Cinematic Heritage / True Works of Art
The feeling of watching an artistic masterpiece is really one to cherish.
Most films, while good when you watch them, end up as forgettable and "in the moment" experiences, whereas great art lives with you long after it ends. There's absolutely value to watching mainstream and/or entertaining movies, including blatant cash grabs, even. But I think that, ultimately, the strength of a film lies in how much of a unique experience it is. And ignoring the obvious "every experience is unique", no matter how much I love those mass-produced American film noirs from the 40s/50s or Hong Kong films from the 80s/90s, one artistic masterpiece can pretty much blow them out of the water. And one of the most significant factors why is the uniqueness of the art film. But how many truly unique movies have you seen this year? And I don't mean original or smart films with some never-seen-before gimmick. I mean truly great works of art that you can call just that: Art. Films that you can compare to the greatest works of literature or painting or sculpture. What films do you think are comparable to Michelangelo or Caravaggio or Bach in terms of being great works of art? What films should belong to the cinematic heritage? |
Originally Posted by Mr Minio (Post 2346997)
The feeling of watching an artistic masterpiece is really one to cherish.
Originally Posted by Mr Minio (Post 2346997)
Most films, while good when you watch them, end up as forgettable and "in the moment" experiences, whereas great art lives with you long after it ends.
Brian Eno, for example, went to considerable trouble to compose "music for airports" -- music which is pleasant and calming, but NOT melodically demanding and draining of denizens of airports as they shuffle in line and wait. The whole purpose of his project was to create forgettable art serving a real practical purpose (easing human beings as they make their tiring passage through that bottleneck-nodal point called the "airport") .
Originally Posted by Mr Minio (Post 2346997)
There's absolutely value to watching mainstream and/or entertaining movies, including blatant cash grabs, even.
Originally Posted by Mr Minio (Post 2346997)
But I think that, ultimately, the strength of a film lies in how much of a unique experience it is.
Originally Posted by Mr Minio (Post 2346997)
And ignoring the obvious "every experience is unique", no matter how much I love those mass-produced American film noirs from the 40s/50s or Hong Kong films from the 80s/90s, one artistic masterpiece can pretty much blow them out of the water. And one of the most significant factors why is the uniqueness of the art film.
Originally Posted by Mr Minio (Post 2346997)
But how many truly unique movies have you seen this year? And I don't mean original or smart films with some never-seen-before gimmick. I mean truly great works of art that you can call just that: Art. Films that you can compare to the greatest works of literature or painting or sculpture.
Originally Posted by Mr Minio (Post 2346997)
What films do you think are comparable to Michelangelo or Caravaggio or Bach in terms of being great works of art? What films should belong to the cinematic heritage?
I propose Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles as they have a Michaelangelo in their ranks, and a Leonardo, and a Donatello, and a Raphael. Top That!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxxBXpnn2Jw |
Originally Posted by Corax (Post 2347008)
Ideally, but a masterpiece might also be repugnant, unsettling, and even disturbing.
Originally Posted by Corax (Post 2347008)
The whole purpose of his project was to create forgettable art serving a real practical purpose
Originally Posted by Corax (Post 2347008)
I sense the fishing lure bobbing up and down in the water.
Originally Posted by Corax (Post 2347008)
It can be, but it can also lie in what a typical/representative experience it is--that great commonality that brings us together
Originally Posted by Corax (Post 2347008)
I am not sure that you have yet secured this as a necessary or sufficient factor. A film can be uniquely bad.
Uniqueness and originality are massively overrated. It's not about doing something new (what is really new, anyway?), but about arranging the familiar furniture in the room in a way that serves the needs of the moment. It is best thought of as a local/relative phenomenon and not a cosmic/existential one. What counts more than doing it first is doing it well, right?
Originally Posted by Corax (Post 2347008)
Yeah, I know this part. This is where we propose films and you tell us they suck.
|
Re: Cinematic Heritage / True Works of Art
Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is my answer to this thread.
|
Originally Posted by jiraffejustin (Post 2347022)
Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is my answer to this thread.
|
Metropolis (1927).
|
Originally Posted by Mr Minio (Post 2346997)
The feeling of watching an artistic masterpiece is really one to cherish.
Most films, while good when you watch them, end up as forgettable and "in the moment" experiences, whereas great art lives with you long after it ends. There's absolutely value to watching mainstream and/or entertaining movies, including blatant cash grabs, even. But I think that, ultimately, the strength of a film lies in how much of a unique experience it is. And ignoring the obvious "every experience is unique", no matter how much I love those mass-produced American film noirs from the 40s/50s or Hong Kong films from the 80s/90s, one artistic masterpiece can pretty much blow them out of the water. And one of the most significant factors why is the uniqueness of the art film. But how many truly unique movies have you seen this year? And I don't mean original or smart films with some never-seen-before gimmick. I mean truly great works of art that you can call just that: Art. Films that you can compare to the greatest works of literature or painting or sculpture. What films do you think are comparable to Michelangelo or Caravaggio or Bach in terms of being great works of art? What films should belong to the cinematic heritage? That said, in answer to your question, Memoria is both. It is unique, or close to it, and it is also breathtakingly executed, like GwaPE. But, in my mind, Marvel's Avengers is also a sort of masterpiece and should be part of the cinematic heritage even though it is totally mainstream and not unique. Obviously, there were several like it before it and dozens after, but it is a near-perfect execution of what it is and that makes it a masterpiece and something that belongs in the cinematic heritage. |
Originally Posted by Mr Minio (Post 2347019)
I'm just curious about what MoFos perceive as equal to Bruegel.
If we're talking The Triumph of Death Bruegel, the the movie I saw for the first time this year I'd equate the most to that is The Third Part of the Night. |
Originally Posted by jiraffejustin (Post 2347022)
Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is my answer to this thread.
I'll see your chainsaw battle and raise you a quad-barrell, demonic-dwarf-slaying shotgun and say Phantasm 2. |
Originally Posted by Little Ash (Post 2347137)
I'll see your chainsaw battle and raise you a quad-barrell, demonic-dwarf-slaying shotgun and say Phantasm 2.
Nothing beats the double-double-barrel shotgun. |
Originally Posted by jiraffejustin (Post 2347022)
Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is my answer to this thread.
Originally Posted by I_Wear_Pants (Post 2347026)
I think you need a hobby.
Originally Posted by James D. Gardiner (Post 2347064)
Metropolis (1927).
Originally Posted by Wooley (Post 2347103)
It is a painting of a girl with a pearl earring. God knows how many paintings are very similar. But, I have seen it up close, stood in the room with it and looked at it from every angle, gotten up close, regarded it from way back, and I can tell you, it is a masterpiece.
Originally Posted by Wooley (Post 2347103)
That said, in answer to your question, Memoria is both. It is unique, or close to it, and it is also breathtakingly executed, like GwaPE.
Originally Posted by Wooley (Post 2347103)
But, in my mind, Marvel's Avengers is also a sort of masterpiece and should be part of the cinematic heritage even though it is totally mainstream and not unique. Obviously, there were several like it before it and dozens after, but it is a near-perfect execution of what it is and that makes it a masterpiece and something that belongs in the cinematic heritage.
Originally Posted by Little Ash (Post 2347136)
If we're talking The Triumph of Death Bruegel, the the movie I saw for the first time this year I'd equate the most to that is The Third Part of the Night.
|
Originally Posted by Mr Minio (Post 2347139)
I feel like this is a sort of provocation.
|
Re: Cinematic Heritage / True Works of Art
Memoria and Avengers are both good = FINE
Memoria is excellent and Avengers is crap = FINE Avengers is amazing and Memoria is OK = FINE Avengers is the supreme masterpiece and should be part of cinematic heritage (and so is Memoria) = THIS IS BS!!! |
I watched Andrzej Zulawski's 'On the Silver Globe' recently. I was blown away.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.roge...Globe-2016.jpg |
Originally Posted by ScarletLion (Post 2347159)
I watched Andrzej Zulawski's 'On the Silver Globe' recently. I was blown away.
Anyway, as far as the thread goes, I wouldn't consider any Żuławski film to be good enough. Sometimes I wonder what I would deem worthy enough. |
Originally Posted by Mr Minio (Post 2347160)
It's unbearable. Total hogwash. But maybe people who don't speak Polish experience the pretentious monologues differently.
Anyway, as far as the thread goes, I wouldn't consider any Żuławski film to be good enough. Sometimes I wonder what I would deem worthy enough. |
Originally Posted by Mr Minio (Post 2347160)
It's unbearable. Total hogwash. But maybe people who don't speak Polish experience the pretentious monologues differently.
Anyway, as far as the thread goes, I wouldn't consider any Żuławski film to be good enough. Sometimes I wonder what I would deem worthy enough. Honestly, I kind of wonder which examples of "the greatest works of literature or painting or sculpture" you'd consider unworthy for this thread if you held them up to the same level of scrutiny. Unfortunately my knowledge for all the older art forms, and what makes an individual example "great," is shallow and wanting, which does make it difficult for me to have a reference point. My gut though says the answer would be, "quite a few." |
Originally Posted by Wooley (Post 2347103)
I hear what you're saying and I respect your opinion, but I disagree. I do not feel that a film has to be unique to be great or a masterpiece. Take "Girl With A Pearl Earring" (the painting, not the film). It is a painting of a girl with a pearl earring. God knows how many paintings are very similar. But, I have seen it up close, stood in the room with it and looked at it from every angle, gotten up close, regarded it from way back, and I can tell you, it is a masterpiece. I feel the same way about films. The unique ones stand out but they are not necessarily better films or higher art.
That said, in answer to your question, Memoria is both. It is unique, or close to it, and it is also breathtakingly executed, like GwaPE. But, in my mind, Marvel's Avengers is also a sort of masterpiece and should be part of the cinematic heritage even though it is totally mainstream and not unique. Obviously, there were several like it before it and dozens after, but it is a near-perfect execution of what it is and that makes it a masterpiece and something that belongs in the cinematic heritage. I don't think reducing a painting to what its subject is (ie. a girl with a pearl earring) is the way to consider whether something is unique or not. Vermeer's style is what was unique. You look at a Vermeer and you know it is him. That is the value of a Vermeer. It's more than a girl. Just like Van Gogh's Sunflowers are more than sunflowers, or Turner's ships are more than ships. As for unique films not necessarily being better....errrr....it's true that unique doesn't make something good. And it's certainly true that unique doesn't immediately catapult a work of art into masterpiece territory. But it is probably as close to as essential an element as you are going to find. And when something is unique, even if it is not particularly great, it is always worthwhile. Whereas something that is simply extraordinarily competent, is virtually never going to be worth thinking about generations from now (or even tomorrow) As for Avengers, I suppose everyone can put whatever they want in their own museum. But that would be a museum I would skip on the tour if I heard Avengers was inside. This doesn't mean interesting dialogue can't be made out of such a dull film. And I definitely believe a great deal can be gleaned from what this glut of mediocre to terrible superhero films says about our current generation (nothing good, I'm sure). But what I think is most important to address in your high opinion of it, is the fallacy that "a near perfect execution" of what it is trying to be, elevates it to some kind of awe inspiring value. To me this kind of statement makes about as much sense as saying my shopping list, as long as I return home with all of the items I put on it, also qualifies for masterpiece status. Turning art into this thing with a very specific function, and that removes virtually any identifiers of who created it or what they are hoping to say, to me is always the Great Misstep in these kinds of discussions. While I'm not comfortable rejecting Avengers as being art at all (it's always silly to draw this distinction), I think it is still a wonky proposition to lump it in with films which we might give the capital A Art designation. At best Avengers is like a well knit sweater. It fulfills its function (keeps you warm), and maybe even looks nice (depending on the technique of the knitter). But anything that has a very specific pattern for its creator to follow in order to make it, and all that gets in the way of its 'greatness' is whether or not a stitch has been flubbed, really reduces art to a skill that can simply be learned and practised, instead of felt and intuited. And I'm not sure that anything like this, beyond its possible importance as a cultural artifact, really says anything beyond the experience of watching an Avengers movie. I think it is important that Art should not be something that can be manufactured and repeated, if we just get the formula correct. Yes, we can talk about Warhol doing exactly this, and that is clearly Art! But his act of completely disappearing into a process where he could almost cease to exist and be replaced with these gaudy cultural artifacts, was a clear autopsy on who Warhol actually was as a person. He was those paintings he cranked out factory style, even if he wasn't in the room as they were made. And The Avengers is not conceptual in this way. And even if it was, would we ever really need a second Warhol anyways, (I'm looking directly at you Jeff Coons, you talentless hack). |
I’ll echo the sentiments that my knowledge of non-cinematic artforms is pretty lacking, and that fine art is a lot easier to appreciate in a museum setting when you can get up close and spend time with a painting or sculpture. I don’t know if I can articulate why something is great, but it’s easier to feel said greatness in that context.
As for films that fit the bill, I’d have to chew it over. I’m leaning towards movies that have had a pure visual or sensorial impact, the kind of thing that transcends the context in which they were made and released (although said context is obviously key to appreciating them). Just a few that feel right at the moment: Apocalypse Now The Good, the Bad and the Ugly Lawrence of Arabia Legend of the Mountain Suspiria The Killer I will probably come back and list more titles as I think it over, but these represent a kind of pure cinema for me, the kind of greatness that only works in this artform. |
I realize I subconsciously applied a criteria of “if I remove all the dialogue, will I still grasp why this movie is great”?
|
All times are GMT -3. The time now is 09:59 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums