Introducing non-cinephiles to film

Tools    





A system of cells interlinked
I enjoyed The Empty Man
Watched this last night - my wife and I both thought it was excellent. Thanks for the rec!
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



Watched this last night - my wife and I both thought it was excellent. Thanks for the rec!
__________________
San Franciscan lesbian dwarves and their tomato orgies.



As a fan of quite a bit of surreal/trippy films, I figured Skinamarink would be right up my alley, but man did I bounce off of that film hard. It did nothing to pull me in during the first act, it looked terrible, and I had my wife complaining after about 10 minutes to put something else on because she just hated it. I resisted as long as I could but she wasn't having it, and it was a rare night that we actually had time to watch a film together, so we bailed into something else.

I half-heartedly want to give it another shot, but I have a lot of other films to watch, so it probably won't be anytime soon.
Interesting. I loved Skinamarink, but I heard that a lot of people hated it because they thought it was boring---never saw someone say that it looked bad, though.



Interesting. I loved Skinamarink, but I heard that a lot of people hated it because they thought it was boring---never saw someone say that it looked bad, though.

Part of my argument in defense of it, was how miraculously great nearly all of its images are. They are master classes of minimalist composition. But I'm also a fan of a lot of modern art that most people think is ugly, or that anyone is capable of doing, so I'm not surprised there would be a similar distaste for the 'empty spaces' Skinamarink so intensely focuses on.



Boring and pretentious are the two worst one-word criticisms of art.



If never explained, maybe, but I've got some really long posts expounding on the idea elsewhere already. Besides, in this context it's about saying "it's good even granting that."



Part of my argument in defense of it, was how miraculously great nearly all of its images are. They are master classes of minimalist composition. But I'm also a fan of a lot of modern art that most people think is ugly, or that anyone is capable of doing, so I'm not surprised there would be a similar distaste for the 'empty spaces' Skinamarink so intensely focuses on.
Yes, and the emptiness became an opportunity to highlight the fantastic light textures you can get while filming in low light.



For two hours, I get to be Batman.
This reminded me of what Pedro Costa said during a seminar.

I believe that today, in the cinema, when we open a door, it's always quite false, because it says to the spectator: ‘Enter this film and you're going to be fine, you're going to have a good time’, and finally what you see in this genre of film is nothing other than yourself, a projection of yourself. You don't see the film, you see yourself. Fiction in the cinema is exactly that: when you see yourself on the screen. You don't see anything else, you don't see the film on the screen, you don't see a work, you don't see the people who make things, you see yourself, and all of Hollywood is based on this. It's very rare today that a spectator sees a good film, he always sees himself, sees what he wants to see. When he begins, rarely, to see a film, it's when the film doesn't let him enter, when there's a door that says to him: ‘Don't come in.’ That's when he can enter. The spectator can see a film if something on the screen resists him. If he can recognise everything, he's going to project himself on the screen, he's not going to see things. If he sees a love story, he's going to see his love story. I'm not the only one to say that it's very difficult to see a film, but when I say ‘see’ it's really seeing. It's not a joke, because you think that you see films, but you don't see films, you see yourself. It's very strange but I assure you, this is what happens. To see a film, that means not crying with the character who cries. If we don't understand that, then we don't understand anything. This is why I spoke of doors which close themselves. There are certain films, for me, which are like doors, even if there are no doors in them. They resemble doors that don't let you enter as the protagonist of the film. You are outside. You see a film, you are something else, and there are two distinct entities. There are certain films, for me, which make this separation, for example the films of Ozu, Mizoguchi or Naruse, or many others, but here I will cite the Japanese. This door is absolutely necessary. It's not a piece of private property, that is to say, it's not closed in an authoritarian manner. We can open it, we can close it, it's your choice. It's always your choice in the cinema, it's always the choice of the spectator. If you decide to go see The Last Samurai (2003), you're going to see The Last Samurai, you know that it's going to be painful, you're Japanese, but you go and see it, I'm sure that you go and see it. It's like junk food, like cake, it makes you want it, and you go for it, and you know it's bad for you, but you go for it. This is what I call the open door films. Commerce is like that. The door to McDonalds is always open. So, a film like Late Spring (1949) or An Autumn Afternoon (1962) is not completely open. In a similar way, Ossos is a film that slightly closes the door. It hides certain things, it tells you that you can feel pain, but not everything, and so that suggests a bit of trouble.



Yes, and the emptiness became an opportunity to highlight the fantastic light textures you can get while filming in low light.

I think a lot of people seem to struggle with the concept of negative space in a composition. Not to mention any images that function as a kind of abstraction. And this is about 80 percent of the runtime of Skinamarink, making it probably an insurmountable challenge for a lot of viewers.


And I get that. It's a relatively difficult movie in that way. But as soon as anyone starts talking about how the movie is a con, simply because they don't know how to approach a film like this, and so immediately reject it, and then reflexively try and call out those who have a different and more positive reaction than them for facilitating that fraud....that's when they become my enemy.



I think a lot of people seem to struggle with the concept of negative space in a composition. Not to mention any images that function as a kind of abstraction. And this is about 80 percent of the runtime of Skinamarink, making it probably an insurmountable challenge for a lot of viewers.


And I get that. It's a relatively difficult movie in that way. But as soon as anyone starts talking about how the movie is a con, simply because they don't know how to approach a film like this, and so immediately reject it, and then reflexively try and call out those who have a different and more positive reaction than them for facilitating that fraud....that's when they become my enemy.
Yes on all counts!



A system of cells interlinked
I think a lot of people seem to struggle with the concept of negative space in a composition. Not to mention any images that function as a kind of abstraction. And this is about 80 percent of the runtime of Skinamarink, making it probably an insurmountable challenge for a lot of viewers.


And I get that. It's a relatively difficult movie in that way. But as soon as anyone starts talking about how the movie is a con, simply because they don't know how to approach a film like this, and so immediately reject it, and then reflexively try and call out those who have a different and more positive reaction than them for facilitating that fraud....that's when they become my enemy.
I find good use of negative space fascinating when done well. Abstraction perhaps a bit less so, but still won't give up on a film unless it is just really rubbing me the wrong way. Or in this case, when I am watching it with someone else who just isn't having it. I do plan on giving Skinamarink another shot with better viewing conditions at some point.



I find good use of negative space fascinating when done well. Abstraction perhaps a bit less so, but still won't give up on a film unless it is just really rubbing me the wrong way. Or in this case, when I am watching it with someone else who just isn't having it. I do plan on giving Skinamarink another shot with better viewing conditions at some point.

I don't think Skinamarink could possibly work if you were around anyone actively rejecting it.


My girlfriend suggested watching it with me when I first heard of it, and in order to preserve our relationship, I waited until she left for the weekend to finally watch it.



Did someone say negative space?















Without reverse Google image searching (to see how bad my memory is from a film I watched from only about a year ago)...
Heroic Purgatory?

(I'm definitely recognizing some from one of the Yoshida films that got grouped together in the box set).