Foreign Favorites

>Sorry, In my opinion Greenaway is a pretentious hack. It's the old story of making films for the audience (since after all movies are viewed by others) vs. making a movie for yourself.

I always find this to be a silly argument because there is an audience for absolutely everything, it's just the amount of people who will watch it that differs.

>In any other artistic medium the artist hopes for a positive response from his audience.

Please. No matter the artistic medium it always depends upon the goals of the specific artist.

>I have never understood why it was acceptable for far too many "art house directors" to make unwatchable pretentious garbage and pass it off as film. By that standard, Tom Green's "Freddie Got Fingered" is a masterpiece. Greenaway elevates himself above Green only by keeping a straight face.

There's a lot of truth in Greenaway's films about social and human condition. There's also a tremendous level of artistry. In Green's stuff there's just a bunch of gross out material.

>My favorite films are usually by directors whose primary concern is to adhere to a personal vision. They create images based on subjective aesthetic principles.

Nod. Greenaway is unique because his vision is something like transforming film into a series of cinematic paintings rather than just illustrated text.

>Films calculated to satisfy an audience are often entertaining and nothing more.

They usually aren't even entertaining because the are generally the same old thing done the same old way.

>I value films that take stabs at greatness and strive for originality, even when they fail.

I agree. An interesting failure is better than a lot of good films, generally because these good films only strive to be good.

>A perfect introduction to European film for the novice and reluctant. I just wish CODE UNKNOWN or THE DREAMLIFE OF ANGELS or LA PROMESSE had had half of Amelie's advertising budget.

Nod. I still haven't decided if Dreamlife is a great film. I thought it was very powerful and moving, but I guess the stumbling block is that it reminds me a lot of Vagabond and that's such an amazing film. As good as Bouchez is, Bonnaire is on another level.

>Your statement implies that cinema deserves to be taken seriously.

Cinema that tries to say something deserves to be taken seriously unless what it has to say is juvenile like say I Am Sam.

>What a film says or means is one of the important questions.

Absolutely!

>The answers will be subjective and varied.

Yeah, if it's a good film rather than a sermon from the mount Hollywood.:)

>I propose that RASHOMON has two primary ideas.
The portion of reality we actually perceive is "filtered" through memory, cognition, language, personality, etc. Of course we lie to others, and to ourselves.

This part I agree with.

>What Kurosawa shows is that we cannot avoid "lies" or "untruths" because Truth is beyond our grasp and ability.

I understand what you are trying to say, but I don't think the film as it stands mirrors reality and I think Kurosawa's take is too black and white. People can't avoid putting their slant on a story would be much truer than what he had to say. Kurosawa could have made a movie showing virtually the same story each time to show the subtle differences caused by positioning, perspective, point of view, beliefs, etc, to show that what we believe is the truth isn't exactly true. It isn't necessarily a lie either. Regardless, rather that focusing on what's beyond us even when we are doing are best not to "lie", his film is about the motivation behind lies. All the characters are telling a quite different story with some similarities because they are "gaining" something from the way other people see it, and subsequently see them them. Thus, there's something very much in their grasp and ability. What might be beyond their grasp and ability is the consequences that come from the way they are altering other's perceptions.

>There is a second event open to interpretation in Rashomon: the motivation of the person who abandons a baby. The film proposes that human suffering, which is a given, can only be abated through love and sacrifice. The wood dealer decides to adopt the baby, he walks away from Rashomon gate, baby in arms, looking up, a slight but honest smile on his face.End.

This is just Kurosawa's sentimentality. Universal love and sacrifice is not a possibility and there are a zillion cases where there is a tremendous amount of love and sacrifice on an individual to individual or small group level but these people still suffer tremendously, like everytime there's a war or "conflict", and when isn't there...I'll give you that Kurosawa's plee here is admirable, but what really did this ending have to do with the film it belonged to?

Mike
Raging Bull Movie Reviews

>Sorry, In my opinion Greenaway is a pretentious hack. It's the old story of making films for the audience (since after all movies are viewed by others) vs. making a movie for yourself.

>>I always find this to be a silly argument because there is an audience for absolutely everything, it's just the amount of people who will watch it that differs. <<

Yeah and a certain amount of people would watch mashed potatoes run down the wall. It doesn't change the fact that films with widespread poularity aren't necessarily bad films while films with a small, devoted following aren't necessarily good films.

>In any other artistic medium the artist hopes for a positive response from his audience.

>>Please. No matter the artistic medium it always depends upon the goals of the specific artist. <<

The specific artist still wants to illicit an emotional response from the viewer of his or her work. The artist wants to use his or her skill in the medium to affect the viewer emotionally.

>I have never understood why it was acceptable for far too many "art house directors" to make unwatchable pretentious garbage and pass it off as film. By that standard, Tom Green's "Freddie Got Fingered" is a masterpiece. Greenaway elevates himself above Green only by keeping a straight face.

>>There's a lot of truth in Greenaway's films about social and human condition. There's also a tremendous level of artistry. In Green's stuff there's just a bunch of gross out material.<<

You call it gross-out but another person might consider it high art. As you said before, "there is an audience for absolutely everything." isn't it a little "black and white" to simply dismiss Green out of hand? (This is a philisophical question since I also thought Green's work was trash. )


>There is a second event open to interpretation in Rashomon: the motivation of the person who abandons a baby. The film proposes that human suffering, which is a given, can only be abated through love and sacrifice. The wood dealer decides to adopt the baby, he walks away from Rashomon gate, baby in arms, looking up, a slight but honest smile on his face.End.

>>This is just Kurosawa's sentimentality.<<

Sentimentality? I see Kurosawa's ending as an affirmation of the wisdom inherent in an optimistic outlook. To despair without actually knowing the future (none of us do) is not only folly but also a sort of lie to ourselves.

>>but what really did this ending have to do with the film it belonged to?<<

The film as well as the ending "belong to" the auteur. Kurosawa didn't make Rashomon to confirm what our view of humanity is. It's his story.

I've laughed at Tom Green a few times, but the guy is bonkers.

If someone felt that what he did in "Freddy" was high-art, I would now be engaged in a frustrating debate....

VAGABOND is a must-see for film buffs. I was profoundly moved by this sad sad film. I can't watch it again. I think everyone here has seen a movie that you only need to see once. (Not that they don't deserve repeated viewings, just that the message was driven home) Agnes still makes great films. And she's no spring chicken, either. Gotta admire that...

>>If someone felt that what he did in "Freddy" was high-art, I would now be engaged in a frustrating debate....<<

Shhh! They might get ideas around here!

There has been scant mention of that french pest Jean-Luc Godard.

He's got a few films that have made an impression on me. The first film of his I saw was My Life to Live, which I thought was fantastic. Then I started reading up, and found that the man is highly regarded in all film circles (usually as a non-linear genius) and he's maintained integrity all these years. I saw my first Godard on the big screen last year with his new release. In terms of cinema history, I think he is very important for exposing a lot of people to other ways of editing, telling a story, and social conciousness.

Breathless, Contempt, Band of Outsiders, Pierrot le Fou, Alphaville, Weekend and Le Petit Soldat are all excellent films in my view. The rest seem like monstrous ego trips or excercises in banality. (Just try and watch One Plus One: Sympathy for the Devil and not say to yourself "what the fuck am I watching?") At least Greenaway seems to have a REASON..

"If you have a big audience, you can't really say you respect them-it's like saying you respect the people in the street-you don't really know who they are. But if only 10 people come to see your film, you begin to wonder who they are" J.L.Godard

Godard makes films for an intellectual elite, films chock-full of literary, historical, and cinema references.For example, in In Praise of Love, a couple converse by the Siene while a 30s tune is heard. The scene makes a lot more sense if you know the tune is from Vigo's L'Atalante and the spot is a famous Resistance site. Like Manny Farber wrote: No other filmmaker has so consistently made me feel like a stupid ass. No other filmmaker has provided me with more pleasure and insight either. Simply I think Godard is ahead of his time. He is still experimenting with form and content for the few who care.
The reason why his 60s films are most popular is because their innovations and conceits have already been incorporated into mainstream film culture. Watching many of his more recent films is comparable to jazz lovers of the 50s listening to Ornette Coleman or Thelonious Monk for the first time. Godard often separates sound from image and plot from dialogue. The viewer has to constantly readjust but the pleasures are still palpable, the images and sounds, and plenty of food for thought.

OK, I know I'm going to ruffle a few feathers here, but I find Godard to be an utter bore. I haven't seen all his stuff but I own "two or three things I know about her" and you want to know how many times I've watched it? Once.

I couldn't bring myself to view this film another time. My time on this planet is limited and I don't want to spend it in a darkened room watching yet another elitist social satire. If I want a good social satire, I'll be much happier throwing in Chaplin's "Modern Times".

It's not a film I can even recommend to friends and yet Amy Taubin of the Village Voice called it "One of the greatest films ever made!" Yeah, maybe if I subscribed to Godard's belief that consumer society is a whorehouse.

Godard seems like the kind of filmmaker that the "movie-snobs" I used to work with would gush over but at the end of the night they would rarely walk out of the store with a Godard film.

These films are made to sit on the shelves at video stores for urban, hipster women with horn rimmed glasses and berets who keep saying, "Oh, I've always wanted to see this...well maybe next time let's get "Beautiful Girls" with Matt Dillon!"

You are entitled to your opinions. Godard's films are certainly not for those looking for diversion or for a cure for boredom. However, your comments contain a single glaring inaccuracy. Godard's audience has always been overwhelmingly male. Moreover, males rate his films significantly higher than females(IMDB ratings). You seem to be looking for opportunities to display your misogyny, in my opinion.

There are a not a few filmmakers out there who "experiment". Few pull it off.
Godard's "tests" seem to have an unsettling cohesion. It all seems to come together (for me at least) when we see the final scenes. Even Alphaville with it's mars dialogue/french Frampton narration works for me. (I want credit for that description!)

Weekend's endless tracking shot of car wrecks is something I've rewound and watched over and over. I wouldn't call Godard a bore- he certainly doesn't bore me, but he confuses me more than Greenaway (and that's an achievement). He knows how to manipulate the screen to sometimes astounding effect, and for that I drop a knee. He also rejuvenated the movies in the 50's/60's. It was VERY uncool to be into film in the 60's. This is a fact. I've talked to film buffs who were in film schools then and they all say it was very "square" to be a film student back then. One guys parents disowned him! Godard (& the new wave) made it cool, made it chic.. Kinda like Top Gun increasing recuiting for pilots in the US Navy-although that is ridiculous:)

I haven't seen alot of Foreign movies, many of which I saw when they rapidly played through at the small independent theater in town (now much farther away). But of those I can remember, a few really stood out for me:

• After Life [Wandafuru raifu] (1999 - Japan)
• Run, Lola, Run (Germany)
• Picnic at Hanging Rock (Australia)
• Kieslowski's 3 Colors
• Solaris (Russian)
• Amelie
• Fantastic Planet [Planète sauvage, La] (1973 - Czechoslovakia / France )

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oscar jubis
You are entitled to your opinions. Godard's films are certainly not for those looking for diversion or for a cure for boredom. However, your comments contain a single glaring inaccuracy. Godard's audience has always been overwhelmingly male. Moreover, males rate his films significantly higher than females(IMDB ratings). You seem to be looking for opportunities to display your misogyny, in my opinion.

---

You'll note that I didn't say the stereotypical woman actually RENTED the film, just TALKED about renting it. So if there was any "glaring inaccuracy" it was on the part of the reader of my post not myself.

It doesn't surprise me that males tend to rate Godard's films higher because a male will tend to try and justify their film-watching decision by any means necessary, most of the women I know will simply admit when a film is an utter bore. BTW, watching an elitist social satire is the ultimate diversion and convincing oneself that watching a film is socially redeeming is a sign of a bored person.

"BTW, watching an elitist social satire is the ultimate diversion and convincing oneself that watching a film is socially redeeming is a sign of a bored person."

Having previously admitted that you've only seen a few of Godard's films, and then based the majority of your criticism on one of them, it's possible you may be underexposed to Godard to sufficiently make a broad statement equating him to a social or cultural elitist. However, labeling him as such and then referring to people who've convinced themselves that seeing his work is socially redeeming are "bored" seems as much a reverse-justification of your own opinion as it does an attack on theirs.

Just an observation.

Besides, one could argue that anyone who posts on a film message board instead of actually seeing a film or doing something otherwise constructive is demonstrably "bored." In that case, it's safe to say we're all bored.

>>Having previously admitted that you've only seen a few of Godard's films, and then based the majority of your criticism on one of them, it's possible you may be underexposed to Godard to sufficiently make a broad statement equating him to a social or cultural elitist.<<

While it's true that I said I hadn't seen all of his stuff, I did NOT say I had seen "only a few" of his films. Don't misquote me. I'm getting so sick of this same old lame argument that happens every time someone disagrees that a filmaker isn't the best thing since sliced bread. I am not quite sure why people some people are so hell-bent on forcing their opinions down other peoples throats. You like Godard? Fine. Enjoy yourself. I ain't buying.

I happen to like the works of Kurosawa and David Lean and I don't really care if you don't. In fact, I don't care if you have never seen their films and decide to shout from the rooftops that they are awful. Suffice it to say, my "exposure" to his Godard is sufficient for me to form my OWN OPINION.

What a novel idea! I form my OWN opinions rather than simply parroting some coffee table book on foreign film.

>>However, labeling him as such and then referring to people who've convinced themselves that seeing his work is socially redeeming are "bored" seems as much a reverse-justification of your own opinion as it does an attack on theirs.<<

It never ceases to amaze me that some think that a difference of opinion is an "attack". In life, one of few absolutes that is undeniable is that people will have different opinions. It takes a mature person to accept this fact and move on.

Just an observation.

Everything was fine and then "...parroting some coffee table book on foreign film" implying we like Godard because is the correct/hip/cool thing to do. You cannot fanthom that others experience genuine pleasure viewing his films. You imply we have to convince ourselves of their worth. By the way, I think many would agree with your disregard for Godard. His potential audience is smaller than other directors', resulting in lack of distribution in America. Many of his recent films are proudly experimental and obtuse. I understand your opinion. What I don't understand is: you meant to ruffle feathers and then, when misenscene questioned your "credentials", you call it an "attack" from one lacking maturity. I cannot believe all you expected was:"yeah man, that Godard is a bore"!

This is a case of one side stating a strong case and taking umbrage when the opposing side engages in debate. Debating the issues with fact produces different results from debating issues with opinion. Stating an opinion is fine. Stating opinions made to seem like facts, or opinions that are unnecessarily derogatory or insulting to bolster the credibility of one's own statment seems to create the exact opposite effect: name-calling reduces the credibility of the argument.

Just an observation.

And since we're all still harping on this issue, I suppose none of us are mature enough to have accepted the difference in opinion and move on.

For the record, we're all entitled to strong opinions. It's when those opinions are expressed in a snide and insulting manner that they incite a backlash. Not liking Godard is fine -- I couldn't care less about anyone's opinion of any other filmmaker -- but attributing a like of Godard to a social elitism, film snobbery or coffee-table book hipsterism doesn't exactly lend credence to one's opinion from a conversational standpoint. The dislike of Godard isn't ruffling feathers; the pettiness and defensiveness of the argument is.

I happen to think Godard is a bore and an elitist. You guys apparently like his stuff. No problem.

What IS a problem is making it a personal issue.

Oscar Jubis:

>>"Godard's films are certainly not for those looking for diversion or for a cure for boredom. However, your comments contain a single glaring inaccuracy. Godard's audience has always been overwhelmingly male. Moreover, males rate his films significantly higher than females(IMDB ratings). You seem to be looking for opportunities to display your misogyny, in my opinion."<<

This implies that I watch film for "diversion" and a "cure for boredom". That is clearly an insult. Secondly, you accuse me of misogyny. Do you even know the definition of the word? That's totally insulting and it's sad that you resort to something like that when someone disagrees with you.

Now, to reply to miseenscene:

You chimed in on this thread to apparently ambush me with insults even though prior to your response post I hadn't exchanged word one with you.

>>Having previously admitted that you've only seen a few of Godard's films,<<

There is your first error. You start off on the wrong foot by misquoting me. I clearly said I hadn't seen ALL of his stuff NOT "only a few of Godard's films". Excuse me if getting misquoted bothers me.

>> and then based the majority of your criticism on one of them, it's possible you may be underexposed to Godard to sufficiently make a broad statement equating him to a social or cultural elitist.<<

This implies that I am just casting about an unfounded opinion which is absurd and insulting. It's one thing to say "I don't like the films of director X because of A, B, or C reasons" "I don't have a problem with someone replying "Well. I DO like the films of director X because of A, B, and C reasons" Tabuno, Docraven and I do this quite a bit. We don't take it personally when we disagree. In fact, none of our top 10 film lists are identical.

However, it's entirely another thing to insult or misquote someone in a thread and make implications about that individual.

>>The dislike of Godard isn't ruffling feathers; the pettiness and defensiveness of the argument is.<<

Bull. The only people that are defensive are the ones who are defending Godard. Pettiness is saying something like "you may be underexposed to Godard". If someone insults me, don't be surprised if I come back with equal invective.

I don't wish to turn this into some sort of flame forum but if attacked I will defend myself. I am willing to move on at this point as long as I am not further misquoted or falsely accused of "being underexposed".

>> I suppose none of us are mature enough to have accepted the difference in opinion and move on.<<

The difference of opinion on Godard? I've moved on from that issue a long time ago. The current issue is (and has been for the last few posts) forum etiquette. You hold your own opinions and I'll hold mine and we can exchange viewpoints, but start misquoting people and insulting them and the lack of civility will make this forum pointless.

>>>The dislike of Godard isn't ruffling feathers; the pettiness and defensiveness of the argument is.<<<

>>Bull. The only people that are defensive are the ones who are defending Godard. Pettiness is saying something like "you may be underexposed to Godard". If someone insults me, don't be surprised if I come back with equal invective.<<

Hmm...

Thank you for clarifying the status of what is and isn't considered petty. The "movie-snob" comment previously mentioned is an example of what I'd taken to be petty, as were the defenses of your opinion in which you equated Godard fans with social elitists, attacked anyone who defended their like of said films as bored, presumed to state the audience these films were made for (horn-rimmed glasses-wearing Matt Dillon-loving pseudo-hypocrites), and then dismissed all further argument as the pedantic pandering of coffee table book-quoting film snob intelligentsia. I take it that these are valid examples of non-petty, openminded and justified statements, wholly supported by you and the two other posters on this board who have set the standard for appropriate ways to state one's opinion, or so your defense claims.

Having inferred earlier that you may be underexposed to Godard is an observation based upon your criticism, not an attack. You viewed the challenge to your opinion, or perhaps the wording thereof, as an insult. If I said you were underexposed to the political upheaval in Venezuela, for example, I wouldn't be calling you ignorant, I'd be stating a perception based upon evidence at hand. Dismissing a difference in opinion, particularly one made without overtones of a personal attack (and even lacking the misogyny comment made by another), seems to indicate an unwillingness on your part to engage in a debate of ideas without resorting to harsh, take-it-or-leave-it opinions that will be defended righteously if challenged.

As for the defnesive angle, we both appear to be vigorously defending everything we've said, not just the Godard fans. The difference is, I'm trying to clarify my point at which I thought your argument lost credence; you're trying to debunk everything I have to say as an insult or personal attack. Since we're at cross-purposes at this point in the thread, and have completely moved off-topic in terms of foreign films, I say we leave this issue where it lays since neither of us is going to sway the other to see his point of view anytime soon.

May I weigh in on both sides here. I find these kinds of arguments interesting, but a bit frustrating. This has been a part of a few other strings on this forum as well. Everyone who has entered into the fray has provided an insight or two, especially regarding their own vision. All seem to agree that everyone of us has different sensitivities and legitimate preferences.

What I’d like to suggest is that all of us read responses to our postings with generosity, and not assume personal attacks. I suspect we all disagree with things we read here, and we all find other things to agree about. Hopefully, we also get some new insights. We also come to get a sense of how various individuals respond.

Stevetseitz, for example, is right up front with his views, and often states them in very strong ways. I rather enjoy this. If he refers to something like “coffee table books,” I think I get the point. And it makes me think a bit. I have to admit having been influenced at times by film books rather than really thinking and responding for myself. I cannot state it as a fact, but I suspect many of us have done the same. But hopefully, these are not long lasting or imbedded influences. Anyway, it doesn’t hurt me to think about such a possibility -- or about “band wagon” responses to film. I could make similar comments about things almost everyone has stated here, but what’s the point?

I just suspect all of us can be a little less thin-skinned about our postings. After all, I assume we come here for exchange. I hope we even come to be challenged a bit. I hate to see personal wars when they are not necessary, and I question their value to any of us. A sense of generosity of spirit wouldn’t hurt any of us when it comes to reading other people’s postings.

>>Thank you for clarifying the status of what is and isn't considered petty.<<

You're welcome.

>> The "movie-snob" comment previously mentioned is an example of what I'd taken to be petty<<

You mean this statement? : "Godard seems like the kind of filmmaker that the "movie-snobs" I used to work with would gush over"? If you would bother to read what I ACTUALLY said rather than have a "knee-jerk" reaction you would see that it's more a comment about the people I used to work with rather than any specific description of Godard, his fans or his films.

>>You mean , as were the defenses of your opinion in which you equated Godard fans with social elitists<<

Yet another misquote! I said in the original post I didn't want to waste my time watching "yet another elitist social satire". This doesn't apply to Godard fans but specifically "two or three things I know about her..."

>>, attacked anyone who defended their like of said films as bored, <<

Yet another misqoute. I did not attack "anyone who defended their like of said films as bored". The actual statement, in a reply post, was "convincing oneself that watching a film is socially redeeming is a sign of a bored person."
It's not an "attack" it's a belief. If you disagree...fine, no skin off my nose.

>>presumed to state the audience these films were made for (horn-rimmed glasses-wearing Matt Dillon-loving pseudo-hypocrites)<<

Wrong. That isn't what I said. But apparently you didn't bother to read the original post very carefully. From my experience in working at a trendy, alternative video store after high school, I stated that films like these were "made to sit on the shelves at video stores for urban, hipster women with horn rimmed glasses and berets who keep saying, "Oh, I've always wanted to see this...well maybe next time let's get "Beautiful Girls" with Matt Dillon!" This scene was so common it became amusing at the store I worked. Employees would make wagers predicting the actual rentals of people who came in asking for foreign films. If you have no sense of humor you don't have any business interacting with other people on these forums.


>> I take it that these are valid examples of non-petty, openminded and justified statements, wholly supported by you and the two other posters on this board who have set the standard for appropriate ways to state one's opinion, or so your defense claims.<<

It's not "defense". I have no need to "defend" against such an obvious lack of facts. Since you haven't quoted me correctly thus far, I'll assume you are new to the process of message boards or unfamiliar with common etiquette.

>>Having inferred earlier that you may be underexposed to Godard is an observation based upon your criticism, not an attack.<<

Even if it was meant as an "observation", and not an attack, it was based on faulty data. I clearly stated that I had not seen all of Godard's films. Somehow you misquoted me by saying I had seen "only a few". So your "observation" was based on either a lack of comprehension on the part of the reader or an intentional omission.

>>You viewed the challenge to your opinion, or perhaps the wording thereof, as an insult. If I said you were underexposed to the political upheaval in Venezuela, for example, I wouldn't be calling you ignorant, I'd be stating a perception based upon evidence at hand.<<

It wasn't a "challenge" to my "opinion". It was a misquote and furthermore a conclusion based on incorrect data.

>> Dismissing a difference in opinion, particularly one made without overtones of a personal attack (and even lacking the misogyny comment made by another), seems to indicate an unwillingness on your part to engage in a debate of ideas without resorting to harsh, take-it-or-leave-it opinions that will be defended righteously if challenged.<<

Not at all. I am certainly open and accepting of different opinions. Look at my last post: " I happen to think Godard is a bore and an elitist. You guys apparently like his stuff. No problem. " The problem is the misquoting and the implying of "underexposure". This is basic etiquette which must be followed in order for message boards to serve their purpose.

>>As for the defnesive angle, we both appear to be vigorously defending everything we've said, not just the Godard fans.<<

You can't vigorously defend misquoting someone, no matter how hard you try. The proof is in the posts.

>>The difference is, I'm trying to clarify my point at which I thought your argument lost credence; you're trying to debunk everything I have to say as an insult or personal attack.<<

Clarity will never be reached as long as you consistently misquote others. When you make implications about others based on misquotes it only serves to weaken your case.

>> Since we're at cross-purposes at this point in the thread, and have completely moved off-topic in terms of foreign films, I say we leave this issue where it lays since neither of us is going to sway the other to see his point of view anytime soon.<<

Like I said before: " I happen to think Godard is a bore and an elitist. You guys apparently like his stuff. No problem."

I cannot let this die without saying I was wrong to use the term "your misogyny" in response to Stevetseitz. I do not know you and I don't have enough information to make that judgement. I was reacting to your specifying gender in your comments about customers at a rental store, when gender was irrelevant. This, and terms like "movie-snobs", tick me off. But that's no excuse. I apologize.

I apologize if I offended anyone. Oscar, you are a class act. I appreciate it. Let's get back to movies!

I'll apologize as well, since offending anyone was never my intent. There's something to be said for an inability to convey sarcasm (or NOT convey sarcasm) on message boards. I imagine that's why emoticons *shudder* were invented...

And since I partially derailed us from foreign film, I'll attempt to get us back on track: what's the going opinion on the Dogme 95 scene? I've only seen two Dogme films thus far, Festen (The Celebration) and Mifune, and I found Festen to be far more engaging than Mifune. Maybe it had something to do with Festen having more sympathetic characters and (to me) a more compelling storyline.

Regardless, whether Dogme 95 is just another stunt or not, I'm a fan of getting away from the Hollywood filmmaking style as long as the means support the story and vice versa. That may also be why I wasn't a big Mifune fan, since it's essentially a Hollywood "ugly duckling romantic comedy" with a twist. (Then again, Festen isn't exactly novel either...)

I'm glad somebody mentioned Dogme 95- i was going to touch on it at some point, just nobody spoke.

SO

Lars von Trier & his "gang" feel that cinema is lacking excitement, huh? They create a new "manifesto" for film. A new "Magna Carta" if you will... Did it work?
You bet your bibby it worked. Do yourself a favour. Rent Trier's "The Idiots". See a group of performers that are no different from the 60's Living Theatre. They are actors of such high calibre & dedication that they deserve medals of honor.

Then, after you take a shower after THE IDIOTS, dare to rent the 80 min. documentary on the making of the film. After taking yet another long hot shower-involving lots of sobbing & screams of "why?", write yo mama you saw history in the making- a cinematic team of warriors smashing the gates of conventional moviemaking- and doing it so casually you SHOULD be afraid.

Lars von Trier's name should evoke a certain type of respect. The kind of respect given to men of honor like Welles, Lean and Lang.

I believe that whenever artists face limitations(technical,political,financial) the potential for creativity increases. Dogme 95 films have a unique facility to evoke the texture and rhythm of everyday life. I get a voyeuristic kick out of them. The approach sometimes results in uneven, even indulgent, movies. I have seen 7 out of 25 dogme films so far. My favorite is the above-mentioned Festen, probably because the story is ideally suited to this style. I'd probably pick Julien Donkey-boy second, a spotty film that reaches lofty heights. At worst these are interesting and worth-watching: The Idiots, Mifune, Kira's Reason, The King is Alive and Fuckland (last 2 show up on Sundance and IFC). The Idiots has a mischiveous energy that reminds me of Vigo's Zero in Conduct and Renoir's Boudu saved from drowning. Johann's observation about the 60s Living Theatre is right on. The Idiots feels like a late-60s counterculture movie, with communal living, sex scenes allegedly featuring real penetration, frontal nudity, and mayhem.

Incidentally, there are two films, not designated Dogme but quite similar in approach, which I love and consider superior to Festen. To these eyes, the Dardenne brothers' Rosetta abides by Dogme 95 and Lynn Ramsay's Ratcatcher is minimally stylized. Both are engaging, psychologically detailed portraits of working-class European urban youth.

Anybody see the astounding shorts by the brothers Quay? I have serious admiration for these two ARTISTS. They make animated stop-motion films that exist in a world all their own. I have the Kino vhs that has all of their shorts on it, and it is an enthralling view. (I find it compliments my Greenaway films)

Their best? Street of Crocodiles- 1986. Each short is a surreal composition that just have to be seen to be believed...

I believe I've seen some Quay works -- I must have, among the many shorts they showed us while I studied animation in college, but I don't recall the names of all the stop-motion folk. There was one, which may or may not be a Quay film, called "Balance" or something similar, in which a bunch of black figures (as I recall) each stood, City of Angels style, on a level platform, and then something occurred that caused an imbalance in the platform, and they began falling off and rushing around to save themselves... Fuzzy memory. Is that a Brothers Quay film?

Incidentally, to trudge up some Godard musings, I rented Band of Outsiders this weekend and couldn't get through it. I like Godard, I admire what he did and the influence he had, but of the films of his I've seen thus far, I've only enjoyed two (Jules et Jim and Alphaville), if you really can "enjoy" a Godard film, I've been underwhelmed by one (Breathless, which probably deserves a second viewing), and two haven't made it past the halfway point before I've ejected them (Band of Outsiders and Pierrout le Fou). He may be a genius and a savior of cinema, but there's a real undercurrent of presumptuous disrespect for his audience that rankles my nerves...

I did see The Girl on the Bridge recently, and liked that much more than much of Godard's work, even though it probably wouldn't be here without Godard.

Balance was the winner of the 1989 Academy Award for Best animated short. It was made by Christoff and Wolfgang Lauenstein of Germany. It can be found on "The best of the 22nd International Tournee of Animation" LD which I own.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by miseenscene I like Godard, I admire what he did and the influence he had, but of the films of his I've seen thus far, I've only enjoyed two (Jules et Jim and Alphaville), if you really can "enjoy" a Godard film. He may be a genius and a savior of cinema, but there's a real undercurrent of presumptuous disrespect for his audience that rankles my nerves...

---

I take advantage of your mention of Jules et Jim to contrast the careers of its director, Francois Truffaut, and monsieur Godard. At the start of their careers they shared a common aesthetics and philosophy, then gradually, Truffaut and Godard personified opposing poles within the French New Wave. Truffaut films cultivated a certain continental charm and adhered to certain, primarily literary and audience-friendly, narrative conventions. Godard tweaks and prods narrative to create a "film essay" full of ideas and cultural references. Truffaut became a movie director while Godard conducted his image+sound experiments. Cinema needed them both. Godard never pandered or condescended to his audience. Godard never sold out to the forces of commerce. MUST all art seek a mass audience?

Wow, oscar. I think that's the best post I've read on these boards.

Girl on the Bridge was an art-house film noir to me. Vanessa Paradis will get me into a theatre any day of the week-I even have her 1992 album-produced by Lenny Kravitz-. BUY IT! (no, I get no royalties)

Hmm... Jules et Jim vs. Godard... Classic non-film school blunder on my part, thinking Godard had done Jules et Jim. But here's the true irony: that means I enjoyed even fewer Godard films than I'd thought...

True, cinema needs both Truffaut and Godard, almost yin vs. yang in the French New Wave... No, all art need not necessarily find a mass audience; in fact, I distrust most art that DOES, since mass audiences are rarely discerning judges of quality and insight. But both of those directors have carved out fairly canonized niches in the film world, and each has influenced modern cimena immensely.

I wonder how much of Godard's seemingly greater influence is due to his actual cinematic genius as opposed to the proliferation of cinephiles that preach his word as gospel. For example, as a somewhat casual foreign film fan, I can name a handful of Godard films off the top of my head, but I know of far fewer Truffaut films. Is this the result of a film-school gang mentality when it comes to Godard, or have his films legitimately earned their status?

It's a double-edged sword with Godard.
I can see how a "film-school gang mentality" can trumpet him as a genius, but I really feel he's the real deal. It's the way his films are made i think that separates him from the pretentious tag. (If only a few feet).

If anything, the bravery (yes I said bravery) in his projects makes him compelling. As oscar jubis has said, Godard has never sold out. This alone makes him a hero to me. I'm sure he's had Hollywood offers. He knows who he is and what he's done. Jean-Luc ain't no dummy.
As I was watching Alphaville, I couldn't help but think "I love this, but I know people will HATE this movie". People hear about Godard and rent one of his films and then they get indignant when his detached, vacuum-like celluloid has no payoff.

Video stores should have warning signs over the Godard section-

"These films are NON-LINEAR. For a definition, see dictionary at the check-out desk. You will not get sympathy for your ignorance if these films are not to your liking. Thank you for your consideration."

Michelangelo. Tchaikovsky. David Lean. Frank Capra. The themes and works of these artists carry a universal appeal. Just a point to remember when we are throwing around "genius" labels. If it takes a film school audience to appreciate your films, I would submit that you might be trying too hard as a director. The truly great directors take the best elements from "experimental" cinema and use it to tell human stories. Spielberg is a good example with his use of black & white and handheld in "Schindler's List".

Cinema need not be limited to "telling human stories". Cinema is not simply a conduit for narrative. Cinema is flexible and open enough to embrace Sergei Paradjanov's dream of translating 18th century Armenian Sayat Nova's poems and musings into images. Incidentally, The Color of Pomegranates cost Paradjanov 4 years and one month in the Soviet Gulag. A film is not a novel. Cinema has a right to exist independent of literature. Cinema needs no shackles, so I 'm not denying that accessible,populist cinema like Lean's and Capra's can also be great art. As far as "proliferation of cinephiles", I can only wish; the 70s are over.Damn!

Interesting to note: I'm not sure there IS a populist cinema when it comes to world cinema. After all, what's mainstream here may be incendiary elsewhere, and vice versa. I'm amazed that any film finds an international audience, since so (comparatively) few people seem to actually be open to ideas from other nations. I think the average moviegoing American can't comprehend the concept that a foreign film may express ideas that are either radically different but still interesting or ironically similar to one's own experience. I wonder if the rest of the world has that stigma attached to ideas from other cultures, or are we just that much more isolationist in our exchange of culture. That's probably a self-answering question...

But for a film to transcend the film school audience and hit the person on the street, I suppose it has to deal with subject matter everyone is interested in, involve us in the characters, and tell its story simply enough to not isolate a viewer through technique alone. Thus, experimentation in film almost necessitates losing a potential audience. I imagine it's the same in film and music, but moreso in film, which is almost a subconsciously basic form of communication that Joe Average doesn't like to see screwed with too wildly... Much less subtitled...

Great rebuttal. I've never heard the word "cinephiles" before.
I think I know what it means.

Deepa Mehta is a good example of how "cinema needs no shackles" (oscar jubis). She made a film called "Fire" that just about had her executed in India.
The reaction to it? Theatres were burned to the GROUND.

Let's just say "homosexuality" is not embraced by Hindi people.

AT ALL.

Sorry for the time warp, but there's a couple of things I've been meaning to get to, and meaning to get to...

>Amelie is an entertaining,superbly edited feel-gooder predicated on romanticizing a Paris that no longer exists.

What Jeunet recreates in Amélie is not a "clean Paris" at all. It's the Paris of Robert Doisneau (famous photographer), the romantic idea of Paris. Jeunet said it himself, it's the Paris people like to romanticise about, a Paris that never existed, but is like a myth.

>A perfect introduction to European film for the novice and reluctant.

I think it would be a poor introduction to European film because thankfully there aren't many similar ones. It's more of a Hollywood romance with much more inspired visuals, which is why it has much more overall appeal than the typical foreign fare and I can't understand why serious film fans think it's any good. I would rather send someone a film that was one of the best examples of a certain type/genre/movement of filmmaking and then if they liked that I could suggest a group of others they might also dig.

Jeunet's stories are so shallow I can't even tell there's water.
Amelie is basically a cartoon that lifts an old fairytale plot (Pollyanna) plus borrows poorly from a few much better films (Leolo, Toto the Hero). It populates it's world with types rather than people. To make it appear different, he tries to shock you, I think, but whatever his intention is it gets old really quick. It might work if there was any context or human element, but without those there's no reason to care. I just sat there, never laughing once, knowing everything would come on que. Still, probably for those who were dozing off, he had a dull and unnecessary voice over narration explaining every last bit so you knew exactly what he was supposed to be going for. Jeunet undoubtedly spent countless hours calculating this thing, but it's a heartless and soulless exercise that's so calculated there's no question or doubt, no failure, no trials, no surprise. The whole thing is so facile and stupid. The films with Caro had some shadows, some ups and downs, some uncertainty and unpredictability. This just had excellent cinematography.

>The specific artist still wants to illicit an emotional response from the viewer of his or her work. The artist wants to use his or her skill in the medium to affect the viewer emotionally.

I've never heard of anyone that didn't react in any way to a Greenaway film. Greenaway's films are some of the most controversial, thus they must illicit a very polar emotional response from the audience. The thing with Greenaway, one of the reasons he's so good, is he isn't forcing a certain response on the audience.

>I see Kurosawa's ending as an affirmation of the wisdom inherent in an optimistic outlook.

If the point of the film is that we are all liars then why is it wise to be optomistic?

>To despair without actually knowing the future (none of us do) is not only folly but also a sort of lie to ourselves.

Yes, but for the same reason the opposite is also true.

>The film as well as the ending "belong to" the auteur. Kurosawa didn't make Rashomon to confirm what our view of humanity is. It's his story.

Semantics and cookie cutter defenses aside, the point is still whether it's a logical conclusion.

Mike
Raging Bull Movie Reviews

>The reason why his 60s films are most popular is because their innovations and conceits have already been incorporated into mainstream film culture.

That's true, but I think it's more because of how quickly they were incorporated. Conversely, I think the problem now is few if any directors are using his current experiments.

>I wouldn't call Godard a bore- he certainly doesn't bore me, but he confuses me more than Greenaway (and that's an achievement). He knows how to manipulate the screen to sometimes astounding effect, and for that I drop a knee.

To me the same old thing, especially when it's really predictability, is the most boring. Godard's films are never that. Sometimes they come together for me and sometimes they don't, but I'm always an active participant when I watch his films because he makes you struggle to find the meaning. I want a film to make me think, work, so that's why I like Godard.

>You imply we have to convince ourselves of their worth. By the way, I think many would agree with your disregard for Godard. His potential audience is smaller than other directors', resulting in lack of distribution in America.

This is why the it's cool to like Godard argument doesn't make sense anymore. Godard has some funny line about being the only guy who makes a living making films no one watches. I don't see many people bragging about his films after the 60s anymore, it's hard to even get a chance to see them. Maybe it's still cool to like Breathless, but there's not enough visibility/awareness of Godard's later works for people to be convinced they "have to" like them.

Mike
Raging Bull Movie Reviews

>>I think (Amelie) would be a poor introduction to European film because thankfully there aren't many similar ones. It's more of a Hollywood romance with much more inspired visuals, which is why it has much more overall appeal than the typical foreign fare and I can't understand why serious film fans think it's any good. I would rather send someone a film that was one of the best examples of a certain type/genre/movement of filmmaking and then if they liked that I could suggest a group of others they might also dig.<<

The key word is INTRODUCTION. You can't simply expect a viewer who is accustomed to general American cinema to appreciate something that has no ties or similarities. Amelie is cute, good natured and clever and it has a nice style and is easy to follow. I think that's the thought process of whoever said "it would be a good introduction for a novice or a reluctant viewer."


>>I've never heard of anyone that didn't react in any way to a Greenaway film. Greenaway's films are some of the most controversial, thus they must illicit a very polar emotional response from the audience. The thing with Greenaway, one of the reasons he's so good, is he isn't forcing a certain response on the audience.<<

From me, they usually illicit a yawn. Unless there is a soul behind the work, no matter how "controversial" you consciously try to make a film, it just comes off as pretentious.

>I see Kurosawa's ending as an affirmation of the wisdom inherent in an optimistic outlook.

>>If the point of the film is that we are all liars then why is it wise to be optomistic?<<

That "we are all liars" wasn't the point of the film. I think the point was that truth is subjective and even if we wait around until we think we know everything it still isn't going to be accurate. So we shouldn't let the fear of the unknown paralyze us from taking positive action.

>To despair without actually knowing the future (none of us do) is not only folly but also a sort of lie to ourselves.

>>Yes, but for the same reason the opposite is also true. <<

Not really, since we have free will, we can alter our future. My point was that it is wrong to let fear of the unknown paralyze you from taking action. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.


>>Semantics and cookie cutter defenses aside, the point is still whether it's a logical conclusion.<<

It's neither semantics nor a "cookie-cutter defense" to point out different interpretations. You took your baggage into the film and determined that it SHOULD have "logically" ended a certain way, I say you are full of prunes. It's like pointing out that Mary in Michelangelo's "Pieta" was far too large.

stevesteitz, you often use words like "pretentious", "hack" or "elitist" in comments about Godard and Greenaway. We often disagree because you believe the greatest art "affects all humanity", "carries a universal appeal" or consists of "basic human story-telling". The best filmmakers, you argue, "make a film for the audience". This is why Jaws, Star Wars, Braveheart, Fellowship and Lawrence of Arabia are amongst your favorite films. Populist Art vs. Elitist Art is an old but still relevant and vibrant debate. (Did you ever read Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead?)

What I particularly admire is your cosmopolitan inclusion of films regarding of provenance. Your populist bent incorporates Kurosawa's samurai flicks, Melville's noir films and the occasional Herzog or Bunuel. You've even taught me a thing or two about Russian cinema in previous posts. Refreshing.