100% Metal Forum (Death Metal and Black Metal)

Metal => Interzone => Topic started by: Umbrage on February 22, 2011, 10:42:23 PM

Title: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Umbrage on February 22, 2011, 10:42:23 PM
I was reading an article, thought this was interesting:

Quote
Even if you know nothing about how movies get made, you know that there are very specialized tasks -- the sound guy is an expert in microphones and audio but probably couldn't be trusted to do stunts. And, you assume that when it comes to thinking up the ideas for what happens in the movie, somewhere it's all just some writer hunched over a keyboard -- a professional who is an expert in story, plot and character.

Not so.

In almost all cases, the initial ideas for movie plots don't come from screenwriters at all, but from producers (basically, the people in charge of the money side of the project). So most of the movies playing in your nearest theater didn't come from some writer thinking up a story he wanted to tell -- they came from some producer saying, "There hasn't been a ThunderCats movie yet, has there?"

At that point, the producer and whoever else is involved (other producers, maybe a famous actor if they're lucky) will then hammer out a rough idea for the movie that will appeal to at least two of the four market demographics (young males, young females, older males, older females). So if it's an action movie aimed completely at young males, you throw a romance in there for the ladies. It's only then that they will give a screenwriter a call. In other words, in most Hollywood films, the writer is basically there to fill in the dialogue holes and think of clever catchphrases for Ryan Reynolds to say every time he socks a guy in the jaw.

For Example ...

The Halloween franchise wasn't cooked up by a plucky man named John Carpenter who had a dream about a man in a creepy mask. Instead, two producers approached him after they decided it would be cool to have a movie about a psycho stalking babysitters.

So what about those screenplays that your friend working at the video store is constantly writing, in hopes they will some day get made and star a naked Natalie Portman? In reality, even the great ones are treated as spec scripts (basically, a literary audition). The script is proof to the people in charge that the writer is, for the most part, not illiterate. So if you submit a powerfully emotional piece that deftly explores the facets of love and loss, you might impress someone enough to get a job co-writing Transformers 4.

On the rare occasion that an original script does get picked up for production, it's likely to get swept up by one of the big franchises. I, Robot was initially an original script called Hardwired that no one would touch until a famous Asimov title was attached to it. Die Hard 2, 3 and 4, Ocean's Twelve and Starship Troopers were all original ideas that were snapped up and rebranded as franchises. So if you're working on a passion project, maybe it's time to let the dream die and just start focusing on a gritty reboot of She-Ra.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19012_5-hollywood-secrets-that-explain-why-so-many-movies-suck.html


Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Vesupria on February 23, 2011, 02:42:32 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.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Umbrage on February 23, 2011, 08:39:04 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...
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: nous on February 23, 2011, 09:26:10 AM
Both of you are right, so whence the need to quarrel?
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: nothingnowhere on February 23, 2011, 09:37:09 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...


"all movies"
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Umbrage on February 23, 2011, 09:43:16 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...


"all movies"

Which in this context would most likely mean "all movies currently being made"

But I'll admit that I deliberately wrote "all movies" just to troll the "movie fans" here. I'm glad to see it worked.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: nous on February 23, 2011, 09:44:26 AM
Yes, we learned something (and hopefully not only that Umbrage would make a good propaganda minister).
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Cargést on February 23, 2011, 11:28:06 AM
What "movie fans"?  I wasn't aware that we had a dedicated cadre of film-watchers.

In general, I'd agree with what's being said here.  Movies are, almost without exception, shit.  A barrage of "here, this is what you should think", force-fed "imagination".  Books are far more worthwhile.  Even so, there are a number of films which stand head and shoulders above the rest.  Star Wars, anyone?
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Umbrage on February 23, 2011, 11:54:38 AM
What "movie fans"?  I wasn't aware that we had a dedicated cadre of film-watchers.

Some threads where they pop up:
Horror films (http://www.anus.com/metal/hall/index.php/topic,2988.0.html)
Cinema (http://www.anus.com/metal/hall/index.php/topic,8288.0.html)
Hessian culture : Severed Ways - The Norse Discovery of America (http://www.anus.com/metal/hall/index.php/topic,9885.0.html)
The eternal recurrence of turgid holywood films. (http://www.anus.com/metal/hall/index.php/topic,11629.0.html)
Movies give you AIDS (http://www.anus.com/metal/hall/index.php/topic,9338.0.html)
Movies replace reality (http://www.anus.com/metal/hall/index.php/topic,6775.0.html)

Generally the stance seems to be divided between those who don't consider movies art, those who insist that there are exceptions, and clueless people posting about random movies that are obviously just entertainment.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Cargést on February 23, 2011, 12:05:20 PM
I'd probably fall into the second category, then.  I know that a couple of films from that horror thread were pretty good.  I think horror is a genre which really benefits from the visual aspect of film, in a way that it couldn't from theatre, for example.  Even so, some Lovecraft or Poe is more intrinsically "horrific" than the majority of horror films, though (hah) there are some exceptions.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Cold Winter on February 23, 2011, 12:08:08 PM
So what are the good movies you have seen lately ?

I'm in the middle of a documentary about Pagan Metal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U81jSjI_a6I) and the last one I have seen is a thailandese fantasy film called Legend of Sudsakorn (a great one).
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Umbrage on February 23, 2011, 12:24:52 PM
I think movies by definition are not art. There are some movies that come close such as "Apocalypse Now" but to me those movies only incidentally get close to art, or perhaps only as far as the medium allows it. Its harder to translate a book into a movie then it is to translate a movie into a book so it seems obvious to me that books win. Even though I'm not a fan of fiction either. (Perhaps I'm becoming anti-art in general, would you consider me a hipster if I was? JK about that, I still love music, paintings and some selected poetry when it comes to art)
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Humanicide on February 23, 2011, 01:03:28 PM
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  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7V6gITreRA)

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.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: JewishPhysics on February 23, 2011, 02:41:25 PM
I think movies by definition are not art. There are some movies that come close such as "Apocalypse Now" but to me those movies only incidentally get close to art, or perhaps only as far as the medium allows it. Its harder to translate a book into a movie then it is to translate a movie into a book so it seems obvious to me that books win. Even though I'm not a fan of fiction either. (Perhaps I'm becoming anti-art in general, would you consider me a hipster if I was? JK about that, I still love music, paintings and some selected poetry when it comes to art)
What specifically about the medium do you think disqualifies it from achieving a level of artistry?
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Umbrage on February 23, 2011, 04:10:41 PM
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  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7V6gITreRA)

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.

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) It's not that I don't like movies at all it's just that I don't think highly of them. I've grown to consider it childish to get completely carried away by a movie and I've come to believe that it can have a very negative effect on people to constantly escape in a passive dreamworld. I suppose movies can be a good introduction to something like a historical person or a book or just an idea but that's about it. It's still just entertainment for the masses. I've seen my share of artistic movies too from Kenneth Anger's Lucifer Rising to Takeshi Kitano's Dolls and I still couldn't see it as more than entertainment. Just because a movie is weird doesn't make it art in my book.

A movie I recently saw and kinda liked because of its theme was Black Death (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtBLVYRqCHw). But I also think it's essentially just a silly fairytale with some very stereotypical characters and gross b-acting. But if you liked the atmosphere in The Name Of The Rose and The Wicker Man and don't mind seeing it drenched in greasy Hollywood mayonnaise you might find it worthy of taking 90 minutes from your life. There's even a scene that might remind you of The Deer Hunter. I thought it was "entertaining" but its still typical Hollywood crap. It certainly isn't as good as the three movies it subtly steals from but since you recommended a movie I thought it would be fair to recommend one back. But all the movies I just named are shallow entertainment, I'd only consider TNOTR above average. Too bad it doesn't escape it's "detective" format and remains no more than a medieval Sherlock Holmes. But at least TNOTR requires some intelligence to be understood.

For "fiction" I prefer reading biographies and history and random things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawney_Bean) Because truth is stranger than fiction.


I think movies by definition are not art. There are some movies that come close such as "Apocalypse Now" but to me those movies only incidentally get close to art, or perhaps only as far as the medium allows it. Its harder to translate a book into a movie then it is to translate a movie into a book so it seems obvious to me that books win. Even though I'm not a fan of fiction either. (Perhaps I'm becoming anti-art in general, would you consider me a hipster if I was? JK about that, I still love music, paintings and some selected poetry when it comes to art)
What specifically about the medium do you think disqualifies it from achieving a level of artistry?

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). 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. 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. 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.

Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: istaros on 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.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: wood on 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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQgoGccHJD4)
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: radiant=ANIME WITCHES on 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 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=ja&safe=off&q=severed+ways+poop+scene&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=) vs commercial "dependent" low-art movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTsKEgUJyUQ).

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...
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on 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.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Umbrage on 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 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=ja&safe=off&q=severed+ways+poop+scene&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=) vs commercial "dependent" low-art movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTsKEgUJyUQ).

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 (http://www.kinderkermis.nl/media/springkussen2009.jpg) 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.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Vesupria on 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"]
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Umbrage on 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...
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: nothingnowhere on 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.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: August on 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?
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Humanicide on 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  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7V6gITreRA)

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).
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Umbrage on 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.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: radiant=ANIME WITCHES on 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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJPbozRomX4). 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 (http://www.kinderkermis.nl/media/springkussen2009.jpg) 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.

;)
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: rapidshare on 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
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: AnHero on 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...
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: radiant=ANIME WITCHES on 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.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: JewishPhysics on February 24, 2011, 02:33:46 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.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: AnHero on February 24, 2011, 04:33:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: AnHero on February 25, 2011, 10:24:39 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?
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Vesupria on February 25, 2011, 04:24:55 PM
"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
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: JewishPhysics on February 25, 2011, 05:24:40 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?
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?
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: NHA on February 25, 2011, 06:49:59 PM
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
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Vesupria on February 26, 2011, 02:02:01 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.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: aquarius on February 26, 2011, 02:20:48 AM
Andrei Rublyov was Tarkovsky's masterwork. One of few films to ever achieve a philosophical and historical profundity.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Vesupria on February 26, 2011, 02:35:58 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.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Humanicide on February 26, 2011, 10:01:28 AM
If you want to get back at someone who wronged you, or ruin someone's week, show them  A Serbian Film  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T6YM7RE5wQ).

It left me dumbfounded, anyway.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: aquarius on February 27, 2011, 01:04:44 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.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Umbrage on February 27, 2011, 07:47:34 AM
If you want to get back at someone who wronged you, or ruin someone's week, show them  A Serbian Film  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T6YM7RE5wQ).

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"

Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Humanicide on February 27, 2011, 11:11:31 AM
If you want to get back at someone who wronged you, or ruin someone's week, show them  A Serbian Film  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T6YM7RE5wQ).

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.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Cargést on February 27, 2011, 01:23:03 PM
A Serbian Film is one of the most pointless yet amusing things I've ever watched.  The whole concept is just funny.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: August on February 27, 2011, 01:46:51 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.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Cargést on February 27, 2011, 02:09:16 PM
Kurosawa films are generally top-notch, and are certainly not "shallow entertainment".
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Umbrage on February 27, 2011, 02:44:55 PM
If you want to get back at someone who wronged you, or ruin someone's week, show them  A Serbian Film  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T6YM7RE5wQ).

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.

Try to find a copy of Ex-Drummer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USA2E06eLj4) with English subtitles. I think you'll like it. It's about a writer (overman) who meets a bunch of musicians (undermen) and decides to team up with them to so he can get inspiration for a new novel by spending time with the lower classes. The movie has lots of indie music you might not like (neither did I but the music certainly fit the band, they play a fitting cover of Devo's Mongoloid) The movie is based a novel by Belgian writer Herman Brusselmans who looks like he visits this forum too (http://www.ans-online.nl/wp-content/themes/mimbo2.2/images/hermanbrusselmans3.jpg).

I don't want this to turn into a thread where people recommend lists of crappy movies without introductions so good luck trying to find this Flemish movie. There's probably some torrents floating around and you might be able to find subtitles for it.

I'd say the movie is a good mix between art and entertainment. But try to avoid the dubbed versions.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Humanicide on February 27, 2011, 08:19:41 PM
Interesting. Thanks for the recommendation, Umbrage. I don't mind some Devo, actually. I'll look for that film soon and let you know what I think.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Chains on March 07, 2011, 04:49:48 AM
http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201102/the-day-the-movies-died-mark-harris?currentPage=all

An insightful article on why our circenses are so much worse than yesteryear's ones.
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Humanicide on March 08, 2011, 09:21:43 AM
Umbrage, for the life of me, I can't find a decent rip of that Ex Drummer movie in English. (I found one in Flemish, strangely enough) Any suggestions?
Title: Re: Why all movies are shallow entertainment
Post by: Cargést on March 08, 2011, 03:37:01 PM
It's a Flemish film.  I found a subtitled version, and watched that.t