• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

*** Official Film Thread ***

Grays_1890 said:
Bit of both
Click to expand...

Hmm it's a bit of a cop out answer but I think it depends on the individual and the film. What one viewer finds profound another may think is artsy nonsense, it's an obvious statement but it's all subjective. I always found it a bit "meh" that Childish Gambino would never go in to specifics on the "This is America" music video, in a bit of a if you have to ask you'll never know vibe...I can see why, by not being clear cut about the intention you allow viewers to take their own meaning from it but that's when stuff gets taken out of context.

Some directors seem to enjoy throwing the audience off or being intentionally jarring (David Lynch comes to mind), others just want to give a clean account of things. It's like impressionism versus portrait painting, one is a clinical recreation and the other goes beyond the boundaries of reality.

As for critics I always love the note in the dressing room mirror of Micheal Keaton's character in Birdman, "A thing is a thing, not what is said of that thing". It seems like many people just want a pacifying effect from their entertainment these days, understandable if overrun by stress / work / worries that you might just want to be able to disengage the brain and watch John Wick kicking ass or a bunch of CGI superheroes slogging it out to no end.

Not sure if this is just pretentious ramblings or actually even answers your question! I never got paid work in TV / Film but did a lot of sound design + Foley projects back in uni days, was always on the technical side of things rather than the artistic...
 
spurspinter1 said:
Hmm it's a bit of a cop out answer but I think it depends on the individual and the film. What one viewer finds profound another may think is artsy nonsense, it's an obvious statement but it's all subjective. I always found it a bit "meh" that Childish Gambino would never go in to specifics on the "This is America" music video, in a bit of a if you have to ask you'll never know vibe...I can see why, by not being clear cut about the intention you allow viewers to take their own meaning from it but that's when stuff gets taken out of context.

Some directors seem to enjoy throwing the audience off or being intentionally jarring (David Lynch comes to mind), others just want to give a clean account of things. It's like impressionism versus portrait painting, one is a clinical recreation and the other goes beyond the boundaries of reality.

As for critics I always love the note in the dressing room mirror of Micheal Keaton's character in Birdman, "A thing is a thing, not what is said of that thing". It seems like many people just want a pacifying effect from their entertainment these days, understandable if overrun by stress / work / worries that you might just want to be able to disengage the brain and watch John Wick kicking ass or a bunch of CGI superheroes slogging it out to no end.

Not sure if this is just pretentious ramblings or actually even answers your question! I never got paid work in TV / Film but did a lot of sound design + Foley projects back in uni days, was always on the technical side of things rather than the artistic...
Click to expand...

No mate absolutely makes sense 100%, I agree that I think alot comes from the director side some who likely want people to take away their own feelings from a film, others likely wanting to create more conversations, like you say being intentionally jarring.

The Birdman example is brilliant and probably more important because of how Keating was considered at the time, I think his own life was rooted in that film and the message of, what ever it is to you it is.

I think you are right about people wanting the escape but I also think that is also balanced off from people that want to almost live through a film and thats where you might get some over complexity from some. If you get a chance check this out which explains that better than I could, its abit wordy and I don't agree with it all, but its worth a read Thinking through (popular) film (theconversation.com)
 
spurspinter1 said:
It seems a healthier middle ground between one end saying absolutely anything goes or the other end wanting to ban / remove stuff from the archives of time.



Ruffalo was brilliant in Zodiac which has a few similar cast members to shutter island, he is perhaps underrated by the fact that a lot will just know him as the Hulk which he does well but it's not the most serious + often CGI.

It's interesting on the interpretations, like conversations, two people can walk away from a film with totally opposing accounts of what happened / what it meant. Arty types like directors usually stay neutral using the "It means different things to different people" approach to not alienate people..
Click to expand...

Id agree it’s an acceptable compromise. I’d still prefer trigger warnings to be used for serious stuff in an ideal world though. I remember watching the Sopranos on E4 and there was a warning just before the ad break ended about the next scene containing a sexual assault. That’s an example of where those warnings are absolutely warranted.
 
Grays_1890 said:
No mate absolutely makes sense 100%, I agree that I think alot comes from the director side some who likely want people to take away their own feelings from a film, others likely wanting to create more conversations, like you say being intentionally jarring.

The Birdman example is brilliant and probably more important because of how Keating was considered at the time, I think his own life was rooted in that film and the message of, what ever it is to you it is.

I think you are right about people wanting the escape but I also think that is also balanced off from people that want to almost live through a film and thats where you might get some over complexity from some. If you get a chance check this out which explains that better than I could, its abit wordy and I don't agree with it all, but its worth a read Thinking through (popular) film (theconversation.com)
Click to expand...

The article is intriguing, thanks for linking it. A lot of interesting points but I have bookmarked it for a re-read as it's definitely a thinker. Interesting point that Cinema encompasses all the forms of art within the medium and also describing the mute brutality of the phrase "over-thinking" having been told so much that I am an over thinker like it's a choice to just suddenly not think so much about stuff!

Birdman is a funny one as Keaton has gone on to reprise his superhero role later on in life much like his character in the film, hopeful without the mental breakdown / loss of grip on reality. Zach Gallafinakis (sp!?) was superb in it too. The music was brilliant as well as the way it was slipped in to the film. It's quite amazing comparing the vibe of that film to the Revenant, hard to believe it's the same director..
 
spurspinter1 said:
The music was brilliant as well as the way it was slipped in to the film. It's quite amazing comparing the vibe of that film to the Revenant, hard to believe it's the same director..
Click to expand...

Random segway from that last part, I've been getting into history of directors that have worked over many genres. Interest which was born out of learning that the first Mission Impossible was directed by Brian De Palma whose first film was Carrie which blew my mind, then reading up on Friedkin etc. Then you have Directors obsessed with films being seen as their films and style like Wes Anderson.

I know that's gone way off piste haha
 
Lilbaz said:
Yeah ezra miller going psycho in the real world didn't help.
Click to expand...

That coupled with how DC/Warner have handled their "DC Universe" films in the last few years have led to these films having zero hype.

Similar to how Disney fumbled the Solo film, minus Ezra's exploits in the media.
 
Grays_1890 said:
One of my fav actors is Mark Ruffalo

On your point I was in a worm hole last night about The Shining and how its been interpreted to the nth degree. From a film that on face value is about someone going mad from solitary living with a son who has a gift all the way to the idea that the hotel is actually a living being who wants the child as a human sacrifice. Its intriguing how people take hugely different things from those kinds of films
Click to expand...

This is one of my favourite films of all-time (I love Kubrick). Seen it at least 30 times. I agree, it has been taken to new levels of weirdo interpretation. My personal take was always that it dealt with schizophrenia into madness (Torrence) and a son who sees and feels the horror/illness whilst also being an empath (always took 'the shine' to be that empath 6th sense of others). I like your take too. But that 237 doc? I didn't last 15 minutes!!!!! Taschen have done some amazing books on it, and I think the soundtrack is one of the greatest film scores ever...
 
Grays_1890 said:
No mate absolutely makes sense 100%, I agree that I think alot comes from the director side some who likely want people to take away their own feelings from a film, others likely wanting to create more conversations, like you say being intentionally jarring.

The Birdman example is brilliant and probably more important because of how Keating was considered at the time, I think his own life was rooted in that film and the message of, what ever it is to you it is.

I think you are right about people wanting the escape but I also think that is also balanced off from people that want to almost live through a film and thats where you might get some over complexity from some. If you get a chance check this out which explains that better than I could, its abit wordy and I don't agree with it all, but its worth a read Thinking through (popular) film (theconversation.com)
Click to expand...

For sheer impact, depth, thought-provoking subject and sheer artistry of the physical work, I think Steve McQueen films are hard to beat. The director just to be clear...his Small Axe series is simply brilliant IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back