Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Why all movies are shallow entertainment

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 23, 2011, 05:53:34 PM
Occassionally I'll download a movie but most of the time I'd rather not watch the movie twice (already regretting having watched it once and often deleting the movie after 20 minutes)
This is the biggest problem with film for me as well. Not that I necessarily regret watching one -sometimes I do, sometimes I don't- but that I almost never have a desire to watch it again. Whereas Heart of Darkness and Pure Holocaust not only invite, but also actively reward, repeated visitations, a film almost never has that effect - and even when it does, it's not nearly as strong as it is with a good book or album. Conversely:
In theater when an actor is playing he has to give everything in one performance, in a movie when someone is acting they can redo the shoot 200 times if they want to. When an actor fucks up on stage he fucks up the whole performance. When an actor fucks up a shoot he just gets a scolding from the director.
is hardly a valid criticism. Concert performances are not intrinsically better than studio recordings; they're often more vivid, but rarely as well thought-out. Both formats have their advantages.

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 23, 2011, 09:09:27 PM
It seems to me this is will end up like most other threads discussing music, books, or other forms of art: few are good, the rest is shit.  I don't think it's necessary to completely disregard this medium just because the masses ruin everything, but I understand why one would.  There are movies that I like quite a bit, but I'll admit that I don't watch them over and over again like listening to the same few albums for years.  With music, it's not black and white and right there in your face with an airplane spoon flying into the hanger NOM NOM NOM like almost all movies.  But, I really have hope for good movies, even if I only watch them once, the images and ideas are in my mind and as long as the spoon stays away, I think art can be made with this medium.

Here is a movie I've watched several times, just because I really want it to have something real to say, and I'm sure it thinks it does, but this is as close to a good movie as I've seen in awhile.  I may be watching it and wanting it to mean certain things, but the beauty of it is that a friend could watch it with me and have a completely different take as far as what he felt it was trying to say.

Either way, this style of filming doesn't seemed to be use alot, but if used properly it seems it could have layers of meaning in each scene by virtue of the images them selves, the actions of the actors and their ramifications, then the underlying problem which faces them all.  We already know how it ends, but even to feal the thrill of times long past, as cheap as it is, gives me some pleasure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQgoGccHJD4

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 23, 2011, 11:15:51 PM
When someone makes a painting they are putting their emotions into a work of art. They are creating something. When someone is making a movie they're just capturing pretty images (and later photoshopping the hell out of them).
And let me guess, the emotional residue of their feelings resides in the paint, right?

And isn't your definition of "making a movie" creation? C'mon dude, just think about it.

Quote
In theater when an actor is playing he has to give everything in one performance, in a movie when someone is acting they can redo the shoot 200 times if they want to. When an actor fucks up on stage he fucks up the whole performance. When an actor fucks up a shoot he just gets a scolding from the director.
I think istaros' response was perfectly fitting.
 
Quote
Other than that there's obviously the commercial aspect of big movies and the lack of funds for promising indie movies that fucks up film making in general.
This would be a valid response if some of the greatest works of art weren't funded by people with a lot of money, and some of the worst artistic abortions not created by people who were flat broke.

Oh, by the way: promising "indie" high-art cinema vs commercial "dependent" low-art movie.

Why can't more money go to people writing movies about vikings shitting in the woods? :(

Quote
And like I wrote earlier just because a movie is weird doesn't make it art. I wouldn't consider weird music art either, just weird.
I'm not going to bother asking you what your definition of art is because it's probably retarded and/or contradictory. I won't give you mine either, since if I took the time to sit down and do it would inevitably be just as retarded and contradictory. But something sucking ass does not disqualify it from the title "art," it just gives it the title "art that sucks ass."

What we have here is a classic case of people valuing authorship and the process over the work itself. If my mommy were to tell me that the Sistine Chapel was commissioned by a fabulously wealthy Pope (and accused sodomite!! lol) and then completed by a reluctant Michelangelo and a dozen or so assistants, would that lessen my enjoyment of it as a piece of art? If it did, I would probably be the most pretentious hipster faggot ever born. Thankfully, the Sistine Chapel was made by one man simply because he had to find something to do with his Fridays, so I never have to confront this dilemma.

Really, this thread boils down to "what is the function of art?" And ultimately the function of art is to bring enjoyment to the audience. "Good art" is art that brings substantial enjoyment to the audience, whereas "bad art" is art that brings very little, and may in fact actually bring nausea, disgust, hatred, or aneurysms. There's more to say on that subject and I'm sure some people have found the two preceding sentences blasphemous/idiotic but I really ought to sleep now...

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 23, 2011, 11:34:00 PM
This is the gayest argument ever. You guys need to go out and have some fun with a few friends or something.

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 23, 2011, 11:41:02 PM
Occassionally I'll download a movie but most of the time I'd rather not watch the movie twice (already regretting having watched it once and often deleting the movie after 20 minutes)
This is the biggest problem with film for me as well. Not that I necessarily regret watching one -sometimes I do, sometimes I don't- but that I almost never have a desire to watch it again. Whereas Heart of Darkness and Pure Holocaust not only invite, but also actively reward, repeated visitations, a film almost never has that effect - and even when it does, it's not nearly as strong as it is with a good book or album. Conversely:
In theater when an actor is playing he has to give everything in one performance, in a movie when someone is acting they can redo the shoot 200 times if they want to. When an actor fucks up on stage he fucks up the whole performance. When an actor fucks up a shoot he just gets a scolding from the director.
is hardly a valid criticism. Concert performances are not intrinsically better than studio recordings; they're often more vivid, but rarely as well thought-out. Both formats have their advantages.


When someone makes a painting they are putting their emotions into a work of art. They are creating something. When someone is making a movie they're just capturing pretty images (and later photoshopping the hell out of them).
And let me guess, the emotional residue of their feelings resides in the paint, right?

And isn't your definition of "making a movie" creation? C'mon dude, just think about it.

Quote
In theater when an actor is playing he has to give everything in one performance, in a movie when someone is acting they can redo the shoot 200 times if they want to. When an actor fucks up on stage he fucks up the whole performance. When an actor fucks up a shoot he just gets a scolding from the director.
I think istaros' response was perfectly fitting.


Makes note: some residents here are receptive to auto-tune.


Quote
This would be a valid response if some of the greatest works of art weren't funded by people with a lot of money, and some of the worst artistic abortions not created by people who were flat broke.

Oh, by the way: promising "indie" high-art cinema vs commercial "dependent" low-art movie.

Why can't more money go to people writing movies about vikings shitting in the woods? :(

Cool, a strawman argument! I was wondering how long it would take you guys. Oh well I got you back with my strawman about autotune. When did you ever hear me praise Severed Ways? I never did because I was unimpressed by that movie. So go listen to some autotune because you clearly said you don't mind studio techniques like that. According to your logic if a retard can make art which is 99% based on technology it makes it equal to an honest artist who puts 100% talent and effort into something? Or was that idea completely lost on you?


Quote
What we have here is a classic case of people valuing authorship and the process over the work itself. If my mommy were to tell me that the Sistine Chapel was commissioned by a fabulously wealthy Pope (and accused sodomite!! lol) and then completed by a reluctant Michelangelo and a dozen or so assistants, would that lessen my enjoyment of it as a piece of art? If it did, I would probably be the most pretentious hipster faggot ever born. Thankfully, the Sistine Chapel was made by one man simply because he had to find something to do with his Fridays, so I never have to confront this dilemma.

Lol, ok so the Sistine Chapel was commissioned by a fabulously wealthy Pope (and accused sodomite!! lol) and then completed by a reluctant Michelangelo and a dozen or so assistants... And thankfully, the Sistine Chapel was made by one man simply because he had to find something to do with his Fridays...
Are you paying attention to your own words here? You're contradiction yourself in the same paragraph by now.


Quote
Really, this thread boils down to "what is the function of art?" And ultimately the function of art is to bring enjoyment to the audience. "Good art" is art that brings substantial enjoyment to the audience, whereas "bad art" is art that brings very little, and may in fact actually bring nausea, disgust, hatred, or aneurysms. There's more to say on that subject and I'm sure some people have found the two preceding sentences blasphemous/idiotic but I really ought to sleep now...

No this thread doesn't. And no the function of art isn't. But yes you really should have gotten some sleep before you posted that random nonsense.

This thread is about why movies are just entertainment and coincidentally how some people confuse art with entertainment just because they were so entertained. Are rollercoasters or these things art to you guys too? If you spend long enough on them you'll probably start thinking they are. That is what it all boils down to.

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 23, 2011, 11:44:44 PM
8 1/2 destroys basically every single piece of "art" in Metal.

That's OK though, you probably didn't even know it existed. [insert witty / ironic Umbrage influenced remark like "dig faggot"]

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 23, 2011, 11:45:40 PM
This is the gayest argument ever. You guys need to go out and have some fun with a few friends or something.

I killed and ate my last friend. And I wasn't even hungry...

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 24, 2011, 06:48:45 AM
Lol, ok so the Sistine Chapel was commissioned by a fabulously wealthy Pope (and accused sodomite!! lol) and then completed by a reluctant Michelangelo and a dozen or so assistants... And thankfully, the Sistine Chapel was made by one man simply because he had to find something to do with his Fridays...
Are you paying attention to your own words here? You're contradiction yourself in the same paragraph by now.

Michelangelo, like almost all artists at the time, would have been told exactly what he was supposed to paint and where. He would have been free to embellish and work out individual details on his own (as he did), but by your logic one could argue that Julius II "made" the Sistine Chapel, and Michelangelo was simply there to fulfill that vision.

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 24, 2011, 07:30:01 AM
That's the equivalent of saying that all Norse Black Metal is garbage because it was not written by musicians with formal training, and it was not written for musical elitists. ie. It's ignorant.

Did you know that the French cinema in the 50s and 60s defies everything that this article has said? How about King Hu? Kurosawa? Bergman for instance?

The key word here is auteur. Look it up.

Because when someone says "movie" everybody immediately thinks about French cinema from the 50s and 60s...


Nevertheless, those types of movies exist regardless of whether or not they spring to people's (Americans'?) minds. Good film can be seen as an alternative to theatre, where in comparison the main asset is that the narrative becomes more fluid and moldable in the hands of the director. Film can accomplish what a lot of shitty postmodern literature tries but fails to do: breaking down conventional time structure without becoming a self-aware parody of its own medium. If Shakespeare lived today, do you really doubt that he would want to tell his stories partly in this form?

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 24, 2011, 07:40:36 AM
Not a fan of fiction? At all?

Wasn't there a movies thread? I know a few popped up in the past.

As for worthy films I've seen recently: Southern Comfort

Give this film a try, Umbrage. It can be taken metaphorically as many things, among them an analogy for the Vietnam War, why multiculturalism doesn't really work, and how the pragmatic generally go unnoticed and unheard until it is too late.

I've seen this film on TV when I was young, as far as I remember it takes the typical "innocents enter terrain they shouldn't have gone and encounter hostile inbred group of local rednecks" atmosphere of horror movies such as The Hills Have Eyes and Texas Chainsaw Massacre and puts a military sauce over it. Funny how the movie in ways does resemble First Blood which would be released a year later (although First Blood was based on a novel from '72)

I wasn't that impressed by the movie. I certainly wouldn't call it art.


Actually, Southern Comfort was released in 1981. You remember a little about the story, but there is much that you do not remember. Plus if you saw the movie on TV, you know some of the best parts were taken out. It's not anything like The Hills Have Eyes, really. No horror involved, just a lot of suspense and short sighted rednecks (society) who cannot deal with the profound truths which one of the soldiers professes throughout the film (philosopher).

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 24, 2011, 10:36:43 AM
Actually, Southern Comfort was released in 1981. You remember a little about the story, but there is much that you do not remember. Plus if you saw the movie on TV, you know some of the best parts were taken out. It's not anything like The Hills Have Eyes, really. No horror involved, just a lot of suspense and short sighted rednecks (society) who cannot deal with the profound truths which one of the soldiers professes throughout the film (philosopher).

Possibly more for your amusement than mine I watched this movie again on youtube today. If anything it made me remember why I didn't like the movie so much: I thought the ending was disappointing. I thought the characters were more like typical alpha male stereotypes that looked like they just stepped out of a Charles Bronson movie. I didn't see any social message in it. But for a moment the movie did make me believe my penis was 2 inches longer than it actually is, which indeed was Southern Comfort.

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 24, 2011, 11:28:09 AM
Quote from: Umbrage
Cool, a strawman argument! I was wondering how long it would take you guys. Oh well I got you back with my strawman about autotune. When did you ever hear me praise Severed Ways? I never did because I was unimpressed by that movie. So go listen to some autotune because you clearly said you don't mind studio techniques like that. According to your logic if a retard can make art which is 99% based on technology it makes it equal to an honest artist who puts 100% talent and effort into something? Or was that idea completely lost on you?

When did you hear me say that you like Severed Ways? And when did linking to a google search constitute an argument? That was included merely as a humorous aside on the quality of "indie" film-making versus "dependent" film-making -- and by humorous I mean humorous to myself, the only person who matters.

Regarding "100% talent" vs. "art based on technology or w/e", it is a common misconception that the the great artist is a lone genius, working against the tide of history or some other such bullshit. We take any profound and beautiful work, however, and behind it lies much more than one man's vision. Take Beethoven's 9th -- at its forefront is the impassioned and brilliant composer himself, but behind it lies the entire history of European music until that point as well as the most advanced musical technology of the era: the symphony orchestra. Beethoven's symphonies hinged as much on technology as they did his own personal genius. For further thought: imagine if Beethoven was plucked out of the time-space continuum at birth and dropped into ancient Judea. Would he be able to create such beautiful works if he only had the fledgling Semitic musical tradition plus a few flutes and tambourines to work with?

But if technology enables the greater minds to produce ever more beautiful works, does it not enable the tasteless retards to create the beautiful as well? Of course not! In fact, in the hands of a tasteless retard, higher technology will produce ever more nauseating and infantile trash. You might be inclined to deny it the name "art," but it still is, even if it is excrable art.

In theater when an actor is playing he has to give everything in one performance, in a movie when someone is acting they can redo the shoot 200 times if they want to. When an actor fucks up on stage he fucks up the whole performance. When an actor fucks up a shoot he just gets a scolding from the director.
Another question on this point: does the tendency of novelists, or poets, since you seem more receptive to them, to extensively revise their work, sometimes over the course of years, invalidate the novel or poem as art? If not, why are movies receive exceptional treatment in this regard?

Quote from: Umbrage
Lol, ok so the Sistine Chapel was commissioned by a fabulously wealthy Pope (and accused sodomite!! lol) and then completed by a reluctant Michelangelo and a dozen or so assistants... And thankfully, the Sistine Chapel was made by one man simply because he had to find something to do with his Fridays...
Are you paying attention to your own words here? You're contradiction yourself in the same paragraph by now.

Since we are relatively well-educated and well-read I thought that the EXTREMELY SUPER-DUPER complex rhetorical devices employed in that paragraph would be easily understood; however, I perhaps misjudged the reading level on this board. The statement beginning with "If..." is a conditional statement; it makes no claims about the history of the Sistine Chapel, but proposes a possible scenario in the event that a certain situation, the "condition,"  is true. The statement beginning with "Thankfully..." is a declarative statement, and claims that such-and-such is, contrary to the hypothetical "condition" is actually the case.

The REALLY difficult part of this complex literary gambit is that the declarative statement is actually FALSE and the original condition is actually TRUE. I did this to emphasize the absurdity of the idea that a commercial motive invalidates an artwork, and because I thought, wrongly it seems, that most people would be smart enough to see, or at least google, which was true. However, I totally understand how one could think "I'm contradiction myself," especially if one has only a cursory understanding of the nuances of human speech.

Quote from: Umbrage
No this thread doesn't. And no the function of art isn't. But yes you really should have gotten some sleep before you posted that random nonsense.

This thread is about why movies are just entertainment and coincidentally how some people confuse art with entertainment just because they were so entertained. Are rollercoasters or these things art to you guys too? If you spend long enough on them you'll probably start thinking they are. That is what it all boils down to.
A last quick question: are there any great works of art that you subject yourself to that you do not enjoy? Of course, differences of tastes may prohibit your enjoyment of certain works, but do you ever willingly put in a CD and stare dejected into space, or look at a painting you hung on your wall and scowl and contentedly think "O what an ugly painting!" or read your favorite poem and wallow in a pit of misery and self-hatred?

I'm going to go ahead and say, "probably not," and this is because art that "works" is art that gives pleasure to its audience. This is of course not the only thing that art does -- art also immerses the audience into another world. (And for this reason why we don't call rollercoasters or inflatable jumpy-things art, although I'm sure someone could make an argument for it if they were bored) Isn't that what an effective movie does? Isn't that what an effective painting or The Tempest do as well?

Really, you should have at least gotten an education before you posted all that random nonsense.

;)

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 24, 2011, 11:43:10 AM
Is this the wrong place to ask for more civility? The snark is spreading, causing people to focus more on hatred of each other than saying anything useful. If we want this forum to be a nice place for thoughts of more than two connected elements (hehe) we should probably downtone the bitchery and wank egoistic retribution.

Quote
Run your mouth when I'm not around
It's easy to achieve
You cry to weak friends that sympathize
Can you hear the violins playing you song?
Those same friends tell me your every word

Are you talking to me?
No way punk

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 24, 2011, 01:41:05 PM
Is this the wrong place to ask for more civility? The snark is spreading, causing people to focus more on hatred of each other than saying anything useful. If we want this forum to be a nice place for thoughts of more than two connected elements (hehe) we should probably downtone the bitchery and wank egoistic retribution.

Once you've insulted the person you're talking to you've ended the discussion. Nothing more productive will come of it. You're not convincing anyone - they are no longer of a mind to be convinced.

It doesn't even raise the self-esteem of the one's arguing or the one who starts the argument. The snarkiest trolls tend to have self-depreciating names - shithead.. or something that means shit-eater, or they underscore their misery as though its a badge of honor.

What's the motivation? If someone speaks up to enlighten others, wouldn't they frame their response in a way that would make listeners receptive? I feel like we've been over this before...

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 24, 2011, 02:25:53 PM
Once you've insulted the person you're talking to you've ended the discussion. Nothing more productive will come of it. You're not convincing anyone - they are no longer of a mind to be convinced.
No one walks away from a discussion on the internet suddenly convinced of the opposition's opinion. Usually they walk away from the discussion convinced that they have obliterated the competition with the clarity of their logic, the eloquence of their rhetoric, the assuredness of their sacred opinion, etc etc etc. The object of arguments is not to change people's minds, but to make a point, and then if there is opposition, to further refine your point in answer to them.

Of course being an asshole doesn't add to this, but it certainly makes the act of writing more entertaining and can goad others into distraction. Sorry if that's a little too low-brow for this crowd! :)

The snarkiest trolls tend to have self-depreciating names - shithead.. or something that means shit-eater, or they underscore their misery as though its a badge of honor.
Thanks for the free psychoanalysis! This is amusing coming from a guy whose handle comes from an internet meme making fun of a kid who committed suicide, BUT LET'S NOT MAKE IT PERSONAL GUYS. :)

Anyway, despite being a "snarky socialist troll bastard" or w/e, I think the the majority of the content I posted has been quite relevant to the discussion at hand and directly addresses issues brought up in this thread. I think the same can be said for most of the posts in here, including those made by MY SWORN ADVERSARY Umbrage. As long as it doesn't become a topic about how people's internet names betray the true nature of their feelings of self-worthless anxiety and frustration with society and the world I don't see what the problem is.