*
*
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Apr 24, 2014, 12:08:54 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search: Advanced search
657252 Posts in 9253 Topics by 3396 Members Latest Member: - vlozan86 Most online today: 80 - most online ever: 494 (Jul 01, 2007, 02:59:53 PM)
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 22
Print
Author Topic: While greg nibbled on an unhealthy snack/tim roth what films have you watched?  (Read 91961 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
elpollodiablo
Registered user

Posts: 32624


« Reply #50 on: Mar 19, 2008, 01:49:38 PM »

Yeah, pollo, the Frost/Eliot stuff in ST made me think it was written by like, a freshman English major taking a poetry survey course for the first time. 

I think the thing about Kelly is that he just has a lot of ideas:  Some of them brilliant, some of them the dumbest things a person has ever thought of.  I think that's actually what makes both of his films so engaging, even if they don't make any fucking sense.  It's like they inhabit this enormous conceptual space where anything goes.

edit:  Which I why I think that, weirdly, if he manages become more focused his films will start to suck.

Yeah, definitely. Once they train him to be a director instead of a filmmaker, all of whatever it is that makes his films so compelling is gonna disappear. And that's too bad. What this guy really needs is a partner, someone like Charlie Kaufman who has the writing chops and some of the same sensibilities, so they could work from scripts that are actually well-written if not coherent. The incoherence is half the fun, after all.
I've read a lot of reviews bashing his skills as a director, too, which surprised me because I thought ST was really well-directed in that I couldn't look away and every shot was like pure entertaining goodness. But apparently he's not up to snuff technically or something. I dunno.
Logged

think 'on the road.'
elpollodiablo
Registered user

Posts: 32624


« Reply #51 on: Mar 19, 2008, 01:50:33 PM »

What milly said about a film adaptation of Gravity's Rainbow... I'm inclined to agree!

He'd better be right, because I'm buying this junk tonight primarily on account of this assertion

Think thematically and formally. Also some superficial resemblances due to the use of music/dance.
Logged

think 'on the road.'
Thermofusion
Registered user

Posts: 10000


« Reply #52 on: Mar 19, 2008, 01:59:57 PM »

What milly said about a film adaptation of Gravity's Rainbow... I'm inclined to agree!

He'd better be right, because I'm buying this junk tonight primarily on account of this assertion

Think thematically and formally. Also some superficial resemblances due to the use of music/dance.

Overwhelmingly tangential narrative sprawl, bizarre characters and sexual perversion, then?  Awesome.

And re: music: also awesome because lately I've been making the (completely dead-serious, mind you) assertion that Pynchon is our greatest living songwriter.  There are a couple o' fucking gems in Against the Day.
Logged

triple paisley minimum
edison
Registered user

Posts: 4837


« Reply #53 on: Mar 19, 2008, 02:12:07 PM »

I just saw Be Kind Rewind - it was trite, not very entertaining or interesting in any way. I'm looking for something nice to say about it, but hmm, can't find anything.

Kubrick's The Killing, however, was totally awesome and is going to my "favorite Kubrick films" list, in the company of Lolita, Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut (I love these, but the rest tends to leave me rather cold). I really need to see Paths of Glory at some point.
Logged
jebreject
Registered user

Posts: 27071


« Reply #54 on: Mar 19, 2008, 07:27:35 PM »

Re: Richard Kelly. Dude is definitely a fucking door knob, as is proven when you decide it'd be a good idea to listen to the commentary for Donnie Darko. Or watch the director's cut. It takes a really special kind of idiot to ruin his own film like he did. Anyway, Southland Tales came from Netflix today, I'm fixin' to watch it presently.
Logged

I'm not racist, I've got lots of black Facebook friends.
Andrew_TSKS
Registered user

Posts: 39426


« Reply #55 on: Mar 19, 2008, 07:32:04 PM »

haha i can't agree more jeb. i had a donnie darko kool-aid drinker take me to serious task on another message board years ago, because i dared to suggest that the film could be taken in at least three completely different ways, and that this was a lot of why it was so awesome. she proceeded to explain to me exactly how i was supposed to take it according to the writer/director, and it was exactly the worst interpretation of every single bit of the movie. awful.
Logged

I just want to be myself and I want you to love me for who I am.
elpollodiablo
Registered user

Posts: 32624


« Reply #56 on: Mar 19, 2008, 07:46:18 PM »

Re: Richard Kelly. Dude is definitely a fucking door knob, as is proven when you decide it'd be a good idea to listen to the commentary for Donnie Darko. Or watch the director's cut. It takes a really special kind of idiot to ruin his own film like he did. Anyway, Southland Tales came from Netflix today, I'm fixin' to watch it presently.

I'll never watch the commentary for this film as I don't really even like it that much. What was so bad about it, exactly?
Logged

think 'on the road.'
dieblucasdie
Registered user

Posts: 24493


« Reply #57 on: Mar 19, 2008, 08:11:19 PM »

I've purposely avoided the director's cut, but my understanding is that he cleaned up all the darkness and weirdness and ambiguity (all the things that make it fun) and made it a straight-ahead sci-fi piece. 
Logged

he was basically your only chance at making the world love you.
jebreject
Registered user

Posts: 27071


« Reply #58 on: Mar 19, 2008, 08:12:34 PM »

He gave his interpretation of the film, and it was retarded

edit:
Quote from: wikipedia
Writer/director Richard Kelly does not deny personal interpretations, but has expressed his own theories through the extra commentary on the two DVDs, his own (fictional) book The Philosophy of Time Travel, and in various other interviews.

According to Kelly and his Philosophy of Time Travel, at midnight on October 2 a Tangent Universe branches off the Primary Universe around the time when Donnie is called out of his bedroom by Frank, immediately before the appearance of the Artifact, the faulty jet engine. The inherently unstable Tangent Universe will collapse in just over 28 days and take the Primary Universe with it if not corrected. Closing the Tangent Universe is the duty of the Living Receiver, Donnie, who wields certain supernatural powers to help him in the task.

Those who have died/will die within the Tangent Universe (and would not have died otherwise) are the Manipulated Dead (Frank, Samantha Darko, Rose Darko, and Gretchen Ross). Manipulated Dead Frank, at least, is also given certain powers in that he is able to subtly understand what is happening and have the ability to contact and influence the Living Receiver via the Fourth Dimensional Construct (water). All others within the orbit of the Living Receiver are the Manipulated Living (e.g. Ms. Pomeroy, Dr. Monnitoff), subconsciously drawn to push him towards his destiny to close the Tangent Universe and, according to the Philosophy of Time Travel, die by the Artifact.

There are two "Franks" in the story: the living boyfriend of Donnie's sister Elizabeth, and the Manipulated Dead Frank who appears to Donnie as a premonition from the future in the disturbing rabbit suit (the second Frank is dead, or undead; at the end of the film he is killed by Donnie). Dead Frank is aware of Donnie's fate and destiny.
Logged

I'm not racist, I've got lots of black Facebook friends.
diesel_powered
Registered user

Posts: 19210


« Reply #59 on: Mar 19, 2008, 08:21:21 PM »

He gave his interpretation of the film, and it was retarded

Are you seriously calling the writer's interpretation of his own work retarded?
Logged

Quote
she had me at "let's make a sandwich"
dieblucasdie
Registered user

Posts: 24493


« Reply #60 on: Mar 19, 2008, 08:22:19 PM »

Yes.  Are you seriously repping for authorial intent in 2008?
« Last Edit: Mar 19, 2008, 08:24:14 PM by dieblucasdie » Logged

he was basically your only chance at making the world love you.
jebreject
Registered user

Posts: 27071


« Reply #61 on: Mar 19, 2008, 08:27:33 PM »

He gave his interpretation of the film, and it was retarded

Are you seriously calling the writer's interpretation of his own work retarded?

The interpretation speaks for itself. It's retarded. If it is the absolute interpretation of Donnie Darko, then Donnie Darko is a piece of shit film.
Logged

I'm not racist, I've got lots of black Facebook friends.
C of heartbreak
Registered user

Posts: 5285


« Reply #62 on: Mar 19, 2008, 08:29:00 PM »

I hardly think respecting a writer's interpretation is repping for authorial intent, although I have to say the movie as it is (was? pre-cut?) is way better than some sophomoric attempt at framing a story around science the author does not understand.
Logged

HOW WOULD I BE? WHAT WOULD I DO?
C of heartbreak
Registered user

Posts: 5285


« Reply #63 on: Mar 19, 2008, 08:36:14 PM »

Although, once you get past all the Jake Gyllenhaal/Patrick Swayze awesomeness, Donnie Darko really was kind of a stupid movie.
Logged

HOW WOULD I BE? WHAT WOULD I DO?
elpollodiablo
Registered user

Posts: 32624


« Reply #64 on: Mar 19, 2008, 08:40:54 PM »

Yes.  Are you seriously repping for authorial intent in 2008?

QFTMFT, Good GOD do we need more people like you in my English dept
Logged

think 'on the road.'
hannah
Registered user

Posts: 9366


« Reply #65 on: Mar 19, 2008, 08:51:03 PM »

I though Donnie was Jesus and Dead Frank was the Easter Bunny
Logged
hannah
Registered user

Posts: 9366


« Reply #66 on: Mar 19, 2008, 08:52:33 PM »

The stupidest thing about the "director's cut" was it includes scene that was an extra on the DVD, and should've remained deleted -- Donnie's pills are revealed to be... GASP... placebos. [actually I can't remember if this was in the director's cut. so never mind.] And "Killing Moon" was fucking changed.
« Last Edit: Mar 19, 2008, 08:58:35 PM by hannah » Logged
jebreject
Registered user

Posts: 27071


« Reply #67 on: Mar 19, 2008, 08:57:38 PM »

And "Killing Moon" was fucking changed.

This is the worst offense, IMO
Logged

I'm not racist, I've got lots of black Facebook friends.
Andrew_TSKS
Registered user

Posts: 39426


« Reply #68 on: Mar 19, 2008, 09:49:08 PM »

hannah, the thing about the pills being placebos is not in the original film, but here's what's REALLY weird--there's also a deleted scene about how donnie's been throwing the pills down the toilet. i can't imagine why both scenes would need to exist in the movie. because if the pills are placebos, who cares that donnie's been throwing them away? what difference does it make?

i'm not sure if the throwing the pills away scene is added into the director's cut or not, as i've never watched the director's cut. but it's on the original dvd. there are lots of deleted scenes on said original dvd, so many that i only watched the first 6 or so and got bored.
Logged

I just want to be myself and I want you to love me for who I am.
diesel_powered
Registered user

Posts: 19210


« Reply #69 on: Mar 20, 2008, 02:16:07 AM »

Yes.  Are you seriously repping for authorial intent in 2008?

The death of the author is predicated on authorial intent being unknowable. The author has stated his intent, therefore the argument that authorial intent is an invalid influence on criticism breaks down. Even if you want to make the argument for the primacy of the text as the exclusive basis for criticism, that still makes the author's interpretation just as valid as yours.

Furthermore, I would make the argument that the film is an analytic proposition in that the validity of the arguments it presents depends on the definitions of the symbols it contains. Since its symbols are defined in a language private to the director, and since the director has provided us with further insight into this private language, the director's interpretation becomes a valid addition to the text in this case and therefore becomes valid material to inform criticism. After all, the decline of the critical value of authorial intent occurred before the era of DVD commentaries.
Logged

Quote
she had me at "let's make a sandwich"
jebreject
Registered user

Posts: 27071


« Reply #70 on: Mar 20, 2008, 02:18:29 AM »

Don't really know what to say about Southland Tales. As a satire trying to make real points about civil liberties and the war on terror and all that, it's about as dunderheaded as you can get. But taken for what it is, all of it, dunderheadedness included, whoa. What a fucking ride. It just kept getting weirder and weirder and weirder, this big, sprawling mess of a film that would make me think Richard Kelly was some kind of fucked up twisted genius if I didn't know better. It's interesting that he's accidentally made two great films now--this one an accidental masterpiece--and it'll be interesting as well to see him sabotage it like he did with Donnie Darko. I've pretty much no interest whatsoever in seeing the other forty minutes that exist, though I suspect they serve to make the film even more sprawling and less coherent, considering critical reaction to the Cannes showing. This thing is a complete and total clusterfuck of a movie, but it's a magical, sublime clusterfuck, that's for sure.
Logged

I'm not racist, I've got lots of black Facebook friends.
dieblucasdie
Registered user

Posts: 24493


« Reply #71 on: Mar 20, 2008, 02:27:29 AM »

Yes.  Are you seriously repping for authorial intent in 2008?

The death of the author is predicated on authorial intent being unknowable. The author has stated his intent, therefore the argument that authorial intent is an invalid influence on criticism breaks down. Even if you want to make the argument for the primacy of the text as the exclusive basis for criticism, that still makes the author's interpretation just as valid as yours.

Furthermore, I would make the argument that the film is an analytic proposition in that the validity of the arguments it presents depends on the definitions of the symbols it contains. Since its symbols are defined in a language private to the director, and since the director has provided us with further insight into this private language, the director's interpretation becomes a valid addition to the text in this case and therefore becomes valid material to inform criticism. After all, the decline of the critical value of authorial intent occurred before the era of DVD commentaries.

Every single point you make here is false, except for the last sentence, and come on, they might not have had DVD commentaries, but Whitman and Wordsworth, for example, loved to talk some bullshit about their work.  It's not like DVD commentaries sudden made an artist's intent "knowable."

His interpretation is invalid because it's stupid.  It doesn't matter whether he's the "artist" or not.  It's stupid.  I can't state it more plainly than than.  "Blah blah blah private symbols blah blah blah" who cares the point of a work of art is that it out there for interpretation and criticism.
« Last Edit: Mar 20, 2008, 02:31:47 AM by dieblucasdie » Logged

he was basically your only chance at making the world love you.
dieblucasdie
Registered user

Posts: 24493


« Reply #72 on: Mar 20, 2008, 02:30:08 AM »

I've pretty much no interest whatsoever in seeing the other forty minutes that exist, though I suspect they serve to make the film even more sprawling and less coherent, considering critical reaction to the Cannes showing. This thing is a complete and total clusterfuck of a movie, but it's a magical, sublime clusterfuck, that's for sure.

From what I've read the only difference is that some of the minor characters have larger plotlines, which, meh, but if nothing else it would probably be worth it to see the Sarah Michelle Gellar "Teen Horniness is Not a Crime" musical number.
Logged

he was basically your only chance at making the world love you.
diesel_powered
Registered user

Posts: 19210


« Reply #73 on: Mar 20, 2008, 02:48:05 AM »

His interpretation is invalid because it's stupid.  It doesn't matter whether he's the "artist" or not.  It's stupid.  I can't state it more plainly than than.  "Blah blah blah private symbols blah blah blah" who cares the point of a work of art is that it out there for interpretation and criticism.

Okay, if your interpretation is so much better, let's hear it.
Logged

Quote
she had me at "let's make a sandwich"
jebreject
Registered user

Posts: 27071


« Reply #74 on: Mar 20, 2008, 03:07:00 AM »

In the case of both Donnie Darko and Southland Tales, I suspect it's far wiser to have no real interpretation as such, because framing those kinds of narratives on movies like these ruins them, I think

Ooooh, Southland Tales is a retelling of the Book of Revelations! It's a commentary on the PATRIOT ACT! Ooooh! Who the hell cares, shut the fuck up! These explanations take all the power out of the thing and reveal Richard Kelly to be a dum-dum who thinks he's far cleverer than he really is
Logged

I'm not racist, I've got lots of black Facebook friends.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 22
Print
LPTJ | Archives | The Hangar | Topic: While greg nibbled on an unhealthy snack/tim roth what films have you watched?
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
Board layout based on the Oxygen design by Bloc