Artsy/Experimental/Surreal

"Understanding" something can be subjective too, can it not? I see everything I can, I don't know what artsy and experimental means, but I know that when I see something that isn't afraid to try new things or goes for broke on one level or another, I'm much more invigorated than when I see something unoriginal. The more movies I see, the more I appreciate the ones in the margins - movies that aren't afraid to be ambiguous or vague about things.

Then there's people who hail a movie that is afraid to do something new. There are two sides to that coin. Is this why people like something like Saving Private Ryan, which is hypocritical and schizophrenic, yet because it attacks WWII (I mean attacks in all contexts in which it can be placed) is it a piece of brilliant filmmaking? I don't know, or care. Would Eyes Wide Shut be a better movie, in your opinion, if it didn't actually examine the marriage and just showed the movie as its plot dictates? Why does it matter what "issues" a movie addresses, as long as the film itself is compelling and moving?

I think, TWT, that if you opened up a bit, and saw any and everything you could, whether it "interested" you at face value or not, you might be more appreciative of movies that don't "shy away." Are you ever excited by people pushing limits, or trying something grand and new? I address this question to sades as well - Do you ever examine WHY you feel a certain way about a movie, and WHY the movie made you feel that way?

And I think Evil Dead 2 is one of the best movies ever made, therefore on some level I was compelled and moved.

It's like Mystery Man said - some people try to provide objective answers for subjective questions.

The more I post here, the more I notice how some people like to paint everything in blacks and whites, be it on the subject of religion, politics, economics, or movies. I don't believe there are any easy answers for any of these things.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

I think you know exactly what "artsy and experimental" means, but you don't like to label those films that way, for whatever reason.

Well, I don't think Saving Private Ryan is completely brilliant. I think it's very, very good, though. Why? Because, in addition to giving us a glimpse of war, it moved me immensely. The end brought me to tears.

Sure, some people hail a movie that doesn't do anything new (not technically nothing, of course)...but that's different. I don't know of anyone who praises a movie precisely because it's unoriginal. They may praise it in spite of it. But I've come across many who give a film large amounts of credit just because it's candid about violence or sex or racism or some other controversial subject. I think labeling so many of these as brave or brilliant undermines the ones that really ARE doing something amazing with a tough subject.

Alright, first off, with all due respect Steve, I think you're pushing it a little. I do not need to "open up." What I need is more time. I've got movies I have lots of interest in that I don't see...so it comes as no surprise the ones that haven't caught my eye go by unnoticed. Movies are not my life. For some, they are...and I don't want to demean that at all. But I don't think I can reasonably, anytime soon, go out searching for all kinds of movies I don't even have an initial interest in.

What limits are we talking about? There aren't any damn limits. You can put whatever you want on film. Yes, trying something new is exciting and interesting...sometimes. The Blair Witch Project was new to me...so I went to see it, and I'm glad I did.

As for your last question: I know you didn't mean it, but that sounded as if it were addressed to children. Of course I think about WHY I like a movie. What do you think we all talk about here? We almost never say "It was good" without explaining why. I think you've got it in your head, Steve, that I've somehow blocked off all emotions when it comes to movies, simply because I've expressed distaste for dishonesty when it comes to historical representations.

Easy and black and white are different things. A thing does not have to be easy to figure out to be clear. Example: the existence of God is very, very clear to me right now. I have virtually no doubt that some sort of God exists. But, this comes after years of arguing, reading, thinking, and wondering. It has not been an EASY subject to think about or wrestle with.

Ever had a problem you just couldn't figure out? And doesn't the answer seem pretty simple and clear-cut after you've got it? I think of it like that.

If there's any painting I worry about on this board, or on this planet, it's the gray paint slathered all over everything, so that there is no Truth, and everything is subjective.

Here it is, for me. I'll give you an example. When I worked at a book store, this new book came through, wrapped in plain brown paper. It was written on the plain paper, that the book was banned from several book stores in the area, and would we like to ship it back to the printer or keep it and order more.

My boss took myself and some other of my co-workers to the back of the store, and we opened it.

It was a collection of photos by some lady photographer. The photos were of her children and some children that lived by her. The pictures were highly suggestive, sexually, and completely distasteful. One of the photos showed a naked 12 year old girl eating a blood red popsicle...the juice from the popsicle running between her legs. I was disgusted.

It's the same with some of the movies I see today, passed off as a "human charactor study" or "gutsy" sometimes "pushing the artistic limits", You know what? It's bullsh*t. People will try to do anything to get some grade A shock value. The end result is nothing more than classless, tasteless, worthless crap.

Once in awhile...something comes through that is truely a work of art, a labor of love...but it's rare. Very rare.

Movies like Eraserhead are nothing more than a cheap cult classic...thrills and chills...who can make the nastiest movie? Put in the most Shock-by-the-clock. I'm better than that.

Brotherhood of the Wolf was very, very Artsy. That was one of my favorite parts, how beautiful it was.

__________________
"Who comes at 12:00 on a Sunday night to rent Butch Cassady and the Sundance Kid?"
-Hollywood Video rental guy to me

Ya know, I'm all for shocks and originality, but....

WHAT???!!!

That camera clicking cuckoo got a book published with those pictures?! THAT'S the only shocking thing. It sounds like she should be in jail!

I guess you could maybe classify Lars Von Trier as his movies, well the two I've seen so far, don't really adhere to conventional filmmaking techniques

__________________
I am Jack's smirking revenge.

Just some Suggestion Mystery Man

Rent these they should be right up your alley

Le Jetee
Tampopo
Cook, The Thief, His Wife, Her Lover, The
In Cold Blood
Angel Heart
Minus Man, The
Amarcord
Branded to Kill
Toyko Drifter
Youth of the Beast
Mirror

I have to say, that when it comes to David Lynches movies, I agree.

They are pretty pointless.

__________________
"A man's character is his fate."

Excellent assessment. Thanks for the in-depth analysis. I think we all have learned a valuable lesson from your infinite wisdom.

__________________
We've met before, haven't we?

Thanks for the suggestions, L.B. They are appreciated.

Also... excellent post, Steve.

I just found another film on the IMDb that I'm sure Sades and the other closed-minded ones will have no interest in. Still, I thought I would go ahead and mention it. Maybe someone else has interest. Or even better yet, maybe someone else has seen it and can provide some insight on it.

Anyway, the film is called Lumière et compagnie . I thought it sounded interesting.

Plot summary:

http://us.imdb.com/Plot?0113718

"40 international directors were asked to make a short film using the original Cinematographe invented by the Lumiere Brothers, working under conditions similar to those of 1895. There were three rules: (1) The film could be no longer than 52 seconds; (2) no synchronized sound was permitted; (3) no more than three takes. The results run the gamut from Zhang Yimou's convention-thwarting joke to David Lynch's bizarre miniature epic."

I only like movies that star Adam Sandler or Martin Lawrence, or movies that have kick-@ss action scenes. Everything else I have no use for. Bunch of fruity garbage if you ask me.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

Having read this thread, and indeed seen a couple of the movies you talked about, ive got to say something.

Far be it for me to say what is good or not but if, as some of these films seem to be, the point of these films is to confuse people, WHY?

If i wanted to be confused i would read a book about Quantum Physics or try to come up with an answer to "Why is Rap music so popular?"

Make films to provoke thought but just making them weird is not necessarily good. Make a weird film by all means but doing this just for the sake of making them weird is pointless, if youve got something to say, say it, if not let someone else have a go!

That said i dont really like David Lynch. Nothing personal, just dont like his movies, ive seen a few dont like them, im not really going to go out of my way to see any more, thats my choice surely. This is the same as I dont like Baz Luhrman movies, seen em dont like em.

I mean Sony used Lynch to try to promote PS2. An extremely poor decision. His "Third Place" adverts just confused people and were really quite poor. The whole point of adverts is to make people want a product not confuse them.

Just because its "Artsy" or "Experimental" doesnt make it good. Thats the whole point of being experimental, you experiment to find out what works and what doesnt. Some of this WILL be crap, thats the nature of the beast.

I think a lot of this is a case of the New Emperors Clothes. People say it is genius not because it is, but because someone tells them it is or they are expected to think so. Its the same as some modern art, we are led to believe its genius because it confuses people or they just dont get it. Maybe its just crap! Maybe it isnt, but we shouldnt be afraid to at least consider the. possibility

P.S. I also think it was a bit rude to come to a site, start a discussion and within five minutes start abusing people just because they dont conform to your point of view. Granted i havent been here long either but just because its anonymous doesnt mean you can abuse people. Less name calling, more discussion, thats what we are here for.

__________________
Lex Luthor: "I'd question your integrity, but you're a journalist."

The fact is that David Lynch movies and other surreal films demand a discussion afterwards. Love it or hate it, that's the point. I notice nobody on this forum has taken a disinterest in Lynch's work - it's either love or hate. His movies stir up a passion that other films don't.

What's there to talk about after watching the Waterboy or She's all that? Nothing of importance. I don't hate Adam Sandler. I just can't work up the interest to hate his movies. They put my brain on autopilot for an hour and a half and I have a good time but they're certainly not a conversation starter unlike Mr. Lynch's.

If you hate Lynch's work, then you've got the point. He doesn't want you to love them. I think Blue Velvet is a great piece of cinema but I'd be lying if I said I loved the film. Parts of it repulsed and shocked me.

As to Filmfreak's suggestion that these movies are made to confuse, I don't agree. The director knows what he's doing, but he's not going to treat the audience like a baby and explain everything as it goes along. There was a time when your brain was an asset in the cinema and not a liability. Classy Hollywood movies of the 40s required a great deal of thought to understand the subtle dialogue and rapid plots, one of my favourites being The Big Sleep. If your brain was switched off during that movie then you would be completely lost. I'd love if Hollywood had enough faith in its audience to make mainstream films like that again instead of relying on car chases and explosions to impress us.

But until such a time, I'll have to rely on Mr. Lynch and to a lesser extent the Coen brothers for Hollywood movies that require a degree of thought.

__________________
I couldn't believe that she knew my name. Some of my best friends didn't know my name.

I don't agree. I won't give a movie credit for getting any kind of rise outta me. Does it really take skill to make me hate it? No, it just has to be the kinda thing that gets under my skin. You could jab me with a stick every couple of minutes at random and it'd p*ss me off...that doesn't make it clever.

As for The Waterboy and other such goofy comedies: I dunno about you, but I always talk about those afterwards. The people I hang around love to quote them constantly, too. Always trying to find a humorous line from some movie that fits the situation perfectly.

So no, I don't give a movie credit for getting me mad, necessarily. I don't give Tim Burton credit for p*ssing me off with a ridiculous ending. Why should I? I'll give credit to movies that play me skillfully and in a way that makes sense...I won't praise a movie because the crap it shoves in my face smells bad enough to get me to back away.

I suppose its all to do with WHY we watch movies in the first place.

If we go to watch movies merely to provide an escape then we arent necessarily going to want to want the latest David Lynch head scratcher.

If you you want to have something to talk about the you would.

On the whole, I personally watch movies as an escape, a way to pass time. Its not that I hate thought-provoking movies, its just after a hard days work I'd rather put on a stupid 90 min comedy or action flick than a 2 and a half hour head scratcher.

Im all for providing discussion topics but I prefer to have fun watching films not having to work out the whys and wherefores of what ive just seen. Sometimes this is good its just that, on the whole, I prefer to be entertained not confused. There is nothing more annoying in a cinema than hearing "What's that?" or "Why did that happen?" conversations starting.

I know some of this goes against the other thread i started today (2001: A Space Odyssey) but this is just my general stance on these things.

Who is to say that the point is to confuse people? Maybe some of these types of films are trying to open our minds and let the viewer process information in a way that other movies cannot. Exploration of the subconscious was a primary interest of the Surrealists. Maybe these films are trying to elicit a level of thinking that transcends our normal methods of thinking. I believe that is a worthy goal.

I don't believe that I abused anyone. Sadie said: I simply agreed with her. Maybe I was being slightly confrontational. So what? Get over it. If you don't want others to believe that you are closed-minded towards something then don't tell them that you are. Furthermore, how can you ever fully understand anything if you are closed-minded towards the subject? This is what upset Sadie. Can I help it if she overreacted? If you believe that someone has misrepresented you then prove them wrong, don't cry "ouchie" instead.


What difference does it make how long you or I have been here? And I believe that my anonymity is irrelevant as well. I am behaving no differently than I would in a face to face discussion. I'm not a newbie to forums such as this so spare me from the lectures on ettiquette. I came here to discuss films. Right now it seems that I'm in the minority.

Worthy goal? I think it's a little crazy, honestly. You can't explore the subconcious and have any idea what you're doing. That's what makes it the SUBconcious. Technically I could claim that Police Academy 6 explores your subconcious and you couldn't really argue with it.

She was being sarcastic.

I lose count each day as to how many times the phrase "close-minded" is misused in one form or another. Not liking a certain kind of film is not close-minded. We all have our tastes. I haven't seen Mulholland Dr. - and I don't have any plans to yet. Why? I don't think I'll like it. Have you seen Glitter? No? Why not? Probably because you don't think you'll like it...even though you haven't seen it. Does that make you close-minded?

Are you? I see a lot of discussion on film here.

For me the new Planet of the Apes ending was disappointing but I didn't hate it. The film up to that point was so lethargic that I really couldn't have cared less how it ended as long as it did. TWT, you say that you hated that ending but was your hatred for that conclusion as violent as it would be for a movie that went against your morals. I don't think so.

I think a film that could act, as in your example, as a stick poking at you for an hour and a half would be a thrill ride. I'd hate every second of it. But what an emotional rollercoaster! Here is a film that is making me genuinely HATE it. Hate and love surely are the most extreme of emotions. Nobody would be brave enough to make a film such as this. How would you market it? But I'd go and see it for sure.

Films I love such as Amelie, Strictly Ballroom, Babe strike such an emotional chord with me. Films that I passionately hate would surely do the same. I hate Deliverance in many ways. I hated the way that scene manipulated me. It was unexpected, disgusting, horribly violent. And yet I own the DVD and have watched it numerous times. I hate watching that scene in Blue Velvet with Dennis Hopper too but it hasn't stopped me from loving the movie. If you ever get a chance to see the Tin Drum, then watch it. I guarantee you'll be repulsed by many a scene, a lot of it is offensive, but it's a classic piece of surrealism.

We all like horror movies and yet you would think we should run away from them. Humans like to see horrible things; like to see what they're afraid of. Why do we stop to watch a car crash? The thrill of it. It's morally wrong but it stirs up something in us.

Any film that can move me emotionally whether it is to love or hate, gets top marks in my book.

Do you not feel a bit stupid quoting The Waterboy? I do it too, but it's not exactly stimulating.

"I'm the Waterboy duh-uh!"

No, I'd hate a movie that went against my morals more, probably...though I'm not positive. Why? I don't see what you're getting at.

That's the difference between us, then. Hate to me is hate. Now, keep in mind, I don't really HATE movies. I can't think of any I hate at least. I'm exaggerating in my use of the word. However, hate is just that: hate. I don't enjoy being angry or annoyed with a film. I don't enjoy EMOTION just for the sake of emotion. I enjoy good emotions. Now and then I can appreciate mild hate...as in, a villain I love to hate. But when the thing I hate is the film itself, no, that's not good...at all.

I don't watch movies just because they'll get me to react in any way. I watch movies so I can react in a certain way. I don't want to be horrified and digusted; if I did, I wouldn't really BE horrified and disgusted.

I don't think you should run away from them; I never said that, and never will. I like some horror movies. Again, I don't see what you're getting at here.

Stimulating how? No, it doesn't tease my brain. Neither does Jim Carrey talking out of his a** -- but I still laugh at it and enjoy it.

Sorry Mystery Man, I wasn't claiming you were a newbie, just that it didnt take long for you to start an "argument." Granted it may have been due to an over reaction as you say. I just called it as I saw it. Ive seen many people, not just in this forum, who only start to log in to a forum to start arguments.

What was the rest of my post about then? Im here to talk about films too. I was discussing films, mainly that i dont like these particular ones but i was discussing them.