 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Would Pink Flamingos qualify as an exception? posted by J on January 19, 2004 at 22:24:52:
Because, like a documentary, it's specifically designed to look raw and uncompromised. It's ugly amateurishness is intentional.The whole point of my original post was to show Patrick that every film's look is intentional, even if it's sloppy squalor. It's what the director wanted it to look like.
Follow Ups:
> Cosmetic means "Something superficial that is used to cover a deficiency or defect". And that's what film is really about about, creating an artificial, controlled world from the real one.So what deficiency or defect is covered in this film? Artificial, yes. Covering a deficiency or defect, I say no.
> Sure, a director with a more documentary style is going to let things fall where they may, leave things ugly and poorly composed, but again, it's a conscious decision done to develop a specific feeling and mood in the viewer.
This doesn't address deficiencies or defects at all.
> Now, on to "sugar coated". Traditionally, film has an idealized, pleasing look.
I say nay on this also. Pink Flamingos sugar coated? Surely you jest.
> movies have had always tended towards a glorification of esthetically pleasing things, much more pleasing than real life.
Come on.
> This also applies to scripts. Think the "good guy" will win?
Or eat a steaming pile of dog shit?
> If it's really bad in real life, you're not going to cut to a flashback love scene or have a secondary character be inserted for comic relief. Virtually ALL films are sugar coated in this way.
Yeah, like the guy trying to have sex with the chicken or jerking off to impregnate the woman who's been kidnapped & sedated. I say this is one example of an exception to yr rule. If you're going to argue otherwise I'd like to hear a better explanation.
Cosmetic means "Something superficial that is used to cover a deficiency or defect". And that's what film is really about about, creating an artificial, controlled world from the real one.So what deficiency or defect is covered in this film? Artificial, yes. Covering a deficiency or defect, I say no.
Don't be so literal. It can be as simple as not pointing the camera into the sun and putting it on a tripod to avoid movement. Yeah, I know, maybe I'm borderline here. What I really mean to say is that movies create a conscious esthetic, whether pretty or, in this case, ugly, and are therefore inherently cosmetic.
If it's really bad in real life, you're not going to cut to a flashback love scene or have a secondary character be inserted for comic relief. Virtually ALL films are sugar coated in this way.
Yeah, like the guy trying to have sex with the chicken or jerking off to impregnate the woman who's been kidnapped & sedated. I say this is one example of an exception to yr rule. If you're going to argue otherwise I'd like to hear a better explanation.
Well, if you don't see that as comic relief . . . you scare the hell outta me. No, it's not sugar coated in the way a Shirley Temple movie is. But in it's own way, PF's outrageous comedy is offset my Divine's saccharine love of his/her mon, Edie and her son. Sarcasm? Then Waters in consciously making fun of the sugar coating in movies, ergo, it IS sugar coated to the extreme . . . intentionally done to make you roll your eyes.
> Don't be so literal. It can be as simple as not pointing the camera into the sun and putting it on a tripod to avoid movement. Yeah, I know, maybe I'm borderline here. What I really mean to say is that movies create a conscious esthetic, whether pretty or, in this case, ugly, and are therefore inherently cosmetic.You were the one being literal--' all movies are cosmetic & sugar-coated.' I see yr point, but I see PF being an exception to that rule. There are others. They may be few, but there are certainly more. I mean, it's difficult to say that the Deer Hunter is sugar-coated, to me. Arguing that it's cosmetic because there are some nice scenery touches in the mountains in Pennsylvania don't cut it. I'm just not sure I buy that the conscious aesthetic has to be considered cosmetic in & of itself. If the filmmaker is going for quote-unquote 'reality,' using locations & what passes for a realistic plot with realistic dialogue, then I think it can be argued that either or both of these ingredients are not present.
> Well, if you don't see that as comic relief
Not the point.
> you scare the hell outta me
Good.
> No, it's not sugar coated in the way a Shirley Temple movie is. But in it's own way, PF's outrageous comedy is offset my Divine's saccharine love of his/her mon, Edie and her son. Sarcasm? Then Waters in consciously making fun of the sugar coating in movies, ergo, it IS sugar coated to the extreme . . . intentionally done to make you roll your eyes.
I don't know that this is his intent. I think he was & is just as much about highlighting what he saw in the twisted decadence of suburban Baltimore as he was/is into turning the notion of conventional filmmaking upside down. I also think that giving Divine & his supporting cast (Mink Stole, Edith Massey, et al) prominent roles in an effort to make cult-level anti-stars out of them figured into it just as much. I could be wrong; I'm not an expert on Waters. But that's my take, and I think I've seen all of his movies (might've missed one here or there). I think there were a lot of strange ideas that he incorporated into his movies, but that one of them might've been to inject an anti-sugar coating, which places the movie into the rest of the bin that says that all movies are sugar-coated & inherently cosmetic, on the basis that he's using a reverse tactic, just doesn't quite wash with me. It seems to me that you're saying that, by virtue of being anti-cosmetic & anti-sugar coating, that the film is, like all others, cosmetic & sugar-coated. I don't really agree with that. It's denying the possibility that there can be a movie that is neither--and if there is a film that is neither, to me, it's this one.
You were the one being literal--'all movies are cosmetic & sugar-coated.' I see yr point, but I see PF being an exception to that rule. There are others. They may be few, but there are certainly more. I mean, it's difficult to say that the Deer Hunter is sugar-coated, to me. Arguing that it's cosmetic because there are some nice scenery touches in the mountains in Pennsylvania don't cut it. I'm just not sure I buy that the conscious aesthetic has to be considered cosmetic in & of itself. If the filmmaker is going for quote-unquote 'reality,' using locations & what passes for a realistic plot with realistic dialogue, then I think it can be argued that either or both of these ingredients are not present.Please note at the bottom of my original post that I said there are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule. We've discussed this on that other board in teh past. But this time I actually even said it!
I'm of the mind that the conscious esthetic has to be considered cosmetic because it's consciously adding thoughts like put the actors in green clothes to tie into the natural surroundings. Put a red scarf on the actress because it matches her eyes. Shoot into the sun because it adds mystery when the actors faces are lost in shadow. Just how self-consciously ugy and bizarre should the Marbles home and clothing look? Virtually every director (or art director or cinematographer etc.) makes 1000 of these decisions every single day of shooting. It's all about using artificial means to create images that don't look like they created using artificial means. Cosmetic.
> Well, if you don't see that as comic relief
Not the point.
Sure it is. Comic relief ties into the sugar coating as I talked about in the original post.
> you scare the hell outta me
Good.
Yeah, but it's a happy scared.
I don't know that this is his intent. I think he was & is just as much about highlighting what he saw in the twisted decadence of suburban Baltimore as he was/is into turning the notion of conventional filmmaking upside down. I also think that giving Divine & his supporting cast (Mink Stole, Edith Massey, et al) prominent roles in an effort to make cult-level anti-stars out of them figured into it just as much. I could be wrong; I'm not an expert on Waters. But that's my take, and I think I've seen all of his movies (might've missed one here or there). I think there were a lot of strange ideas that he incorporated into his movies, but that one of them might've been to inject an anti-sugar coating, which places the movie into the rest of the bin that says that all movies are sugar-coated & inherently cosmetic, on the basis that he's using a reverse tactic, just doesn't quite wash with me. It seems to me that you're saying that, by virtue of being anti-cosmetic & anti-sugar coating, that the film is, like all others, cosmetic & sugar-coated. I don't really agree with that. It's denying the possibility that there can be a movie that is neither--and if there is a film that is neither, to me, it's this one.
Believe me, Waters (and every film maker worth his salt) factored ALL those things into his motivation for making PF. If there's a recurring theme in all his movies, it's the pokes at Hollywood, the Star System and fame in general.
Yeah, I'm saying that there's satirical sugar coating in PF. So I suppose it really isn't, but taken at face value, it is sugar coating. I'll be happy to give in to you that it's not sugar coated, but it definitely has the artifice and cosmetic qualities of 99% of other movies.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
