Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,555
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Aug 27, 2018 4:12:48 GMT
Edit: To be clear, I'm not talking about taste, because Hawke is implying that he isn't talking about taste. Hawke is implying that because Logan is part of a certain genre, it is inferior to films of other genres. That is *all* myself, Cake of Roth and others are taking offense at. Hell, I personally don't have a taste for superhero movies, but I absolutely believe that they are capable of being as good as anything else. in general, unless someone explicitly says otherwise, i default to people talking about taste. "it's a good superhero movie i guess but not a great movie" doesn't imply that someone is an objectivist any more than " Pulp Fiction is the best film of the 90s" does. why would all genres have the same potential? it's possible for you, maybe, but for many of us it's unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Aug 27, 2018 4:27:55 GMT
Edit: To be clear, I'm not talking about taste, because Hawke is implying that he isn't talking about taste. Hawke is implying that because Logan is part of a certain genre, it is inferior to films of other genres. That is *all* myself, Cake of Roth and others are taking offense at. Hell, I personally don't have a taste for superhero movies, but I absolutely believe that they are capable of being as good as anything else. in general, unless someone explicitly says otherwise, i default to people talking about taste. "it's a good superhero movie i guess but not a great movie" doesn't imply that someone is an objectivist any more than " Pulp Fiction is the best film of the 90s" does. why would all genres have the same potential? it's possible for you, maybe, but for many of us it's unlikely. I suppose that what I'm upset about is Hawke attacking other people for calling it a great movie. He attacks them because the movie is "only about _____" and holds what they're saying as invalid on the basis of the movie containing these elements. I think that it all comes down to taste in the end, but it is his attack on people who hold that this movie is special on the basis of the movie's genre that upsets me. That's where I get that he's objectively attacking the genre, and not stating his personal, subjective dislike for it.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Aug 27, 2018 13:46:40 GMT
The genre excludes any notion of a film produced independently. They are all made under the guidance of a suit. You can argue that those movies conceptually could participate in good art but that's not how the world works. You cannot make one of those movies without being under the umbrella of a corporation that precludes any notion that couldn't be assessed as being potentially pocket stuffing. By that token, do we similarly dismiss the era of the Big Five studios since those films were similarly under the umbrella of a corporation? After all, no matter how much Hitchcock tried to push the boundaries of the studio system, he was still operating within it and could easily be dismissed as little more than a populist filmmaker if one takes the most stringent view on devaluing corporate films. Don't take this post to be a blanket defense of all superhero films, btw. While I enjoyed Logan a lot, it wouldn't be on my longlist of best films of the past couple years let alone of all-time so it certainly isn't threatening Bresson or Bergman. My enjoyment of it I imagine is not dissimilar from how many critics enjoy Shane, a film referenced multiple times in Logan and serves for the Western (another populist genre appealing to masculine power fantasies) what Logan aimed to do for superhero films. a) times change b) I shouldn't have used the phrase "a corporation" as it doesn't convey the specificity that I intended, I was referring to the specific suits who keep a watch over their superhero properties and ensure that every film is produced in the same house style
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Aug 27, 2018 13:48:30 GMT
in general, unless someone explicitly says otherwise, i default to people talking about taste. "it's a good superhero movie i guess but not a great movie" doesn't imply that someone is an objectivist any more than " Pulp Fiction is the best film of the 90s" does. why would all genres have the same potential? it's possible for you, maybe, but for many of us it's unlikely. I suppose that what I'm upset about is Hawke attacking other people for calling it a great movie. He attacks them because the movie is "only about _____" and holds what they're saying as invalid on the basis of the movie containing these elements. I think that it all comes down to taste in the end, but it is his attack on people who hold that this movie is special on the basis of the movie's genre that upsets me. That's where I get that he's objectively attacking the genre, and not stating his personal, subjective dislike for it. Hawke stated an opinion that ended with him saying he liked Logan and emotional superhero fans like yourself are framing it as though he was "attacking" you all. You literally use the word "attack" 4 times in this 4 line post and you're referring to a measured comment by a guy who said he thinks the genre is silly but still enjoys it.
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Aug 27, 2018 14:10:45 GMT
Outrageously pretentious statement by Hawke... First of all a movie can be great without it being 'Bergman' and second of all nobody put Logan in the same vein as Bresson or Bergman. Pretentious indeed.
|
|
|
Post by thomasjerome on Aug 27, 2018 14:52:30 GMT
Why not read the whole interview? It's when he started to talk about small films and how festivals are important for them to be seen because these films are not backed and promoted in the way "Logan" is. That's what bothers him. He doesn't claim the superhero films should just stop exist. Bresson/Bergman comparision is understandable as he was just in a movie ("First Reformed") that has a lot of Bergman and Bresson influence.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Aug 27, 2018 17:08:45 GMT
I suppose that what I'm upset about is Hawke attacking other people for calling it a great movie. He attacks them because the movie is "only about _____" and holds what they're saying as invalid on the basis of the movie containing these elements. I think that it all comes down to taste in the end, but it is his attack on people who hold that this movie is special on the basis of the movie's genre that upsets me. That's where I get that he's objectively attacking the genre, and not stating his personal, subjective dislike for it. Hawke stated an opinion that ended with him saying he liked Logan and emotional superhero fans like yourself are framing it as though he was "attacking" you all. You literally use the word "attack" 4 times in this 4 line post and you're referring to a measured comment by a guy who said he thinks the genre is silly but still enjoys it. He literally says "Now we have the problem that they tell us that Logan is a great movie... It still involves people in tights with metal coming out of their hands. It's not Bresson. It's not Bergman. But they talk about it like it is." He refers to "they" several times, saying that "they" talk about Logan like it's Bergman or Bresson. He's attacking anyone that thinks that a movie about metal coming out of his hands can be held on the same level as a movie about a man playing chess with death. But you're not going to listen to me, and I sure as hell am not gonna listen to you.
|
|
Feesy
New Member
Posts: 178
Likes: 96
|
Post by Feesy on Aug 28, 2018 2:56:15 GMT
I like what I like. Hawke likes what he likes. Relaaaaaax...
|
|
Pasquale
Full Member
Posts: 539
Likes: 227
|
Post by Pasquale on Jun 22, 2020 11:28:12 GMT
It's like if something as brutal, uncompromising, and entertaining as Fury Road also left you with tears streaming down your face. I was bawling like a mother found her long-lost son, while watching Fury Road.
Logan did choke me up, though.
|
|