Post by: Svevan on September 21, 2007, 03:58:43 PM
But it depends on the day. For a period of time (not distant, maybe two years ago) I would say E.T. because it was such an unorthodox choice. Other days I might throw out Tarkovsky's masterpiece Andrei Rublev, depending on how tortured I may be feeling. Sometimes depression leads me to Lost in Translation, a movie I can watch any day of the week. If I am remembering how much I love non-fiction films, Les Blank's Burden of Dreams will top my list easily (or maybe For All Mankind). I could go on.
The point is, today my favorite film of all time is Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. I have never been as mistaken about a film as I was by this one (aside maybe The Bourne Supremacy, another big-budget mainstream masterpiece). I laughed at each and every trailer I saw for this movie, refusing to see it, not realizing who directed it. A friend wanted to go see it opening weekend, and I acquiesced, to a matinee show of course. I was blown away. I am sure some of you feel similarly.
It is important to know that Peter Weir directed this movie, and his gift is putting people in real environments (and by real I mean authentic; his last film before Master and Commander was The Truman Show) that challenge their goals. In MaC the environment is obviously nature; the same is true for Mosquito Coast and (to a lesser extent) Picnic at Hanging Rock.
The film's cinematography is magnificent: action sequences are filmed violently, yet without an overly choppy presentation, meshing well with the aesthetics of the sea and the camerawork during non-action sequences. Weir shows us the outside of the boat, the inside, he flies in helicopters over the boat or rides in boats around it. We get to see everything, so the struggle to maintain this awesome structure is real to us. We notice the fragility of the mast as well as the human body.
We witness strategic meetings and arguments between Crowe and the ship's doctor, played by Paul Bettany. Classical music pervades the soundtrack, but subtly shifts to a beautiful score that could have been written in the time period of the film. The film, really, is a symphony of the ocean, a relationship between two men, ship politics, and the weight of power. Watching the hour long documentary on the second disc is shocking: who knew making movies was so hard?
So I love this movie. That is all.
Post by: Khushrenada on September 21, 2007, 05:05:50 PM
After thinking about it a lot one day, I decided to come up with one answer anyways. When someone asks my favorite movie, I usually reply "The Great Escape". The funny thing is how it catches so many people offguard. Why that? Or what is that movie? I explain that it has many of the things I like in a movie. It's set in a historical setting. It's long and epic. It has some action but also a lot of drama. The movie focuses a long time on how the prisioners escape. It also shows human ingenuity and rising up against great odds. It has great chracters, a fine musical score. It's a movie I can enjoy watching over and over again. There's more to it than that. There's just a quality about the film that I just love about it.
But does it mean if there are two movies on TV and one is "The Great Escape", I'm going to pick it over the other film? No. It depends on what I feel like experiencing that day.
2001: A Space Odyssey is another great movie though. To me, that is one of the best movies that exemplifies the visual medium part of movies. I hated the book but I love the movie so much. I think it's best viewed at night and slightly tired though. Your brain just seems more able to let the movie take over your conciousness then.
Hey Svevan, would you agree with my assertation that The Bourne Supremacy has the best car chase ever put on film?
Post by: UncleBob on September 21, 2007, 05:15:21 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 21, 2007, 05:16:07 PM
Post by: Caliban on September 21, 2007, 05:33:28 PM
Every day is different indeed.
Post by: Mashiro on September 21, 2007, 05:39:34 PM
One of my favorite films is The Shawshank Redemption =)
Post by: Kairon on September 21, 2007, 05:45:28 PM
... along with 10 Things I hate about you.
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 21, 2007, 05:54:11 PM
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade...Nothing else comes close in my list...
Post by: Svevan on September 21, 2007, 05:59:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Khushrenada
Hey Svevan, would you agree with my assertation that The Bourne Supremacy has the best car chase ever put on film?
I haven't seen enough car chase movies - certainly the movies that are devoted to chases, like Gone in 60 Seconds and others have fantastic imagery. Supremacy's chase, though, is violent and physical, thanks to Greengrass' cinema verite excess. We could list other great car chases on film here as a way to narrow the list.
One of the first to come to my mind as actually "great" was Death Proof.
Caliban: Supremacy was the second, Ultimatum was the third. I have not yet seen Ultimatum. I am an idiot.
Post by: Kairon on September 21, 2007, 06:08:48 PM
Post by: Caliban on September 21, 2007, 06:15:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
Caliban: Supremacy was the second, Ultimatum was the third. I have not yet seen Ultimatum. I am an idiot.
Ah yes, thanks for the correction, then so, Ultimatum was hilarious.
Speaking of Death Proof, I am an idiot for not have gone to watch such a movie along with the other movie (my memory is fuzzy right now), I guess I'm going to have to get the DVD...s.
Post by: ShyGuy on September 21, 2007, 09:01:16 PM
Post by: vudu on September 22, 2007, 03:15:37 AM
My favorite movies would be Dr. Strangelove, Fight Club, Jackie Brown, and Amelie. I also really like Sunset Blvd. but I haven't seen it enough to be able to call it a favorite.
Also, I just saw Borne Identity for the first time last week. After hearing Svevan (and many others) talk up the series so much I was let down. It was a good popcorn flick, but I can't say I was blown away. Lots of style, lacking on the substance.
Post by: Svevan on September 22, 2007, 02:31:26 PM
Also, Bourne Identity sucks and I hate it. Bourne Supremacy is the masterpiece. Ultimatum, who knows?
Post by: Kairon on September 22, 2007, 02:37:51 PM
Post by: Khushrenada on September 22, 2007, 04:55:57 PM
It's like the Spiderman movies. I don't care much for the first Spiderman movie except for a couple parts but Spiderman 2 blew me away it was so much better. You gots ta try Supremacy now and see what you think.
Post by: wandering on September 22, 2007, 05:36:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: vudu
At the risk of getting flamed, can someone tell me what was so great about Master And Commander? I thought it was shot very well, but the story went nowhere and Russel Crowe was overacting almost as much as he was in Gladiator. I walked away feeling very bitter.
I agree with Robert Altman's opinion of story - which is to say, I don't think it's very important.
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
My personal favorite movie will probably be my favorite movie 'til the day I die...
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade...Nothing else comes close in my list...
Raiders was better.
My favorite films are 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Both works have similar strengths. They're both good at communicating complex concepts through visuals. The creators of both have a keen eye for detail. And both do a great job of making you feel like you're in another time and place.
Post by: Athrun Zala on September 22, 2007, 05:57:50 PM
Quotebold statement... care to explain why?
Originally posted by: Svevan
There's no difference between substance and style.
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 22, 2007, 06:00:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
Raiders was better.
Incorrect, though Raiders is still an amazing movie in my top 10 for sure...
Post by: IceCold on September 22, 2007, 06:44:25 PM
Post by: Svevan on September 23, 2007, 12:15:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Athrun ZalaQuotebold statement... care to explain why?
Originally posted by: Svevan
There's no difference between substance and style.
The substance and style dichotomy (also called form and content) seeks to divide art into "what" and "how," as if each artwork is a personal statement that needs interpreting in order to find the meaning. These three words are overused in art (by me too!). We believe people make works of art not for the sake of aesthetics but for their meanings. The problem is our definition of "aesthetics" and our definition of "form." In film, is form the way a shot is composed? What about the content of the shot? What about the dialogue and the meaning of the words? Or the concept of "murder" or "adultery" or "responsibility" or "sex" or any of the many themes of any film? Which of these is form and which is content?
Our problem is that we want there to be a meaning to all the formal elements, a single statement of opinion that is the thesis, the reason the work of art exists at all. But do we enjoy films for their social consciousness, or their deep-minded ideas? Why do we enjoy films at all? Is enjoying a film wrong? No, not at all, if it is a good film, like The Bourne Supremacy. In that film we have a character faced with moral choices in the film, but even if he DIDN'T the movie would still be superb because of its formal elements, which in the end are its content too. To repeat that confusing sentence, the form of The Bourne Supremacy IS its content. There is no separation - the division is something we do unfairly to the work, as though The Bourne Supremacy is a film that should have been about something, but wasn't. We pretend it is a collection of shots that are exciting to us, but that excitement does not qualify as "content" because it is not a "statement."
Interpretation as a concept adds something extra to a film; it is not the film. Interpretation treats any film or artwork as an unfinished piece that must be "completed" by "solving" it. Instead of this idea, we must admit that films are not statements, and the pure joy or disgust or fear we feel because of art, or the ideas we think about, or any other thing that happens as a result of the art's many elements all make up the "meaning" (if we have to use that word) of the movie. No single statement sums up a movie. Someone asks me what a movie is about and I could talk for ages. Ask me what the point, what the movie was saying, I'd say it says nothing. (I also believe that art stirs up a lot of questions and answer nothing. If art answered questions we'd all make movies instead of writing message board posts.) This is all a long way to say that "meanings" are the same as "themes" which are included in "aesthetics."
Same with paintings. Mona Lisa? Tribute Money (which I talked about in a blog recently)? Last Supper? The David? Jackson Pollock, Piet Mondrian, Pablo Picasso? The interplay between the "story" of these works of art and their specific artistic methods is so complex, I could hardly call the "story" or the "subject" of any painting the "content." A painting of Jesus could never just be a stylistic look at "Jesus," at least no more or no less than any other painting of Jesus. Form and content are the same thing, and the words ought to be redefined forever. The moral choices of characters in a film are just as "aesthetic" as the camera movements or color choices. All of these aesthetics are the reason movies (and art) exist.
So substance is a non-thing: style is substance. Style is the point of everything, because style is perspective. An artist puts something on canvas, on paper, on celluloid to show it, first and foremost. As a result, "agenda" films and others that add up only to simplistic "statements" are mostly worthless.
Most of these ideas come from a great art critic, Susan Sontag. Her other controversial idea is that there is no division between the aesthetic and the moral.
Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
Tastes like a well-disguised poll to me..
I just wanted to talk about Peter Weir more, and find out what people thought of Master and Commander. Oh look:
Quote
Originally posted by: vudu
At the risk of getting flamed, can someone tell me what was so great about Master And Commander? I thought it was shot very well, but the story went nowhere and Russel Crowe was overacting almost as much as he was in Gladiator. I walked away feeling very bitter.
Good point about story, wandering; we must approach each film on its own merits, and Master and Commander certainly lets its story build and does not give it an appropriate ending. The films aesthetic concerns are ship life and the relationship between the doctor and the captain, and how each of these impacts the war and each individual battle. The beauty of the film is not in finding out what happens next, but watching it happen. I wish we could see the end of the story, but I know that if we did follow the Surprise to its next battle only more plots would arise and there would be more to see and the story wouldn't end.
Perhaps that's a complicated way to say that it's fun to watch, but it is also challenging, filled with characters who are real and have complex thoughts. It is sometimes brutal to watch, yet it has a soft humor. The Galapagos Islands look gorgeous and inspire the best parts of the film, when Bettany's doctor must sacrifice his scientific concerns so the Surprise can go on its next mission.
I love every minute of Master and Commander, and I only hope that upon second viewing (perhaps after seeing some other Weir; may I suggest The Last Wave, Witness, and Picnic at Hanging Rock?) it will reveal its many pleasures to you.
Post by: ShyGuy on September 23, 2007, 01:23:41 PM
Post by: Svevan on September 23, 2007, 02:00:16 PM
Haven't seen enough Keaton, love City Lights by Chaplin. I used to be a big Wes Anderson fan, now I'm on the rocks and waiting for a time to reevaluate all of his work. I love when dark directors are funny, like David Cronenberg and A History of Violence, for instance.
As for straight comedy, Woody Allen's work is great, as is Spike Jonze, Francois Truffaut, Jim Jarmusch (in particular Coffee and Cigarettes and Dead Man), Federico Fellini, Pedro Almodovar, Pixar, certain Robert Altman (especially Gosford Park and The Player). Some one-shot comedies I've loved are American Splendor, Dr. Strangelove, The Graduate, Monster House, Shaun of the Dead, and Three Kings.
I think I talk about comedies, but I usually don't talk about them as comedies. I usually bring them up for some detail other than their humor, or their place in history or a director's ouevre. Comedy is (somewhat) subjective, but quality never is. Good movies that are funny may lose their laugh-out-loud humor over time, but they will never stop being delightfully funny. Comedy is never worse off than when it is removed from a real world context and treats its characters as set-ups for gags.
edit: sorry for the on/off bolding - lists of movies rarely make sense without demarcation.
Post by: wandering on September 23, 2007, 09:40:42 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 23, 2007, 10:07:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
I have a question for you, Evan. Why is art important? Is it so important that the amount of time and money we spend on it is justified? Wouldn't it have been better, if the hundreds of millions of dollars that went towards making the Lord of the Rings movies, had gone instead towards helping people who are starving and suffering?
Evan hates the LOTR movies, so he wouldn't have minded if it went to poor people. Also I may be off but I have a feeling that Evan doesn't like low brow stuff.
Post by: Nick DiMola on September 24, 2007, 04:13:38 AM
Post by: Kairon on September 24, 2007, 06:20:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
I have a question for you, Evan. Why is art important? Is it so important that the amount of time and money we spend on it is justified? Wouldn't it have been better, if the hundreds of millions of dollars that went towards making the Lord of the Rings movies, had gone instead towards helping people who are starving and suffering?
Wow... wait... lemme make sure... nope, I'm in the real world, and haven't fallen into Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead...
I think that art has been shown to be an essential part of human experience. Of course, we don't need it to live or eat, but the way we perceive the world around us, and the way art helps us to abstract our experiences and come to some comprehension of them... doesn't it mean something that cavemen, instead of worrying 24/7 about all the prehistoric problems of their day, chose to make time out of their hunter-gathering 30-year life expectancy existence to make cave wall paintings?
Definitely, Maslowe's heirarchy of needs places food and safety at the bottom, most basic, most immediate needs, but after that comes more abstract concepts, culminating as creativity, morality, and other things more related to art. Actually, why eat or live at all if you only do so to survive at the most basic level, if you could never reach for anything greater? What would it be like to live life without EVER having seen something beautiful?
And then of course there's the whole argument that we shouldn't tear down an individual's work just because others are jealous and would rather their own lives be improved by someone else's energy and effort. Isn't that a basic question of freedom, that people are mostly free to dedicate their energies where they choose, whether that be games, painting, writing, or etc. instead of being harnessed by society as some sort of human factory, or some sort of human energy battery, stripped of individuality, only living to be used by others?
Post by: Ian Sane on September 24, 2007, 06:38:01 AM
This should be one of everyone's favourites.
The Big Lebowski is my favourite film. Has to be. It's just perfect. It's the sort of film I would want to make and sadly never can because it already exists. It's also full of great quotes. "DUDE ARE YOU F*CKING THIS UP?!!" It also introduced me to In-N-Out Burger so bonus points all around.
I remember liking Master and Commander but I didn't think was anything exceptional. It was just a movie to me. Well made and entertaining but I couldn't care if I never see it again and it probably wouldn't have mattered if I never did. Sorry, Evan.
Though it's kind of one of those Oscar drama movies where everything is made very well and the writing and directing and acting is all fantastic. Those films are enjoyable but tend to all blend together for me because every year studios release their "Oscar films". So many dramas are good but only a few stand out to me. Shawshank Redemption stood out to me while Forrest Gump, which beat it for best picture, is just there and I don't care if ever see it again. Seabiscuit was good but it's Just Another Well Made Drama. I should put a trademark on JAWMD.I guess it's like a good shmup. There are tons of shmups that are good and well made and fun to play but so many of these competent games are just there. There's too many of them to get attached to all of them so only a few stand out for me.
Post by: that Baby guy on September 24, 2007, 07:03:58 AM
Post by: wandering on September 24, 2007, 04:31:04 PM
Quote
And then of course there's the whole argument that we shouldn't tear down an individual's work just because others are jealous and would rather their own lives be improved by someone else's energy and effort. Isn't that a basic question of freedom, that people are mostly free to dedicate their energies where they choose, whether that be games, painting, writing, or etc. instead of being harnessed by society as some sort of human factory, or some sort of human energy battery, stripped of individuality, only living to be used by others?
I wasn't asking whether people should be forced to spend more of their time and resources on others, I was asking if people should choose to. Should I choose to help (not be "used by") other people who are dying of starvation and disease (people who want help not because they are "jealous" - but because they need it) more than I do now?
On the day the Wii launched, I spent hundreds of dollars on the Wii, games, and accessories. Should I have given all of that money to the Salvation Army lady who was standing outside the store, instead? You might say "no, because you need art." But I don't need Legend of Zelda or Trauma Center, or any other specific work of art, do I? Instead of playing Zelda, couldn't I have spent my time rapping freestyle with friends? Or enjoying/creating some other type of free (well, not free, because time is money - but cheap) form of art?
Shouldn't I spend less time and money on luxury and entertainment? Shouldn't we all? Wouldn't the world be a happier and better place if we did?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 24, 2007, 04:32:56 PM
Post by: Khushrenada on September 24, 2007, 04:48:53 PM
Svevan changed his avatar.
I always liked Svevan because he kept his F-Zero avatar for so long but then he finally changed it to his self-portrait which was alright but not great. Fortuantely, Bloodworth (that blessed mod) forced Svevan to join the Blance Birthday party. Svevan wasn't too happy about that and in the ensuing fight, a DVD ended up lodged in his head. Ah, now the picture was perfect. And then when Bloodworth left, it seemed a fitting tribute that Svevan kept his specially designed Bloodworth avatar. But I guess change was inevitable. And I really can't hate Jimmy Stewart, my favorite actor.
Is the Jimmy Stewart from Veritgo?
Post by: Svevan on September 26, 2007, 10:31:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
I have a question for you, Evan. Why is art important? Is it so important that the amount of time and money we spend on it is justified? Wouldn't it have been better, if the hundreds of millions of dollars that went towards making the Lord of the Rings movies, had gone instead towards helping people who are starving and suffering?
I have waited to respond to this question because my answer is specifically religious. So if this gets locked and you hate what I said, please e-mail me or write a blog or something; discussions like these need to happen.
Kairon started out with some good premises, bringing up Maslowe's hierarchy of needs, and placing morality as one of the abstract concepts that are dealt with after we fulfill the basic needs for ourselves. But truthfully, all of human experience is wrapped up in morality and ethics; we were created with design, and our needs for love, companionship, stimulation, friendship, entertainment, and everything else are born out of our created nature.
There are needs that are more important than others. The hierarchy is real, in that art comes late in the game. But it is still a need. Creativity (and the response to that creativity as an audience) is not some random genetic thing that occurred to us. It is part of our nature. Since everything is wrapped up in morality, we know (through various debatable means) that creativity is good.
Art appeals to us in the same broad "stimulatory" sense that an essay or history textbook appeals to us. It is an engagement of the mind. But art (of which entertainment is a form) is less intellectual; the aesthetic sense is a combination of beauty receptors, intellect, emotions, and feelings. That means art can appeal to our sense of justice and beauty at the same time (and in the same way). Art does add to a person in the same way a history textbook adds to our knowledge; good art is an engagement of our multi-faceted minds, and makes us better people. Art, like religion, affects the inner man, with outward consequences. The inner man needs help just as much as the outer man - spiritual death is maybe more important than physical death.
The needs of others are more important than our own needs; it is easy for a rich country like the U.S. to forget our responsibility to other people, both within our boundaries and outside. Art can become a God to us; self-improvement can replace cultural reform. Since we are created beings, and we are all governed by the same moral framework, our makeup should be diverse and holistic. We should see the act of creating art or receiving art in the same light as helping others and fighting for justice. All of these actions improve the world, we just have to balance them appropriately.
Post by: Hostile Creation on September 26, 2007, 11:39:22 AM
I haven't seen enough of his stuff, particularly his early stuff like Picnic at Hanging Rock and the Last Wave. I've seen The Truman Show, of course, which is fantastic. The Year of Living Dangerously was good, but it didn't leave a lasting impression on me. It felt like it had moments, but moments that failed to cohere. On the other hand, Gallipolo is brilliant, easily one of my favorite war movies. I love freeze frame endings (watching The 400 Blows, I wasn't sure I liked it until the very last moment. That sealed it for me). Dead Poets Society is a fine film, although perhaps a bit overdramatic. I've yet to see Master and Commander, so I can't comment on that yet.
Of what I've seen, I think my favorite has to be Gallipoli. Looking forward to seeing more of his stuff, though.
Post by: wandering on September 26, 2007, 09:08:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: SvevanQuote
Originally posted by: wandering
I have a question for you, Evan. Why is art important? Is it so important that the amount of time and money we spend on it is justified? Wouldn't it have been better, if the hundreds of millions of dollars that went towards making the Lord of the Rings movies, had gone instead towards helping people who are starving and suffering?
I have waited to respond to this question because my answer is specifically religious. So if this gets locked and you hate what I said, please e-mail me or write a blog or something; discussions like these need to happen.
Kairon started out with some good premises, bringing up Maslowe's hierarchy of needs, and placing morality as one of the abstract concepts that are dealt with after we fulfill the basic needs for ourselves. But truthfully, all of human experience is wrapped up in morality and ethics; we were created with design, and our needs for love, companionship, stimulation, friendship, entertainment, and everything else are born out of our created nature.
There are needs that are more important than others. The hierarchy is real, in that art comes late in the game. But it is still a need. Creativity (and the response to that creativity as an audience) is not some random genetic thing that occurred to us. It is part of our nature. Since everything is wrapped up in morality, we know (through various debatable means) that creativity is good.
Art appeals to us in the same broad "stimulatory" sense that an essay or history textbook appeals to us. It is an engagement of the mind. But art (of which entertainment is a form) is less intellectual; the aesthetic sense is a combination of beauty receptors, intellect, emotions, and feelings. That means art can appeal to our sense of justice and beauty at the same time (and in the same way). Art does add to a person in the same way a history textbook adds to our knowledge; good art is an engagement of our multi-faceted minds, and makes us better people. Art, like religion, affects the inner man, with outward consequences. The inner man needs help just as much as the outer man - spiritual death is maybe more important than physical death.
The needs of others are more important than our own needs; it is easy for a rich country like the U.S. to forget our responsibility to other people, both within our boundaries and outside. Art can become a God to us; self-improvement can replace cultural reform. Since we are created beings, and we are all governed by the same moral framework, our makeup should be diverse and holistic. We should see the act of creating art or receiving art in the same light as helping others and fighting for justice. All of these actions improve the world, we just have to balance them appropriately.
That was helpful and enlightening, thank you.
edit: And thanks to you, too, kairon, for pointing me to that needs hierarchy.
Post by: Svevan on September 26, 2007, 11:14:30 PM
