Author Topic: Beavermoose & Friends FS Top 100 Group Marathon  (Read 32160 times)

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17864
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Beavermoose & Friends FS Top 100 Group Marathon
« Reply #80 on: December 17, 2010, 11:45:58 PM »
I don't know, I just feel like there is a lot of groupthink going on and the group decided Eraserhead is profound and excellent and something like The Room is terrible and then others feel compelled to share the view and it becomes established as "truth."

God, I hate this kind of criticism, even more than "pretentious".  At least you didn't trot out that old chestnut, "the emperor wears no clothes".

Yes, you are a unique and special individual for seeing through all the bullshit and revealing Eraserhead for the dreck it truly is.  Bravo for not caving in to the "groupthink".

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Beavermoose & Friends FS Top 100 Group Marathon
« Reply #81 on: December 17, 2010, 11:55:26 PM »
I'm just annoyed by the way people take it as assumed that The Room is bad, because it has a lot of technical flaws, and typically frame the discussion as "is it just bad or so bad it is good" without considering whether it is actually just decent. And then you get something like Eraserhead and even though it is in many ways just as messy a film, the frame is more "profound or pretentious"...instantly setting it on a different plane of artistry that I don't think should be assumed. I guess when I say groupthink it isn't about one being actually bad and the other being actually good when the reality is the opposite (that would as always be a subjective issue)...the groupthink enters in more in setting the frame for consideration...and for contrarianism, so I guess I'm guilty there.

Beavermoose

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 5006
  • Samsonite! I was way off!
Re: Beavermoose & Friends FS Top 100 Group Marathon
« Reply #82 on: December 18, 2010, 12:41:01 PM »
Eraserhead
 I guess you can credit Lynch's demented weirdness as a show of virtuosity...this film is certainly more unique, but I've never considered weird for weirdness sake to be a very noble attribute.

Eraserhead is not weird to be weird it is simply open to interpretation. I like to think of it as critique of nuclear war. The post-apocalyptic world, the mutated baby, the damaged humans. This is what the bomb does to the world.
Its Lynch's Dr. Strangelove, a great satirical film.

roujin

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 15508
  • it's all research
Re: Beavermoose & Friends FS Top 100 Group Marathon
« Reply #83 on: December 18, 2010, 01:19:38 PM »
I'm just annoyed by the way people take it as assumed that The Room is bad, because it has a lot of technical flaws, and typically frame the discussion as "is it just bad or so bad it is good" without considering whether it is actually just decent.

The Room is more or less aesthetically worthless. It's a bad film, though some of its eccentricities make it a fun movie to watch. Tommy Wiseau does seem to possess a sort of vision and there is a thematic thrust to the film, as it were, but that doesn't make the film "decent." I decided that after I watched it, not before. So, yes, the "frame" of the conversation regarding The Room is not about where it's actually good or not, but if, as you say, "it's just bad, or so bad it's good." That's what the film came to be known for, but each viewer, as they watch the film, decide how to look at it.

Quote from: bondo
And then you get something like Eraserhead and even though it is in many ways just as messy a film, the frame is more "profound or pretentious"...instantly setting it on a different plane of artistry that I don't think should be assumed.

Messy how? I think the "frame" of the conversation regarding Eraserhead is that it's mostly just a bizarre CINECAST!ing movie. But once you move past that (as I think most serious Lynch fans do), you find a movie that's aesthetically/thematically/emotionally very interesting and complex. The Room, for all of Tommy Wiseau's vision, never rises above the laughable acting, script, etc. It's a fascinating object. A film I'm glad I've seen. But not a good one.

So. You have a choice. You can choose to only see the bizarre, weird things in David Lynch movies, dismiss them, and be done with it. Or, you can choose to take Lynch's movies seriously and ask yourself, "what are these movies doing? why are they doing that? do I find what they're doing useful/interesting/whatever?"

You have the power to "frame" the conversation within you. You have the choice to see these movies differently.

hmmm, this part of [noembed]Eraserhead[/noembed] always gives me chills. The reveal of the stage near the end is just awesome...

so... movies...

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Beavermoose & Friends FS Top 100 Group Marathon
« Reply #84 on: December 18, 2010, 01:35:46 PM »
Let's just take the "meet the parents" scene. What objective aspect of that scene separates the acting quality/dialogue from that which is regularly berated in The Room? What makes one "stylized" and the other "incompetent?"

Or I guess just looking at the film. We use words like "surreal" to explain away or glorify the plot/logical incoherence of a Lynch film and are meant to ask the questions you do and find our own meaning. Yet we talk about the various plot holes and conversations leading no where in The Room as inherently problematic. Yeah, I suppose intention is important, but it still seems like a double standard.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Beavermoose & Friends FS Top 100 Group Marathon
« Reply #85 on: December 18, 2010, 09:44:59 PM »
Stalker

To prepare myself for this, I listened to the Left Field podcast on the film. Much of that discussion got me a little excited about the film (which dissipated in the painfully slow first 40 minutes and reading further plot description). But now I was in the Zone so I was hopeful. One thing that was mentioned on Left Field and in the wiki page for the film are these Tarkovsky quotes:

Quote
Officials at Goskino were critical of the film, on being told that the film should be faster and more dynamic, Tarkovsky replied, “the film needs to be slower and duller at the start so that the viewers who walked into the wrong theatre have time to leave before the main action starts.” The Goskino representative then explained that he was trying to give the point of view of the audience. Tarkovsky supposedly retorted, “I am only interested in the views of two people: one is called Bresson and one called Bergman."

See, this kind of thing pisses me off...it shows such contempt for the audience. I'm all for people writing poetry for their own sake, or painting for their own sake, but film, with its budgets, is naturally not a purely personal medium. It is meant to be consumed by others and thus film directors need to show at least some consideration of the outside observer. That doesn't mean pandering to every whim...it is possible for the director to know better than the audience what the audience wants. But the director isn't going to know that if he's not even bothering to consider it. This film's beginning is painfully slow and it doesn't do a service to the film. Now, maybe I should follow Tarkovsky's advice and decide I'm in the wrong theatre and shut the DVD off, but I'm trying here.

Ok, so one thing I did notice once I came out of my half-slumber that his first half hour put me in, is that the sound on this DVD is pretty great. Admittedly most of my film watching happens in stereo but even when I do put something on the good TV with 5.1 I don't typically hear effective use of back channels like this film offers. Like, it is just really incredible and realistic sounding. It definitely receives top marks on sound.

This film is talky. I like plenty of talky films (though typically not talky foreign films...too tough to keep up) but in a year when I heard people complain about how something like Inception has lots of Basil Exposition, I wonder how and if they would justify this film? It shows us almost nothing, it is all about using dialogue to establish everything about the world. We are made to understand that something about the zone would allow one's deep desire to come to be. I like to think that the Stalker's warning to his two companions of the invisible traps and dangers of the world are not physical dangers (though that is the source of tension) but a way of keeping their minds focused and away from potentially dangerous thoughts in a place where thoughts may have tremendous power, as we find out with the story (told, not done in flashback) of a previous stalker. From the talk, it feels like this film should be like Cube...a tense horror sci-fi with deadly traps, and just imagine Cube if there were no traps. That would be a pretty lame film.

Solaris showed that Tarkovsky's style can work, even for me (though I would have lost much of the first hour), but on the whole I think I'd echo 1SO's critique, he's not good at telling a story. I feel like the wisps of meaning here, I'm not sure I could even really put it into words and it certainly didn't resonate like Solaris, don't seem to justify the length. Either the film needs to be shorter or the themes need to be more concentrated or complex. At the end of the day we just have to remember that I'm not someone who generally appreciates technical achievement in film nor films that emphasize mood over plot and characters. A lot of these films I've had to tackle in this marathon are from those very directors that are so popular on the forum and in the film world more generally because of their technical achievements and for the less literal approaches that many people seem to appreciate (in a way that I lack the capacity to even fathom).

Bill Thompson

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17561
  • DOOM!!!!
    • Bill's Movie Emporium
Re: Beavermoose & Friends FS Top 100 Group Marathon
« Reply #86 on: December 19, 2010, 04:46:51 PM »
See, this kind of thing pisses me off...it shows such contempt for the audience. I'm all for people writing poetry for their own sake, or painting for their own sake, but film, with its budgets, is naturally not a purely personal medium. It is meant to be consumed by others and thus film directors need to show at least some consideration of the outside observer. That doesn't mean pandering to every whim...it is possible for the director to know better than the audience what the audience wants. But the director isn't going to know that if he's not even bothering to consider it.

I don't know if I would use the term "purely" to describe how personal of a medium film, it's more of a collective personal medium. Each artist, whether its the director, the writer, actor, etc., takes a blank slate and makes their mark, their own personal mark. They don't need to show any consideration for the audience when it comes to their vision, nor do I think they really should take any audience into account when making "their" film, otherwise it's not really their film.

Beavermoose

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 5006
  • Samsonite! I was way off!
Re: Beavermoose & Friends FS Top 100 Group Marathon
« Reply #87 on: December 22, 2010, 07:47:28 PM »
Okay so I've got a backlog of 10 films for this marathon so I going to force myself to write at least 1 review a day from now on.

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 19044
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: Beavermoose & Friends FS Top 100 Group Marathon
« Reply #88 on: December 22, 2010, 08:12:57 PM »
Heck I have a backlog of 17 films for mine, but, unfortunately, life stands in the way of me taking on such a noble effort as you.  Also I have to find my list again because I lost it in my computer crash.
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

Beavermoose

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 5006
  • Samsonite! I was way off!
Re: Beavermoose & Friends FS Top 100 Group Marathon
« Reply #89 on: December 22, 2010, 08:13:27 PM »
White #XX
Krzysztof Kieślowski
Well this one is not in the top 100 but I figured I'd do a write-up on it since I'm writing about the others.

After the mood heavy Blue, White is a more conventional narrative tale. Why most of you think lesser of it than the other two of the trilogy I do not understand. I found it to be at least as good as Blue. What I liked most about this one was the humor (the guy's name is Karol Karol). I'm the kind of person that believes that every film should have some humor elements regardless of what kind of film it is. Humor is an essential part of storytelling. This film balances its serious melodramatic parts with really silly scenes and it definitely makes it easier to watch. Despite this, it doesn't impact the dramatic scenes (I want you to kill me and the finale with his wife) which were really great. I found the acting to be great all around, the Karol character develops greatly throughout the film, Delby is a great femme fatale and the guy who plays Mikolai has some really powerful moments (there's something in his eyes). I think this film should be on the top 100 with the other films.
After a first viewing, will MAYBE make my top 100.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 07:43:11 AM by Beavermoose »

 

love