MovieChat Forums > capuchin > Replies
capuchin's Replies
Yeah. They're children's films.
I suspect he reacted so strongly to <i>Jedi</i> because he was sixteen when it was released. So, 1) he'd grown out of it, and 2) that's exactly the kind of age people choose to assert their own purported maturity by sneering at children's films. 'Ugh, this is for babies.'
Sure. But no more than <i>Star Wars</i> was. You just happened to have been ten when you saw that one.
That said, he's right that <i>Jedi</i> isn't very good.
That's alright. It was my own chosen interpretation to narrow the field down a bit. I think to be a 'favourite' someone should have a bit of a career behind them, otherwise they're just people who've made good starts and might go off the rails immediately and make you look foolish. Or something. I dunno.
So: same answer(s) even with a wider interpretation.
'Still working' seems to indicate that I should choose someone who's been doing the do for a while rather someone relatively new on the block...
.... so I'll choose Hirokazu Kore-eda. Why? His humanity; his subtle, complex characters and the way that -- at his best -- his films kind of drift towards their plots in a fairly realistic manner that makes you miss the plot contrivances... Favourite film: Either <i>Shoplifters</i> or <i>Our Little Sister</i>.
I'll choose Lynne Ramsay as my backup. Why? Probably the most purely visual film director working. Favourite film: <i>Morvern Callar</i>.
Every film you've listed as an example of art is also a commercial product. The overwhelming majority of films are -- because they cost money to make and investors generally want to make their money back or preferably turn a profit.
There are certainly films that are less commercial than others. They're usually the less expensive ones, because they don't need to appeal to as many people to break even. Or the ones that come from countries with heavily state-subsidised film industries -- such as France. There's less pressure on individual French films to turn a profit because France's model treats them more as cultural products than commercial ones. But there's still an element of commercialism involved, because the industry as a whole needs to be successful.
That said, I'd agree with you that television is a lesser art than film, because it's more controlled by advertisers. But I don't think it's as simple as TV = commercial and cinema = art. I think the relationship between artistic expression and commerciality is complex and often fraught in both mediums.
I've no idea if American tastes have become dumber. I'd put the executives decisions over Juror #2's theatrical release down more to changes in technology than 'dumbness'. This isn't the kind of thing general audiences will leave their houses to see any more -- but presumably Americans are still watching a wider variety of material in their homes than they are in cinemas. Because stuff like this still gets made.
Letterboxd stats are great. Apparently, I spend an average of 2.7 hours per day watching films. For an average of 11.8 films per week. (Some of these are shorts though.)
For reference, the average viewer in the UK watches 4.5 hours of audio-visual entertainment per day. That's TV, YouTube, TikTok, all of it. I'm sure the figures will be similar in other countries.
I don't watch any of that. So I'm well below the national average for overall screen-time even though I watch near enough two films per day. I mention this because someone always says 'But how?' whenever someone mentions such a high figure. And the answer is: I just prioritise films over everything else I might be watching instead of them.
Oh, sorry. I somehow missed that you'd already said that it was stolen... Yeah, I don't think anyone knows who said it originally. But someone must've quite a long time ago.
Ironically, the end part of the quote is basically stolen: 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' Usually attributed to Picasso, although I think I read there's no evidence he ever said it.
I may be wrong, but doesn't the MPA work in a similar way to the BBFC? So if Disney (or any other distributor) submits a film to them, the MPA tells them 'Well, that's a PG in its current form. If you make this cut and that cut, we could reduce it to a G.' And then Disney decides if it wants to cut the film or not.
So isn't it Disney that has given up on the G?
Or is that the MPA has just basically said 'almost nothing is a G any more, because we think parents should decide what's right for their children / don't want to take the flak from parents who disagree'?
"Tarkovsky is more innocent than me. In his films, rain purifies people. In mine, it just makes mud."
- Béla Tarr
No. I don't agree.
I'd agree that it's up to <i>individuals</i> to judge films for themselves. But the idea that a general audience reaction to a film is any gauge of its quality is faintly absurd to me. 'This film is popular, therefore it's good' is obvious nonsense. You have no idea who is in that audience. All a film's popularity with a general audience tells us is that it's popular with a general audience.
In all areas of life, I trust the opinions of people who know more over people who know less. This may mean professional film critics (as long as their sensibility somewhat matches my own), it may be amateur critics or people on film forums. But I'd never trust the 'wisdom of crowds' or popular taste or box office or any of those related concepts. I care more about critics than I care about what Joe Schmoe thinks. Joe Schmoe has <i>terrible</i> taste.
Sorry.
Nah. I doubt it. It's not American. 'Oh we've had a hit, we better make another one to cash in' is not a particularly strong impulse in European cinema. Not that it doesn't happen. But it doesn't happen nearly as much.
Coralie Fargeat has already turned down Hollywood projects. She's not super commercially-minded. And she set up her own production company for <i>The Substance</i> so that she could retain complete creative control. It'll only happen if she wants it to happen. And I suspect she is too French to make an unnecessary sequel. But you never know.
I'll celebrate with a drink and a sing-song: <url>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bnnwYYrI7U</url>
OK, that made me laugh.
Sorrrrrry.
Which bit?
No, I agree. It's not a bad movie. But there's nothing special or interesting about it either. It kind of collects together every prison movie cliche in one package.
I have put a key in a car. And I have sung off-key in a car. But I have never keyed a car. True story.
I'm with you on not particularly liking <i>The Dark Knight</i>. I think that trilogy has the usual diminishing returns: <i>Batman Begins</i> is the best one, <i>The Dark Knight</i> is alright (but massively overstuffed), <i>The Dark Knight Rises</i> is meh.
And I don't love any James Cameron films with the sole exception of <i>The Terminator</i>. <i>Aliens</i> is... OK.
I'm with VinceD on <i>The Matrix</i>. It's... OK. I've never understood the big love for it. But each to their own, eh.
I probably have loads of these, particularly when it comes to pop culture stuff. Because I'm just not a very mainstream kind of chap...
I really hate <i>Back to the Future II</i>, for example. 'Oooh it's one of the best trilogies ever made.' No, it isn't. The first one is great. The other two -- like most sequels -- can be flung into the eternal fire.
Talking of sequels, I don't rate <i>Return of the Jedi</i> at all.
No idea why people love <i>The Shawshank Redemption</i>...
That'll do. I could be here all day.
Went to Fenebahce after Arsenal. And I think another Turkish club after leaving Fenebahce, but I'm less sure about that. He's retired now.
Brah, you seem shook. Stay nang, yeah? D'ya feel me, blud?