TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- The movie recommendations thread, son
Pages (127): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 [76] 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 »
quote: |
Originally posted by EgosXII So does the creator, or the viewer create meaning in a film? |
quote: |
Originally posted by LAdazeNYnights the film creates it's own meaning. |
I'm pretty sure I would hate 90% of movies mentioned in this thread. In general, if film fags feel the urge to write about a movie, it's probably pretty gay.
quote: |
Originally posted by EgosXII so no human has any access to it, or control over it? |
Let's all touch each other while discussing how movies make us feel.
OLOLOOo 2 KEWL 4 U!!!
Shouldn't you be waxing something?
quote: |
Originally posted by LAdazeNYnights i was really just trying to sound stupid but i guess you could say there are 3 different worlds around a film : world of the creator, world of the film, world of the audience. |
quote: |
Originally posted by LAdazeNYnights i was really just trying to sound stupid but i guess you could say there are 3 different worlds around a film : world of the creator, world of the film, world of the audience. p.s. srussell is a foggot |
quote: |
Originally posted by EgosXII So does the creator, or the viewer create meaning in a film? |
quote: |
Originally written by Roland Barthes To give a text an Author and assign a single, corresponding interpretation to it is to impose a limit on that text. |
quote: |
Originally posted by GoSpeedGo! To paraphrase a popular saying, "The author is dead, Roland Barthes killed him." What post-structuralism introduced is the idea that an author can't be a source of any definitive meaning - it's up to the viewer/reader to infer meaning from the text. Or, to directly quote Barthes: In other words, there's no denying that certain artistic intentions exist. However, we can never know what they truly were (especially in such a collaborative medium like film) and even if we did, it wouldn't matter much. So the most sensible approach is to forget the author figure and work with what's fully accessible to us - the film/text itself. This viewpoint is shared even by cognitivists (Bordwell & Thompson) whose neoformalist approach is dominant now in film studies, and is far more analytical - in a sense that "analysis" doesn't try to figure out what the film says (the message), but rather how does it say that (grammar/syntax). Their book "Film Art" is well known and is a great introduction to this. I probably just barely scratched the surface, but this is such a broad topic that I didn't know where to start. I can elaborate on some of this if it isn't clear. |
quote: |
Originally posted by EgosXII If there is no hard form in a given text how can you claim that what you say of it is accurate to anyone except yourself? Or you can't? |
quote: |
Originally posted by GoSpeedGo! I'm not sure what you mean by "hard form", but I assume you're talking about a definitive meaning of some sort. Basically, what I guess you're asking is: What makes an individual interpretation valid if there is more than one possible/"correct" interpretation of a given text? That's quite hard to answer and I'm not sure if anyone's come up with a set of rules that would be able to guarantee a perfectly valid interpretation. What's undeniable is that the interpretation should be supported by evidence from the text and ideally, there shouldn't be anything in the text that would contradict that interpretation. For example, Melancholia is about the collapse of western culture because the film shows us only white people gathered around a mansion - symbol of western values. (This is really simplistic but it should help to illustrate the point.) |
quote: |
Originally posted by EgosXII Yeah that's the basic concern. Using the Melancholia example you gave: If Lars didn't do that intentionally; and denied any kind of meaning like that, would your suggestion still be valid, or not? |
quote: |
I think the problem with that type of analysis is that its unfalsifiable; you could say x means y and never be wrong, but it doesn't mean that you're ever actually right about it... If you continue the logic of this it would mean that any film is meaningless; a blank slate against which the viewer sees a reflection of their psychological state. This clearly would invalidate all claims about the film itself. |
just want to take note his top 10 list, which is interesting:
1. A Dangerous Methos / The Tree of Life
2. Drive
3. Terri
4. Take Shelter
5. Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives
6. Shame
7. Meek's Cutoff
8. Hugo
9. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
10. Midnight in Paris
one thing i feel good about. He left out 'Tinker Tailor Solider Spy' out of his list, and marked it as an honorable mention.
quote: |
Originally posted by LeopoldStotch just want to take note his top 10 list, which is interesting: 1. A Dangerous Methos / The Tree of Life 2. Drive 3. Terri 4. Take Shelter 5. Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives 6. Shame 7. Meek's Cutoff 8. Hugo 9. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo 10. Midnight in Paris one thing i feel good about. He left out 'Tinker Tailor Solider Spy' out of his list, and marked it as an honorable mention. |
quote: |
Originally posted by EgosXII who?? |
Yeah, I really like his list, though I still haven't seen half of it. Hugo and Tinker, Tailor next week hopefully.
His essay on The Tree of Life is great, too, probably best piece about it on the internet.
I've been meaning to watch Hugo. It's a tossup between girl with the dragon tattoo or Hugo. I might as well watch both this weekend.
Watched 'Submarine' 3 times this week - and I expect it to be the best film I see all year.
It's about a schoolboy's developing relationship with a new girlfriend and his efforts to keep his parents marriage from falling apart.
Heart warming and funny, and exactly the way I looked at life when I was 15.
SUPERB.
Hugo bored me to tears. Some nice shots in it tho.
quote: |
Originally posted by Jarvmeister Watched 'Submarine' 3 times this week - and I expect it to be the best film I see all year. It's about a schoolboy's developing relationship with a new girlfriend and his efforts to keep his parents marriage from falling apart. Heart warming and funny, and exactly the way I looked at life when I was 15. SUPERB. |
Gonna probably give Take Shelter a shot. Has anyone else seen it?
quote: |
Originally posted by LAdazeNYnights Yah, speed's posts are good reading for sure. I finally caught Shame in the theater tonight. My first impressions: the cinematography was such a joy to behold. Almost every shot seemed so beautifully constructed. The film's color palette really lent to the overall atmosphere. Carey Mulligan was OK in it - at times I felt as though she was over-acting. Perhaps my main issue with her character was an inability to empathize with her hysterical cellphone breakdown. Then again, that might've actually been the point: seeing it in the same way Fassbender did, reacting with the same strange mix of disgust, loathing, and sympathy. Fassbender was simply flawless in it and if he loses out in the oscar race to some shmuck (clooney in descendants or pitt in moneyball) i'm gonna be very displeased. |
I've just finished watching Warrior. A great film, which I highly recommend.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.