|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Judge Ito
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: IA
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 9:57 pm |
  |
|
| parker wrote: |
| You shouldn't let that affect your own opinion |
Take a barrage of "OMG ASS-TO-ASS" "Have you seen this yet?" "This movie's soooooooooo deeeeeeeeeeep" for two years and try not to let it affect your opinion.
PS It's a shit film, worth precisely one viewing. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
 |
Dracko
a sapphist fool
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:32 pm |
|
|
| Vikram Ray wrote: |
| so its climax is just a bunch of asian bodies bathed in neon having sex. |
I'd rather have surreal imagery than "characters".
_________________
      |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Isfet
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: A New York
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:31 pm |
|
|
im not really getting the whole "no characters" thing. everyone in the climax appeared earlier in the film.
I'm not going to list every single character in the film, nor am I going to say the film is perfect, but...what? |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Baseballkappe
Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Location: France
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:39 pm |
|
|
| maybe they don't go through enough character development and shouting a whole lot |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
sawtooth
heh
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: flashback
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:42 pm |
|
|
It's not that the characters lack continuity, it's a debate over the idea that the development of the characters is somehow more important than the rest of the film. Like whether we should single out poor character development in The Discreet Charm of The Bourgeoisie as a weak part of the film.
_________________
( ( |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
sawtooth
heh
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: flashback
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:59 pm |
|
|
Against "characters":
| Borges wrote: |
| The typical psychological novel is formless. The Russians and their disciples have demonstrated, tediously, that no one is impossible. A person may kill himself because he is so happy, for example, or commit murder as an act of benevolence. Lovers may separate forever as a consequence of their love. And one man can inform on another out of fervor of humility. In the end such complete freedom is tantamount to chaos. But the psychological novel would also be a "realistic" novel, and have us forget that it is a verbal artifice, for it uses each vain precision (or each languid obscurity) as a new proof of verisimilitude. There are pages, there are chapters in Marcel Proust that are unacceptable as inventions, and we unwittingly resign ourselves to the insipidity and the emptiness of each day. The adventure story, on the other hand, does not propose to be a transcription of reality: it is an artificial object, no part of which lacks justification. |
I've found an extension of this critique somewhere else that I can't find the link to now, but I'll paraphrase:
We can write entirely different stories about people using tidbits and anecdotes as the basis for a more "complete portrait" of someone. We know that Stalin was a gruesome mass-murderer; but what was his private life like? Miserable? Well, that's obviously not the real him. Now instead we turn to the man of letters, starting with a note to his sweetheart when he was 19, and so on.
Each set of details or characteristics that is portrayed comes at the expense of another, a complete description is not only bewildering and conflicted but reveals that each person is a slight variation of the next.
We discover that characterization is useless; we can empathize with both the murderer and his victim, and it becomes a distraction from the fact that one of them is lying dead on the floor. Or (in the case of Enter the Void) the fact that the dead guy is super cool and trippy and so is the floor
_________________
( (
Last edited by sawtooth on Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:16 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Tulpa
Joined: 31 Jul 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:18 am |
|
|
sawtooth that was a good post you can have a blood potion
I haven't seen Enter the Void yet but I don't think it is fair to claim that Requiem had characters as no one really had much choice in what happened to them so it came off as cloying and preachy.
_________________
 |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
remote
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:36 am |
|
|
Yeah, that was a really good post. I could have only said something like, "the city and its colors are the main characters of the film -- not the people," which I guess applies, but it isn't very insightful. Enter the Void is about life and death (and sex and drugs), but on a scale that dwarfs the individual lives of the people it's following. They're puppets driven by everything around them: the city, drugs, life itself. A "complete portrait" of these "characters" isn't necessary because it's not about who they are as people, really. All of the film is shot from the main dude's perspective, with much of it showing him looking over his own shoulder in memories... It's as if we're looking through him, beyond him, into the void.
_________________
letterboxd | last.fm | steam |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Ronk
saucy Scott Pilgrim fanfic
Joined: 29 Dec 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:12 pm |
|
|
_________________
 |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
CubaLibre
the road lawyer
Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Location: Balmer
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Isfet
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: A New York
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:26 pm |
|
|
| i have no idea what this film is about aside from the fact that it involves Mel Gibson and a beaver animal puppet. is there any chance that it could actually be something worth seeing beyond the whole "mental breakdown" aspect? |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Baseballkappe
Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Location: France
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:28 pm |
|
|
| No. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Isfet
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: A New York
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:31 pm |
|
|
| awwwwweesommeeeeee |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
evnvnv
hapax legomenon
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: the los angeles
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:45 pm |
|
|
"Directed by Jodie Foster" is a good enough reason to see it, I think
_________________
The text will not live forever. The cup are small |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
a sapphist fool
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:00 pm |
|
|
| "I am glad they finally made a supposedly poignant movie which explores the pretend minor emotional problems of white people living in the USA. Secretly, I had begun to think that would never happen." |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Vikram Ray
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:17 pm |
|
|
| Isfet wrote: |
| i have no idea what this film is about aside from the fact that it involves Mel Gibson and a beaver animal puppet and it will be better than Enter the Void |
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
remote
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Vikram Ray
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:47 pm |
|
|
no, sorry, I just hated this movie with a raw passion and saw a good opportunity to make a funny.
| sawtooth wrote: |
| We discover that characterization is useless; we can empathize with both the murderer and his victim, and it becomes a distraction from the fact that one of them is lying dead on the floor. Or (in the case of Enter the Void) the fact that the dead guy is super cool and trippy and so is the floor |
This is utter crap. It's an excuse for bad/sloppy writing. I could give a fuck about a guy lying dead on the floor if he's already dead on the page/screen.
And I don't see how that Borges quote is in any way "against character." It seems to me to be more against realism as such, and the idea that we could ever, in fiction, get a *complete portrait* of a human being, which certain psychological novels from the 19th century would have us think, and of course we cannot. That's not the point.
The argument that is the best defense of EtV is that the individual characters don't matter and etc., which I guess I can see. But in order for that to work you need to have a mythical structure or whatever that isn't completely puerile (ie 2001, or Borges' best stuff). I got the impression from watching this film that Gaspar Noe has the worldview of a 15 year old who took mushrooms for the first time in his girlfriend's mom's basement, and then never took them again. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Baseballkappe
Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Location: France
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:04 pm |
|
|
B-but cinema's not a filmed script :(
Characterization in cinema is all the more useless because you're asking actors to mimic their way into fake characters, you're projecting whatever stupid ideas you have onto people, when you could be filming real people being real, or at least being something other than puppets to your script and your character arcs and your clever symbolism. Fuck your script man. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Vikram Ray
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:27 pm |
|
|
Wait, so EtV was somehow not Noe "projecting whatever stupid ideas he has onto people" but was instead Noe "filming real people being real"?
I'm not saying cinema is just a filmed script, or that all films must have Well-Developed Central Characters. Inland Empire is maybe the best example of a balance struck between character and non-character, filmed script and "pure cinema" or whatever. what are your favorite films, out of curiosity? |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Tulpa
Joined: 31 Jul 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:47 pm |
|
|
wait Vikram I thought you were a fifteen year old that took mushrooms in his mom's basement? I have to reevaluate everything I know about you now.
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Baseballkappe
Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Location: France
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:50 pm |
|
|
I have no idea about enter the void sorry :)
My favourite film's Lancelot du Lac |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Ebrey
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:23 pm |
|
|
| Arguing over whether or not characters are useful in cinema is absurd. That's like arguing over whether figures are important in painting. Why would anyone only look at paintings with figures, or only look at paintings without figures? There's room for more than one type of movie. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
sawtooth
heh
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: flashback
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:38 pm |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
And I don't see how that Borges quote is in any way "against character." It seems to me to be more against realism as such, and the idea that we could ever, in fiction, get a *complete portrait* of a human being, which certain psychological novels from the 19th century would have us think, and of course we cannot. That's not the point. |
The argument that is the best defense of EtV is that the individual characters don't matter and etc., which I guess I can see. But in order for that to work you need to have a mythical structure or whatever that isn't completely puerile (ie 2001, or Borges' best stuff). I got the impression from watching this film that Gaspar Noe has the worldview of a 15 year old who took mushrooms for the first time in his girlfriend's mom's basement, and then never took them again. |
I wasn't really mounting a defense of Enter the Void. I've never seen it, and it may be a turd for all I know.
I was making the argument that character development is bogus no matter what the context. At best it's a poor device for moving a plot forward and at worst the reason for existence of a billion awful melodramas. I'm making the assertion that a "balance of character and non-character" is unnecessary.
Insight into a character's psychology is why I found Lost to be a boring slog from the minute the flashbacks started, why I got so frustrated with Urasawa's Monster.
Re: Borges, this is something he riffs on dozens of times; In Emma Zunz for example, the titular character subjects herself to a series of violent crimes to give herself the motivation to avenge a different crime, done to someone else. He rejects characters as the subject of his work; there is no "balance" whatsoever. I think his rejection of psychological realism is the reason for that. If he didn't dislike character development, he had a funny way of showing it.
_________________
( (
Last edited by sawtooth on Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:55 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Vikram Ray
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:02 am |
|
|
| Tulpa wrote: |
| wait Vikram I thought you were a fifteen year old that took mushrooms in his mom's basement? I have to reevaluate everything I know about you now. |
well, sure I was, when I was 15. that's how I know. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Vikram Ray
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:09 am |
|
|
| sawtooth wrote: |
I was making the argument that character development is bogus no matter what the context. At best it's a poor device for moving a plot forward and at worst the reason for existence of a billion awful melodramas. I'm making the assertion that a "balance of character and non-character" is unnecessary.
Insight into a character's psychology is why I found Lost to be a boring slog from the minute the flashbacks started, why I got so frustrated with Urasawa's Monster. |
I think we're talking about different kinds of 'character development.' You're (rightly) complaining about the whole Lost thing, where we primarily get "insights" into character's psychology through flashbacks that spell out everything: "Character A does this because B happened: OH I SEE NOW". Which is obviously a bullshit tactic because the writers of Lost are hacks (also the tactic that Noe uses in EtV). Contrast that to something like what Lynch does with Jeffrey in Blue Velvet. We learn about Jeffrey by simply watching his behavior in the context of the narrative. It's not bogus at all, it's utterly essential to good storytelling, and always has been.
but yeah, what Ebrey said. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
a sapphist fool
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:35 am |
|
|
| Vikram Ray wrote: |
| no, sorry, I just hated this movie with a raw passion and saw a good opportunity to make a funny. |
Missed opportunity.
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Baseballkappe
Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Location: France
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:38 am |
|
|
| Ebrey wrote: |
| Arguing over whether or not characters are useful in cinema is absurd. That's like arguing over whether figures are important in painting. Why would anyone only look at paintings with figures, or only look at paintings without figures? There's room for more than one type of movie. |
There's a significant different in that film can easily capture the unexpected or the invisible. It's not about the presence or absence of figures, but about how you depict them.
Figures in a painting emerge in the act of painting, under the painter's control, while figures in cinema are real people captured on film, and emerge through editing. There are many thing out of your control you can't see, or you don't notice while filming, which become evident when editing and replaying sequences over and over.
Trying to enforce plot, acting and characters in a film is kind of a waste of medium, when you could be capturing so much subtle, fleeting things.
I mean, sure, it's fine to make a comic book style movie if you want, but I don't think it makes sense to criticize a film for its lack of characterization. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Ebrey
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:26 pm |
|
|
| Baseballkappe wrote: |
| Trying to enforce plot, acting and characters in a film is kind of a waste of medium, when you could be capturing so much subtle, fleeting things. |
The vast majority of movies, including the vast majority of "great films" (by Welles, Bergman, Kurosawa, etc.) are concerned with plot, acting, and characters. It's fine to enjoy movies that ignore them, but that's a very small niche, and enjoying those movies exclusively makes it hard to debate the merits of movies with other people. Someone who only likes Jackson Pollack paintings is not going to convince someone who likes a wide variety of painters that Monet is garbage. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Baseballkappe
Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Location: France
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:42 pm |
|
|
But there were interesting things about those films besides plot acting character like how it was relayed in a cinematic blurg glarg glag
I'm fine with other movies, it's just that criticizing a film because of its lack of characterization is kind of a weak argument.
I suppose Enter the Void could be annoying because it tried characterization and failed because of bad writing and knowing Noé I'm sure it's some kind of bastard movie thing
But I'm not sure what something like "a balance struck between character and non-character" is supposed to mean, and if it should be a relevant question
(sorry, I'm sounding kind of snappy but it's out of self-deprecation and inability to clearly convey ideas more than anything) |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Winona Ghost Ryder
lives in a monochromatic world
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:53 pm |
|
|
| Vision wrote for Cahiers Du Cinema in the late 50's to early 60's. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
a sapphist fool
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:56 pm |
|
|
| vision wrote: |
| Borges would have liked To the White Sea |
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
CubaLibre
the road lawyer
Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Location: Balmer
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:12 pm |
|
|
| Dracko wrote: |
| vision wrote: |
| Borges would have liked To the White Forest |
|
_________________
Let's Play, starring me. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Ronnoc
Joined: 26 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:40 pm |
|
|
Ok guys, I am having a hard time understanding what is going down ITT, so if you guys could help me out that would be cool. I will post my current understanding:
Vikram Ray likes Requiem for a Dream (which has good music and fancy editing, so I like it because I am shallow) because it has CHARACTERS in all caps, and not Enter The Void (fancy camerawork and probably good music too, though I am a bit erotaphobic when it comes to the movies so I dunno) because it has Asian bodies having the sex. Neither of them seem like the kind of movie I'd see for characters, but it seems a fair enough reason to dislike something (provided it's dislike and not objectifying it by calling it 'bad'). What he did call the movie was 'boring adolescent pseudoprofundity' which is I don't know.
Dudes seem to say basically what I just said, then sawtooth pops up.
| Quote: |
| It's not that the characters lack continuity, it's a debate over the idea that the development of the characters is somehow more important than the rest of the film. Like whether we should single out poor character development in The Discreet Charm of The Bourgeoisie as a weak part of the film. |
Ok, so I'm down with everything so far, and then, with the next post, things get confusing. The Borges quote is probably over-my-head, except that it appears he doesn't like Dostoevsky (who is a pretty cool dude), but instead prefers pulpy writing that doesn't have the baggage of pretending to be for realz life. Which, I would argue, is a mistake on his part. When you read anything, you accept the tropes and idioms that come along with it, even when reading a psychological novel or whatever.
My understanding seems at odds with sawtooth's paraphrase:
| Quote: |
We can write entirely different stories about people using tidbits and anecdotes as the basis for a more "complete portrait" of someone. We know that Stalin was a gruesome mass-murderer; but what was his private life like? Miserable? Well, that's obviously not the real him. Now instead we turn to the man of letters, starting with a note to his sweetheart when he was 19, and so on.
Each set of details or characteristics that is portrayed comes at the expense of another, a complete description is not only bewildering and conflicted but reveals that each person is a slight variation of the next.
We discover that characterization is useless;
|
Which, OK. Talking about Stalin as a character, OK. Writing a character is all up about controlling one's understanding of someone by what you reveal about them. This mirror's how you know people in the for realz life, because if you only see a dude be a jerk, you're about to think of the dude as a jerk or whatever. A complete description is only available of yourself (to yourself), and even then you probably don't think of yourself as a jerk so it doesn't really mean anything. Except, to reiterate, a complete description is only available of yourself and therefore, no matter how 'realistic' they are (how much information is available on the character), a character is still drawn by controlling one's understanding of someone by what you reveal of them. A person being a slight variation of the next might very well be true in a work, but it is not the result of a complete description because that's impossible. So, perhaps you mean 'exactly as much description as granted another character,' which makes some sense given the next paragraph.
| Quote: |
| We discover that characterization is useless; we can empathize with both the murderer and his victim, and it becomes a distraction from the fact that one of them is lying dead on the floor. Or (in the case of Enter the Void) the fact that the dead guy is super cool and trippy and so is the floor |
But, even so, I've no idea what is going down here. Presumably you mean 'we can empathize equally with both the murder and his victim' because simply empathizing with both dudes doesn't mean I don't care that one dude is dead. Even so, to paraphrase 'it's a debate over the idea that the fact that one of them is dead on the floor is somehow more important than the rest of the film.' You don't seem to have offered an argument, just restated what you're arguing about.
VR comes in and calls the above an excuse for 'bad/sloppy writing' (I don't know what he means) and asserts that he does care about dead people (OK?). Then he seems to agree what what I just said and
| Quote: |
| The argument that is the best defense of EtV is that the individual characters don't matter and etc., which I guess I can see. But in order for that to work you need to have a mythical structure or whatever that isn't completely puerile (ie 2001, or Borges' best stuff). |
(The shot at Noe's worldview seems like it should have been it's own paragraph because it doesn't have anything to do with these two lines.) I have no idea what a 'mythical structure or whatever that isn't completely puerile' means. You can have a movie without characters as long as there is no sex jokes or it is mythical?
Moving on
| Quote: |
B-but cinema's not a filmed script :(
Characterization in cinema is all the more useless because you're asking actors to mimic their way into fake characters, you're projecting whatever stupid ideas you have onto people, when you could be filming real people being real, or at least being something other than puppets to your script and your character arcs and your clever symbolism. Fuck your script man.
|
Once again, we get to the impossible. Unless you're about to make a bunch of hidden camera shows, it is impossible to film 'real people being real' so fuck whatever you're trying to say here, man.
| Quote: |
| I was making the argument that character development is bogus no matter what the context. |
Which, to my understanding, is not what the argument you were making was. On the other hand,
| Quote: |
| At best it's a poor device for moving a plot forward and at worst the reason for existence of a billion awful melodramas. |
is, but not a very well supported one?
| Quote: |
| I'm making the assertion that a "balance of character and non-character" is unnecessary. |
Which is fine, this is a silly sentiment.
| Quote: |
| Insight into a character's psychology is why I found Lost to be a boring slog from the minute the flashbacks started, why I got so frustrated with Urasawa's Monster. |
OK
| Quote: |
| Re: Borges, this is something he riffs on dozens of times; In Emma Zunz for example, the titular character subjects herself to a series of violent crimes to give herself the motivation to avenge a different crime, done to someone else. He rejects characters as the subject of his work; there is no "balance" whatsoever. I think his rejection of psychological realism is the reason for that. If he didn't dislike character development, he had a funny way of showing it. |
This is where I start to get really lost.
| Quote: |
| In Emma Zunz for example, the titular character subjects herself to a series of violent crimes to give herself the motivation to avenge a different crime, done to someone else. He rejects characters as the subject of his work |
My understanding of what you're saying here: 'In this book named after a character, this character does something to avenge another character. This is an example of him rejecting characters as the subject of his work.'
If he didn't dislike character development, he had a funny way of showing it?
Back to Baseballkappe.
| Quote: |
| That's like arguing over whether figures are important in painting. |
| Quote: |
| There's a significant different in that film can easily capture the unexpected or the invisible. |
???
| Quote: |
| It's not about the presence or absence of figures, but about how you depict them. |
Unless it's the absences, because you can not depict a figure who is absent? I mean, you can have a character that dudes only talk about (Porcupine is the most interesting part of Stalker) but if you're film has no characters at all, it's not how you depict them.
Shoot, I've got to go to work. Will write more later. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
JoeX111
Joined: 21 Nov 2008
Location: Some City
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:55 am |
|
|
Saw "Faster" and thought it was surprisingly not-terrible for a film about The Rock shooting people in the head.
Then I crossed the lobby and saw "127 Hours," probably the best movie about a guy drinking his own pee and cutting his own arm off you're ever likely to see. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Vikram Ray
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 1:32 am |
|
|
| Ronnoc wrote: |
| Vikram Ray likes Requiem for a Dream (which has good music and fancy editing, so I like it because I am shallow) because it has CHARACTERS in all caps, and not Enter The Void (fancy camerawork and probably good music too, though I am a bit erotaphobic when it comes to the movies so I dunno) because it has Asian bodies having the sex. Neither of them seem like the kind of movie I'd see for characters, but it seems a fair enough reason to dislike something (provided it's dislike and not objectifying it by calling it 'bad'). What he did call the movie was 'boring adolescent pseudoprofundity' which is I don't know. |
Admittedly I'm being ultra-lazy/pithy in my comments here about Enter the Void so it's understandable that you'd think I didn't like the movie because Asian bodies sex. So I'll just ignore that and say that "boring adolescent pseudoprofundity" is the main distillation of why I thoroughly hated it.
| Quote: |
| VR comes in and calls the above an excuse for 'bad/sloppy writing' (I don't know what he means) and asserts that he does care about dead people (OK?). |
So you know not having to worry about characterization means you can just write whatever comes to mind and pass it off as art or "surreal," which I did when I first started writing and thought it was pretty cool at the time but now look back on and just sort of cringe because nobody wants to read that shit. I care about dead people in fiction if they feel alive (get it?)
| Quote: |
Then he seems to agree what what I just said and
The argument that is the best defense of EtV is that the individual characters don't matter and etc., which I guess I can see. But in order for that to work you need to have a mythical structure or whatever that isn't completely puerile (ie 2001, or Borges' best stuff).
(The shot at Noe's worldview seems like it should have been it's own paragraph because it doesn't have anything to do with these two lines.) I have no idea what a 'mythical structure or whatever that isn't completely puerile' means. You can have a movie without characters as long as there is no sex jokes or it is mythical? |
EtV purports to be "mythical" i.e. to engage with characters who serve as archetypes for all human experience (mere puppets of Life and Death!). It then takes a cursory reading of Freud, throws it in the pot with totally shallow psychedelic meanderings (including a quote-unquote DMT trip that might as well have come out of What the Bleep Do You Know?), has a bunch of sex scenes with fancy camerawork and lighting and calls that profound. It's about life, you know, and death, and how that affects us (basically we end up wanting to fuck our moms and sisters).
Contrast that with a movie like 2001 (which Noe claims was the main influence) which is also mythical in structure, with almost no focus on character (certainly less than EtV despite the more recent film's apparent disregard for character) but manages to be actually emotionally and intellectually affecting, not to mention engaging on a moment-to-moment basis which EtV was resolutely not. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
a sapphist fool
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 1:43 am |
|
|
maybe your surreal writing just sucked????
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Vikram Ray
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 2:09 am |
|
|
| No it was actually pretty great! |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
a sapphist fool
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 2:32 am |
|
|
You should ask neggy, I hear he's an expert.
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
remote
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:24 am |
|
|
So, I really liked Black Swan. With everything it's drawing from it amounts to being a bit contrived, but it wins regardless.
_________________
letterboxd | last.fm | steam |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
cassievania
cassie-no night zone
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Location: Master, the batteries in your Wii Remote are depleted
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:12 pm |
|
|
I dunno what to say really except I really liked it.
_________________
 |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
