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 24, 2011, 10:33:46 PM
No one walks away from a discussion on the internet suddenly convinced of the opposition's opinion.
I have.

Quote
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.
There's also the fact that you happen to be right (at least in this discussion), but I suppose that's of little significance.

Quote
Sorry if that's a little too low-brow for this crowd!
I assure you the dexterity of my brow and its range of vertical motion is quite wide.

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 25, 2011, 12:33:18 AM
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. :)

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.

I said a negative attitude is the result of futile arguing - not that futile arguing is the result of low self-esteem. It's not personal. I wasn't even talking about you.

It's relevant to this thread because it's relevant to all threads and until we reign in this behavior there won't be a point to most of our conversations.

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 25, 2011, 06:24:39 PM
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.
There's also the fact that you happen to be right (at least in this discussion), but I suppose that's of little significance.

That's what gets me. If you're here to make a point, and you had a good one, just make it. Why goad others into being distracted from it? What's the point of making a point if you sabotage it's reception? If you're just stirring shit to entertain yourself, aren't there better places and better ways to do it?

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 26, 2011, 12:24:55 AM
"The allotted function of art is not, as is often assumed, to put across ideas, to propagate thoughts, to serve as an example. The aim of art is to prepare a person for death, to plough and harrow his soul, rendering it capable of turning to good."

-Andrei Tarkovsky

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 26, 2011, 01:24:40 AM
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.
There's also the fact that you happen to be right (at least in this discussion), but I suppose that's of little significance.

That's what gets me. If you're here to make a point, and you had a good one, just make it. Why goad others into being distracted from it? What's the point of making a point if you sabotage it's reception? If you're just stirring shit to entertain yourself, aren't there better places and better ways to do it?
In the same sense, isn't it also the responsibility of those on the other end to attempt to look past such things?  If somebody is an ass, they're an ass.  There's nothing you can really do to change that.  Just focus on the idea behind the message.  If you feel that someone's attitude is ultimately detrimental, speak to them privately about it.  You'll most likely get better results that way.

"The allotted function of art is not, as is often assumed, to put across ideas, to propagate thoughts, to serve as an example. The aim of art is to prepare a person for death, to plough and harrow his soul, rendering it capable of turning to good."
-Andrei Tarkovsky
This seems like a rather narrow and not particularly useful definition of art.  How would you even really apply it practically?

NHA

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 26, 2011, 02:49:59 AM
How the invention of photography lead to endless masturbation in art:

Quote
Historically, though, artists have done much more cheating than simply using pencils. The renaissance artists were so keen to make their paintings look `real' they used all sorts of tricks. Realising that medieval paintings had rather strange perspectives, they drew elaborate geometrical constructions to make sure they got it right. But they went further, inventing a whole series of grids, screens and sights to `improve' their work...

Even the common practice of successful artists employing an army of assistants to do most of the work (as depicted in most drawings of artists studios of the time) was completely accepted. Rubens and Raphael are said to have sometimes simply signed their apprentices' works...

None of these things were considered cheating because the role of the artist at the time was a sort of skilled tradesman. Lots of skills were involved, there were no art shops to buy materials, the artist had to make everything. The word art meant skill, artists even had to grind their own pigments to make their paints. This was a slow process, they often spent longer grinding than painting...

None of the geometry, the contraptions, the assistants, etc were seen as cheating, merely `tricks of the trade'. In fact they were often closely guarded secrets - the mysteries handed down from one generation to the next ..

Quote
It is sometimes said that photography caused the death of painting. ...In an age of mass production the renaissance role of an artist as a skilled practical tradesman seemed increasingly irrelevant. Art was forced to reinvent itself, becoming `Modern Art'. The first move away from victorian realism came at the end of the 19th century with the gradual acceptance of the impressionists.

Quote
All the different styles had one thing in common, together with the impressionists. This was the idea of the artist as an unworldly genius. (The stereotype of the penniless artist in a garret wasn't common before the invention of `modern art'.) Art itself became a window into the mind of the artist, a Freudian analysis of the soul. This required an intense inner `vision' and unworldly outsiders who were often a bit mad, like Van Gogh, who chopped off his ear and committed suicide amongst other things. This idea continues today, with artists like Gilbert and George, who say that if they weren't disturbed they wouldn't have anything interesting to make into art.

Along with these ideas of `modern art', art schools abandoned the traditional teaching of the tricks of drawing. ... Books of `drawing methods' continue to be published for `amateur' artists, but  definitely started to be considered cheating. Professional art schools now see drawing more as a way of tapping the unconscious, with jargon like `the importance of making marks'. This, I only recently realised, is why my method of drawing can be considered `cheating'. My pencil scrubbings are my thought processes, the window into my mind, but I have the cheek to rub them out.
Quote
It has never been easier to cheat at art. The fine art establishment seems to be carrying on regardless, much as they tried to after the invention of photography. But many people think it is in some sort of crisis, its certainly very pretentious and aspects of it are certainly absurd.

I think the odd thing is that the fine art establishment still regards itself as avante guarde. ... A tutor told my daughter that anything can be a painting if you call it one, how little has changed since Duchamp put his toilet in an art gallery 80 years ago.

However all this fine art is quite harmless - there are many more important things to get upset about. And though I dislike the `art' pigeonhole, there's no sign people are any less creative than they used to be, what does keep changing is the technology.

http://www.timhunkin.com/93_how_to_cheat_at_art.htm

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 26, 2011, 10:02:01 AM
Quote from: JewishPhysics
This seems like a rather narrow and not particularly useful definition of art.  How would you even really apply it practically?
It's technically not a definition; but a purpose or function. As with anything abstract (Art), it is going to be hard to define with 'useful' language.

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 26, 2011, 10:20:48 AM
Andrei Rublyov was Tarkovsky's masterwork. One of few films to ever achieve a philosophical and historical profundity.

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 26, 2011, 10:35:58 AM
What did you think of Stalker? I found it left me with a profound, otherworldly sense of purpose and understanding. Hard to put in words. Such an abstract film, full of beautiful symbolism.

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 26, 2011, 06:01:28 PM
If you want to get back at someone who wronged you, or ruin someone's week, show them A Serbian Film .

It left me dumbfounded, anyway.

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 27, 2011, 09:04:44 AM
What did you think of Stalker? I found it left me with a profound, otherworldly sense of purpose and understanding. Hard to put in words. Such an abstract film, full of beautiful symbolism.

It's good but I generally dislike the abstract/surrealistic approach he took at that point. In Andrei Rublyov this is kept to a minimal and serves the romanticism of the film well given its historical context. Maybe I need to watch stalker again to fully grasp it, I've seen Andrei Rublyov several times.

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 27, 2011, 03:47:34 PM
If you want to get back at someone who wronged you, or ruin someone's week, show them A Serbian Film .

It left me dumbfounded, anyway.

Man you have bad taste in movies. Were you really shocked by that incredibly fake looking baby-rape scene? Halfway the movie it becomes disturbing, true. But it completely fucks up at the end by turning into slapstick. In the last 15-20 minutes of the movie there's not one but TWO people who get murdered by a penis. That movie is crap. For real shocker stick with Cannibal Holocaust or Man Behind The Sun, at least one can pretend those movies have a message. A Serbian Film looked like someone spent a week on 4chan and thought "oh I'm sure today's kids will love this"


Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 27, 2011, 07:11:31 PM
If you want to get back at someone who wronged you, or ruin someone's week, show them A Serbian Film .

It left me dumbfounded, anyway.

Man you have bad taste in movies. Were you really shocked by that incredibly fake looking baby-rape scene? Halfway the movie it becomes disturbing, true. But it completely fucks up at the end by turning into slapstick. In the last 15-20 minutes of the movie there's not one but TWO people who get murdered by a penis. That movie is crap. For real shocker stick with Cannibal Holocaust or Man Behind The Sun, at least one can pretend those movies have a message. A Serbian Film looked like someone spent a week on 4chan and thought "oh I'm sure today's kids will love this"



It wasn't the gore (and the baby rape scene was pretty ridiculous by the way) that drew me to this film. As I'm sure you know there exist actual snuff films; I've always been fascinated by them (though I wouldn't watch much of them or consider myself an enthusiast), and the bounds of what people consider to be acceptable art. Through this fascination I was drawn to this movie.

I thought the whole dick-through-the-eye death was fitting. If I was that well endowed you can bet I'd go around spreading righteous fury with the aid of my member. The ending scene where the director just says, "OK. Start with the little one." was just delivered so chilling that I thought it brought it home well.

What movies do you enjoy, since you think most of them are shit? I'm not being malicious here; I'd just like to get your view.

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 27, 2011, 09:23:03 PM
A Serbian Film is one of the most pointless yet amusing things I've ever watched.  The whole concept is just funny.

Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
February 27, 2011, 09:46:51 PM
I have a feeling a lot of people here would love Kurosawa's Ikiru. It struck me that, just like Throne of Blood draws from Macbeth, Ikiru must be a conscious paraphrase of Faust.