 
|
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 |
Apparently, I'm not the only one to have noticed that a certain clique (of about 3 people) has developed here that is actively anti-American (or more acurately, anti-Hollywood) when it comes to taste in films. That's fine. But, this attitude is stifling discussion of worthy modern films that suffer from such unfortunate characteristics as: being filmed in color, employing sound, lacking subtitles, reliance on special effects, having an actual plot, etc. that make them too accessible to common tastes and, therefore, not worthy of "serious" discussion. Woe to anyone who blunders in here and naively expresses an opinion that fails to impress this small clique. He or she won't last long, which is why there is only a handful of regular posters in this forum.The Hi-rez forum split into SACD and DVD-A camps. The Music forum is split into classical/jazz and pop/rock groups. How about a separate film forum where elitist "cineaste" posturing takes a back seat to enjoyment of "popular" fare?
Follow Ups:
I think that you'd get a fracture that would cause both boards to slow down and then wither away. DVDA is very slow and it's kind of like being forced to go sit in the corner by a teacher. I think HiRez folks are happy, but I wish we would have kept it as one, mostly.Post about your Hollywood movies, nobody's stiffling you. Like Nike says, JUST DO IT!
Chris
In Hi-Rez, you have deep factionalism into two distinct ideologically hide-bound audio philosophies; this has been fueled by the competition within the industry as well as personal pro vs con attitudes about each format from zealots.Of course I could be mistaken, but film appreciation is quite different audio zealotry. While there most certainly are varying tastes in film, ranging from anime` and action to "Grey Poupon" elitist I think it's fair to say that everyone here loves the cinema and would frequent both sites. However, we've seen recently a spate of posts, mostly from two individuals carrying on an all-too-public private conversation about their personal preferences while disparaging popular American cinema in various distateful ways. In essence, these posts are creating divisions which seem more appropriate for a snobbish intellectual circle moderated by Peter Bogdonovich or Andrew Sarris than in an open film forum.
The best way to resolve this might be, as Dalton has suggested, a division of Forums into something along the lines of American and International cinema. This would allow folks to share opinions on current releases, DVD, etc., on two separate albeit linked boards without wondering if they've stepped into the wrong forum when their favorite films are called "kaka". It would encourage participation even for those who don't speak 15 different friggin' languages or prefer visceral action-oriented entertainment to watching sleep-inducing cerebral fare.
Of course you may not feel that there's enough traffic on the Film/DVD Board to warrant such a split, and that does make some sense based upon the amount of traffic, but might that also be reflective of the anti-American and/or anti-popular film sentiment on this board currently? IMHO, condescension builds walls, not bridges.
AuPh
"However, we've seen recently a spate of posts, mostly from two individuals carrying on an all-too-public private conversation about their personal preferences"
This is a good thing IMO. People exposing other people to movies they love is a value to this forum.
" while disparaging popular American cinema in various distateful ways."
Just call them on it. I have. They are big boys. They can take it. Who knows, maybe they'll offer some substance with their negative opinions eventually and we can have an interesting examination of films.
That is the very own reason of this Forum.
And now letīs discuss some films. From Ford ( one of my prefered director ) to whatever you want.
***without wondering if they've stepped into the wrong forum when their favorite films are called "kaka".Poor cry baby! Don't worry - daddy saved a hanky for your tears!
For someone always willing to insult this is a hear-breaking display of sudden sensitivity! Is this your soft underbelly you are showing us?
Really... not since I left the kindergarten at 7 have I seen such a sobbing session.
Personally, I think that you're still belly-achin' about the well deserved drubbing you recently received from your's truly over on Page 2 of the Outside Forum. Hey, it wasn't personal; you really should try developing a sense of ironic humor. FTR, there's never been ANY serious sexual innuendoes made, dude, unless you really are afraid of large Amazon women (Xenaphobia). ;^)BTW, on a more serious note, have you ever considered the possibility that your's and Patrick's pretentious self-absorbed posts may dissuade folks from contributing their opinions? The fact that you are so wrapped up in calling films you don't appreciate "kaka" or worse and then being dubbed by your few sycophants as knowledgeable contributors to this forum may dampen discussion as well as the sharing of information and interests.
Cheers,
AuPh
Just because we did not like LOTR.
AuPh we are NOT pretentious or else. We have an opinion made of ( for me ) of more than foty five years of movies watching, and you and your kind are the real pretentious, and the one that does not tolerate others opinions.
Show me in our films discussions what is pretentious, ah maybe you speaks of films you never have seen and never will see, if that is pretentious, then we are, I recognise culprit.
How about changing the boring discussion in something more positive and start a new life with a new film?
Patrick
a
;^)You are right that I found LoTR an excellent film trilogy, but the comment from Buffalo Bob's Peanut Gallery (i.e., you, Victor, Patrick and one or two others) were far from intellectually inspired. Perhaps you think Victor's "kaka" remarks and Patrick's alluding to non-existent racism and homo-eroticism in Tolkien is scholorly analysis, but I'm not persuaded. BTW, you know that I'm not a fan of the Planet if the Apes sequels, so I'm not sure why you persist in making such references, but if you want to play "check your brain at the door and toss out lies, distortions and misquotes", then I'll gladly oblige.
AuPh
You and some others here are determined to force others to eat more kaka than absolutely necessary.Get this message - a kaka movie doesn't need to be watched in full.
It also doesn't deserve more comment than one simple kaka.
LOTR is one such movie.
So while I usually provide more justification of kaka rating in my posts (see archives, if interested), that one doesn't deserve any more than a quick dismissive kaka statement.
So you feel rejected... you put that giant excrement on the table and many ran away from it... you are left to consume it all by yourself.
Right. BUT... no one forced you to eat it. So do as you wish, but stop whining at the rejection - you are getting beyond repetitions.
And frankly... you are lying here, plain and simple.
You know full well I have written quite a few words on that piece of crap - so why are you lying? And so did my wife.
So don't be a cheap liar - stop bending truth.
In the end, your negativism and Patrick's just doesn't hold up; 11 well deserved Academy Awards speaks louder than all your kaka.AuPh
Sometimes the " actors " donīt speaks and / or donīt look at the camera, the digital noise ( music ) is low beat...
.
You see, that makes a lot of difference from where I'm sitting; BTW, your dismissal of LoTR doesn't bother me nearly as much as your rude blathering on about it. Your wife was polite, as was mine in discussing their differing viewpoints; I respect that. While Roxanne and I politely disagreed with your wife's opinion on Peter Jackson's beautiful realization of Tolkein's trilogy, your views are much less deserving of such cordiality because you apparently prefer to roll around in the "kaka", trashing the films in the most disrespectful manner and insulting folk's tastes.I realize that I'm probably talking to the Russian version of a "whaling wall", but Victor, if you take time reflecting back on those posts you'll clearly see that you, Clark & your "loyal Igor" Patrick were trying to provoke a fight at every opportunity with anyone who liked these films. Food for thought.
AuPh
Listen, please stop insulting us by pretending what you are not - a polite individual with good taste. You have been as rude as anyone I know, so shove all that pretense into your orifice.I hate to see people lie, and you made a career out of it.
You keep begging for some respect, all the while being one of the most insulting individuals here - should I call you a hipocrite? OK, I just have.
Be a man and stop whining, this is getting idiotic. If you are "man" enough to insult like you always do, at least pretend to be one on the receiving end.
Notice - those you routinely insult don't end up whining like a pregnant 13 years old, as you constantly are. If you can't take criticism of a moviwe you love - stay away from here, that's the best advice I can give you. Insult the ones I love all you want, OTOH, I really don't care.
A whining old fart... this is getting so boringly silly I am about to puke.
Your LOTR is piece of crap - OK?
Whine now.
Statutory considerations notwithstanding, that odd and somewhat disturbing statement opens a line of inquiry I'd rather not pursue.> > > "You keep begging for some respect, all the while being one of the most insulting individuals here - should I call you a hipocrite? OK, I just have." < < <
With all due respect to your Beggin' Strips initiative, sorry, but I have to decline for lack of interest; you're barking up the wrong tree. BTW, just a friendly piece of advice: next time, if you want to insult someone using highfalutin abrasive words like hypocrite, at least take the time to spell-check the friggin' word! Otherwise, stay with simpler words like "kaka" that you understand intimately and rarely misspell.
> > > "If you are 'man' enough to insult like you always do, at least pretend to be one on the receiving end." < < <
Sorry, but isn't that a homophobic/xenophobic joke? ;^)
Seriously, I'd probably take umbrage at someone stating that I "always" insult since most folks around here know for a fact that that isn't true, but considering the source perhaps we should just take pity and simply ask if you require any assistance getting down from your petard.
> > > "Your LOTR is a piece of crap - OK?" < < <
Well you like Solaris, ...SO THERE! :o)
*YAWN* ... It's getting rather late and having mentioned Solaris is enough to make my eyelids droop, so take care everybody, and Victor, be careful around those wayward 13 year olds, okay? ;^)
G'night all!
Cheers,
AuPh
I gave you a gentle exit, where a simple "Yes, you are right", or something like that would have sufficed, but you are not at that level, obviously.Next time I catch you lying I will smack you harder.
Speaking of Solaris - I would never throw a hysterical feat over your dislike of it. You, OTOH, spent days whining about my not loving LOTR.
;^)
...a "historical" feat?...Yes you caught the cat, plus, just look at the title of his note to me that began this sub-thread, for an example of his inamiability -- and him claiming to be so pleasant and all. Whatta laff riot he is.
clark
As if folks haven't noticed, there is a small cadre of self-aggrandizing sycophants that feed off of each other's "Grey Poupon" sensitivities, and/or insensitivities when the mood strikes them. For want of a better description, these fine gentlemen are this forum's art-house snobs; unfortunately, they often go out of their way to be unpleasant. I could mention them by name, but that's neither polite nor really necessary; they know who they are as do the observant here, and since Colin Powell isn't pressing me to give up their names let's just keep it that way. Besides, they're easily recognized by their common predisposition to an intense dislike of almost every current Hollywood production unless it's inaccessible to the masses or controversial in some politically incorrect fashion (i.e., in other words, a Conservative's wet-dream). Oh yes, in an example of fathomless oxymora they do seem to gravitate toward subtitled, foreign and Euro-centric filmfare, even though, curiously enough, they frequently disapprove of European politics and culture.I think that just about covers it.
AuPh
To your 11 awards I have to say - even I was shocked... even knowing what the "academy" is today.But accept one thing - the majority opinon matters zilch to me in such matters. I form my own.
"To your 11 awards I have to say - even I was shocked... even knowing what the "academy" is today."What do you think the Academy is today? What do you think it once was?
"But accept one thing - the majority opinon matters zilch to me in such matters. I form my own."You might want to consider that when five nominations are involved you will probably rarely have an actual majority opinion. I suspect that often the majority of the Academy members didn't agree with the winners.
To me 11 awards simply means a shrug of a shoulder. I never watch it anyways... not past the dress-and-boobs part, anyhow.He is mightily proud of the awards... a blind, misguided man!
"To me 11 awards simply means a shrug of a shoulder. I never watch it anyways... not past the dress-and-boobs part, anyhow."I didn't ask you what the awards meant to you what you though the Academy had become based on your comment about what it had become and I asked what you thought it once was.
He is mightily proud of the awards... a blind, misguided man!
In your limmited world perhaps. "There ar more thing in heaven and earth..." You might be better recieved if you were to stop confusing your personal taste with objective standards of excellence.
What makes you think you managed to ask something that deserved a question?So far you said nothing that interested me enough. And if you keep this idiotic game, then you will be talking to yourself most of the time.
You obviously don't respect anyone's informed opinons unless they happen to agree with your own or those of the few sycophants you babble back and forth with around here (i.e., Clark and Patrick, primarily). If THAT is what you meant by the comment "you said nothing that interested me enough" then perhaps he would be better off talking to himself, but judging by Analogg Scott's more reasoned viewpoint and the civility he's expressed thus far, that's unlikely.AuPh
You so sweet. But since you have no idea what that stupid game he plays is, I shall leve you in the dark.BTW - careful, Dmitry might cite you for crowding.
When you have chance to comprehand what we are talking about here, feel free to come back.
You are close to truth on one thing - I indeed have little respect for your opinion - that is your fault, of course. I however shall not say your usual idiotic things about it - please feel free to express it as much as you want.
If I were you, I would be falling on the floor, foam on my mouth... but I have better things to do.
...because it's easily recognizable as a condescending attitude regardless of nuance or intent. No one has ever said that you don't know how to insult folks because you do that quite well, but doing it with wit or class is another matter. Keep working on it though; there's hope for you yet! :o)AuPh
Listen, I know you hate me, that is fine with me, but please try not to look like an idiot by putting your dirty foot into your mouth.If you want to say something nasty, at least make it relevant to the tread.
You seem to think that most or all of the negative impressions are mine, but you might be surprised to learn just how off-the-wall your remarks appear to others. If you think that some little inside joke or observation you're trying to put across creates a favorable impression on those not privy to it, you'd be rudely mistaken. Most folks don't care or won't say anything and there's always your little sycophant clique of Patrick & Clark who'll pretty much go along with anything you post here, but that hardly constitutes the majority of the folks and informed opinion around here.AuPh
Didn't you mama tell you to keep your advice to yourself until asked?What is it with some amateur psychologists - they are contantly looking for next "patient".
How about behaving like a well brought up person (am afraid to all you man... your sensitivities, you know...) and sticking to your thoughts in polite, considered way?
Too much to ask for?
Why am I keeping my thoughts on you private? Take that hint. It might save you from being hated.
If all your venom and nasty attacks did not stop me from coming here, then I am sure grown men should be able to accept criticism of something as silly as films.As I said, I am having hard time tolerating your sobs... even more so your sheep skin. I will much rather take your usual rudeness than watch you cry.
I don't need "Mr. Hanky" from you either! The aroma of kaka-scented criticisms tell me that this is one handkerchief which should remain in your pocket where it belongs. ;^)AuPh
.
Plus, you'd then have Victor and Patrick talking to each other all of the time!Chris
Unfortunately, this isn't the same area of expertise, not by a long shot, as espoused by Victor & Patrick.BTW, I'm not sure that Victor and Patrick having their own space to talk to each other all the time is such a bad idea; it could be called the "Waiting for Godot Forum" with Victor portraying Vladimire Lucky and Patrick, Estragon! :o)
Cheers,
AuPh
How low can you get?
There are no signs that Hollywood is dying.On the other hand, if just a couple of contributors at the original combined Hi-Rez board had shown a little respect for differing views and a little self-restraint in their posts, there would have been no reason for a split. Hmm. Maybe you're right.
All movies have a plot - some are un-intelligable. Something I learned long ago taking all those English Lit classes. Many people think that a piece of writing that is open to endless interpretations is actually a good piece of writing. Which it isn't.Many people who think they know something about film fall into this exact same trap. This is different from open endings, or characters that can be viewed in different ways.
Take 81/2. Here is a film director making a film about himself not being able to generate an idea of what film to make. He has been given the money to make a film but has no idea what to make.
Fellini's EGO is so gigantic that he thinks his "writer's Block" is actually important, relevant or interesting. It's mere self-indulgent stream of consciousness.
Trouble is of course it isn't REALLY stram of consciosness because this requires spontenaity and presumably Fellini had to cast actors, hire technicians write or have written a screenplay. So it isn't stream of consciousness.
Cinematography is average by today's standards, performances largely caricatures. None of them are relevant - the audience sure doesn't learn anything other than the guy is horny and has a creative block. A long philisophically trite speach to him toward the end is laughable philisophical psychobabble.
Thanks but if I want deep philisophical thought I'll read someone who is competant in the field. Aristotle, Thales, Socrates. Fellini wouldn't get out of a first year course.
Attack Hollywood? No thanks I will take the cotton candy for the brains Star Wars/Empire Strikes Back and laugh at the tongue in cheek sillyness and enjoy myself. Or a serious film about something of remote relevance like the War Zone.
And if I venture into philisophical film I'll watch Krysztof Kieslowski's Three Colours or Kirosawa's Shakespeare rippoffs like the Seven Samurai. At least if you're going to re-invent something it may as well be Shakespeare - Kirosawa actually makes moving heartfelt films...on that Hollywood did fail with Citizen Kane an emotionally void film with cinematography that is indeed impressive. Too bad it superceded the story and looks more like STUNT photography than actually serving the story. Oh but that's right it has a strike for having a story in the first place no?
Didn't you mean Kurosawa's "Throne of Blood"/And Citizen Kane is the greatest film ever made, IMHO. There's a hell of a lot more there than just great cinematography.
Seven Samurai is Lear well not quite. I'm not insulting Seven Samurai it's in my top 100 films...a masterful work. And I am behind on my Kurosowa...I still need to see his other works.Citizen Kane is a strong one. I'm surprised people found Rosebud the least bit surprising or climatic. This film perhaps Americans can appreciate more than me. Each person brings their own background into the film as a life baggage. I preferred Death of a Salesman as a pseudo tragedy to Citizen Kane. Unlike film schools which beat into the heads of students the surrounding and history of the time Kane was made - I try to look at the film for the film's merit alone. I don't care if it was "difficult" to make or Randolf Hurst was trying to get it stopped.
I have seen Kane 3 times and I liked it better on time 3. In the end it doesn't work for me at a gut level. Certainly it holds up well and is technically well made...just doesn't work for me to move beyond a high calibur 4 out of 5 to 5 out of 5 masterpiece. I have read a great deal of reasons why it's considered a great film...I have the conclusion that it's probably better suited to the American mind-set of the American Dream. I personally think it's handled better in Dustin Hoffman's Death of a Salesman(I never saw the original however). This was made for tv film based off of one of the great American Novels. It doesn't have the tragic fall of the great man of power. However, my problem with Kane and even Shakespeare is that I don't hold someone as being great because they have money or power. Willy Loman is an average Joe who bought into the propaganda of the American Dream and couldn't realize that there was anything else but the shirt and tie life of sales. His life amounted to nothing because of this false belief. SO it's a pseudo tragedy that he never figured it out and neither did Happy. Happy's brother Bif however did.
Again I understand why people like Kane...it just doesn't move me. and 75% of my rating of film has to have me engage with the story in the gut. No amount of technical prowess on any level can make up for it nor the history surrounding the film. Kane is in my second 100 list however so it is a very fine movie to me. Perhaps when I watch again in ten years my views might change.
A Clockwork Orange went from one of the worst pieces of garbage I had ever seen to my top 5 all time. Some films needed to grow on me after several views.
I recently watched a film called Talk to Her by Almodovar. I thoroughly was entertained moved and I can't seem to place a finger on why. The story is over the top bordering on ridiculous...black comedy of sorts I suppose but it's heart warming melodrama at the same time. It's probably the best film I saw of 2002...but I simply need to see it again. People don't even consider it to be one of his better films.
As for Wells I personally preferred the Third Man to Kane. If the Third Man could completely gut the scoring(one of the worst I have ever heard in any film) it would be one my true greats. As it is it's in my top 100.
There was plenty of excitement when it came out, but I think it decayed quickly too. Most people here seemed to agree it was the usual Almodovar, perhaps even his best work, but just not at the level of best films out there - I am talking best modern films, not even classic.I suspect in a year or so you too will forget about it.
I personally think there have been many better films in the recent years, some covered here extensively. For instance, Friday Night by Claire Denis is head and shoulders above Talk to Her, in my view.
I kinda share your views on Kane... when I stated last time I was not crazy about it, there was a small revolution here, and some people had to get into intensive care over such blasphemy. Some felt like the Social Security was taken away from them.
So I guess now you can say what you are saying - this page has been primed for it, and since you are posting down low there is little chance of mych hysteria.
"Ran" was his "King Lear".
yes and Throne of Blood was MacBeth...so Now you're going to make me dig into my Shakespeare to recall which the Seven Samurai was.I was not a huge fan of the tragedies however which is probably why I liked the Seven Samurai so much. It may be closer to the Henry IV Part 1 and 2 histories - that is if I can recall a Falstaff figure in the Seven Samurai...It's been a while since the Seven Samurai as well.
.
As self indulgent as you are! Life would so MUCH easier....PS: The Three colours is a superficial desaster, safe the first one who is just simply a disaster.
s
nt
a
.
nt
The way he fended off AuPh last time reminded me of Ney at Berezina.Masterful... brutal, but effective.
BTW - saw a great monumental painting a few days ago at Hermitage - the Berezina Crossing... marvelous!
Ditto for the Decalogue... quite shallow.
Yes, they just were " blender " ( dazzler ) I almost fell in for the first one ( Juliette? ) as for the music...Quelle merde et quel con je puis etre!
PS: Did you get my Email to Simon?
Yes, got the email.I think all Colors films were forgettable, except.... for that one scene where Julie Delphy rapes her husband... man, talk about raw sexuality!
I look ( only ) at these scene twice. Since then I feel with Hitch to be a voyeur. Is this bad?
***Take 81/2. Here is a film director making a film about himself not being able to generate an idea of what film to make. He has been given the money to make a film but has no idea what to make.Doesn't that sound like the famous Van Gohg self portrait - the one with the bandaged ear?
Just like most art...it's the story around the picture that generate interest. Is Jackson Pollock any good? I could vomit on canvas and create the abysmal dreck he made. But ooooh he was an alcoholic who did something different and died horribly. Van Gogh was a pscychotic.If you're weird enough like an Andy Warhol you get bonus marks - talent? That is totally beside the point.
This is little different that Spice Girls marketing...except this pretentious stuff is marketed to snobs.
NT!
In Vino Veritas
d
... generally, most people don't hang around in places where they are needlessly attacked, ignored, or disdained for their unworthy taste for "kaka" movies. Like it or not, there is a small group here that creates an atmosphere that drives many away after a few posts. "Hollywood" or "American" are commonly accepted here as derogatory descriptions in a way that simply wouldn't be tolerated if, instead, the terms "foreign" or "French" were used pejoratively.A request for a separate forum isn't an attempt to stifle "democracy" as Patrick so inelegantly suggests. Nor is it "Stalinist" - as someone with, perhaps, an intimate knowledge of Soviet tyranny proposed. There are some people who can listen to and enjoy both Beethoven and The Beatles and recognize that both forms of music have merit. There are others, who in their intolerance, not only can't respect you if you don't listen daily to Shostakovich's 8th symphony to put yourself in the right mood, but will scoff if you don't listen to the proper interpretation. On vinyl, preferably 78s...
Whether you "give a damn" what they think or not, who bothers to hang around such people?
both the people who don't like American films are obviously not from American or English speaking first countries. So technically Hollywood or English language films are foreign to them and they don't get it.People bring their own baggage and life to films. To properly understand the black humour of a Fargo, Pulp Fiction, American Beauty it helps if you have a background from the country. Dawn of the Dead's commentary on consumerism would not work on someone who has never seen nor heard of a mall nor knows anything about American Consumerism. American Beauty is precisely about consumerism in American Suburbia. I can relate to Lester in a lot of ways because on onehand I lived and saw it daily. If your background differes you don't get it and seems like a shallow take on a few themes mixed together. Pulp Fiction SHOULD be a laugh riot all the way through...people took it seriously???
I happen to be from Canada. Hero's in a lot of Canadian literary novels are anti-heros - the sort of people who don't really know who they are or where they are int he world who struggle through to find happiness. Totally different than the larger than life heros written in the US where people know their roots even if it's just been drilled into their head.
There is absolutely nothing better about foreign films. In the US and Canada we get the vvery best foreign films provided to our video stores. The top 5% of all the films made outside North America. The odd one is outstanding. We see ALL the Hollywood films and yes 95% of it is dreadful...but we don't get the filtration process.
To say Hollywood doesn't make good movies is just a moronic statement from no nothing dim-bulbs. So you don't need to convince them they are beyond rational thought. So either they are A) stupid or B) anti-American or C) Or they just understand the films from their countries better because they can relate better to the subject matter. I'll give C as the reason for the benefit of doubt. But I'm new on this film foreign so we'll see if it turns out to be A and B.
For instance there are three Canadian films, Margaret's Museum, Maelstrom, and Emporte Moi that I may get a lot more out of being from Canada than even American or Briton would get. Perhaps someone from France would understand or appreciate the magnitude of Germinal.
Then there are films like Run Lola Run which seem to have a good deal of crossover, largely because the story is very simple but effectively told with high energy.
America is in many ways a BIG LOUD country with big loud stories to tell. They are grande stories. How does France make an Apollo 13. What the hell has France ever done on a large scale? you want to tell a compelling story about a historical event like Appollo 13 how are you going to make it?
You're going to go out and have to spend big bucks with a lot of technical proweass and try and re-create what happened. I wasn't the biggest fan of this film but it's awfully difficult to make a film like this to appeal to people outside the US culture(though it did well outside the US). What can France make? Small personal introspective stories. Ditto for Canada. The government has to sponsor films here and help put up the money to get things done. The English Patient had to get several countries involved to get it done.
The film Spider was stalled trying to fincance it. They didn't pay the stars...they had to wait until after it was made before they can take money.
Ralph Fiennes has done that several times with the English Patient, Oscar and Lucinda, Sunshine and now Spider. Films are turned down due to financing problems so he goes out and makes a Red Dragon and Maid in Manhatten so he can use the money to actually get something he really wants to do made.
The one downside Hollywood films tend to have is that they fall into repetitive formulae. You get the same story 9 times a year every year, year in year out. A proven formulae means a proven product and a proven money maker. It's the McDonald's movie - the McMovie I call them.
Nothing wrong with the odd McMovie but a steady diet will give you Diabetes.
Frankly, LotR was kaka and I've said so on numerous occasions, and been attacked for that. So, maybe I don't like New Zealand film-making, I can live with it.And I've said I enjoyed Pirates of the C. and been attacked for *that*. There's no justice.
But man do I love those 78s! You people have no idea how great they can sound, because you judge them by transcriptions on tinkly LPs and edgy CDs.
Likewise I try not to judge a movie -- either way -- after seeing it on tape or DVD. Those are not the theatrical experiences everyone involved in film-making intends us to have.
clark
You have a real strong point1 I long want to have a discussion on how TAPES or DVDīs transfigure the director intend.
I'll stick with DVDs because I hate tapes. I think that a properly transferred film to DVD in the correct aspect ratio with sound as intended (i.e., mono, stereo, surround in its many incarnations) shown on a calibrated wide screen home theater can achieve what the director intended as much as seeing it in a theater with screechy sound, underlit screens, incorrect aspect ratio, noisy audience, etc.
However, the very best theaters provide the best viewing experience.
You won't be so sanguine after you start seeing high-rez DVDs, coming soon.clark
Viewer convenience.
a
There are several levels to this, clark.You keep telling us only a theater experience counts... I don't think so. Just like not only a symphony hall experience applies to music, the movies CAN be enjoyed in many forms.
You DO have a stereo system... I believe. Don't tell me it sounds like Carnegie Hall.
So I don't understand your hard nose attitude towards home videos.
Most people can never see most good films in their natural environment. There is no art movie theater here - within 100 miles, at least. I can catch some recent good films, but not old ones, and certainly no obscure things.
Given the choice of not seeing many fine films, or seeing them at home I do not hesitate renting a DVD.
Does one get full experience, as intended by the director, in his home environment?
Well, one can come close.
But this is the area where one can be tolerant. I know many people who can listen to Beethoven on a small radio and get more out of it than many "audiophiles" on their Grande systems, or many concert goers. The ability to appreciate fine things is internal, and it transcends the poor media quality... well, to some degree.
In addition, we are getting closer to the theater experience with our large screen installations.
s
Link my post as a reply.
But I post for a new discussion above. Maybe you an make your point. I will too.
were made of shellac, except for those issued at the very end.
Actually WE get ALL the " Heat " for not loving the kind of LOTR is!
That is ridiculous.
I am more " elegant " as you ever will be.
Well, the reason people laugh at your proposal is because it is based in dillusion, not reality.While it is somewhat true that the term Hollywood has taken (rightly so) a deregatory meaning, there is no such association for the word American. So your statement is simply a forced untrue one.
Second, you keep beating the drum of lies by dropping - frankly - idiotic (let me blant here) - notions: things along the lines of the movie language, the subs, some mysterious "Art Houses", etc, etc, etc. Fact is none of that matters to many here, myself and Patrick included.
I feel almost silly blowing holes in your near-lies, but as I stated many times, there would be 20 to 30 American films on my Best 100 list. And I feel that represents an extremely balanced view, given how much more does the world as the whole have to offer.
Your argument about Beethoven vs. Beatles shows a complete lack of perspective. Both are great. I listen to both, and I also watch many films from many genre's and countries - but while you tend to divide them based on the place of origin, I divide them by quality.
So I will watch and love a good American film just as much as a good Finish one, and I will gladly call a French film kaka when it deserves it - had doen it many times.
So all in all I am greatly disappointed a grown man could stoop to such whining - completely unnecessary for sure, when all one needs to do is simply talk about what touches him.
I had films I love slammed here many times - such is life in the subjective art field. Should I start complaining at the endless "plotless art house crap" labels? They don't bother me, and I suggest you get the right perspective too.
So I am sorry, but that complaint of yours is not getting me concerned at all.
There is ONE way of making this place better and more interesting one - to make sure more people post - and PASSIONATELY - about what they love and hate.
THAT will have good effect. Whine will not.
Why Victor did you hide the fact that you work for the KGB?
Or were you the one with the whip in the Gulag?
nt
All I can say to the sentiments like this, is: post. You like something - post. You have something - post.Amazing what your voice can do. And your silence too.
BTW - there's someone trashing the 8 1/2 down below - I think we all should expose his active anti-Fellini feelings.
I'm not anti-Fellini...the fact that he made a pointless self-indulgent trash heap because he thinks audiences will care that he has no ideas is bothersome. Luckily he ddidn't reach a wide audience...films like that give movies a bad name - it's not even philosophically relevant - even is pretentious whining is vacuous.Pehaps I should see his earlier films. Since according to Roger Ebert the ones that followed were downright BAD movies - maybe before he ran out of ideas he made something remotely decent. I shall attempt him again.
One of the best director of all time , donīt need you, stick with LOTR.
You and Fellini - obviously small minds think alike.I take it you and Victor are the movie snobs on this forum. The less the movie is about and the more revered by the smallest minority it is you two will like it.
Of course if you were truly any good at being snobs you would hardly waste time watching movies. It's hardly an art form worthy to be called art.
To be fair to Fellini this is just one film from him, but based off this film he wouldn't merit cleaning my toilet... 81/2 should certainly be flushed as the kaka that it is.
LOTR: I have enough to deal with without getting into why LOTR isn't that good. But unlike 81/2 at least it wasn't a product of Ego. Most written work in the first person is considered utter trash in literary circles. 81/2 is essentially that. May as well be a diary. Oh poor me I can't think of what to make...whine whine whine - he must be French - someone please give him some cheese to go with that whine. Rubbish.
So, you don't think much of M&M's 81/2 Miles?Nice counter-punch by the way.
Chris
this is fun, why would anybody want to eliminate it?Chris
Hehe...Nobody!
But some kind of frustating, you try to explain and exchange views, and some are just so narrow minded that looks back like in time of the " witch Hunt ".
I wish we would have more people like " Bambi " who is for a too long a time silent!
(s)he's one of the smart ones. It's not your fault that you and Victor like to post a lot about films. Others need to do the same, including me! I want an ACTION FLICK ASYLUM!!! Nothing but explosions and gunfire 24/7 and hot, half-nakid chicks too!Have fun, Chris
"It's not your fault that you and Victor like to post a lot about films."I have no problems with Patrick and Victor (or anyone for that matter) posting their opinions about any film. My personal disdain lies with their persistently pompous, condescending attitudes. Patrick, in particular, is trollish in many of his responses - a statement affirmed by several of his posts in this thread. I appreciate the fact he's not a native English speaker, but from the little I can decipher of Patrick's posts, a good deal of them are childish, instigating remarks. Victor can just be plain nasty at times, though he's said the same thing of me. Perhaps its merely a cultural difference.
Sure, we could all ignore them. But I don't think you can really fault people for being turned off either. It is the expressed opinion of numerous people that discussions are indeed stifled here. A split forum would alleviate the problem IMO.
You are the one who does, can you show me one of your post about a film ?
Curious, you just are what you say.
Post about films.
I told Len before if he put all this energy into posts on films this would be a better place.
I don't pretend to post more about films. I don't often post in this forum for reasons I've already described. FYI: posting incessantly about films doesn't excuse your other behavior.
Did EVER post about films?
Ok we should close the door to more stupidity to comes. If you want to discuss films I will always be willing to. If you donīt like me do not read me.
I am always ready to speak with every one, the reason of this forum is just films ( sic )
OK?
practical reasons transistors ( Audio Research I love them..) Yes he is one of the " smart and kind one ".
Donīt worry we donīt feel guilty...
We have!
And thanks for the never ending good & and as neutral job one can do!
Your missed your time! Mc Carthy or Stalin would have do it.
Actively anti-American....Oh boy!
I nearly chocked on that line too. But this is not the first time I encounter this mentality among the citizens of the freest coutry on Earth.Some time ago I used to participate in the Panerai watch forum. It wasn't long, however, before I was accused of expressing anti-Panerai sentiments.
I'm just an average guy who enjoys average movies. I am a fan of Patrick and Victor, but really, their nose is in the air concerning films. Patrick doesn't enjoy any film which doesn't star Jerry Lewis, and Victor sits in his easy chair with his sword in his hand, ready to slice up any movie that isn't "moving".
But as fair warning: be prepared to get berated. You and I and others are obviously the ones who don't get it. [/sarcasm]
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 ]
