Waste of time
-
-
Edohiguma — 9 years ago(July 28, 2016 10:31 AM)
I'm assuming your students write haikus for their final exam?
Wow. I would classify that statement as "racist" and/or bigoted, after all it displays a clear "haiku are garbage and easy" attitude by some Yank who tries to ride the pseudo-intellectual high horse (and fails.) -
Mustafa32 — 14 years ago(June 20, 2011 08:12 AM)
"I also teach Film Studies at a University"
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear
For starters, I suggest you stop making pronouncements about what a film "needs" to do and start trying to understand what a film intends to do. -
HindumunInc — 14 years ago(August 28, 2011 01:31 PM)
"I suggest you stop making pronouncements about what a film "needs" to do and start trying to understand what a film intends to do."
FUNNY! I say things like that to people who automatically write off comedies, action movies, horror movies, etc just because of their genre or their director. For example: Micheal Bay does not "intend" to win Oscars; he does not "intend" his movies for the same kind of people that like French Avant-garde, or David Lynch; Mr. Bay does not "intend" people to think his movies are artistic or that he is an "auteur". Micheal Bay intends his movies to be the movie equivalent of junk-food. I don't mean that in an insulting way like many others do. Sometimes you just want to relax and shut off your brain for two hours, it's no different than an upper-middle class person reclining at a spa, except much cheaper.
How about another example: if you go to a comedy it doesn't matter if the cinematography is Oscar worthy, or that the plot is ironclad, or that the acting is Shakespearean, what matters is: is it funny? Granted I agree that the "movie" movies (Epic Movie, all but the first Scary Movie, etc) are not funny. But there are plenty of hilarious movies, or frightening movies, or action packed movies, that do what THEY intend to do, but film critics give them bad reviews anyways just because they were made for the sake of entertainment and not High Art or some kind of social commentary.
What I'm saying is it is hypocritical to defend a movie from the insults of the masses because it "intends" to be high art, but then turn around and criticize a movie that "intends" to be entertainment for the masses because it isn't high art.
Your argument that it's more important what a movie intends to do then how it does it means that Micheal Bay is by far the most successful director of our generation. Keep that in mind the next time you look down your nose at someone.
I am a heterosexual male who has seen all the Twilight movies-DAMN YOU RIFFTRAX! -
erwinvegas — 11 years ago(August 05, 2014 01:27 AM)
Extremely late to this party, I know, but with so many subjects sub-link these days, I'll never find them all on time
.
Your reply got me thinking for a bit and I had to respond. I couldn't let it go because your reply seems to twist this way and that, more of a high school debate captain's moves than coming to actual helpful points about movie making. Yet your questions are good, such as a riddle.
I think the answer is that movies have become more than art. That saddens me a little, because I am one of those supposed "hypocrites" for thinking the masses need help finding or understanding what an artful or thoughtful film was doing, while also making fun of (or hating) the films equivalent to, as you accurately described, junk food. I want movies to be art, though like you, I have belly-laughed at some bad well let's say sometimes I like "junk food" too.
Now forms of art have always collected fans and foes since the "beginning", however when I look back decades or more, at paintings, writings, music, and especially dance, it seems people today have evolved or devolved to include a broader spectrum of quality, and I swear it's because of not having the time to know any better, their worlds cluttered with the cheap, fast and out-of-control. The junk food is selling enough to make a good living, while people hundreds of years ago may have gagged if tasting cheetos or twinkies for the first time. Maybe not. All I know is my foreign exchange students used to food in Italy or France usually referred to our supermarket bread as "rubber bread" for a reason. The point is, standards have dropped for several reasons. It's still happening, from the experiences I've had with many films over the last 15 years. "Needs" AND "intentions" lazily included the film can still suck.
Finally, I think your point for the person "looking down their nose" is only part right. You don't actually provide an answer to the problem. And It's a tough one I understand. Another thing I understand is that Michael Bay is certainly not the most successful director of movies, unless success is only measured in "doing what you want" and you're still a joke. Do you know for sure Bay wants to make movies the equivalent of junk food? Maybe he's tried to be serious and realistic at times, and after enough people said "it sucked", he just followed what got them to buy tickets anyway. the non-stop schlock action instead of understanding how films he loved as a kid were made.
What I'm saying with all this stuff is this; I can only guess what the directors and others were trying to do with their films, and I DO make good guesses (according to follow-up interviews), however when I get "hypocritical" according to you, it's just not that simple. I see more films the last 20 years that attempt realism, comedy or everything, then turns out like a Michael Bay film (or IS a Michael Bay film), and starts to rot in continuity then the intention is impossible to know from the work, and it's a failure as a film even if masses have bought tickets to escape life. That's not success even if films are being forced to avoid being art for the sake of including something for everyone. The viewers should just go to an amusement park.
I still don't think the "professor" should say what a film "needs" to do. She/He should SUGGEST what a film that works well usually includes. Otherwise, an art professor would be right in telling someone what art "needs", when we all know some of the worst and best art in human history always flutters between objective/subjective when experienced, therefore the most "non-involving" pieces might still be considered masterpieces some day. -
SnoozeAlarm — 13 years ago(November 12, 2012 11:19 AM)
bstephens21 you come across as arrogant. you could make you points without the condescension
http://tinyurl.com/cjsy86c -
Mustafa32 — 14 years ago(June 20, 2011 08:07 AM)
The director's cut of Heaven's Gate is, and is widely regarded as, an absolute masterpiece. It does require the audience to pay attention and use their brains, however. And if you "couldn't make out who everybody is" then maybe you should be watching it in a cinema as intended and not on a mobile phone.
-
looking4ahandout — 15 years ago(June 21, 2010 07:07 AM)
I watched Heaven's Gate because of the infamous reputation. Obviously I am in the minority but I didn't think it was that bad. Not great but not deserving of the reputation it has. If it didn't lose so much money it would be viewed differently. I've seen far worse films that don't get treated like Heaven's Gate because they made money or cost little to make.
-