Movies you just didn't "get".

[Auricauricle]

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]

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 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.

[Groundbeef]

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 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.

.

You are reading WAY too much into my post. Beyond the actual meaning of the thought. By it's very essence photography hasn't changed a whole lot since it's inception. Now I realize that there have been worlds of technological advances since the very first picture was taken. I get that. But the end result is the same.

A picture. That remains static. Put aside all the other stuff. You point, shoot, develop, print. The process has changed, but the end result has not.

This is not to sugget that any mope can take great pictures. Just like a piano that hasn't really changed in hundreds of years. Not just anyone can pick up and play Bach.