Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 17, 2017, 03:00:17 AM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Other/Miscellaneous
| |-+  Off-Topic Discussion (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  Rate The Last Movie You Saw
0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 943 944 [945] 946 947 ... 1170 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Rate The Last Movie You Saw  (Read 1841327 times)
noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5114


Lonesome Billy


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14160 on: October 22, 2014, 02:54:43 PM »

woah, I think you are taking things a little too far here. Which movie besides Million Dollar Baby addresses euthanasia or assisted suicide? What does Mystic River or The Bridges of Madison County, IMO his two greatest movies as director, have to do with his politics, or with his individualism vs. communities? Invictus obviously addresses racism, but which of his other movies as director do so? I think Invictus and J. Edgar are the only two movies he's made that address politics in the past 3 decades or so. (And btw, I am saying this all from memory, I am not looking at any lists of his.) And btw, I don't view Million Dollar Baby as a political statement on assisted suicide; to me, it's just a story about a particular person in a particular situation. And IMO, that's what many of Eastwood's movies are about, just a good story that he wants to film, not a "message picture." Sure, there are some political movies, but anyone who tries to find a political thread going through all or most of his movies is IMO reading something that's not there.

And btw, while I haven't read the debates about the auteur theory, I don't see how not having a distinct style necessarily conflicts with being considered the author of a work. Is it not possible to be the author of a work i.e. the primary artistic force behind it, the "reason" it is an interesting work even if there aren't any obvious artistic touches that run through all of one's work? is it not possible to say that if someone consistently puts out terrific movies, you can feel he is the author of the work that it wouldn't have been as good with someone else making it even if there isn't a consistent artistic style that runs through all the work?

To be clear, I don't really care much about technical definitions/discussions of auteurism; what I do care about are snobs putting down movies just because the director doesn't scream, "LOOK AT ME!"
(For me, some of the more outlandish "look at me" stuff is highly annoying. Like Godard, I've only seen 4 of his films, and like much of what I saw, but his most blatant stylistic stuff for me was very annoying.) For me, it should never be forgotten that while movies are art, they are more importantly a source of entertainment.

Roger Ebert, in the very last line of his (wonderful) BRD commentary on Casablanca, says Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever, but Casablanca is the one he enjoys the most. For me, that sort of distinction generally doesn't work. The difficulty and technique and 'genius' behind a work are all a means to the end of being entertaining.

Of course, nothing is completely black and white, there are exceptions. E.g. if a movie (like Citizen Kane) theoretically was very innovative in its day but not enjoyed as much now because it's been imitated a million times, I can give it credit for what it meant in its time and how it influenced moviemaking and how it made future movies better, etc. But the point is that seeing the innovation or seeing the artistic touches of a director are in itself entertaining, and that's why they are great; not as an end, but as a means to an end, because seeing great art is entertaining.

If you watched that Wilder interview I linked to: I don't agree with Wilder that if a viewer notices a shot, it's a failure cuz now he is no longer involved in the movie. I can enjoy great shots. My favorite filmmaker, Leone, was obviously very stylized. And I love seeing - and noticing great camerawork. I love Ophuls's elaborate tracking shots, etc. But I can't stand auteurism just for auterism's sake. And I don't think there's any doubt that that's what some auterism is about: saying "look at me; I'm a director" (which perhaps often happens because the director is afraid that critics like Emerson won't take him seriously otherwise).

I was reading far on purpose, because I don't really care either. He's a good director, that's enough to me. But I've read a lot about Clint Eastwood (books, articles...) and those debates are real stuff. Mystic River was often accused of being dangerously ultra right-wing (because of Penn's wife speech towards the end), and that's a movie that spends quite a lot of time on the themes of roots, family and community ("you should never have come back"). Unforgiven is all about Justice (in the larger possible meaning of the word). Absolute Power has a strong scene about self-justice toward the end (a scene that isn't necessary for the plot) and many of his films (as a director and as an actor) are based on this ideal. Josey Wales and Bronco Billy are about individuals who've been hurt by society and build communities to defend their own individual freedom. I'm just throwing examples, but even even Madison is about freedom and responsibility.

You can argue that if you look deep enough, every movie, even Jurassic Park 3, have a political point hidden somewhere. I'm not saying those films are political statements, I'm saying that if you look at every Eastwood film, you know what this guy think of human beings, society, America and many things. This is pretty rare and if that's not an "auteur" in a way, I don't know the meaning of the word.

« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 03:14:54 PM by noodles_leone » Logged


New music video: ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE https://youtu.be/p968oyMo5B0
www.ThibautOskian.com
noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5114


Lonesome Billy


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14161 on: October 22, 2014, 03:20:36 PM »

Roger Ebert, in the very last line of his (wonderful) BRD commentary on Casablanca, says Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever, but Casablanca is the one he enjoys the most. For me, that sort of distinction generally doesn't work. The difficulty and technique and 'genius' behind a work are all a means to the end of being entertaining.

No. I know a lot of masterpieces (movies, books, paintings...) that aren't even trying to be entertaining. I also know masterpieces that are nothing else than entertaining. But culture ISN'T entertainment. It's not above, it's just something else. The level of accessibility of a work of art has nothing to do with its quality. It has only to do with its box-office.

Logged


New music video: ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE https://youtu.be/p968oyMo5B0
www.ThibautOskian.com
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2988



View Profile
« Reply #14162 on: October 22, 2014, 03:21:47 PM »

This is IMO one problem with how far people take the auteur theory, or their opinion of what art should be, or whatever.
A guy (Eastwood) who makes really good films but doesn't have a distinct style is not gonna be praised as much.
To me, a guy who makes that many good movies is doing something right. Maybe he "merely" chooses good scripts. Maybe he "merely" chooses good actors. Maybe he "merely" has good scores. Whatever he is doing right, all I know is that I've enjoyed watching almost every drama he ever made. To me, that's a great filmmaker, even if he doesn't make the sort of films that you could watch for one minute and instantly recognize, "That's an Eastwood film."

The point is not that they lack a distinct style, they may have one which I then do not recognize, the point is that his films could be so much better if he were a stronger director (that is, what I understand as such). As a result I do not enjoy his films that much, not that much beyond their entertainment value. They are mostly entertaining, some are even pretty good, but they rarely fascinate me. They lack this extra which makes other films for me great.

And like Noodles said, he is an auteur for the recurring themes and ideas in his films. He is so much an auteur that I call all films in which he acted and which were produced by his company Malpaso as Eastwood films, whoever directed them (Dust Devil won't accept this). Only exception are those by Don Siegel, who was a mentor and a huge influence on Eastwood. And the artistic father he could accept, unlike the other one, from which he unsuccessfully tried to distance himself.

Logged

noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5114


Lonesome Billy


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14163 on: October 22, 2014, 03:27:28 PM »

I can get that.
(Still cannot get your Gone Baby Gone rating)

Logged


New music video: ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE https://youtu.be/p968oyMo5B0
www.ThibautOskian.com
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2988



View Profile
« Reply #14164 on: October 22, 2014, 03:29:34 PM »

No. I know a lot of masterpieces (movies, books, paintings...) that aren't even trying to be entertaining.

I think they are entertaining, but only for a minority, that small minority which are able to appreciate and to understand them.

Quote
But culture ISN'T entertainment.

I think it is. Or it should be.
If a film/book/comic/song is not entertaining it is not art for me. But being entertainment is only the minimum a work of art should also be. For being art it must also reach deeper levels in me, it must absorb me, it must fascinate me.
So then everything is art when it has at least one true defender ...

Logged

stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2988



View Profile
« Reply #14165 on: October 22, 2014, 03:31:02 PM »


(Still cannot get your Gone Baby Gone rating)

Main thing is that I can get it. (see above)

Logged

drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8448

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #14166 on: October 22, 2014, 04:32:23 PM »

No. I know a lot of masterpieces (movies, books, paintings...) that aren't even trying to be entertaining. I also know masterpieces that are nothing else than entertaining. But culture ISN'T entertainment. It's not above, it's just something else. The level of accessibility of a work of art has nothing to do with its quality. It has only to do with its box-office.

To be clear, I am certainly not saying that the best movie is the one that the most people like, and if a movie has a bad box office, that means it is a "bad" movie.

IMO there is no such thing as objectivity in art. Everything depends on the individual viewer. I'm just saying that while part of the entertainment level is dependent upon the art level (i.e., great achievements in art are entertaining to watch), art shouldn't be a goal for art's own sake without regard to entertainment. I don't wanna get too abstract here then I'd sound like these snobby, nerdy critics who I am bashing  Wink but my essential point here is, to make a style just to be noticed, to say "look, I'm a director," is silly; and to criticize artworks due to a (perceived) lack of director's style, and being unable to enjoy something that really can entertain you out of a snobbish insistence that non-stylized filmmaking is shallow, to me seems ridiculous.

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8448

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #14167 on: October 22, 2014, 04:53:04 PM »

I was reading far on purpose, because I don't really care either. He's a good director, that's enough to me. But I've read a lot about Clint Eastwood (books, articles...) and those debates are real stuff. Mystic River was often accused of being dangerously ultra right-wing (because of Penn's wife speech towards the end), and that's a movie that spends quite a lot of time on the themes of roots, family and community ("you should never have come back"). Unforgiven is all about Justice (in the larger possible meaning of the word). Absolute Power has a strong scene about self-justice toward the end (a scene that isn't necessary for the plot) and many of his films (as a director and as an actor) are based on this ideal. Josey Wales and Bronco Billy are about individuals who've been hurt by society and build communities to defend their own individual freedom. I'm just throwing examples, but even even Madison is about freedom and responsibility.

You can argue that if you look deep enough, every movie, even Jurassic Park 3, have a political point hidden somewhere. I'm not saying those films are political statements, I'm saying that if you look at every Eastwood film, you know what this guy think of human beings, society, America and many things. This is pretty rare and if that's not an "auteur" in a way, I don't know the meaning of the word.

I think you're getting carried away here. A movie about how a particular person acts in a particular situation isn't necessarily trying to make a political/ideological point.

I certainly, never for a single moment, believed that the movie sympathizes with Penn's wife's speech at the end justifying Penn's actions. No way. Penn is a bad character, and his wife is a bad person; what Penn did was wrong, her justification is wrong, and the movie is not in any way condoning him. To me, Mystic River is about loss and pain: the death of a child, the loss of innocence due to sexual abuse ... (btw, while the Robbins character obviously was permanently scarred by the incident, somehow I think the movie tries to imply that Penn and Bacon were as well; to me, that doesn't really work, but whatever).

In Absolute Power, I don't think there is any attempt at a  real-life justification for what the movie character does. Movies are often a different world, with a different set of rules, than real life. Often when a movie character kills someone even when the audience is rooting for him to kill that person it doesn't mean that we'd justify that killing in real life. Of course, there are some "message films" that specifically do try to make a message about real life, where the "rules" of morality are the same as real life, the movies that are made in a more realistic tone. But then there are some movies that are obviously made in a different, closed, movie world, with suspension of disbelief, etc. I never for a moment felt that Absolute Power was operating within real-life rules, that Eastwood's point is that in real that killing would be okay in real life. RE: Unforgiven, it's a friggin' Western (even if a revisionist one), because a killing is justified in the "rule of the Western" doesn't mean the director is condoning any idea of vigilante justice or whatever in real life. Like TMWNN is great as a Western hero; i real life we'd say he is a murderer. I think you are going waaaaay too far in reading political  motives into man of these movies. (I haven't seen Bronco Billy.) Eastwood definitely made some political movies (as actor or director) but IMO not nearly as many as you believe; I would not call him a "message-film maker" or a "political filmmaker." Just because he spoke to Obama's empty chair doesn't mean his movies are so politically motivated  Wink

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5114


Lonesome Billy


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14168 on: October 22, 2014, 05:12:17 PM »

I never said he did political movies. I've been very explicit about the fact that he has no political agenda with his movies. However those themes are in his movies and are discussed by thousands of critics, journalists and intellectuals all over the world (if you don't believe me, google it: there are tens of books about it). But more importantly, I said that I know Eastwood and what he thinks because I've seen his movies. That was my only point.

Still, don't underestimate the Unforgiven. It's about Justice. Everything in this movie that isn't about demystification is about Justice.

I agree with you on having a shiny style having nothing to do with someone being a good director.
I agree with Stanton when he says he needs to feel the director isn't interchangeable.

« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 02:49:08 AM by noodles_leone » Logged


New music video: ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE https://youtu.be/p968oyMo5B0
www.ThibautOskian.com
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8448

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #14169 on: October 22, 2014, 05:29:33 PM »


I agree with you on having a shiny style having nothing to do with someone being a good director.
I agree with Stanton when he says he needs to feel the director isn't interchangeable.

I don't think Eastwood is interchangeable. I don't think that if someone else had made Eastwood's movies they would be similar. I am a huge fan of Eastwood's movies and don't think the director of them is interchangeable. Not having a distinct visual style doesn't mean you're interchangeable.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what stanton means, but if he is implying that not having a distinct visual style means the director is interchangeable, well, that seems to be what Emerson says, which I strongly disagree with.
You think if someone else had made all the movies Billy Wilder directed, they would have turned out more or less the same (even assuming the same writing team of Wilder and a collaborator)? I say no way.

« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 05:47:27 PM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5114


Lonesome Billy


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14170 on: October 22, 2014, 05:49:35 PM »

I don't think Eastwood is interchangeable.

Logged


New music video: ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE https://youtu.be/p968oyMo5B0
www.ThibautOskian.com
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14171 on: October 22, 2014, 07:53:17 PM »

You think if someone else had made all the movies Billy Wilder directed, they would have turned out more or less the same (even assuming the same writing team of Wilder and a collaborator)? I say no way.

Ninotchka begs to differ.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2988



View Profile
« Reply #14172 on: October 23, 2014, 02:40:47 AM »


Maybe I'm misunderstanding what stanton means, but if he is implying that not having a distinct visual style means the director is interchangeable,

Yes, you misunderstand me, this can not be inferred from what I have written. You also misunderstood half of the things Noodles had written? How comes?



IMO there is no such thing as objectivity in art. Everything depends on the individual viewer.

Yes, but if this is really your stance, why don't you accept other people's opinions?
Why are other people assholes, jerks, idiots, snobs etc if they have an opinion you don't like?

If art is always subjective there is no reason to blame anyones opinion, as ridiculous they might seem.

Quote
I'm just saying that while part of the entertainment level is dependent upon the art level (i.e., great achievements in art are entertaining to watch), art shouldn't be a goal for art's own sake without regard to entertainment. I don't wanna get too abstract here then I'd sound like these snobby, nerdy critics who I am bashing  Wink but my essential point here is, to make a style just to be noticed, to say "look, I'm a director," is silly; and to criticize artworks due to a (perceived) lack of director's style, and being unable to enjoy something that really can entertain you out of a snobbish insistence that non-stylized filmmaking is shallow, to me seems ridiculous.


At first, how do you know for sure if a style was only done for style's sake? Even if it appears to you, the artist may have had other intentions.

And then, I don't think it is wrong to make art for art's sake as long as the result is art for me and not pseudo-art.

Drink, you should have more respect for other people. It would cost you some signatures, but would make life more pleasant for you.

(Mike Siegel would appreciate this too)

Logged

noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5114


Lonesome Billy


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14173 on: October 23, 2014, 02:52:11 AM »

Just because he spoke to Obama's empty chair doesn't mean his movies are so politically motivated  Wink

He apologized for that. Leave Clint alone!   Cry

Logged


New music video: ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE https://youtu.be/p968oyMo5B0
www.ThibautOskian.com
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8448

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #14174 on: October 23, 2014, 10:49:47 AM »

OMG who did I call an asshole, jerk, or idiot? Nobody on these boards, that's for sure.
Yes, I said some of the critics' writings seemed snobbish, but that's nobody that reads these boards, I'd kid around with nasty shit about critics that'll nevr read my posts, but I've never said anything like that about anyone here. I've never been rude to someone over their movie opinions.
 I think you are taking things just a wee bit too seriously. (mike takes too seriously anyone who criticizes Peckinpah). Fortunately, n_l doesn't.
I guess it's not always easy to understand someone's thoughts/emotions through written posts. But take it easy, this should be all fun.

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
Pages: 1 ... 943 944 [945] 946 947 ... 1170 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.048 seconds with 19 queries.