Just because a movie is on the weird side, is not linear in it's storytelling, is disjointed, etc. doesn't make it art. Or good. Sometimes it means the movie is weird, is not linear, is disjointed, and just plain bad.
I saw this last night. I don't think it was awful. It just was too disjointed and it had too many "WTF" scenes. To me, that makes it fail in trying to impart any message or to tell any story.
[deleted]
Vsa, you apparently missed the point of the film entirely. The intent of the director was to tell the story on a completely visual level. This isn't a very talky movie and I highly applaud both the screenwriter and the director for that. The first and foremost thing I look for when I watch a movie is, can you get it without the sound? Cause let's face it the earliest movies (and those to which all other movies should be compared) had no sound. The scenes that take place in the present time, on earth are completely comprehensible, it is only when we get into the dream states of TJ Newton that it becomes less coherent, but that was the entire point. Dreams are non-linear, there is no consequence of either time or space in a dream. Whether or not Newton's wife and children died at exactly that point in the film when they show them dying doesn't matter. What matters is that Newton knew they had already or were going to die. He fails his mission, and even if he had built a craft and transported water back to his planet, his wife and child were dead, there is no changing that.
"You know what is really sad is that I am only 15 and I basically am insulting somebody who "broke movie boundaries"."
Yes, it is very sad that at the age of 15 you think you know enough about movies to say what you have said about this one. Have you seen the films of David Lynch? Or Cronenberg? Have you seen all of Kubrick's films? Have you taken college classes in film and film art? Have you ever worked on the set of a movie? Or written a screenplay? I think until you do most of these things - or at least get a little bit more world experience - well, you are entitled to your opinion but maybe you should watch more of Roeg's work (You didn't even know the director's name you're insulting him???) and his contemporaries' before you talk.
"I hope the remake will be more acurate, and not meteocre art."
WTF??? Yet another remake of a movie that already got it right the first time??? :: rolls eyes in disgust ::
This movie flat out sukked. Bff, get off your high horse. There are no multiple interpretations of it, it is a bunch of crap. David Lynch makes stuff that is like the stuff in my dreams. I've never had dreams like this. This is art-fart at its worst and I've been around it through 2 higher-ed degrees at major intitutions and can smell the horse-crud a mile away so I know what I'm talking about. Hilariously craptacular.
share"There are no multiple interpretations of it"
Actually, several years after the movie's release director Roeg in an interview said that he saw ways that one could justify an argument that TJ Newton was actually an excentric, alcoholic human with a very vivid imagination, to the point that when he appears in his "Anthean" form to Mary Lou she sees it that way because she is drunk at the time and he is very detailed in his description of Anthean physiology. So, yes, the movie DOES have multiple interpretations. In fact, to the post-modernist, any piece of literature, film, or other art is open to multiple and perhaps almost infinite interpretations.
"David Lynch makes stuff that is like the stuff in my dreams. I've never had dreams like this."
Just because YOU have never had a dream like this movie doesn't mean no one else in the world ever has... I have dreams that are like "The Man Who Fell to Earth." I also happen to have dreams that are like "Mulholland Drive." And sometimes my dreams are perfectly linear, like any typical movie narative. Everyone dreams differently and for you to dismiss the idea that the movie is dreamlike or that the dream sequences in the movie are well done, just because you never experienced a dream like that (that you can remember...), is extremely narrow-minded, shallow and pedantic.
"This is art-fart at its worst and I've been around it through 2 higher-ed degrees at major intitutions and can smell the horse-crud a mile away so I know what I'm talking about"
I've also been to several institutions of higher learning, and the question I have is not why you didn't like the movie - you made that obviously clear, although saying something sucked balls is hardly a critique that takes a lot of thought - but why are you getting mad at my particular views? I'm not trying to imply that I'm above someone or that I know more (although I do think that my 26 years versus the previous poster's 15 years gives me a bit more of an edge). I'm just stating my views and opinions, we all got 'em and sometimes our opinions are different than other peoples', that's life. I'm not on a high horse when I speak my opinions, I just have something I want to say.
[deleted]
"BFF, you sound like every art-fag I've ever heard try to defend a piece of schlock."
Art-fag? Why are you so hostile? I'm simply stating my opinions here. By the way, I'm bisexual.
"You use the following techniques in your crusade to prove your intellectual superiority: name-dropping"
So because I know a few directors who are on the darker/arty side of the film medium I'm using them to prove my intellectualy superiority? I'm on a crusade? No. I use the names as reference, as saying, these directors are similar in style and/or intent. I enjoyed the movie immensely, and I saw it as being in the vein of David Lynch and Cronenberg. I was simly pointing out to the 15-YEAR-OLD poster who thinks he knows everything about film that if he isn't familiar with or doesn't understand the works of these two directors, he's probably not going to understand Roeg.
"big-wording"
So I like to use big words. What of it? I also like to use small words, like "the" or "as" but they're not expressive enough to detail your closed-mindedness.
"using your demographic as a pedestal"
Did you read what I said in my last post? I said I'm not saying I know more than other people or that I'm more qualified just because I'm older, but I do think that extra 11 years I have over the 15-YEAR-OLD poster gives me a bit of an edge.
"pointing out all the wonderfully brilliant things you've done"
First of all, I never actually said I had written a screenplay or worked on a movie set (which I have done). Secondly, I don't consider what I write to be wonderfully brilliant. I'm the worst critic of my own work, possibly to a fault - I'm never satisfied with what I write down, I constantly tweak once it's all written... I never once said I consider the things I write to be wonderfully brilliant. I was simply pointing out that when one actually spends time on a movie set, or sits down in front of his/her computer or whatever to write a screenplay, I think one gets a higher appreciation for film in general...you don't really understand what goes into making a picture until you've done it yourself, and I don't know if the poster has any experience in these areas but I think that maybe he should before he even thinks about talking bad about a director that he doesn't even know the name of.
"No one should have to watch every Cronenburg, Lynch, Kubrik and Roeg film to enjoy this one."
I wasn't saying that you have to watch every David Lynch movie to enjoy "The Man Who Fell to Earth." First, what I was saying that if you don't get Lynch, Cronenburg or Kubrik films, or if you don't know the rest of Roeg's work, you might have a hard time understanding this one. Also I was pointing to the poster's young age and the likelihood that he hasn't seen very many of this type of non-linear film. At 15 I highly doubt I would have understood Mulholland Drive, Eraserhead, this film or Cronenburg's early works. But just because I don't understand something doesn't mean I would have thought it sucked.
"I don't know about you, but my dreams don't involve Rip Torn's schlong flapping around in my face."
Come on, his penis was on screen for all of about 5 seconds. That's hardly call to say it's flapping around in your face. Plus you apparently missed the entire point of Rip Torn's story arc, the way he goes from being this lecherous old man who likes 18-year-old girls to being a driven, solid scientist (and eventually detective when he starts to wonder about TJ).
The fact of the matter is, I love the story. The book was great, and the movie, while dated, actually presents a number of themes beyond what the book intended. To a fault, perhaps, because it seems with every scene they're changing the theme of the story. At any rate, this is an experimental film, and I understand a lot of experimental movies came out of the 70s, and much of it is indeed crap, but to me this simply is not. There's really no need to get hostile, gutty. We just look at the movie differently. Can't we agree to disagree, or do you wish to carry on this debate further?
BFF, you say that everyone is entitled to their opinion yet you seem to be rubbishing the 15 year old's opinion based on his age.
For all you know he could be a film student, he may have seen the work of other directors - that is not for you to assume. His opinion is valid, ok so he may express himself in a way which to you seems juvenile, but he is expressing himself in the way he is comfortable with and that is what is important.
Before you accuse me of hostility, know that i am just saying this is a place for discussion not arguments. It is hard to read criticism of something you value but it is better to respect it rather than shoot it down in such a way. It is great that the film sparked him to post at such a tender age. Don't look down on him for it.
Unfortunately i have not seen this film but going by these discussions i am looking forward to it. I ordered the criterion edition today. I absolutely loved Performance and Don't Look Now and even The Witches. What do you think of these films BFF? Are they comparable to The Man Who Fell to Earth? Let me know, i am interested in your opinion as you seem to be a fan of Roeg.
"You're a pretentious art sycophant. and the movie was crap. how can you compare it to the works of lynch and kubrick? get an opinion of your own, then critize others'."
This is the hostility you have to put up with on these boards when you like a movie that others don't, neils_funk...
That is what I was railing against more than the age of the earlier poster. Now while I do respect his opinion and said so in my first post, I think his opinion of this movie (and other movies as well) would be better enforced if he knows and/or appreciates the films of those other artists that I mentioned.
Now I haven't seen many of the works of Roeg, but based on this film I think I would really enjoy them. I love movies that are bizarre, non-linear and even, yes experimental in nature. Some people, like the one quoted above, feel that this movie is nothing like a David Lynch film but I have no other reference to compare a work like this by, as David Lynch is about the weirdest director I have seen. Lynch doesn't tell a story with words or dialogue. Half the time he isn't even concerned with the story, he's just concerned with the image and relies on the audience being smart or clever or crazy enough to put it all together. His films are like Dali come to life. I got the same feeling as I was watching "The Man Who Fell to Earth." I don't see why this or defending a movie I enjoy with my own argument in favor of it makes me an "art sycophant." I'm not trying to make others like the movie, I'm just trying to show them the way I look at it.
"You're a pretentious art sycophant. and the movie was crap. how can you compare it to the works of lynch and kubrick? get an opinion of your own, then critize others'."
Yea i think this is a very hostile comment also but whatever, thats just the way it goes. I am new to this message board thing and i thought it was going to be a good place for film discussion, not blind hostility.
I love David Lynch too! My favourite is Blue Velvet, probably one of his more cohesive films. Alot of critics compare it to a Hitchcock thriller with the style of voyeurism he uses however i always found it more like a subverted Douglas Sirk film. While Lynch is unique, this film captures that old 50's melodrama look and blends it with the sinister under-class of a gangster film. Trying to put Lynch films into a genre is probably reductive but i admire the way he suggests that there is beauty on the surface but evil underneath. This is kind of how Sirk set up his films aswell.
If you like the non linear type of films you may want to check out (if you've not already) some of these: Teorema (Pasolini, 1968) - L'Eclisse (Antonioni, 1962) - Last Chants For a Slow Dance (Jost, 1977) and A Zed and Two Noughts (Greenaway, 1985).
[deleted]
First of all, learn how to SPELL before you call somebody ignorant. Second of all, wow, what hypocrisy. I've seen more lack of respect from you, and an unwillingness to consider an opinion other than your own, than from the other poster. He spoke respectfully, and I think you're just annoyed because he showed how he actually KNEW what he was talking about, while YOU'RE the pretentious hack that knows nothing about film, and can only say "It sucks. it's not linear. it's weird" as a critique.
While I can understand the ageism comment, and yes, at 15 years old, you're quite entitled to your own opinion, I do agree with the poster's point. He wasn't saying that the 15 year old isn't entitled to his own opinion, he's saying that somebody who doesn't know anything about film (and watching every Hollywood blockbuster movie doesn't constitute knowing ANYTHING) perhaps cannot make a real critique of this film. It's like me going to a football game and saying that it's the best game I ever saw. Well, if it's the ONLY game I ever saw... as opposed to someone who's a football fanatic, who studies the history, who goes to every single game possible. Who has the more knowledge? Who's opinion is more valid? It has nothing to do with thinking you're "better than someone else" but everything to do with the idea that while opinions are opinions, EDUCATED opinions are always better than random opinions.
I read though all of this, and it was all pretty interesting, especially with people calling BFF an art fag and pretentious for trying to defend his like of the movie.
Just because someone likes something that you don't, or claims to see more in a piece of art that you do, doesn't automatically make them an art fag or pretentious. It totally stings the ego when you're thinking "WTF is this? I don't understand" while somebody else is saying "wow, this is so profound." Believe me, I'm ALWAYS the person going "WTF is this." Obviously the natural reaction's to say "I'm right, I have my pride, this is a piece of crap that doesn't mean anything, and you're being pretentious" but that doesn't really help you grow artistically, especially if you're an aspiring filmmaker or artist.
The moment I finished watching TMWFTE, I wondered why Criterion Collection actually released this. I mean, it had some pretty innovative shots and great acting from Bowie, but other than that, it seemed pretty disjointed to me. But then I read an article on it from Uncut magazine, and the more I mulled over it, the more the themes started coming out. Now I think it's one of the greatest commentaries on society and isolation and media out there (and probably one of the most depressing). It's a really hard film to watch for me, mostly because it's so bleak and disjointed and so powerful.
Okay, yeah, so I needed some help from movie reviews to understand it. Is that cheating? No. And even if it is, whatever, I'd rather cheat than ignore the movie completely just because MY feeble mind couldn't grasp it the first time around.
And no, I'm not a drone, following the every word of "respected" critics. There's plenty of "classics" that I just really, really don't like. But why are they considered classic? Why would Criterion release it? There's gotta be SOMETHING in there worthy of recognition. So you try to understand what the filmmaker's intent was, and you respect the filmmakers for that. You can totally acknowledge a film and the impact it has on other viewers or future movies without having to like it yourself.
And definitely, nobody HAS to like this movie. But just to dismiss ANY movie that you don't like (especially one that already has status) as pure trash right off the bat, without first trying to understand it, isn't going to help YOU, and ESPECIALLY if you're interested in working in the movie business, where even not-so-talented directors who direct B movies have seen and analysed literally every movie ever made.
And, well, I guess if you just like watching movies for fun on Friday nights and don't wanna think too much about them, then that's fine too, lol.
---
"You do not need padding to tackle upholstery." (Coupling)
[deleted]
[deleted]
You're a pretentious art sycophant. and the movie was crap. how can you compare it to the works of lynch and kubrick? get an opinion of your own, then critize others'.
shareJust because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's not art.
share::shrugs::
I'm a Kubrick fan...and I liked this one. The cinematography is to die for...
I admit, I didn't understand parts (although it was a lot easier to understand as a whole then a lot of other boards made it out to be), but I still enjoyed watching it. It's art, all right.
Not everybody understands/has to understand art. Sometimes it's open to interpretation-that's what makes it so interesting.
Then again, I'm interested in unorthodox movies...Pink Floyd The Wall, anything Kubrick, etc. And, I love Bowie
I agree with you gary...I was just looking at all of the message boards and WOW this one is a very heated conversation. I like how you can almost see everyone snapping at each other.
Oh, and I love Bowie too
This is far too heated for a conversation about a film. A film which was absolutely brilliant, even if it did become tedious in parts. I think that the underlying themes were particularly appropriate for the era in which it was made and I think Bowie was wonderful. All these complaints about bad effects... what do you expect? It was made in 1976 for christs sake! The bad effects are brilliant for its time and it's also what makes it so attractive. Plus you get to see Bowies package. I found the film amazingly creepy... with less art wank than a Lynch film and just as enjoyable.
sharelol, okay, so was that really bowie's package we saw, or a body double's? :-D there might be a scene where it goes from package and pans up to face, but i'm not too sure -- gotta rewatch to make sure. :-D anyway, yay, if it's bowie's package, then yay, he's a lucky man. (and labyrinth just further proved this point)
share[deleted]
I don't think this film would have been half as interesting if it had just been a sober adaptation of the novel (which, with Roeg at the helm, was never ever going to happen).
I mean, the book was hardly a great story that needed to be told, it was just a fairly sedate metaphor for the corruption inherent in the seventies' 'me generation' (and, yes, I have read it).
Roeg just chopped it up and sprinkled in some trippiness so that we could live events through the alien visitor. I suppose Roeg thought it would be more effective and poignant this way. I tend to think that he was right.
And anyway, even if you do think the film stinks, you have to admit that there aren't too many other flicks from 1976 that would cause such a heated debate in 2006. It's hard to find a find movies that people give a flying *beep* about for more than five mins, so perhaps this film has got more going for it then you might think.
I wanted to make a comment about non-linear editing: Roeg is the bloody master of the art-form.
Recent auteurs, Tarantino in particular, have made narrative-chopping entertaining and palatable for the mainstream, and good on them, cos their films (Tarantino's in particular) are great fun.
But Roeg used his Byzantine editing techniques for loftier, more pure (yes, art-fag) reasons. He used his cutting in Bad Timing and Don't Look Now (in particular) to such devastating effect that they make even the great David Lynch seem novice in his approach to the dissassembaling of narrative in cinema.
(His genius peaks in Don't Look Now, where a flash-forward actually becomes part of the narrative when it appears. So it becomes both linear and non-linear in the same instance. It *beep* me up even thinking about it, and I've never seen anyone come close this cebral horror gem.)
So, anyways, when wahoodoss says: "Just because a movie is on the weird side, is not linear in it's storytelling, is disjointed, etc. doesn't make it art. Or good. Sometimes it means the movie is weird, is not linear, is disjointed, and just plain bad." He's dead right. Most art-movies are as cack as the dross Hollywood pumps out - let's face it, most films are rubbish - but I'd like to think this this movie, and most of Roeg's catalogue, are some of the exceptions to the rule.
[deleted]
Very well said.
shareYes indeed...A very well thought out comment.
I mean firstly you have to take into account when the movie was made & what the world was like back then....times really have changed.
I won't here Avatar being put down though...I mean sure the script, plot and acting were...well, I believe the word "meh" covers them perfectly :P
.....but just look at it, it's so pretty. The skills of the true artists that really made that movie is truly amazing.
The media response to Lady GaGa and therefore the response of the masses who will be shocked by what ever they are told to be shocked by always makes me laugh. It's as if the 70's,80's & 90's didn't even happen apparently.
....oooh look at her she's wearing funny clothes omg!
Actually to some extent I admire her at least she's putting the effort in, and frankly if you are going to be in the public eye you should be putting a show on for us all the time!
It's also conviniently very...very good marketing :)
Positively brilliant observation. "Tyrannical conformity" runs rampant on these boards and, in the larger picture, threatens our very civilization.
"Just because a movie is on the weird side, is not linear in it's storytelling, is disjointed, etc. doesn't make it art."...Just because it's a movie period doesn't make it art .Movies are purely made to entertain no matter how weird or unweird they are .
"Movie directing is the perfect refuge for the mediocre"
every movie created is art, because it was created by someone. nt necessarrely good art, but art.
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
I agree. While I liked Roeg's previous film such as Don't Look Now, Walkabout and Performance even more, this one and especially Bad TIming sucked balls, and sucked very deep.
shareWeirdness in and of itself does not art make, but this film had enough amazing art to keep me riveted. 9/10 stars from me.
share