Minio's Ramblings on Cinema

Tools    





Precisely. Overexposure to bad art corrupts.
Wasn't thinking that way but yes. Mostly, that a critic's job is not to establish a solid canon because they are watching stuff all the time with varied expectations. As Wyldesyde told, Ebert made reassessments of previous opinions later in his career, because it's not the same to watch at the time and on a weekly schedule with the added pressure of formulating a review than to revise quietly years later. I am not one of those who believes movies should be rewatched or watched twice to be fully appreciated or understood, but considering a critic's job and schedule this can be very appropriate advice for them.

Anyway, the best display of our trust in critics is that we are talking Ford's masterpieces and none of us has yet mentioned The searchers.



Just a western...
__________________
San Franciscan lesbian dwarves and their tomato orgies.



This approach is one that has nothing in common with Kubrick's in Barry Lyndon where, for the battle scenes, he used long lenses to film thousands of extras as if he had only thirty, in story terms a pointless expense. Such is the twilight (noted by Oudart) of the Hollywood machine, clouded over by a crazy imagination which gives way to this calm and starry sky where technique triumphs over imagination; like all the rest, fed through the synthesizer. The story of the film's production would constitute a real science-fiction subject that would make one shudder.

[...]

Star Wars is happy to grind out the effects that cinema (American cinema) has taken years to build up, and reduces the great cinematic myths (the adventure film in particular, but not exclusively) to narrative references, to the status of road signs. A sad fate, and a strange gift to the children
from

AMERICA WITHOUT FEAR OR
FAVOR (STAR WARS)

('L'Amerique sans peur et sans reproche: Star Wars',
Cahiers du Cinéma 283, December 1977)

by Serge Le Peron

Translated by Chris Darke



Yoda denied that Mizoguchi was a "feminist" director. "Mizoguchi was not comfortable with 'liberated' women or portraying upper-middle-class ladies." In Japan, they say that "stronger women and stronger [nylon] stockings" appeared after World War II, "but Mizoguchi," Yoda noted, drawing a parallel in reference to Women of the Night about prostitutes in postwar Tokyo, "was more comfortable with cotton stockings."

After years of collaboration,Yoda's first real clue to the director's fascination with women came when they were once alone at the public baths, the usual retreat when a scene was not going well. That day, he asked Yoda, "Do you wonder why I always keep my T-shirt on in here?" He removed it, displayed deep scars on his back from wounds inflicted by a rejected geisha when he was in his twenties and his only comment was, "Woman is a dangerous thing."

"He usually portrayed women in oppressed situations. Does that mean that he had a great deal of sympathy or love for the women?" Yoda asked rhetorically. "I doubt that. His way of looking at things was through the eyes of an egotist. But, did he place his female characters in a position where he took pleasure in their suffering? I also doubt that."
Judy Stone
5/23/76
from the book
Eye on the World:
Conversations with International Filmmakers,
Silman-James Publishers, 1997



Not at all surprised after reading that text that I looked for Mizoguchi's relationship with Kinuyo Tanaka and found that he apparently opposed her application to the Director's Guild of Japan. Mizoguchi's work speaks for itself strongly but his attitude towards storytelling seems like the kind of distanced egotism that seems common in modern festival filmmakers tackling social subjects.



The Guy Who Sees Movies
One of the best ways to enjoy movies is to get away from them for a while. Take a walk in the woods, go feed some birds, sit on a park bench, scrub down the kitchen, even maybe read a book. Movies are great as long as you realize that they are entertainment, targeting consumers, just a picture of life, not life itself.

There's lots of things in life to be done other than movies and the best way to appreciate them is now-and-again.



There's an interesting idea of the so-called "opposite indicator." Usually, we find people with good taste and watch films they love. An opposite indicator is a person whose taste is so bad and crooked that we can luck out a masterpiece by watching what they dismissed.



Movies are great as long as you realize that they are entertainment, targeting consumers, just a picture of life, not life itself.
You lost me here. We'll never understand each other if that's your stance.



The Guy Who Sees Movies
You lost me here. We'll never understand each other if that's your stance.
I'm all in for art, but movies are expensive, require deep-pocketed investors who are not as worried about art as much as they are interested in making a profit, in a pursuit that often does not make money. That much is reality, but, to me, the more interesting part is that some of them at least, are made with the intent of doing something a bit better than a purely commercial product.

I have one foot in my local art scene, know people who get art in galleries, but they rarely make much money, nor do they have the up-front costs that come with even a cheap movie.

That's what I find interesting about movies.....the fact that, in a world full of investors and accountants, now and again, something rises above all that. People who make movies know about Art (in caps), but they have to also know about finances, management, music, sound, image processing, etc.....contemporary renaissance people.



The Guy Who Sees Movies
This is how I feel when I talk about cinema on MoFo.

Sooooo....have ever made a movie? How did you pay for it?

It's sad that it comes down to that, but it does come down to that. An "Artist" can do a painting pretty much on the cheap but not a movie maker. We just have to live with that.



Sooooo....have ever made a movie?
I have. Just a short, though. No time & too lazy for a feature.

How did you pay for it?
I didn't. It cost me nothing. The idea you need money to make a film is corrupted. Of course, money helps a lot, but it isn't necessary to have a lot of money to make a film. The idea that one may have TOO BIG A BUDGET is one closer to my sensibilities. Many amateur filmmakers turned into really bad directors once they got a bigger budget.

It's sad that it comes down to that, but it does come down to that. An "Artist" can do a painting pretty much on the cheap but not a movie maker. We just have to live with that.
If you're thinking about 'standard' films with many actors and a paid crew, then sure. But many films are made by friends, some by just a single person. Making a film doesn't inherently require a lot of money, and most films could be made with half or a quarter of their actual budget, mostly profiting from that quality-wise.



The Guy Who Sees Movies
I have. Just a short, though. No time & too lazy for a feature.

......I didn't. It cost me nothing. The idea you need money to make a film is corrupted.
If you're thinking about 'standard' films with many actors and a paid crew, then sure. But many films are made by friends, some by just a single person. Making a film doesn't inherently require a lot of money, and most films could be made with half or a quarter of their actual budget, mostly profiting from that quality-wise.
Of course you need money, even if it IS "film" and you need to have it processed. You need all of the other stuff, scenery, crew, props, etc.

I actually HAVE seen lots of "films" (actually shot on film) and went specifically for the minimalist approach, but, honestly, aside from us, the little film audience, congratulating ourselves for being there and rising above the rabble, I could not see much there that was (here I go, using that word) entertaining to anybody aside from the little group of elite film fans. There was way too much self-congratulation in that room, and, honestly I like being entertained. I'd much rather see Raiders of the Lost Ark than 8 1/2.

I also have friends and family that do Art (as in stuff in galleries with Openings). Ironically, most of the people that do that sort of thing would love to go commercial. It's their holy grail to get big prices for little paintings.

It's not "corrupted"....it's income and recognition.



I could not see much there that was (here I go, using that word) entertaining to anybody aside from the little group of elite film fans.
Was the problem with the movies or with you?

There was way too much self-congratulation in that room, and, honestly I like being entertained. I'd much rather see Raiders of the Lost Ark than 8 1/2.
8 1/2 is entertaining, too. The distinction between art and entertainment is an artificial and untrue one in most cases.



The Guy Who Sees Movies
Was the problem with the movies or with you?
>>>Both. I've run across people who don't think something they call "Art" should be accessible or entertaining. They delight in figuring out the puzzle or theme or whatever. Much of that is lost on me....I don't get it.

8 1/2 is entertaining, too. The distinction between art and entertainment is an artificial and untrue one in most cases.

>>>Yeah. It's a continuum. At the extremes, you sure can tell, but also, the other side of the question is just WHY art can't be entertaining.



A contemporary, subtle, aesthetically pleasing, and beautiful film shot on 16mm followed by a sublime 2018 performance of Renaissance Music.

So contemporary art can still be quality and there's no excuse for artists that aren't?