Oct 22, 2015

That's cool and agreed -- seemed like a thoughtful yet totally approachable person

Thanks for reading too -- was feeling like ppl were focusing too much my pretty transparent baiting, diminishing my bona fides as a writer

 

Oct 22, 2015

@Vahn nice will read later -- was this for a class or published?

 

Oct 22, 2015

for Interiors

I have not attended film school.

 

Oct 22, 2015

took one year off and traveled. Didn't build up experience though, which is hurting me now a bit.

 

Oct 22, 2015

The only directors I would feel comfortable putting in my top list are ones where I've seen a decent portion of their filmography. That's a short list and doesn't really reflect my current tastes. This year I've seen 3 or more pictures from Polanski, Wilder, Cronenberg, Varda, Murnau, Altman, Malick, and Korrine IIRC. That's something I guess.

 

Oct 22, 2015

 

Oct 22, 2015

@FilmAndWhisky went beast mode on this one.

I definitely skew more towards this perspective and approach. There are number of critics whose work I respect and check for regularly, but when year-end top 10 lists come around, not only do I find my list frequently shares little in common with theirs, but there is also a wide variance among themselves. And it's not just new films either...I see many disparate, though thoughtfully argued critiques from academics and critics even of canon films. As FilmAndWhisky said, when there's more experience and training, opinions become more and more varied.

As such, when I see a film, I simply try to have an honest reaction to it and do my best to articulate why I may have felt that way...very much a subjective analysis. Discussions of historical impact or cultural impact are certainly interesting in their own right, but I generally find myself less equipped to engage in those discussions.

 

Oct 22, 2015

Be careful...you may never ever get its theme out of your head.

 

Oct 22, 2015

What are you trying to do now?

@Narsh if only u knew someone in pr who had a strong advertising network...

One final note, as it seems I'm outweighed by the "aesthetics" here, which is fine. Always thought of film as a language, and more to the point in dialogue with other movies either because of time period or genre what have you. That's my horse, and genuinely a pretty fascinating way to interpret movies as part of a larger whole imo @Twan @FilmAndWhisky

 

Oct 22, 2015

@Narsh I know multiple people trying to cut it in the film industry. It's very bleak and even if you get a decent semi cool job, you won't get paid s---. A friend of mine is assistant to Bryan Cranston --no 401k. Kt cousin works on bojack -- still gets money from his parents.

As Paul can likely attest, it's deeply stressful to pursue a path thatis both fulfilling and lucrative-- not impossible, just unlikely. I can't even imagine pursuing a degree in cinema studies writing about cinematography and what not. Culture at least affords me the chance to do paying gigs freelance. Not sure what interiors pays for instance if anything ..

 

Oct 22, 2015

Cinema's language is the moving image + sound. A recording of time. Everything else exists in another language: the language of theater, literature, and other arts. All content and dialogue in a film is a negation of pure cinema; only poetry uses verbal language in a lyrical/cinematic form. Everything else, from verbal communication to story content, exists in another language. Aesthetics of film form are cinema's language, and IMO far more important than content. The same as how a person's musicality in vocals matters more than what they say. What they say is exposition/journalism; how they sing is art. Most people watch films for the entertaining stories, though, and cinema is not often seen as an art because of how widely it reaches all audiences as a form of entertainment. Sometimes I let myself view film like this; there's no escaping it.

 

Oct 22, 2015

felt weird liking this since in reality it deeply depress me

 

Oct 22, 2015

This is a little pedantic for my blood -- like I get that but films in their totality exist as cultural artifacts. You're right ofc but 98% of films -- ones that aren't merely for exhibition at a modern art museum -- handily take from all other existing mediums to create something new, and indeed cinematic. It's like hip hop a bit in that sense no

 

Oct 22, 2015

all i got from this is young thug a living legend/future GOAT.

 

Oct 22, 2015

Need Young Thug & Korine collab

 

Oct 22, 2015

facts, some1 needs to get thug in front of a camera and let him run free he was made 4 it

 

Oct 23, 2015

Yea that's why I settle for pure cinematography found in little passages of great films. A la Bresson, cinematography (he never calls it cinema) has yet to exist purely. Although I think Bresson is pretty well the closest to realizing it. There are few films that remain purely cinematographical throughout its entire duration. Elegy of a Voyage (Sokurov) is the first that springs to mind. But some films have literally no cinematography. They have cameras and shots and all that, but there is no cinematography, you feel? I agree about the use of existing mediums, but for cinematography to take back seat to a story is to k--- cinema. The greatest moments in cinema is when something is communicated via only sound/image. When a person's death is exposed by way of drops of blood running into a rainy sewer; when empathy is conveyed by a slow outward zoom; when a puddle's reflection holds all the pains of its onlooker. It's better than : 'he died' 'he's sad' 'he's contemplative'.

While not necessary, most films do use all the stuff you are talking about. My favourite films do have actors and drama and dialogue and philosophy and historical/cultural context and all that. I'm not denying that, and I don't sit in a modern art museum to see films. But its the ideal of cinema that informs my reading of what exists. I take into account that I also enjoy actors (from a liking to theater), and I enjoy well written dialogue (I like to read too), but these things are rather incidental to the running of time which is provided by the recording camera.

It's something like this: "The film isn't the story. It's mostly picture, sound, a lot of emotions. The stories are just covering something." - Bela Tarr

 

Oct 23, 2015

Yeah. I'm a little more populist and less theoretical than this... to your point, I find it a little difficult to adhere too strictly to Bresson's definition of cinematography, just by how confining it can be. I had a professor in school who was an scholar on Cassetteves, and did a semester on Bresson with him. He was so strident in his espousal of some of this that he viewed even the likes of the Coen Bros. as hacks. So I think there obviously needs to be a degree of give and take about a film's aims. So we may just be talking in circles. That said, agreed about some movies essentially being, filmed plays or some cinematic variation on another medium. (And not for nothing, there's a reason why so many books fail as movie adaptations, etc.) I wrote a paper once on this topic about Coppola's use of outside mediums -- painting, music, literature -- in Apocalypse Now.

Out of curiosity, what do you think of Altman's work in the 80s?

 

Oct 23, 2015

Good post. I see where you're coming from. I'm admittedly unfamiliar with Altman's 80s work, and part of the reason is that I'm a bit lukewarm on Altman in general, for reasons that he compromises my aesthetic preferences in lieu of expert storytelling. I think Nashville is a masterpiece, but it would also be considered hackish under Bressonian's model. I am also fairly lukewarm about the Coen Brothers, tbh. While they are admittedly great directors, I can never really become connected to any of their films. The closest is perhaps Inside Llewyn Davis or Fargo but I have problems even with those. I know I'm not alone; I had a roundtable (actually a bar table) with a group of critic friends during VIFF about this very subject and apparently there are quite a few critics and scholars with similar views. Most of the people at the table of course thought we were wrong. I've watched No Country like 6 times trying to see it in the way that @Twan does but it never works. I think Altman is a bit the same for me. There's a little coldness towards the characters. Or psychological exposition that feels cold. Or something.

 

Oct 23, 2015

altman & the coens are both top 10 Americans