Movies you just didn't "get".

[RoadRunner6]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Kam]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[BradH]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Groundbeef]

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

If only the Mona Lisa had more cowbell...

[BradH]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ... (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]

. 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]

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]

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
Kinda like milk with chocolate. It simply calls for it.

[Auricauricle]

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