|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Jan 25, 2019 15:20:25 GMT
I should watch Blow Up again. It bored me to death as a teenager. I would. I felt the same way. Check out that cinema anyway Dougie! aren't you going to Florence soon? On the list of things that I should watch again (eh, it would take some convincing) that bored me to death as a teenager, Easy Rider probably ranks at the top. Loved it as a (late) teenager, really wasn't keen at all when I watched it again a couple of years ago. Some great moments with Jack, tho', but overall it's a self-indulgent mess.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Jan 25, 2019 15:55:08 GMT
I should watch Blow Up again. It bored me to death as a teenager. I would. I felt the same way. Check out that cinema anyway Dougie! aren't you going to Florence soon? I am. April man. What cinema is in it? I'll watch it again.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Jan 25, 2019 16:04:24 GMT
Ah no it won't still be on there! it's just that you should see the place. Old art deco carry-on
|
|
toomanyhatz
god
I've met him/her. He/she's great!!
Posts: 3,239
|
Post by toomanyhatz on Jan 25, 2019 17:35:24 GMT
Well, Jeff Beck's sure great in it! I did like it more than I remember last time I saw it. So far the Europeans are on my side.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Feb 1, 2019 16:24:00 GMT
It's actually the more mainstream - but critically-acclaimed - films I'm more likely to feel lukewarm towards. The fucking FUSS you animals make over stuff like Jaws, Star Wars, Blue Velvet, Vertigo, Bonnie and Clyde, Bullitt, The Conversation, The Exorcist - oh, it goes ON! - is mystifying to me at times.
I'm roughly in line with the MUSICAL consensus, so what's the deal here? Film buffs are a more particular type? It almost puzzles me that there IS a consensus at all when it comes to films. They're marriages whereas music is just a blow-job? I don't know. Films expect more of you and pay out less if you're not really drawn in. They're hard work.
|
|
|
Post by Inspector Norse on Feb 1, 2019 18:31:41 GMT
Films expect more of you and pay out less if you're not really drawn in. They're hard work. Yeah There are people out there who like Michael Haneke for fuck's sake. OK, the guy has the dramatic and sensitive touch of an anemone and every single person in all of his films is an appalling bourgeois bore the like of which doesn't exist outside newspaper weekend pullouts, but ooh he makes important points about middle class ennui ooh ooh how exciting it is to be a broadsheet film critic ooh
|
|
|
Post by Inspector Norse on Feb 1, 2019 18:32:43 GMT
That one I found pretty boring, yeah. Sat in an uneasy place in between art and thriller and became simply a character study of a pretty tedious character.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Feb 2, 2019 11:44:57 GMT
It's actually the more mainstream - but critically-acclaimed - films I'm more likely to feel lukewarm towards. The fucking FUSS you animals make over stuff like Jaws, Star Wars, Blue Velvet, Vertigo, Bonnie and Clyde, Bullitt, The Conversation, The Exorcist - oh, it goes ON! - is mystifying to me at times. I'm roughly in line with the MUSICAL consensus, so what's the deal here? Film buffs are a more particular type? It almost puzzles me that there IS a consensus at all when it comes to films. They're marriages whereas music is just a blow-job? I don't know. Films expect more of you and pay out less if you're not really drawn in. They're hard work. Most of them are great! You can be more objective about films. At the very least you can recognise the quality of the technical stuff anyway: the cinematography, the soundtrack, the editing, the acting etc. You can not even like a move but at least recognise it has qualities in a way that you can't with music so much which is more visceral. I'm not saying it's a head v heart thing or anything quite that simple but movies are more "intellectual" and we respond to them in different ways. Sometimes with a great film its greatness becomes increasingly apparent over time as its themes and ideas settle into your subconscious and you can process them. Some movies give you a lot to think about, you know? Themes, particular lines of dialogue, symbolism, directors intent and so on. Maybe this means that consensus is more achievable than you'd think. There's a language to cinema that not everybody can quite decipher.
|
|
|
Post by DarknessFish on Feb 6, 2019 10:08:45 GMT
What I don't get is the critical consensus for films which don't have those technical qualities. The stuff regarded as cult classics. Russ Meyer films, Army of Darkness, that kind of thing. Not high art by any means, not "intellectual", though you can intellectualise anything, and probably not actually that good (Army of Darkness is a bit shit).
And I refrained from commenting on this so far, but lots of art house stuff winds me up just because it seems as cliched as mainstream cinema. Long slow sequences. Slow awkward conversations. Druggy surrealism scene. Repeat.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on May 15, 2020 0:55:29 GMT
I still find it relatively hard to unconditionally LOVE a film and I still find most of them hard work, I almost hate to admit.
I've given a lot of new (to me) movies a go since this lockdown started - all different types. A fair few 'arthouse' in there. I have to say quite a few left me really underwhelmed. But it's sometimes surprising even to yourself which films are going to leave you smiling, and which ones you end up switching off partway through - don't you think?
Even when you think you're drawn towards the work of a particular director because you've enjoyed two or three of their films, you end up watching something by them that bores you. Kubrick, Godard, Bergman, for example.
I wonder if in the future these kinds of films will be regarded in the same way that people today think of Shakespeare. The effort involved outweighs the pleasure derived.
|
|
|
Post by tory on May 15, 2020 6:42:33 GMT
Films are pretty complex and vivid things and there's a hell of a lot going on underneath the hood.
I lived with a film student in Australia for a while and we would go out 3 or 4 times a week to a repertory where they showed loads of classic films every week - it cost, like, $5 to see a film (£2 or so then) so it was a no-brainer. We'd go and see a Hitchcock, Bunuel, De Sica etc and he would point out what made it a classic. Whilst he was only a student, it struck me that a lot of it is contextual in terms of technicality - for example, certain directors doing something for the first time like tracking shots, edits and the like. There's a lot of organisation that we take for granted in film-making I think, because very often it just looks so hyper-real. An American in Paris for example has this astounding 20 minute ending sequence that might not add much to the story, but in terrms of when it was made and what it would have sounded and looked like in 1948 would have been astonishing.
Personally, as we don't really have any sort of Home Cinema set up, I rarely watch films. Maybe the odd no-brainer rubbish that my wife and I will watch on a Friday night, but anything serious I just don't have the right frame of mind to really watch unless I'm in a theatre.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 9:20:15 GMT
I'll confess I find pretty much all, with the odd exception, of those European auteurs overrated now. Even Godard, whom I used to defend, isn't that good. The American new wave stuff from the 60s and 70s still stands up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 9:33:20 GMT
I wonder if in the future these kinds of films will be regarded in the same way that people today think of Shakespeare. The effort involved outweighs the pleasure derived. I don't think they'll enjoy as high a cultural profile as that. A better comparison might be Tristan Shandy, something that is only read in specialist university modules. Even within film studies courses I suspect they'll become more marginalised. It'll be interesting when the next Sight and Sound film poll appears, I've a feeling you'll see a lot of these European classic auteur movies really take a hit, especially among the younger critics. I feel people are a lot less interested in these films than they were.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on May 15, 2020 10:31:24 GMT
Well, I enjoyed Pierrot Le Fou last night. More, in fact, than I enjoyed Chinatown.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 11:00:36 GMT
Well, I enjoyed Pierrot Le Fou last night. More, in fact, than I enjoyed Chinatown. In the right mood I can get into Godard's iconoclastic playfulness, but it's a nonsense in many ways.. just scraps of ideas barely realised. It's a wonder people (including myself) took these films so seriously. I don't view them as " great cinema" these days.
|
|