So we all know about all the usual clichés you find in a lot of typical mainstream movies, but I wonder if you could apply that same degree of nit-picking to a more challenging target - arthouse films (and, to some extent, world cinema). It seems like an interesting idea, because for all the alleged originality and challeging content inherent in such films, some of them are still bound to fall prey to clichés.
At present, I'm struggling to come up with my own examples - about the only one I can think of is when extremely slow-moving films centred mainly on characters and very little action feature a totally random act of extreme violence.
Find me an Art House film without superimpositions and I will be stunned. The whole avant-garde scene is practically composed of the blasted technique. As much as I like these films, and I do have a soft spot for the technique myself, even I think its a cliche... Then there's the stereotypical "finding ones self through the lives of others" cliche, and "running into empty space" cliche, and "searching for non-existent love" cliche... there's tons of that stuff. I will admit though, I'm at fault for eating it up like pudding, but different stokes for different folks I guess.
__________________
Imagine an eye unruled by man-made laws of perspective, an eye unprejudiced by compositional logic, an eye which does not respond to the name of everything but which must know each object encountered in life through an adventure of perception. How many colors are there in a field of grass to the crawling baby unaware of 'Green'?
1. Extremely long shots where the camera never or barely ever moves and if it does, nothing new is introduced.
2. Something is actually happening but before we're able to figure out what it is, the scene cuts to something completely independent.
3. The scenes in the movie seem to have no relationship to each other, I mean, they may eventually begin to draw a relationship but they often do not, unless you're on drugs and talking to the writer/director about the movie while he's/she's on the same kind of drugs.
4. The film is an homage to another film (example: 2008's best-reviewed film, The Flight of the Red Balloon, is incredibly vaguely inspired by the classic The Red Balloon. However, this newer film is one of the most-difficult films to watch unless your idea of a good movie is something utterly pointless, incredibly boring, yet somehow "good" because it's based on an older film and in a non-English language.
5. The director is an auteur so he can do no wrong. Maybe he'll go so far up his own orifice that he'll seem like recent David Lynch, but you see what I mean? Certain directors can do no wrong because they are just so much smarter and more-brilliant than everyone else, so if you want to seem smart and brilliant, you'd better not question what the hell they're trying to do. The kicker is when you ask them what their film is about and they say that they don't want to "limit" it so whatever you think it's about, it probably is and therefore it's just so much more complex than a film which actually can be discussed as having a real reason for being.
More later...
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden My IMDb page
Mark, you and I would never get along in a film debate. Hahaha. The above mentioned is almost ones dogmatic view on points that may very well exist in tangible terms. Art House has thought. I don't use drugs myself, but your statement almost makes me out to be one, which I'm not at all, that view is a stereotype on me and on its audience in general, and I think its extremely shallow... I'm not one of them. I find most films in the mainstream kind of boring, and lacking in any real thought of process or message. Art House provides a market to those, like me, wish to escape from the mass market which has, (for the most part), failed them.
6. People talk as if they're on drugs. They speak very slowly and very affectedly about things which ultimately seem to make no sense. They could make sense but only if anything bordering on some form of reality (even a reality of a diseased person) snuck into their converstion. Unfortunately, many characters act as if they come from another planet or are angels or some such thing, even if the film never infers any of this to be true. Of course, if you like it, you'll just say that the characters are misunderstood and have a disease. Wow. Making a decent film is a lot easier than it used to be. You don't need any motivation or reality at all anymore.
7. Make your film a political diatribe. In that case, nothing whatsoever has to have anything to do with anything other than your political point of view. Besides that, you can make your politics so vague that it becomes even more brilliant than anyone could ever imagine.
8. Make a film and stop it halfway through the script. Sure, you'd have to extend several early shots, but I already covered that, and then your open-ended "conclusion" will be seen as brilliant.
9. Adapt a famous novel but go out of your way to film it as obscurely as possible so that only those who have read it or those who champion anything which isn't actually coherent can claim to understand it. When in doubt, gut the novel's setpieces and film them almost as if the leading character is suffering from a mental illness, even if that has nothing to do with the actual novel. That way it isn't really so easy (aka: it's not actually about what it's about).
10. Use non-professional actors. They will be "realistic" whether they can act or not. They also will have no idea what in the Hell you're trying to do as a filmmaker so at least you will all be on the same page, that of an amateur trying to convince someone to pay them money.
Well Doggy, these comments are not actually delivered to you personally, but if the shoe or whatever fits, so be it. I've seen so many films (multiple times) where it's borderline impossible to understand them. Then again, I've seen godawful Z-films which basically have no reason for being. Now, in both cases, I've read your reviews where you give such films high ratings (you're not the only one). On the other hand, I've read you dis anything which you think reeks of commercialism because apparently you know exactly what all these "commercial" films are about after watching five minutes. Have you seen Five Easy Pieces? Did you know what that was about after five minutes? How about something more-commercial? Could you tell me what was going to happen in Who Framed Roger Rabbit or An American Werewolf in London? You accuse me of painting certain films and viewers in an unrealistic light. Are you claiming that you do not do the same exact thing from the opposite spectrum? How can you justify your opinion as the better opinion, even if opinions can never actually be justified or most assuredly, be graded?
__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
michaelcorleone is the first one who comes to mind, but you see, I give everybody plenty of + rep and I go out of my way not to get into these discussions. However, that Oliver Stone quote about consensus started me thinking that I should fight it out a little bit, especially when I don't start the thread.
Having a difference of opinion is one thing Mark, your making your own points on what bugs you about art house, and you are completely entitled to those... notice I said we'd probably debate about such things, and honestly we could have interesting debates. I have my own point about what bugs me in more mainstream films, and I think I'm entitled to those. But I never once called you "stupid", "simpleton", or anything of the nature for liking them... when you lower your debate to something which is: "Well these people are 'stoners' so that's the only reason they like these films"... you in turn made me out to be one, which I take offense to because I don't think I deserved the remark, that kind of stuff is hitting below the belt and is hurtful to those who legitimately watch these movies without "enhancements". I'm not saying your points aren't legitimate, to each his own, but calling me a "stoner"? Is that really called for?
DSM, I think you have completely misread my point and focused on only one thing. I never called anybody a stoner. I "said" that sometimes drugs MAY unite a filmmaker and their viewers. I'm a stoner, and I still don't get it. Trust me, if I called you a stoner, that would probably be a compliment because it would make it easier for me to understand where you're coming from sometimes. None of this is personal. I'm just randomly talking about art house films. I wasn't even sure that you'd call yourself a fan of art house films because they just aren't avant-garde enough in most cases. By the way, you are a beautiful writer. Your ten fave (or whatever the adjective was) directors was an incredible post. I believe your writing quality comes from the heart, so focus on that and don't worry about disagreements. After all, in the grand scheme of things they are very healthy.
Cool, I'm more cleared up on this, so thank you for not directing the comment at me personally. You are right that art house and avant-garde are two entirely different things, one is a little more "softcore" than the other. Art house was intended to be commercial, and has commercial elements, avant-garde negates this ideal completely and, (as in the case of Brakhage), the art of that style of film making is completely guerrilla and often takes few, or in the case of Brakhage, one, persons to make. Thanks for complimenting on my writing, I very much appreciate the comment. I do hope we can have honest discussions on these films though in the future perhaps. You and I watch a selected "art" piece at the same time and completely go at it or something. I would think that would be rather interesting. My fascinations with the abstract are not only limited to movies though, my favorite piece of music ever composed, (I'm not kidding here), is Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music, and other branches of "Noise" music. I don't know why I'm attracted to "the abstract" but I just am, I always have been. I don't believe in a right or wrong to anything, but I will admit I can come to terms with the fact what is palatable to me is not at all what the majority likes... and they may very well be right. Regardless of right or wrongs, I'm glad we've set one right here... I'm glad you're not stereotyping me and we're coming to terms with one another.
Last edited by Dog Star Man; 01-23-10 at 07:17 AM.
Reason: Edited to add in example of "Metal Machine Music"
0.14-0.19 : An eye .... blinking .... with yellow color distortion
0.20-0.40 : A blue thing ... let's take a look
0.40-0.50 : Another blue thing , neat.
0.50-0.57 : Lens flare ?
0.58-1.17 : A red thing with two holes and the holes get bigger.
1.18-1.34 : I guess this is a thing in space ?
1.35-1.49 : Zoom in on this yellow deal and it starts to fade away.
1.50-2.02 : Really dark , not sure what's happening.
2.03-2.29 : Red violet thing with a red circle in the middle.
2.30-2.40 : The blood sitting in the elevator in The Shining ?
2.41-2.53 : A white circle is headed toward some purple stars
2.54-3.06 : The purple stars do something cool.
3.07-3.13: Blinking eye again, this time purple and blue !
3.14-3.30 : A bunch of crazy shapeshifting diamonds hovering over the 3D map effect off of a super nintendo game.
3.31-3.32 : oooooooo I bet you thought I wouldn't notice you for that short shot, blinking eye - nice blue and orange color scheme you got there
3.33-3.55 : dual SNES 3D !!! the top looks like the world map and the bottom looks like a red desert
3.56-4.01 : blinking eye , you already did purple and blue .... oh inverted I see
4.02-4.29 : experience the grand canyon as you never have before , in orange and blue !
4.30-4.35 : .... actually blue and blue is nicer
4.36-4.42 : ..... actually blue and green is nicer
4.43-5.08 : ...... actually red and blue is nicer
5.09-5.20 : screw the grand canyon lets go over some lakes and invert the red and blue - that oughta throw em off the scent !
5.21-5.36 : This trick never gets old ....
5.37-5.44 : Nope it really doesn't
5.45-5.51 : Maybe that's enough of it ?
5.52-5.59 : Guess not.
6.00-6.07 : Kubrick has days of footage like this just stockpiled in his house
6.08-6.50 : he does it like four more times
6.51-7.10 : Oh there you are blinking eye , you'll never guess where I went. I'll give you a hint, it's blue and orange and green and red and purple and black and yellow. WAIT !!! What are you doing ?!!?!?!? Stop !!!!! Hey look , you're a normal color now.
7.11-8.00 : Cool you have an entire person attached to you, he looks tired though. Oh that's why - he just hauled a spaceship into a hotel room.
8.01-8.16 : What an idiot. He dragged a spaceship into a hotel room, even though he has the ability to teleport.
8.17-8.21 : He makes sense out of 0.01-8.16
8.22-8.54 : He walks really slowly over to a statue
8.55- : Oh wait it wasn't a statue it was a bathroom ... he walks inside the bathroom and then he turns around to notice ........... a old guy.
&feature=related
0.01-0.17 : Oh crap he is the old guy !!! Metamorphisis and teleportation in one guy !
0.18-2.10 : Meh, I'm tired of writing my book - I'm gona go eat. (why he doesn't just teleport over to his meal is beyond me).
2.11-2.17 : I need this thing over here , oops.
2.18-2.36 : Perhaps I can reassemble it, hey wait a minute !
2.37-2.48 : HOW DID SOME OLD GUY GET IN MY BED ?!!?
2.49-3.42 : Oh well I'll just BECOME him. Hey look it's that old black rectangle that I always leave lying around my house.
3.43-3.51 : Uhhhhhhh, I seriously can't explain this one.
3.52-3.57 : I guess he decided to morph into a baby now.
3.58- : What's in this stupid old black rectangle anyway, oh look there's the moon and the earth ... hmmmm I don't remember there being a giant baby right next to the moon though.
Reply to Topic
