eXistenZ
doppelganger_79
it... why was that?
--
~恤雦g@駁璁_79
ICQ# = 21247445
^O^
damnfine
> I finally saw eXistenZ... and I remember someone saying they didn't like
> it... why was that?
It was a backward step for Cronenberg. He tried to parody himself but mostly failed.
I didn't hate the movie or anything, but I am conspicuously uninterested in seeing it
again.
--
Damnfine,
"I wear the cheese, it does not wear me." - Cheese Guy
Keith Gow
<doppelg...@yahoo.com> waxed lyrical:
>I finally saw eXistenZ... and I remember someone saying they didn't like
>it... why was that?
It was a cliche without substance with the twist repeated ad infinitum
- complete with inconsistencies in the "universe" just so that
Cronenberg could try fucking with his audience a little bit more. It
didn't work.
It's a dream inside a dream inside a dream inside a dream... But, more
importantly, it's just a game.
And it's title is spelled is a stupid way ;-)
|| Keith Gow ||
Tara-for-First Slayer: "The Slayer does not walk in this world."
Buffy: "I walk. I talk. I shop. I sneeze. I'm going to be a fireman
when the floods roll back. There's trees in the desert since you
moved out. And I don't sleep on a bed of bones. Now give me
back my friends."
First Slayer: "No friends. Just the kill. We are alone."
SiCk BoY
doppelganger_79 a écrit :
> I finally saw eXistenZ... and I remember someone saying they didn't like
> it... why was that?
I always loved it... everyone else in this newsgroup despises it.
Now, I introduce you to everyone else...
--
SiCk BoY - http://perso.wanadoo.fr/prospero.milan/
doppelganger_79
"Keith Gow" <kw...@web.solutions.net.au> wrote in message
news:39716224...@news.solutions.net.au...
> >it... why was that?
>
> - complete with inconsistencies in the "universe" just so that
> Cronenberg could try fucking with his audience a little bit more. It
> didn't work.
I am getting sick you you and your inconsistencies... *jk* First you say
that LH fails because of inconsistencies which aren't there... and now
this.... What inconsistencies are there anyway?
Speaking of Cronenberg... there was a Canadian film I saw once called "Last
Night" about the end of the world which starred Cronenberg as well as Don
McKellar (Yevgeny) and Sarah Polley. I just thought it was good that they
should all end up in the same movie again... must be the start of a
beautiful friendship(s)...
Keith Gow
<doppelg...@yahoo.com> waxed lyrical:
>
>"Keith Gow" <kw...@web.solutions.net.au> wrote in message
>news:39716224...@news.solutions.net.au...
>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 13:48:39 +1000, "doppelganger_79"
>> <doppelg...@yahoo.com> waxed lyrical:
>>
>> >I finally saw eXistenZ... and I remember someone saying they didn't like
>> >it... why was that?
>>
>> It was a cliche without substance with the twist repeated ad infinitum
>> - complete with inconsistencies in the "universe" just so that
>> Cronenberg could try fucking with his audience a little bit more. It
>> didn't work.
>
>I am getting sick you you and your inconsistencies... *jk* First you say
>that LH fails because of inconsistencies which aren't there... and now
>this.... What inconsistencies are there anyway?
>
There is a scene when Jude Law and Jennifer Jason Leigh's characters
are working in the "factory" - inside the first (?) game - when Leighs
character fritzes, like she is one of the game characters. It is
completely inconsistent - even if they were all part of a game at the
beginning of the movie. When I realised Cronenberg was just fucking
with us, I stopped trying to keep track of any reality because I knew
there wasn't one.
Joshua Zyber
news:8ks5oi$qrv$3...@perki.connect.com.au...
> Speaking of Cronenberg... there was a Canadian film I saw once called
"Last
> Night" about the end of the world which starred Cronenberg as well as Don
> McKellar (Yevgeny) and Sarah Polley. I just thought it was good that they
> should all end up in the same movie again... must be the start of a
> beautiful friendship(s)...
Last Night was an excellent film. A very nice
wash-the-taste-of-"Armageddon"-out-of-your-mouth apocalypse movie.
eXistenZ was also terrific, despite what some looneys around here may say.
- Josh
---------------------
Joshua Zyber
Curator, Laserdisc Forever Review Archive
www.mindspring.com/~jzyber/laserdiscforever.htm
Joshua Zyber
news:39723625...@wanadoo.fr...
> > > Speaking of Cronenberg... there was a Canadian film I saw once called
> > "Last
> > > Night" about the end of the world which starred Cronenberg as well as
Don
> > > McKellar (Yevgeny) and Sarah Polley. I just thought it was good that
they
> > > should all end up in the same movie again... must be the start of a
> > > beautiful friendship(s)...
> >
> > Last Night was an excellent film. A very nice
> > wash-the-taste-of-"Armageddon"-out-of-your-mouth apocalypse movie.
> >
> > eXistenZ was also terrific, despite what some looneys around here may
say.
>
Josh is already President.
He could always use some contributions for the re-election campaign, though.
- Josh
(President of ATTP)
Joshua Zyber
news:hEsc5.36865$N4.14...@ozemail.com.au...
> Joshua Zyber wrote:
> > > YES YES YES !!! Josh for president !
> >
> > Josh is already President.
> >
> > He could always use some contributions for the re-election campaign,
though.
>
Don't tempt me to wield my power of taxation on you!
- Josh
SiCk BoY
Keith Gow a écrit :
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 21:14:55 +1000, "doppelganger_79"
> <doppelg...@yahoo.com> waxed lyrical:
>
> There is a scene when Jude Law and Jennifer Jason Leigh's characters
> are working in the "factory" - inside the first (?) game - when Leighs
> character fritzes, like she is one of the game characters. It is
> completely inconsistent - even if they were all part of a game at the
> beginning of the movie. When I realised Cronenberg was just fucking
> with us, I stopped trying to keep track of any reality because I knew
> there wasn't one.
>
> || Keith Gow ||
*sigh*
She played with him. Like she does in all the game.
Besides, it's all a roleplay, so...
SiCk BoY
Joshua Zyber a écrit :
> doppelganger_79 <doppelg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8ks5oi$qrv$3...@perki.connect.com.au...
> > Speaking of Cronenberg... there was a Canadian film I saw once called
> "Last
> > Night" about the end of the world which starred Cronenberg as well as Don
> > McKellar (Yevgeny) and Sarah Polley. I just thought it was good that they
> > should all end up in the same movie again... must be the start of a
> > beautiful friendship(s)...
>
> Last Night was an excellent film. A very nice
> wash-the-taste-of-"Armageddon"-out-of-your-mouth apocalypse movie.
>
> eXistenZ was also terrific, despite what some looneys around here may say.
YES YES YES !!! Josh for president !
--
damnfine
> > YES YES YES !!! Josh for president !
>
>
> He could always use some contributions for the re-election campaign, though.
Like roadkill in your letterbox?
--
ClckwrkO
>Joshua Zyber a écrit :
>
>> doppelganger_79 <doppelg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:8ks5oi$qrv$3...@perki.connect.com.au...
>> > Speaking of Cronenberg... there was a Canadian film I saw once called
>> "Last
>> > Night" about the end of the world which starred Cronenberg as well as Don
>> > McKellar (Yevgeny) and Sarah Polley. I just thought it was good that
>they
>> > should all end up in the same movie again... must be the start of a
>> > beautiful friendship(s)...
>>
>> Last Night was an excellent film. A very nice
>> wash-the-taste-of-"Armageddon"-out-of-your-mouth apocalypse movie.
>>
>> eXistenZ was also terrific, despite what some looneys around here may say.
>
> YES YES YES !!! Josh for president !
>
>--
>
>SiCk BoY - http://perso.wanadoo.fr/prospero.milan/
>
Don McKellar and Sarah Polley were both in the excellent Atom Egoyan film,
Exotica, though they had no scenes together.
ClckwrkO
wmmvrrvrrmm
and the philosophical ideas seemed to come into my mind as vast inatct
structures to play around with. I loved all the interviews and the book too. I
was glad to see Sarah Polley in it too
-------------------------------------------------------------
Remove "zmmmzmmm" to e-mail me
The Wmmvrrvrrmm Place!
http://member.aol.com/wmvrrvrrmm
The Velvet Belly Page
http://www.geocities.com/velvet_belly_uk
Joshua Zyber
news:20000717102812...@ng-co1.aol.com...
> Don McKellar and Sarah Polley were both in the excellent Atom Egoyan film,
> Exotica, though they had no scenes together.
It seems like there is a regulation from the Canadian Film Board requiring
one or the other of them to appear in *every* film that comes out of Canada.
Joshua Zyber
news:20000717234603...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
> My impression of Cronenberg's films is actually exactly the opposite - he
is a
> superb visual stylist whose films seem to lack the ultimate intelligence
to
> fully realize his ideas.
Peter, you're really coming out with some wacky stuff this week!
SiCk BoY
wmmvrrvrrmm a écrit :
> I did get such a lot out of eXistenZ, it was a visually splendid film for me
> and the philosophical ideas seemed to come into my mind as vast inatct
> structures to play around with. I loved all the interviews and the book too. I
> was glad to see Sarah Polley in it too
My feeling exactly. The film should be seen as what it is and what it tells
about games, virtual experience sharing between people, and reality. Not
what it *could have been* knowing Cronenberg's earlier work.
Peter Tonguette
> I did get such a lot out of eXistenZ, it was a visually splendid film for me
>and the philosophical ideas seemed to come into my mind as vast inatct
>structures to play around with.
My impression of Cronenberg's films is actually exactly the opposite - he is a
superb visual stylist whose films seem to lack the ultimate intelligence to
fully realize his ideas. The philosophical content of his films seems pretty
one-dimensional. Perhaps this is why I enjoy "Dead Zone" and some of the other
early films to the later ones.
Peter
wmmvrrvrrmm
In article <397235A2...@wanadoo.fr>, SiCk BoY <prosper...@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
>> <doppelg...@yahoo.com> waxed lyrical:
>>
>> There is a scene when Jude Law and Jennifer Jason Leigh's characters
>> are working in the "factory" - inside the first (?) game - when Leighs
>> character fritzes, like she is one of the game characters. It is
>> completely inconsistent - even if they were all part of a game at the
>> beginning of the movie. When I realised Cronenberg was just fucking
>> with us, I stopped trying to keep track of any reality because I knew
>> there wasn't one.
>>
>> || Keith Gow ||
>
> *sigh*
>
> She played with him. Like she does in all the game.
>
> Besides, it's all a roleplay, so...
>
Well, I just assumed that he wasn't addressing her character properly. I know
that I looked at that scene before and I arrived at a conclusion on it, but
what I concluded, I'm not sure. I'll have to take another look at that bit of
the film. I think that eventually, someone's got to do an FAQ for this movie.
maybe eventually I'd like to do one.
wmmvrrvrrmm
In article <20000717234603...@ng-fg1.aol.com>, ptong...@aol.com
(Peter Tonguette) wrote:
>My impression of Cronenberg's films is actually exactly the opposite - he is a
>superb visual stylist whose films seem to lack the ultimate intelligence to
>fully realize his ideas. The philosophical content of his films seems pretty
>one-dimensional. Perhaps this is why I enjoy "Dead Zone" and some of the
other
>early films to the later ones.
>
>Peter
I guess it wasn't a film that had that went into the territory that you don't
bother to think about.
I enjoyed the ideas about old things being converted into new things. The film
was generally like the sort things I experience in dreams actually, and also in
the day time semi-hallucinary visions I'll experience. I liked the way that the
two were examining the structure of game reality. I didn't seem to enjoy Dead
Zone too much, maybe I found that a little too flat for me, anything to do with
Stephen King's work, I don't seem to enjoy or link into.
eXistenZ does seem to be the Cronenberg movie that seems to be easy for me to
have intricate conversations about with a lot of people who have been
interested in the movie. I think that I'm alarmed at your perspective, but then
I should recollect that the people who I went to see the movie with were all a
little bored by it, until I was able to get them to talk about the intricate
ideas and some of the philosophical angles that the film proposed, and also the
fact that it wasn't supposed to be as real a reality as you'd expect. I don't
know if I'm supposed to imagine you being able to think any more than they did
about the film.
The people I went with all expected to see a movie like Matrix for some reason.
However, i was a little bored to death by Matrix
Peter Tonguette
>Peter Tonguette <ptong...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000717234603...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
>> My impression of Cronenberg's films is actually exactly the opposite - he
>is a
>> superb visual stylist whose films seem to lack the ultimate intelligence
>to
>> fully realize his ideas.
>
>Peter, you're really coming out with some wacky stuff this week!
Ha, well, if you're looking for unpopular opinions you've come to the right
person. ;-) But didn't we agree on "Heaven's Gate" way back on
alt.movies.kubrick about a year ago?
As far as Cronenberg goes, I enjoy a number of his films but I can't say I've
ever felt very challenged by them. Compare "eXistenZ" and "The Shining" as
explorations of man's relationship to technology - there really is no
comparison.
Peter
Joshua Zyber
> >Peter, you're really coming out with some wacky stuff this week!
>
> Ha, well, if you're looking for unpopular opinions you've come to the
right
> person. ;-) But didn't we agree on "Heaven's Gate" way back on
> alt.movies.kubrick about a year ago?
Did we? I can't imagine...
Heaven's Gate? ::shudder::
> As far as Cronenberg goes, I enjoy a number of his films but I can't say
I've
> ever felt very challenged by them. Compare "eXistenZ" and "The Shining"
as
> explorations of man's relationship to technology - there really is no
> comparison.
The Shining...... relationship to technology...... You got me on that one.
What, the snow plow? The typewriter? I'm at a loss.
eXistenZ is a nifty little mind-fuck, but it isn't one of Cronenberg's more
serious movies. Better illustrations of this theme are found in Scanners,
Videodrome, The Fly, or Dead Ringers.
damnfine
> Better illustrations of this theme are found in Scanners,
> Videodrome, The Fly, or Dead Ringers.
EXACTLY.
--
Damnfine,
"My face is beautiful, my skin is flawless, and my breasts are
firm and bouncy. Men dream of me when they go home and
have sex with their wives." - Anna Kournikova
Keith Gow
<raoul...@journalist.com> waxed lyrical:
>Joshua Zyber wrote:
>> Better illustrations of this theme are found in Scanners,
>> Videodrome, The Fly, or Dead Ringers.
>
>EXACTLY.
>
Another reason(s) eXistenZ is so disappointing.
doppelganger_79
> >> are working in the "factory" - inside the first (?) game - when Leighs
> >> character fritzes, like she is one of the game characters. It is
> >> completely inconsistent - even if they were all part of a game at the
> >> beginning of the movie. When I realised Cronenberg was just fucking
> >> with us, I stopped trying to keep track of any reality because I knew
> >> there wasn't one.
> >>
> >> || Keith Gow ||
> >
> > *sigh*
> >
> > She played with him. Like she does in all the game.
> >
> > Besides, it's all a roleplay, so...
Maybe it suggests that Elegra is becoming part of the gane.
...so, similarly to the way the game is moulded by her dislike towards
interactive games, she is also moulded by the game.
...thus justifiying their belief that it is detrimental to humanity.
doppelganger_79
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:30:15 +0930, "damnfine"
> <raoul...@journalist.com> waxed lyrical:
>
> >Joshua Zyber wrote:
> >> Better illustrations of this theme are found in Scanners,
> >> Videodrome, The Fly, or Dead Ringers.
> >
> >EXACTLY.
> >
>
> Another reason(s) eXistenZ is so disappointing.
I accept that this might disappoint you, but that doesn't make it a bad
film, right? I mean, compared to The Elephant Man, I was disappointed by
Eraserhead, but that was only because I prefer TEM, not because Eraserhead
is a bad film, by any measure.
So, I accept that you might find this film DISAPPOINTING because of this
reason... but was there another? I remember you describing it as "a cliche
without substance with the twist repeated ad infinitum - complete with
inconsistencies in the universe"... but until these allegations are proven
in a court of law (namely ATTP) the film will remain innocent until proven
guilty.
So state you case, Keith-meister.
SiCk BoY
Peter Tonguette a écrit :
> Joshua Zyber wrote:
>
> >Peter Tonguette <ptong...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20000717234603...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
> >> My impression of Cronenberg's films is actually exactly the opposite - he
> >is a
> >> superb visual stylist whose films seem to lack the ultimate intelligence
> >to
> >> fully realize his ideas.
> >
> >Peter, you're really coming out with some wacky stuff this week!
>
> Ha, well, if you're looking for unpopular opinions you've come to the right
> person. ;-) But didn't we agree on "Heaven's Gate" way back on
> alt.movies.kubrick about a year ago?
>
> As far as Cronenberg goes, I enjoy a number of his films but I can't say I've
> ever felt very challenged by them. Compare "eXistenZ" and "The Shining" as
> explorations of man's relationship to technology - there really is no
> comparison.
>
> Peter
LOL ! Indeed !
SiCk BoY
Peter Tonguette a écrit :
> As far as Cronenberg goes, I enjoy a number of his films but I can't say I've
> ever felt very challenged by them. Compare "eXistenZ" and "The Shining" as
> explorations of man's relationship to technology - there really is no
> comparison.
... Kubrick's (and Orson Welles') films are like Rosharch tests : it's vague,
empty and meaningless but some people can see everything they want in it.
nickle
wasn't horrible. In fact I thought it picked up a lot of speed in the
middle. However, the ending was not completely satisfying.
--
New Story, the Black Zone, is up at
Horroresq Horror Fiction
http://members.dencity.com/horroresq/
---
doppelganger_79 <doppelg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8l4000$g9$2...@perki.connect.com.au...
SiCk BoY
damnfine a écrit :
> What we're saying is that eXistenZ was disappointing because there's nothing in it that
> wasn't covered - and a HELL of a lot better and more interestingly - in 'Videodrome',
> especially.
That's just wrong. First, Videodrome is a failure : the acting, a good part of the
visuals, and the general line are just flawed. I can see it as Cronenberg felt it
because I know his other works, but by itself, it's just not a good movie. It could
have been, but Cronenberg was doing his first "real" cronenberg-esque movie,
and he wasn't just mature enough for it.
(I hope I will soon be able to say the same thing about Alex Proyas, BTW)
Then, he does talk about subjects never covered by his other works, and also
never covered *at all* then. A few other movies like Matrix went that way, but
eXistenZ is just a lot more interesting ABOUT games, *shared* virtual realities
and more generally roleplaying game (extinct until it's borned again through
computer games).
The problem is, you all look at it the wrong way. Every "Myst" or old Lucasfilm
adventure games players know what I'm talking about.
SiCk BoY
damnfine a écrit :
> SiCk BoY wrote:
>
> > That's just wrong. First, Videodrome is a failure : the acting, a good part of the
> > visuals, and the general line are just flawed.
>
> Yet, you haven't explained how.
As for the visuals, there's not an ounce of the dreamy atmosphere of Dead Ringers
or eXistenZ, or the junky colors of Naked Lunch. It's dull. And worst of all it's the 70's.
The general line is, well, just a mess. There's no paranoiac consistency (needed for
a "real" plot), and there's not a psychological consistency (like in Naked Lunch).
> I think James Woods' performance is terrific, and all the other characters simply don't
> matter... they're only gore-fodder. ;)
Here you make my point for the acting.
> > Then, he does talk about subjects never covered by his other works, and also
> > never covered *at all* then. A few other movies like Matrix went that way, but
> > eXistenZ is just a lot more interesting ABOUT games, *shared* virtual realities
> > and more generally roleplaying game (extinct until it's borned again through
> > computer games).
>
> But Videodrome DID that... it just had the intelligence not to TELL you it was doing that.
> Role playing? Yes. Reality shifts? Yes. They were just more undetectable, and as such more
> effective.
*SHARED* reality. In *every* other Cronenberg movie the guy's lost in a
nightmare of his own. There are other characters but we never have *their*
point of view. ESPECIALLY with Videodrome, which is most of all a big mess.
Here the atmosphere and sets are really close to a game like Myst or Everquest,
and especially the acting. That makes the movie *interesting*. In 50 years it
would be old, and Naked Lunch won't. But right now eXistenZ is a very
*interesting* movie about major themes of today's world. That is why it deserves
a special attention, and respect.
damnfine
> I accept that this might disappoint you, but that doesn't make it a bad
> film, right? I mean, compared to The Elephant Man, I was disappointed by
> Eraserhead, but that was only because I prefer TEM, not because Eraserhead
> is a bad film, by any measure.
But that's completely different. Apart from being shot in black and white and being made
by the same man, the two movies have very little in common. Eraserhead is a piece of
surrealist art, The Elephant Man is a formulaic mainstream biopic.
What we're saying is that eXistenZ was disappointing because there's nothing in it that
wasn't covered - and a HELL of a lot better and more interestingly - in 'Videodrome',
especially.
Oh, and Eraserhead is INFINITELY better than The Elephant Man, BTW. Jeez!
> So, I accept that you might find this film DISAPPOINTING because of this
> reason... but was there another?
Like I already said, I didn't hate the movie... I just kept waiting for something to
happen, but it didn't.
damnfine
> ... Kubrick's (and Orson Welles') films are like Rosharch tests : it's vague,
> empty and meaningless but some people can see everything they want in it.
Oh my! Here we go! ;)
damnfine
> > What we're saying is that eXistenZ was disappointing because there's nothing in it
that
> > wasn't covered - and a HELL of a lot better and more interestingly - in 'Videodrome',
> > especially.
>
> visuals, and the general line are just flawed.
Yet, you haven't explained how.
I think James Woods' performance is terrific, and all the other characters simply don't
matter... they're only gore-fodder. ;)
> Then, he does talk about subjects never covered by his other works, and also
> never covered *at all* then. A few other movies like Matrix went that way, but
> eXistenZ is just a lot more interesting ABOUT games, *shared* virtual realities
> and more generally roleplaying game (extinct until it's borned again through
> computer games).
But Videodrome DID that... it just had the intelligence not to TELL you it was doing that.
Role playing? Yes. Reality shifts? Yes. They were just more undetectable, and as such more
effective.
--
Peter Tonguette
>Peter Tonguette <ptong...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000719003027...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
>> >Peter, you're really coming out with some wacky stuff this week!
>>
>> Ha, well, if you're looking for unpopular opinions you've come to the
>right
>> person. ;-) But didn't we agree on "Heaven's Gate" way back on
>> alt.movies.kubrick about a year ago?
>
>Did we? I can't imagine...
I think we agreed it was an interesting, if flawed work - which is basically
what I still think it is. I just don't see the wild falling off between it and
"The Deer Hunter" that most people do.
>Heaven's Gate? ::shudder::
>
>> As far as Cronenberg goes, I enjoy a number of his films but I can't say
>I've
>> ever felt very challenged by them. Compare "eXistenZ" and "The Shining"
>as
>> explorations of man's relationship to technology - there really is no
>> comparison.
>
>The Shining...... relationship to technology...... You got me on that one.
>What, the snow plow? The typewriter? I'm at a loss.
Well, there's the McLuhan angle - which is too complex to go into in one post.
Suffice it to say I certainly don't think the preponderance of television sets
and radios in the film, Jack's profession (a writer and intellectual), and the
famous "All work and no play" (a perfect illustration of McLuhan's famous
maxim, "Printing, a ditto device") are arbitrary.
Peter
Keith Gow
<doppelg...@yahoo.com> waxed lyrical:
>
>"Keith Gow" <kw...@web.solutions.net.au> wrote in message
>news:39756acf...@news.solutions.net.au...
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:30:15 +0930, "damnfine"
>> <raoul...@journalist.com> waxed lyrical:
>>
>> >Joshua Zyber wrote:
>> >> Better illustrations of this theme are found in Scanners,
>> >> Videodrome, The Fly, or Dead Ringers.
>> >
>> >EXACTLY.
>> >
>>
>> Another reason(s) eXistenZ is so disappointing.
>
>I accept that this might disappoint you, but that doesn't make it a bad
>film, right? I mean, compared to The Elephant Man, I was disappointed by
>Eraserhead, but that was only because I prefer TEM, not because Eraserhead
>is a bad film, by any measure.
>
Like damnfine said - Eraserhead is the far better film. And the two
are very different, except they are portrayals of men living on the
fringes of society.
>So, I accept that you might find this film DISAPPOINTING because of this
>reason... but was there another? I remember you describing it as "a cliche
>without substance with the twist repeated ad infinitum - complete with
>inconsistencies in the universe"... but until these allegations are proven
>in a court of law (namely ATTP) the film will remain innocent until proven
>guilty.
>
You can't prove or disprove an opinion.
The themes Cronenberg explored in eXistenZ aren't approached in a very
interesting or different way. I have said this before, but there are
certain episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation that have more
meaningful insights into the meaning of humanity as compared to being
part of a game or a fictive universe. Cronenberg's continual use of
"we're still in the game" revelations are disappointing. And I've
already spoken of the inconsistencies in another post in this thread.
(Btw, the people who are trying to explain it away aren't using any
evidence from the film to support their contentions. It's a cheat and
that's all there is to it.)
kbee
<397700c...@news.solutions.net.au>...
> Like damnfine said - Eraserhead is the far better film. And the two
> are very different, except they are portrayals of men living on the
> fringes of society.
>
in the Grandmother)? Vulnerable kids whose parents/caregivers wind up
totally blowing it?
Joshua Zyber
> >The Shining...... relationship to technology...... You got me on that
one.
> >What, the snow plow? The typewriter? I'm at a loss.
>
> Well, there's the McLuhan angle - which is too complex to go into in one
post.
> Suffice it to say I certainly don't think the preponderance of television
sets
> and radios in the film, Jack's profession (a writer and intellectual), and
the
> famous "All work and no play" (a perfect illustration of McLuhan's famous
> maxim, "Printing, a ditto device") are arbitrary.
Peter, I will buy into your theory of the film being a microcosm of the
American nuclear family, but there is also such a thing as going too far.
Peter Tonguette
>Peter Tonguette a écrit :
>
>> As far as Cronenberg goes, I enjoy a number of his films but I can't say
>I've
>> ever felt very challenged by them. Compare "eXistenZ" and "The Shining" as
>> explorations of man's relationship to technology - there really is no
>> comparison.
>
> ... Kubrick's (and Orson Welles') films are like Rosharch tests : it's
>vague,
>empty and meaningless but some people can see everything they want in it.
Sorry, but this perspective is utterly ridiculous, Sick Boy. The concept of
aimless subjectivity is something Kubrick took pains to decry throughout his
career; it's not only wrongheaded but a hallmark of some of the lazier
criticism of Kubrick's work.
Perhaps the best example of Kubrick's covert methods can be found in the
stargate sequence in "2001." Here is a sequence so elusive in it's methods
that it has lead many to suggest that it is ultimately devoid of meaning other
than the "meaning" the audience brings to the work; that is, it is only as rich
or as deep as the viewer is - sort of like staring into an ink blot.
This perspective is simply wrong. I can't stress this enough. I have no doubt
that Kubrick had very clear ideas in what he conceived the stargate sequence to
represent - the key is that these ideas are not spelled out in such a way where
they are instantly discernable to the audience.
The process of viewing a Stanley Kubrick film is largely one of discovery, of
_uncovering_ Kubrick's meanings and intents and, in the process, finding an
approximation in our own minds of what was in Kubrick's head when he made the
film.
Peter Tonguette
Joshua Zyber
> The process of viewing a Stanley Kubrick film is largely one of discovery,
of
> _uncovering_ Kubrick's meanings and intents and, in the process, finding
an
> approximation in our own minds of what was in Kubrick's head when he made
the
> film.
Or what you *wanted* to be in his head, which is often a more powerful thing
than whatever he may have been actually thinking.
SiCk BoY
Peter Tonguette a écrit :
> SiCk BoY wrote:
>
> >Peter Tonguette a écrit :
> >
> >> As far as Cronenberg goes, I enjoy a number of his films but I can't say I've
> >> ever felt very challenged by them. Compare "eXistenZ" and "The Shining" as
> >> explorations of man's relationship to technology - there really is no
> >> comparison.
> >
> > ... Kubrick's (and Orson Welles') films are like Rosharch tests : it's vague,
> >empty and meaningless so that people can see everything they want in it.
>
> Sorry, but this perspective is utterly ridiculous, Sick Boy.
Yes ! Isn't it fun !
Really, I'm sooooo tired of all this Shining / 2001 fanatism. Honestly, since
I haven't seen 2001 for a long time, I don't think I could go into a discussion
that would be interesting for you, and besides I just don't like it, which isn't
exactly constructive as an opinion.
But come on, saying Shining is about racism just because a black man is
killed by a white man, and about the american family because, look, there's
a dad, a mom and a kid, and they're all american, is fetichism.
So, by saying Shining has more reflexion about technology, you're just
proving (to me, that is) what I suspected for a long time : it's all in your heads.
> Perhaps the best example of Kubrick's covert methods can be found in the
> stargate sequence in "2001." Here is a sequence so elusive in it's methods
> that it has lead many to suggest that it is ultimately devoid of meaning other
> than the "meaning" the audience brings to the work; that is, it is only as rich
> or as deep as the viewer is - sort of like staring into an ink blot.
>
> This perspective is simply wrong. I can't stress this enough. I have no doubt
> that Kubrick had very clear ideas in what he conceived the stargate sequence to
> represent - the key is that these ideas are not spelled out in such a way where
> they are instantly discernable to the audience.
How can you *know* it's wrong ? You *think* it's wrong. You have faith.
That's it, and that's probably why it gets on my nerves.
> The process of viewing a Stanley Kubrick film is largely one of discovery, of
> _uncovering_ Kubrick's meanings and intents and, in the process, finding an
> approximation in our own minds of what was in Kubrick's head when he made the
> film.
That is, you're thinking "it's a Kubrick film, SO every shot must mean something
deep". You can watch nearly every god damn movie and find the same amount of
subjects with that line of thinking.
damnfine
> How can you *know* it's wrong ? You *think* it's wrong. You have faith.
> That's it, and that's probably why it gets on my nerves.
So everything even remotely interperative said about Twin Peaks also gets on your nerves?
It's exactly the same thing. What about 'Pi'??
It's ALL faith.
SiCk BoY
damnfine a écrit :
> SiCk BoY wrote:
> > How can you *know* it's wrong ? You *think* it's wrong. You have faith.
> > That's it, and that's probably why it gets on my nerves.
>
> So everything even remotely interperative said about Twin Peaks also gets on your nerves?
> It's exactly the same thing. What about 'Pi'??
I've never pretended Fire Walk with Me, Lost Highway or PI were best films in movie
history, or that Lynch and Aronofsky were best directors. I dont *care* ranking
films, there's nothing as stupid IMO as making a neat little list and placing Kubrick, Welles,
or preferably black and white mute movies at the top - what does it MEAN ? What's
the meaning of, say, ranking Blade Runner up Heavenly Creatures, or A L I E N up
Mighty Aphrodite ? That's exactly what we're talking about here with Shining : it's the
best essay ever made on ------ fill the blank, and justify it with rethorics.
What's the *point* ?
My point from the start is discussing what we all FEEL and THINK about some movies,
but NOT starting some kind of essay trying to show that some horror movie answers to
Life, the Universe, and Everything, and that some other film doesn't even deserves listening
because it wasn't made by an academic pretentious mind. Welles' Trial ? Please, give
me Brazil any day !
I *never* did *anything else* about PI than defending it. Nobody asked me what I felt
about it, or why I found it especially touching and interesting - it has nothing to do with
faith. And about Lynch, I prefer his paintings to his movies. I didn't like Straight Story
nor Dune and was just mildly interested by Blue Velvet and Elephant Man. He's no God
to me. I think he failed with Wild at Heart. And I'm not going to search some kind of big
theory under his movies - and anyway they're all very simple, I always smile when some
connections are made but *at least* people who make theories about Twin Peaks aren't
as serious as "compare eXistenZ and The Shining as explorations of man's relationship to
technology - there really is no comparison". It generally goes like "what if Sheriff Trueman
was a space alien all along ?"
> It's ALL faith.
You can't communicate with faith. It's something you have. You can communicate
with ideas or feelings.
SiCk BoY
SiCk BoY a écrit :
> damnfine a écrit :
>
> > SiCk BoY wrote:
> > > How can you *know* it's wrong ? You *think* it's wrong. You have faith.
> > > That's it, and that's probably why it gets on my nerves.
> >
> > So everything even remotely interperative said about Twin Peaks also gets on your nerves?
> > It's exactly the same thing. What about 'Pi'??
>
> [what could look like some angry attack toward Peter]
>
> --
>
> SiCk BoY - http://perso.wanadoo.fr/prospero.milan/
I'd like to add I'm not accusing you of anything Peter, I know you admiration
for The Shining is genuine and that, *somehow* it must contain all you see in
it. But I don't like the way that movies is used to "look smart".
damnfine
> > > How can you *know* it's wrong ? You *think* it's wrong. You have faith.
> > > That's it, and that's probably why it gets on my nerves.
> >
> > So everything even remotely interperative said about Twin Peaks also gets on your
nerves?
> > It's exactly the same thing. What about 'Pi'??
>
> history, or that Lynch and Aronofsky were best directors. I dont *care* ranking
> films, there's nothing as stupid IMO as making a neat little list and placing Kubrick,
Welles,
> or preferably black and white mute movies at the top - what does it MEAN ?
It means nothing at all... some people just enjoy doing it. The more pertinent issue is
why you feel the need to get so annoyed by it!
> My point from the start is discussing what we all FEEL and THINK about some movies,
> but NOT starting some kind of essay trying to show that some horror movie answers to
> Life, the Universe, and Everything,
See, that's the same thing. Peter IS saying what he feels and thinks about 'The Shining',
and nothing more.
> Welles' Trial ? Please, give me Brazil any day !
I completely agree on that point! lol
SiCk BoY
damnfine a écrit :
> SiCk BoY wrote:
> > > > How can you *know* it's wrong ? You *think* it's wrong. You have faith.
> > > > That's it, and that's probably why it gets on my nerves.
> > >
> > > So everything even remotely interperative said about Twin Peaks also gets on your
> > > nerves? It's exactly the same thing. What about 'Pi'??
> >
> > I've never pretended Fire Walk with Me, Lost Highway or PI were best films in movie
> > history, or that Lynch and Aronofsky were best directors. I dont *care* ranking
> > films, there's nothing as stupid IMO as making a neat little list and placing Kubrick,
> > Welles, or preferably black and white mute movies at the top - what does it MEAN ?
>
> It means nothing at all... some people just enjoy doing it. The more pertinent issue is
> why you feel the need to get so annoyed by it!
"Feel the need"... Come on... I think you were here when someone said Dark City
was crap because Metropolis was brillant - until I remembered him Metropolis was
just visuals, and story-wise and character-wise was just some pile of cliches. That
is, not like Dark City. We spent so much time getting that movie from "piece of crap"
to "potentially interesting" that afterwards no one wanted to talk any more about it.
> > My point from the start is discussing what we all FEEL and THINK about some movies,
> > but NOT starting some kind of essay trying to show that some horror movie answers to
> > Life, the Universe, and Everything,
>
> See, that's the same thing. Peter IS saying what he feels and thinks about 'The Shining',
> and nothing more.
... that's what I said in the next post. The problem is that Shining praise was in an
eXistenZ thread, saying man/technology relationship was better in The Shining. What
would you say in a Blade Runner thread that anyway, Blade Runner isn't worth discussing
since 2001 is the better SF movie ever ?
Keith Gow
<jzy...@mindspring.com> waxed lyrical:
>Peter Tonguette <ptong...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000719234652...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
>> >The Shining...... relationship to technology...... You got me on that
>one.
>> >What, the snow plow? The typewriter? I'm at a loss.
>>
>> Well, there's the McLuhan angle - which is too complex to go into in one
>post.
>> Suffice it to say I certainly don't think the preponderance of television
>sets
>> and radios in the film, Jack's profession (a writer and intellectual), and
>the
>> famous "All work and no play" (a perfect illustration of McLuhan's famous
>> maxim, "Printing, a ditto device") are arbitrary.
>
>Peter, I will buy into your theory of the film being a microcosm of the
>American nuclear family, but there is also such a thing as going too far.
>
Josh, you recently said there wasn't any such thing as reaching too
far to understand a reference or theme in a movie or television
series.
Keith Gow
<jzy...@mindspring.com> waxed lyrical:
>Peter Tonguette <ptong...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000720213852...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
>> The process of viewing a Stanley Kubrick film is largely one of discovery,
>of
>> _uncovering_ Kubrick's meanings and intents and, in the process, finding
>an
>> approximation in our own minds of what was in Kubrick's head when he made
>the
>> film.
>
>Or what you *wanted* to be in his head, which is often a more powerful thing
>than whatever he may have been actually thinking.
>
Exactly. We can't ever know what was in a filmmaker's head - unless
there's a commentary on the DVD ;-)
I think SickBoy's comment was a little simplistic, but it's certainly
one way to phrase it. Everything is up there for personal
interpretation. Everything. Of course, most films don't leave so much
to the imagination. Kubrick and Lynch do.
The Stargate sequence is an excellent example of a scene which can
only ever be what we take from it.
damnfine
> ... that's what I said in the next post. The problem is that Shining praise was in an
> eXistenZ thread, saying man/technology relationship was better in The Shining. What
> would you say in a Blade Runner thread that anyway, Blade Runner isn't worth discussing
> since 2001 is the better SF movie ever ?
Point taken.
SiCk BoY
damnfine a écrit :
> SiCk BoY wrote:
> > ... that's what I said in the next post. The problem is that Shining praise was in an
> > eXistenZ thread, saying man/technology relationship was better in The Shining. What
> > would you say in a Blade Runner thread that anyway, Blade Runner isn't worth discussing
> > since 2001 is the better SF movie ever ?
>
> Point taken.
Woha. I've made myself clear despite the horrible English. ;-)
Peter Tonguette
>I think SickBoy's comment was a little simplistic, but it's certainly
>one way to phrase it. Everything is up there for personal
>interpretation. Everything. Of course, most films don't leave so much
>to the imagination. Kubrick and Lynch do.
That's true - things are not spelled out explicitly in these films. How does
this lead to your conclusion that, because a work's ideas are not spelled out
in an instantly discernable way, there are no ideas to begin with? Of course a
lot of it comes down to personal interpretation - and I've never claimed that
the opinions I offer here are any more or less than that - but the notion that
there _are_ interpretations that are more on track than others seems to be a
troubling concept for people.
>The Stargate sequence is an excellent example of a scene which can
>only ever be what we take from it.
Under your reasoning, Keith, because the Stargate sequence can only ever be
what we take from it, every random interpretation should be taken seriously.
Well, I think there are some serious logic flaws in that argument - my larger
point is that the recognition of an intelligence working behind the given work
makes the experience of viewing it (or reading it, or listening to it) a
thousand times more powerful. Without that, it's sort of like searching for
shapes in an ink blot.
I stand by my earlier comments in this thread.
Peter Tonguette
Peter Tonguette
>SiCk BoY a écrit :
>
>> damnfine a écrit :
>>
>> > SiCk BoY wrote:
>> > > How can you *know* it's wrong ? You *think* it's wrong. You have
>faith.
>> > > That's it, and that's probably why it gets on my nerves.
>> >
>> > So everything even remotely interperative said about Twin Peaks also gets
>on your nerves?
>> > It's exactly the same thing. What about 'Pi'??
>>
>> [what could look like some angry attack toward Peter]
>>
>> --
>>
>> SiCk BoY - http://perso.wanadoo.fr/prospero.milan/
>
> I'd like to add I'm not accusing you of anything Peter,
I didn't take your comments as anything more than a well thought out response
to my post. On most NGs this debate would have long ago degenerated into a
bunch of personal attacks - I'm glad it hasn't here.
Peter
Joshua Zyber
> > I'd like to add I'm not accusing you of anything Peter,
>
> I didn't take your comments as anything more than a well thought out
response
> to my post. On most NGs this debate would have long ago degenerated into
a
> bunch of personal attacks - I'm glad it hasn't here.
Da Kube rulez, you stupid jerkoffs!!!!!!
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Keith Gow
waxed lyrical:
>Keith Gow wrote:
>
>>I think SickBoy's comment was a little simplistic, but it's certainly
>>one way to phrase it. Everything is up there for personal
>>interpretation. Everything. Of course, most films don't leave so much
>>to the imagination. Kubrick and Lynch do.
>
>That's true - things are not spelled out explicitly in these films. How does
>this lead to your conclusion that, because a work's ideas are not spelled out
>in an instantly discernable way, there are no ideas to begin with?
I don't think I ever said that. But personal opinion can actually
render what the filmmaker intended moot if the viewer can support his
own argument. The dialogue should between a viewer and the film itself
- to begin with. What the director intended may never be known and
shouldn't really play a part. It should be up to the viewer
completely.
>Of course a
>lot of it comes down to personal interpretation - and I've never claimed that
>the opinions I offer here are any more or less than that - but the notion that
>there _are_ interpretations that are more on track than others seems to be a
>troubling concept for people.
>
Not for me.
>>The Stargate sequence is an excellent example of a scene which can
>>only ever be what we take from it.
>
>Under your reasoning, Keith, because the Stargate sequence can only ever be
>what we take from it, every random interpretation should be taken seriously.
They shouldn't all be taken seriously, no. They should be assessed on
their individual merits. If they are supportable, then they can be
taken more seriously. But not everyone is going to agree with every
interpretation.
>Well, I think there are some serious logic flaws in that argument - my larger
>point is that the recognition of an intelligence working behind the given work
>makes the experience of viewing it (or reading it, or listening to it) a
>thousand times more powerful. Without that, it's sort of like searching for
>shapes in an ink blot.
>
I think this is more directed at Sick Boy's assertion that you are
looking at Kubrick films in depth just *because* they are a Kubrick
film - and no other reason. I think this is unfair on you. We all know
Kubrick made more intelligent films than most, so you are entitled to
look for things in his films that you wouldn't expect to find in
another director's work.
ptong...@aol.com
kw...@web.solutions.net.au (Keith Gow) wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2000 05:18:27 GMT, ptong...@aol.com (Peter Tonguette)
> waxed lyrical:
>
> >Keith Gow wrote:
> >
> >>I think SickBoy's comment was a little simplistic, but it's
certainly
> >>one way to phrase it. Everything is up there for personal
> >>interpretation. Everything. Of course, most films don't leave so
much
> >>to the imagination. Kubrick and Lynch do.
> >
> >That's true - things are not spelled out explicitly in these films.
How does
> >this lead to your conclusion that, because a work's ideas are not
spelled out
> >in an instantly discernable way, there are no ideas to begin with?
>
> I don't think I ever said that. But personal opinion can actually
> render what the filmmaker intended moot if the viewer can support his
> own argument. The dialogue should between a viewer and the film itself
> - to begin with. What the director intended may never be known and
> shouldn't really play a part. It should be up to the viewer
> completely.
The goal of art should be to bridge the gap between the artist and the
audience.
> >Of course a
> >lot of it comes down to personal interpretation - and I've never
claimed that
> >the opinions I offer here are any more or less than that - but the
notion that
> >there _are_ interpretations that are more on track than others seems
to be a
> >troubling concept for people.
> >
>
> Not for me.
>
> >>The Stargate sequence is an excellent example of a scene which can
> >>only ever be what we take from it.
> >
> >Under your reasoning, Keith, because the Stargate sequence can only
ever be
> >what we take from it, every random interpretation should be taken
seriously.
>
> They shouldn't all be taken seriously, no. They should be assessed on
> their individual merits. If they are supportable, then they can be
> taken more seriously. But not everyone is going to agree with every
> interpretation.
I agree of course - but your statement that the Stargate sequence
exists only in the minds of the audience cancels this out. If there are
lines of thought that are more on target than others, this implies that
there _is_ a single set of definitive interepretations.
> >Well, I think there are some serious logic flaws in that argument -
my larger
> >point is that the recognition of an intelligence working behind the
given work
> >makes the experience of viewing it (or reading it, or listening to
it) a
> >thousand times more powerful. Without that, it's sort of like
searching for
> >shapes in an ink blot.
> >
>
> I think this is more directed at Sick Boy's assertion that you are
> looking at Kubrick films in depth just *because* they are a Kubrick
> film - and no other reason. I think this is unfair on you. We all know
> Kubrick made more intelligent films than most, so you are entitled to
> look for things in his films that you wouldn't expect to find in
> another director's work.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I should have been more clear about
what I was talking about here.
You stated that the Stargate sequence in "2001" (for example) can only
ever be what the audience takes from it. My point is that recognizing
that there is a mind working behind this scene makes the experience of
viewing it infinitely more powerful - that is to say that it isn't a
series of random images with no purpose or intent. Without this, what
is the Stargate sequence but an elaborate light show?
Peter Tonguette
ptong...@aol.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
eagle61
between videodrome and naked lunch. if you saw both of the above - then existenz
won't add much.
i personaly liked more the crash from recent movies - it was highly original - name
a movie that it resembles.
eagle61
wmmvrrvrrmm wrote:
> In article <20000717234603...@ng-fg1.aol.com>, ptong...@aol.com
> (Peter Tonguette) wrote:
>
> >My impression of Cronenberg's films is actually exactly the opposite - he is a
> >superb visual stylist whose films seem to lack the ultimate intelligence to
> >fully realize his ideas. The philosophical content of his films seems pretty
> >one-dimensional. Perhaps this is why I enjoy "Dead Zone" and some of the
> other
> >early films to the later ones.
> >
> >Peter
>
> I guess it wasn't a film that had that went into the territory that you don't
> bother to think about.
> I enjoyed the ideas about old things being converted into new things. The film
> was generally like the sort things I experience in dreams actually, and also in
> the day time semi-hallucinary visions I'll experience. I liked the way that the
> two were examining the structure of game reality. I didn't seem to enjoy Dead
> Zone too much, maybe I found that a little too flat for me, anything to do with
> Stephen King's work, I don't seem to enjoy or link into.
>
> eXistenZ does seem to be the Cronenberg movie that seems to be easy for me to
> have intricate conversations about with a lot of people who have been
> interested in the movie. I think that I'm alarmed at your perspective, but then
> I should recollect that the people who I went to see the movie with were all a
> little bored by it, until I was able to get them to talk about the intricate
> ideas and some of the philosophical angles that the film proposed, and also the
> fact that it wasn't supposed to be as real a reality as you'd expect. I don't
> know if I'm supposed to imagine you being able to think any more than they did
> about the film.
>
> The people I went with all expected to see a movie like Matrix for some reason.
> However, i was a little bored to death by Matrix
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Remove "zmmmzmmm" to e-mail me
>
> The Wmmvrrvrrmm Place!
> http://member.aol.com/wmvrrvrrmm
> The Velvet Belly Page
> http://www.geocities.com/velvet_belly_uk
Keith Gow
>In article <397943f4...@news.solutions.net.au>,
> kw...@web.solutions.net.au (Keith Gow) wrote:
>> I don't think I ever said that. But personal opinion can actually
>> render what the filmmaker intended moot if the viewer can support his
>> own argument. The dialogue should between a viewer and the film itself
>> - to begin with. What the director intended may never be known and
>> shouldn't really play a part. It should be up to the viewer
>> completely.
>
>The goal of art should be to bridge the gap between the artist and the
>audience.
>
I think the artist should be completely divorced from the art once it
is completed. What the audience thinks of that artist is irrelevant.
What they think of their individual pieces of work is what is truly
important. This allows for us to revere Lynch's Blue Velvet and
write-off Wild at Heart.
Knowing that Lynch is a Republican allows for one reading of his work.
It may even support Roger Ebert's claim that it is misogynist. This is
one example of why I prefer to judge every film on its own merits.
This isn't always possible, of course. If it is full of cliches or if
it is an inferior reworking of another film, then we can't help but
make comparisons. But I see bringing my knowledge of other film works
to my assessment of the film in question as no more important as
bringning my knowledge of politics or sociology or ethics to my
assessment of that same film.
>> They shouldn't all be taken seriously, no. They should be assessed on
>> their individual merits. If they are supportable, then they can be
>> taken more seriously. But not everyone is going to agree with every
>> interpretation.
>
>I agree of course - but your statement that the Stargate sequence
>exists only in the minds of the audience cancels this out. If there are
>lines of thought that are more on target than others, this implies that
>there _is_ a single set of definitive interepretations.
>
I understand what you are saying. And, of course, there would be a
definitive interpretation for Kubrick. But I don't think the closer we
get to the director's interpretation mean that we are fully
appreciating the work. If I was to sit down and have Lynch fully
explain his reasoning behind FWWM, it wouldn't open up the film to me.
Actually, it would do the opposite.
I think films should be open to all interpretations. The Stargate
sequence is one of those things that requires a personal reaction to
it. A definitive answer would kill its power. Knowing that someone is
closer to a so-called "definitive answer" than someone else is
pedantism that works against the real power of art - which is
ambiguity.
>> I think this is more directed at Sick Boy's assertion that you are
>> looking at Kubrick films in depth just *because* they are a Kubrick
>> film - and no other reason. I think this is unfair on you. We all know
>> Kubrick made more intelligent films than most, so you are entitled to
>> look for things in his films that you wouldn't expect to find in
>> another director's work.
>
>No, that's not what I'm saying. I should have been more clear about
>what I was talking about here.
>
>You stated that the Stargate sequence in "2001" (for example) can only
>ever be what the audience takes from it. My point is that recognizing
>that there is a mind working behind this scene makes the experience of
>viewing it infinitely more powerful - that is to say that it isn't a
>series of random images with no purpose or intent. Without this, what
>is the Stargate sequence but an elaborate light show?
>
I completely agree that knowing there is a mind working behind the
sequence is important. If the film had been made by Roland Emmerich,
we wouldn't even be debating this, though. (Of course, I've picked the
worst director I can think of.) Even if the sequence looked exactly
the same as it does now, because of what we think of the director and
his reputation stops us from looking at the work any deeper. And I
completely understand that reaction.
But what happens when we approach a work that isn't made by a director
with the reputations of Lynch and Kubrick? We get more disperate
opinions on the work - no more or less valid than each other, if they
are reasoned out. But, of course, no closer to any "definitive
answer".
wmmvrrvrrmm
In article <3979FBF2...@sympatico.ca>, eagle61 <mik...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>i think movie was very secondary i.e.not original for cronenberg - it's
>a cross between videodrome and naked lunch. if you saw both of the above -
then
>existenz won't add much.
>
>i personaly liked more the crash from recent movies - it was highly original
>- name a movie that it resembles.
>
>eagle61
I think that eXistenZ indeed looks like a typical Cronenberg movie, that seems
to have many elements of the same creativity in within Videodrome and Naked
Lunch behind it. It's like an essay or painting on virtual reality in the
typical Cronenberg style, but there were many things in this movie that I never
got from Videodrome or Naked Lunch about creative realities within creative
realities, and the ideas about old things being reused for something new. This
film was much more like my dreams than the previous movies though, which is
something personal to me, but here Cronenberg was able to take a look at how
mental realities never seemed to be real enough, and this is a frustration I
find myself complaining about whenever I've just had another dream that really
didn't feel realistic whatsoever.
The idea in this film was a computer games program that links in with the mind
and the subconscious so that they're involved in a kind of dream like world,
and there's something pure about what he's done here, (even if the people who
did come with me were a little bored by the film), he didn't have to use too
much darker than dark imagery to achieve it. The questions that come to me in
this movie have never been so there in any of the previous movies, I'll tell
you that. It's true that a lot of films of Cronenberg's are supposed to be
taken in with the interviews in the magazines, perhaps, and then maybe you
haven't been so interested in such things.
Today I am half living the concepts of eXistenZ out, they're almost as complex
as the questions and answers about creative realisation in Eraserhead.
Once that movie came out with it's organic computer consols with umbilical
chords, and then later the iMac was released with it's umbilical chord like
plug wire and it's pulsing light in the on button when it was sleeping, I
wondered if there was something I should know.
I suppose that the ideas to do with dealing with virtual reality in eXistenZ
are valid discussion pieces.
SiCk BoY
wmmvrrvrrmm a écrit :
> In article <3979FBF2...@sympatico.ca>, eagle61 <mik...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >i think movie was very secondary i.e.not original for cronenberg - it's
> >a cross between videodrome and naked lunch. if you saw both of the above
> > then existenz won't add much.
> >
> >i personaly liked more the crash from recent movies - it was highly original
> >- name a movie that it resembles.
> >
> >eagle61
>
> I think that eXistenZ indeed looks like a typical Cronenberg movie, that seems
> to have many elements of the same creativity in within Videodrome and Naked
> Lunch behind it. It's like an essay or painting on virtual reality in the
> typical Cronenberg style, but there were many things in this movie that I never
> got from Videodrome or Naked Lunch about creative realities within creative
> realities, and the ideas about old things being reused for something new.
I agree with you.
eXistenZ is actually the first movie where Cronenberg DO talk about virtual
realities. Until that movie, he was *using* them to talk about something else :
(roughly) censorship and violence in Videodrome, and creativity and drugs
in Naked Lunch. This is also the first Cronenberg movie dealing with current,
nowdays themes (games and reality), every single other one had no inspiration
from the age it was filmed in.
> This film was much more like my dreams than the previous movies though, which is
> something personal to me, but here Cronenberg was able to take a look at how
> mental realities never seemed to be real enough, and this is a frustration I
> find myself complaining about whenever I've just had another dream that really
> didn't feel realistic whatsoever.
That's not so much personal to you, I felt the same thing (but then, I also suffer
like you from sporadic hallucinations, do I guess that explains things). The opening
credits is a work of art because it perfectly sets the dreamy mood of the movie.
The "my dog brough me this" line, apart from illustrating the realities within realities,
also ressembles some parasistic event that bothers your dreams. Just like some
sound or sensation coming from the real universe to you in your dreams, until it
wakes you up. Brillant.
> The idea in this film was a computer games program that links in with the mind
> and the subconscious so that they're involved in a kind of dream like world,
> and there's something pure about what he's done here, he didn't have to use too
> much darker than dark imagery to achieve it.
This is also my feeling. I feel he took some tool he used in another movies to
make it here the main subject. Maybe this is why some people felt this movie
was less rich, but I also feel it's more 'pure'.
> Today I am half living the concepts of eXistenZ out, they're almost as complex
> as the questions and answers about creative realisation in Eraserhead.
It's the inside/outside stuff, just like what I meant in the "More on Lost Highway"
thread. eXistenZ plays a lot with that.
> Once that movie came out with it's organic computer consols with umbilical
> chords, and then later the iMac was released with it's umbilical chord like
> plug wire and it's pulsing light in the on button when it was sleeping, I
> wondered if there was something I should know.
I also nearly expected my computer mouse to twist and cry when I touch it !
> I suppose that the ideas to do with dealing with virtual reality in eXistenZ
> are valid discussion pieces.
... especially if you've played adventure games like 'Myst' or roleplaying games.
wmmvrrvrrmm
In article <397CF36D...@wanadoo.fr>, SiCk BoY <prosper...@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
<<
> I suppose that the ideas to do with dealing with virtual reality in
>eXistenZ are valid discussion pieces.
... especially if you've played adventure games like 'Myst' or roleplaying
games. >>
My problem is at present, that I've never played any of these games. Myst and
Riven seem to be games heading towards what Cronenberg imagines is a game
becoming art, maybe I will one day try it out one day but what I know about
computer games at present hasn't tempted me to buy one, maybe I know sod all
about them. I'd like something that was connected to my own brain and my own
creative subconscious.
SiCk BoY
wmmvrrvrrmm a écrit :
> In article <397CF36D...@wanadoo.fr>, SiCk BoY <prosper...@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
> << I suppose that the ideas to do with dealing with virtual reality in
> eXistenZ are valid discussion pieces.
>
> ... especially if you've played adventure games like 'Myst' or roleplaying
> games. >>
>
> My problem is at present, that I've never played any of these games. Myst and
> Riven seem to be games heading towards what Cronenberg imagines is a game
> becoming art, maybe I will one day try it out one day but what I know about
> computer games at present hasn't tempted me to buy one, maybe I know sod all
> about them. I'd like something that was connected to my own brain and my own
> creative subconscious.
But on the other hand, seeing something different might bring you something ?
I don't know much about adventure games these days. Most of all seem to
be very easy, but very beautiful, some kind of interactive movies. In fact,
I think I connect eXistenZ more to rolepaying games (I've been a "master"
in the game "The Call of Cthulhu a few years), the amazing thing is that the
table and notes we're working on quickly seem very secondary. I've seen
players actually being nervous, or even afraid.
There's no limit to what the brain and imagination can do.
--
Va l'ami, va, entre dans Batbad !
SiCk BoY - http://www.batbad.com/
wmmvrrvrrmm
In article <3998855F...@batbad.com>, SiCk BoY <simb...@batbad.com>
wrote:
<< I don't know much about adventure games these days. Most of all seem to
be very easy, but very beautiful, some kind of interactive movies. In fact,
I think I connect eXistenZ more to rolepaying games (I've been a "master"
in the game "The Call of Cthulhu a few years), the amazing thing is that the
table and notes we're working on quickly seem very secondary. I've seen
players actually being nervous, or even afraid.
>>
I used to play Dungeons and Dragons about eighteen years ago, and the problem
is, I've never learned to play role playing properly because of all the rules
and the dice that need throwing, or really mentally connect with them, despite
my enthusiasm for them, which is a pity maybe. I liked the Cthulhu mythos very
much, but I didn't know anyone who bothered to play the game, and i think that
I would have had trouble trying to learn how to play it. It becomes interesting
to me because Lovecraft seem to be mentally in tune with an interesting realm
of thought, and it's had an impact of people's artwork who have been hit by the
mythos. I think that these ideas that entered his mind had some kind of
reality on some other level of existence.
eXistenZ connected with me because of my state of mind for the last decade
where ideas constantly shape shifted in the mind, and maybe someones' presence
might have an affect on one's own creative reality, and people were trying to
interact with one's own life from a completely different level of reality where
their own way of percieving things is completely different.
The brightly coloured film imagery is very like the kind of dreams I might
have, and the way the ideas run through the film make me feel comfortable with
my interior shapeshifting world. I think that I'd like to visit eXistenZ and
then I don't find an interest in many place that one might want to visit.
jason ronbeck
about eXistenZ and the whole virtual reality and video game thing...
between seventh grade (about 13yo) and tenth grade (about 16yo) i was
obsessed with online games called MUDs (multi-user dungeon/dimension)...
similiar to MOOs (which i dont remember the acronym for).
basically it was like taking dungeons and dragons or other
paper-and-pencil-and-dice role playing games and putting them into an
online computer gaming system.
because of my constant interest in computers i was quickly promoted to
the level of wizard, which meant that i actually coded the game. after
being a wizard i continued to advance until i became the god/admin of my
own mud for a year or so.
playing these games really gets you into another world. i had a few
friends at my school who also played muds, and rather than calling each
other by our real names, we would use our mud names to address each
other. i would connect everything to my mud, and constantly think of new
ideas.
whereas some have tried to parallel games like quake and unreal and
whatever else with eXistenZ, i connect my mudding experience. while
players in quake and unreal and whatever else have little or no control
over their environment, the wizards and gods of muds actually coded the
world the mud exists in. instead of running around and killing monsters
and other players, the point to most muds was to explore and solve
quests... must more like eXistenz.
one of the ideas we played around with often on my mud was the idea of a
mud-within-a-mud... much like eXistenZ's game-within-a-game. and while
it is easier for a mud player to always know that he or she was actually
playing a mud (text descriptions, typing in commands, etc.) we still
toyed with the idea of the player not knowing where he or she was
(within the game, that is).
i guess my MUDding experience really made eXistenZ all the more powerful
for me. none of my other friends could connect to it as well, which
frustrated me. they liked 'matrix' much better. (i was lucky enough to
see eXistenZ a week before the matrix, so when i did see the matrix i
was terribly disappointed)... plus, in eXistenZ uve got jennifer jason
leigh and jude law and ian holm and willem dafoe and TONS of other great
actors.
anyway, i dont know whewre this all fits in... jsut thought id toss it
in anyway tho ;)
(for a very accurate story about mudders and what mudding is like -- an
addiction -- see the story at
http://imaginaryrealities.imaginary.com/volume2/issue8/mud_life.html)
ciao,
--
-jason ronbeck
ja...@thecompany.net or jron...@ups.edu
aol instant messager screenname: Y3sSanity81
in heaven... http://thecompany.net/jason/
"Drowning [is] not so pitiful as the attempt to rise."
- Anne Sexton
awal...@prodigy.net
> My problem is at present, that I've never played any of these games.
> Myst and Riven seem to be games heading towards what Cronenberg
> imagines is a game becoming art, maybe I will one day try it out one
> day but what I know about
> computer games at present hasn't tempted me to buy one, maybe I know
> sod all about them. I'd like something that was connected to my own
> brain and my own creative subconscious.
I attempted Myst one time and was quickly frusterated by a puzzle
designed to keep tone-deaf people from progressing. I'll admit that I
don't know exactly what "tonedeafness" (if that's even a word) really
is. However, I can't keep track of notes, and that prevented me from
solving a certain puzzle. So I figured the creators of Myst were
damned puzzle Nazis, and I quit their game before I ended up being sent
to the gulag.
I think that this whole Myst and Riven thing is still a long way from a
true virtual world on the level expressed by eXistenZ.
ajc...@concentric.net
<awal...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:8oe1d7$d2l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > My problem is at present, that I've never played any of these games.
> > Myst and Riven seem to be games heading towards what Cronenberg
> > imagines is a game becoming art, maybe I will one day try it out one
> > day but what I know about
> > computer games at present hasn't tempted me to buy one, maybe I know
> > sod all about them. I'd like something that was connected to my own
> > brain and my own creative subconscious.
>
> I attempted Myst one time and was quickly frusterated by a puzzle
> designed to keep tone-deaf people from progressing. I'll admit that I
> don't know exactly what "tonedeafness" (if that's even a word) really
> is. However, I can't keep track of notes, and that prevented me from
> solving a certain puzzle.
You know, that was the only part of the game I couldn't get past on my own.
It wasn't that I couldn't recognize the sounds, but I never figured out that
that was what I was supposed to do. That was a tricky one.
Adam