@DRDMovieMusings said:

@rooprect said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Speaking of which, I've got a list called Eye Candy, which is comprised of movies I felt were visually stunning, even if I couldn't always follow the plot. I wish I could tell you what Vertigo was really about - I can't, but it's one movie I can never take my eyes off!

Sweet, I haven't seen most of them so I have my assignment cut out for me!

Try starting with The Tourist. And then, for a complete change of pace, go with Cafe Society.

tbf I struggled for years with films that didn't have a dazzling plot. I hated 2001 the first time I saw it, but now it's my go-to.

Medium exploration

Movies, like any art, do different things, based on the aims of the artists behind the work. Movies are a unique medium. You know how people often read a book, see the movie, and say "the book was better"? The thing is, books are a medium that do some things better than movies, because there is inherent value in reading and visualizing. But, movies are a different medium that do other things better - movies are inherently visual. So, movie makers get to experiment, to play, with that visual aspect that makes viewing a movie an altogether unique experience. Can't fault them for that, it's natural to want to explore the range of any medium. "Painting" is not all the same; the way a stroke feels while doing watercolor is quite different than oil on canvas or acrylic, and a painter would chose different mediums to express different ideas/feelings. Heavy metal bands often will write a ballad, or a relatively "slower" song. They are still metal artists, but not every idea can be expressed by frenetic shredding.

Plot shmot?

Another thing is this idea of "plot". Sometimes, a piece of art challenges us to think, to reflect, to reimagine... but, there are times when an artists want to free their audiences from the restrictions of articulation and float freely on waves of emotion - forget about thinking, let's just...feel, for a moment. One of my favorite artists was a man named Barnett Newman. His magnum opus was a collection called "Onement" based on what he called "the zip". (Check out Onement I, and Onement VI)

Newman's idea was to challenge people not to think about the piece, but explore the feelings that were stirred by the zip. He tried to make the observer “begin in the ‘chaos’ of feeling and sensation...to evoke out of this chaos ‘a memory of the emotion of an experienced moment of total reality.’” When I think of these words, it reminds me of how I felt after watching 2001: A Space Odyssey!

If I had all the money in the world, I would pay whatever it cost to have an original Onement I in my home.

Search your feelings, Luke

Movies can do this, too. More recently than 2001, a movie called Where the Wild Things Are was based on a weird kid's book I read as a kid in the mid-late 1970s. When it was made into a movie in 2009, I couldn't wait to see how they'd bring it to life on screen. I saw it and, while many were bewildered with what to think of it, I think I "got it", because it was more about feelings of child angst and anger, trapped within a narrow, childlike view of the world. I was able to feel this from the dual perspective of having been a kid, as well as, by 2009, being the parent of two children at a time when I had started saying things my parents used to say to me when I was a kid, and understanding more what they went through dealing with us as kids.

Sometimes, thinking is overrated. Thomas wrote “The aesthetic experience enables people to move beyond limits imposed by purely rational thought and the weakness of human language. A picture, a song, a story, may create an impression in a person that would never be conveyed through logical argument. Human beings are aesthetic beings,” (A Quest for Reality and Certainty).

There are times when a movie can be completely plot-driven. That's fine. There are also times when a movie may be lighter on plot and looking to do something else. That's well within the scope of art in general, and movie making specifically.

Great point with Hitchcock, I love everything he's done, but when you get right down to it, the plots of most of his films could be written on a postcard 😅

Rope = bunch of guys sit around talking while there's a body hidden under the table.

Rear Window = guy in a wheelchair stares out the window for 90 mins lmao

See, I loved Rear Window! That the entire movie was filmed on a set, yet we felt like we were in an actual apartment complex, blows me away! I haven't seen Rope yet, but again, whether The Birds (has anyone ever explained how that even happened, or why it just stopped?), or Vertigo, or North by Northwest(while fun to look at, the plot holes in that movie make my head spin, seriously!), or Rear View...NONE of these movies are worth watching for plot, to me; they are more about visuals, Hitchcock showing us things we may never have seen before.

Notice, though, that in invoking Hitchcock, we're talking about one of the greatest "movie" makers of all time - so, again, it's got to be painfully obvious to any even remotely casual student of film that "movies" can indeed be more visual than plot-driven and still be a part of the world we call movies.

And sure, as great as Hitchcock was, not everyone loves his work. That's fine. Don't have to. But you can't just then say he did not make "movies" because he was soft on plot.

? Thomas who?

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@rooprect said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Speaking of which, I've got a list called Eye Candy, which is comprised of movies I felt were visually stunning, even if I couldn't always follow the plot. I wish I could tell you what Vertigo was really about - I can't, but it's one movie I can never take my eyes off!

Sweet, I haven't seen most of them so I have my assignment cut out for me!

Try starting with The Tourist. And then, for a complete change of pace, go with Cafe Society.

tbf I struggled for years with films that didn't have a dazzling plot. I hated 2001 the first time I saw it, but now it's my go-to.

Medium exploration

Movies, like any art, do different things, based on the aims of the artists behind the work. Movies are a unique medium. You know how people often read a book, see the movie, and say "the book was better"? The thing is, books are a medium that do some things better than movies, because there is inherent value in reading and visualizing. But, movies are a different medium that do other things better - movies are inherently visual. So, movie makers get to experiment, to play, with that visual aspect that makes viewing a movie an altogether unique experience. Can't fault them for that, it's natural to want to explore the range of any medium. "Painting" is not all the same; the way a stroke feels while doing watercolor is quite different than oil on canvas or acrylic, and a painter would chose different mediums to express different ideas/feelings. Heavy metal bands often will write a ballad, or a relatively "slower" song. They are still metal artists, but not every idea can be expressed by frenetic shredding.

Plot shmot?

Another thing is this idea of "plot". Sometimes, a piece of art challenges us to think, to reflect, to reimagine... but, there are times when an artists want to free their audiences from the restrictions of articulation and float freely on waves of emotion - forget about thinking, let's just...feel, for a moment. One of my favorite artists was a man named Barnett Newman. His magnum opus was a collection called "Onement" based on what he called "the zip". (Check out Onement I, and Onement VI)

Newman's idea was to challenge people not to think about the piece, but explore the feelings that were stirred by the zip. He tried to make the observer “begin in the ‘chaos’ of feeling and sensation...to evoke out of this chaos ‘a memory of the emotion of an experienced moment of total reality.’” When I think of these words, it reminds me of how I felt after watching 2001: A Space Odyssey!

If I had all the money in the world, I would pay whatever it cost to have an original Onement I in my home.

Search your feelings, Luke

Movies can do this, too. More recently than 2001, a movie called Where the Wild Things Are was based on a weird kid's book I read as a kid in the mid-late 1970s. When it was made into a movie in 2009, I couldn't wait to see how they'd bring it to life on screen. I saw it and, while many were bewildered with what to think of it, I think I "got it", because it was more about feelings of child angst and anger, trapped within a narrow, childlike view of the world. I was able to feel this from the dual perspective of having been a kid, as well as, by 2009, being the parent of two children at a time when I had started saying things my parents used to say to me when I was a kid, and understanding more what they went through dealing with us as kids.

Sometimes, thinking is overrated. Thomas wrote “The aesthetic experience enables people to move beyond limits imposed by purely rational thought and the weakness of human language. A picture, a song, a story, may create an impression in a person that would never be conveyed through logical argument. Human beings are aesthetic beings,” (A Quest for Reality and Certainty).

There are times when a movie can be completely plot-driven. That's fine. There are also times when a movie may be lighter on plot and looking to do something else. That's well within the scope of art in general, and movie making specifically.

Great point with Hitchcock, I love everything he's done, but when you get right down to it, the plots of most of his films could be written on a postcard 😅

Rope = bunch of guys sit around talking while there's a body hidden under the table.

Rear Window = guy in a wheelchair stares out the window for 90 mins lmao

See, I loved Rear Window! That the entire movie was filmed on a set, yet we felt like we were in an actual apartment complex, blows me away! I haven't seen Rope yet, but again, whether The Birds (has anyone ever explained how that even happened, or why it just stopped?), or Vertigo, or North by Northwest(while fun to look at, the plot holes in that movie make my head spin, seriously!), or Rear View...NONE of these movies are worth watching for plot, to me; they are more about visuals, Hitchcock showing us things we may never have seen before.

Notice, though, that in invoking Hitchcock, we're talking about one of the greatest "movie" makers of all time - so, again, it's got to be painfully obvious to any even remotely casual student of film that "movies" can indeed be more visual than plot-driven and still be a part of the world we call movies.

And sure, as great as Hitchcock was, not everyone loves his work. That's fine. Don't have to. But you can't just then say he did not make "movies" because he was soft on plot.

Brilliant dissertation on all forms of art! It's funny how we form expectations and feel disappointed when a work of art doesn't conform, but the bottom line is that there are no laws saying an artist has to do what people expect. And in fact the best artists are always trying to get away from popular expectations.

Since we're talking about Hitchcock, I gotta ask do you own any Criterion editions of Hitchcock? The discs are always jam packed full of features, commentaries and behind-the-scenes explanations of how & why he did things the way he did. That's when you realize why he's a master. Part of me thinks he deliberately worked with thin plots because that's the best way to showcase your skills as a filmmaker. Don't get me started on North By Northwest lmao. A man is chased by an AIRPLANE?? Who comes up with this stuff?? But everyone's riveted by that scene because it's so suspensefully done.

And then there are filmmakers like Godard or Fellini who completely depart from entertainment and instead focus on style. Again why not? Like you said, the aims of an artist can be anything.

I've never heard of Barnett Newman but I totally get what he's doing. You're right to make the comparison with 2001 because I think that was Kubrick's intent in a lot of the long "pointless" scenes of the astronauts. Sitting in silence eating their tv dinners, jogging around that giant hamster wheel, etc. I bet Kubrick wanted to take us out of the story and make us feel the boredom on a personal level, sitting in a movie theater. If his intent was to make us feel what the astronauts felt, that's basically the only way!

@rooprect said:

Brilliant dissertation on all forms of art!

Thing is, movies can be art, and they can also be entertainment. But these two aspects are not the same.

It's funny how we form expectations and feel disappointed when a work of art doesn't conform,

Right. I have to be in a certain frame of mind (which is to say, just turn it off altogether) to join all the throngs who just eat up Michael Bay Transformers movies or the Fast & Furious franchise, movies which have ZEEEE-RO interest in Oscar considerations, right?

but the bottom line is that there are no laws saying an artist has to do what people expect. And in fact the best artists are always trying to get away from popular expectations.

If, and to whatever, degree that art is about creativity, "to create" is not copying, replication; it's the challenge of coming up with something new, different. Back to Newman, when people ask him "what is it?", his piece challenges us with the answer "it is...what it is." They are expecting to recognize, what, a vase of flowers, a bowl of fruit...they want to see a copy of something so that they can critique the skill involved in making a painting "look real", which is to say, look like something else. Newman created something with no comparison, so we must relate to it on its own intrinsic terms.

When Tarantino gave us Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction; when M. Night Shyamalan gave us_ The Sixth Sense_...shucks, even Bruce Willis' Die Hard, these movies gave us a new thing.

Since we're talking about Hitchcock, I gotta ask do you own any Criterion editions of Hitchcock? The discs are always jam packed full of features, commentaries and behind-the-scenes explanations of how & why he did things the way he did. That's when you realize why he's a master.

I should track them down and check them out! While I do know he's a master, I'm very sure I would still be amazed to learn just how brilliant he really was.

Part of me thinks he deliberately worked with thin plots because that's the best way to showcase your skills as a filmmaker.

Makes sense!

Don't get me started on North By Northwest lmao. A man is chased by an AIRPLANE?? Who comes up with this stuff?? But everyone's riveted by that scene because it's so suspensefully done.

Right?!

And then there are filmmakers like Godard or Fellini who completely depart from entertainment and instead focus on style. Again why not? Like you said, the aims of an artist can be anything.

More for me to learn about. Thanks for engaging this conversation!

I've never heard of Barnett Newman but I totally get what he's doing. You're right to make the comparison with 2001 because I think that was Kubrick's intent in a lot of the long "pointless" scenes of the astronauts. Sitting in silence eating their tv dinners, jogging around that giant hamster wheel, etc. I bet Kubrick wanted to take us out of the story and make us feel the boredom on a personal level, sitting in a movie theater. If his intent was to make us feel what the astronauts felt, that's basically the only way!

Right? Feel it! Mission accomplished. Sometimes I try to imagine what it must have been like to see it in theatres back in 1968. Western society was in chaos (MLK/RFK assassinations, Civil Rights demonstrations and suppressions, Tet Offensive, ramping up towards Nixon's first term, rise of hippie culture before the tipping points in early 70s, not yet landing on the moon...). 2001: A Space Odyssey must have truly been a truly overwhelming, religious experience. True to form, so much of that movie has little dialog, just visceral visuals and soundtrack that immersed us in timeless existential questions.

Actually this is one of the few movies released in recent years. The rest are barely films. ;)

Lol. To people that like this so called movie, I would point you to the title of my discussion. That is all.

@D-magic said:

Lol. To people that like this so called movie, I would point you to the title of my discussion. That is all.

Aw, did our big words make you cry?

@D-magic said:

Lol. To people that like this so called movie, I would point you to the title of my discussion. That is all.

You're no longer needed in this thread.

We've been doing just fine.

Cheers.

@rooprect said: Aw, did our big words make you cry?

No, your word farts smell bad

@D-magic said:

@rooprect said: Aw, did our big words make you cry?

No, your word farts smell bad

Then please, show yourself out. Why stick around and subject yourself to them? You haven't contributed meaningfully. You refuse to learn from what we're sharing. Just pack up your negativity and troll elsewhere.

I keep seeing alert from that guy, tell him I blocked him. Nothing he says is worth reading. Just last thought before I ask you to move your discussion elsewhere, because I don't want to receive alerts anymore on this thread. So make different thread and post there what you want, if I want to write here it will be to someone who is not a moron.

There is nothing in this plot that shows how he actually improved these people as a pilots. At the start he showed them that he is better than them in every way, but he didn't improve any of them as a pilots. His whole training was telling them not to think and rely on their instincts. But that's not really grinding and training to improve something.

That's not how things work, only in fantasy land.

And at no point they actually showed him that they improved their skills by relying on instincts. There was no sequence in which suddenly they do another dog fight and they are better and "shoot" Maverick down. Or increased their speed by performing the simulation of attack faster than before. Or actually trained to overcome high G. All of these young pilots stayed exactly as how they started. Rooster's decision at the end to help Maverick was not related to his pilot skills, it was emotional response.

All those Admirals that constantly go against him is such stupid cliche. This is so theatrical and stupid, just to show he is some sort of rebel. And not telling what country they are attacking is another stupidity. This country has better jets, advanced air defense and looks like a serious army, but for some reason if it is attacked they can't go outside of the land and pursuit their attackers in the sea. Because that carrier sure looked like safe heaven with no worries that someone with advanced capabilities can track those planes, then come and attack them. Or do you really think flying low will avoid radar detection. Please.

That's not how things work, only in fantasy land.

And I will not mention how things work out so perfectly on every turn. Maverick walks to a bar, here is his old flame there, looking good, single and desperate. Maverick needs to train pilots, here is son of his old friend that he needs to patch things with. How convenient. Almost as convenient as working on a plane wearing pure white t-shirt, and it stays pure white without a single hint of a dirt.

This so called movie is a fantasy, a pleasant fantasy that is satisfying to watch because of the cheap and silly manipulations. But only a morons will not understand that this movie was made for morons. And only morons will rate it high, will keep re-watching it and will praise it. Good for you that you know who Fellini and Godard are, if we start naming names we can all be here for a long time. BTW, they would've never made anything like this feel good sh!t. And I hate Hitchcock's films, doesn't matter what a good director he is. His movies are outdated pop products that look ridiculous now.

This is a little better.

Listen, everything you've (finally) shared is worth discussion. As I skimmed, I'd agree with a few points; and I also disagreed with a few points. And that's all good, that's a discussion.

But, at this stage rather than parse through each point in support or contention, I've got to hasten to the bottom line - nothing you've mentioned disqualifies this movie from being a movie.

Love it, hate it, critique it, knock yourself out. No problem there, at all. But, it's still a movie.

And, as the production crew intended, it's in fact more a "movie" than a "film", which might be more of what you wanted it to be (better plot, more realistic, less fantastical) than what it is. In another thread, we talk about how the enemy is not identified because they intentionally wanted to avoid overt realism, aiming instead to just have fun. So, yeah, you're right, it is fantasy, it's no secret; but, again, since when has fantasy not been a basis for a movie?

If you can't concede that one point, your credibility will remain questionable.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@D-magic said:

Lol. To people that like this so called movie, I would point you to the title of my discussion. That is all.

You're no longer needed in this thread.

We've been doing just fine.

Cheers.

Don't you think that is a bit much considering they CREATED the thread?

@bratface said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@D-magic said:

Lol. To people that like this so called movie, I would point you to the title of my discussion. That is all.

You're no longer needed in this thread.

We've been doing just fine.

Cheers.

Don't you think that is a bit much considering they CREATED the thread?

Well, up until the last comment, they had neither contributed much except to call people names nor demonstrated any interest in anything anyone else had to say except to dismiss it all as "word farts", so, what's the point of their being here at all?

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@bratface said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@D-magic said:

Lol. To people that like this so called movie, I would point you to the title of my discussion. That is all.

You're no longer needed in this thread.

We've been doing just fine.

Cheers.

Don't you think that is a bit much considering they CREATED the thread?

Well, up until the last comment, they had neither contributed much except to call people names nor demonstrated any interest in anything anyone else had to say except to dismiss it all as "word farts", so, what's the point of their being here at all?

As pointless as it is, it is still THEIR thread. You could just stop poking the bear & move on?

@bratface said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@bratface said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@D-magic said:

Lol. To people that like this so called movie, I would point you to the title of my discussion. That is all.

You're no longer needed in this thread.

We've been doing just fine.

Cheers.

Don't you think that is a bit much considering they CREATED the thread?

Well, up until the last comment, they had neither contributed much except to call people names nor demonstrated any interest in anything anyone else had to say except to dismiss it all as "word farts", so, what's the point of their being here at all?

As pointless as it is, it is still THEIR thread. You could just stop poking the bear & move on?

Engaging a conversation with people who want to discuss a movie is poking the bear? I'd say poking the bear is insisting on calling people names instead of speaking intelligently to the topic.

But, hey, everyone's entitled to their opinions.