|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jan 16, 2019 0:41:45 GMT
Damn right you're not talking about the ending of Blackkklansman because you know it's BS my man Well, look I dunno what you're on about regarding the "gee you're so fascinating pacinoyes" and how dreamy I am or whatever. But since this is a movie board and you know a movie thread specifically you should probably stick to that subject. Just sayin', it's raising my post count unnecessarily. It doesn’t matter what movie you are talking about at that given moment. It’s the way you always talk. I was genuinely curious about your self awareness. I think I got my answer so you don’t need to raise your post count anymore if you don’t want. For the record you seem to be trying to be a friendly guy but dude maybe come off it a little.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 16, 2019 1:08:27 GMT
Yeah, it's cool, to me it's all about film discussion and give and take - not the list stuff we do a lot of on here which bores me a bit tbh - and I try to talk to people here the informal way I'd talk to my friends in a coffee shop yanno?
Well except for @raygittes07 who I try to talk to like my crazy uncle Ernie when he gets excited by fireworks....come on ray that's a joke, love ya pal.
In general, I'm aware I can provoke but in the best way - provoke and discuss not provoke and just be a jerk.
I think people do get it......hope so anyway.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jan 16, 2019 1:28:09 GMT
Yeah, it's cool, to me it's all about film discussion and give and take - not the list stuff we do a lot of on here which bores me a bit tbh - and I try to talk to people here the informal way I'd talk to my friends in a coffee shop yanno? Well except for @raygittes07 who I try to talk to like my crazy uncle Ernie when he gets excited by fireworks....come on ray that's a joke, love ya pal. In general, I'm aware I can provoke but in the best way - provoke and discuss not provoke and just be a jerk. I think people do get it......hope so anyway. Honestly if anybody talked down to me the way you do on here to people in a coffee shop I would walk out on them. Especially if they were as set in their ways as you are. I don’t think you mean to but still.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 16, 2019 1:44:53 GMT
I'd actually say you can't find one example of me ever talking down to anyone on here (never first at least, not once) ........ and hey remember if you were to walk out of the coffee shop, well you can't learn anything, or share your opinion so I might learn something, and hey, I might even buy you a cup too. I'm not as set in my ways as you seem to think sterling (see above). Not at all, quite the contrary, I'm eager to be swayed, I like to be persuaded. I encourage it. We really need a coffee emoji, wtf......
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jan 16, 2019 1:55:24 GMT
I'd actually say you can't find one example of me ever talking down to anyone on here (never first at least, not once) ........ and hey remember if you were to walk out of the coffee shop, well you can't learn anything, or share your opinion so I might learn something, and hey, I might even buy you a cup too. I'm not as set in my ways as you seem to think sterling (see above). Not at all, quite the contrary, I'm eager to be swayed, I like to be persuaded. I encourage it. We really need a coffee emoji, wtf...... “Kinda disappointed in my fellow movie lovers - you know better than that“ If you can’t see that as condescending then I don’t know what to say. Or the bit about what is “allowable” as if we need the rules of film explained to us. You say that I wouldn’t learn anything if I walked out of a conversation with you as if I needed you to teach me something. I know you don’t mean to do it but jeez
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Jan 16, 2019 2:00:05 GMT
It depends how you see film and what is allowable in film. To me, this is way outside the bounds of what is allowable. I'm not saying the ending isn't impactful I'm saying "who cares?" - it's impact isn't earned and it's wrong artistically and to me close to plagiarism . It's never been done - ever as a climax especially - because it's a trick, and people going to see Blackklansman are predisposed to like it because it's CNN and easy to get - it's not a narrative film device. Fnck the audience in your theater that could hear a pin drop - that is not the point at all. You can always manipulate an audience, it's not always right - it's heavy handed stuff and it's not even HIS heavy handed stuff - and everybody here knows it too. Kinda disappointed in my fellow movie lovers - you know better than that Either write the f'n scene to illustrate the point or leave it out but you can't use CNN to make your point for you - but Lee is not the artist to make the point, none of the writers are sharp enough to write it either. It's cheap and vulgar stuff. I see where you're coming from, I really do, because that's exactly how I feel about the Live Aid climax in Bohemian Rhapsody. Instead of offering us a decent climax (or a decent anything, really), McCarten and Singer settle for a 20-minute reenactment of a real concert which, while great, is entirely the work of other artists, not their own. I understand why it galvanizes audiences and makes people leave the theater in awe; it's a fantastic concert from a fantastic band, but the thing is that none of that is the film's merit, it's all Queen's. I bring up this totally disconnected movie to make clear that I understand your point and I've even shared it in other instances, but I can't agree that it applies here because what Lee did with the CNN footage is to me inherently different from what Singer and McCarten did with Live Aid. The latter used a powerful, iconic performance practically as a narrative crutch (while purposefully messing with the real timeline of events and altering the facts to manipulate the audience, which only makes it more egregious), but Lee used the Charlottesville images to expand on the themes and the message that he'd already been building up throughout BlacKkKlansman's runtime. Like I said, Lee is constantly drawing our attention to the present day via dialogue, so by inserting this previously existing footage at the tail end of his film, he's simply bringing his work to its natural, inevitable conclusion. I don't see how any scripted reenactment of recent events could've delivered the film's message with a stronger sense of outrage and urgency, and to do what most other filmmakers generally do in fact-based dramas like BlacKkKlansman (which is to play the real life footage in the background while the credits scroll up) would've greatly diminished the overall impact, simply because Lee would've lost most viewers' attention by cutting to the credits (therefore "ending" the film and giving everyone their cue to get up and leave) before making his point in full. That's what makes the two projects radically different in my view, and also why I don't think any narrative technique should be automatically forbidden in film, like you suggested: one filmmaker used it badly, but another used it well, which means that (at least in theory) every avenue should absolutely be allowed, or we run the risk of arbitrarily stifling the whole medium for no good reason. So in other words: Singer doesn't comment or expand on the material that he borrows from, which is why leaning on the greatness of Freddie Mercury and Queen is a lazy, dishonest move, but Lee absolutely does. He didn't direct the CNN footage (nor did he direct Gone with the Wind), that's true, but he uses both of those points of reference to make *his own* statement. He recontextualizes and resignifies those properties, adding his own layer of commentary to them, and in doing that he molds them into a work of his own, through which *his* voice (not CNN's or Victor Fleming's) is heard. If that's not *his* art because he didn't personally write and direct the images he uses, then no documentarian is an artist. Let me bring up yet another divisive project from 2018: I know you didn't like The House That Jack Built, but the same principle applies to that one as well. The most thematically dense segment of that film, which is crucial to understanding Von Trier's whole intent and message, features several uninterrupted minutes of Dillon and Ganz talking over paintings, pictures, reproductions of artworks, old-time videos and stock footage of real locations, none of which were personally made/written/photographed by Von Trier himself. He basically launches into a full-blown PowerPoint presentation there, abandoning the staging/acting out of scripted scenes for a pretty long portion of the runtime. And yet that doesn't make it any less *his* film, because he's taking those previously existing materials and using them as the basis to construct his own work of art that expresses his own viewpoints, recontextualizing and offering commentary on everything he borrows from. Same goes for Godard and his own filmic essays (which is what The House That Jack Built is, at the end of the day), like Film Socialism and most recently The Image Book. You may dislike them, but there's no questioning *whose* works those films are, and I don't think that that essay-like structure is anti-art or in any way diminutive of the directors' authorship. Quite the contrary, actually. I know I won't change your mind on this, but to me Lee does a lot more by splicing in the CNN videos than you're giving him credit for. And this is absolutely not a brand new technique that he pulled out of nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 16, 2019 2:18:08 GMT
Remember I also said that I wouldn't learn anything if you walked out - that goes both ways sterling and is in my post and equally important.
It isn't talking down to say you're disappointed in your colleagues for taking an audience reaction (really?!?) as justification for that ending and "allowable" is the exact word - because it's never been done or been allowable. Why doesn't Hoffa end with a news clip of Hoffa and RFK? Why doesn't 12 Years a Slave end with footage of the Detroit riots? Because it's never been allowable in narrative film, until a fake artist got his hands on a CNN clip.
That's not talking down to anyone, that's talking to them with the respect of the truth. If anyone felt talked down too, well, they might want to start thinking about their arguments more, and their feelings less.
But yes, don't see it as condescending so, we can leave it there. Good talk, see you on the boards.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jan 16, 2019 2:24:54 GMT
Remember I also said that I wouldn't learn anything if you walked out - that goes both ways sterling and is in my post and equally important. It isn't talking down to say you're disappointed in your colleagues for taking an audience reaction (really?!?) as justification for that ending and "allowable" is the exact word - because it's never been done or been allowable. Why doesn't Hoffa end with a news clip of Hoffa and RFK? Why doesn't 12 Years a Slave end with footage of the Detroit riots? Because it's never been allowable in narrative film, until a fake artist got his hands on a CNN clip. That's not talking down to anyone, that's talking to them with the respect of the truth. If anyone felt talked down too, well, they might want to start thinking about their arguments more, and their feelings less. But yes, don't see it as condescending so, we can leave it there. Good talk, see you on the boards. Well since I’ve never seen anybody else bothered by it it was clearly allowed. Just not by you. It reminds me of people saying that the Coens couldn’t put “Based on a true story” at the beginning of Fargo and then just saying “Well we just did”. Nobody needs you explaining rules that don’t exist to them.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Jan 16, 2019 2:37:43 GMT
Remember I also said that I wouldn't learn anything if you walked out - that goes both ways sterling and is in my post and equally important. It isn't talking down to say you're disappointed in your colleagues for taking an audience reaction (really?!?) as justification for that ending and "allowable" is the exact word - because it's never been done or been allowable. Why doesn't Hoffa end with a news clip of Hoffa and RFK? Why doesn't 12 Years a Slave end with footage of the Detroit riots? Because it's never been allowable in narrative film, until a fake artist got his hands on a CNN clip. That's not talking down to anyone, that's talking to them with the respect of the truth. If anyone felt talked down too, well, they might want to start thinking about their arguments more, and their feelings less. But yes, don't see it as condescending so, we can leave it there. Good talk, see you on the boards. Not gonna argue with you about the ending and especially whether it's 'allowable' but you've said numerous times that it's never been done before - what do you mean? That real-life footage hasn't closed out movies before? Because that's just not true. "American Sniper" came to mind instantly as an example as it ends with real footage of his funeral procession. I'm sure there're other examples too.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 16, 2019 2:38:43 GMT
Zeb31 - That was a very good post and I do appreciate you taking the time to lay that out and there are some other examples too - i.e. Stone in NBK for one using film clips but yes my specific argument is Lee used a defined existing historical document in his film - and as such, there is no way for the audience to feel anything but sickened by that footage. It's pre-determined and if that was his intent, for me it didn't work, I felt manipulated by it. He knows he's getting the powerful result of that by merely using the film clip and even though he set the stage earlier, to me he doesn't earn THAT specific right to end on that note......there has to be something in an artist that for me says "I would love to include that clip, but it's too easy and I can't go down that path......I just need to come up with something else" Once you incorporate dramatic real life in that way, to me, you are just out of bounds for my taste in a narrative film, I felt jerked around by it unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 16, 2019 2:42:27 GMT
Remember I also said that I wouldn't learn anything if you walked out - that goes both ways sterling and is in my post and equally important. It isn't talking down to say you're disappointed in your colleagues for taking an audience reaction (really?!?) as justification for that ending and "allowable" is the exact word - because it's never been done or been allowable. Why doesn't Hoffa end with a news clip of Hoffa and RFK? Why doesn't 12 Years a Slave end with footage of the Detroit riots? Because it's never been allowable in narrative film, until a fake artist got his hands on a CNN clip. That's not talking down to anyone, that's talking to them with the respect of the truth. If anyone felt talked down too, well, they might want to start thinking about their arguments more, and their feelings less. But yes, don't see it as condescending so, we can leave it there. Good talk, see you on the boards. Not gonna argue with you about the ending and especially whether it's 'allowable' but you've said numerous times that it's never been done before - what do you mean? That real-life footage hasn't closed out movies before? Because that's just not true. "American Sniper" came to mind instantly as an example as it ends with real footage of his funeral procession. I'm sure there're other examples too. I mean as a narrative device. I don't think American Sniper fits, you feel the way you feel when that scene plays - in Lee's film it's the emotional crescendo of the whole piece - its the climax (de facto) - if you can find others, I'm all ears but AS is a different thing imo - I know real clips have been used in film though yes .....
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 16, 2019 2:50:59 GMT
Well since I’ve never seen anybody else bothered by it it was clearly allowed. Just not by you. It reminds me of people saying that the Coens couldn’t put “Based on a true story” at the beginning of Fargo and then just saying “Well we just did”. Nobody needs you explaining rules that don’t exist to them. If you've never seen anybody else bothered by it, I don't know what to tell you sterling, look harder, talk to more people maybe - oh look the Blackklansman thread, here from September ? If you're taking the position that "nobody needs you explaining rules that don't exist to them" well, ok, fair enough - you do you - but if you think that's it's remotely like the Coens saying "Based On A True Story" in Fargo that to me is rather an issue for your English teacher my friend.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jan 16, 2019 2:58:15 GMT
Well since I’ve never seen anybody else bothered by it it was clearly allowed. Just not by you. It reminds me of people saying that the Coens couldn’t put “Based on a true story” at the beginning of Fargo and then just saying “Well we just did”. Nobody needs you explaining rules that don’t exist to them. If you've never seen anybody else bothered by it, I don't know what to tell you sterling, look harder, talk to more people maybe - oh look the Blackklansman thread, here from September ? If you're taking the position that "nobody needs you explaining rules that don't exist to them" well, ok, fair enough - you do you - but if you think that's it's remotely like the Coens saying "Based On A True Story" in Fargo that to me is rather an issue for your English teacher my friend. Both the Coens and Spike Lee did something that at least one person believed was “not allowed” but did it anyways because it was clearly allowed... Like I’m not making this up. Someone actually said the Coens were not allowed to do something the same way you are right now. I’m not comparing what the Coens did to what Spike did. I’m comparing what you said to what that producer (I believe it was) said. But go ahead and imply I’m uneducated even though you clearly missed the point.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 16, 2019 11:06:53 GMT
If you've never seen anybody else bothered by it, I don't know what to tell you sterling, look harder, talk to more people maybe - oh look the Blackklansman thread, here from September ? If you're taking the position that "nobody needs you explaining rules that don't exist to them" well, ok, fair enough - you do you - but if you think that's it's remotely like the Coens saying "Based On A True Story" in Fargo that to me is rather an issue for your English teacher my friend. Both the Coens and Spike Lee did something that at least one person believed was “not allowed” but did it anyways because it was clearly allowed... Like I’m not making this up. Someone actually said the Coens were not allowed to do something the same way you are right now. I’m not comparing what the Coens did to what Spike did. I’m comparing what you said to what that producer (I believe it was) said. But go ahead and imply I’m uneducated even though you clearly missed the point.Oh ok since we aren't comparing what the Coens did (their own work, from their minds) to what Spike Lee did (appropriating someone else's work wholly, as the dramatic pinnacle of his film)..............and only comparing what was said, by two different people, 20 years apart, one a producer (possibly) and one a random person on an internet message board........why, then yes, both those people said similar things removing context, content and POV of each from the discussion. I would never make fun of your education for saying that sterling, implied or otherwise......I may say that's making a strange theoretical point that is like saying Milli Vanilli had damn catchy songs and won awards whether they sung them or not (and took credit) at the expense of a deeper discussion.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jan 16, 2019 14:24:16 GMT
Both the Coens and Spike Lee did something that at least one person believed was “not allowed” but did it anyways because it was clearly allowed... Like I’m not making this up. Someone actually said the Coens were not allowed to do something the same way you are right now. I’m not comparing what the Coens did to what Spike did. I’m comparing what you said to what that producer (I believe it was) said. But go ahead and imply I’m uneducated even though you clearly missed the point.Oh ok since we aren't comparing what the Coens did (their own work, from their minds) to what Spike Lee did (appropriating someone else's work wholly, as the dramatic pinnacle of his film)..............and only comparing what was said, by two different people, 20 years apart, one a producer (possibly) and one a random person on an internet message board........why, then yes, both those people said similar things removing context, content and POV of each from the discussion. I would never make fun of your education for saying that sterling, implied or otherwise......I may say that's making a strange theoretical point that is like saying Milli Vanilli had damn catchy songs and won awards whether they sung them or not (and took credit) at the expense of a deeper discussion. I didn’t remove context... I explained the content and context thoroughly.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 16, 2019 14:31:58 GMT
No, rather your only point was non-contextual - it's merely that two random people, 20 years apart said something similar in ways outside of context (since you are not comparing the artist to the plagiarizer at all) and I agreed with that and didn't insult your education one bit.
So we're done right or do you have something else you'd like to share?
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jan 16, 2019 14:40:50 GMT
No, rather your only point was non-contextual - it's merely that two random people, 20 years apart said something similar in ways outside of context (since you are not comparing the artist to the plagiarizer at all) and I agreed with that and didn't insult your education one bit. So we're done right or do you have something else you'd like to share? By picking apart the details you keep flailing past the point wildly. It’s that you or no one else are in no position to tell artists what they are allowed to do. If you want to be done here you are welcome to stop. If I still believe I have something to say I will say it. I don’t need your repeated hints to stop. Another person in this world that doesn’t require your permission.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 16, 2019 14:44:36 GMT
I bring up this totally disconnected movie to make clear that I understand your point and I've even shared it in other instances, but I can't agree that it applies here because what Lee did with the CNN footage is to me inherently different from what Singer and McCarten did with Live Aid. The latter used a powerful, iconic performance practically as a narrative crutch (while purposefully messing with the real timeline of events and altering the facts to manipulate the audience, which only makes it more egregious), but Lee used the Charlottesville images to expand on the themes and the message that he'd already been building up throughout BlacKkKlansman's runtime. Like I said, Lee is constantly drawing our attention to the present day via dialogue, so by inserting this previously existing footage at the tail end of his film, he's simply bringing his work to its natural, inevitable conclusion. I don't see how any scripted reenactment of recent events could've delivered the film's message with a stronger sense of outrage and urgency, and to do what most other filmmakers generally do in fact-based dramas like BlacKkKlansman (which is to play the real life footage in the background while the credits scroll up) would've greatly diminished the overall impact, simply because Lee would've lost most viewers' attention by cutting to the credits (therefore "ending" the film and giving everyone their cue to get up and leave) before making his point in full. I should also add that the coda (because that's what it is, a coda) hearkens back to the opening montage of the film, but even moreso, to the scene with Harry Belafonte. Belafonte's character talks about the lynching of Jesse Washington and the revitalization of the Klan in response to Birth of a Nation, which is comparison to the events depicted in the film seems almost as distant as Ron Stallworth's efforts are to us. But just as Spike showed us that the systemic violence and perfidy that was rampant in Washington's time is still very prevalent in Stallworth's era, through that coda he showed us how it is still prevalent today. It's not a cheap usage of real-life footage. It's no different than using endplate text to sum up everything in the film (if anything, it's more effective because film is a visual medium, and a lot of people tend to glaze over endplate text as it is). Also, it should be noted that the footage and responses are still edited and assembled by Lee himself. It's no different than using actual war footage in a movie, or indeed the historical photos of Jesse Washington's lynching within this film itself. Are we going to criticize Lee for not getting the props department to create an antiquated picture of a lynched man from scratch, rather than using a real one? Criticizing BlacKkKlansman for having multiple writers also seems like something of a pedantic critique. It certainly doesn't feel like it does, and so what? Birdman had four writers, and I think it's one of the finest scripts of the century, and even if you don't, I rarely hear the criticism that it feels like too many cooks in the kitchen. Most agree it's Alejandro's vision, for better or worse. So too is BlacKkKlansman Lee's from the ground-up; it has his DNA woven into it so intricately. I'd be very curious to know how the writing process went for it.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 16, 2019 14:46:30 GMT
Zeb31 - That was a very good post and I do appreciate you taking the time to lay that out and there are some other examples too - i.e. Stone in NBK for one using film clips but yes my specific argument is Lee used a defined existing historical document in his film - and as such, there is no way for the audience to feel anything but sickened by that footage. It's pre-determined and if that was his intent, for me it didn't work, I felt manipulated by it. He knows he's getting the powerful result of that by merely using the film clip and even though he set the stage earlier, to me he doesn't earn THAT specific right to end on that note......there has to be something in an artist that for me says "I would love to include that clip, but it's too easy and I can't go down that path......I just need to come up with something else" Once you incorporate dramatic real life in that way, to me, you are just out of bounds for my taste in a narrative film, I felt jerked around by it unfortunately. Let me ask you this: Zero Dark Thirty actually opens with real audio footage of 9/11 against a black screen. Do you think that's fair game, or do you think that what Bigelow did was "out of bounds"?
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 16, 2019 14:52:36 GMT
Well you can think you're picking the details apart but not really, you're just restructuring the same point rather - that 2 people 20 years apart said something vaguely similar devoid of context.
Nothing you wrote makes Spike Lee an artist (a provocateur, perhaps), or discusses my position (or anyone else's) to tell him anything, but him plagiarizing the ending actually literally does make him an anti-Artist, see Milli Vanilli example above.
If you still believe you have something to say, sure, go ahead say it, I'm sure everyone enjoyed what you've written so far and has found it insightful and I'm sure many people are enjoying my points as well.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jan 16, 2019 14:53:05 GMT
Zeb31 - That was a very good post and I do appreciate you taking the time to lay that out and there are some other examples too - i.e. Stone in NBK for one using film clips but yes my specific argument is Lee used a defined existing historical document in his film - and as such, there is no way for the audience to feel anything but sickened by that footage. It's pre-determined and if that was his intent, for me it didn't work, I felt manipulated by it. He knows he's getting the powerful result of that by merely using the film clip and even though he set the stage earlier, to me he doesn't earn THAT specific right to end on that note......there has to be something in an artist that for me says "I would love to include that clip, but it's too easy and I can't go down that path......I just need to come up with something else" Once you incorporate dramatic real life in that way, to me, you are just out of bounds for my taste in a narrative film, I felt jerked around by it unfortunately. Let me ask you this: Zero Dark Thirty actually opens with real audio footage of 9/11 against a black screen. Do you think that's fair game, or do you think that what Bigelow did was "out of bounds"? Adam McKay did the exact same thing as Spike THE SAME YEAR. To be fair though that movie is actually garbage but for different reasons.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 16, 2019 14:58:45 GMT
Zeb31 - That was a very good post and I do appreciate you taking the time to lay that out and there are some other examples too - i.e. Stone in NBK for one using film clips but yes my specific argument is Lee used a defined existing historical document in his film - and as such, there is no way for the audience to feel anything but sickened by that footage. It's pre-determined and if that was his intent, for me it didn't work, I felt manipulated by it. He knows he's getting the powerful result of that by merely using the film clip and even though he set the stage earlier, to me he doesn't earn THAT specific right to end on that note......there has to be something in an artist that for me says "I would love to include that clip, but it's too easy and I can't go down that path......I just need to come up with something else" Once you incorporate dramatic real life in that way, to me, you are just out of bounds for my taste in a narrative film, I felt jerked around by it unfortunately. Let me ask you this: Zero Dark Thirty actually opens with real audio footage of 9/11 against a black screen. Do you think that's fair game, or do you think that what Bigelow did was "out of bounds"? Good question, less out of bounds because again, what's the emotional stakes in her including that - what does she "gain" in manipulating the audience that way - it's not the same as an ending/climax - I didn't feel manipulated there much and the fact that it's not visual matters too. There are degrees to this, yes........but it's an ending and a narrative plot point.......and he did nothing to earn it imo, no right to include it (and the fact that everyone had just seen that clip and may not have heard the 9/11 audio footage makes it more easy, more cheap, more vulgar.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jan 16, 2019 15:02:05 GMT
Well you can think you're picking the details apart but not really, you're just restructuring the same point rather - that 2 people 20 years apart said something vaguely similar devoid of context. Nothing you wrote makes Spike Lee an artist (a provocateur, perhaps), or discusses my position (or anyone else's) to tell him anything, but him plagiarizing the ending actually literally does make him an anti-Artist, see Milli Vanilli example above. If you still believe you have something to say, sure, go ahead say it, I'm sure everyone enjoyed what you've written so far and has found it insightful and I'm sure many people are enjoying my points as well. Dude your hatred of Spike is weird and agressive. Filmmakers have been piecing together footage (which I’m sure he obtained with permission) for as long as they have been editing film. Many have cut news footage with fiction before too but apparently you can’t see two things as similar unless they are the exact same. I need to go to work but I’m starting to think this is more about you than it is about Spike Lee. You are going weirdly over the top with this.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 16, 2019 15:08:31 GMT
Let me ask you this: Zero Dark Thirty actually opens with real audio footage of 9/11 against a black screen. Do you think that's fair game, or do you think that what Bigelow did was "out of bounds"? Good question, less out of bounds because again, what's the emotional stakes in her including that - what does she "gain" in manipulating the audience that way - it's not the same as an ending/climax - I didn't feel manipulated there much and the fact that it's not visual matters too. There are degrees to this, yes........but it's an ending and a narrative plot point.......and he did nothing to earn it imo, no right to include it (and the fact that everyone had just seen that clip and may not have heard the 9/11 audio footage makes it more easy, more cheap, more vulgar. See, with that you're moving the goalposts a bit by my reckoning. Bigelow sets the audience out on the foot of being forced to hear that tragedy, even though I don't think it necessarily augments the overall film because, well, we all remember that day and have seen/heard that footage before. And what's more, we know the context of the hunt for Bin Laden. I'd argue it's more unnecessary than what Lee did. If anything, Lee earned his much more than Bigelow did because, as I explained above, thematically he was building to that conclusion throughout the entire film: that the Klan and its racism are not only still alive, but they have been normalized. Nothing I can say will dissuade you on your feelings toward BlacKkKlansman. It's clear you don't like it. That's fine. But the sheer hate-on you display for it comes off a bit vendetta-esque. That'd be like me criticizing First Reformed for using footage of (to quote Schrader's script) " the hideous spoilage man has wreaked: the waste dumps of India, the choking smog of China, the toxic rivers of Indonesia, the oil coated birds and fish of the Gulf Coast" in his dreamy montage while Hawke holds Seyfried. It's the same basic effect. But I guess because they superimposed Hawke and Seyfried over those images, it's okay?
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 16, 2019 15:13:06 GMT
I should also add that the coda (because that's what it is, a coda) hearkens back to the opening montage of the film, but even moreso, to the scene with Harry Belafonte. Belafonte's character talks about the lynching of Jesse Washington and the revitalization of the Klan in response to Birth of a Nation, which is comparison to the events depicted in the film seems almost as distant as Ron Stallworth's efforts are to us. But just as Spike showed us that the systemic violence and perfidy that was rampant in Washington's time is still very prevalent in Stallworth's era, through that coda he showed us how it is still prevalent today. It's not a cheap usage of real-life footage. It's no different than using endplate text to sum up everything in the film (if anything, it's more effective because film is a visual medium, and a lot of people tend to glaze over endplate text as it is). Also, it should be noted that the footage and responses are still edited and assembled by Lee himself. It's no different than using actual war footage in a movie, or indeed the historical photos of Jesse Washington's lynching within this film itself. Are we going to criticize Lee for not getting the props department to create an antiquated picture of a lynched man from scratch, rather than using a real one?
Criticizing BlacKkKlansman for having multiple writers also seems like something of a pedantic critique. It certainly doesn't feel like it does, and so what? Birdman had four writers, and I think it's one of the finest scripts of the century, and even if you don't, I rarely hear the criticism that it feels like too many cooks in the kitchen. Most agree it's Alejandro's vision, for better or worse. So too is BlacKkKlansman Lee's from the ground-up; it has his DNA woven into it so intricately. I'd be very curious to know how the writing process went for it. I understand that actual film is used throughout the movie and I understand Lee's point however it's not enough to justify it, I am going to criticize him for NOT making a documentary and for NOT coming up with something else because his use of the CNN footage makes a point for him rather than him making one - he didn't have to go to his props department but he can't use CNN either - I didn't see Vice but did McKay do the "exact" same thing? If so, same story for him - but I have never, ever seen the "exact" same thing as Lee did . Yes, 4 screenwriters is no big deal except when the screenwriters fail - Birdman is amazing because too many cooks didn't happen, the script worked, Blackkklansan is rather the opposite - it is too many cooks.........AND not enough and they couldn't write the ending. CNN and life wrote that ending (or coda or de facto climax - whichever you prefer) - it's Lee's job to illustrate it (or something else), not swipe it.
|
|