love

Poll

What is your favorite?

haven't seen any
6 (42.9%)
don't like any
0 (0%)
other
0 (0%)
Down Terrace
0 (0%)
Kill List
6 (42.9%)
Sightseers
1 (7.1%)
A Field in England
0 (0%)
High-Rise
0 (0%)
Free Fire
1 (7.1%)
Happy New Year, Colin Burstead
0 (0%)
Rebecca
0 (0%)
In the Earth
0 (0%)
Meg 2: The Trench
0 (0%)
Freak Shift
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 14

Author Topic: Wheatley, Ben  (Read 3794 times)

Paul Phoenix

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1664
  • The 'Kid-Gloves' are off
    • Letterboxd Profile
Re: Wheatley, Ben
« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2016, 08:52:12 AM »
Hermit if you start a conversation on an argumentative point a point of disagreement then you don't have a conversation; however many times people characterise it that way. You have an argument. I'm getting the impression people don't know the difference now. Again if it becos a semantic point then that's an argument not a conversation. Argumentative points try to shut down conversation. It shouldn't be that hard for people to see the difference between enabling a conversation and shutting one down. Like for instance I am doing right now.

Expressing why I'm personally biased against the film isn't starting an argument, no matter how much you would like to see it as so. Expressing myself shouldn't be seen as argumentative unless I dish out ad hominem and personal attacks. Just because you might enjoy debating doesn't mean that I'm starting an argument every time I express my disinterest towards the main point of a film - I'm merely expressing my interests and disinterests, and if that disinterests you, fine. There's nothing wrong with that and we can just move on. But my biasness isn't necessarily counterproductive to a conversation because a conversation can be more about the people talking than the subject itself. It can be a way for people to share their biasness with each other and connect, expressing their irritation and frustrations about the main point of a film. The choice is ultimately up to you whether if you wish to engage in that biasness and explore that person's individuality and perspective, but it's in no way a person's fault if he makes a biased judgment about a film.

If you care more about a film than the person talking to you, then you're the one at fault, and you really need to recheck your priorities. A healthy community shouldn't be us attacking each other for not making productive conversations. That is NOT encouraging. That's the kind of selfish elitist behavior I left other forums behind to escape from, and I would wish not to see that attitude here in Filmspotting.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2016, 08:56:05 AM by Hermit »
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to end up all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is ending up with people who make you feel all alone." - Lance Clayton (played by Robin Williams), World's Greatest Dad

Eternally seeking variety. 'Tis the spice of life for me.

verbALs

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9446
  • Snort Life-DOR
Re: Wheatley, Ben
« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2016, 08:59:17 AM »
So how do you converse about a film that doesn't exist? I have only seen High Rise not the improved version with the 15 minutes put back in. There's another film being discussed at the moment which is a lot more plot based but some bits of the plot have been either missed or misunderstood. So if this film was more plotty how would that help when bits of films that aren't hard to understand are misinterpreted even though the plot should be easy enough for a ten year old to understand. So what hope would Wheatley have anyway trying to film a Burgess book?
I used to encourage everyone I knew to make art; I don't do that so much anymore. - Banksy

Paul Phoenix

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1664
  • The 'Kid-Gloves' are off
    • Letterboxd Profile
Re: Wheatley, Ben
« Reply #12 on: May 08, 2016, 09:18:52 AM »
So how do you converse about a film that doesn't exist? I have only seen High Rise not the improved version with the 15 minutes put back in. There's another film being discussed at the moment which is a lot more plot based but some bits of the plot have been either missed or misunderstood. So if this film was more plotty how would that help when bits of films that aren't hard to understand are misinterpreted even though the plot should be easy enough for a ten year old to understand. So what hope would Wheatley have anyway trying to film a Burgess book?

I haven't seen the film so I couldn't contribute any input to the extent of the film, but what I could contribute to this conversation is that implying 1SO is dumber than a ten year old isn't something you'd want to say. You're still missing my point, using such condescending remarks like "not the improved version with the 15 minutes put in" and "easy enough for a ten year old to understand". Exactly what do you hope to encourage in this conversation by inserting your superiority? I believe those were your words in your "On Writing" thread? That we should encourage people to write more, not disparage their opinion?

Why don't you try to see it from 1SO's point of view, and ask why he feels that way about the film, and get to know more about him as a person, instead of fixating on demanding the proper input out of him? Give him some recommendation of other films that might suit him more. We really could use more of that generosity around the forum.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2016, 09:24:55 AM by Hermit »
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to end up all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is ending up with people who make you feel all alone." - Lance Clayton (played by Robin Williams), World's Greatest Dad

Eternally seeking variety. 'Tis the spice of life for me.

verbALs

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9446
  • Snort Life-DOR
Re: Wheatley, Ben
« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2016, 09:39:37 AM »
So you want me to engage about a film that doesn't exist? Why would I want to do that? Just to clarify the film I mentioned has plot points designed for a ten year old to understand. That's all I said. Yes it would be argumentative to have that...argument but I'm not am I? It would be boring. I haven't even mentioned the film's name so I feel you are stretching my intention to have an argument a long way. It's a fallacy to accuse someone of doing what they are trying to address.
I used to encourage everyone I knew to make art; I don't do that so much anymore. - Banksy

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Wheatley, Ben
« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2016, 09:47:35 AM »
Y'all might want to chill out a bit. It is possible to talk about this without being angry about it. And keep it to High Rise, here. If you want to talk about the idea of making a better movie through a review which doesn't really connect to 1SO's review of High Rise, you can take that to the "On Writing" thread.
Check out my blog of many topics

Im not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10453
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Wheatley, Ben
« Reply #15 on: May 08, 2016, 10:28:39 AM »
To jump on 1SO' s review: so High Rise should not be my first Wheatley film?
Society is dumb. Art is everything. - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

1SO

  • Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36107
  • Marathon Man
Re: Wheatley, Ben
« Reply #16 on: May 08, 2016, 12:20:50 PM »
To jump on 1SO' s review: so High Rise should not be my first Wheatley film?
Absolutely not.  You should start with Kill List or Sightseers. Sightseers is less challenging, though in the end you may not get why Wheatley landed on people's radar. Kill List is the best intro because you can go into it ice cold - and that's the highly recommended way to do it - you'll immediately grasp the filmmaking chops, and by the end he will have spun your head around a couple of times too.

1SO

  • Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36107
  • Marathon Man
Re: Wheatley, Ben
« Reply #17 on: May 08, 2016, 12:25:18 PM »
So you want me to engage about a film that doesn't exist? Why would I want to do that?

I would like to get back to engaging with the film that exists. I looked for your review but could not find it. I can see this as a film where some people take a different view from mine and say that it's in the back half where the movie really takes off. It becomes more textural cinema where the sounds and images are what's important, not the words. Was that your experience?

verbALs

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9446
  • Snort Life-DOR
Re: Wheatley, Ben
« Reply #18 on: May 08, 2016, 12:46:09 PM »
Thanks 1SO.

I wrote a lot more than I thought I had about it.

Quote
A test of the ability to write about abstractions, arrives just at the right time. Not for the stratification of society; vertically, because that's a simple piece of repositioning. The ability of the writer and director to project a Ballardian think piece onto the screen is admirable. Since Peter Greenaway had eschewed the opportunity, Ben Wheatley stretches his capabilities into this surreal direction. No need to ask the question; why doesn't everybody leave? Bunuel already declined to answer, excusing future directors from having to.

If I wanted to recognise the allegorical theme, I could point to Dr Laing's literal/ surgical "peeling away of the mask" as he demonstrates to a physiology class how easily the human face can be peeled away from the skull. Proceeding then to remove the smiling, polite rationality; also indicated by bright, shiny supermarkets, of English society is as direct as one might imagine. Society breaking down, as the lights go out; making way for hedonistic and then animalistic parties and then tribal gatherings.......naked people stomping up and down on the increasingly matted shag pile.

At 9:30 on Saturday morning. Bizarre programming but a last chance before the limbo of cinema to digital waiting time began.

Wheatley films unblinkingly from smarmy sophistication through to...was that cannabalism? Society begins to reconstitute itself. The landowners draw up plans to balkanise the lower floors/ levels of society. Divide and conquer in fine, established fashion. Then turn the poor's houses into a cricket pitch and pavilion. Finally, the truths of race survival assert themselves and a new earth-mother type deal seems to be emerging. So where Bunuel's guests can't move from the confines of the dining room, Ballard's houseguests have the room and resources to breakdown society completely and begin again. As Laing says, the building becomes an organism that breathes and births and eats and kills.

Aside from the trappings of the cars and the continuous smoking, the setting in the 70s seems superfluous and antithetical. The context, which in the UK was one where tower blocks to shovel the working classes into was still a thriving and, as yet an uncontested, idea; adds a certain dimension to the rich now moving to the top floors and instantly causing a reordering of the social structure. Now, who would care? Rich people living in penthouse levels of tall buildings is a norm. Ballard is writing from that stratified class perspective, as well. So if you are a 50 year Englishman who lived in a council block in the 70s, you might feel and appreciate the allusion. Otherwise, I'm not so sure. Wheatley does, however, move forward. He embraces a challenge and follows through on it. Admirable uncompromising surreal film-making.

And no I wasn't wowed by it either. I couldn't even say I liked it. It's not very likeable.  ;D
« Last Edit: May 08, 2016, 12:48:02 PM by verbALs »
I used to encourage everyone I knew to make art; I don't do that so much anymore. - Banksy

Jarvik7

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 2
Re: Wheatley, Ben
« Reply #19 on: May 08, 2016, 05:08:58 PM »
Hype? I never heard any hype! I just thought it was hilarious.