 
|
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: Re: That was my reaction as well posted by RGA on March 12, 2004 at 18:05:46:
Whether a film is "Hollywood" or not has nothing to do with its gross earnings, how they are spent, the choice of actors, the subject or many other things.It has to do with the language the movie (and the director) speak.
The List speaks Hollywood.
We know someone is speaking Italian after just a couple of words - no matter what is the subject... we may not even understand it at all, but the flavor of the language is immediate.
You are concentrating on the superficial things here. I couldn't care rat's ass where the earnings went - he could have bought his wife another $200M diamond ring for all I care - that is his right, and he has done that many times over.
I already commented on the subject - but as important as it is, it doesn't make a film Hollywood or not.
But the unmistakable flavor of the tinsel town is all over the film. One catches it quickly once exposed to it in good doses.
It is as easy to spot as the dreaded "made for TV, based on real events" kaka we all know. Or something made for the woman's Lifetime channel - they all exude strong easily identifyable flavors.
Spielberg speaks Hollywood language because he knows no other. He is as Hollywood as Hollywood itself... heck, he IS Hollywood.
Follow Ups:
You make no sense. Ok. Schindler's List has some of the best production values of any film ever. From Cinemetography throughout. Hollywood is certainly superior to foreign films when they want to be because they have the BUCKS to get the BEST artisans in the industry and not have to use the camera as a stunt to suck in the low-brows who think they're high brows because a film is in subtitles.Then there is the indie flicks which are mostly garbage that some yahoo will dribble all over touting words like realism.
I have seen no Hollywood film that has the same taste as Schindler's List.
I remember long ago that Spielberg was going to give this film to Roman Polanski...the artsy fartsy lovers lve this director. Well after his Pianist a good solid film I'm so VERY thankful Spielberg made the movie because the Pianist was so weak willed in comparison.
By the way I'm not against small films or foreign films...a great deal are in my top 100.
I'm thankful most critics and reviewers saw through the anti-Hollywood and Anti-Spielberg and actually judged the film not the director's previous work and were objective viewers.
Of course the srange thing is judging his previous work is not so bad. Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jaws, E.T. are classics within their respective genres. I can't think of a better thriller on the water than Jaws or a better action/adventure film than Raiders or a better family film than E.T. (Most people miss the homage to Casablanca - which IMO works better than Casablanca because the LINES aren't as stilted and silly - and it can also be viewed as a pseudo Christ story).
Saving Private Ryan if he had chopped the bookends of the movie or fixed them up a bit would be bonafied masterpiece. Some of the dialogue could have been worked over. Definitely more engaging with two views because the story is lost on many after the draining 30 minute beach sequence. Plenty of depth and layered story is there - good critics and reviewers can see it - bad critics are too busy with their anti-spielbergisms to look. But then they didn't get Shakespeare or Mozart at the time they wrote and composed either.
I think you missed that part.I said it had strong Hollywood smell... you objected... then stated only Hollywood can make certain things - that is true... that also means Hollywood smell.
No one else could make the ET but the Hollywood - doesn't matter that I consider it kaka, but no one else could.
Ditto for the List. It could only be made by a Hollywood mogul.
You seem to think "Hollywood" only means negative things... well, today that is largely so, but that was not the point of the post.
So - I stand firm where I started: The List is 100% a Hollywood film, and it could never be made anywhere else.
SPR? Please, don't get me started. It was a disgrace to the movie making.
Hollywood Or Spielberg films or anything presumably "like" them.Basically you're saying only Spielberg and Hollywood can make a big production value effort...which is probably correct.
Movies are supposed to be more than self indulgent whining by a director with no more good ideas(alla Fellini's 81/2). He has the gaul to think he's deep. His point for that film was what exactly? A story about the creative process? Directing? shockingly simplistic movie which with all the hot air would have best been served filling a balloon.
But hey not everyone likes the same things.
The whole point is that the artist needs no point.The art is not about some point either present or missing, it is not about the subject, the actors, the plot or the budget - it is all about the expressive means, and there Fellini has no equals.
What was the point of many of Chardin's paintings? Of beautiful Dutch landscapes?
So you like films about nothing? 81/2 has a point it has actors it has a screenplay. It most certainly is about something. A director struggling with creative process and not knowing what to make - feeling that he is a fraud in the movie business. Judging by this film...it is a fraud that suckered a lot of people and reviewers. The commentary on the film business isn't particularly insightful either - maybe he should have made the sci-fi film instead of the self indulgent and pretentious nothingness he presented.As for paintings, if I don't like one after 1 minute I can look elsewhere, i'm not trapped in for 2 hours while a director prattles on about what is a film version of a writer's block.
The psychic telling sequence is certainly an interesting one because the Fellini certainly pulled the wool over many eyes. If the film had even been noteworthy cinemagraphically I would have been a bit more impressed. The entire, presuambly, sexual fantasy of all the women in his life was amusing, pointless but amusing.
If it's some sort of psuedo existensionalism it doesn't really work...not that existensionalism really ever works in any medium.
Throwing around terms as beautiful or lush without context is meanigless artsy fartsy fluff.
Perhaps Fellini is a master at this type of film-making. However, the master of nothing is of nothing to be proud.
I don't get it. You said there was no story... then you provided somethng that looked like a pretty substantial story to me - a far more a story than many the movies are based on - he-he... what's the foundation of the Lost in Translation, if you need the War and Peace size story in every film?... and then you said that was not story enough.Like many other such stories, the Fellini's one was not too deep perhaps, but PERSONAL. To say it was irrelevant is to say Fellini himself is irrelevant, which is something someone here already said once. OK as a one person's opinion, not light enough to float.
Fellini is one of the pilars of the modern movie, and as such all his stories are relevant to the viewer.
However, all that is simply a response to your demand for something behind the beautiful acting and presentation - sort fo playing along with you, without agreeing. As I said, I don't *really* need a story - I watch the mastery of expressive means. There were tons of it in that film.
You avoided my analogy of the simple Chardin painting, apparently because you couldn't answer it properly. Does Chardin keep you riveted for 2 hours? It sure does me. Does it keep you coming back? It does that to me.
The world of art is full of the "pointless" works you seem so critical about. Most opera is based on something that would seem like a rather silly small story if taken all by itself. Much of classical music falls into the same category. Is it the theme that makes the Beethoven's 3rd a great symphony? Or his Pastoral one? By no means.
Fellini is a master painter. Like paintings by Corot or Hobbema some of his works might *seemingly* lack the plots, but his works are NOT "films about nothing" - far from it, they are films about people, to whom love and suffering are not really "nothing". So a story of a prostitute who lost her illusions might be "nothing" to you, to me it is a deep human tragedy, masterfully told.
I'm not saying a film has to be about huge social issues. Lost in Translation was about a middle aged man in a marriage that is SORT of happy. His career is in the dump forcing him to Japan to make adverts. He hates himself for pandering to the dollar. Johanssen is a young girl at the beginning of her road in a marriage she thinks is a mistake - she's probably right.Fellini's film is all EGO. His creative block he posts to the screen. I have no problem with the premise if it had been handled competantly with character development.
There is no relation whatsoever to paintings so I didn't really respond to it. 81/2 didn't move me in any way exceopt make me feel anger toward the Director for being an ego-maniac.
I'm sure it was personal it was about him. Suffering? Yeah I'm sure he was hurting financially after his career. Suffering because he couldn't think of a fresh story is hardly suffering. To the artist it might be suffering but snort some coke or take Laudinum like all the other artists who have blocks and stop whining to me.
One person's opinion? Well if people actually saw this movie - if it did remotely anything at the box office and wasn't coveted by a small group of Art film fans this film would have ended up in the dung heap.
But then there are people who actually think The Great Gatsby was a good book too or theat Leo Tolstoy was more than just a long winded romance novelist.
If he had chopped them off we wouldn't get to see that delicious blonde playing one of the daughters...
Personally I didn't think much of SPR first view. Impressive battle sequence and the rest was standard GI movie. I happened on it on home video and the beach sequence I was prepared for. So, I watched more closely the story. Spielberg often has little details, messages and shots buried under the pomps and pipes surface. Not unlike George R. Romero having commentary on Vietnam an Consumerism in the United States under the endless blood and gore of Night And Dawn of the Dead.SPR has a great deal on the mental state from several character points - all in the ridiculousness of sending several people into save one. For the flag for popularity for feeding the propaganda engine for hicksville America.
The book ends - actually on second thought aren't that bad - an adjustment to the scoring perhaps but something felt a little strained or forced about it.
Interestingly, People have often said Spielberg manipulates, most site SChindler's as the exception. What I don't get about these statements is that before SL he never made a truly serious film. The Colour Purple was it really and Spielberg said he regreted making it and should have given the project to someone else. He basically said it was a mistake...not bad 11 nomination mistake.
E.T. of course is geared to kids and this kind of thing you hope he can get some laughs, tears have a big memorable score. A Boy and his dog story really.
The Raiders and Dino movies are for fun - no tear jerking or attempted manipulations. Jaws and Close encounters...action sci-fi - no manipulation there. What the heck is left? The Sugarland Express was a good small indi-like-film wth no happy ending. Dual was too long ago for me to remember but it was thriller no?
Other than Amistad being a total train wwreck of a film, along with Hook, 1941 and the mishandling of A.I.(Now this is definitely cheese when it comes to trying to get tears - no argument from me).
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 ]
