|
Post by bruinjoe96 on Apr 6, 2017 23:51:48 GMT
Christopher Nolan Terrence Malick
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Apr 7, 2017 0:06:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bruinjoe96 on Apr 7, 2017 0:08:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Apr 7, 2017 0:47:52 GMT
Fuck you. (Have you seen Miami Vice tho)
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Apr 7, 2017 1:02:40 GMT
Fuck you. (Have you seen Miami Vice tho) I second that MV recommendation. It's vulgar as f-ck; it's the Showgirls of the 2000s. I legitimately think it's one of the greatest films of the 21st century. It feels like Mann's most deeply personal film. Very earnest and serious look at identity loss in the 21st century and the impossibility of escaping the meaningless flux of existence. That love story between Farrell and Li pulsates with the same heightened romanticism of Farrell and Kilcher in The New World, so subtly observed and all the more piercing as a result. I am moved to the point of tears every time it ends.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Apr 7, 2017 2:55:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Apr 7, 2017 3:11:30 GMT
Inarritu, Nolan, Spielberg, Fincher, Lynch
if anything, Mann is underrated.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Apr 7, 2017 3:31:16 GMT
I second that MV recommendation. It's vulgar as f-ck; it's the Showgirls of the 2000s. impossibility of escaping the meaningless flux of existence. Lol. But yes, that's profundity 101 for me. With the inclusion of that theme inherently, usually a movie is at least decent. But it's elevated by the emotional pulse Mann assigns it. I guess Mann likes this warring sides thing a lot (seen in Heat), cop who admires thief. Here is cop in love with someone who's with the bad guys. It's all the more confrontational, and it's one hell of a finale starting with the trailer park bust, or from when they were motoring up the river.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Apr 7, 2017 4:07:49 GMT
impossibility of escaping the meaningless flux of existence. Lol. But yes, that's profundity 101 for me. With the inclusion of that theme inherently, usually a movie is at least decent. But it's elevated by the emotional pulse Mann assigns it. I guess Mann likes this warring sides thing a lot (seen in Heat), cop who admires thief. Here is cop in love with someone who's with the bad guys. It's all the more confrontational, and it's one hell of a finale starting with the trailer park bust, or from when they were motoring up the river. Yeah I mean it sounds like profundity 101 which I hate too but Miami Vice is clearly about the slippery inconclusiveness of identity in a way that is distinct from his previous films. In something like Heat the detective and the crook are both tempted by one another's lifestyles in a way that is rather consistent with genre tropes. In Miami Vice that distinction is completely broken down. The cops inhabit their "undercover" roles with basically zero effort, there appears to be almost no difference in the way they conduct themselves while interacting with the dealers or their police supervisors. It even becomes unclear as to what branch of the police the two leads even work for. It is so easy for them to navigate new, separate identities, particularly given the actions of the drug cartel which Sonny and Ricardo explicitly compare to the techniques of the CIA/American gov't. The idea that you can break the movie down to "bad guys" and implicitly "good guys" is foolhardy to me. The movie deliberately breaks away from those conventions, the beginning point of the plot (a police leak) is never solved, nothing reaches a conclusion, essentially by the movie's end almost nothing has changed from its beginning. There is no forward momentum to the narrative, there is no answer. Sonny glimpses the possibility of another world outside the one he feels trapped in but it's taken away, there is no fix to his quandary. Perhaps the reason it's such an affecting movie is that it feels so fatalistic and hopeless. The constant use of brooding cloud imagery informs the movie's sense of doom and the impossibility of escape.
|
|
no
Badass
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 423
|
Post by no on Apr 7, 2017 4:15:24 GMT
* Paul Verhoeven (omg look it's satire, how profound!)
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Apr 7, 2017 4:41:32 GMT
I don't hate, I'm just saying movies with the theme of trying to escape (even emotionally) their meaningless existence is inherently superior and profound to me in general. Like for instance in Godard movies, or Scorsese, or Korine, and especially Antonioni - he's the king of that. Hmh, I wouldn't say you see that in movies a lot, but I would say Heat is more consistent with the elements of the genre. Not saying it's the best example of that in all history, but it definitely is more than MV. Not necessarily about them being tempted by each other's lifestyles in particular - I'd say the way Heat approaches that is something rather unique - the meticulousness of "undercovering your opponent" (from both sides) - not just tracing their steps after a crime has been committed, but undercovering the emotional psyche of each other as well. I think that's one great appeal of Heat. MV doesn't really operate via any genre at all, I don't think. Absolutely. I'm not trying to imply that there were definitive good guys vs bad guys, or that the film is a confrontation between them. But the easiest way to draw a comparison to Heat is to suggest that one member from one side was emotionally involved with a member from another side, and that's one very blatant aspect of Mann movies. Or just Heat and MV in particular. Yes. There was an analysis from 10 years ago which suggests that the film's beginning (at the nightclub) and the ending (Sonny walking into the hospital) are so free of the bounds of a film with a true beginning and end, that this movie acts like one page of their lives with a beginning and end that isn't actually a beginning, or end. And yes, there's largely a sense of the unknown. We can talk intangibles all day long, but I think MV definitely allows room to wonder what really has been achieved after all this. It's the kind of stuff Antonioni has been known for - this kind of non-resolute, empty quandry, all zero-in into this particularly happening. And like Antonioni with L'Avventura - there's absolutely nowhere to go no matter how many train rides you take, (or in this case motorboat rides) - you just end up coming back to the point you started at. This is my interpretation anyways. Fun talking Mann with you, moonman!
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,390
|
Post by Film Socialism on Apr 7, 2017 5:04:10 GMT
* Paul Verhoeven (omg look it's satire, how profound!) ugh get out on a serious note i think he indulges in the things he's satirizing but there's a self-awareness and self-seriousness to his work, which is a very hard cable to walk. that's the big reason why i love him.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 7, 2017 6:19:05 GMT
Stanley Kubrick. The guy was an extraordinary technical talent, one of the very best there has ever been, but he lost the human element over the years and, personally, I feel that he devolved as a storyteller in lieu of pushing the technical envelope. And yet the guy is touted as an unimpeachable god among cinephiles. I would also add that I feel David Fincher is going down the exact same rabbit hole. Fincher was always cold and detached. The only difference in his more recent films is that he started embracing it. I harshly disagree about Kubrick. I think he's more of a humanist than most.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 7, 2017 6:27:39 GMT
Allen strikes me as being mostly just competent with only Manhattan and The Purple Rose of Cairo being the ones I'd say are particularly well-directed and those are probably the main two from him that I like. Godard is one that I wouldn't say I entirely dislike, but there is a chasm between my appreciation of him and his respect among cinephiles. He's emblematic of everything I like and dislike about postmodernism. Often, I find Godard more interesting to talk about than watch but at least he's only rarely less than interesting (fuck Film Socialisme). I do respect his contribution to cinema with respect to technique and stylistic elements; however, I think often those techniques have been put to better use by other filmmakers. For me, he's the wind at the door, hitting it with enough force so someone else can break it down. Allen is lazy if anything. He's a more skilled and more inventive director than most if he wants to (consider most of his 80's work and Matchpoint). The trouble with Godard is that he made too many ridiculously great films.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Apr 7, 2017 6:28:14 GMT
* Paul Verhoeven (omg look it's satire, how profound!) I'd call only Robocop and Starship Troopers openly satirical of his works. Showgirls is debatable.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 7, 2017 6:30:24 GMT
What other De Palma movies have you seen? Scarface is one of his worst. Well, there's also Mission: Impossible but that was good but last two sequels were way better. Sisters was okay. I'm sure there's more but I can't think of anything other than 4. 1. Carlito's Way 2. Phantom of the Paradise 3. Blow Out 4. Dressed to Kill 5. Femme Fatale It's the wrong De Palma you've been watching.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,390
|
Post by Film Socialism on Apr 7, 2017 6:30:26 GMT
has Film Socialism ever had a single fan on MA or here? i think j ty (i miss u bb) liked it a decent amount maybe.
somehow didn't see your comment @mike but i can definitely see the perspective of him paving the way for other better people; of course i think we both respect one another and each others' opinions on the man as well.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 7, 2017 6:38:44 GMT
* Paul Verhoeven (omg look it's satire, how profound!) It's debatable wheter any of his movies could be considered satire. I mean hear Rivette out on Verhoeven: Apart from that the reason he's a master director in my book (Black Book) has nothing to do with satire and most people would not describe his other great film (Elle) as satire either I think (although it has it's moments of dark comedy). And even though I'm not the biggest fan of Showgirls, there is so much more to it than merely satire (if it should be considered satire at all), I'd call it a spiritual film.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 7, 2017 6:49:48 GMT
the Mementos and the rest of the pleb canon are what's giving them the title overrated. If you call Memento pleb, you might aswell ascribe that label to anyone but Straub and co.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 7, 2017 7:05:36 GMT
truffaut hawks (particularly) bunuel weerasethekul (michael) mann spielberg scorsese mizoguchi allen (satyajit) ray these range from "i've seen a couple films and didn't really vibe with them at all" to "literally how can people stand this guy" I always thought you liked Hawks. You've seen Only Angels Have Wings, Bringing Up Baby and Scarface? I'm torn on Truffaut. He makes better films than I want to give him credit for. Also: Watch more Bunuel! Which ones have you seen?
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,390
|
Post by Film Socialism on Apr 7, 2017 7:21:10 GMT
truffaut hawks (particularly) bunuel weerasethekul (michael) mann spielberg scorsese mizoguchi allen (satyajit) ray these range from "i've seen a couple films and didn't really vibe with them at all" to "literally how can people stand this guy" I always thought you liked Hawks. You've seen Only Angels Have Wings, Bringing Up Baby and Scarface? I'm torn on Truffaut. He makes better films than I want to give him credit for. Also: Watch more Bunuel! Which ones have you seen? seen those and i'm kinda indifferent to em for the most part. i do like his westerns a good deal though and have a couple more i really wanna see; he's just inconsistent for me rather than bad or anything. to be fair i've only seen like 4 things from truffaut but his other films just look like less appealing versions of his acclaimed ones i've already seen. and "let's start the most important modern film movement to make crazy films" preceded making pretty conventional stuff just a few years into the new wave which is more a turnoff than a legitimate criticism. Un chien Andalou, L'Age d'or, Discreet Charm, Exterminating Angel, Land Without Bread, The Phantom of Paradise, Viridiana, Los Olvidados, Belle de Jour. i really like his debut and Discreet Charm and everything else i'm heavily mixed on or flat hate. it seems like he just makes really similar films over and over, usually poking fun at religion or the upper class, with a surreal sequence here or there maybe. it's just so stale by now - and i'm not blind to the irony of an antonioni fan calling it as such, but it bothers me more here because there doesn't seem to be a technical knack to bunuel's work or anything. i can't identify his style really (though it admittedly shifted a lot through the decades), his commentary seems like it's hopsin-tier a lot of the time, the pacing can be all over the place, it's not really funny, etc. i just cannot for the life of me find what people see in his films. and there's still like 6 more of these fuckers i have to see if i wanna complete TSPDT in the next couple years.
|
|
oneflyr
Full Member
Posts: 566
Likes: 255
|
Post by oneflyr on Apr 7, 2017 7:23:30 GMT
* Paul Verhoeven (omg look it's satire, how profound!) I'd call only Robocop and Starship Troopers openly satirical of his works. Showgirls is debatable. I don't know if I'd call Showgirls openly satirical, but it's really hard to take anything at face value with a film as deliberately weird, over-the-top, trashy and excessive as Showgirls. Maybe it's not even the right word, I think its peculiar polarizing effect it has on people comes from not knowing if the director is actually indulging in what he's portraying, or simply satirizing it ... so it creates this weird effect kinda where you're not sure how you're supposed to feel about what you're seeing at all, or what the intention behind it is. I think in order to really love a film like Showgirls you'd have to appreciate vulgarity in its purest, rawest, most offensive form. Something like Robocop is a lot more subtle but not as ambiguous in its intention.
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Apr 7, 2017 7:27:39 GMT
DAVID O'RUSSELL AND DAVID CRONENBERG
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 7, 2017 7:28:57 GMT
If you call Memento pleb, you might aswell ascribe that label to anyone but Straub and co. I was only half serious. Don't take it literally. It's my m.o. to fool around like that. Memento is a good, solid movie, but wildly overrated. I mean, I just found it pretty mostly boring, and it doesn't take me on the thrill ride it takes most people. I happen to think Inception takes me on a more fulfilling ride, but I personally like being bombarded with lots of things going on all at once. I know Memento has that, but there wasn't a whole lot of mystery at all, I guess that's the element lacking even though it had a lot of style and exercise. Of course, these two movies are eerily similar.... and it's not surprising to see that they come from the same mind. Don't understand the Straub and co. reference at all. Are you talking Huillet and Straub? Those are only two people, and that academic pseudo Greek style stands out, but I'm not sure in what way you're thinking to distinguish them from "everyone else." (as you put it) I was referencing Huillet and Straub because if Memento is pleb, only off the wall avant-garde art (which most people find insufferable) isn't. Memento is a stunningly unique and gripping (to most people at least) analysis of the human condition. I have seen few films which really touch same themes and it's the only Nolan film where the philosophical aspects are really realized. Essentially Nolan found a materialistic perspective to explore the concept of belief/spirituality (the best comparrison I can think of would be Bresson's A Man Escaped). I guess you could argue that the drama is too weak but compared to the novelty of the rest of the film that's nitpicking. People give Nolan way too little credit for finding engaging ways (to the general public) to explore philosophical concepts. I also personally prefer Inception but unlike Memento, there is actually a film which does what Inception does much better, Paprika.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Apr 7, 2017 7:30:19 GMT
I'd call only Robocop and Starship Troopers openly satirical of his works. Showgirls is debatable. I don't know if I'd call Showgirls openly satirical, but it's really hard to take anything at face value with a film as deliberately weird, over-the-top, trashy and excessive as Showgirls. Maybe it's not even the right word, I think its peculiar polarizing effect it has on people comes from not knowing if the director is actually indulging in what he's portraying, or simply satirizing it ... so it creates this weird effect kinda where you're not sure how you're supposed to feel about what you're seeing at all, or what the intention behind it is. I think in order to really love a film like Showgirls you'd have to appreciate vulgarity in its purest, rawest, most offensive form. Something like Robocop is a lot more subtle but not as ambiguous in its intention. The best comparison to Showgirls is Marie Antoinette. Just pulpy, throw it out there, fun - indulging so deeply in the world they're portraying it's like you can dream and think nothing else for hours after you finished these films. I think there's two types of people - the ones who overanalyze Showgirls, and the ones who underanalyze it. I agree there's a lot of interpretation as to its nature. Robocop... strikes me as a gothic tale at heart (the type with someone playing an organ under dark lighting in it if an opera version of it was ever adapted) with a really disturbing and sad tragedy to it. The best similarity is The Crow (Alex Proyas), but I agree that there's less of an interpretation as to what its nature truly is, as opposed to Showgirls.
|
|