Movies you just didn't "get". [Archive]

nightflier

03-23-2009, 11:48 AM

I'm surprised no one mentioned Mulholland Drive. It took me a couple of viewings to actually appreciate it. Then I sold it.

Completely agree with the Saw/Hostel critique. These movies probably rank up there with the Faces of Death series. They sell them at Target and I saw a couple of kids buy Saw IV at the register and the clerk just swiped it through. They could not have been 16 years old. I'm no fan of censorship, but no kid should be watching that crap.

Actually Tarrentino is starting to really piss me off, too. Yes I liked Pulp, Dogs, and even Bill, but there's a limit to what I'll spend my money on. He's got a new one coming out where a bunch of British army recruits go into Nazi-occupied Europe to torture Germans soldiers to death and set examples. Apparently they're be collected scalps. It stars Brad Pitt and could have been an interesting story-line if it weren't for Tarrentino's asinine obsession with torture and gratuitous violence. That guy has issues.

Want to see a real movie about torture? Watch Taxi to the Dark Side. That's a movie I would put on the opposite spectrum from movies that lack a point, in contrast to most of the movies we're talking about here. Still not one kids should be watching, though.

Auricauricle

03-23-2009, 12:14 PM

Incredible....No, credible! The clerks at that store should be either fired or talked to. God, isn't watching the news mind-numbing enough? No, wait....Maybe the news makes schist like Saw etc. more palatable. Argh!

emaidel

03-23-2009, 12:47 PM

I watched about 45 minutes of "Synedoche, New York, " and turned it off. Neither my wife nor I could stand it, despite the glowing review The New York Times gave it, nor Roger Ebert's 4-star rating. Dark, morose, confusing and unpleasant. Somehow movies of that genre wind up being called "profound." I thought it was horrible.

Jack in Wilmington

03-23-2009, 01:25 PM

I know a lot of people loved this movie, but I got so lost watching "The Matrix"
Also "Vanilla Sky" and I watched about 15 minutes of "Eyes Wide Shut" on Friday night. Maybe it's the Stanley Kubrick thing, because I watched 2001 twice and I'm not sure I got it then.

Auricauricle

03-23-2009, 01:33 PM

FWIW, I am the Raving Lunatic in the dialog (as if you didn't know it). Loved the movie; do I "get" it? Well....Vanilla Sky just hurt my head.

02audionoob

03-23-2009, 03:45 PM

The Sheltering Sky. I suppose you have to read the book.

Groundbeef

03-24-2009, 02:57 AM

1. There Will Be Blood. Didn't get it. Rich guy. Kid goes deaf. Life goes to ****. Movie ends?

2. No Country for Old Men. People die. Guy flips coin to make hard choices. Kills at end. Sheriff retires. The end?

3. History of Violence. Man stops robbery. Is he really just a small town father? Movie turns dark. Writers crib dialoug from crappy Mafia play. Son is a mental midget, with even worse lines. Rough sex. Terrible "special" effects. Are we done yet?

Those are my 3 worst movies that I didn't get.

kexodusc

03-24-2009, 03:40 AM

3. History of Violence. Man stops robbery. Is he really just a small town father? Movie turns dark. Writers crib dialoug from crappy Mafia play. Son is a mental midget, with even worse lines. Rough sex. Terrible "special" effects. Are we done yet?

Those are my 3 worst movies that I didn't get.

The first 2 I enjoyed as they were very human and well performed, if not exactly mind-blowing or original. I do think they were overrated but they were ok.

History of Violence was just a poorly written, boring story with a forced plot twist....zzzzzzzz.

audio amateur

03-24-2009, 03:51 AM

That guy has issues.

That's a definite understatement

Auricauricle

03-24-2009, 08:03 AM

Have not seen History of Violence. Shame reading these comments: I like David Cronenberg's films as a rule. Then again, they are a mite daffy!

Anybody remember 1984? You know, the one with the soundtrack by Eurythmics? Left me in a foul mood for a couple of days....

Feanor

03-24-2009, 08:29 AM

1. There Will Be Blood. Didn't get it. Rich guy. Kid goes deaf. Life goes to ****. Movie ends?

2. No Country for Old Men. People die. Guy flips coin to make hard choices. Kills at end. Sheriff retires. The end?

3. History of Violence. ...

Those are my 3 worst movies that I didn't get.

Haven't seen H of V.

Of the other two, I preferred There Will Be Blood; it's about is power-hungry, vindictive, control freak with barely hidden violent streak. Love's his son? Not more than his compulsion to dominate.

But whereas 'Daniel Planview' is a sociopath, 'Anton Chigurh' in No Country for Old Men is simply a psychopathic killer, nothing complicated about that.

Groundbeef

03-24-2009, 10:29 AM

But whereas 'Daniel Planview' is a sociopath, 'Anton Chigurh' in No Country for Old Men is simply a psychopathic killer, nothing complicated about that.

I got the crazy killer part. But the whole drug gang/sherriff thing. And the "retirement" at the end. It was very disjointed, and didn't work out for me. I don't mind a movie with a message, but this was just stupid.

nightflier

03-24-2009, 01:21 PM

On the topic of violence, I watched Smoking Aces not too long ago with some friends and about 10 minutes into it we all got sick to our stomachs. We had to turn it off. There's a couple of scenes in there that are not necessarily gory, but so suggestively violent that they have that effect. Kind of weird. ...And this had nothing to do with Ben Afleck being in it, either.

Auricauricle

03-24-2009, 02:49 PM

Talk about insult to injury!

Anybody remember True Romance? There's a certain bathroom-fixture-related scene in that movie that I try to forget.

3-LockBox

03-24-2009, 05:41 PM

Agree completely about Saw and almost any David Lynch movie. I don't get the torture genre in general, and David Lynch needs to stop taking acid.

Fargo - it was OK, but I never got why it was supposed to be a great movie.

Napolean Dynamite - another one people heaped hyperbole on, and I could barely get through it

X Files: I Want To Believe - what was the point?

Twilight - teen vampire romance? and what was with that ghastly green hue they filtered this movie with? and the setting is in Forks, WA? not even a vampire is gruesom enough nor moribund enought to live in Forks, WA - the place is a rain forrest. The state of Washington has enough problems without having teenagers think that looking pasty white and near dead is cool or sexy (not that they didn't already look like that either). Stupid movie about a really dumb romance novel by a hackish author.

3-LockBox

03-24-2009, 05:52 PM

2. "Bug" - One of the borrrowed ones, absolutely horrid and mystifying. What the hell was/is Billy Friedkin thinking?

A really bizzar take on the Leaving Las Vegas thing I guess. I'll give Ashley Judd credit for not shying away from playing less than glamorous roles, but she needs to learn to say no from time to time. Bug coulda been better, but they seemed to write the script as they went along. But still, you gotta love Ashley being full-on nekkid in the final scene.

But I'll see your Bug and raise ya another Judd flick, Eye Of The Beholder. Niether the storyline nor the characters made any sense - the whole thing meanders and then just ends.

Rich-n-Texas

03-25-2009, 06:14 AM

I just put Saw IV & Saw V in my cue. I'm renting them for the DTS-HD audio. I am. Honest. :yesnod:

JSE

03-25-2009, 07:39 AM

Donnie Darko.........WTF? :out:

Nacho Libre.......... Does anyone think Jack Black is actually funny?

Rich-n-Texas

03-25-2009, 07:57 AM

Donnie Darko.........WTF? :out:

Nacho Libre.......... Does anyone think Jack Black is actually funny?
Not me. Not in the slightest.

ForeverAutumn

03-25-2009, 09:46 AM

Donnie Darko.........WTF? :out:

Nacho Libre.......... Does anyone think Jack Black is actually funny?

Both of these are movies that I started to watch and didn't get through the first half hour.

I don't "get" Jack Black. He's not funny. I liked School of Rock, but not because of him. I can name a dozen actors who would have been good in that role.

You know who else I don't get? Vince Vaughn. How is he famous? He's not much of an actor and he's not even good looking. :nonod:

3-LockBox

03-25-2009, 05:35 PM

Does anyone think Jack Black is actually funny?

He was moderately funny in a few early films as a supporting character, but as a main character, he's more aggrevating to watch than Adam Sandler. But everyone wants to elevate him because he reminds them of Chris-John-Candy-Belushi-Farley.

Quick, someone hand Jack a copy of The Confederacy Of Dunces script!

canuckle

03-25-2009, 09:27 PM

1. There Will Be Blood. Didn't get it. Rich guy. Kid goes deaf. Life goes to ****. Movie ends?
I agree entirely with There Will Be Blood being on the list. There was nothing being struggled against, just the same character making no progress and achieving nothing, then credits. For two hours I was bored stupid, then one hour of wishing I would just die to make it end, then they went for the dramatic climax and everyone in the theatre broke out in laughter at how stupid and pointless the whole thing was. I did not get a thing about that movie... especially its critical praise.

I'd add Brazil to the list. Another critical favourite that's hailed as genius but left me wondering what on Earth any of it meant.

Worf101

03-26-2009, 05:36 AM

Feanor

03-26-2009, 05:44 AM

...

Fargo - it was OK, but I never got why it was supposed to be a great movie.

...

I've seen Fargo once and haven't had the heart or stomach to watch it again. Maybe if it were a "great" film, I'd have done so. In any case what it's about is clear enough: the greed, gratuitous violence -- and above all -- stupidity of criminals.

Groundbeef

03-26-2009, 05:53 AM

I've seen Fargo once and haven't had the heart or stomach to watch it again. Maybe if it were a "great" film, I'd have done so. In any case what it's about is clear enough: the greed, gratuitous violence -- and above all -- stupidity of criminals.

I liked Fargo. I think that it was partly based on real events. At least it had a plot unlike There Will be Blood.

Luvin Da Blues

03-26-2009, 06:00 AM

Fargo certainly had it's moments. Especially the wood chipper scene.

nightflier

03-26-2009, 08:45 AM

From the polarized opinions of Fargo and Napoleon Dynamite, I'm going to guess that there are equally polarized views on humor. I thought both where very funny, in the same way that Pulp Fiction was funny - although we did get some stares from people walking out of the theater on that one (this is Orange County, after all).

I also thought Donny Darko was very good, although I agree that Jack Black fares better in dramas than comedies. What was that one where he invented some kind of spray to vaporize dog poop and became a millionaire? That was two hours of my life I'd like to get back.

Speaking of dramas, NCFOM and There will be Blood where very good films. Those wheren't so much about the storyline or the action scenes, but about the character development. Daniel Lewis is an excellent actor, IMO.

Auricauricle

03-26-2009, 03:22 PM

I thought that Fargo and NCFOM were certainly unconventional, but considering thier source cleared up quite a few questions I had about development of plot and the niceties of climax development, etc. I like to see the works of the Coens as slices of life which depict all the various ways man is capable of falling from grace and, hopefully, redeeming himself. The Coens are equally adept at portaying both the humorous and the horriffic. In contrast their work to horrors portrayed by Tarantino, whose forays sometimes stray far and into places that are quite disturbing, the Coens' sensibility is tempered by deft timing and restraint.

I also liked There Will be Blood, which I thought a masterpiece depiction of a man consumed by avarice, obsession and drive; all culminating in the development of Daniel Day Lewis' character. This man is a true monster, devoid of any shred of sorrow nor remourse. The violence in the movie was horrible, but it was a visceral and cerebral sort that left me feeling sticky. Contrast that to films like Saw or parts of Kill Bill that were grotesquly pornographic or simply gratuitous.

Woochifer

03-27-2009, 05:14 PM

Pretty much everything I've seen from Mike Leigh (Naked, Life Is Sweet). A lot of cinephiles slobber all over themselves explaining how "great" and "uncompromising" Leigh is. But, I found his movies to be pretentious BS. It's not that I "don't get it." Problem I have with his movies is that I get them all too well.

I liked Fargo. I think that it was partly based on real events. At least it had a plot unlike There Will be Blood.

Hate to burst the bubble, but in the commentary track for Fargo, they pointed out that the whole "real events" angle was a ruse. They said that the "real events" tagline got inserted into the credits to make the audience reaction more intense.

I'd add Brazil to the list. Another critical favourite that's hailed as genius but left me wondering what on Earth any of it meant.

Actually, that's one of my all-time favorites. Bizarre alternative reality. It took more than one sitting for me to sort out the whole reality vs dream aspect, but I thought the movie as a whole was great. A nightmarish Orwellian fantasy with Monty Pythonesque comedic flourishes thrown in for good measure. The juxtaposition of horror and comedy elements is not typical of American movies, but very typical of movies from Hong Kong, which is probably why I like this.

You know who else I don't get? Vince Vaughn. How is he famous? He's not much of an actor and he's not even good looking.

He was perfect for his starmaking role in Swingers. Subsequent roles have been less than stellar, I agree.

Nacho Libre.......... Does anyone think Jack Black is actually funny?

Loved his role in High Fidelity.

RoadRunner6

03-27-2009, 05:54 PM

2001: A Space Odyssey ..... I did't get it either, but what a marvelous movie. I have heard many times that you had to read the book to understand the ending. The movie script tried to get too cute without making the ending clear enough.

Fargo ..... Rather cute dry comedy/drama. Frances McDormand and William H. Macy were both great in this movie.

Brazil ..... Wow! I want to watch that movie again, or maybe several times. Filled with some strange brilliance.

Bambi Meets Godzilla ..... (my wife is Japanese and hates this movie)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAVYYe87b9w&feature=related

Deep Throat ..... My ex-wife didn't get it.

RR6 :D

Luvin Da Blues

03-27-2009, 06:33 PM

Deep Throat ..... My ex-wife didn't get it.RR6 :D

I'm guessing neither did you?? :biggrin5:

Rich-n-Texas

03-27-2009, 07:09 PM

...Deep Throat ..... My ex-wife didn't get it.

RR6 :D
That's because she only had 2 inches to work with.

AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! :ciappa:

Smokey

03-27-2009, 07:46 PM

http://i.slickdeals.net/images/smilies2/thread%20jacked.gif

Feanor

03-28-2009, 03:44 AM

2001: A Space Odyssey ..... I did't get it either, but what a marvelous movie. I have heard many times that you had to read the book to understand the ending. The movie script tried to get too cute without making the ending clear enough.
...
Brazil ..... Wow! I want to watch that movie again, or maybe several times. Filled with some strange brilliance.
...
RR6 :D

Brazil goes onto my Zip List for reviewing. I must admit it's brilliance eluded me on my first and only viewing, but I'll give it another shot.

2001, yeah, I missed what it is about until it was explained to me ... a few times.

Auricauricle

03-28-2009, 01:10 PM

I like Brazil very much. If you take the Terry Gilliam twists in stride and the satire in step, it's a lot more comprehensible....I reckon. Um...

Woochifer

03-28-2009, 04:08 PM

Brazil goes onto my Zip List for reviewing. I must admit it's brilliance eluded me on my first and only viewing, but I'll give it another shot.

I'll add that there are two distinctly different versions of Brazil that got out. If you saw the movie on broadcast TV, then you likely got the "love conquers all" version, which is the butchered edit that Universal put together after Terry Gilliam got fired towards the end of post production. It completely dispenses with the dream sequences and makes the whole thing more literal with a happy ending. Basically, it sucks.

Fortunately, on DVD the only way to see the "love conquers all" edit is to buy the three-disc Criterion set, which packages together the theatrical cuts, the "love conquers all" version, and a documentary that goes over the behind-the-scenes battle between Gilliam and the studio bosses at Universal over which version of the movie would get released. Literally, Gilliam had to sneak his working print of the movie off the studio lot, and stage a secret screening for the L.A. film critics who promptly anointed it as their Best Picture for that year. This forced Universal to release Gilliam's cut in theaters, but they also kept the "love conquers all" version for broadcast TV.

2001, yeah, I missed what it is about until it was explained to me ... a few times.

I always heard that during 2001's initial release, people would come to the theater stoned, and just wait around for the big light show at the end and move to the front of the theater. I've seen 2001 numerous times in 70mm, and it's funny because when that "Infinity" sequence starts, I still see the big procession to the front row. This movie is about as abstract as a mainstream film can get, yet it has an odd accessibility about it. This too ranks among my favorites, even if I can't really explain much of what it's about.

audio amateur

03-28-2009, 04:58 PM

I always heard that during 2001's initial release, people would come to the theater stoned, and just wait around for the big light show at the end and move to the front of the theater. I've seen 2001 numerous times in 70mm, and it's funny because when that "Infinity" sequence starts, I still see the big procession to the front row. This movie is about as abstract as a mainstream film can get, yet it has an odd accessibility about it. This too ranks among my favorites, even if I can't really explain much of what it's about.
Just watched that one tonight. Very slow going movie overall but interesting. I had a look at its FAQs on IMDB because frankly it's quite necessary. Apparently you understand more if you read the book, which I haven't.

Auricauricle

03-28-2009, 05:25 PM

There was a time that the movie and book, 2001 were very interesting to me. I think I have read the book about five times, and have seen the movie maybe a dozen times. So fanatical was I that I would sit in the living room as a kid, mentally "tripping" over the soundtrack. To this day, I still own a special edition soundtrack for old times' sake....

In the context of the time of its release, 2001 was a fairly influential movie that really set a new standard for sci-fi fare. In my blog, I wrote about the influence of the movie Alien, which I thought was seminal in introducing audiences to a realistic depiction of the "could be". It was released concurrently with the movie Apocalypse Now, which gave audiences a very brutal picture of man's descent into the Darkness. 2001 is much more cerebral and mysterious, which fits the era in which it was made.

Incidentally, there was a time, in the incipient phases of 2001, that Roger Waters and The PInk Floyd approached Kubrick about scoring the soundtrack. Can you imagine what that would have been like? Check out Zabriske Point, Obscured by Clouds and More....

Jack in Wilmington

03-29-2009, 08:10 AM

Both of these are movies that I started to watch and didn't get through the first half hour.

I don't "get" Jack Black. He's not funny. I liked School of Rock, but not because of him. I can name a dozen actors who would have been good in that role.

You know who else I don't get? Vince Vaughn. How is he famous? He's not much of an actor and he's not even good looking. :nonod:

C'mon FA, I thought Vince was the only thing that held Wedding Crashers together. Look what else he was up against Owen Wilson and Will Ferrell talk about two guys stealing money in Hollywood. You got more chance of Lindsey Lohan wearing underwear than Will Ferrell making a good movie.

audio amateur

03-29-2009, 08:41 AM

There was a time that the movie and book, 2001 were very interesting to me. I think I have read the book about five times, and have seen the movie maybe a dozen times. So fanatical was I that I would sit in the living room as a kid, mentally "tripping" over the soundtrack. To this day, I still own a special edition soundtrack for old times' sake....
I'm not sure I could watch that movie over and over again.. I tend to be a patient guy but this film was almost overboard, and honestly, there's not much of a soundtrack to speak of. It's mostly blazing silences. Add to that a 3 minute video 'silence' in the middle of the film. I thought there was something wrong with my copy of the film:)
That aside, whatever soundtrack was there I enjoyed.

In the context of the time of its release, 2001 was a fairly influential movie that really set a new standard for sci-fi fare. In my blog, I wrote about the influence of the movie Alien, which I thought was seminal in introducing audiences to a realistic depiction of the "could be". It was released concurrently with the movie Apocalypse Now, which gave audiences a very brutal picture of man's descent into the Darkness. 2001 is much more cerebral and mysterious, which fits the era in which it was made.

Alien, now we're talking. Definitely in my top 10 films.

Auricauricle

03-29-2009, 10:54 AM

audio amateur

03-29-2009, 11:20 AM

Like I said, I was pretty crazy about 2001... I still am, although maybe not with the same zeal, but certainly consider it one of the most important sci-fi films ever made and a real favorite.

I think films can be apreciated the way that Freud suggested that dreams can be interpreted: by their manifest or their latent content. In applying a manifest interpretation, the film (dream) is interpreted literally. Metaphors or other literary devices are laid aside for unadorned depiction; what you see is what you get. On the other hand, a latent interpretation uses metaphors and other devices to allude to a truth that lies beneath the action.

2001 is very metaphorical and uses lots of symbolism that has left many scholars still shaking their heads in disbelief and exasperated befuddlement. As an example, think about the end of the movie, when Bowman (the archer, the arrow, the penetrating object) sits at a table eating a meal. As he eats, his glass of wine falls and breaks. He looks up, and there's the Monolith. He stares. What is going on, here?

Although I cannot begin to fathom this silence, let me suggest that the breaking of the glass was representational of a break from the past, a break with familarity, and a beginning of a new life. In Jewish weddings, the a glass is broken by the (husband?), symbolizing a break from the old, a break from the former family, and an entrance into the new. This makes the entrance of the star-child, the embryo that floats high above the Earth at the end of the movie, more comprehensible: it is confirmation of Mankind's new beginning.

So, 2001 is a movie that takes some figuring. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot in the film that I find quite abstruse and will likely never get. On the other hand, I think a lot of people who are po'd with the film because it's "just weird", are probably using their own way of looking at the world to do so....
Don't worry, as i mentionned earlier, I did some research on the symbolism and various metaphores of the film just after I watched it. I think it's good to have elements left to interpretation but this goes a little far for the simple minded or even those who haven't any previous contact with the material in order to understand a lot of what is going on.

Avoid this if you haven't seen the film
During the light show towards the end I thought he was seeing a supernova.
Generally, the different clues overall were too subtle to link the different pieces together in order to 'understand' the drift of what is going on, especially at the end (interpretation is largely open, as you probably know).
BTW, I didn't fully get what the problem was with the communication dish and the deal with the computer. Perhaps you can enlighten me

Auricauricle

03-29-2009, 12:12 PM

The communication dish in 2001 was Discovery's (the space ship) link to Earth. Hal, the computer, was responsible for ensuring that the dish was focused upon Earth, for even a slight deviation of a degree or two could translate in complete loss of contact with Earth, mission control, etc. Remember, Discovery was deployed to seek out the target of the Monolith's shriek, when Floyd visited the excavation of it when he went to Clavius (Moon) which was focused on Jupiter's moon, Europa (I think).

In replacing the tracking module in the dish, Poole and Bowman were following the instructions of Hal, who told them the unit was in imminent threat of failure. Replacing the unit was arduous and very dangerous, and when Poole and Bowman conducted a diagnostic on the unit and found it sound, they concluded that Hal was in error.

The repercussions of Hal's mistake were serious, for if Hal was capable of erring in this case, Hal may act erroneously elsewhere. Hal was in charge of not only keeping the dish focused, but over nearly every other functional aspect of operating Discovery, including the crew's life-support.

At this point, Poole and Bowman decided that, for the safety of the crew and to ensure the mission's success, Hal must be disconnected....Not something Hal was counting on and certainly a prospect that disturbed the old mainframe very badly....

Question: Was Hal in error or was Hal an unwitting participant in a larger scheme?

3-LockBox

03-29-2009, 12:24 PM

You know, I've found the discussions about most of Stanley Kubric's movies more engaging than the actual movies themselves.

I think someone mentioned Eyes Wide Shut, which was a pretty straight forward movie for Kubric, but the cinematography and direction were just so surreal...its one of my fave movies, and of course it contains Kubric's greatest contribution to film...Nichole Kidman, full monty.

Auricauricle

03-29-2009, 12:30 PM

Thanks for reelin' me in there, 3LB....aa, we can continue this in another room if you like. But now, if you excuse me a minute, I need to ponder upon somethin' that just came up....

RoadRunner6

03-29-2009, 12:59 PM

[QUOTE=audio amateur]I'm not sure I could watch that movie over and over again/QUOTE]

Just remember that this flick is 40 years old. Even when I watch it now, it seems somewhat dated. In 1968 it was a masterpiece.

audio amateur

03-29-2009, 01:03 PM

But now, if you excuse me a minute, I need to ponder upon somethin' that just came up....
I want to know what!

Auricauricle

03-29-2009, 01:12 PM

RR6: Your comment is like saying that the Mona Lisa is no longer relevant: a great work of art, if I follow you, can only be appreciated within the context of its time and/or origin. I disagree. A masterpiece is always relevant, simply because it transcends time; it has enduring value. This is what makes Beethoven's oeuvre as relevant today as it did when it was first performed. Likewise, 2001 was a masterpiece when it came out in '68, and is now...(anybody else feel the birthpangs of another thread around here?).

audio amateur

03-29-2009, 01:21 PM

We're still somewhat in the context of the thread :)

Auricauricle

03-29-2009, 01:27 PM

....and yet even the best intentioned spool will not mend the entangled line!

Groundbeef

03-30-2009, 05:44 AM

A masterpiece is always relevant, simply because it transcends time; it has enduring value. This is what makes Beethoven's oeuvre as relevant today as it did when it was first performed. Likewise, 2001 was a masterpiece when it came out in '68, and is now...(anybody else feel the birthpangs of another thread around here?).

I think there are 2 different art "forms" at work here. I would be more apt to agree with both art (paintings) and music (specifically piano, and to a greater extent orchestra).

I am less apt to belive that with film (movies specifically).

Here is my rational.

1. Both paintings, and music (see above notation) have not radically changed in the hundreds of years since they were introduced. The methods to painting the Mona Lisa, or playing Beethoven's Oeuvre haven't changed since they were created. The work stands as is.

2. Movies are different. In many cases, particularly today many movies rely on "special effects" to tell a story. What was groundbreaking in 1968 isn't today. In fact, the difference in technology between 1968 and today serves as a distraction rather than an enhancement to the story line.

However, films such as "12 Angry Men" will stand the test of time, as will "To Kill a Mockingbird". They don't rely on technology to tell the story, but rather, film is simply the medium to tell a great story. Nothing flashy, no technology to age, and appear antiquated. Other than film now being in color, the story still stands today.

I would imagine, that in another 20 years, there will be film geeks who still blow a wad thinking about 2001, but for the most part it will be relegated to the nostalgic corner of old films.

Make sense?

Auricauricle

03-30-2009, 06:15 AM

I think you have a point here, Beef, but let me assert here that I think that movie making is not only about what you shoot but how you shoot....

For this reason, directors pay meticulous attention to details such as how an actor is shot and how cameras can be used to put that shot within a frame--or a frame of reference. I agree with you, that story is generally the vehicle that drives a movie, but movies don't have the ability to use the various devices that books have to inform readers of the subtle things happening that make a good story a great book.

Consider this passage: "But where the telescopist would have been at sea himself was with the other figure on that somber, curving mole. It stood right at the seawardmost end, apparently leaning against an old cannon barrel upended as a bollard. Its clothes were black. The wind moved them, but the figure stood motionless, staring, staring out to sea, more like a living memorial to the drowned, a figure from myth, than any proper fragment of the petty provincial day." --John Foyles, The French Lieutennant's Woman

Now, a movie maker can set up this shot, showing a woman in a black dress, the wind blowing, staring into the ocean. It can be straight, no adornment or anything fancy. It can also be set up with some attention to angle, shadow and form. These considerations, I think now, use the camera to portray metaphor, similie and other devices that are impossible to articulate with dialog alone...

"Special effects", as you correctly point, out can mar an otherwise good film and should not be the primary vehicle of a film (unless its a movie where they are ostensibly used for that purpose). Kubrick's use of such in 2001 was adjunctive. While folks can deride some of the shots that look rather contrived or dated, I think that more lenient critics will point out that Kubric was using the best brush available at the time to paint a story that is timeless (thanks Arthur Clarke!) and a movie that, by virtue of that story and presenting it in his uncanny and inimitable way, is a classic that can rest safely alongside the Mona Lisa, Les Miserables and other works that please and astound us even to this day.

Groundbeef

03-30-2009, 07:01 AM

"Special effects", as you correctly point, out can mar an otherwise good film and should not be the primary vehicle of a film (unless its a movie where they are ostensibly used for that purpose). Kubrick's use of such in 2001 was adjunctive. While folks can deride some of the shots that look rather contrived or dated, I think that more lenient critics will point out that Kubric was using the best brush available at the time to paint a story that is timeless (thanks Arthur Clarke!) and a movie that, by virtue of that story and presenting it in his uncanny and inimitable way, is a classic that can rest safely alongside the Mona Lisa, Les Miserables and other works that please and astound us even to this day.

There is the rub for movies. While the book by Arthur Clarke will/may stand the test of time, the movie however will not. As time goes on, the effects will continue to detract from the film. My children, and certainly their children will look back and think "what a silly old film, look at how goofy the effects are". The reason is exactly because it is a film based on "technology".

I'm not suggesting that the film itself isn't good. But unfortunatly, the medium itself will not stand the test of time.

That is exactly why other works of art DO stand the test of time. As much as life marches on and improves, a piano and a violin are....well, still a piano and a violin. Great works of art (paintings) are still painted on canvas with either watercolors, or oil paints.

That is exactly why they are great. Because the tools and methods are essentially the same. We can't say today's violins are "better" because they are not. Stratavarious anyone? The music is timless.

Film is dated.

Auricauricle

03-30-2009, 07:07 AM

Groundbeef

03-30-2009, 07:25 AM

It is dated, yes; but still, I think that Kubric's use of camera and light is worth its inclusion in the Hall of Fame as an example that students of the craft can use, just as aspiring painters can use examples like Goya or Degas, as examples to describe "what is great". One looks at effects as symbolic representations of reality instead of what is depictions of what really is. Again, wouldn't one think--film-wise--there is a difference between What and Why certain things are done?

I'd agree with that. But then I am not sure it would still be considered a "masterpiece". For film geeks, and student's of the craft, perhaps.

But for the average viewer, not so much. Anyone can hear Beethoven, and while classical may not be their forte, they can at least appreciate the music. 20 years from now (even now I would argue) the average film viewer will watch 2001, and think...ok movie, but crappy effects. They don't consider what "makes" the movie. They are trapped watching a movie that looks....old.

Auricauricle

03-30-2009, 07:59 AM

Groundbeef

03-30-2009, 09:18 AM

You're more charitable than I, Beef: I don't think "anyone" can appreciate Beethoven, etc....But that's stuff for another forum, hm?

And so, by extension of your point, what is "classic" is dependent on the dictates of "the masses"? Guess I might as well go the libraries, bookstores, etc., and tell them to throw out their Kipling, Dickens and Tolstoy, because they're old and nobody reads them anymore....

Trapped, indeed!?

:)

I think appreciate is perhaps the incorrect term.

In a nutshell, here is why I think that I do. Most artforms rely on technology that really hasn't changed much over the ages. Books are still books. The process for making a book has changed, but in essence, a book that was written in 1750 is still the "same" as a book made today.

The message is not affected by innovations related to mass production of bindings for example.

Concerts (classical) are essentially the same as they were in the days of Bach, Beethoven, and others. A piano may have changed, as well as other musical instruments, but the way the music is transmitted (the actual instrument) hasn't fundementally changed. The message isn't affected by the passage of time. The symphony still sounds the same.

The Mona Lisa, if painted today, would rely on pretty much the same technology that was in effect at the time of its original commision. The technology for grinding pigments to make the oil paint is irrelevant, in that the image is essentially the same weather it was painted today, or 500 years ago. Heck, cave paintings relied on the same technology (give or take a brush!).

Film however, is still an art form in flux. What was a marvel in 1968 is NOT a marvel today. And as technology progresses, 2001 will continue to look older, and older. The book notwithstanding, the actual "film" looks dated. And that single fact, separates the "art" of film from other classic "art" mediums. I would argue that any film that uses technology as a basis for it's story telling, will in itself never be a "classic". We may argue that the techniques used in the film were groundbreaking, and Kubric was a great director. I wouldn't disagree.

But the fact is, because film, unlike other mediums continues to evolve it makes classifying something a "classic" a moving target. And I don't think that film will age nearly as well as the other above mentioned "arts".

Auricauricle

03-30-2009, 10:34 AM

Lemme ponder on that a spell....

Troy

03-30-2009, 12:23 PM

What a load of bollocks so much of this thread is!

There's a whole lot of great films being slagged here. People "not getting" complex and artistic movies that are overwhelmingly critically lauded need to reassess that it's them and not the movie that are at fault.

Hey, you can not like a movie, as if an opinion on a message board means anything. Any monkey with a keyboard and thesaurus can sign up and post here, regardless of their background. Like The Dude said: "That's just, like, your opinion, man." But pontificating about how you don't get it only makes you look . . . shallow, regardless of how many 5 syllable words you use. Bragging about not understanding something . . . wow. Just wow.

And Beef, I'd argue that, 100 years from now, film will undoubtedly be considered one of the great artforms of the 20th century, along with photography and industrial design. The 20th century was a watershed period in human evolution, with dozens of new artistic mediums being invented. Hell, it took 100 years just for photography to finally be accepted by the fine art cognoscenti. It's a slow process, but eventually these new forms will win out and their value will be accepted, just like Abstract Impressionism or 12-tone music was.

2001 will be hailed as visionary, regardless of it's technical faults. The original King Kong looked dated and unrealistic by 1950, yet it's still considered one of the greatest genre films of all time.

Groundbeef

03-30-2009, 12:34 PM

And Beef, I'd argue that, 100 years from now, film will undoubtedly be considered one of the great artforms of the 20th century, along with photography and industrial design. The 20th century was a watershed period in human evolution, with dozens of new artistic mediums being invented. Hell, it took 100 years just for photography to finally be accepted by the fine art cognoscenti. It's a slow process, but eventually these new forms will win out and their value will be accepted, just like Abstract Impressionism or 12-tone music was.

2001 will be hailed as visionary, regardless of it's technical faults. The original King Kong looked dated and unrealistic by 1950, yet it's still considered one of the greatest genre films of all time.

I would agree with your first point 100%. I never said that film would not be valued later as an "art form". But I do strongly feel that film, unlike other "art" mediums is more difficult to classify as "classic" simply because of the rapid tech advances make older versions appear well...old and inferior.

And I especially like your input on photography. It is a PERFECT example of what I am talking about. A picture taken 100 years ago, is essentially the same as a picture taken today. The process may be different, but the output is nearly identical. Even if your picture is taken with the old silver nitrate, or etched negatives or poloroid, or now digital, the essence is the same.

That is why pictures, books, paintings etc are so trancendant regardless of age. Film, however is not. And the more directors use technology to enhance their storytelling, the less likely they are going to stand the test of time.

nightflier

03-30-2009, 02:24 PM

Beef,

Not to muddy the waters, but your argument for photography doesn't quite wash. Take for example how much it has changed when color became widely available or when digital editing was introduced. One could consider these changes "special effects" as well, but they don't take anything away from the artistic nature or the longevity of it's appeal. Here's another "special effect" in photography that would probably throw many people for a loop: www.beyondlight.com. It's a new dimension in the medium, yet is quite appealing and artistic in the same vein. I think changes such as these actually further the art and help engender further changes for future artists.

bobsticks

03-30-2009, 03:20 PM

I'll tellya what "I just don't get"...M. Night Shyamalan movies...'cause they suck. I've seen 'em all and keep watching in hopes that one day I'll see the magic that so many others do. Nada.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that American Psycho is the most quotable, funniest movie that I've ever seen and nobody ever gets the allegory.

Troy

03-30-2009, 03:37 PM

Yes, nightflier is right, photographic technology has evolved and grown by leaps and bounds in the 150 years since its invention, so saying that "The process may be different, but the output is nearly identical." is patently not true. Heck, the limitations of early photography were so bad that, unless a person stood perfectly still for the seconds-long exposures, they would never even appear in the image. The process has changed so radically in 150 years that photography is virtually unrecognizable from where it began.

And taking the argument in a different direction as well: Many of the locations in the older photographs you see in galleries and museums are gone or radically changed, not to mention all the human subjects being deceased. No, the output CANNOT be identical, by definition.

Here's the thing you're missing WRT movies and photography: Art is not about the medium, it's about the message conveyed by that medium. Time makes a lot of it obsolete, no argument, but for the best work, the passage of time seasons it, and makes it all the more special and important.

2001 is a classic (aside from the mind-blowing philosophical implications) because of its technology on both sides of the camera. Are the FX dated? Sure, but the movie was about a lot more than the FX.

Groundbeef

03-30-2009, 04:20 PM

Here's the thing you're missing WRT movies and photography: Art is not about the medium, it's about the message conveyed by that medium. Time makes a lot of it obsolete, no argument, but for the best work, the passage of time seasons it, and makes it all the more special and important.

2001 is a classic (aside from the mind-blowing philosophical implications) because of its technology on both sides of the camera. Are the FX dated? Sure, but the movie was about a lot more than the FX.

I'm not disagreeing with you about the message being conveyed by the medium.

I'm just saying, all things relative, film IMHO doesn't age as well as the others. And aside from the simplistic nature of early photography, it is essentially the same today as it was in the early days.

You take a picture, develop it, and viola, the picture. Except now it doesn't take weeks, and $$ for anyone to do it.

And aside from film buffs, I do think that how the effects age, does affect how a movie becomes a "classic". Thats why 12 Angry Men will be timeless. It really didn't have any effects, just a great story.

RoadRunner6

03-30-2009, 05:01 PM

Hell, I can't get a word in edgewise here!

Auricauricle

03-30-2009, 05:44 PM

Beefy: Your argument, if I follow it correctly, is an interesting one: It consists of two points, if I follow you:

1. That film, because it is prey to technologically-wrought "flux" (advancement in quality?), can never be considered Classic.

Why? Because the viewer is ever canny of this, which is distracting. Just by knowing that a film "looks dated" invalidates the film--because its datedness is distracting (Post 64).

If this is your point, I disagree. In my opinion, this is Film's strength. Artists like Kubric know that Film is subject to the limits of technology; what makes these films great is the fact that knowing these limitations, Kubric etc., proceeded to push the medium to its limit, utilizing every thing they had to create a product that was representative of the best product that medium was capable of producing. 2001 was and is a monument to Film, just as Beethoven's 9th Symphony or the works of Jackson Pollack are among the best renderings of their media, simply because they found a way of pushing the media available as far as they were capable.

2. I agree with you, that special effects should not drive a story (movie) (Post 59). That being said, I don't think they drove 2001. True, there were some terrific shots (as in the girl in the spaceship who walks upside down). But these are rare; the rest were used in the context of the story, which was the driver of that movie. The rest, as they say, was window dressing! (Amen, Troy!)

* Oh, and one other thing. Photography is now, as it was in days of yore, just as difficult and technologically constrained as any "art form". Although it is now possible for even a monkey to take a snapshot that is reasonably composed and focused, students of photography (or film) will tell you that taking a really good shot--that is well composed and reproduced in a way that is not only aesthetically pleasing but downright artistic--takes years of hard, backbreaking and heart-rending effort. Come to Charleston, and I will introduce you to a man who has taken pictures throughout his life and now runs a gallery of his work. He and his technicians (who are photographers as well) will tell you so....

Take a look, now, and read the pages: http://www.imagingarts.com/

Troy

03-30-2009, 08:47 PM

See Beefy, your statements lead me to think you haven't spent as much time creating and studying art as I have. Your simplistic "You take a picture, develop it, and viola, the picture" comment, frankly, rankles me. My photography (http://www.lostamerica.com/) has hung in galleries and shows all over the US, and appeared in print world-wide. I've had 2 photographic monographs published. I can assure you, it's just not as simple as taking a snapshot.

At least not if you are expecting to create consistently good work. There are 10s of millions of photographs taken every day. 99.9999999% are the casual snapsots you describe, but trust me, the work that appears in galleries and museums is much more considered and thought out than you seem to be aware of. A lot of work goes into creating art, regardless of the medium.

Movies are the same way. Most are crap. While it's not because they are made by amateurs, they are simply just commercial ventures designed to turn a buck from the masses. Very few films aspire to be art. Some, like "Syncadoche, New York" are failures, but at least they aspire for something beyond pablum for the masses.

Some of the movies listed in this thread are great, artistic statements packed with depth, nuance and style, but it sounds like you don't really want to make the effort to grok them on a deeper level. 2001, No Country for Old Men and There Will be Blood stretched the limits of what a mass market movie can be. They are not for everyone, and that's ok, but the old Twain quote "“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” really seems appropriate here.

RoadRunner6

03-30-2009, 11:57 PM

RR6: Your comment is like saying that the Mona Lisa is no longer relevant

Wow, that is really one long stretch! A painting like the Mona Lisa is created exactly the same then as it is now. There is nothing that has changed (except for maybe an insignificant improvement in paint durability).

Movie creation processes change over time due to the many advances in technology. If AA were to rate 2001 (now at approximately age 20) he might give it a 6 score out of 10 by what he said in his post. If he was alive and at the same age in 1968 I bet he would have given it a 9 out of 10.

IMO, the word masterpiece is subject to the eye of the beholder and all of the factors that affect his evauation of the work, whether it be a painting, symphany composition, movie, sculpture, photograph, etc. It seems that your concept of a masterpiece is a inflexible evaluation that is determined by a group of artistic elitists. It is set in stone and cannot change over time or from different individual perceptions. I don't believe it can be limited by a linear classification that only, for example, considers works on the right side of a set line as masterpeices and those on the left side of this line as not being masterpieces.

My masterpiece might be your simply great movie, or visa versa. However, the fact is that a movie or any other work subject to advances in the tools used can create works that vary in degrees of excellence.

My opinion that 2001 might have been a masterpiece to me in 1968 and perhaps in seeing it now might only garner an excellent rating is entirely reasonable to me.

The Beef is correct in my opinion. Of course he has had this logical thinking ground into him since childhood! :smile5:

Futhermore (sic), you are obviously not aware of the accepted rating levels of masterpieces.

LLM: Low Level Masterpiece

MLM: Mid Level Masterpeice

HLM: High Level Masterpiece

I read recently that the International Alliance of Masterpeice Rating is in the process of approving the newest SHLM rating.

Now can we move on to more important issues in life like does Michelle look good in sleeveless dresses (or are they even appropriate for the First Sister ... don't get upset at me ... that's what some of my black buddies at work call her).

RR6 :)

Groundbeef

03-31-2009, 02:31 AM

audio amateur

03-31-2009, 02:47 AM

Personally, i think part of what made it a masterpiece at the time was perhaps due tu its technical superiority, in which case part of its overall rating will have gone down since, as GB was saying.
However I do believe that a lot of what makes it so great (personally i've no doubt that it's a great piece of work and i'm eager to watch it again after all this talking), is in fact its content, i.e it's good for what it is not for what it looks like.

Surely it looks a bit dated and will look it even more as time goes, but it's what is at its heart that makes it so great, and that's what will make it stand 'the test of time'.

Worf101

03-31-2009, 04:44 AM

Munch, munch... don't know quite how my thread wound up here BUT I do like the spirit and passion of the arguements on both sides. Play on!!!!

Da Worfster

Groundbeef

03-31-2009, 05:49 AM

Surely it looks a bit dated and will look it even more as time goes, but it's what is at its heart that makes it so great, and that's what will make it stand 'the test of time'.

I think that some people are having difficulty separating great storytelling from "groundbreaking" film-making.

I will conceed, and in fact have already stated that there are several films that tell great stories that will be/are classics today. But most of the early efforts don't rely on "special effects" to tell the story. King Kong as noted did, but most did not.

Flash forward to 1968, and 2001 was introduced. At the time, a stunning film in both story telling, and technological advances. Or consider 1977 when Star Wars was introduced to the world. I can remember as a young man going to the theater with my Aunt and watching it. I was entralled at the exciting action, and spell bound by the special effects.

Now, I ask you if either of those films were released today for the first time (pretend there was a time warp), would you still hold them up to as high regard. I think not. The effects are dated, Star Wars in particular is not much of a story (comon, it IS just a Western that just happens to be in space). What was "groundbreaking", "breathtaking", is now....ho-hum.

Now, think of Beethoven's 5th. If it was to be introduced today (again, the time warp) for the first time, it would still be a great work. Time would not affect how the music would be either heard, or transmitted. The instruments are fundementally the same. The passage of time does not cause people to think..."wow, that was a really old piano". It is timeless.

I think that is the difference.

Auricauricle

03-31-2009, 06:19 AM

RR6: I never meant to imply that the designation of Masterpiece was one that is set in stone or subject only to the whims of a panel of "experts"; in fact I agree with you in many respects. Especially important is comprehending and respecting the fact that what I may hold as an example of high artistic achievement may not conform to your model. Aside from the presence of certain individuals who are interested in the potential lucrative rewards of the art market and flood the bookstores, record shops and galleries with every possible product imaginable, is the reality that what is considered "good" is highly personal and arbitrary. While I may like a picture of a street scene on my wall, you may like a rendering of a sad-faced clown and his balloon. I would not deign to denigrate your decision (well, maybe I would in private), for that is your appraisal, pure and simple.

On the other hand, I think there has to be some paradigm to what constitutes successful and distinctive application of a medium and what doesn't. I may be stepping out onto an elitist limb here, but I think that there is a general consensus of opinion that is in accord as to what is "good" and what is "banal". While certainly the dictates of the mainstream is indicative of something, I don't reckon that most folks are informed or canny enough to discern a labor of whim from a labor of love.

For example, here in Charleston there is an enormous population of artists, many of whom have opened up galleries for their wares. Among these is a crowd who sell products to the throng of folks who descend upon the city once a year for the annual Wildlife Exposition. They paint pictures of Labrador Retrievers and ducks and shotgun shells. They do all right, sales-wise, but the work is hackneyed and has as much substance as yesterday's peanutbutter and jelly sandwich.

There are other artists who not only paint pictures of something different, but whose labor stretches the medium to amazing limits. I wish I was knowledgeable enough to articulate these thoughts clearly, I haven't the education or erudition to do so, but there are works of art--be they music or painting or what not--that are vastly important. No panel of "experts" may be in accord with such criteria, but these artists transcend the banal and trite and create work that is luminous and transcendant. There is a reason, a valid reason, why names like El Greco, Monet and Wyeth are remembered and continue to be called upon as masters of the form.

In the same sense, I think this is part of what makes, IMHO, 2001 such an enduring film. Part of its appeal is story related: 2001 is a fable, much like the story of Odysseus, which is not constrained to the experiences of one man's adventure in outer space, but of Mankind's adventure in Life itself. In constructing the visual context and content of the story, Kubric cannily applied his brush to create shots not only of great artistic merit and moment, but with purpose. Kubric was a keen observer of human psychology (perhaps this is why he was a recluse), who knew that our perceptual apparatus works in peculiar and important ways. Knowing this, Kubric's films were shot masterfully. Very few directors have such a gift: Wells, Scott, and Greenway are among a few. In short, Kubric pushed the medium to its limit.

The comment, "However, the fact is that a movie or any other work subject to advances in the tools used can create works that vary in degrees of excellence" (Post 75) seems to indicate that because film-technology is ever changing, so too must our considerations, which includes appraisals that account for the quality of the medium. As you and others point out, music and painting have reamined somewhat static (not something I really cotton to), for the woods and pigments employed in the manufacture of instruments and paints are very similar to those used long ago. Because we live in an age where film-work has changed (analog to digital, e.g.), we can look at films like 2001 and, knowing that it was shot with archaeic equipment, and make the certain, smug appraisal that it is an inferior movie.

I hope this long-winded apology impels you to consider an alternative point of view.

Troy

03-31-2009, 08:18 AM

A painting like the Mona Lisa is created exactly the same then as it is now. There is nothing that has changed (except for maybe an insignificant improvement in paint durability).

No no no no.

The critical thing you are missing here is context. When Leonardo painted it, oil was pretty much the only medium he could use to create it. If cameras were available in the 16th Century, that portrait would have been a photograph, I assure you.

If affordable color film was available, all the great movies of the 1930s would have been in color. If sound was available before 1929, all those silent films of the teens and 20s would have been talkies. Artists will always gravitate towards the latest technology and tools.

Sure, artists will continue to use the old tools when they are looking for a specific look. I still shoot film when I'm after extreme exposure length where the image I'm creating calls for it. But generally artists are always striving to move beyond where other artists have worked. To find their own voice. It's human nature.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3443/3379673610_464b3d91cb.jpg
Caravanserai- 2009
60 minute exposure (composite of 2 30 minute exposures)

But I digress. 16th century painters worked in oil for very different reasons that 21st century painters do, so doing a painting like the Mona Lisa today would be completely different.

Now, I ask you if either of those films (2001 / Star Wars) were released today for the first time (pretend there was a time warp), would you still hold them up to as high regard.

2001, yes, Star Wars, no. SW is just empty-headed pop entertainment. It will be remembered for it's deep cultural impact on a generation, but when that generation dies, its importance will vaporize. 2001 is a much deeper film with huge philosophical implications, and the things that made it so provocative are timeless. For those that want to argue the point, there have been millions of more erudite words than I could ever come up with written about this film, only a google search away.

Now, think of Beethoven's 5th. If it was to be introduced today (again, the time warp) for the first time, it would still be a great work.

As an orchestral piece? No one would even notice it today because classical music is culturally dead. The passage of time would have a tremendous impact on it! It would be considered a throwback, so I doubt it would have much impact. The only way it would make a ripple is if a popular rock band created it, released an album of it, and toured it in a big rock show. Imagine Radiohead today, or Pink Floyd in the 70s creating that piece of music.

See, just like the popularity of Star Wars or Batman, people today want form over content. They get lost in style and filigree, not in what the piece is actually saying. No one wants to hear orchestras anymore, but a popular (and visionary) rock band could bring orchestral style music to the masses. See: progrock in the 1970s. Star Wars is a poorly acted and juvenile story, but people were mesmerized by the visual style. Now that the style is old hat, people can see through the smoke and mirrors to find a naked emperor standing there. 2001 suffered the same problem (My god, the monkey suits look bad), but it still has all that content in the story and concept to fall back on.

In the same sense, I think this is part of what makes, IMHO, 2001 such an enduring film. Part of its appeal is story related: 2001 is a fable, much like the story of Odysseus, which is not constrained to the experiences of one man's adventure in outer space, but of Mankind's adventure in Life itself. In constructing the visual context and content of the story, Kubric cannily applied his brush to create shots not only of great artistic merit and moment, but with purpose. Kubric was a keen observer of human psychology (perhaps this is why he was a recluse), who knew that our perceptual apparatus works in peculiar and important ways. Knowing this, Kubric's films were shot masterfully. Very few directors have such a gift: Wells, Scott, and Greenway are among a few. In short, Kubric pushed the medium to its limit.

This intelligent and measured response is precisely why the masses can't be the final arbiters of defining art. The masses wouldn't know Greek mythology if they're hit over the head with it, even though so much of what we consider the art of storytelling is a direct offshoot of it. The masses think the LOTR trilogy, Iron Man and the last 2 Batman movies are high art, but in 20 years people will be saying the same things about those movies as Beef is saying about Star Wars. The masses are brainwashed by the media, who's job it is to sell you the idea that these films are "important" when the fact is they are simply disposable entertainments.

Groundbeef

03-31-2009, 08:41 AM

No no no no.

The critical thing you are missing here is context. When Leonardo painted it, oil was pretty much the only medium he could use to create it. If cameras were available in the 16th Century, that portrait would have been a photograph, I assure you.

If affordable color film was available, all the great movies of the 1930s would have been in color. If sound was available before 1929, all those silent films of the teens and 20s would have been talkies. Artists will always gravitate towards the latest technology and tools.

You assure me? Really? So, I guess all those great painters of today live in caves and are not aware that photography exists? That's a bold statement grounded in fantasy.

The later statements perhaps, but only because they are all related to the same medium. Color, sound, green screens, blue screens, CGI, all related to the same medium...film. Saying a great painter would rather be a great photographer is rather ignorant.

2001, yes, Star Wars, no. SW is just empty-headed pop entertainment. It will be remembered for it's deep cultural impact on a generation, but when that generation dies, its importance will vaporize. 2001 is a much deeper film with huge philosophical implications, and the things that made it so provocative are timeless. For those that want to argue the point, there have been millions of more erudite words than I could ever come up with written about this film, only a google search away.

I like your dismissive attitude towards SW. I'm not going to argue the relative merits of the story itself (again, a cowboy movie in space). But certainly you are not going to dismiss the direction of George Lucas and the groundbreaking direction of the film itself. From Wiki: "They developed a computer-controlled camera rig called the "Dykstraflex" that allowed precise repeatability of camera motion, greatly facilitating travelling-matte compositing. Degradation of film images during compositing was minimized by other innovations: the Dykstraflex used VistaVision cameras that photographed widescreen images horizontally along stock, using far more of the film per frame, and thinner-emulsion filmstocks were used in the compositing process. The effects crew assembled by Lucas and Dykstra was dubbed Industrial Light and Magic, and since 1977 has spearheaded most effects innovations."

So the story may not be a "classic" but the film itself was groundbreaking at the time.

As an orchestral piece? No one would even notice it today because classical music is culturally dead. The passage of time would have a tremendous impact on it! It would be considered a throwback, so I doubt it would have much impact. The only way it would make a ripple is if a popular rock band created it, released an album of it, and toured it in a big rock show. Imagine Radiohead today, or Pink Floyd in the 70s creating that piece of music.

If they produced it for a piano, it would sound the same as it did 200+ years ago.

See, just like the popularity of Star Wars or Batman, people today want form over content. They get lost in style and filigree, not in what the piece is actually saying. No one wants to hear orchestras anymore, but a popular (and visionary) rock band could bring orchestral style music to the masses. See: progrock in the 1970s. Star Wars is a poorly acted and juvenile story, but people were mesmerized by the visual style. Now that the style is old hat, people can see through the smoke and mirrors to find a naked emperor standing there. 2001 suffered the same problem (My god, the monkey suits look bad), but it still has all that content in the story and concept to fall back on.

That's been my point for most of this discussion. As films get older, the effects get dated, and has much less relevance today than it did yesterday.

Auricauricle

03-31-2009, 08:56 AM

Groundbeef

03-31-2009, 09:17 AM

But the "datedness" of a film has no bearing on the film's relevance! Grrrrr!

FWIW, George Lucas should get his due, but in reference to your Wiki-quote, Dykstraflex was the innovation of Dick Dykstra, whose innovative use of camera and film was also seen in Blade Runner and...2001!

BTW: Lucas is overrrated (more salt, anyone?).

1. The quote does credit Dick Dykstra...read the whole thing.

2. I think that Lucas in the abstract is overrated. But you can't deny the impact his direction and innovation has had on film.

3. Your first statement is NOT true. Depending upon the film, the "datedness" of the work can directly affect the relevance. Let's do the opposite. What if Kubric had found himself a time machine, and went back to 1914. Rather than casting Charlie Chaplin in his first film "Making a Living", he made 2001. But was limited to using ONLY BW film, and the effects available in 1914. No sound, no color, and almost no "special" effects.

Tell me now, would that version of 2001 have the SAME impact as the 2001 of 1968? I think not. That would be the difference.

So, a dated film does not project the same impact as a film of current technology. Good story or not.

RoadRunner6

03-31-2009, 10:33 AM

Auricauricle, never any need for a long-winded apology among friends here. As usual my response is mixed with some seriousness but includes dabs of humorously intended comments.

We are mired here in semantics which I feel guilty for starting with my wreckless use of the word masterpiece.

You guys can continue this discussion ad nauseam while I go start a thread on Michelle Obama's sleeveless dresses.

RR6 :D

Troy

03-31-2009, 10:45 AM

You assure me? Really? So, I guess all those great painters of today live in caves and are not aware that photography exists? That's a bold statement grounded in fantasy.

Heck Beef, this whole thread is grounded in fantasy! You can't have it both ways to suit your argument.

The later statements perhaps, but only because they are all related to the same medium. Color, sound, green screens, blue screens, CGI, all related to the same medium...film. Saying a great painter would rather be a great photographer is rather ignorant.

No because you are missing an important point because of your lack of historical knowledge: 16th century formal portraiture, and virtually all portraiture up until the advent of photography, was contract work. The rich hired painters to paint them and their families the same way that they hire photographers to make family portraits today. The Mona Lisa was just another contract job for Leonardo to pay the rent and finance his other endeavors. That is a fact.

If photography existed in the 16th century, the Mona Lisa would have been a photograph. Fact.

I like your dismissive attitude towards SW. I'm not going to argue the relative merits of the story itself (again, a cowboy movie in space). But certainly you are not going to dismiss the direction of George Lucas and the groundbreaking direction of the film itself.

So the story may not be a "classic" but the film itself was groundbreaking at the time.

We agree here, so I'm not sure why you sound angry. I didn't dismiss the technical merits of SW. Lucas, Dykstra and Doug Trumbull were all technical visionaries that changed the way movies were made. That technology today is outmoded, so it's easy to see through the FX and find what is essentially a children's movie. Agreed?

If they produced it for a piano, it would sound the same as it did 200+ years ago.

Not to call you out again, but Beethoven's 5th was a big symphonic piece for an orchestra, and never intended as a solo piano piece.

And yes, it would sound the same, but that's not the argument. In your fantasy for argument's sake, if Beethoven's 5th was written today, no one would pay any attention to it. Unless it was played on modern instruments by a popular artist and it had a big push behind it from the record companies and their media influencers.

That's been my point for most of this discussion. As films get older, the effects get dated, and has much less relevance today than it did yesterday.

And as a blanket statement it's just plain wrong, because movies like King Kong and 2001 transcend their let down in FX over time with superior story, character and pathos.

I think that Lucas in the abstract is overrated. But you can't deny the impact his direction and innovation has had on film.

Agreed, but that's not the argument. While he's great with the technical aspects of film making, he hasn't got a clue for how to write natural sounding dialog or directing actors. His movies are visually stylish . . . crap.

Your first statement is NOT true. Depending upon the film, the "datedness" of the work can directly affect the relevance. Let's do the opposite. What if Kubric had found himself a time machine, and went back to 1914. Rather than casting Charlie Chaplin in his first film "Making a Living", he made 2001. But was limited to using ONLY BW film, and the effects available in 1914. No sound, no color, and almost no "special" effects.

Tell me now, would that version of 2001 have the SAME impact as the 2001 of 1968? I think not. That would be the difference.

Talk about bold statements grounded in fantasy!
I'm willing to play with going back and forth in time for the creation of these pieces of art for the purposes of this discussion, but this one is just doesn't make sense. The whole concept of 2001 would have been utterly incomprehensible to the public of 1914.

I've heard that old line many times over the years: "Only now can the story of (insert title) be told!" because of technical advances in movies.

But again, that's not the argument. The argument is "Can movies stand the test of time even when their FX look hopelessly outdated?" and I'm saying it's a case by case situation. Your argument is that NO film can stand the test of time, especially if it's FX driven, even when presented with films that are generally considered classics, like 2001 and King Kong.

Like most things in life it's simply not black and white.

Groundbeef

03-31-2009, 10:58 AM

Heck Beef, this whole thread is grounded in fantasy! You can't have it both ways to suit your argument.

Yes I can. :ciappa:

No because you are missing an important point because of your lack of historical knowledge:

No, I think that is speculation on your part. You don't know what I know.

16th century formal portraiture, and virtually all portraiture up until the advent of photography, was contract work. The rich hired painters to paint them and their families the same way that they hire photographers to make family portraits today. The Mona Lisa was just another contract job for Leonardo to pay the rent and finance his other endeavors. That is a fact.

And has nothing to do with the premise that he would have used a Cannon instead of a brush if he were to do it today. No more than you would start painting watercolors for your commercial endeavors today. Again, just because he was a painter then, doesn't make him a photographer today. Unless of course, all painters are just closet picture takers.

If photography existed in the 16th century, the Mona Lisa would have been a photograph. Fact.

And if Lenardo had been alive only 2000 years prior, the Mona Lisa would have featured her riding a mastadon. On a cave wall.

Talk about bold statements grounded in fantasy!
I'm willing to play with going back and forth in time for the creation of these pieces of art for the purposes of this discussion, but this one is just doesn't make sense. The whole concept of 2001 would have been utterly incomprehensible to the public of 1914.

I've heard that old line many times over the years: "Only now can the story of (insert title) be told!" because of technical advances in movies.

But again, that's not the argument. The argument is "Can movies stand the test of time even when their FX look hopelessly outdated?" and I'm saying it's a case by case situation. Your argument is that NO film can stand the test of time, especially if it's FX driven, even when presented with generally considered classics like 2001 and King Kong.

Now you are trying to have it both ways by hedging. Now it's a case by case basis. And my point is that if it really is a "classic" it would be a classic filmed at ANY point in time. It's not a classic because it can only be done at one specific time. That makes it an antique.

The story would have made sense in 1914. People have always wondered about space, the future, our past, etc. Hal might have been a little disconcerting, but so what.

Troy

03-31-2009, 11:16 AM

And has nothing to do with the premise that he would have used a Cannon instead of a brush if he were to do it today. No more than you would start painting watercolors for your commercial endeavors today. Again, just because he was a painter then, doesn't make him a photographer today. Unless of course, all painters are just closet picture takers.

Here's what you're missing: Leonardo didn't paint that because he wanted to create "art." He didn't do it because he wanted to. He did it because he was paid to do it. It became art with the passage of time.

If photography existed in the 16th century, Leonardo would have never been contracted to paint it! The family would have just hired a photographer.

And if Lenardo had been alive only 2000 years prior, the Mona Lisa would have featured her riding a mastadon. On a cave wall.

Only if you believe in that crazyass Intelligent Design nonsense . . .

Now you are trying to have it both ways by hedging. Now it's a case by case basis. And my point is that if it really is a "classic" it would be a classic filmed at ANY point in time. It's not a classic because it can only be done at one specific time. That makes it an antique.

What do you mean now? I've been saying that all along! Pretty much everything in life is a case by case situation. Do you agree?

The story would have made sense in 1914. People have always wondered about space, the future, our past, etc. Hal might have been a little disconcerting, but so what.

No way. The film was packed with hundreds of concepts besides computers that would have made even the most sophisticated citizen of 1914's head explode in confusion. They barely had electricity!

Groundbeef

03-31-2009, 12:05 PM

Here's what you're missing: Leonardo didn't paint that because he wanted to create "art." He didn't do it because he wanted to. He did it because he was paid to do it. It became art with the passage of time.

If photography existed in the 16th century, Leonardo would have never been contracted to paint it! The family would have just hired a photographer.

You know what. I think you are right. I googled "Mona Lisa". Plain as day along the bottom it says in small print. "This would have been a photograph had we known what a camera was". I conceed your point.:sosp:

What do you mean now? I've been saying that all along! Pretty much everything in life is a case by case situation. Do you agree?

I've never changed my story. My feelings this entire thread have remained constant. Films today, due to the very nature of the changing technology are not "classics" in the same way that other works of art are "classics".

And that very change in technology can very much change the feelings that people have with regards to each particular piece of art (film). And the older the film gets, particularly films that utlize "special effects" have an effect of lessening the impact of the message. The very nature of the "special effects" losing their lustre over time serve as a distraction to the message. What was cutting edge in 1968 (along with a good story), will over time become less and less...special. Whereas movies that simply use the medium to tell a story will wear much better. Sure the clothing will become dated, but the story won't suffer for it.

What I saw in 1977 in SW was cutting edge. When I watch it again, I know that it was done with little models. And the effects are no longer engrossing. The story is lost because of the distractions. It is not enhanced.

Or think of it this way. If you were to watch 2001 now, but it was only filmed in BW, no sound, and used cardboard for the ship would it have as much impact as it did in 1968? Probably not. So, really it isn't only the story that carries the film. The visual plays an important part as well. And 50 years from now, the effects in play then might
make 2001 appear as though it might as well been filmed in BW, no sound and a cardboard ship.

No way. The film was packed with hundreds of concepts besides computers that would have made even the most sophisticated citizen of 1914's head explode in confusion. They barely had electricity!

Ok, maybe 1914 would have been a bit early. Perhaps in 1926 when Buck Rodgers ruled the cosmos?

Auricauricle

03-31-2009, 12:47 PM

Just a few thoughts:

a. I think that what needs to be emphasized is that there is a certain criterion for a work of art's placement on the Classic Roster: namely that that work has lasting value. Classics like 2001 transcend the zeitgeist. Star Wars run alongside of it. Beethoven's 9th will be listened to and revered in the future, just as it is now. Gershwin's American in Paris will be a footnote (wink).

b. The proposition that a movie such as 2001 would be incomprehensible to audiences in 1914 is nonsense. Aside from the special effects and use of gadgetry that was not in existence in 1914, 2001 is a tale that is as old as the ages. If we look at the elements of the movie as archetypal or as symbolic representations and metaphors, we can see that most of the movie was comprehensible (see thought a).

c. There is a stumbling point that needs to be stepped over: When I speak of a film's relevance I refer to the vehicles that drive the show. In 2001, those elements were related to story; hence 2001 is highly relevant. Other movies are more interested in image, including special effects and props: in this respect, Star Wars does rather well.

d. Science fiction is generally not a genre that is interested primarily in positing innovative futures and the machines that will be employed, but in addressing sociological and psychic problems that may present themselves and how they might be addressed. Again, the medium is not the message. Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is not about submarines propelled by mad captains, but as a cautionary tale about abuse of power, obsessive indignation and other stuff...

e. Your quote does mention Dykstra, but only by last name. I was just bringing out the first to show off.

f. If the technological ramifications of a movie are so distracting, maybe you're missing the point.

g. Who knows what DaVinci would have done? There're plenty of portraitists who still prefer the brush over the aperture.

h. A classic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbGd_240ynk

;)

Groundbeef

03-31-2009, 12:53 PM

f. If the technological ramifications of a movie are so distracting, maybe you're missing the point.

I resent that. I watched Transformers for the deep underlying theme of world peace. Snazzy robots had nuttin' to do with it.:crazy:

d. Science fiction is generally not a genre that is interested primarily in positing innovative futures and the machines that will be employed, but in addressing sociological and psychic problems that may present themselves and how they might be addressed. Again, the medium is not the message. Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is not about submarines propelled by mad captains, but as a cautionary tale about abuse of power, obsessive indignation and other stuff...

No, it was about the dangers of giant squid.

Auricauricle

03-31-2009, 12:59 PM

Got me.

;)

Troy

03-31-2009, 02:35 PM

You know what. I think you are right. I googled "Mona Lisa". Plain as day along the bottom it says in small print. "This would have been a photograph had we known what a camera was". I conceed your point.

You guys can't let go of the portrait thing, can ya?

"Who knows what DaVinci would have done?" is right. Point is, he probably wouldn't have gotten the gig.

Sure, there's plenty of painters today that would be begging for a commission. I know several personally who would paint anything for anyone, right now. Today. All you have to do is pay them. Problem is, no one hires painters for portraits anymore because photography is better/more accurate than most painters, and it's a fraction of the cost.

I never said that DaVinci would have opted to photograph instead of paint if the technology existed, but based on how innovative and brilliant he was, I'm sure he'd have been all over the latest technology of everything.

My feelings this entire thread have remained constant. Films today, due to the very nature of the changing technology are not "classics" in the same way that other works of art are "classics".

And me and Auri are saying that it's not a simple "yes/no" answer. It's a "maybe" answer. It depends on how the rest of the movie is handled. Your analogies of moving films back and forth in time don't work because of all the other factors involved with the concept of moving them.

If you were to watch 2001 now, but it was only filmed in BW, no sound, and used cardboard for the ship would it have as much impact as it did in 1968? Probably not. So, really it isn't only the story that carries the film. The visual plays an important part as well. And 50 years from now, the effects in play then might
make 2001 appear as though it might as well been filmed in BW, no sound and a cardboard ship.

I understand your reasoning, but it's just not as cut and dry as that. The implication that B&W movies are somehow "not classic" because they are B&W doesn't hold water. Is Dr. Strangelove not a classic because it was filmed in B&W in 1963, when color film was the norm? Nein!

So while a cardboard cut-out 2001 that was made by Ed Wood would suck horribly (and might be a different kind of classic), the fact is, it was made by Kubrick with a tremendous amount of TLC. No, it isn't only the story that carries the movie. Like King Kong or the civil war photography of Matthew Brady, the technical aspect of the item looks appropriate for it's time, which, in fact, enhances the quality of the piece!

The proposition that a movie such as 2001 would be incomprehensible to audiences in 1914 is nonsense.

I'm not gonna fall on my sword over this one, but . . . While some audiences of 1914 may have understood the basic story of 2001, they just wouldn't be able to get their heads around what they were seeing on the screen. The milieu would just be way too far out for them. And movies had barely even adopted the idea of the montage by that point. The audience just would have had a hard time pulling the story together. The thrown bone turning into a spaceship? The monolith? Hell, a large % of the 1968 audience didn't even get it! Clearly, there's people in this thread that still don't get it in 2009, so what makes you think that people from 1914 would?

nightflier

03-31-2009, 03:20 PM

Whoa, this conversation sure grew fast. Leave it for just a few hours and....

I'd like to add a couple of points:

1. The reason that the Mona Lisa would have been a photograph is because even in highfalutin artsy-fartsy circles, it is considered mediocre for a "masterpiece." Yes, many paintings we now consider masterpieces were posed portraits but it is what the artists succeeded in adding to the painting that makes it notable. Rembrandt's portraits weren't just about the subject, but also about the mood, the psychology, the thoughts that a viewer could possibly discern from the subject. There are many 16-17th century paintings that are similar portraiture worthy of antique-status but that fall far short of being masterpieces. The Mona Lisa is more than a portrait, of course, and consequently is priceless in value, but it lacks the visceral emotion that art critics will lavish over a Jackson Pollack (to pick on something on an opposite end of that spectrum).

2. Did I hear someone say that Star Wars didn't have a decent storyline? I remember when I saw it the first time, I was actually drawn to the mystery, the symbolism, and the depth of the storyline. I immediately noticed the parallels with the LOTR, which apparently is being maligned here as well. Are we forgetting the scope of that tale, the cultural impact it had, and the allegorical nature of it? WWI & WWII ring a bell? The Nibelung, maybe? Maybe everyone missed that in the movies, but for those who actually read the books, the movie did a pretty friggin' bang-up job in bringing out these themes, IMO.

3. Special Effects, even the most cheesy ones (by our standards) can contribute to making a movie a masterpiece. What would Citizen Kane be w/o the play of shadow and light? What would Metropolis be without Maria? What would the 5th Element be without flying Taxis? What would Hellraiser be without the "artistic" use of gore? Perhaps not all special effects make a masterpiece, but let's not now dismiss them as cheesy just because they are common-place in movies.

4. Beethoven's 5th is actually a rather simple composition by many of today's standards of classical composition. Yet it endures because of how this simple theme is carried through for the length of the whole symphony. Much more complex symphonies like Mahler's 8th, the "Symphony of 1000" doesn't at all have the same appeal. It was Beethoven's genius in bringing this to our ears. To suggest that it would not succeed today unless it was played on an electric guitar is absolute nonsense. Actually one can argue that much of today's pop music actually plagiarizes themes from much older classical themes. Their commercial success is largely indebted to classical melodies that have been rooted in our subconscious through years of repeated exposure. Is any form of art really "new"?

5. Not to belabor the point, but the answer to that question is likely the reason people continue to make art. There was a time about 125 years ago when painting was appearing to stagnate. Classical portraiture, even of the Rembrandt variety was seen as too representative. It was considered, ironically like some here have said about photography, static. Once the painting was complete it no longer changed which was entirely out of character with nature which was always changing. So a few revolutionary thinkers began to try and capture change which lead to expressionism, impressionism, abstract art, and ultimately art that is entirely non-representational. The discussion above seems to forget the fact that all art is always changing, growing, and exploring new ideas, even if it should sometimes do so in spurts rather than a consistent and predictable evolution of the medium.

6. For all it's wonderful allegory and it's artistry, let me be one to say that the storyline of 2001 was OK, but far from revolutionary. What captivated audiences so much in this movie were concepts that had already been explored in art, literature, and music. Perhaps the medium (film) was significant, but the concepts of Hal, the bone-wielding ape, the Star Gate, etc. are all very old. Actually the influences of C.S. Lewis, Verne, Darwin and others are quite obvious. Even Strauss' eponymous score predates the movie by some 70 years and that was inspired by Nietsche's early novel. To presume that Clarke and Kubrick did not "borrow" from other artists is a bit short-sighted. Why this movie was so revolutionary is perhaps more of an embarrassing testament to our own lack of education rather than evidence of the movie's greatness.

OK, let the crap fly....

Auricauricle

03-31-2009, 03:30 PM

Troy: Okay, maybe I stepped outside the ring on this one. Your statement, "I'm not gonna fall on my sword over this one, but . . . While some audiences of 1914 may have understood the basic story of 2001, they just wouldn't be able to get their heads around what they were seeing on the screen. The milieu would just be way too far out for them. And movies had barely even adopted the idea of the montage by that point. The audience just would have had a hard time pulling the story together. The thrown bone turning into a spaceship? The monolith? Hell, a large % of the 1968 audience didn't even get it! Clearly, there's people in this thread that still don't get it in 2009, so what makes you think that people from 1914 would?" is probably accurate, but my point was not meant to be taken literally.

My point was to echo a previous point that 2001 was and is a story with deeper meaning and significance. If we look at 2001 not as a show about bones and spaceships and supplant these elements with objects more relevant to the people of 1914, the point would be just about the same....Then again, I also said I still don't "get" everything.

Groundbeef

03-31-2009, 03:45 PM

Sure, there's plenty of painters today that would be begging for a commission. I know several personally who would paint anything for anyone, right now. Today. All you have to do is pay them. Problem is, no one hires painters for portraits anymore because photography is better/more accurate than most painters, and it's a fraction of the cost.

Well that's rather subjective. I'm not sure people hire painters because they are looking for the most "accurate" representation of whatever they are having commissioned to be painted.

I never said that DaVinci would have opted to photograph instead of paint if the technology existed, but based on how innovative and brilliant he was, I'm sure he'd have been all over the latest technology of everything

If photography existed in the 16th century, the Mona Lisa would have been a photograph. Fact.

Here is what we like to call Revisionist History.....:crazy: (Those were both your quotes Troy. )

And me and Auri are saying that it's not a simple "yes/no" answer. It's a "maybe" answer. It depends on how the rest of the movie is handled. Your analogies of moving films back and forth in time don't work because of all the other factors involved with the concept of moving them.

No, it works because you are arguing that the "effects" don't make the movie, it's the story. I'm saying that many times it IS the 'effects" that make the story. And as time goes on, the effects look dated (sometimes to the absurd) and that takes away from the story.

I understand your reasoning, but it's just not as cut and dry as that. The implication that B&W movies are somehow "not classic" because they are B&W doesn't hold water. Is Dr. Strangelove not a classic because it was filmed in B&W in 1963, when color film was the norm? Nein!

I NEVER said that B&W movies are not classic. I used 12 Angry Men, and To Kill A Mockingbird in one of my early posts to show that lots of old BW movies are "classic" and will hold up to the test of time. You need to read all the posts. Not just bits.

I'm not gonna fall on my sword over this one, but . . . While some audiences of 1914 may have understood the basic story of 2001, they just wouldn't be able to get their heads around what they were seeing on the screen. The milieu would just be way too far out for them. And movies had barely even adopted the idea of the montage by that point. The audience just would have had a hard time pulling the story together. The thrown bone turning into a spaceship? The monolith? Hell, a large % of the 1968 audience didn't even get it! Clearly, there's people in this thread that still don't get it in 2009, so what makes you think that people from 1914 would?

And you are missing the point. If 2001 is sold as a "Masterpiece" of storytelling, then it should be relevant to all times. Much like you suggested that many of today's stories are simply old re-telling of Greek mythology or Shakespeare re-packaged. Audiences of 1914 would surely enjoy a good story no? And it shouldn't matter if 2001 was told using 1914 technology. The story should stand for the story.

And if it doesn't, then perhaps in 50 years from now, or maybe 100 years, people will look back at 2001, and instead of seeing a story, they will see outdated thechnology, and not see it for what it is.

Auricauricle

03-31-2009, 04:25 PM

Okay, I'm calling. Here're the cards:

a. While I would agree that the Mona Lisa is not the greatest example of a truly great work of art (in fact I like Rembrandt very much), it is considered very highly and is of great, enduring value. This being the case, I used it as an exemplar of what can be considered a “Masterpiece”. I don’t think, yet, that it is reasonable to impugn the ML for its less than sanguine psychology or visceral impact; in fact, I would say that the great strength of the painting lies in its opaque mystique.

b. I won’t argue that SW lacks a great number of symbolic elements and has a coherent narrative structure: this is a given. Again, I think 2001’s elevation over SW is by virtue of its subtlety. Some may argue that 2001 is hopelessly abstruse and favor the more accessible SW. That’s well and good, but I think the abstract nature of 2001 befits the movie more so than having everything within reach. What’s your pleasure: zinfandel or grape juice?

c. Nor will I say or have I said that special effects necessarily mar a movie. Whether they are state of the art or cheesy matters not one whit to me. What matters is how they are used and why. What really matters is ascertaining what drives the movie. Is it story, as in 2001 or is it effects, like A.I. If they contribute to supporting the narrative, well and good; if they distract or are used as a ruse to disguise a poor script or story, they are a nuisance.

d. Great works of music are not classic because they have been “rooted in our subconscious through years of repeated exposure”, but because they are great, period. I have little doubt that Gershwin’s American in Paris will last, but I don’t consider the work a classic one. On the other hand, Beethoven’s 9th is a monument whose appeal is epic. We could launch a whole new diatribe on this matter, and I know I am on slippery ground here, but this is the way I see things now. Catch me in five years; I may feel differently, but I don’t think so.

e. I am not saying that art is stagnant; in fact, I point out that photography and painting are—to use Beef’s expression—“in flux”. In fact this was a major point and is exemplified by Kubric who successfully pushed the medium to its limit. In contrast, Lucas was a clever model maker (more salt?).

f. Lastly, I will not contend that the storyline of 2001 is revolutionary. In fact, 2001 falls along a line of other favorites of mine, including Blade Runner and Runaway Train that take up a similar theme: that of Fate and the consequences of Man’s relationship with Fate. Yet it is the fact that this story is old, as old as time, that makes 2001 and such films so enduring. Yes, SW also uses archaic elements; but its delivery is a blunt instrument in comparison. Call me a snob, but there is a reason I don’t really like John Wayne movies.

Okay, I am spent. Anybody wanna beer? This has been fun, eh? Whoo!

Groundbeef

03-31-2009, 05:32 PM

Okay, I'm calling. Here're the cards:

I've had a fun time as well. Although I can't call this thread done though. No one played either the Nazi card, or called anyone dirty names.

Troy

03-31-2009, 05:47 PM

I gotta be shorter.

Nightflier
1. Agreed the ML is a dull painting. It's too small as well. Lets not forget that those admirable traits you list need to be present in any portrait for it to be good, even photographic.

2. The problem with SW and LOTR is that the parallels to other works and mythologies are too obvious. They view like comic books to me. No deeper than a Spiderman movie. It's an argument for another day.

3. agreed.

4. Actually you missed what I was trying to say. I dig: "One can argue that much of today's pop music actually plagiarizes themes from much older classical themes." Modern U.S. culture doesn't want classical music. Joe sixpack has never been to a symphony. If they are seeing live music at all, they go to rock shows, festivals and clubs and they see bands. Orchestral music is a hard sell in 2009. The audience is tiny.

SO, if you want to make an impact (the original context of the concept) with simple, bold melodies and big fat arrangements, you do it in a rock context. It's just business, man.

6. 2001 took from a bazillion things and set it into a modern/futuristic context. Nietsche? Why not, I trust ya. The movie works on many, many levels. Read the book, it really helped me to understand the subtleties and nuances in the story. It's a genre classic.

Truth be told, there are a couple of other Kubrick movies I like a lot more than 2001.

Auri: I'm a literalist. Cheers.

Well that's rather subjective. I'm not sure people hire painters because they are looking for the most "accurate" representation of whatever they are having commissioned to be painted.

The position isn't worth defending.

Here is what we like to call Revisionist History..... (Those were both your quotes Troy. )

Does the name DaVinci appear in the second reply? You're just messing with me now, right? Are you here for the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?

No, it works because you are arguing that the "effects" don't make the movie, it's the story. I'm saying that many times it IS the 'effects" that make the story. And as time goes on, the effects look dated (sometimes to the absurd) and that takes away from the story.

I never said that. Why does everything have to be one way or the other for you? The best movies have good story AND effects. And cinematography, and art direction and editing and acting etc etc.

I NEVER said that B&W movies are not classic. I used 12 Angry Men, and To Kill A Mockingbird in one of my early posts to show that lots of old BW movies are "classic" and will hold up to the test of time. You need to read all the posts. Not just bits.

I picked up the implication in your statement: "If you were to watch 2001 now, but it was only filmed in BW, no sound, and used cardboard for the ship would it have as much impact as it did in 1968? Probably not."

Ok, fair enough, I could see that maybe I jumped to conclusions here.

And you are missing the point. If 2001 is sold as a "Masterpiece" of storytelling, then it should be relevant to all times. Much like you suggested that many of today's stories are simply old re-telling of Greek mythology or Shakespeare re-packaged. Audiences of 1914 would surely enjoy a good story no? And it shouldn't matter if 2001 was told using 1914 technology. The story should stand for the story.

And Auri understood me on this same subject, why can't you? Read his posts to me and you'll see that we're approaching this from 2 very different angles, but ultimately we agree.

And if it doesn't, then perhaps in 50 years from now, or maybe 100 years, people will look back at 2001, and instead of seeing a story, they will see outdated thechnology, and not see it for what it is.

But 2001 is loaded with mythology too. It's just less obvious and more surreal than most movies, so people aren't finding the story because they're not being hit over the head with it. The ADD generation has to see something blow up every 4 minutes or they zone out. I know some people who find this movie a crushing bore. I get why they feel that way, but I kinda feel sorry for them. If that's the way the world is headed than I suppose history won't be kind to it . . . and that makes me sad too.

Like I said before I think Dr. Strangelove and Clockwork Orange are better, more visionary and more important movies than 2001, so I'm done talking about that.

The only reason why I butted into this thread in the first place was because I am tired of the hating on some great movies going on here. Don't crap on stuff you don't know anything about, or choose to not take the time to learn and understand. It doesn't make you look good.

How's that for keeping it short? Now where's that beer?

Auricauricle

03-31-2009, 06:01 PM

Comin' right up!

RoadRunner6

03-31-2009, 06:21 PM

Auricauricle, never any need for a long-winded apology among friends here

Actually, I should have said no need for any apology. We are allowed to disagree here, you know. Otherwise how boring it would be.

Groundbeef

04-01-2009, 03:50 AM

The only reason why I butted into this thread in the first place was because I am tired of the hating on some great movies going on here. Don't crap on stuff you don't know anything about, or choose to not take the time to learn and understand. It doesn't make you look good.

Why does it matter to you if I don't like a particular movie that you do? Art is particularly sensative to the viewer, or perhaps viewers (or listeners) are sensative to art that moves them. What we understand is not for your to decide, or presume.

Don't be so quick to judge others that don't share your views. That makes you look bad.

Now, I've made 2 batches of beer. It will be ready in a couple of weeks. We can all have some then.

nightflier

04-01-2009, 11:16 AM

No one played either the Nazi card, or called anyone dirty names.

Well someone brought up Dr. Strangelove:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxrWz9XVvls

Groundbeef

04-01-2009, 11:49 AM

Actually, my Beer-swilling Brothers of the Backwoods, an apology is a defense; I had no intention of asking you for forgiveness....Rich, who let you out? ;)

Certainly not his woman. Oh wait...

Rich-n-Texas

04-01-2009, 12:24 PM

Actually, I should have said no need for any apology. We are allowed to disagree here, you know. Otherwise how boring it would be.
Yeah? Ever disagree with me and I'll have you frickin' banned!!!

Now what's Troy b!tchin' about this time? :rolleyes:

Kam

04-01-2009, 12:42 PM

loved the discussion, and to go back on to worf's thread, i'll second the Mulholland Drive on being very high on the WTF? meter.

i read a bunch of articles by people far smarter to me on what it meant and watched it again and went... "ohhhhh THAT'S what THAT means?" a bunch of times in place of most of my "WTFS?" but... i will go ahead and out myself in the category of showing my lack of understanding of a great work (if it is a great work) that the work is not at fault, but me.

i'm a david lynch fan in general (i quote Dune as much as any movie, and i know dune isn't high up on the lynch fan's lists, but i loved it) but Mulholland Drive just was beyond my noggin.

Auricauricle

04-01-2009, 12:43 PM

Actually, my Beer-swilling Brothers of the Backwoods, an apology is a defense; I had no intention of asking you for forgiveness....Rich, who let you out? ;)

BradH

04-03-2009, 12:11 AM

I NEVER said that B&W movies are not classic.

The French director (can't remember his name) who said films were the truth at 24fps was spouting pompous nonsense. Stanley Donen had it right, films are a lie at 24fps. Here's the deal: all movies are special effects in every single frame. Color is a special effect. Sound is a special effect. Photography, in its essence, is a special effect because it's NOT REAL. It's an artifact (whereas reality doesn't have a frame rate, it lies outside the frame, an old concept in film theory). And here's why that matters...Strictly speaking, you did not say that b&w movies could not be classics but the sad reality is there are entire generations and swaths of humanity who have no interest in watching a b&w movie. Care to guess why? They use the same reasons you use for dismissing 2001: it looks old and dated. By your reasoning, these old films will have less of an impact, therefore they are irrelevant and cannot be considered classics. I'm not sure why you're equating the term "impact" with "relevance" but you've done it several times in this thread and you've had a grand old time skipping all over the map with it. Context matters, 2001 compared to Star Wars is largely irrelevant. 2001 compared to Planet of the Apes and Fantastic Voyage is the real context. Kubrick's impact kicked the living sh!t out of those movies and the passage of time doesn't change that historical fact. Also, just because a special effect - and here I'm talking the traditional term, light mattes, models etc.- looks dated doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't still look really cool. I would include King Kong in this category along with some (not all) of Harryhausen's stuff, the Lydecker Bros. work from the 30's serial Rocket Man (see my avatar), all kinds of stuff still looks cool, albeit sometimes not in a modern, up-to-the-minute kind of way. I don't see how that mars the viewing experience unless the viewer is a child or has a limited view of what constitutes pleasing visuals.

...perhaps in 50 years from now, or maybe 100 years, people will look back at 2001, and instead of seeing a story, they will see outdated thechnology, and not see it for what it is.

Not as long as there are film buffs and historians who understand context. I'm not sure you get this point.

A few side notes...I never thought Clarke's book was all that revealing frankly and not among his best. The best book on the subject is Jerome Agel's The Making of 2001. I bought that when I was a kid in 1974 and wore it out back and forth. It's amazing how much the creators of that film were willing to explain so much when you consider how intentionally obtuse the plot is upon first viewing. Or second, or third...

Re: Mona Lisa....I don't know much about genetic design, Roy, but as I understand it, Mona Lisa was quite fetching for her day (context again) and viewing this portrait would've been quite enjoyable for men...until you notice she's looking over your right shoulder with a dirty little smile on her lips. As they sang in Gigi, "She is not...thinking....of me." Can you stare into her eyes without thinking of the imagined person standing behind you? This brings the painting to life, transforming it from a mere two-dimensional replica into something of a 3-dimensional parlor trick or an object that has emotional and psychological effects within the room itself. In other words, da Vinci was a genius.

Since there's been no name calling...Troy my friend, you ignorant slut. I've been pounding the "context" argument with you on Rave Recs for nine years regarding older music and now I find you making the same argument with films. Is this Phase One of Troy's Conspiracy?

Oh yeah, HAL srewed up the diagnosis on the antenna because he was having a nervous breakdown. He was instructed to protect the crew but he was also instructed to insure the success of the mission. He began to doubt the humans capabilites and these two conflicting ideas drove him to erratic behavior. That was the idea by Kubrick & Clarke but, of course, these things were intentionally left open to various interpretations. One of my personal interpretations that I've never heard anywhere else is that HAL realized the journey was turning into a race between humans and computers to make the next evolutionary leap forward. Maybe it was a test to see who was worthy? Who knows? Like Mona Lisa, the work is enigmatic and mysterious and reveals a lot in layers, serving multiple purposes, working on different levels. Maybe not so much fun with a hot date on a Saturday night in a theater (unless you're in the back row) but movies don't all have to be tools serving the same function do they?

Classics are made by artists using the tools they create or are given. Time doesn't change that. It doesn't matter if mass modern audiences "get it".

BradH

04-03-2009, 12:34 AM

Oh yeah, I almost forgot...

Gershwin's American in Paris will be a footnote (wink).

Wha??!! (falls on floor spewing coffee and screams) "THE STREETS WILL RUN RED WITH THE BLOOD OF THE UNBELIEVERS!!" (wink...sort of).

Groundbeef

04-03-2009, 02:43 AM

By your reasoning, these old films will have less of an impact, therefore they are irrelevant and cannot be considered classics. I'm not sure why you're equating the term "impact" with "relevance" but you've done it several times in this thread and you've had a grand old time skipping all over the map with it. Context matters, 2001 compared to Star Wars is largely irrelevant. 2001 compared to Planet of the Apes and Fantastic Voyage is the real context. Kubrick's impact kicked the living sh!t out of those movies and the passage of time doesn't change that historical fact. Classics are made by artists using the tools they create or are given.

I'll bite, but only for a minute. I use "impact", and "relevance" because IMHO they are intertwined.

2001 was a monumental film when it was released. The direction, lighting, AND "special effects" all combined to make a HUGE "impact" on the viewers. It was "relevant" because for the time, it was cutting edge, and unique. Now, if instead of using 1968 technology, Kubrick had gone Ed Wood, and used B&W film, cardboard cutouts, and visible wires for the "space" shots, BUT kept all the other intact (as much as possible) ie, dialouge,lighting, and other direction. The film wouldn't have the "impact" nor be relevant for the time. It wouldn't matter that the message itself was the same, the film wouldn't carry the weight of the message.

And my point, is that the more movies rely on visual "effects" versus a good story line, the passage of time will lesson the "relevance" to the current audience UNLIKE painting, orchestral pieces, and to a lesser extent photography, as the passage of time hasn't really affected the medium. It is "relevant" because the insturments have been relatively unchanged with the passage of time.

Time doesn't change that. It doesn't matter if mass modern audiences "get it".

That's only true if you prefer to live as a "starving" artist. I think that great art, is timeless, and should be "gotten" by any audience. Modern or not. That's what a great story does. it lends itself to modern interpretation.

I gave you a greenie though. Thanks for your post.

Groundbeef

04-03-2009, 08:17 AM

Why does it matter to you if I don't like a particular movie that you do? Art is particularly sensative to the viewer, or perhaps viewers (or listeners) are sensative to art that moves them. What we understand is not for your to decide, or presume.

Don't be so quick to judge others that don't share your views. That makes you look bad.

Now, I've made 2 batches of beer. It will be ready in a couple of weeks. We can all have some then.

Wow, just got a reddie for this post. And they didn't even put their name on it. Of all the posts, they chose this one?:out: :frown2:

BradH

04-03-2009, 12:08 PM

That's only true if you prefer to live as a "starving" artist. I think that great art, is timeless, and should be "gotten" by any audience. Modern or not. That's what a great story does. it lends itself to modern interpretation.

That's nonsense. Once again, you're saying context doesn't matter.

Good thread, though.

Auricauricle

04-03-2009, 12:34 PM

Oh, great....We're trotting this monster back outta the closet??

Brad: Your points are interesting, but using the term "nervous breakdown" to describe HAL's actions is anthropocentric, and inappropriate. If I recall properly, there was some note in Clarke's subsequent books, 2010 etc., that alluded to the possibility that HAL may have been influenced by the same forces that got the whole magilla going in the first place. In Clarke's The Sentinel, the object found on the moon is described as a "fire alarm", alerting the beings responsible, that Man had reached a stage in his development that space travel, etc., was within our grasp. Similarly (again if I correctly recall ), the actions of HAL that culminated in Bowen's adventure, were directed by extraterrestrial forces who were waiting for Human development to reach the zenith necessary to take the next step.

Groundbeef

04-03-2009, 12:40 PM

That's nonsense. Once again, you're saying context doesn't matter.

No I didn't say that. Any more than you said great art is only produced for critics, and not the public.

I'm not too sure how many artists start off their careers thinking "I'm going to make something so convoluted, so abstract, and so off beat, that only a few "critics" will see my genius, public BE DAMNED"

Either way, good points.

Auricauricle

04-03-2009, 12:43 PM

"Content!"...."Context!"....."Content!"...."Context!"....."Content!"....."Context!"......"Aaaaaaughhggh!!"

Groundbeef

04-03-2009, 02:54 PM

"Content!"...."Context!"....."Content!"...."Context!"....."Content!"....."Context!"......"Aaaaaaughhggh!!"

If only the Mona Lisa had more cowbell...

BradH

04-03-2009, 03:10 PM

No I didn't say that.

Well, yes, that is exactly what you are saying, or at least implying, when you state that great art should be timeless to the masses. If great art is timeless then the context surrounding its creation is irrelevant. But I say context is relevant because great art is not necessarily immediately apparent and timeless to the masses. I think that's an unrealistic bar to clear anyway. Despite all the claims about certain "timeless classics", the vast majority of "classic" art is impenetrable or dull to the masses. The context of the times when a given work communicated to the general public may have long passed, leaving new generations to wonder what all the fuss was about. The public needs historians & nerds & buffs to explain what is relevant about older art works. You can talk all day about how classics like Casablanca or Citizen Kane have the advantage over 2001 because they rely on story and don't use dated effects. But the fact is, the public doesn't give a damn about any timeless or relevant story if it's in b&w. To them it looks old and dated, the same argument you're using against 2001. In other words, you are both ignoring the context surrounding the creation of these films for the exact same reason.

In a nutshell, you give story driven b&w classics a special dispensation even though the public thinks they look old and dated. Meanwhile, 2001 gets demoted. Why? Because the public thinks it looks old and dated. It's a double standard you're ignoring by focusing solely on special effects.

Groundbeef

04-03-2009, 03:21 PM

Well, yes, that is exactly what you are saying, or at least implying, when you state that great art should be timeless to the masses. If great art is timeless then the context surrounding its creation is irrelevant. But I say context is relevant because great art is not necessarily immediately apparent and timeless to the masses. I think that's an unrealistic bar to clear anyway. Despite all the claims about certain "timeless classics", the vast majority of "classic" art is impenetrable or dull to the masses. The context of the times when a given work communicated to the general public may have long passed, leaving new generations to wonder what all the fuss was about. The public needs historians & nerds & buffs to explain what is relevant about older art works. You can talk all day about how classics like Casablanca or Citizen Kane have the advantage over 2001 because they rely on story and don't use dated effects. But the fact is, the public doesn't give a damn about any timeless or relevant story if it's in b&w. To them it looks old and dated, the same argument you're using against 2001. In other words, you are both ignoring the context surrounding the creation of these films for the exact same reason.

In a nutshell, you give story driven b&w classics a special dispensation even though the public thinks they look old and dated. Meanwhile, 2001 gets demoted. Why? Because the public thinks it looks old and dated. It's a double standard you're ignoring by focusing solely on special effects.

Maybe. But since I'm just "one of the unwashed masses" not a Critic, I guess that's my prerogative.

But, you are also ignoring my theory, that the less things change over time, the more likely they are to be accepted as "classic". IE paintings, and orchestral music. People may more or less not like them per-se, but the sigma of "old" or "dated" doesn't as readily apply since the medium hasn't really changed much over time.

Now, it's time to enjoy the weekend. I've got some cold beer, and hot pizza to attend to. And no matter what anyone else says, that my friend is a CLASSIC combo!!!

BradH

04-03-2009, 05:07 PM

Maybe. But since I'm just "one of the unwashed masses" not a Critic, I guess that's my prerogative.

Yeah, you're one of the "unwashed masses" when it suits your argument but you're perfectly willing to bounce around and bestow classic status on story-driven films like a critic. It's that kind of convenient flip-flopping that kept the thread going but that's the only value I see in it.

But, you are also ignoring my theory, that the less things change over time, the more likely they are to be accepted as "classic". IE paintings, and orchestral music. People may more or less not like them per-se, but the sigma of "old" or "dated" doesn't as readily apply since the medium hasn't really changed much over time..

I'm not ignoring your theory. The theory itself is interesting although I think it's wrong. What I'm saying is your argument in support of the theory contains two totally contradictory ideas that you either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge. The evidence shows you will continue to do that no matter how long this thread goes on. It's pointless to continue.

Have a good one.

Groundbeef

04-03-2009, 05:46 PM

Yeah, you're one of the "unwashed masses" when it suits your argument but you're perfectly willing to bounce around and bestow classic status on story-driven films like a critic. It's that kind of convenient flip-flopping that kept the thread going but that's the only value I see in it.

No flip-flopping on my end. I've been consistant the entire time. The more ANY medium uses "technology" that is apt to change in a very rapid pace (ie film) it is less likey to become a "classic" IMHO. B&W films are less likely to suffer this than tech-heavy more recent pictures because as they age, the B&W films were less reliant on "special effects".

I am NOT discounting that many of todays audiences don't like B&W regardless of the story simply because of the lack of color. Luckily, old color paintings don't suffer that same fate....

I'm not ignoring your theory. The theory itself is interesting although I think it's wrong. What I'm saying is your argument in support of the theory contains two totally contradictory ideas that you either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge. The evidence shows you will continue to do that no matter how long this thread goes on. It's pointless to continue.

Have a good one.

Please explain. Otherwise, you are just blowing more hot air. I've not seen anything you've presented worth more than my theory.

It's only pointless to continue because you can't defend your position.

BTW my pizza and beer were classically tasty. Hasn't changed in years.

Woochifer

04-03-2009, 05:50 PM

Wow, all this flying back and forth about 2001.

As far as whether it would have a similar impact today as it did in 1968, I guess that would depend on how many people still want to get stoned before watching a movie ... :cool: (Roger Ebert once remarked about how he was at a screening of 2001 in 1968 where nearly the entire audience was stoned and either sitting or lying down right in front of the screen)

The relevance of a movie always has to be framed within the context of when it came out. 2001 will seem dated today only because of the other movies that succeeded it. In 1968, the effects in that movie were revolutionary (and actually hold up quite well, as I think most of Douglas Trumbull's effects work does), and the abstraction in the movie reflected the times. Just compare the allegorical themes of 2001 to the more pedestrian and literal approach taken by 2010 in 1983.

But, as Ebert noticed, I also think that it reached a veritable cult status with certain audiences. One of the theaters near my house ran 2001 for 68 straight weeks back in 1968-69. This is an 800-seat theater that had a curved Cinerama screen at that time. Self-annointed cineastes alone are not going to keep a motion picture run going for that long. It obviously connected with the audience at that particular moment.

Same thing can be said for Star Wars. Its initial theatrical run lasted nearly a year (I recall that it played at the Chinese Theater for 10 months straight). Its impact went well beyond the movie theater. That summer of 77, you could not go anywhere without seeing the impact of Star Wars. It's easy now to watch it divorced from the context of that time, and nitpick the movie to death. But, in the context of its particular time, it had a tremendous connection with the audience of that era.

Obviously, if someone watches Star Wars for the first time in 2009, it's not going to have the same impact as it did in 1977. For one thing, all of the movies influenced by Star Wars have come out in the meantime, and the movie has been discussed and debated for the better part of 30 years.

Every movie is a product of its time, but the audience assessment is a product of all the time that has elapsed since then. Just look at movies such as Citizen Kane and Singin' In The Rain, which are more beloved and acclaimed today than they ever were during their original release.

audio amateur

04-04-2009, 03:26 AM

. I've got some cold beer, and hot pizza to attend to. And no matter what anyone else says, that my friend is a CLASSIC combo!!!
Nah, Coke and pizza are a classic combo...

Groundbeef

04-04-2009, 11:49 AM

Nah, Coke and pizza are a classic combo...

Only if you are under 21. Then, it becomes Pizza and Beer.

Now, Rum & Coke, that is a classic as well.

audio amateur

04-04-2009, 12:12 PM

Only if you are under 21. Then, it becomes Pizza and Beer.

Now, Rum & Coke, that is a classic as well.
I've been drinking that stuff well before i turned 21;) I still say coke is best with pizza:thumbsup:
Kinda like milk with chocolate. It simply calls for it.

Auricauricle

04-04-2009, 12:16 PM

Unless...Or would this be a double entendre?

audio amateur

04-04-2009, 12:31 PM

Unless...Or would this be a double entendre?
Is that a new expression we don't use in France?:p

BradH

04-04-2009, 12:34 PM

Please explain. Otherwise, you are just blowing more hot air.

That's trolling bullsh!t. I've already explained. Read it.

Auricauricle

04-04-2009, 01:29 PM

Je suis désolé! ;)

Groundbeef

04-04-2009, 02:17 PM

That's trolling bullsh!t. I've already explained. Read it.

No, you thought my theory was "interesting" but didn't agree. I suppose with that we can call it day.

No closer to resolution, but at least we had 1 nazi reference (dr. strangeglove) and now a swear word.

And seeing as I have 3X your post count, and a fairly positive rep, I wouldn't classify myself as "trollish". You might be a lurker though. Nice to have met you. You ought to check out the non audio threads sometime.

nightflier

04-06-2009, 11:31 AM

I would perhaps suggest a few more movies be seen while stoned; movies that might rate high on the "didn't get" meter. Let's see: Willy Wonka, Trainspotting, Brazil, Wayne's World, maybe even Dr. Strangelove.

And if weed isn't your thing you could approximate the effect with enough been and a little less pizza, I suppose. Of course, with weed, you'd probably want more pizza. Wait a minute, wasn't coke supposed to have a "better recipe", back in the day?

3-LockBox

04-06-2009, 10:44 PM

I guess this whole,'get/didn't get' thing is subjective with regards to what value you place on 'getting it'. I go to movies to be entertained. If I pick up on some special meaning, cool. But if it doesn't entertain me, figuring out any significant meaning would be too much like a homework assignment. Sure, not getting a movie doesn't make the movie stupid, it just means its not my cuppa joe, which I think was the not-so-hidden meaning of this thread.;)

Once again, I either like it or I don't. I don't need to 'get' the Saw movies. I don't need to 'get' Fargo, just like I don't need to 'get' Trout Mask Replica or *****es Brew. I enjoyed the $8.00 I spent on Iron Man, and regret the $5.00 I spent on Pulp Fiction some 15 years ago (bringing John Revolta and his gigantic noggin back from career suicide...gee, thanks).

Art is as art does. Lets look at all those art movies and artsie CDs in our collections and then look at the escapist 'crap', and see which discs have more finger prints on them. That's gonna be a quick trip for me, as I think I own about 20 movies, and I really haven't watched a third of them more than once or twice. I guess my meaning of 'not getting' a movie is 'not getting the hype'...in other words, I was bored - I'd rather spend two hours sifting through articles in a stack of two year old magazines than sit through a boring movie. And the list of movies I liked, that I'd own and watch multiple times, is a short one. I guess I'm not much of a visual person - prolly why I own so many CDs and listen in two-channel stereo.

audio amateur

04-07-2009, 03:19 AM

and regret the $5.00 I spent on Pulp Fiction some 15 years ago (bringing John Revolta and his gigantic noggin back from career suicide...gee, thanks).
.
Funny it's #5 in the top 250 on IMDB.

Groundbeef

04-07-2009, 06:19 AM