be spotted by those who overanalyze them.
>The bottom line of the vast majority of blockbusters is "Our studio wants
>more money!".
I think the beleaguered film-fan likes to think that this is true, partly as
a symptom of nostalgia. Many of the people reading this will, I suspect,
proudly hold a torch for a nineteen year-old movie simply because, being
'older', it must be 'better' than the new films released week after week.
Nostalgia hides a multitude of sins. Whilst Blade Runner's qualities are
self-evident and I criticise no one who loves it, for to do so would be to
criticise myself; does anyone remember how many dismal films came out in
1982? I would think not.
Look back to the late 1980s, a terrible time for intelligent and original
film-making. Choking on a diet of baby movies, teen-flicks and meat-head
body-builders the 'art' light of American cinema nearly went out for good.
1986 is a prime example. The year of Top Gun and Crocodile Dundee, Karate
Kid 2 and An American Tail, Peggy Sue Got Married and Raw Deal. Each film
more painful than the last. Yet, two of the big hits of this year were
Aliens and Platoon. And two more films from this year which made nary a
ripple at the time - but have developed huge followings since: Highlander
and Manhunter.
My point is that there has always been a wide signal to noise ratio. You
can remember all the shit that came out this summer, because it is fresh in
your memory. You've probably forgotten how bad 1998 was, or 1993.
Therefore, if there has always been the low quality, there has always been
the high-quality to which it must be compared.
Filmmakers are, by and large, very skilled and intelligent people.
Craftspeople. Even artists. Studio bureaucrats are skilled at protecting
their corporate interests, at actively offending the fewest people, and at
counting the shekels.
This has always been so. During the supposedly great days of the Studio
System, great work was produced by visionary Hollywood filmmakers under a
regime more restrictive than that faced by their Russian contemporaries.
The amount of artistic controlled surrendered by the Studios was kept to an
absolute minimum. Yet still this system produced John Ford, Alfred
Hitchcock, Michael Curtiz, Anthony Mann and so on.
They managed to produce great work *despite* the Studios.
The same is true today but - with cheaper means of production and wider
options for distribution, the opportunities to produce great work are more
numerous.
Also, the Studios are now wise enough to know that they don't necessarily
know *everything*. Tarantino and Blair Witch taught them this.
Many, many films released to a mainstream market heave with subtext but, by
its very nature, it is not necessarily self-evident. There is also the
problem that one instinctively rejects the idea that a big, successful,
mainstream movie can actually be 'deep'.
Thankfully this is not so.
Theodore Sturgeon memorably told us that 95% of everything is crap. If this
is so, cinema is no exception. Therefore we cling to the other 5%!
>> memory gets cheaper
How worrying that phrase is, taken out of context. And yet how sadly
appropriate.
>The problem is that "home made"
>movies are rarely anywhere near as good as a good movie with a decent
>budget. Not necessarily a big budget, but they should have a decent budget.
>It's quite possible to make pretty good movies with a tiny budget, but I
>think the best ones are those that fall somewhere in-between a typical
>Hollywood budget and a tiny indie-budget. The budget should be so small
that
>it forces the crew to be creative, but not so small that it limits their
>creativity.
This is a commonly held belief, but I fear it may be an excuse filmmakers
offer to explain their inability to work. The British Film Industry
survives without money. As does the French. I refer you also to the works
of the Brothers Coen, Robert Rodriguez and David Lynch, filmmakers who
rarely spend money.
>However, the simple fact also remains that you need good
>directors and actors to make good movies. Talents like Akira Kurosawa,
>Darren Aronofsky or Stanley Kubrick are very rare and good actors are
almost
>as hard to find (well, you can always find 'good' actors, but rarely great
>ones). What will always be in favor of the small independent productions,
>though, is that they have much greater artistic freedom and, well,
>independence than those movies that are funded by large film studios.
>Unfortunately, good distribution is almost impossible...
Film is cheap. Hiring equipment reasonably so. Out of work actors will
genuinely work for food and lodging rather than remain idle. Stars will
turn up for small 'prestige' roles if approached in the right way at the
right time. Locations are not hard to find. Go to any college, put up a
wanted poster and within the week you will have a crew.
Film making has *never* been cheaper nor easier. Distribution has *never*
been this attainable (even if you are forced to put your film on the net and
charge people to download it - you are still distributing it). Yet still we
maintain that the quality of what we get to see week after week has never
been lower.
If this is so (and I personally don't agree, but let's just say I'm wrong)
then surely the reason has less to do with the means of distribution and the
means of production, and more to do with a poverty of imagination.
But whose imagination?
We blame the directors - but directors work from scripts. Writing is the
cheapest form of industry there is. All you need is imagination and paper.
Great films are not made from average scripts. Average films can easily be
made from great scripts.
Young writers go to classes to learn how to write Hollywood scripts. They
buy software packages that force them to write Hollywood scripts.
Established writers get paid huge sums for writing Hollywood scripts. They
want to work, so who can blame them.
The Studio heads don't know what the audience will want this year, but they
do know what they wanted *last* year. So their natural inclination is to
give them the same again.
The entertainment 'news' media are told by the PR companies what to report
and how to report it, and they slavishly do so.
We, the viewers, are told what to go and see. Do we resist? Do we exercise
our free will and go and see the other film instead? Some do. Most don't.
This is the pleasure and pain of democracy. They have the right to make
films like Tomb Raider and Planet of the Apes and we have the right to go
see them. The same is true of Moulin Rouge and Requiem For A Dream and
Amelie.
If we stay away from these films, it is also by choice. If we rediscover
them years later and find we like them, we do so by choice.
So, the talent is there, the means to produce and distribute is there, the
will is certainly there ... but is the audience? And if not now, will it
ever be there?
I don't think anyone looked upon Citizen Kane in 1942 and said "Now there's
a film destined for greatness!". They didn't do it with "Casablanca", they
didn't do it with "It's a Wonderful Life". They certainly didn't do it with
Blade Runner. Nor, I suspect, did any of us.
Any work of art grows into greatness. It needs perspective and, yes, maybe
a little nostalgia.
Who knows, maybe Aranofsky or PT Anderson will be forgotten in five years
time. I doubt they will still be being mentioned in the same breath as
Kubrick. But ten years after that, or twenty? We don't know.
But then again, who does?
Blimey - that turned into a bit of a lecture, didn't it. Whoa. Sorry.
ArchNacho
news:joIm7.2274$fA.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com
ArchNacho
norman stansfield <norman.s...@virgin.net> skrev i
news:joIm7.2274$fA.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com
> >"Most Hollywood movies stink. It's time to open our eyes and watch some
> >movies from other parts of the world!"?
> >
> >Seriously, though, if there are hidden meanings in blockbusters, it's
very
> >rarely intentional, and can only be spotted by those who overanalyze
them.
> >The bottom line of the vast majority of blockbusters is "Our studio wants
> >more money!".
>
> I think the beleaguered film-fan likes to think that this is true, partly
as
> a symptom of nostalgia. Many of the people reading this will, I suspect,
> proudly hold a torch for a nineteen year-old movie simply because, being
> 'older', it must be 'better' than the new films released week after week.
I did not say that. Actually, I said nothing even remotely similar. There's
always been a lot of junk, and there always will be. All I said was that
movies that must appeal to a large audience are rarely very good, because
they must make all kinds of compromises.
> Nostalgia hides a multitude of sins. Whilst Blade Runner's qualities are
> self-evident and I criticise no one who loves it, for to do so would be to
> criticise myself; does anyone remember how many dismal films came out in
> 1982? I would think not.
Considering it was the year I was born, and the eighties didn't exactly
produce many classics; no, I don't...
> Look back to the late 1980s, a terrible time for intelligent and original
> film-making. Choking on a diet of baby movies, teen-flicks and meat-head
> body-builders the 'art' light of American cinema nearly went out for good.
I do "remember" that, though. Didn't see many movies that I remember during
that period, but I've seen some of them later, and like you say, it was a
tragic time for movies... Compared to the eighties and early nineties we
have nothing to complain about. However, I've never been a big fan of the
"it's been worse, so it ain't so bad now"-argument. If it's not good now,
then it's not good now, regardless of how bad it has been.
> My point is that there has always been a wide signal to noise ratio. You
> can remember all the shit that came out this summer, because it is fresh
in
> your memory. You've probably forgotten how bad 1998 was, or 1993.
Actually, I haven't, but maybe that's just me... However, I won't agree that
the signal to noise ratio has always remained constant.
> Therefore, if there has always been the low quality, there has always been
> the high-quality to which it must be compared.
Obviously.
> Filmmakers are, by and large, very skilled and intelligent people.
> Craftspeople. Even artists. Studio bureaucrats are skilled at protecting
> their corporate interests, at actively offending the fewest people, and at
> counting the shekels.
That's not an art, more like a disease. :o)
Seriously, though, the filmmakers may all be craftspeople to some extent, as
you say, but they're not all good craftspeople...
> The amount of artistic controlled surrendered by the Studios was kept to
an
> absolute minimum. Yet still this system produced John Ford, Alfred
> Hitchcock, Michael Curtiz, Anthony Mann and so on.
>
> They managed to produce great work *despite* the Studios.
Which is great, but I do believe that they did it *despite* the Studios.
> Also, the Studios are now wise enough to know that they don't necessarily
> know *everything*. Tarantino and Blair Witch taught them this.
Are they really? That kind of "knowledge" is usually very shortlived, IMO...
> This is a commonly held belief, but I fear it may be an excuse filmmakers
> offer to explain their inability to work. The British Film Industry
> survives without money. As does the French. I refer you also to the
works
> of the Brothers Coen, Robert Rodriguez and David Lynch, filmmakers who
> rarely spend money.
Are they down to tiny indie-budgets? No, I don't think so. Again, I'm
wondering if you actually understood what I said. What I did say was that
the budget should be somewhere *in-between* typical Hollywood budgets and
indie-budgets, which is where I think people like those you mention would
fall. I'm personally not a big fan of British and French movies in general,
but Japanese movies probably have similar budgets, and I think they produce
a lot of good stuff. HK action flicks used to produce much more spectacular
and cool action than Hollywood productions, even with much smaller budgets.
However, HK has gone downhill lately, ruined by the evil wire-fu, CG effects
and "pretty boys"...
> Film is cheap. Hiring equipment reasonably so. Out of work actors will
> genuinely work for food and lodging rather than remain idle. Stars will
> turn up for small 'prestige' roles if approached in the right way at the
> right time. Locations are not hard to find. Go to any college, put up a
> wanted poster and within the week you will have a crew.
>
> Film making has *never* been cheaper nor easier. Distribution has *never*
> been this attainable (even if you are forced to put your film on the net
and
> charge people to download it - you are still distributing it). Yet still
we
> maintain that the quality of what we get to see week after week has never
> been lower.
Like I said, I don't think money is necessarily the most important issue. It
doesn't matter that it's cheap and easy if you don't have the right people.
Putting up a wanted poster in a college simply won't get you the Kurosawas
or Kubricks...
> We blame the directors - but directors work from scripts. Writing is the
> cheapest form of industry there is. All you need is imagination and
paper.
> Great films are not made from average scripts. Average films can easily
be
> made from great scripts.
Which is exactly why it's so important to have a good director...
> Young writers go to classes to learn how to write Hollywood scripts. They
> buy software packages that force them to write Hollywood scripts.
> Established writers get paid huge sums for writing Hollywood scripts.
They
> want to work, so who can blame them.
If that's *all* they want, then they should be in another business, in which
case we can all blame them. However, I think it's often the classic problem
that "even poets must eat". Which is nothing new.
> The entertainment 'news' media are told by the PR companies what to report
> and how to report it, and they slavishly do so.
Or the studios invent reviewers when no real ones can find anything good to
say about their movies. ;-)
I agree with that statement, though; the media are all too willing to report
whatever the studios want them to.
> We, the viewers, are told what to go and see. Do we resist? Do we
exercise
> our free will and go and see the other film instead? Some do. Most
don't.
Well, we mustn't forget that some people actually like those blockbusters. I
know people who actually say they think they're good movies, and they don't
want anything more than entertainment from movies...
> So, the talent is there, the means to produce and distribute is there, the
> will is certainly there ... but is the audience? And if not now, will it
> ever be there?
Part of the problem, IMHO, is that there's still a feeling among many
moviegoers that movies are only entertainment, nothing more. Many of those
people think that movies that want to be more than entertainment are just
boring...
> I don't think anyone looked upon Citizen Kane in 1942 and said "Now
there's
> a film destined for greatness!".
Actually, IIRC many did, until that media tycoon who felt he was ridiculed
by the movie used his papers to convince people that it was trash so very
few saw it...
> They didn't do it with "Casablanca", they
> didn't do it with "It's a Wonderful Life". They certainly didn't do it
with
> Blade Runner. Nor, I suspect, did any of us.
I can't really say, since I was born the same year as BR was released. The
impression I've gotten however, is that many who saw it back then liked it,
but not very many saw it. Maybe I'm wrong, though.
> Any work of art grows into greatness. It needs perspective and, yes,
maybe
> a little nostalgia.
That's generally true, but what's pure crap now, will still be pure crap in
thirty years. At least crap is instantly recognizable, even if art isn't.
:o)
> Who knows, maybe Aranofsky or PT Anderson will be forgotten in five years
> time. I doubt they will still be being mentioned in the same breath as
> Kubrick. But ten years after that, or twenty? We don't know.
>
> But then again, who does?
I don't, but it'll be interesting to see who will be remembered as the great
filmmakers of the nineties. My two cents is that Tarantino will only be
remembered as a pop culture phenomenon of the nineties. Hopefully, the
Usenet archives will still exist in 2020, so I can go back and say "I told
you so". :o)
Lukas Mariman
"norman stansfield" <norman.s...@virgin.net> schreef in bericht
news:joIm7.2274$fA.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
And a good read it was, too. Nice work. Maybe you should keep it around
for future reference or something.
Netrunner
I agree with much of what you say. Fight Club is good, but I'm in no
hurry to see it the second time to see it knowing the end. And after
that, I don't think there will be any reason I want to see it again,
(but thats just me). And I do get what you mean about them feeling so
clever - but then, compared to the average viewer, perhaps they are!
>> (As video becomes digital and memory gets cheaper
>> and SFX get cheaper, movie making becomes a real possibility using a
>> home computer to edit and there will be more movies made that dare to
>> push the envelope.)
>
>I hope you're right, but I fear you're not. The problem is that "home made"
>movies are rarely anywhere near as good as a good movie with a decent
>budget. Not necessarily a big budget, but they should have a decent budget.
>It's quite possible to make pretty good movies with a tiny budget, but I
>think the best ones are those that fall somewhere in-between a typical
>Hollywood budget and a tiny indie-budget.
I was not really referring to home made movies. I was actually coming
from a different angle on what you said. The point is that the
"decent budget" is getting smaller for equipment required to make a
movie. A powerful home computer can now be used (and often is) to
create stunning special effects and can even for editing and
manipulating a digital movie - no special editing equipment to hire,
no film to buy, or develop. Electronic distribution even.
As for the tiny budget movies, a new market is opening up on the
internet. Not to mention the ever increasing number of TV channels
that need to fill their schedules. Of course this will result in a
lot more crap as well, but somewhere amongst the crap ...
All this does mean there is an opportunity for some decent movies to
be made, without the need for such large compromises. (I know I am
being a little optimistic, but let us create the future how we want it
to be.)
Netrunner.
RoyBoy
All this does mean there is an opportunity for some decent movies to
be made, without the need for such large compromises. (I know I am
being a little optimistic, but let us create the future how we want it
to be.)
Shhhhhh...don't give it away...
[RoyBoy walks away mumbling cryptically]
norman stansfield
criticising your points directly, but using this thread to make a few points
I hear time and again from all sorts of sources about 'the good old days'.
I think, from your response, that you understood that and took my mail in
the spirit in which it was sent, but I thought I'd better mention it, just
in case.
>There's always been a lot of junk, and there always will be. All I said was
that
>movies that must appeal to a large audience are rarely very good, because
>they must make all kinds of compromises.
Sometimes (not all the time, just sometimes) compromise forces good ideas
out of you which a free reign would never inspire. And the money made
available by the Studios can create stories which would never lift off the
page without it. Unfortunately you cannot witness all of human life from
within the restraints of a low budget, some stories need a larger canvass.
Larger stories? Certainly. Different stories? Hopefully. Better stories?
Ah, well that's all a matter of perception, isn't it!
The great seething mass of the Saturday night movie going audience seems to
only want to see films which tell a story they have seen a thousand times
before. They only seem to want to expose themselves to a narrative if they
know from the outset how it will end, but can pretend they don't.
Certainly this *seems* to be true. But I think this underestimates a lot of
the viewing public. They want to be entertained and if the only films
available to them do nothing more than entertain, then they will go and see
those films. But, if you give them something new, that also entertains,
they will turn out for that too!
>I've never been a big fan of the
>"it's been worse, so it ain't so bad now"-argument. If it's not good now,
>then it's not good now, regardless of how bad it has been.
So you vote with your dollars. You stay away from the cinemas that don't
show the films you want. You have that choice, as do I. The problem is:
film-going is a social event, it is a night out. Even going to see a film
which is supposedly good for you - a Kieslowski or a Bergman or a Fellini or
whatever - is more interesting and enjoyable if shared with like-minded
friends. And the more people who patronise a cinema, the more money it
earns, therefore the greater the chance that it will stay open long enough
to show you a film you do want to see.
>I won't agree that the signal to noise ratio has always remained constant.
Not necessarily constant, but there has always been a *lot* of crap out
there!
>Like I said, I don't think money is necessarily the most important issue.
It
>doesn't matter that it's cheap and easy if you don't have the right people.
>Putting up a wanted poster in a college simply won't get you the Kurosawas
>or Kubricks...
No, fifty years of experience does.
>Or the studios invent reviewers when no real ones can find anything good to
>say about their movies. ;-)
Yes, I heard about that one. Can't say I'm surprised, but I am amused!
>Well, we mustn't forget that some people actually like those blockbusters.
I
>know people who actually say they think they're good movies, and they don't
>want anything more than entertainment from movies...
>Part of the problem, IMHO, is that there's still a feeling among many
>moviegoers that movies are only entertainment, nothing more. Many of those
>people think that movies that want to be more than entertainment are just
>boring...
But what's wrong with being entertained once in a while? Entertainment is
part of what films are about - a large part. Even if you only use
entertainment as a carrier for 'higher' values such as information or art,
it's still an important ingredient. Yes, it's frustrating when people you
talk to notice nothing beyond the entertainment value of a film - but, on
the flipside of that, you shouldn't boycott a good film just because it's
entertaining.
All I'm struggling towards saying (and this is another of those comments
which isn't aimed personally at yourself, but is an observation based on
opinions I have heard time and again) is that there is a huge amount out
there which deserves to be avoided - but the more money behemoth's like
Pearl Harbour and Planet of the Apes make - the more the studios have to
spend on distributing (or even making) smaller, more experimental movies.
Movies have *never* been more diverse than they are now. With affordable
electronic reproduction, there have never been this many ways of seeing this
many films from this many sources. There really is something for everyone.
Yes it is short-sighted to have the same film on the cover of *every*
magazine during one month. Yes it is deleterious to serious journalism to
obsess about the speculation and the hype then, the very moment the film is
released and the public have the opportunity to form an opinion, forget
about it and move on to *next* month's PR mammoth.
Yes it is tedious to have the same story repackaged and remade time and time
and time again - just because George Lucas made a billion out of almost a
quarter of a century ago.
But, and here is something that someone who started going to the cinema in
the late eighties can't possibly appreciate - all of this merchandising and
formulising has provided the massive profits which have led in a very direct
way to the widespread building of the best cinemas and the best home
entertainment systems we have ever had.
I live in England, and a long way from London, and am therefore in something
of a cultural back water, but even here the change has been dramatic.
I spent much of the 90s working as a film reviewer for a local radio
station, and in the six years I was there - I saw my town grow from a place
where there were eight cinema screens (only three of which were a noticeable
improvement on my portable TV back at home) to a place with 28 custom-built
state of the art screens in town and another twelve about twenty minutes
down the motorway.
Certainly there were times when these forty screen were showing less than a
dozen films between them, but there were also times when one could go and
see films which five years previously would be sent as a timecode, or would
have necessitated a two-hour drive to London, because no one would dare
programme them.
Sex, Lies and Videotape and Reservoir Dogs both happened because there were
the cinema screens for people to see them. Without these films and those
which followed in their wake - the likes of Aronofsky and Anderson would
like as not be working in theatre or on TV - they would be unlikely to have
had the feature film opportunities they have enjoyed.
If you believe that things are bad now, QED, then you are forcing yourself
to deny that which *is* good. Living exclusively in the past is not a
healthy way to be, but neither is ignoring the past.
Enjoy what's good, ignore what isn't, and let the future take care of
itself.
I'm sorry if this sounds in any way patronising, it isn't meant to, I just
fear that by being what seems to me to be overly critical of what is out
there now, you are actually withholding from yourself a lot of potentially
good movies.
I could have fast hold of entirely the wrong end of the stick, but if I'm
right, it is a shame that someone who is as intelligent and as knowledgeable
as you clearly are, seems to have decided that you've seen the best films
you'll ever see and it's all down hill from here.
I thought that, when Home Alone became the fourth biggest film of all time.
I threw my hands up in despair and wondered out loud to my listeners where
it had all gone wrong. Precisely when did we flush our taste and IQ away?
Home Alone looks subtle and sophisticated by comparison to the cinematic
running sores of the Farrelly Brothers and American Pie and the like, but,
on the whole, I was wrong.
On the whole, films are smarter and better made than they have been in
thirty years.
You see, once time has passed and you have achieved perspective, you realise
that things change, paradigms shift and there is always the chance for
rehabilitation. If, five years ago, you'd told me that Ridley Scott would
ever again make a good film, I would have laughed at you, yet, in the last
two years he has created one of the most kinetic, spectacular and
exhilarating films of our generation - followed by one of the most artistic
and cerebral.
Things change.
>what's pure crap now, will still be pure crap in
>thirty years. At least crap is instantly recognisable, even if art isn't.
Oh god, if that were true there would be no art, no love, no religion ... no
war.
>It'll be interesting to see who will be remembered as the great
>filmmakers of the nineties. My two cents is that Tarantino will only be
>remembered as a pop culture
Absolutely.
One of the details I love about, of all things, Demolition Man, is the way
it postulates a future where almost all popular culture of the late
twentieth century has been lost or forgotten. All the art, all the
literature, everything. All that remains are jingles and advertising
slogans.
I've recently discovered eBay. If it is to be believed, we live in a world
where a signed photo from a movie can change hands for ransom figures, and
yet a video of the actual film sells for pocket money.
It seems a celebrity's handwriting is more profoundly valuable to the world
than the thoughts of a genius. What is it like, living in a world where
this is so? Interesting, unpredictable and prone to change!
How do we deal with a world where values are so horrendously skewed?
As best we can!
ArchNacho
short as possible and snip a lot.
norman stansfield <norman.s...@virgin.net> skrev i
news:pSOm7.5814$fA.7...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com
> First off, ArchNacho, I feel I ought to point out I wasn't attacking or
> criticising your points directly, but using this thread to make a few
points
> I hear time and again from all sorts of sources about 'the good old days'.
> I think, from your response, that you understood that and took my mail in
> the spirit in which it was sent, but I thought I'd better mention it, just
> in case.
No problem. Had to admit that I wasn't completely sure, which is why I tried
to clarify a few things just in case, but I didn't really get the impression
that you were "out to get me".
*snipped several paragraphs about compromise and seething masses*
> Certainly this *seems* to be true. But I think this underestimates a lot
of
> the viewing public. They want to be entertained and if the only films
> available to them do nothing more than entertain, then they will go and
see
> those films. But, if you give them something new, that also entertains,
> they will turn out for that too!
Sometimes. But let's not spend more time discussing this.
> So you vote with your dollars. You stay away from the cinemas that don't
> show the films you want. You have that choice, as do I. The problem is:
> film-going is a social event, it is a night out. Even going to see a film
> which is supposedly good for you - a Kieslowski or a Bergman or a Fellini
or
> whatever - is more interesting and enjoyable if shared with like-minded
> friends. And the more people who patronise a cinema, the more money it
> earns, therefore the greater the chance that it will stay open long enough
> to show you a film you do want to see.
Obviously. Personally, I never go to see a film alone, it would feel
awkward.
*snipped several paragraphs about signal to noise ratio, college students,
directors, made-up reviewers, the value of entertainment, blockbusters,
diversity, the media, George Lucas, more seething masses etc. etc.*
If I've given the impression that I boycott all entertaining movies (and I
assume I must have), that's completely wrong. I have gone to see, and will
continue to go to blockbusters for the entertainment and the social aspect
of it. Actually, I'm not a big fan of overly "arty" movies at all. At the
same time, I don't think there's anything wrong with complaining about the
entertainment/depth ratio. Just because I say they're making too many movies
that are nothing but entertainment, that doesn't mean I think they shouldn't
make any such movies at all, just less of them and more of other movies.
*snipparoo several paragraphs about the development of great cinema
equipment and how wonderful it is to have 40 screens showing all kinds of
movie*
That's all well and good, but not all towns have 40+ screens, you know. Here
in Tromsø (Northern Norway), which is considered a city by Norwegian
standards, we currently only have two screens (more are being planned, but
who knows when anything will happen). One of those is nice and big, but
there are still only two. Now imagine how diverse the selection of films
they show here is... They only show the largest productions (we were lucky
they showed "Requiem" here at all), and there are _never_ any movies from
other parts of the world than the English-speaking countries, Norway and
sometimes from other Scandinavian countries. The annual film festival offers
some relief, with films from all over the world, but that last for a week or
so, you see so many films that your eyeballs fall out, and then it's over...
Maybe contemporary cinema seems better when you have 40 screens showing lots
of different movies, but from here it seems pretty crappy.
*snipped lots of stuff which may have been aimed at me, but I really don't
know. In any case, I feel somewhat offended if it was*
> I'm sorry if this sounds in any way patronising, it isn't meant to, I just
> fear that by being what seems to me to be overly critical of what is out
> there now, you are actually withholding from yourself a lot of potentially
> good movies.
>
> I could have fast hold of entirely the wrong end of the stick, but if I'm
> right, it is a shame that someone who is as intelligent and as
knowledgeable
> as you clearly are, seems to have decided that you've seen the best films
> you'll ever see and it's all down hill from here.
It sounds like you're associating me with a lot of opinions I have never
expressed, perhaps because you think "people like me" must necessarily think
that way. Or perhaps I'm the one drawing the wrong conclusions now?
> You see, once time has passed and you have achieved perspective, you
realise
> that things change, paradigms shift and there is always the chance for
> rehabilitation.
Okay, _now_ you're sounding patronising... ;o)
Anyway, there's no reason to turn this into a big discussion, but I feel
you've made too many assumptions about me, and maybe we've both
misunderstood each other a bit, and this post was just an attempt to make
you understand me better, because I can't stand being misunderstood. I think
you seem like a nice guy, so I'll assume you had the best of intentions,
hopefully you'll still think I'm "intelligent and knowledgeable" and we can
all just get along, eh? ;o)
RoyBoy
I (being young) won't hold it against ya since you are
trying to cover the bases as best as possible.
But ageism is a big thing for me...so...yaknow.
Archnacho:
>Like I said, I don't think money is necessarily the most important issue.
>It doesn't matter that it's cheap and easy if you don't have the right
>people. Putting up a wanted poster in a college simply won't get you
>the Kurosawas or Kubricks...
***
No, fifty years of experience does.
***
Fifty years of time does...not experience...I understand
that who they are now is galvanize through time...a continuous
process...but it takes time for people
to catch up to the artist...sometimes 50 years...
sometimes more...sometimes less.
So I am balancing between them growing up...
or having to wait for the audience to grow up...
take Elvis...was he great? Or just at the right
time...but I guess the right timing is what makes
greatness. (ie. like serving a tennis ball)
Ahead of your time...you are a visionary...
idealist...not paid very well...
behind the times...a relic...historian...ummm
philosopher...writer...all these being of importance...
but again not paid well...
on time (reflection of the times)...celebrity...
entrepreneur...rich...successful...living legend.
So I'm saying one does not need 50 years
experience to achieve greatness...just
50 years for it to be properly recognized
and its evolution to now appreciated.
Archnacho:
>Or the studios invent reviewers when no
>real ones can find anything good to
>say about their movies. ;-)
***
Yes, I heard about that one. Can't say I'm surprised, but I am amused!
***
Hehehe...could you elaborate? Cause I'm
amused they have all this money and power...
and they don't bother just paying a hack to
sign the quip.
***
Sex, Lies and Videotape and Reservoir Dogs both happened because there were
the cinema screens for people to see them. Without these films and those
which followed in their wake - the likes of Aronofsky and Anderson would
like as not be working in theatre or on TV - they would be unlikely to have
had the feature film opportunities they have enjoyed.
***
That's cool...
***
Enjoy what's good, ignore what isn't,
and let the future take care of itself.
***
yes...Yes...ummmm no.
Isn't it impossible to let the future just happen?
So I disagree on two fronts...metaphorically...
and even pragmatically.
***
I'm sorry if this sounds in any way patronising, it isn't meant to, I just
fear that by being what seems to me to be overly critical of what is out
there now, you are actually withholding from yourself a lot of potentially
good movies.
***
True...although...wasn't Archnacho limiting himself to Hollywood
for the discussion...but I guess it don't matter since it is Hollywood
that eventually allowed indirectly or directly the process you
outlined with their profits.
Reminds me of the guy who ran Penthouse...Guccione...
he was going to use the profits from his Atlanta casino to
fund fusion research...but the feds got in the way...
so he didn't get the license.
***
I could have fast hold of entirely the wrong end of the stick, but if I'm
right, it is a shame that someone who is as intelligent and as knowledgeable
as you clearly are, seems to have decided that you've seen the best films
you'll ever see and it's all down hill from here.
***
Archnacho is pretty reactionary...ya gotta love'em.
***
I thought that, when Home Alone became the fourth biggest film of all time.
I threw my hands up in despair and wondered out loud to my listeners where
it had all gone wrong. Precisely when did we flush our taste and IQ away?
***
Ehehehehe
***
Home Alone looks subtle and sophisticated by comparison to the cinematic
running sores of the Farrelly Brothers and American Pie and the like, but,
on the whole, I was wrong.
On the whole, films are smarter and better made than they have been in
thirty years.
***
Yeah...its sweetness...give it to me!!!
Archnacho:
>what's pure crap now, will still be pure crap in
>thirty years. At least crap is instantly recognisable, even if art isn't.
***
Oh god, if that were true there would be no art, no love,
no religion ... no war.
***
I disagree...instantly recognizable to the person creating it...
for the most part Archnacho is right (if he means the creator of
course, which I don't think he did, but I will say he did)...but I
admit crazies can actually think they are reincarnations, and/or
they have special powers...or that killing a race is a good thing...
Archnacho:
>It'll be interesting to see who will be remembered as the great
>filmmakers of the nineties. My two cents is that Tarantino will
>only be remembered as a pop culture
Elvis anyone?
***
One of the details I love about, of all things, Demolition Man, is the
way it postulates a future where almost all popular culture of the late
twentieth century has been lost or forgotten. All the art, all the
literature, everything. All that remains are jingles and advertising
slogans.
***
The Jolly Green giant...man I love that jingle.
***
It seems a celebrity's handwriting is more profoundly valuable to the
world than the thoughts of a genius. What is it like, living in a world
where this is so? Interesting, unpredictable and prone to change!
***
I need tips on being a celebrity then...where do I sign up
to be a celebrity...and no...I don't want to sign my
soul to the devil. :')
***
How do we deal with a world where
values are so horrendously skewed?
As best we can!
***
Meaning drink alcohol...or resolve (like myself),
to be cronically optimistic since along with cinema,
civilization seems to be reaching new heights.
Hopefully it doesn't go so fast that it falls.
--
"Smiles free. Do you want petroleum flavored fries with that?"
"If truth is dynamic; how will it ever be found?" - RoyBoy
http://members.home.net/blade2019/
Avdoulos
death). He was always great!! Voice, Charisma, Style, Babe-Magnet, Pioneer,
The Man all men want to be!!
I haven't seen Fight Club. I look forward to seeing it sometime soon.
Actually, more to the point, and not necessarily in response to your reply,
I suppose good movies get made now (mainly on a lower budget), not many, but
they do appear now and then......My test of "good" is not what the critics
say but rather my response at the end of the movie....my test of "greatness"
is whether or not my response at the end of the fifth viewing is the same as
the response after the first. If I react as follows:
1st. Yeah!
2nd. OK
3rd Whatever....
then a film is not great (my opinion). A hollywood list of the top 100 US
movies of the last century means "sweet f@%k all" to me (excuse my
Australian language). A list such as this is pure BS. I haven't seen the
entire list, but I bet OW's A Touch of Evil is not on the list (although it
should be). I may be almost 30 but I'm not sentimental or ageist (??) with
movies. Since this is a BladeRunner NG I'll tell you what I like in SCI-FI
(excuse the SCI-FI label with some). Forbidden Planet, The Day the Earth
Stood Still, 2001, Alien, The Thing (remake), Bladerunner (obviously),
Aliens, Predator, Terminator 1 & 2, Fifth Element, Matrix, 12 Monkeys and
some others. Some are heavy on story, others are heavy on style. Some you'll
love, others you'll hate. Greatness should be judged by you wanting to watch
the movie again and again when you know the ending. Greatness should never
be judged by how regularly low and loud the bass track goes on a DVD.
Although....nothing wrong with bass. Unfortunately, when judging artistic
greatness, we'll need to take a vote, negotiate, bribe, cater to interest
groups and eventually cave in! Then you'll get your top 100 list.
I suppose when talking about "depth" in my previous post, I'm wondering why
spend so much money (ala Waterworld) and not have a solid script. I don't
mean 35,000 ft Pacific "deep' (ala Bladerunner) but something that keeps the
viewer going over the medium to long term (with repeat viewings). So much of
today's movies are Waterworld, Armageddon, Tomorrow Never Dies etc. I'm sure
you know what I'm trying to say. Add a solid script without affecting the
film's box-office potential (or at least improving it). Most cimena goers
(in Australia at least) appear to my eyes to be 17-22 yo. If that's a fact,
then only a well-made rollercoaster ride all-encompassing big budget movie
such as Matrix or T2 is the most I can hope for (catering to teenagers and
adults). I suppose I can also live happily with lower budget deep "SCI-FI"
movies (such as 12 monkeys). Maybe 2001 and Bladerunner are great to many
people partly because they were BIG in budget and DEEP in story aimed purely
at an adult or mature audience (something we'll probably never see again).
AHHHH......THE GOLDEN SCI-FI YEARS.....Now let me reach over for a tissue
John
Just my $0.02 worth (and that's in Australian dollars)
Avdoulos
Avdoulos
Jean-Christophe Boty
An a honnor to take a part (as i'm a young Frenchman mad about movies...)...
:-)
I think that N.Stansfield is right when he says that :
"They managed to produce great work *despite* the Studios.
The same is true today but - with cheaper means of production and wider
options for distribution, the opportunities to produce great work are more
numerous."
IMO the writer is a free man (we all agree with that), but as soon as you
have to direct a movie, money is essential. Thus Main Studios are
indispensable. It is why directors have to deal with it. In order to make
"the movie they want to do" they have to gain the complete confidence from
Studio (i.e. to be able to make a lot of money with a large audience). The
best example is John Woo. To be able to do what he wanted to do with Face
Off (which is quite excellent) he had to direct Broken Arrow.
Same thing with Luc Besson, he directed The Professional in order to have
enough money to make The Fifth Element.
I think now, directors are aware to deal with money and before being artist
they have to be businessmen, which is sad, isn't it ?
Of course everything is not black or white and there are still good
surprises or exceptions (hopefully) but men like Fellini, Bergman, Kurosawa,
Ford or Hitchcock are becoming rarer and rarer as every movie they made were
quite personal without keeping an eye on audience reactions. Even Scott (BR
is again for me the best movie of all times) directed Hannibal... :-[ (And
the fact that it was Scott is the only good thing in the movie, i thank
him).
Besides, we can't say that it is worse and worse because as our memory is
selective, we only remember good movies, and I agree when you're saying that
there were loads of dumb movies on these times. Only great movies are
passing through ages as BR does.
Excuse my English. And Oh yes, Kubrick won't be forgotten... ;-)
--
JCB
"I've seen things You people wouldn't believe."
"Lukas Mariman" <lukas....@skynet.be> a écrit dans le message news:
3b9b6876$0$36459$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
norman stansfield
>I (being young) won't hold it against ya since you are
>trying to cover the bases as best as possible.
>But ageism is a big thing for me...so...yaknow.
Well, it wasn't intended as ageism, rather a stab at helping someone avoid
making the same dumb mistakes I made.
As it turns out, I don't think I needed to worry, but I hope the points I
made were interesting nonetheless.
>Hehehe...could you elaborate? Cause I'm
>amused they have all this money and power...
>and they don't bother just paying a hack to
>sign the quip.
Well exactly. It's been standard practice for decades for poster quotes to
be little more than fiction ("If this is great film making, kill me now"
becomes "This is great film making" ... I made that one up, but you get the
point) well now they have finally gone one better and cut out the middle
man.
I love the shameless audacity of it. I love the fact that they were so
arrogant they chose to lie about something that *anybody* could see through.
And what do we do about it? Forget about it and move on. Just like we do
when our bosses lie, when celebrities lie, when politicians lie.
If people are willing to lie, cheat and steal over something as ephemeral as
a movie, just imagine how much truth there is in the protestations of the
geneticists that they aren't already breeding a better soldier, that they
aren't working on perfect 100% efficient viruses, that they really are quite
content to limit themselves to 'improving' the taste of the humble carrot.
It amuses me that they were found out so easily, it doesn't amuse me that
they will be have been rewarded for their deception with even more
publicity.
Lies, twenty-four times a second!
>I need tips on being a celebrity then...where do I sign up
>to be a celebrity...and no...I don't want to sign my
>soul to the devil. :')
Ah, well you're doomed to failure before you start, then. The soul has to
go right before the dignity!
>How do we deal with a world where
>values are so horrendously skewed?
>As best we can!
>***
>
>Meaning drink alcohol...or resolve (like myself),
>to be cronically optimistic since along with cinema,
>civilization seems to be reaching new heights.
>Hopefully it doesn't go so fast that it falls.
Amen to that.
norman stansfield
ArchNacho wrote in message ...
>11kb is already a bit much for a usenet post
Oh, God yes.
>*snipped several paragraphs about compromise and seething masses*
>,signal to noise ratio, college students,
>directors, made-up reviewers, the value of entertainment, blockbusters,
>diversity, the media, George Lucas, more seething masses etc. etc.*
>If I've given the impression that I boycott all entertaining movies (and I
>assume I must have), that's completely wrong. I have gone to see, and will
>continue to go to blockbusters for the entertainment and the social aspect
>of it.
Good, I'm glad.
I was (for no clearly discernible reason) worried that you were fitting
yourself into a role several people I know have inflicted on themselves,
where they seem to think that enjoyment is cheap, so refuse to lower
themselves. I went through that phase myself immediately after finishing
college and, boy, was I happy to come out the other side.
I'm also glad that I had indeed got hold of the wrong end of that proverbial
stick with regards to yourself - so just look upon my meanderings as some
old fart thinking in 'print'.
In essence I agreed with most of your concerns about the quality of what's
out there, but I have also learned that life is a lot more pleasant if,
failing to get what you love, you learn to love what you get (and no, that
isn't a philosophy for life, just for movies).
A lot of people I know don't seem to see things this way. I feel it's their
loss.
>*snipparoo several paragraphs about the development of great cinema
>equipment and how wonderful it is to have 40 screens showing all kinds of
>movie*
>That's all well and good, but not all towns have 40+ screens, you know.
Here
>in Tromsø (Northern Norway), which is considered a city by Norwegian
>standards, we currently only have two screens.
Well, oddly enough - I no longer live in Coventry, where all the screen
sprang up in the nineties, I now live in Lincolnshire where the nearest
cinema screens worth bothering with are 35 and 75 miles away respectively.
I made the 150 mile round trip to see Moulin Rouge on Saturday - hence my
mentioning of it previously, cos it's fresh in my mind.
So, trust me, I know how you feel!
This is why I have become an enthusiastic DVD buyer and renter - otherwise I
would have never seen 'Requiem', for example.
>*snipped lots of stuff which may have been aimed at me, but I really don't
>know. In any case, I feel somewhat offended if it was*
Don't be.
>It sounds like you're associating me with a lot of opinions I have never
>expressed
Very possibly. Like I 'said', I'm glad I was wrong with regard to yourself.
However, I stand by the general point I was attempting to make, in so far as
I do feel it is a shame that a lot of people seem to manufacture some odd
form of elitist manifesto around their refusal to enjoy what should, at
least from time to time, be enjoyable.
>Anyway, there's no reason to turn this into a big discussion, but I feel
>you've made too many assumptions about me, and maybe we've both
>misunderstood each other a bit, and this post was just an attempt to make
>you understand me better, because I can't stand being misunderstood.
In which case, I feel you've succeeded. I didn't intend to patronise, but,
if I did, I apologise ... my motive *was* pure.
>hopefully you'll still think I'm "intelligent and knowledgeable" and we can
>all just get along, eh? ;o)
Hey, if this was anything, it was a discussion, not an argument. I just
hope it was entertaining and maybe thought provoking for others.
Cheers.
norman stansfield
Jean-Christophe Boty wrote in message
<9nibdc$sbi$1...@s1.read.news.oleane.net>...
>Yeah, what a read. That's really a pleasure to have a look at this group.
>An a honnor to take a part (as i'm a young Frenchman mad about
movies...)...
Isn't it. Some of the smartest 'conversations' in the alt.fan world seem to
happen here. I just hope I'm not lowering the tone.
>IMO the writer is a free man (we all agree with that), but as soon as you
>have to direct a movie, money is essential. Thus Main Studios are
>indispensable. It is why directors have to deal with it. In order to make
>"the movie they want to do" they have to gain the complete confidence from
>Studio (i.e. to be able to make a lot of money with a large audience). The
>best example is John Woo. To be able to do what he wanted to do with Face
>Off (which is quite excellent) he had to direct Broken Arrow.
>Same thing with Luc Besson, he directed The Professional in order to have
>enough money to make The Fifth Element.
Look at John Sayles, he makes intensely personal and small films, financed
with the money he makes working as an uncredited (or, at least, rarely
credited) script doctor. The big boys know they can come to him for a final
polish and he won't belly-ache about his due credit. He takes the money,
then spends it on a small film which he will own and can therefore make
precisely as he wishes.
On a grander scale, Brian De Palma does much the same thing. Whatever you
think of the films themselves, the success of M:I gave him the wherewithall
to make the more personal Snake Eyes.
Even Spielberg has to play this game. He made Jurassic Park largely because
he wanted carte blanch to go off and do Schindler's List the way he wanted
to - in black and white.
It's the smart thing to do.
You dance with the devil - but you call the tune.
>Excuse my English.
I guarantee it's better than my French!
And Oh yes, Kubrick won't be forgotten... ;-)
No he won't. Although, checking out the credits on A.I., I don't know so
much.
Jean-Christophe Boty
news: Mg9n7.12402$fA.20...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> Jean-Christophe Boty wrote in message
> <9nibdc$sbi$1...@s1.read.news.oleane.net>...
>
> >Yeah, what a read. That's really a pleasure to have a look at this group.
> >An a honnor to take a part (as i'm a young Frenchman mad about
> movies...)...
>
>
> Isn't it. Some of the smartest 'conversations' in the alt.fan world seem
to
> happen here. I just hope I'm not lowering the tone.
>
No way, don't kid me ! :-)
>
> Look at John Sayles, he makes intensely personal and small films, financed
> with the money he makes working as an uncredited (or, at least, rarely
> credited) script doctor. The big boys know they can come to him for a
final
> polish and he won't belly-ache about his due credit. He takes the money,
> then spends it on a small film which he will own and can therefore make
> precisely as he wishes.
>
> On a grander scale, Brian De Palma does much the same thing. Whatever you
> think of the films themselves, the success of M:I gave him the
wherewithall
> to make the more personal Snake Eyes.
>
You're right, and don't forget excellent Carlito's Way.
> Even Spielberg has to play this game. He made Jurassic Park largely
because
> he wanted carte blanch to go off and do Schindler's List the way he wanted
> to - in black and white.
>
> It's the smart thing to do.
>
> You dance with the devil - but you call the tune.
>
>
> >Excuse my English.
>
> I guarantee it's better than my French!
>
> And Oh yes, Kubrick won't be forgotten... ;-)
>
> No he won't. Although, checking out the credits on A.I., I don't know so
> much.
There's another Kubrick's project to be directed : RKO Project. How, when
and where Orson Welles got the idea of 1941 Citizen Kane ! What a movie but
I don't know the director (I actually think that he is not known)
Unfortunately, A.I. is not out yet in France (it will be soon released).
Cheers,
wamccabe
"norman stansfield" <norman.s...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:joIm7.2274$fA.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
I don't think Manhunter played to cinemas here - I don't remember it from
the time anyway. Highlander came out to a whole lot of publicity (mostly for
the odd casting of accents) and I only considered it because I'd just seen
Lambert in Subway. I still go to Luc Besson films but he's best when there's
a good pace to it.
Then there's Betty Blue, Blue Velvet, Children of a lesser god, Little shop
of horrors, The name of the rose, and My little pony ....
>
> My point is that there has always been a wide signal to noise ratio. You
> can remember all the shit that came out this summer, because it is fresh
in
> your memory. You've probably forgotten how bad 1998 was, or 1993.
>
> Therefore, if there has always been the low quality, there has always been
> the high-quality to which it must be compared.
>
> Filmmakers are, by and large, very skilled and intelligent people.
> Craftspeople. Even artists. Studio bureaucrats are skilled at protecting
> their corporate interests, at actively offending the fewest people, and at
> counting the shekels.
>
> This has always been so. During the supposedly great days of the Studio
> System, great work was produced by visionary Hollywood filmmakers under a
> regime more restrictive than that faced by their Russian contemporaries.
> The amount of artistic controlled surrendered by the Studios was kept to
an
> absolute minimum. Yet still this system produced John Ford, Alfred
> Hitchcock, Michael Curtiz, Anthony Mann and so on.
>
Hitchcock was not a product of the "Studio System" he had done well in
england before moving to america early in WW2. Even his american pictures
were not quite as glossy as the regular studio product.
> They managed to produce great work *despite* the Studios.
>
> The same is true today but - with cheaper means of production and wider
> options for distribution, the opportunities to produce great work are more
> numerous.
>
> Also, the Studios are now wise enough to know that they don't necessarily
> know *everything*. Tarantino and Blair Witch taught them this.
>
Tarantino has appeared in more films than he has directed and he's no great
actor. Blair Witch has been followed by Blair Witch 2 - the cash-in.
The british film industry is almost dead on it's feet. Almost anything that
reaches a cinema nowadays runs on american money. Sometimes you get a public
contribution but that's rare for anything over half an hour long.
Why don't they "go and see the other film"? The big movie might be "Planet
of the Apes" or "Tomb Raider" but the other picture is "Dr Doolittle 2" or
"Evolution". Are you sure we should be going to "the other picture".
> This is the pleasure and pain of democracy. They have the right to make
> films like Tomb Raider and Planet of the Apes and we have the right to go
> see them. The same is true of Moulin Rouge and Requiem For A Dream and
> Amelie.
>
> If we stay away from these films, it is also by choice. If we rediscover
> them years later and find we like them, we do so by choice.
>
> So, the talent is there, the means to produce and distribute is there, the
> will is certainly there ... but is the audience? And if not now, will it
> ever be there?
>
> I don't think anyone looked upon Citizen Kane in 1942 and said "Now
there's
> a film destined for greatness!". They didn't do it with "Casablanca",
they
> didn't do it with "It's a Wonderful Life". They certainly didn't do it
with
> Blade Runner. Nor, I suspect, did any of us.
>
As I understand it the critics always loved "Citizen Kane" - the industry
wasn't terribly keen on Welles - but it still got award nominations.
Casablanca won the academy award for best picture / director / screenplay.
"It's a wonderful life" is still too twee for some and it's very Hollywood.
> Any work of art grows into greatness. It needs perspective and, yes,
maybe
> a little nostalgia.
>
> Who knows, maybe Aranofsky or PT Anderson will be forgotten in five years
> time. I doubt they will still be being mentioned in the same breath as
> Kubrick. But ten years after that, or twenty? We don't know.
>
> But then again, who does?
>
>
>
>
> Blimey - that turned into a bit of a lecture, didn't it. Whoa. Sorry.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.265 / Virus Database: 137 - Release Date: 18/07/2001
ArchNacho
news:8nSm7.25110$at.47...@news1.busy1.on.home.com
> So I am balancing between them growing up...
> or having to wait for the audience to grow up...
> take Elvis...was he great? Or just at the right
> time...but I guess the right timing is what makes
> greatness. (ie. like serving a tennis ball)
Just at the right time, not really that great, but that's just my opinion of
course...
> Ahead of your time...you are a visionary...
> idealist...not paid very well...
> behind the times...a relic...historian...ummm
> philosopher...writer...all these being of importance...
> but again not paid well...
> on time (reflection of the times)...celebrity...
> entrepreneur...rich...successful...living legend.
You know, sometimes your writing is a bit confusing. ;o)
> So I'm saying one does not need 50 years
> experience to achieve greatness...just
> 50 years for it to be properly recognized
> and its evolution to now appreciated.
Are you sure that was what you were saying? I kind of got the impression
that you prefer the people who get instant fame, but are often forgotten
after a decade or two?
> Hehehe...could you elaborate? Cause I'm
> amused they have all this money and power...
> and they don't bother just paying a hack to
> sign the quip.
I think it was Paramount Studios. At least it was "the one that's owned by
Sony" (from now on referred to as TOTOBS), can't really remember if that's
Paramount. Can't remember what name they used, but in any case there were
some people at TOTOBS who wrote reviews of their own movies and got them
printed regularly in some paper. This went on for some time, but in the end
it was discovered, whereafter everyone at TOTOBS denied all involvement...
If that's what you wanted when you asked for elaboration?
> ***
> I could have fast hold of entirely the wrong end of the stick, but if I'm
> right, it is a shame that someone who is as intelligent and as
knowledgeable
> as you clearly are, seems to have decided that you've seen the best films
> you'll ever see and it's all down hill from here.
> ***
>
> Archnacho is pretty reactionary...ya gotta love'em.
Oyyyyyyy! I may be somewhat conservative when it comes to movies, but I will
not be associated with those right-wing bastards politically. By American
standards I'm a commie bastard. That's by American standards, of course. By
normal standards I'm just slightly left of most modern social democrats.
Just to make that perfectly clear. :o)
> Archnacho:
> >It'll be interesting to see who will be remembered as the great
> >filmmakers of the nineties. My two cents is that Tarantino will
> >only be remembered as a pop culture
>
> Elvis anyone?
What about that overweight junkie? (that's how _I_ will always remember him,
anyway)
> ***
> It seems a celebrity's handwriting is more profoundly valuable to the
> world than the thoughts of a genius. What is it like, living in a world
> where this is so? Interesting, unpredictable and prone to change!
> ***
>
> I need tips on being a celebrity then...where do I sign up
> to be a celebrity...and no...I don't want to sign my
> soul to the devil. :')
I guess you haven't realized this yet, RoyBoy, but you can't have one
without the other. Now get in line, and please keep your soul ready. You're
not the only one waiting, you know. ;o)
> ***
> How do we deal with a world where
> values are so horrendously skewed?
> As best we can!
> ***
>
> Meaning drink alcohol...or resolve (like myself),
> to be cronically optimistic since along with cinema,
> civilization seems to be reaching new heights.
> Hopefully it doesn't go so fast that it falls.
So you don't think we're falling already?
We Westerners are becoming/have become consumer slaves, the rest of the
world is mostly starving or at least living in extreme poverty and dying of
diseases that could be cured if the right medicines were available, George
W. Bush was elected president of the most powerful state in the world,
Kurosawa's dead, and that's what you call reaching new heights? Many things
have improved, many things have become worse, some things haven't changed
much at all, but saying civilization seems to be reaching new heights sounds
a bit too chronically optimistic, IMO.
ArchNacho
news:9nibdc$sbi$1...@s1.read.news.oleane.net
> IMO the writer is a free man (we all agree with that), but as soon as you
> have to direct a movie, money is essential. Thus Main Studios are
> indispensable. It is why directors have to deal with it. In order to make
> "the movie they want to do" they have to gain the complete confidence from
> Studio (i.e. to be able to make a lot of money with a large audience). The
> best example is John Woo. To be able to do what he wanted to do with Face
> Off (which is quite excellent) he had to direct Broken Arrow.
> Same thing with Luc Besson, he directed The Professional in order to have
> enough money to make The Fifth Element.
> I think now, directors are aware to deal with money and before being
artist
> they have to be businessmen, which is sad, isn't it ?
Yes, it is. Or at least I think it is. Since you mention John Woo, my
opinion is that he's simply not as good when working in the US. Personally,
I think it has to with limitations put on him by the studios, although the
lack of insane stuntmen and the freedom to do just about anything on the
set, as he had in HK, probably has something to do with it as well. It's
also a problem that his style doesn't really work in big Hollywood
productions. Now all his movies are full of special effects and all the
typical Hollywood mumbo jumbo. In HK, he couldn't use all kinds of computer
animated effects, so he relied on actors who could do their own (often
amazing) stunts while looking a helluva' lot cooler than their American
counterparts, insane stuntmen who would do things no American stuntman would
do, lack of studio censorship, lots of experience among HK crews in making
that kind of movies and generally cool, low-cost action. In America it seems
almost like he's trying too hard to fit in...
> Of course everything is not black or white and there are still good
> surprises or exceptions (hopefully) but men like Fellini, Bergman,
Kurosawa,
> Ford or Hitchcock are becoming rarer and rarer as every movie they made
were
> quite personal without keeping an eye on audience reactions.
Well, Kurosawa did almost kill himself after "Dodes'kaden" failed completely
at the box offices, but he never made movies just to appeal to mass
audiences. He made what he thought was good, and the results were amazing.
If only more directors would do that. (now, again, I'm not saying this was
necessarily better before than now, just that I personally think Kurosawa is
the greatest director ever)
> Excuse my English. And Oh yes, Kubrick won't be forgotten... ;-)
You know, I have to admit that I'm not a big fan of 2001, (I've really
tried, but I still think it's boring) so for a long time I wasn't sure if I
liked Kubrick at all, until I saw "A Clockwork Orange". Now I'm a believer!
:o)
Your English is fine, BTW.
RoyBoy
So you don't think we're falling already?
There are trippings, but not a fall. (for the first world)
Not when put into comparison with the past.
***
We Westerners are becoming/have become consumer slaves, the rest of the
world is mostly starving or at least living in extreme poverty and dying of
diseases that could be cured if the right medicines were available,
***
The pendulum swings...it is swinging back...as to the poverty
and starvation of many...that is certainly falling...
this is what Star Trek's prime directive has in mind when they
are not to interfere or contact less developed cultures...too much...
to fast, that is exactly the falling I am describing.
Despite this, and this will sound heartless, they are not the
ones who will be carrying the torch of humanity...at least
not at this point...what needs to be done there is to curry
the political power to make the Banks forgive the loans
they gave to corrupt governments...then build from there.
***
George W. Bush was elected president of the most powerful state
in the world, Kurosawa's dead, and that's what you call reaching
new heights?
****
I dislike Bush as much as the next guy...
but he is flanked by capable people.
I looked up Kurosawa...the filmmaker?
***
Many things have improved, many things have become worse, some
things haven't changed much at all, but saying civilization seems to be
reaching new heights sounds a bit too chronically optimistic, IMO.
***
Well you need a broader view. Women, human, black rights have
made headway. People can be held accountable for their actions.
Rwanda is a failing...a big one...especially in contrast...but
the technological revolution will bring with it new properity just
as the industrial one did. Common Archnacho...100 years and
look at what has happened! Big picture...not just 20 year picture.
And biotech ushers in new properity. This is exciting...it is the
most exciting time to be alive...last time I checked we were
building an international space station.
With the cold war gone we face a new kind of warfare...
but it will not hold the same fear as the cold war did.
Again big picture.
You can even make your picture very small and look at
things you take for granted. A friend of mine had chronic
*painful* ulcers. In the past there would be nothing for
him except..."oh it is caused by stress"...he would have
had a lifetime of pain...now...a trip to the doctor...a
treatment and boom...he's fine. He barely gives it a
second thought now...I think of it all the time...and it
is in all these small victories you find my optimism. But
they do manifest themselves in large things as well.
The only thing that deters my optimism is overpopulation...
and the potential for epidemics. I am aware of these
specters...I look at them and say...f*** you!
It is ironic the best form of population control
(homosexuality) is intrincally linked to the recent
pandemic of AIDS. However, I ask myself if
this would have happened if gays were not kept
in the closet with intolerance. Despite this...the
role homosexuality played (i think) is mostly in
the spread in the first world...and yes...I am
aware of prostitutes and truckers probably
played a large...if not larger role.
ArchNacho
news:8lAn7.12288$0%.154278@news1.busy1.on.home.com
> ***
> We Westerners are becoming/have become consumer slaves, the rest of the
> world is mostly starving or at least living in extreme poverty and dying
of
> diseases that could be cured if the right medicines were available,
> ***
>
> The pendulum swings...it is swinging back...as to the poverty
> and starvation of many...that is certainly falling...
The percentage is falling, the number of poor people has remained constant
and even grown slightly, at least for the last 15 years because of
population growth. If it wasn't for China's positive development the numbers
would most likely be worse than they were 15-20 years ago. In Africa
(including North Africa) and the former communist states, mainly in Eastern
Europe, poverty actually increased both in share of the population and
numbers...
> this is what Star Trek's prime directive has in mind when they
> are not to interfere or contact less developed cultures...too much...
> to fast, that is exactly the falling I am describing.
We have already interfered far too much. That is exactly the problem for
many of these countries...
> Despite this, and this will sound heartless, they are not the
> ones who will be carrying the torch of humanity...at least
> not at this point...what needs to be done there is to curry
> the political power to make the Banks forgive the loans
> they gave to corrupt governments...then build from there.
Who cares about carrying the torch of humanity? Especially when we've spent
so much time using that "torch" to burn everything from books to people...
Besides, the industrialized countries only make up a relatively small part
of humanity and sitting back feeling proud because we can send men into
space is laughable when you look at the situation in the rest of the world.
> ***
> Many things have improved, many things have become worse, some
> things haven't changed much at all, but saying civilization seems to be
> reaching new heights sounds a bit too chronically optimistic, IMO.
> ***
>
> Well you need a broader view. Women, human, black rights have
> made headway.
In the West.
> People can be held accountable for their actions.
In the West, unless they have money...
> Rwanda is a failing...a big one...especially in contrast...but
> the technological revolution will bring with it new properity just
> as the industrial one did.
Maybe, but those who really need that prosperity will completely miss out on
the "revolution". Those of us who will "benefit" from it already have far
more prosperity than what's good for us, anyway...
> Common Archnacho...100 years and
> look at what has happened!
WWI, WWII, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Cold War, rise of muslim fundamentalism,
Rwanda, Kosovo, countless other wars, AIDS, 25,000 starving to death every
day, people dying of malaria even though there's a cure...
Or maybe you had something else in mind?
> Big picture...not just 20 year picture.
> And biotech ushers in new properity. This is exciting...it is the
> most exciting time to be alive...
Come on, people have been saying that since God knows when...
> last time I checked we were
> building an international space station.
Which is all well and good, but I think we should be more concerned with
what's going on down here right now...
> The only thing that deters my optimism is overpopulation...
> and the potential for epidemics. I am aware of these
> specters...I look at them and say...f*** you!
What do you mean by the "potential" for epidemics? What would you call the
situation with AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa?
> It is ironic the best form of population control
> (homosexuality) is intrincally linked to the recent
> pandemic of AIDS. However, I ask myself if
> this would have happened if gays were not kept
> in the closet with intolerance. Despite this...the
> role homosexuality played (i think) is mostly in
> the spread in the first world...and yes...I am
> aware of prostitutes and truckers probably
> played a large...if not larger role.
Homosexuality has very, very little to do with the _real_ AIDS problem in
the world, and that problem is not found in the US...
My point is not that things are necessarily worse than ever, just that I
can't agree with the statement that we're "reaching new heights". Things are
basically the same as always. A small part of the world is developing
technology far more advanced than anything that's been developed before, but
in the big picture, which is so important to you, that doesn't really
matter. All this new technology will most likely not make us any happier,
and it won't make us better people in any way that counts. It will not feed
the starving, because even if we invent technology with that potential,
that's not what it will be used for. It will probably do very little at all
for the vast majority of the world's population.
I think it's you who need a broader view. IMO, we'll only be reaching new
heights as a civilization when we wake up and realize that human lives and
happiness are a lot more important than money or technology.
RoyBoy
The percentage is falling, the number of poor people has remained constant
and even grown slightly, at least for the last 15 years because of
population growth. If it wasn't for China's positive development the numbers
would most likely be worse than they were 15-20 years ago. In Africa
(including North Africa) and the former communist states, mainly in Eastern
Europe, poverty actually increased both in share of the population and
numbers...
I meant a falling...or more accurately failing. Yes, the hoarding of
financial power has switched from Monarchies, to Governments...
to Corporations. (in the west)
***
We have already interfered far too much.
That is exactly the problem for
many of these countries...
***
Yes.
***
Who cares about carrying the torch of humanity? Especially when we've spent
so much time using that "torch" to burn everything from books to people...
Besides, the industrialized countries only make up a relatively small part
of humanity and sitting back feeling proud because we can send men into
space is laughable when you look at the situation in the rest of the world.
***
Well I knew I was going to get heat for that...
the concentration of power is as always the few...
If you took into account the good vs bad...you see the tipping of
the balance for good in the developed world. However,
I acknowledge this in part is thanks to the exploitation, past
and present of the third and developing world who numbers
have swelled because of technological surge which was not
balanced with education and cultural adaptation.
There will always be the have and have nots...and I admit
the haves exploit the have nots...and it shames me. Hmmmm...
now I'm starting to get all depressed...bleh.
RB:
> Well you need a broader view.
> Women, human, black rights have
> made headway.
Archnacho:
>In the West.
In most of the world. Although I do plead
ignorance on the evolution of the Chinese
policies...I do know India is still in transistion
along with deveoloping countries.
RB:
> People can be held accountable for their actions.
Archnacho:
>In the West, unless they have money...
Okay...you got me there.
***
WWI, WWII, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Cold War, rise of muslim fundamentalism,
Rwanda, Kosovo, countless other wars, AIDS, 25,000 starving to death every
day, people dying of malaria even though there's a cure...
Or maybe you had something else in mind?
***
Sure, but MY list would crash the server.
Improvements in medicine...specifically reducing child mortality.
Please do not list your statistics on child mortality...I can
look them up for myself, however it won't change it much.
And it is ironic I admit...that although child mortality has been
reduced...even in Africa...they end up starving to death...:'(
RB:
> Big picture...not just 20 year picture.
> And biotech ushers in new properity. This is exciting...it is the
> most exciting time to be alive...
Archnacho:
***
Come on, people have been saying that since God knows when...
***
I know...and as we progress it will get more and more exciting...
that is the point...in the present and in the past...the people
weren't wrong...they are perpetually right. As we progress,
we will have the technical sophistication to realistically deal
with the problems in the third world...course political will
is still non-existent. (shame)
***
Which is all well and good,
but I think we should be more concerned with
what's going on down here right now...
***
ISS represents technical sophitication and knowledge.
I ain't saying its great...I am saying it represents greatness.
RB:
> The only thing that deters my optimism is overpopulation...
> and the potential for epidemics. I am aware of these
> specters...I look at them and say...f*** you!
***
What do you mean by the "potential" for epidemics?
What would you call the situation with AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa?
***
Doh! I should stop talking. :'( That is an epidemic certainly...
I want to say there is little that can be done...but that would
be also be a half-truth. There is little that can be done for
that truly lost generation...debt forginess and funding needs
to be slammed into infrastructure...especially in education.
(to reduce birth rates)
***
Homosexuality has very, very little to do with the _real_
AIDS problem in the world, and that problem is not found
in the US...
***
True.
***
My point is not that things are necessarily worse than ever, just that I
can't agree with the statement that we're "reaching new heights". Things are
basically the same as always. A small part of the world is developing
technology far more advanced than anything that's been developed before, but
in the big picture, which is so important to you, that doesn't really
matter. All this new technology will most likely not make us any happier,
and it won't make us better people in any way that counts. It will not feed
the starving, because even if we invent technology with that potential,
that's not what it will be used for. It will probably do very little at all
for the vast majority of the world's population.
I think it's you who need a broader view. IMO, we'll only be reaching new
heights as a civilization when we wake up and realize that human lives and
happiness are a lot more important than money or technology.
***
Well my view did unfortunately narrow...and I need reminding from
time to time to broaden it and I thank you. However, the big
picture is still bright.
Technology goes beyond computer games and the ISS...these
'laughable' achievements is exactly why I point the narrow
finger at you...which you successfully pointed back.
Through the use of technology for education and the democracy...
it is wonderful. Things 'are basically the same as always' is
certainly sound wisdom...because humanity are still tribesman...
and act as such...however I see technologies spread and good
outweighing its bad...and that as it improves so will our lives...
and eventually so will we improve. (if we are fortunate to survive)
The effects on Africa were not
forseen...and it is unfortunate and out of control...and it is
certainly more unfortunate that developed nations do not
take responsibility for their horrific mess and apathy to
Africas plight.
In the end I do concede the Heart of Darkness
is with us to this day (that's why I refer to it often).
That the scales of achievement
and suffering are higher then they have ever been...
I would like to think that through the achievements,
the suffering will eventually be stemmed.
You may not believe me...but I am aware (not fully)
but I do realize that things are not rosy and peachy
on the whole. And even if I conceded a tie...that things
are the same...you do see my point that technology
and knowledge and education will assist in bringing
solutions to those who so desperately need them.
Your cynisism is well founded...because more can
certainly be done...easily far more could be done on
the West's part not only to help...but not to exaserbate
the situation with debt interest payments of the
poorest countries in the world. But I see...(or choose to
see) the break in the clouds...and that the progress we
are making in the first world...will not just go into making
the next best home console.
Netrunner
>***
>The percentage is falling, the number of poor people has remained constant
>and even grown slightly, at least for the last 15 years because of
>population growth. If it wasn't for China's positive development the numbers
>would most likely be worse than they were 15-20 years ago. In Africa
>(including North Africa) and the former communist states, mainly in Eastern
>Europe, poverty actually increased both in share of the population and
>numbers...
>***
Don't even bother quoting stats for those statements, because they
would be largely meaningless. While poverty is still a problem for
the world, (including in our own so-called "developed" countries), it
has changed in aspect. Obviously from the point of view of someone
trying to find some food today, that would be a meaningless statement,
but in terms of politics and economies, we are talking about different
causes of poverty in many cases to 20 years ago, and some are clearly
transitory.
>I meant a falling...or more accurately failing. Yes, the hoarding of
>financial power has switched from Monarchies, to Governments...
>to Corporations. (in the west)
What is this "in the west" business? Check out corporate power bases
like Tokyo, Singapore and Hong Kong. See what has happened (for those
related to the corporations) in Malaysia, Philipines, etc. India's
corporations have grown enormously. The successful in China and
former Soviet countries, particularly Russia, are hugely successful.
Is Australia in the West? In Africa, those with money have a lot of
it. And I see no problem in there being rich people and corporations
in the world. The problem is poverty, starvation and exploitation.
While these are sometimes linked, such as big American clothing
manufacturers having terrible effects on local economies by sucking up
workers and yet still paying them peanuts, the two things should not
be seen as one single issue.
>***
>We have already interfered far too much.
>That is exactly the problem for
>many of these countries...
>***
>
>Yes.
No. All too often the biggest problems have arisen when the often
corrupt or arrogant government kicks out the European "invaders" only
to then plought there country into dire poverty and internal conflict.
This is particularly obvious in Africa over the past 40 years where
country after country has gone "independent" and straight down a hole.
Of course I would wish countries to become independent, but in a
controlled manner rather than the way it usually happens. One of the
results of the sweeping political change is that after the economy has
blown up, they then invite the big corporations back in, but are
slaves to their money.
>***
>Who cares about carrying the torch of humanity? Especially when we've spent
>so much time using that "torch" to burn everything from books to people...
>Besides, the industrialized countries only make up a relatively small part
>of humanity and sitting back feeling proud because we can send men into
>space is laughable when you look at the situation in the rest of the world.
>***
The torch is at the leading edge and therefore will always be carried
by just a few. It is the duty of those who back up the few to bring
everyone else along. That is why we should care. Of course I agree
that if those immediately following the leaders decide to use their
knowledge to distance themselves from the latter half of people by
pushing them down, then that is misuse of the knowledge. But that is
back to the "is a car evil" question - if somebody uses a car to run
someone else over, it is not the car that is eveil, it is the person
driving the car.
>Well I knew I was going to get heat for that...
>the concentration of power is as always the few...
>If you took into account the good vs bad...you see the tipping of
>the balance for good in the developed world. However,
>I acknowledge this in part is thanks to the exploitation, past
>and present of the third and developing world who numbers
>have swelled because of technological surge which was not
>balanced with education and cultural adaptation.
In some countries it is technology and education that has helped to
curb out of control rising population. Technology has certainly
helped increase populations in the sense that it has helped radically
reduce infant mortality at one end and length and quality of life at
the other.
>There will always be the have and have nots...and I admit
>the haves exploit the have nots...and it shames me. Hmmmm...
>now I'm starting to get all depressed...bleh.
Some of the haves. Not all of them. Some of the haves do a great
deal to help the have nots. However, if we go back a couple of
hundred years, the world was in the hands of very, very few haves who
often totally exploited the have nots, which consisted of almost
everybody. Whether in Europe, the East, Africa, etc. it was the
same. The people in charge had everything. The only way to get to be
one was to be an exploiter yourself. I think things have changed so
that there is at least a large amount of middle ground (in most
countries).
>RB:
>> Well you need a broader view.
>> Women, human, black rights have
>> made headway.
>
>Archnacho:
>>In the West.
>
>In most of the world. Although I do plead
>ignorance on the evolution of the Chinese
>policies...I do know India is still in transistion
>along with deveoloping countries.
Again, human rights have moved forwards in most countries around the
world, not just "the west". Of course there are some countries where
they still have a very long way to go compared to our values, but that
doesn't mean they are not considerably better than they were 100 years
ago.
>RB:
>> People can be held accountable for their actions.
>
>Archnacho:
>>In the West, unless they have money...
>
>Okay...you got me there.
Focusing on the richest 2% is not useful when examining the status of
society in general. But the world is generally not a very fair place
wherever you are. Power is not always in the same place as the money.
A small town policeman in the USA can wield great power over an
individual's rights. I am sure that mostly they are fair and upright.
But bad people get into every profession.
>***
>WWI, WWII, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Cold War, rise of muslim fundamentalism,
>Rwanda, Kosovo, countless other wars, AIDS, 25,000 starving to death every
>day, people dying of malaria even though there's a cure...
>
>Or maybe you had something else in mind?
>***
Some of the things you mentioned have been around for centuries.
Others that you mentioned are just more recent occurrences of old
evils. Wars have been going on always with commanders sending their
troops over the hill to be butchered and lay dying in their own blood.
Evil leaders have torn various parts of the world apart - in the past
the area may have been smaller, but percentage casualties were still
enormous. Religious differences and hatred go back thousands of years
and are often written in to the religious teaching, (be one of us or
be damned). African tribes have been fighting each other always.
Disease epidemics have caused huge death tolls - I am sure you know
the percentage of an entire county's population that could be wiped
out by the plague. We know more about it and have new ways of causing
it, but starvation is no worse percentage wise than it ever was. Many
of the things you mentioned have been reduced - of course we should
have done more about some of them to eradicate war and much disease
and poverty, but people always get in the way.
>Sure, but MY list would crash the server.
>Improvements in medicine...specifically reducing child mortality.
>Please do not list your statistics on child mortality...I can
>look them up for myself, however it won't change it much.
>And it is ironic I admit...that although child mortality has been
>reduced...even in Africa...they end up starving to death...:'(
Much improvements have been made.
>RB:
>> Big picture...not just 20 year picture.
>> And biotech ushers in new properity. This is exciting...it is the
>> most exciting time to be alive...
>
>Archnacho:
>***
>Come on, people have been saying that since God knows when...
>***
>
>I know...and as we progress it will get more and more exciting...
>that is the point...in the present and in the past...the people
>weren't wrong...they are perpetually right. As we progress,
>we will have the technical sophistication to realistically deal
>with the problems in the third world...course political will
>is still non-existent. (shame)
People like power. Powerful people like to keep power. One of the
most depressing things to me has been to see money dumped in huge
quantities into some countries, but little of it filtering through to
the people it was meant to help. Until we have a world government, it
is often difficult to make the direct connection to the people. And
then they will keep fighting each other, sometimes just because they
were born into a different tribe, or caste or even just on the other
side of a river. Technology will become *an* answer to such things
only when it can provide for all and thus extend the social conscience
with minimal monetary cost. People are much more willing to give if
it doesn't cost themselves anything.
>***
>Which is all well and good,
>but I think we should be more concerned with
>what's going on down here right now...
>***
>
>ISS represents technical sophitication and knowledge.
>I ain't saying its great...I am saying it represents greatness.
It is like saying we shouldn't fund artists because they are not
helping to stop poverty. Of course we should focus great energy into
solving the world's problems, but that does not mean we should stop
making great scientific advances in areas that do not have an
immediate impact on poor people. Indeed, it is often as side products
of such things that we get the technology to help - by increasing crop
yields, preventing crop eradication by disease or insects, making
cheaper ways to create and deliver medicines, upgrading communications
for all, and even finding our way out into the stars so that when we
do need to leave Earth, (which one day we will in order for humanity
to survive at all), we will be able to do so.
>RB:
>> The only thing that deters my optimism is overpopulation...
>> and the potential for epidemics. I am aware of these
>> specters...I look at them and say...f*** you!
>
>***
>What do you mean by the "potential" for epidemics?
>What would you call the situation with AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa?
>***
AIDS is an epidemic certainly - many people do not really have a
conception of just how serious it is. However, there is also a
potential for other epidemics, possibly even man-made (Twelve Monkeys
anyone?)
>***
>My point is not that things are necessarily worse than ever, just that I
>can't agree with the statement that we're "reaching new heights".
There is a huge difference between "humanity is reaching new heights"
and "all of humanity is reaching new heights". IMHO. Actually I
consider that not only are the top of humanity higher than before, but
the statistical mean is higher as well. Such things should not bring
smugness or complacency - they carry with them a responsibility to
bring the less fortunate up to a higher level. While at the same time
recognising that different peoples can have different views of what
"ideal" means.
> Things are basically the same as always.
That is such a simplistic statement it is not even worth refuting.
> A small part of the world is developing
>technology far more advanced than anything that's been developed before, but
>in the big picture, which is so important to you, that doesn't really
>matter. All this new technology will most likely not make us any happier,
>and it won't make us better people in any way that counts. It will not feed
>the starving, because even if we invent technology with that potential,
>that's not what it will be used for. It will probably do very little at all
>for the vast majority of the world's population.
Again, technology is being developed to help bring flourishing crops
to areas that need them, to bring other industries and improvements to
industries into those countries that currently have less, so that they
will in future earn the money that will allow them to stand on their
own feet and trade with the world without being exploited. But
looking for a technological solution is just like saying that science
is the opposite to religion. It is a separate thing. Politics and
power are the problems when it comes to poverty and starvation.
Advances in technology aid the world in general, but only if they are
(a) allowed to be used and (b) allowed to be supplied, and (c) able to
be used. Take for example the problem of a course of pills to be
taken throughout the day, different pills at different times of the
day, that can cure one or other serious disease that may be prevalent
in central Africa - how do you do this if you don't own a watch?
>I think it's you who need a broader view. IMO, we'll only be reaching new
>heights as a civilization when we wake up and realize that human lives and
>happiness are a lot more important than money or technology.
>***
>
>Well my view did unfortunately narrow...and I need reminding from
>time to time to broaden it and I thank you. However, the big
>picture is still bright.
>
>Technology goes beyond computer games and the ISS...these
>'laughable' achievements is exactly why I point the narrow
>finger at you...which you successfully pointed back.
The dissemination of knowledge and information around the world has
increased radically because of technology.
>Through the use of technology for education and the democracy...
>it is wonderful. Things 'are basically the same as always' is
>certainly sound wisdom...because humanity are still tribesman...
>and act as such...however I see technologies spread and good
>outweighing its bad...and that as it improves so will our lives...
>and eventually so will we improve. (if we are fortunate to survive)
Humanity needs reminders, (such as Blade Runner), that we *must* have
empathy for our fellow humans. (Bet you didn't see that one coming
...) I agree that some fundamentals of our general psyche remain
rooted in tribal culture. I disagree that things are the same as
always in all respects - much has changed, not all for the better, but
generally so.
>The effects on Africa were not
>forseen...and it is unfortunate and out of control...and it is
>certainly more unfortunate that developed nations do not
>take responsibility for their horrific mess and apathy to
>Africas plight.
Well, like I said somewhere further up, the problems in Africa in so
many countries really got going when they kicked out the Europeans
from running their country, but without learning how to do it
themselves. That is simplistic and of course it doesn't imply there
weren't any problems before. However, it is mainly by political
changes that they have opened themselves up to corporate invasion.
Sure we can cancel their loans. What then? Tribal warfare is rife in
some parts of Africa, (even in South Africa), and corruption is a way
fo life in other parts of Africa. Applying guilt to other countries
doesn't actually solve any problems. And in many cases, countries are
not paying their debts anyway. Wars and corrupt politicians have
crippled so many peoples. Sometimes the war is the only way for the
government to stay in power, by avoiding solving the economic and
social problems. And I'm not talking just about Africa or even
totally literally either ...
>In the end I do concede the Heart of Darkness
>is with us to this day (that's why I refer to it often).
>That the scales of achievement
>and suffering are higher then they have ever been...
>I would like to think that through the achievements,
>the suffering will eventually be stemmed.
When you read or even watch Science Fiction, what do you see?
Sometimes we get the Star Trek type of world, where replicators
provide cheap food, people around the world have been brought under a
single government, many diseases have been eradicated, there is peace.
And there are still many problems with individuals or groups. And
thats the optimistic view! Then there are worlds like in Blade Runner
(yes!, he brings it in again!), where the world has been crapped out,
whether by war or disaster or simply by resource exploitation, it is a
bad place for many people. Which do you think is more likely? The
advances we make sociologically are just never enough.
>You may not believe me...but I am aware (not fully)
>but I do realize that things are not rosy and peachy
>on the whole. And even if I conceded a tie...that things
>are the same...you do see my point that technology
>and knowledge and education will assist in bringing
>solutions to those who so desperately need them.
I agree with that.
>Your cynisism is well founded...because more can
>certainly be done...easily far more could be done on
>the West's part not only to help...but not to exaserbate
>the situation with debt interest payments of the
>poorest countries in the world. But I see...(or choose to
>see) the break in the clouds...and that the progress we
>are making in the first world...will not just go into making
>the next best home console.
I am not so sure about that. Companies do things for their
shareholders. Shareholders invest to earn money. Hence corporations,
(which are owned by all of us), have an imperative to earn money. We
get huge blockbuster films made by drinks companies - they are in it
purely for the money. Would $200 million be better spent on fixing
poverty than creating "Titanic"? Of course. But it made $1 billion
just in box office sales - which either goes to shareholders or gets
ploughed back in to make more entertainment. We still have companies
like Nike and Adidas exploiting third world workers. Politicians
around the world still have to balance fickle voters, power groups and
"doing right". People still have very different views of what "doing
right" means around the world, and some radicals try to make their
statements with terrorist activities.
So, yes we should have hope for a better future. But let us not
forget that when people are involved, there will always be problems.
So, I've finished spouting off for the day and what do I do now? Do I
go help out somebody or try to make a difference to poverty in the
world. No. I'm going to earn some more money so my family can be
comfortable, have good food and housing, good education and tomorrow
night I can afford to see Blade Runner at the IMAX (Yes! He brings it
in a third time...). Of course some of my money goes to charities
helping the world. But like many people, I've got something else to
do today ...
Netrunner.
--
"Neglect of an effective birth control policy is a never-failing
source of poverty which, in turn, is the parent of revolution and
crime."
- Aristotle, "Politics", c. 350BC
--
Netrunner
>Same thing with Luc Besson, he directed The Professional in order to have
>enough money to make The Fifth Element.
Possibly so. But as enjoyable as The Fifth Element is, The
Professional is an infinitely better film.
Netrunner
>The british film industry is almost dead on it's feet.
Don't confuse the "British Film" with the "British Film Industry". A
surprising amount of what you see is British-made. And for some time
now. Harrison Ford originally wasn't interested in doing Blade Runner
because it was initially planned to be filmed in England and he had
just spent ages here already, filming The Empire Strikes Back.
Jean-Christophe Boty
> Professional is an infinitely better film.
Yes you're right, definitely. He (Mister Besson) didn't denied the fact that
The Fifth Element was just pure fun.