Can somebody justify the need of these useless and time consuming clips? Because it made me hate the movie even more. I actually think, these clips are the proof why the movie was a pathetic attempt to be intellectual, deep, thought provoking. Not to mention the gay scenes.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
<Can somebody justify the need of these useless and time consuming clips?
To exemplify Alex's dream state of mind as he perceives the park. It feels like a natural high to him - shown through beautiful super8mm stock, which many filmmakers use to represent resonant memories and dreamy scenery. Remember Alex saying, "I could just sit there and watch people skate all night." The park is euphoria for him, it puts him in a trance, so he could get away from the world; note the moment after he killed the guard, he reverts back to the "dream" footage of skaters.
<Because it made me hate the movie even more.
No offense. But if you're going to post in the Transformers/GI-Joe boards, I have some doubts you would enjoy any of Gus Van Sant's art-films. Sure, I like a good popcorn movie every-once-and-a-while, but GVS's more artier stuff demands a very patient, deeper audience. Especially if you're going to say something offensive like this:
Not to mention the gay scenes.
Sorry but, I can not consider those clips as ART because its just dull edited video. I am even sure that those grainy film effect was added on computer. This movie can easily cropped to 30 minutes. For example that shower scene was extremely gay, This movie is full of gay methapors. So If I am offended by these scenes, Don't I have the right to point out my disturbance of these scenes?
After what I have said, many people with will think that my tiny brain is not big enough to comprehend the artistic imagery in this movie. My problem is, if I am sitting through a movie for 2 hours, I want to evaluate my time as good as possible. This movie wasted my time and there is no excuse for that.
Actually if you read my post in Transformers/GI-Joe boards, you can clearly see that I dont like those movies. So Next time do not immeditely think that someone who posts in particular boards enjoys those movies.
Moreover, I actually did not think this movie was that bad, I gave it 6. But as I said, movie lacks appetite, unnecessarily long. Unlike other people here, I dont think actors didn't do a good job.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
<Sorry but, I can not consider those clips as ART because its just dull edited video.
Just because it is not FAST-FAST-FAST!!! Here/here/and here/ - doesn't make it 'dully' edited. That's the problem with our American movies today - too much climax, not enough depth. Remember art is not synonymous with widely acclaimed entertainment. Our audiences nowadays can't watch movies that don't have shots that last more 5 seconds.
<I am even sure that those grainy film effect was added on computer.
WTF? Have you worked or even SEEN Super 8MM before? When you shoot it in 8mm and BLOW-UP to 35mm, there are huge amounts of grainage that gets shown due to the 8mm dimensions being to small for the 35mm stock. FACT.
<For example that shower scene was extremely gay, This movie is full of gay methapors. So If I am offended by these scenes, Don't I have the right to point out my disturbance of these scenes?
No. You don't have the right. Tell me...how is it GAY?(as if there is anything WRONG with being a homosexual as you are implying). What makes a shower scene gay as Alex his contemplating what he had just done, the water dripping off his body like water washing away his sin(s)? Hitchcock used this effect very well in Psycho(Van Sant later remade that interestingly enough). The shot is very poetic of the angst and guilt Alex is feeling. Couple that with the sound design and you get a very powerful and kinetic scene. Compare this to your run-of-the-mill Hollywood drama that uses sad faces, tears, and flashbacks in black and white to DIRECTLY tell the audience what to feel.
Give reasons why you think it is GAY. Or don't even use that word in general. It's offensive - it's like saying THAT scene was NEGRO!
<Actually if you read my post in Transformers/GI-Joe boards, you can clearly see that I dont like those movies. So Next time do not immeditely think that someone who posts in particular boards enjoys those movies.
You shouldn't waste your time asking whether any of those movies are good or not. It's common sense - cheap, juvenile popcorn movie = big $$$ You know what to expect.
<Unlike other people here, I dont think actors didn't do a good job.
GVS used real people to act - the effect gave the movie a very authentic feeling(with the exception of that emo chick) Movie characters don't act like real people half the time, they just act like the writer's words. GVS felt real people showed the naivete that trained actors lacked
<Moreover, I actually did not think this movie was that bad, I gave it 6. But as I said, movie lacks appetite, unnecessarily long.
Maybe GSV or "art films" in general are just not your thing. It's OKAY to not like it, just don't post gibberish without having full understandings of movies like this.
You made a mistake by saying I dont have a full understanding of such movies. I have entirely comprehended this movie and I am able to sympathize with the director becuase what he wanted to tell is obvious. Most hidden methaphors are gay scenes and I do not want to think over them. So if someone uses a 8mm camera and adds absurd background music, long shower shots etc. That becomes art? ART is not that easy.
And, again this movie is pathetic to become an artistic movie. If I havent watched any movies in my life, you could have fooled me.
Art Movies->
2001: A Space Odyssey, Sol(y)aris, Avalon, Apocalypse Now, Blade Runner, Donnie Darko, Oldboy, The Fifth Element, Twelve Monkeys, Watchmen, A Scanner Darkly, Vals Im Bashir, Alien, Gattaca, Les triplettes de Belleville, Paprika, Sunshine, MirrorMask ...
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
<You made a mistake by saying I dont have a full understanding of such movies. I have entirely comprehended this movie and I am able to sympathize with the director becuase what he wanted to tell is obvious.
Then tell us! I don't attack something and not give a reason for it. Especially with something as juvenile as "GAY." Give an example. What kind of argument is it if one person just spews remarks without displaying credible reasoning?
<Most hidden methaphors are gay scenes and I do not want to think over them.
Errrrrrr.....basically you are saying, "Stop! I cannot back up my stance with valid evidence and responses, so that is why I say I don't want to think over them."
What a cop-out answer!
<Sol(y)aris
Just curious, Soderbergh or Tarkovsky?
< Blade Runner, Donnie Darko, Oldboy, The Fifth Element, Twelve Monkeys, Watchmen, A Scanner Darkly, Alien, Gattaca
These are NOT 'Art Films.' These are mainstream Sci-Fi/Fantasy movies that have had WIDE releases in America(even Oldboy is known), plus most are plot-driven rather than character. They are artistic in the mainstream way, but don't compare to the unknown/independent/accessibility of Stan Brakhage, Mya Deron, Peter Greenaway, Luis Bunuel, Alain Resnai, Michaelangelo Antonioni, Rainier Fassbinder, Bela Tarr-type crowds. THESE are art films.
Satantango is NOT a movie you will see on a blockbuster/hollywood video shelf, but films on your list will.
Here's an art film showcase for starters:
The Draughsman's Contract
Meshes in the Afternoon
Eraserhead
Werckmeister Harmonies
El Ángel Exterminador
The Apu Trilogy
Juliet of the Spirits
Faces
La Notte
Satyricon
Hiroshima Mon Amour
Any of these sound familiar or are you scratching your head in confusion?
The very notion you "classify" Donnie Darko and Alien as "Art Films" is insulting to film enthusiasts.
Cheers.
You sound like some sort of art master who can say one movie is an art movie and other is not. Your biggest issue is, you can not appreciate other people's opinion about art and movie. You are limiting the definition of art in your own perspective and being a Movie Nazi unconsciously. I am sure, no matter how much I give reasonable criticism of the movie you will constanly try to disprove them.
About Solaris, even though I haven't read the book, both movies are great and I am sure you like the Tarkovsky version because of your nonsesical appreciation of unnecessary film shots, like the road cruising shots in the movie.
>Blade Runner, Donnie Darko, Oldboy, The Fifth Element, Twelve Monkeys, Watchmen, A Scanner Darkly, Alien, Gattaca.
These are very successful art movies in my opinion and I am not thinking of changing my opinion for a long time.(I got a long way ahead of me to become a movie expert like you, I guess)
You definitely look like more knowledgeable about movies. To be honest, I have no idea about the movies you have mentioned except Eraserhead. I will check them out.
However your attitude in your last statements are fascistic. We are talking about opinions here. You are trying to impose your own opinion on other people and executing who are not willing to accept.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
<You sound like some sort of art master who can say one movie is an art movie and other is not. Your biggest issue is, you can not appreciate other people's opinion about art and movie. You are limiting the definition of art in your own perspective and being a Movie Nazi unconsciously. I am sure, no matter how much I give reasonable criticism of the movie you will constantly try to disprove them.
I am no where near an art film master per se`:) But I dislike it when people come to a movie with limited knowledge of artistic cinema, and the bash it because it's boring or they can't understand it, using terms like, "this is gay." If someone doesn't like a movie, I would respect them more to give a valid and competent response.
If you go into an art gallery, there's a difference between seeing a "beautiful" painting, and seeing an "artistic" one. A person who draws gorgeously doesn't make him a great artist; while someone like Picasso - who creates abstract pieces that transform reality - are considered artists because of their ability to challenge the medium. I admit, I prefer looking at beautiful paintings as opposed to Jackson Pollock or Andy Warhol, but that just shows I know close-to-nothing of art. I won't bash their paintings because I don't have an abundant knowledge of art.
The same goes for film. While most of those movies you mentioned are great in their own way, they pale in comparison to the pantheon of great artists, because "most" of those films don't challenge the medium of cinema, and fall into the categories of genre. They are still great, though.
Unfortunately most of the time, art does not EQUAL entertainment and sadly, these movies, as well at the artists, will soon be relics/figures of the past, as the Hollywood gets proverbially worse with the repetitions of REMAKES/SEQUELS/PREQUELS/VIDEO-GAME ADAPTATION/PASTICHE, and TV-TYPE movies.
That is why I feel Paranoid Park is a wonderful film. It challenges the audiences to try to think and feel the movie, rather then telling us. We observe the character through sound design, close-ups, tracking shots, distorted narrative, rather than exposition. The pace isn't too slow; films of the past took the around the same pace of this movie, it's just that we are conditioned to watch it faster. This is a movie that doesn't follow the modern convention of movies today.
How do you do, I have just watched an incredible movie, a movie you could say very artistic. "Riri Shushu no subete" a japanese movie, watch it if you have the opportunity and tell me what do you think about it.
Hey, Soldier. Do you know who's in command here?
Being difficult to sit through usually means a film is bad (depending on the age of the film of course - I would consider silent films like Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" and D.W. Griffith "Birth of a Nation" masterpieces of their age, however they are nevertheless fairly hard to sit through when comparing with modern films, due to their slower pace and especially their lack of spoken dialogue). Nevertheless, just because someone calls a barely watchable film art, that doesn't all of a sudden make it a good film.
share<<<<Sol(y)aris
<<
<< Just curious, Soderbergh or Tarkovsky?
I've seen only the Tarkovsky version but really couldn't figure out what was the big deal about it. Maybe I'm just not into '70s sci-fi considering Kubrick's 2001 doesn't appeal to me either (even though I'm somewhat of a fan of Kubrick's other work).
<< These are NOT 'Art Films.' These are mainstream Sci-Fi/Fantasy movies that
<< have had WIDE releases in America(even Oldboy is known), plus most are
<< plot-driven rather than character. They are artistic in the mainstream way,
<< but don't compare to the unknown/independent/accessibility of Stan Brakhage,
<< Mya Deron, Peter Greenaway, Luis Bunuel, Alain Resnai, Michaelangelo
<< Antonioni, Rainier Fassbinder, Bela Tarr-type crowds. THESE are art films.
Fassbinder is quite a household name in Europe, especially Germany. If you consider not having a wide release in the country of origin as a criterium to be considered an "Art film", Fassbinger certainly does not belong on that list. If you consider not having a wide release in the US as a criterium to be considered an "Art film", that's quite a US-centric perspective (which I as a European find very offensive).
My criteria to consider something artistic is a mixture of talent and innovation and I don't see how size of budget or production make a film less artistic in any way. "Blade Runner", "Donnie Darko", "Oldboy", "The Fifth Element", "Twelve Monkeys", "Watchmen", "A Scanner Darkly", "Alien" and "Gattaca" are indeed films with big budgets but does that make them any less artistic? Or what about "Memento", "Amélie Poulain", "A Clockwork Orange", "Code 46", "Dark City" or "Dogville"? Too big budgets as well for your taste?
<< The very notion you "classify" Donnie Darko and Alien as "Art Films" is
<< insulting to film enthusiasts.
I don't see why anything by Gus Van Sant qualifies as art more than "Donnie Darko" or "Alien". It seems that to people like yourself the more unwatchable a film is the more it's considered artistic. In my opinion, that's just plain retarded and a clear indication of pseudo-intellectualism.
[deleted]