TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- The movie recommendations thread, son
Pages (102): « 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 »


Posted by LAdazeNYnights on Jan-26-2012 22:47:

quote:
Originally posted by EgosXII
So does the creator, or the viewer create meaning in a film?


the film creates it's own meaning.


Posted by EgosXII on Jan-26-2012 23:14:

quote:
Originally posted by LAdazeNYnights
the film creates it's own meaning.


so no human has any access to it, or control over it?


Posted by srussell0018 on Jan-26-2012 23:16:

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.


Posted by LAdazeNYnights on Jan-26-2012 23:28:

quote:
Originally posted by EgosXII
so no human has any access to it, or control over it?


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


Posted by srussell0018 on Jan-26-2012 23:29:

Let's all touch each other while discussing how movies make us feel.


Posted by Halcyon+On+On on Jan-26-2012 23:31:

OLOLOOo 2 KEWL 4 U!!!


Posted by srussell0018 on Jan-26-2012 23:36:

Shouldn't you be waxing something?


Posted by EgosXII on Jan-27-2012 02:10:

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.



Posted by LeopoldStotch on Jan-27-2012 03:46:

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


you missed one more .. the world of voice (documentaries).


Posted by GoSpeedGo! on Jan-27-2012 08:34:

quote:
Originally posted by EgosXII
So does the creator, or the viewer create meaning in a film?


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:

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.


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.


Posted by EgosXII on Jan-27-2012 09:39:

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.


I'm well aware of all this, but am trying to understand where you're coming from with your claims; given this post-modernism/structuralism. 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?


Posted by GoSpeedGo! on Jan-27-2012 10:24:

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?



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.)


Posted by EgosXII on Jan-27-2012 10:52:

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.)


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?

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.


Posted by GoSpeedGo! on Jan-27-2012 12:38:

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?


Yes, it would, authorial intent doesn't matter.

Again, this example I used is very simplistic and unfortunately I don't have time right now to write long paragraphs that would give a better explanation, but obviously there would be much more evidence - found throughout the whole body of work - and the interpretation wouldn't seem so arbitrary.

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.


That's not true. If you closely follow form and style of a given text and the themes it employs, you can't possibly come up with infinite number of interpretations.

I will write more about this later. For a good example of such an extensive, well-reasoned interpretation, read some of the articles here: http://nilesfilmfiles.blogspot.com/

I really liked the one about the new Fincher movie where the guy shows how is the film about post-humanism and the relationship of words & image. http://nilesfilmfiles.blogspot.com/...fuck-david.html


Posted by LeopoldStotch on Jan-28-2012 03:39:

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.


Posted by EgosXII on Jan-28-2012 05:09:

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.


who??


Posted by LeopoldStotch on Jan-28-2012 14:27:

quote:
Originally posted by EgosXII
who??


Niles Schwartz's Top 10

http://nilesfilmfiles.blogspot.com/...lm-in-2011.html


Posted by GoSpeedGo! on Jan-28-2012 15:01:

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.


Posted by LeopoldStotch on Jan-28-2012 15:22:

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.


Posted by Jarvmeister on Jan-28-2012 15:26:

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.


Posted by WittyHandle on Jan-28-2012 16:54:

Hugo bored me to tears. Some nice shots in it tho.


Posted by LeopoldStotch on Jan-28-2012 17:24:

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.


Richard Ayoade has a ton of potential. I look to see him in the next couple of years as an actor or director.


Posted by Dj Nacht on Jan-29-2012 01:53:

Gonna probably give Take Shelter a shot. Has anyone else seen it?


Posted by LeopoldStotch on Jan-29-2012 16:49:

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.


Finally got around to watch Shame. I guess it's ok if this movie does not get national accolades. This movie, like Hunger is not for the common man. It takes a lot to digest Steve McQueen's 2 films. That being said, Fassbender was great as usual, but let's give some credit to Carey Mulligan too. She was great playing the role of Brandon's (Fassbender) polar opposite in terms of characterization. Just superb.


Posted by Acton on Jan-29-2012 21:36:

I've just finished watching Warrior. A great film, which I highly recommend.



Pages (102): « 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 »

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.