Just because it's weird doesn't make it art
-
p1nkunderwear — 19 years ago(June 16, 2006 10:42 AM)
First of all, learn how to SPELL before you call somebody ignorant. Second of all, wow, what hypocrisy. I've seen more lack of respect from you, and an unwillingness to consider an opinion other than your own, than from the other poster. He spoke respectfully, and I think you're just annoyed because he showed how he actually KNEW what he was talking about, while YOU'RE the pretentious hack that knows nothing about film, and can only say "It sucks. it's not linear. it's weird" as a critique.
While I can understand the ageism comment, and yes, at 15 years old, you're quite entitled to your own opinion, I do agree with the poster's point. He wasn't saying that the 15 year old isn't entitled to his own opinion, he's saying that somebody who doesn't know anything about film (and watching every Hollywood blockbuster movie doesn't constitute knowing ANYTHING) perhaps cannot make a real critique of this film. It's like me going to a football game and saying that it's the best game I ever saw. Well, if it's the ONLY game I ever saw as opposed to someone who's a football fanatic, who studies the history, who goes to every single game possible. Who has the more knowledge? Who's opinion is more valid? It has nothing to do with thinking you're "better than someone else" but everything to do with the idea that while opinions are opinions, EDUCATED opinions are always better than random opinions. -
scatterheart — 19 years ago(August 11, 2006 04:21 AM)
I read though all of this, and it was all pretty interesting, especially with people calling BFF an art fag and pretentious for trying to defend his like of the movie.
Just because someone likes something that you don't, or claims to see more in a piece of art that you do, doesn't automatically make them an art fag or pretentious. It totally stings the ego when you're thinking "WTF is this? I don't understand" while somebody else is saying "wow, this is so profound." Believe me, I'm ALWAYS the person going "WTF is this." Obviously the natural reaction's to say "I'm right, I have my pride, this is a piece of crap that doesn't mean anything, and you're being pretentious" but that doesn't really help you grow artistically, especially if you're an aspiring filmmaker or artist.
The moment I finished watching TMWFTE, I wondered why Criterion Collection actually released this. I mean, it had some pretty innovative shots and great acting from Bowie, but other than that, it seemed pretty disjointed to me. But then I read an article on it from Uncut magazine, and the more I mulled over it, the more the themes started coming out. Now I think it's one of the greatest commentaries on society and isolation and media out there (and probably one of the most depressing). It's a really hard film to watch for me, mostly because it's so bleak and disjointed and so powerful.
Okay, yeah, so I needed some help from movie reviews to understand it. Is that cheating? No. And even if it is, whatever, I'd rather cheat than ignore the movie completely just because MY feeble mind couldn't grasp it the first time around.
And no, I'm not a drone, following the every word of "respected" critics. There's plenty of "classics" that I just really, really don't like. But why are they considered classic? Why would Criterion release it? There's gotta be SOMETHING in there worthy of recognition. So you try to understand what the filmmaker's intent was, and you respect the filmmakers for that. You can totally acknowledge a film and the impact it has on other viewers or future movies without having to like it yourself.
And definitely, nobody HAS to like this movie. But just to dismiss ANY movie that you don't like (especially one that already has status) as pure trash right off the bat, without first trying to understand it, isn't going to help YOU, and ESPECIALLY if you're interested in working in the movie business, where even not-so-talented directors who direct B movies have seen and analysed literally every movie ever made.
And, well, I guess if you just like watching movies for fun on Friday nights and don't wanna think too much about them, then that's fine too, lol.
"You do not need padding to tackle upholstery." (Coupling) -
garymdupre — 19 years ago(July 21, 2006 01:10 PM)
::shrugs::
I'm a Kubrick fanand I liked this one. The cinematography is to die for
I admit, I didn't understand parts (although it was a lot easier to understand as a whole then a lot of other boards made it out to be), but I still enjoyed watching it. It's art, all right.
Not everybody understands/has to understand art. Sometimes it's open to interpretation-that's what makes it so interesting.
Then again, I'm interested in unorthodox moviesPink Floyd The Wall, anything Kubrick, etc. And, I love Bowie -
-
wolfmother — 19 years ago(July 29, 2006 08:51 PM)
This is far too heated for a conversation about a film. A film which was absolutely brilliant, even if it did become tedious in parts. I think that the underlying themes were particularly appropriate for the era in which it was made and I think Bowie was wonderful. All these complaints about bad effects what do you expect? It was made in 1976 for christs sake! The bad effects are brilliant for its time and it's also what makes it so attractive. Plus you get to see Bowies package. I found the film amazingly creepy with less art wank than a Lynch film and just as enjoyable.
-
scatterheart — 19 years ago(August 11, 2006 03:15 AM)
lol, okay, so was that really bowie's package we saw, or a body double's?
there might be a scene where it goes from package and pans up to face, but i'm not too sure gotta rewatch to make sure. anyway, yay, if it's bowie's package, then yay, he's a lucky man. (and labyrinth just further proved this point) -
electroniccarcass — 19 years ago(August 25, 2006 04:51 PM)
I don't think this film would have been half as interesting if it had just been a sober adaptation of the novel (which, with Roeg at the helm, was never ever going to happen).
I mean, the book was hardly a great story that needed to be told, it was just a fairly sedate metaphor for the corruption inherent in the seventies' 'me generation' (and, yes, I have read it).
Roeg just chopped it up and sprinkled in some trippiness so that we could live events through the alien visitor. I suppose Roeg thought it would be more effective and poignant this way. I tend to think that he was right.
And anyway, even if you do think the film stinks, you have to admit that there aren't too many other flicks from 1976 that would cause such a heated debate in 2006. It's hard to find a find movies that people give a flying beep about for more than five mins, so perhaps this film has got more going for it then you might think. -
electroniccarcass — 19 years ago(August 25, 2006 05:11 PM)
I wanted to make a comment about non-linear editing: Roeg is the bloody master of the art-form.
Recent auteurs, Tarantino in particular, have made narrative-chopping entertaining and palatable for the mainstream, and good on them, cos their films (Tarantino's in particular) are great fun.
But Roeg used his Byzantine editing techniques for loftier, more pure (yes, art-fag) reasons. He used his cutting in Bad Timing and Don't Look Now (in particular) to such devastating effect that they make even the great David Lynch seem novice in his approach to the dissassembaling of narrative in cinema.
(His genius peaks in Don't Look Now, where a flash-forward actually becomes part of the narrative when it appears. So it becomes both linear and non-linear in the same instance. It beep me up even thinking about it, and I've never seen anyone come close this cebral horror gem.)
So, anyways, when wahoodoss says: "Just because a movie is on the weird side, is not linear in it's storytelling, is disjointed, etc. doesn't make it art. Or good. Sometimes it means the movie is weird, is not linear, is disjointed, and just plain bad." He's dead right. Most art-movies are as cack as the dross Hollywood pumps out - let's face it, most films are rubbish - but I'd like to think this this movie, and most of Roeg's catalogue, are some of the exceptions to the rule. -
Pook_Pook_Pook — 16 years ago(March 31, 2010 10:23 PM)
Yes indeedA very well thought out comment.
I mean firstly you have to take into account when the movie was made & what the world was like back then.times really have changed.
I won't here Avatar being put down thoughI mean sure the script, plot and acting werewell, I believe the word "meh" covers them perfectly
..but just look at it, it's so pretty. The skills of the true artists that really made that movie is truly amazing.
The media response to Lady GaGa and therefore the response of the masses who will be shocked by what ever they are told to be shocked by always makes me laugh. It's as if the 70's,80's & 90's didn't even happen apparently.
.oooh look at her she's wearing funny clothes omg!
Actually to some extent I admire her at least she's putting the effort in, and frankly if you are going to be in the public eye you should be putting a show on for us all the time!
It's also conviniently veryvery good marketing
-
kidjay83 — 13 years ago(January 01, 2013 05:30 PM)
"Just because a movie is on the weird side, is not linear in it's storytelling, is disjointed, etc. doesn't make it art."Just because it's a movie period doesn't make it art .Movies are purely made to entertain no matter how weird or unweird they are .
"Movie directing is the perfect refuge for the mediocre"