[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

 

Not sure why this interpretation of Robin Hood was so violently trashed by critics last year. They made a Robin Hood movie in the style of CW's Arrow, with some sleek cinematography and fluid action scenes. Questionably modern wardrobe choices aside, I had a lot of fun watching this flamblyant blockbuster version of the classic tale. Really cleansed the stink of Velvet Buzzsaw out of my mouth.

[dirty bunny]

@Dr.EugeneFelikson


Loved your review of Velvet Buzzsaw. I haven't seen it, just like your review!

[choc e-Claire]

A question: how much of the symbolism we analyse in film and that was actually intentional and designed by the director, and how much is just art school overanalytic wankery?

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

Originally Posted by dirty bunny

@Dr.EugeneFelikson


Loved your review of Velvet Buzzsaw. I haven't seen it, just like your review!

Hey thanks! Feels great to know my time wasted at this site is at least serving some benefit lol

One of the worst movies I've ever seen though. No idea how that happened.

Originally Posted by choc e-Claire

A question: how much of the symbolism we analyse in film and that was actually intentional and designed by the director, and how much is just art school overanalytic wankery?

Ummm... depends on the movie? Film, just like literature, is a method of communication where the author's intent is sometimes masked by the poetic spectacle.

You seem to have gripes with artsier films. It's a shame, as cinema truly is the greatest art form to ever exist. I hope one day you find a movie that really opens your eyes to this.

[demonrail666]

 

First Blood

The sequels may have turned the Rambo name into a joke but this is a really solid movie that doesn't deserve to be lumped in with what was to come.

 

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by choc e-Claire

A question: how much of the symbolism we analyse in film and that was actually intentional and designed by the director, and how much is just art school overanalytic wankery?

well...

who the fuck is "we"?

and what is "symbolism" outside of XIX century french poetry?

Correspondances

La Nature est un temple où de vivants piliers
Laissent parfois sortir de confuses paroles;
L’homme y passe à travers des forêts de symboles
Qui l’observent avec des regards familiers.

Comme de longs échos qui de loin se confondent
Dans une ténébreuse et profonde unité,
Vaste comme la nuit et comme la clarté,
Les parfums, les couleurs et les sons se répondent.

Il est des parfums frais comme des chairs d’enfants,
Doux comme les hautbois, verts comme les prairies,
— Et d’autres, corrompus, riches et triomphants,

Ayant l’expansion des choses infinies,
Comme l’ambre, le musc, le benjoin et l’encens,
Qui chantent les transports de l’esprit et des sens.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by choc e-Claire

A question: how much of the symbolism we analyse in film and that was actually intentional and designed by the director, and how much is just art school overanalytic wankery?

I'd say it's 99% wankery.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson

Ummm... depends on the movie? Film, just like literature, is a method of communication where the author's intent is sometimes masked by the poetic spectacle.

You seem to have gripes with artsier films. It's a shame, as cinema truly is the greatest art form to ever exist. I hope one day you find a movie that really opens your eyes to this.

I'd say it depends less on the film and more on the person analysing it. I've seen great films butchered and mediocre ones suddenly seem more interesting depending on the sensitivity of whoever's analysing them.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

 

First Blood

The sequels may have turned the Rambo name into a joke but this is a really solid movie that doesn't deserve to be lumped in with what was to come.

 

ha ha rambo...

that's true

he's a traumatized vietnam vet who cries like a baby

not sure how that became a symbol of reaganism-machismo-militarism

was it rambo 2?

was it rocky V? (the soviet)

wait was that rocky IV

the 80s are such a joke sometimes... but yeah the original rambo is an innocent casualty of this shit

[demonrail666]

The character was pretty much re-invented in Rambo 2. And yeah, Rocky IV was when it went all Two-Tribes. Remember James Brown singing 'Livin in America' in an Uncle Sam hat? Weird stuff. Not that I didn't love it all at the time.

[choc e-Claire]

Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson

You seem to have gripes with artsier films. It's a shame, as cinema truly is the greatest art form to ever exist. I hope one day you find a movie that really opens your eyes to this.

I'm absolutely sure I will in the future, but it'll probably be when I'm watching something myself for pleasure. Having to bludgeon a book or movie to death is really frustrating - but that may just be because subtexts and themes have always been kind of hidden to me.

[h8kurdt]

Originally Posted by choc e-Claire

I'm absolutely sure I will in the future, but it'll probably be when I'm watching something myself for pleasure. Having to bludgeon a book or movie to death is really frustrating - but that may just be because subtexts and themes have always been kind of hidden to me.

Maybe it's because I'm a total knuckle dragger but honestly I rarely spend a lot of time looking for subtexts and whatnot in films. Some maybe, but my general pleasure of Tarkovsky or Parajanov or whatever isn't diminished by my laziness.

In other news, I saw yesterday on Twitter that John Wayne was trending. I had a look at it was all about his infamous Playboy interview where he showed his less friendly side of him. Problem is that far too many people were acting outraged and shocked by it. I mean, c'mon, firstly they're getting outraged by an interview done 40 years ago, and secondly they're acting like they've found a big secret that John Wayne was a dickhead. Swear Twitter is the dumbest thing to happen to the internet.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I'd say it depends less on the film and more on the person analysing it. I've seen great films butchered and mediocre ones suddenly seem more interesting depending on the sensitivity of whoever's analysing them.

Eraserhead is a potent example of this. I've seen so many people analyze that film to hell and back. All this stuff about parallel dimensions, and deep philosophical burdens, when to me it's clearly just a dark comedy about a man struggling to cope with the pressures of becoming a father.

Most of the symbolism in Eraserhead is fairly straightforward. It's akin to a cartoon at some points, it's so on the nose. So many look for an ocean in a puddle, while Lynch just wiggles his fingers and jests, "I don't know what it's about... what do you think?" (wiggle wiggle)

Originally Posted by choc e-Claire

I'm absolutely sure I will in the future, but it'll probably be when I'm watching something myself for pleasure. Having to bludgeon a book or movie to death is really frustrating - but that may just be because subtexts and themes have always been kind of hidden to me.

Totally! Some professors have a way of making everything over-analytical and boring. Imagine taking a class on Daydream Nation and being forced to decipher the meaning behind each bit of reverb and distortion. Art is about passion, and you can't force that.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

In other news, I saw yesterday on Twitter that John Wayne was trending. I had a look at it was all about his infamous Playboy interview where he showed his less friendly side of him. Problem is that far too many people were acting outraged and shocked by it. I mean, c'mon, firstly they're getting outraged by an interview done 40 years ago, and secondly they're acting like they've found a big secret that John Wayne was a dickhead. Swear Twitter is the dumbest thing to happen to the internet.

Just wait until they discover that Mickey Mouse's design was based on minstrel shows.

Heads. Will. Roll.

[choc e-Claire]

I can already imagine the 'Walt Disney is cancelled' tweets.

I probably fit in perfectly with the outraged people here ([post-]millennial liberal), but I'm not really pissed off about it. Maybe because I just assume people are dickheads nowadays. Maybe because I don't care about John Wayne.

I get on board outrage pileups sometimes, but I think we should calm down.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by choc e-Claire

A question: how much of the symbolism we analyse in film and that was actually intentional and designed by the director, and how much is just art school overanalytic wankery?

IT DOESN"T MATTER.


A work of art, once completed, does not rely for meaning on what the artist intended to imbue it with.


A good work of art has many different interpretations. A GREAT work of art has many deep and complex and mutually exclusive interpretations.


Films are created with a specific purpose, but that purpose is meaningless once the work is created and out in the world. Any and all viewers will experience the artwork based solely on what their own experiences/reality tunnel is.



Shakespeare wrote what he thought was just pure entertainment for the masses, but he did it so fucking QUALITY that he managed to imbue the whole of human experience into his art, without meaning to.

[choc e-Claire]

In Media the class spent ten minutes trying to find a frame of Psycho that had Janet Leigh's nipple in it.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by choc e-Claire

In Media the class spent ten minutes trying to find a frame of Psycho that had Janet Leigh's nipple in it.

do you know about this?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_Hour_Psycho

they showed it at the hirshhorn once and i went to see it and it was bananas

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

 

Not as tight of a production as Muppets Treasure Island, but I still had fun overall. Well worth the ten cents I paid for this VHS at the thrift store.

Jeffrey Tambor was a real treat. Boy, has he lost weight since this film!

 

A bunch of dated celebrity cameos: the "Hollywood" Hulk Hogan drop-in had me in stitches, as did Rob Schneider's appearance as a TV executive

 

 

[HenryHill51]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

antonioni took cortázar mostly as an inspiration. itks not the same story. the short story is the best of the lot, but would be impossible to make as film almost. the short story is more about, oh... the blurring of subject and object, maybe? and there is the photograph and the enlargement and the obsession but... ok i see it with antonioni, he tried to get at it in his own way. but it’s a very delicate thing to achieve even in writing. in film... wow.

mike leigh called it the worst movie ever and a bunch of pretentious crap haahaaahaaa. i can see why. opposite metaphysics. materialism vs idealism or something. me i draw the line at last year ar marienbad. zzzzzz. that was not antonioni though. but one could make a similar complaint—pretentious, tries to fuck with reality, who cares.

the reading of blowup has changed over the decades of course. it’s not what it once was. we live in politically correct times. the 60s loved orgies more because they were supposedly liberating, but now people are after... perfect virtue i guess. or the appearance of it anyway.

still i dont think antonioni was... celebrating that whole scene. there was a massive loneliness here as well. if it was popular likely it was in spite of itself.

im gonna guess with depalma he made the image more baroque, removed all subtleties, and emphasized the schlocky bits? which i dont mind at all btw hahaha. i’ll check it out when criterion reopens april 8.

I'm not the biggest Antonioni fan, but I whole heartedly admire what he did for art house/foreign cinema in the 60's. "L'Aventurra" has the balls to be a missing persons film that decides to forget the missing person and focus on everyone else. It's a gimmick that many others have used (including Asghar Farhardi's tremendous "About Elly" and the recent Russian film "Loveless") and it seems to hit the sweet spot everytime. "L'Eclisse" is just tremendous for its use of sound and image. Same with "Blow Up". The guy was a true filmmaker.