The Criterion Collection

[cineclectic]

the difference is that film makers from the silent era through the seventies set the standards for what is considered a great film and almost everything after that was either influenced by eras in that time frame or it was simply commercially influenced. the great directors of the past have pioneered and invented the art. the only way to progress is to draw from the past. i think it's safe to say at this point that any film that attempts to be something completely different is going to be compared to something before it. that's just the way it is. as such, influence is key to great film making.

[zeroman987]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

While I would agree she's a poor fan of film, and I won't argue for or against the quality of her film, I do not agree that respecting old art is a necessity for producing new art. If her movie is poor, it's not because she has not watched The Godfather, and I'm sure plenty of great films have been created by other people who have similarly not watched The Godfather or other specific "classic films."

Being a film fan is neither a necessary NOR sufficient criteria for being a filmmaker. One's passion can lie in subject matter or some particular element expressed through film, and not give a damn about the entire history of film-making in other contexts.

Would you want a property lawyer who hasn't at least peeked at Blackstone's commentaries? What about a genetic engineer who hasn't read James Watson?

I know I wouldn't. People who are serious about their careers make an effort to educate themselves about their craft. Her refusal to see the Godfather because it is something that wouldn't entertain her shows us how serious she is about her career. (Hint: She is not serious about it).

To make this post somewhat positive:

Two movies I really enjoy - Poetry and 50/50.

I found 50/50 to be an incredibly honest movie. I don't believe it was accurate as to the events. However, I believe it was an honest depiction of the author's recollection of the events; the "feeling of it all." As a result, I found it refreshingly unsentimental. Seth Rogan surprised me because even though I am pretty sick of him, his performance was incredibly real. The only two quibbles I had with the film was the funeral scene which was completely unnecessary and emotionally manipulative in a way the rest of the film wasn't; and the completely unfair and unsympathetic treatment of the ex-girlfriend character. Otherwise, the film was well done and an enjoyable experience.

Poetry has to be one of the best films of 2010. In contrast to Secret Sunshine (which I enjoyed by the way), Poetry's pace seems considerably more even. Yoon Jeong-Hee puts on an incredible performance which draws you into the film and makes you eager to continue. She also got a mid-20s American male to meaningfully relate to a 60 year old Korean woman. I feel this is because the challenges that she faces, while specific to her (her age, her gender and her situation) can be boiled down to universal challenges that anyone faces in their daily life. She is compassionate to those around her and enjoys the beauty of the world that she inhabits. The film itself refuses to manipulate an emotional response and as a result when it does actually elicit an emotional response, it feels natural and authentic. It is difficult to judge foreign films because there is the culture barrier which can obscure the meaning. However, I can safely say that this work of art has universal appeal. I can not recommend it enough.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by zeroman987

Would you want a property lawyer who hasn't at least peeked at Blackstone's commentaries? What about a genetic engineer who hasn't read James Watson?

I know I wouldn't. People who are serious about their careers make an effort to educate themselves about their craft. Her refusal to see the Godfather because it is something that wouldn't entertain her shows us how serious she is about her career. (Hint: She is not serious about it).

There is no objectively good or bad "art." While there are commonalities among many people's tastes, enough so that we feel comfortable using these labels, in the end it really comes down to personal opinion how any given piece is judged. When I watch a film, I don't think "Ok, I expect a well-staged shoot-out, a couple cathartic moments of self-awareness, and a good happy feeling by the end." I watch with (hopefully) minimal expectations, and there is no concrete criteria on which I judge - I either like it, or I don't.

There are however very objective ways to judge a property lawyer, engineer, dentist, medical doctor, carpenter, etc. There are concrete, easily defined outcomes you expect when you hire a professional in these and other fields. If I hire a property lawyer, I most likely have an extremely specific outcome, and I expect that, and ONLY that, outcome.

The comparison you are drawing is, in my opinion, so far off that it is meaningless.

[cineclectic]

i think the fact that one of the lines in Tiny Furniture is along the lines of "My dirty secret is that I hate foreign films" and the response from the other character is "I think most people share this secret" says a whole hell of a lot even if it's supposed to be funny.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

You say new art is "always" based on old art, then heap praise on Griffith and Eisenstein for creating something new without prior history and knowledge to draw on. Those two ideas seem at odds to me. Is it easier to create new art by drawing from older, already successful, art? Yes. Would I recommend people purposefully ignore old art? No. Will most people who try brand new ideas be successful? No. But the truly novel successes are the ones that stand out, the ones that people remember. And I will not fault someone for trying something new or striking off on their own.

I don't disagree with any particular assessment of Dunham, I don't think she's a great artist. But I disagree with the general sentiment expressed that not having watched The Godfather is some fatal flaw that prevents her or anyone else from ever being a great artist. There were great films made before The Godfather. There were great films before Citizen Kane. There are great films now, before whatever the next watershed film is released that people will be taking about for the NEXT 50 years. Etc.

The reason it's different is that now the ideas of motion pictures are already ingrained into people's heads, whereas in the early 1900s they weren't. It's pretty simple. What "works" and doesn't "work" is already established. But you can't create a shot/reverse shot/etc without having seen it first... it took the pioneers a while to refine what works in filmmaking and what doesn't. But that's established now. So all art, from then on, is based off the previous art. There's no getting around that.

You can disagree all you want, and I'm not limiting it to just The Godfather - but as someone who works in the industry, I see the daily thought that goes around, and it's not good. I see 20-somethings get movie deals who haven't even seen a black and white movie. And they are basing their films off the films of the last 20 years. If that trend continues, the next generation will base their films off all the mindless junk that passes for entertainment now, and that's a pretty bad trend.

Originally Posted by octagon

Just to clarify the exact degree of irony here - are you saying it's not at all silly for fans to judge something harshy without even seeing it or are you saying it's not as silly?

I'm saying no one should judge anything without knowledge of it. For example, I really hate Tarantino's films. I suffered through Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, and I think Death Proof. But I stopped watching his other films because I didn't like what I saw already. Now, I might enjoy one of his other films if I gave it a chance - and I might sometime. But I can't judge them because I haven't seen them. This is different than Dunham's comments on The Godfather, because she is judging them based on a genre as a whole, not on the individual filmmaker or films itself. Now, if she saw part 1 and didn't like it, then that's different. But it sounds like she's making comments to generate controversy more than anything else... I mean, it's so hip to dis what's considered one of the greatest films ever made, yet she has no basis in her statement, because she hasn't seen it. She's most likely a flash in the pan anyway... we'll see how her new show does.

[rock, stone]

Originally Posted by cineclectic

(overweight females are currently trendy)

This is the best thing I have ever read, on any message board.

Originally Posted by cineclectic

I will also add that i recently watched an episode of the show "Portlandia" and it seriously made feel ill. I can't stand this idea that bohemian culture is now some kind of pop culture movement with all the merchandising and capitalist interest to go along with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlGqN3AKOsA

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by retablo

The reason it's different is that now the ideas of motion pictures are already ingrained into people's heads, whereas in the early 1900s they weren't. It's pretty simple. What "works" and doesn't "work" is already established.

Commercially? Yes, what works and doesn't is established. People like what they already like.

Artistically though, I don't see how any of that matters. Imagine Griffith and Eisenstein weren't around and it was up to someone else to pioneer filmmaking. Different principles, equally successful, evolved and led to different, but equally enjoyable films. If you somehow had access to that alternate dimension, would you not be OVERJOYED to have the chance to experience something so novel, so separate from the never-ending reliance on the past? Or would you go "Eww, they never saw the silent films from our dimension and The Godfather and Breathless and etc."

Again, I don't suggest that people purposefully ignore the past. But hearing a filmmaker has not seen silent films or mob films or whatever does not dissuade me in the least from checking out their output.

[cineclectic]

I can bet that Lena Dunham liked Fight Club and Donnie Darko and if not, then I guarantee she is into similar films which people "choose" to enjoy. I mean I support the idea that tastes in art are subjective but when so many people who claim to make their own choices consistently choose things that 50 of their facebook friends also like and/or get a lot commercial attention (this goes for most things that are considered "cult") then you really do have to consider their credibility as a proclaimed expert like many of them do. Just read some "opinions" on IMDB.

Opinions can in fact be proven invalid if the "opinion" in question has no basis in freedom of thought or the choice between more than one conclusion. For example, if someone only watches movies they see in TV spots then their opinions on the art of film making are invalid because they haven't seen any good movies or are even aware that the "art" of film making exists because commercialism doesn't want them to be aware or have that choice. It's like saying that the opinion of a cult-follower is valid even though the cult leader has diminished their freedom of thought.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

Commercially? Yes, what works and doesn't is established. People like what they already like.

Artistically though, I don't see how any of that matters. Imagine Griffith and Eisenstein weren't around and it was up to someone else to pioneer filmmaking. Different principles, equally successful, evolved and led to different, but equally enjoyable films. If you somehow had access to that alternate dimension, would you not be OVERJOYED to have the chance to experience something so novel, so separate from the never-ending reliance on the past? Or would you go "Eww, they never saw the silent films from our dimension and The Godfather and Breathless and etc."

Again, I don't suggest that people purposefully ignore the past. But hearing a filmmaker has not seen silent films or mob films or whatever does not dissuade me in the least from checking out their output.

I guess that's where we differ. Unfortunately, get ready for a lot more "bad" movies.

The other problem lies int he fact that when people don't see classics, then do something they think is original but really was done 50 years ago, it makes everyone involved seem pretty stupid. I see a lot of that going around, but it serves them right, I guess.

I still say you have to have knowledge of the job you're in - whether it be a doctor, lawyer, or filmmaker. It's sort of your responsibility. Imagine a doctor going into surgery with only a limited amount of knowledge - I wouldn't trust his or her output anymore than a filmmaker who doesn't even know the history of cinema. The more things you see, the more knowledge you have. THAT'S where you get original ideas and films.

Either way, it's a good discussion and I enjoy exchanging views with you.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by retablo

I guess that's where we differ. Unfortunately, get ready for a lot more "bad" movies.

The other problem lies int he fact that when people don't see classics, then do something they think is original but really was done 50 years ago, it makes everyone involved seem pretty stupid. I see a lot of that going around, but it serves them right, I guess.

I definitely see this as a very common thing. I don't think that just anyone can ignore history and make something good. But I think that SOME can, and those will be interesting. Rather, having a history of art can prevent many naive mistakes, but I think there is still plenty of potential for truly new art that doesn't inherently rely on older art.

I still say you have to have knowledge of the job you're in - whether it be a doctor, lawyer, or filmmaker. It's sort of your responsibility. Imagine a doctor going into surgery with only a limited amount of knowledge - I wouldn't trust his or her output anymore than a filmmaker who doesn't even know the history of cinema. The more things you see, the more knowledge you have. THAT'S where you get original ideas and films.

I disagree vehemently with this comparison. See my post a few up to someone else who mentioned being a lawyer/engineer without prior knowledge.

Either way, it's a good discussion and I enjoy exchanging views with you.

Agreed.

[zeroman987]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

There is no objectively good or bad "art." While there are commonalities among many people's tastes, enough so that we feel comfortable using these labels, in the end it really comes down to personal opinion how any given piece is judged. When I watch a film, I don't think "Ok, I expect a well-staged shoot-out, a couple cathartic moments of self-awareness, and a good happy feeling by the end." I watch with (hopefully) minimal expectations, and there is no concrete criteria on which I judge - I either like it, or I don't.

There are however very objective ways to judge a property lawyer, engineer, dentist, medical doctor, carpenter, etc. There are concrete, easily defined outcomes you expect when you hire a professional in these and other fields. If I hire a property lawyer, I most likely have an extremely specific outcome, and I expect that, and ONLY that, outcome.

The comparison you are drawing is, in my opinion, so far off that it is meaningless.

While I appreciate the distinction you are trying to draw, I find it irrelevant to my argument. When I pass judgment on her for not viewing seminal works by celebrated film makers because she does not like the genre, I am not focusing on the outcome. Rather, it is a judgment against her and her seriousness "as" a filmmaker. That is why I used Watson and Blackstone. Blackstone's commentary is somewhat relevant, but there has been enough innovation in property law that it can only serve as a foundation and only applies to certain situations. Similarly Watson's work, while incredibly important, only serves as a foundation.

I made the point earlier when I mentioned that artists such as Dali, Mondrian and Picasso. You must see and understand what has come before you in order to do something different. If those artists had not studied the great artists which came before them (and even emulated them at the start of their careers) they would never have been able to create the new and different works they created at the peak of their careers. So, while I mention Dali's outcome, I am not actually focused on the outcome. Rather, I am focused on the fact that someone who is serious about their craft will immerse themselves in what people have done before to get a better understanding of it, if only to subvert it later.

Finally, I want you to rethink your position on the hypothetical property lawyer. Any lawyer can get a certain outcome for you. However, there are many ways you can get to that outcome. Depending on your circumstances, different ways to that outcome are more beneficial. Similarly with art - any artist can evoke an emotional reaction from you, however, different ways work better for different people. To say that you don't need to view a seminal work in your field is foolish and evidences a complete lack of foresight. It also shows that you are not serious about your craft.

[Narcissus]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Are you counting them for real?

I Am

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

GROUP HUG EVERYONE

Belle de Jour Is Stunning.
Reference Quality IMO.


A Bit Frightened To watch In The Realm Of The Senses, and
a second viewing Of Antichrist

[*DrStrangelove*]

On another note.
I just watched the first part of World on a Wire. I liked it and will definitely be picking up the blu ray when it releases. Unfortunately the second part isnt on Hulu so ill have to wait. The film had a real eerie feel to it. Kind of like a David Lynch film. This was my first Fassbinder.

[DLizzle]

Originally Posted by retablo

It's silly for her to judge something so harshly without even seeing it... and this isn't just a fan, it's someone who works in the industry.

She said she didn't want to watch The Godfather because the themes and subject matter don't interest her. That's a harsh judgement? The most delicious filet mignon isn't going to taste good to someone who doesn't like the taste of beef, and eating it would be silly. The only attitude problem I see here is from a bunch of cantankerous old people writing long paragraphs that basically amount to "they don't make 'em like they used to". Contrasting the tone and logic of her responses to the comments about her in this thread is embarrassing for one side (hint: not her)

Originally Posted by zeroman987

Would you want a property lawyer who hasn't at least peeked at Blackstone's commentaries? What about a genetic engineer who hasn't read James Watson?

I would take a great property lawyer who hasn't peeked at Blackstone's commentaries over a good property lawyer who has.

[Brad1107]

Man the internet is so damn full of negativity. It's got to the point where I can't visit forums on any site anymore because it's just people complaining and being rude to each other and now this thread is going the same way.

Someone said above "It's silly for her to judge something so harshly without even seeing it..." and even when another poster called him out on it, he still didn't get that THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE AND EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING HERE!

As for everyone debating her taste in film, her section of blog that was posted here mentions two films, that's it. And yet you're disqualifying her based on her movie taste? 1. For her to even have heard of Nicholas Ray at her age is a big achievement. I know not one person, NOT ONE, in my life who would have heard of him. 2. She is not totally against seeing The Godfather, she simply mentions that she wouldn't watch it because she isn't a fan of the genre and yet people here are saying she's vehemently against it, twisting her words. The fact that she isn't a fan of the genre is a perfectly acceptable reason not to view it. I myself am not a fan of westerns so i'm not exactly going to go waste my time on viewing films there's a good chance I won't like.

People are making wild assumptions about her and her film based on a few blog quotes and trailers.

The snobbery on this board is getting to the point of being disgusting.

Lets have a blackout on all Lena Durham talk from now on. Please?

[cineclectic]

LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM LENA DUNHAM























sucks.

[ParticleDan]

Originally Posted by Brad1107

Man the internet is so damn full of negativity. It's got to the point where I can't visit forums on any site anymore because it's just people complaining and being rude to each other and now this thread is going the same way.

Someone said above "It's silly for her to judge something so harshly without even seeing it..." and even when another poster called him out on it, he still didn't get that THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE AND EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING HERE!

As for everyone debating her taste in film, her section of blog that was posted here mentions two films, that's it. And yet you're disqualifying her based on her movie taste? 1. For her to even have heard of Nicholas Ray at her age is a big achievement. I know not one person, NOT ONE, in my life who would have heard of him. 2. She is not totally against seeing The Godfather, she simply mentions that she wouldn't watch it because she isn't a fan of the genre and yet people here are saying she's vehemently against it, twisting her words. The fact that she isn't a fan of the genre is a perfectly acceptable reason not to view it. I myself am not a fan of westerns so i'm not exactly going to go waste my time on viewing films there's a good chance I won't like.

People are making wild assumptions about her and her film based on a few blog quotes and trailers.

The snobbery on this board is getting to the point of being disgusting.

Lets have a blackout on all Lena Durham talk from now on. Please?

Very well said. I couldn't agree more!

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by Roninblues

Hitler was a good artist, just because you don't agree with that Jewish issue.

Good god what happened to this thread? Haven't read much of the discussion of late but when I do it keeps getting more and more bizarre.

[silentblu]

Originally Posted by retablo

I guess that's where we differ. Unfortunately, get ready for a lot more "bad" movies.

The other problem lies int he fact that when people don't see classics, then do something they think is original but really was done 50 years ago, it makes everyone involved seem pretty stupid. I see a lot of that going around, but it serves them right, I guess.

I still say you have to have knowledge of the job you're in - whether it be a doctor, lawyer, or filmmaker. It's sort of your responsibility. Imagine a doctor going into surgery with only a limited amount of knowledge - I wouldn't trust his or her output anymore than a filmmaker who doesn't even know the history of cinema. The more things you see, the more knowledge you have. THAT'S where you get original ideas and films.

Either way, it's a good discussion and I enjoy exchanging views with you.

Basically this. If a filmmaker wants to be great they better watch movies considered great. Every great filmmaker is a film historian. I guess you can get by without it, but you'll never be great.

Anyways, The Godfather is not just a mob piece (really not a whole lot of it). It is a Family piece. Character piece. Period piece. It is a necessary piece of film history. If you haven't watched it...what else haven't you watched? It isn't even the fact it is great, but the fact that it is considered at least a top 5 film of all-time. Be serious about your work. A sign someone isn't is a sign they aren't serious.

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by silentblu

Basically this. If a filmmaker wants to be great they better watch movies considered great. Every great filmmaker is a film historian. I guess you can get by without it, but you'll never be great.

Anyways, The Godfather is not just a mob piece (really not a whole lot of it). It is a Family piece. Character piece. Period piece. It is a necessary piece of film history. If you haven't watched it...what else haven't you watched? It isn't even the fact it is great, but the fact that it is considered at least a top 5 film of all-time. Be serious about your work. A sign someone isn't is a sign they aren't serious.

I really like the Rotten Tomatoes series of articles where they ask different actors and directors what their 5 favorite films of all-time are. I think you can tell a lot about an actor or director just looking at what their top-5 films are. If most of their favorite films were made in the 80's or later it seems fairly obvious they never bothered watching the classics.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/c...lumn.php?id=62