movies and wine

Walpknut said:
So sound and color are gimmicks too, and camera angles, and the use of sound, and the fact that the pictures are moving, and that it tells a story.

Man films are pretty bland things, once you remove everythign that gives their identity they are just a passage of time.
Click to expand...

The whole is more than the sum of its parts.

Films have to have more than charm to be great. The simple fact that you could ruin this movie by giving it color is a testament to how gimmicky it is. It's probably the only movie in history that you could say that for.

Also I would like to quote this again:

Jean-Luc Godard said:
American pictures usually have no subject, only a story.... A pretty woman is not a subject. Julia Roberts doing this and that is not a subject.
Click to expand...


Edit: Just admit it. The only reason you like it is because it's a black and white silent film. It literally has nothing else going for it but that nostalgic charm.
 
If you remove the semantic lenguage of a movie it falls apart, Whoa, never thoutght about that.
 
Considering your argument itself is a logical fallacy, it's hard to not use them when trying to refute it.
Quoting Godard without even thinking or actually postulating anything of your own, and linking to Wikipedia articles doesn't make your rather dumb argument any more valid.

You say, it's a gimmick because if you remvoe it the movei falls apart.

If the element is so important to the message of the film, then it's not a gimmick, it's an element.

Lots of movies would lose impact with the lack of sound and color, Imagine Reservoir Dogs with no sound at all. Sin City with color. etc.
 
Walpknut said:
Considering yoru argument itself is a logical fallacy,
Click to expand...

What logical fallacy would that be?

Is it a logical fallacy to not like the same things you like now?


Quoting Godard without even thinking or actually postulating anything of your own, and linking to Wikipedia articles doesn't make your rather dumb argument any more valid.
Click to expand...

Godard's opinion is objectively worth more than yours (or mine), and the wikipedia article I linked was so I didn't have to explain to you what a "reductio ad absurdum" fallacy is.

You say, it's a gimmick because if you remvoe it the movei falls apart.
Click to expand...

No I say it's a gimmick because the entire movie was built around the fact that it's a black and white silent film. The fact that it's in black and white is literally the only reason anyone likes it.

If the element is so important to the message of the film, then it's not a gimmick, it's an element.
Click to expand...

There was no fucking message of the film though. It's a fucking novelty film.

Lots of movies would lose impact with the lack of sound and color, Imagine Reservoir Dogs with no sound at all. Sin City with color. etc.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about removing sound, that's stupid.

There's also a difference between using color thematically (ex. Sin City) and basing your entire fucking movie around the fact that it's in black and white (ex. The Artist).

Please please name one noteworthy thing about The Artist other than it being black and white and silent. As far as I can see it's just style over substance and that's the only reason people like it.
 
Of course Godard opinion is worth a lot, but yours isn't, and the quote you have been pasting over and over, even contradicts what you say.

The movie had a message, a very easy to get one at that, if you didn't get it, then that's not even a point of argument.

"There's also a difference between using color thematically (ex. Sin City) and basing your entire fucking movie around the fact that it's in black and white (ex. The Artist). "

I hope you read that and realise how you just contradicted yourself.
 
Walpknut said:
Of course Godard opinion is worth a lot, but yours isn't, and the quote you have been pasting over and over, even contradicts what you say.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.

The movie had a message, a very easy to get one at that, if you didn't get it, then that's not even a point of argument.
Click to expand...

It was a fucking romantic comedy. It was shallow as fuck. If you think The Artist was "deep" I pity you.


I hope you read that and realise how you just contradicted yourself.
Click to expand...

I did not. Sin City wasn't a great movie either, it just wasn't as pretentious as The Artist. "Style" does not make a good movie. Substance does.


You also still haven't named even one specific thing you like about the movie other than the fact that it's in black and white.
 
Godard said
"American pictures usually have no subject, only a story.... A pretty woman is not a subject. Julia Roberts doing this and that is not a subject."


You said
"There was no fucking message of the film though. It's a fucking novelty film. "

"It was a fucking romantic comedy. It was shallow as fuck. If you think The Artist was "deep" I pity you. "

So, you say the movie didn't have a subject because the STORY was more in line with a romantic comedy, therefore, there is no subject because Romantic Comedies NEVER EVER have a subject.

The movie is about the evolution of cinema, it is presented as a Black and White Silent Movie, it uses it's elements to show the tribulations of George Valentin in his struggle to keep being relevant despite shunning the new elements of cinema that, he feels, are a gimmick.
In the end he recovers, not by just copying what has become the norm, but by adapting his perceived lacking skills, he thinks people won't want to listen to him, by foraging in a new kind of movie, Musicals. As he accepts new Ideas, his world (the movie) changes.
The lack of sound and Color are used very carefully thru the movie, like the dream sequence where everyone and everything emits sound, except Valentin himself.

You see, the movie is about the subject, the movie uses it's elements to covney this subject in a modern way, using elements of Silent movies. Even the acting is made in a way that mimics over the top silent movie performances. And the key word here being "Mimics". The movie is not being a direct Silent Film. If you think it's a generic silent film, it's because you have never actually watched a silent movie.

The movie could have been made in a traditional way, with the characters talking, subtle acting and color, but it would have been a different movie, a different experience.
It's nto the DEEPEST MOVIE EVER! I neevr said it was LOL SO DEEP. Is an interesting movie that uses it's elements in an intelligent way, not because is a silent film. Which it is not.

A story is not a subject, a Plot Synopsis is not a critique, a genre is not a limit.
 
You do realize that The Artist's plot is almost an exact copy of Singin' in the Rain's right?

The film seems more like an homage to the all too familiar taboid-esque plots of later Hollywood (Singin' in the Rain, Sunset Boulevard, A Star is Born) than a true evocation of the silent era's splendor.

It's a stunningly ordinary film with a lot of nostalgia tchotchke thrown in.

If you think it's a generic silent film, it's because you have never actually watched a silent movie.
Click to expand...

No I think it's a bad silent film because I've actually watched quite a few silent films. L'Argent, Metropolis, La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc, Un Chien Andalou, etc.


Edit: Also seriously fuck the film's soundtrack.
 
So, you again, go to complaining about the plot Failing to realise movies are more than a synopsis of what happens on them.
 
Walpknut said:
So, you again, go to complaining about the plot Failing to realise movies are more than a synopsis of what happens on them.
Click to expand...

There you go again, not being able to defend what you actually like about the movie so you make vague and pretentious statements.

The film is an insult to both silent movies and to the era as a whole. It's substance-less, and a blatantly manipulative appeal to some form of gross sentimentality in evidently tasteless moviegoers.
 
I already said multiple times, that what makes the movie good is it's use of the Black And White visuals, with the use of the sound and the lack of it to represent what is goign on in the movie in a way other than progression of events.

You instead focus on saying the movie is a Generic silent film because it is a Romantic Comedy.

Also, An Insult ot the era? PFFFT fucking please dude, now you are offended by a movie because it "offends" an era of movies you never actually experienced directly. THAT is pretentious.
 
Walpknut said:
You instead focus on saying the movie is a Generic silent film because it is a Romantic Comedy.
Click to expand...

No I'm saying it's a shitty tribute to silent films (it's more of a tribute to later Hollywood than to the silent film era really, as I've stated before) and it's a shallow romantic comedy.

Not that all romantic comedies are shallow and/or bad, but this one is.


I'll admit that it's a charming film and it's certainly not unpleasureable to watch. It's just that it's only charming in the way that listening to old 50's love songs is charming, those songs are still more or less objectively bad music.

The film is fun in a nostalgic way, but it's not a masterpiece of cinema and it certainly isn't Oscar-worthy (as if the Oscars aren't a joke anyways :roll:).

Walpknut said:
Also, An Insult ot the era? PFFFT fucking please dude, now you are offended by a movie because it "offends" an era of movies you never actually experienced directly. THAT is pretentious.
Click to expand...

I have seen several silent films and I know quite a bit about the history of cinema in that era, so I think I can fairly say I know what I'm talking about. I'm also not the only person that thinks this, many people far more qualified than myself agree.

Edit: It's ludicrous to call this film a tribute to silent films. It's clearly more of a tribute to the Hollywood of the 50's (ex. contains scores from the Vertigo soundtrack), even if that's not entirely what the filmmakers intended.
 
A bit off topic, but the whole logical fallacy argument reminds me of the very first trollface comic, before it caught on and the internet went downhill as a whole.
 
By george, another human being who does not agree with my perfect view of the world. I must harass them, for I fight the good fight!
 
I have found that people who call others pretentious, are in fact often times very pretentious themselves. Irony? Perhaps.


Courier quit being a pretentious bastard.
 
Back to pre-back-and-forth-argument,

I am often intrigued - then frustrated by M. Knight Shang[...] movies.
It seems he makes movies from a hunch, then trusts his 'artistic genius' to take him through it, and you can usually tell where his planned scenario ends, and random improvisation begins.

"The Happening" was on tv recently, I didn't really know what I was watching, but I was fairly intrigued - more and more in fact. I always had the feeling that I was watching the beginning of a movie, something building up to something greater.
Then it ended.
I felt completely cheated. I found out I had been watching a M-Knight movie, which of course gave me a "oh, right" sensation...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top