TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Dredd 3D
Pages (10): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 »

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I both agree and disagree with what you're saying here. While it is clearly true that even the most useless piece of cinematic shit is always an ideological expression, there is an important distinction to be made between films which are deliberately creating an artistic framework which intends to communicate a certain set of ideas or messages, and films that are unwitting ideological vehicles. You may still be able to write a film-student essay on films like Transformers or Battleship, but that does not make them good or thoughtful. I also think you're far too eager to reach for extremely tenuous meta-textual justifications for god awful films.

Regarding meta-textuality, I'm not sure if you're referring to the last example I made about Battleship, but I have to consider its genre context to clearly explain why it's interesting. In other words, it's similar to what Russian formalists called estrangement or defamiliarization: a certain tactic a text employs to "make the content of the story seem unfamiliar."

Battleship portrays a conflict that is based on misunderstanding and the problem of "reading the opponent" becomes a major part of the film. You could say that some important aspects of the original board game are used here to a defamiliarizing effect - to make us watch an "alien invasion film" in a slightly different way. Also, Battleship repeatedly goes out of its way to point out similarities between both sides of the battle to further problematize a "good & evil" distinction that is usually typical for blockbuster movies. Aliens don't destroy all humans, just those wielding a potentially dangerous weapons (showing signs of some kind of "humanity"), and one of the marines is a black crippled veteran with robotic legs - essentially a half-alien. These are some interesting things (observed on a textual level) in an otherwise average film, though hardly such a disaster some make it out to be.

Anyway, the main reason why I mentioned it was to illustrate that films like these are never "just action/eye-candy", not to praise it as an unacknowledged masterpiece.

quote:

Dredd is not a film laden with messages or subtexts, but it is an extremely artistic film. The artistry invested in almost every second of screen time on almost every level of cinematic function - visual design, editing, writing, acting, music, sound design - is first rate. This film is a work of concentrated art, and the fact it's basically an ultra-violent science fiction action flick should not detract from that. "Making you think" is only a small part of an intelligently made film. You only have to look at shit like Prometheus which trips over itself to "make you think" and thus apparently ascends from entertainment-movie to serious-film, but as a piece of narrative it's an amateur, incoherent mess.

I'm quite sure you just made use of this opportunity to describe how Dredd is such a great film (which is fine), but I'm fully aware of what you're saying. Formal virtuosity/originality is why I love films like Speed Racer - they may not offer much when it comes to symbolic or subtextual value, but they're such an entertaining and stimulating watch because of their use of cinematic language including narration as a process.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 That is just completely out of line. People with Down Syndrome are not retarded.

Oh shut the fuck up, fatty. You might've lost "forty" pounds, yeah more like fifteen, but your still a fatty in my eyes, fatty. Go eat your flavour-fucking-blasted doritos with cheese, and clog up your arteries rather sooner than later. You're a disgrace to haters and trolls everywhere, you fucking amateur. IN FACT you're a disgrace to men everywhere, and a dissapointment to all ladies, in view of your penis. Congratu-fucking-lations; You're a dissapointment to the human race.

You know, the thing I despise most about alfi is there is so very close to nothing that can be said to insult him, to criticize his absolutely nonsense and unfunny postings; nothing to say of his interests or dreams or character, only a whirling void of abject absence, like the incessant schlorping of a toilet that has run so long and bereft of its flow that its sucking is but a drone of hopeless percolation that could only inspire the most suicidal of people to seek other, more worthy means of depressing stimulus to fuel their untimely demise.

Really, alfi saves lives.

It's a little much, but pretty funny. I'd change out the "interest or dreams or character" part. It get's a little repeaty and.. I'd like to say non-specific but that's not it.. Maybe try summing them up in a word like.. i dunno.. You're the writer, you can probably come up with something, right?

Hahahaha omg has Alfi seriously been right fighting about a fucking WORD for 2 pages???


On topic - thanks for the review. My bf and I were wondering about this FILM. Prob gonna go see it tomorrow.

quote:

Originally posted by GoSpeedGo! I'm quite sure you just made use of this opportunity to describe how Dredd is such a great film (which is fine), but I'm fully aware of what you're saying. Formal virtuosity/originality is why I love films like Speed Racer - they may not offer much when it comes to symbolic or subtextual value, but they're such an entertaining and stimulating watch because of their use of cinematic language including narration as a process.

I'm sure you are. I say all of this because I don't personally think that the way to defend "low" culture is to try and talk about it in faux-academic terms. I think it's better to draw up a separate critical framework that acknowledges the differing aims of differing types of stories and analyse them accordingly to demonstrate how just as much skill, creativity and thought goes into a good pulp film as an art house one.

Based on the trailer and reviews it's not my type of movie. Maybe I've seen one too many post-apocalyptic action FILMS or I still haven't forgiven myself for watching the original Stallone version.

quote:

"Dredd" proves a surprisingly unimaginative cops vs. drug lord story, complete with the weathered veteran forced to take a rookie under his wing.

So good. See it in the theater for sure.

I saw it and jizzed in my pants.

Just read a review that said it's pretty much the exact same story as in The Raid: Redemption. True?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J

God you're such a fucking .... Critic.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Dredd is a throwback to the '80s - it is pure pulp material, but executed with a level of uncompromising artistic intensity.

Speaking of dumbing down

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I think it's better to draw up a separate critical framework that acknowledges the differing aims of differing types of stories and analyse them accordingly to demonstrate how just as much skill, creativity and thought goes into a good pulp film as an art house one.

As far as I know, there already exists such a framework and it's called neoformalism. Using a set of certain analytical tools you may quite easily analyse a film as a formal system and clearly describe how it works. It's also good because it's applicable to every kind of film. Kristin Thompson's text "Neoformalist Film Analysis One Approach Many Methods" is a fine introduction.

Here are some David Bordwell's analyses posted on his blog:
http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2...-the-perplexed/
http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2...nolan-vs-nolan/

Perhaps you're looking for something else, I'm not sure.
I'd also say that this kind of writing about film is more needed than classical critism, which is often horrible and written by journalists who are not film scholars. Bordwell & Thompson do a great job at it I'd say, I especially admire how simply and eloquently do they explain some pretty complex ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Pie Hahahaha omg has Alfi seriously been right fighting about a fucking WORD for 2 pages???

They're fighting in Syria. This is just playful banter to pass the time until I die.

Yeah ok.

I really hope they release an unrated version for blu ray.

quote:

Originally posted by GoSpeedGo! As far as I know, there already exists such a framework and it's called neoformalism. Using a set of certain analytical tools you may quite easily analyse a film as a formal system and clearly describe how it works. It's also good because it's applicable to every kind of film. Kristin Thompson's text "Neoformalist Film Analysis One Approach Many Methods" is a fine introduction. Here are some David Bordwell's analyses posted on his blog: http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2...-the-perplexed/ http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2...nolan-vs-nolan/ Perhaps you're looking for something else, I'm not sure. I'd also say that this kind of writing about film is more needed than classical critism, which is often horrible and written by journalists who are not film scholars. Bordwell & Thompson do a great job at it I'd say, I especially admire how simply and eloquently do they explain some pretty complex ideas.

To me, it seemed like he was acknowledging the outlined differences between "movies" and "films", he's just refusing to use those names.

Enjoyed the paper on Nolan btw. Site bookmarked so thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by GoSpeedGo! As far as I know, there already exists such a framework and it's called neoformalism. Using a set of certain analytical tools you may quite easily analyse a film as a formal system and clearly describe how it works. It's also good because it's applicable to every kind of film. Kristin Thompson's text "Neoformalist Film Analysis One Approach Many Methods" is a fine introduction. Here are some David Bordwell's analyses posted on his blog: http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2...-the-perplexed/ http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2...nolan-vs-nolan/ Perhaps you're looking for something else, I'm not sure. I'd also say that this kind of writing about film is more needed than classical critism, which is often horrible and written by journalists who are not film scholars. Bordwell & Thompson do a great job at it I'd say, I especially admire how simply and eloquently do they explain some pretty complex ideas.

This wasn't what I meant exactly (I should have said "separate frameworks" rather than "a separate framework), but this does look very interesting. I was initially sceptical because original formalism used a lot of ideas about narrative structuralism and archetypes that were the epitome of generalised, unhelpful critical schemata, but Bordwell and Thompson are obviously doing something a lot more sophisticated than that.

In particular, I found this description on Wikipedia extremely resonant:

quote:

Neoformalists reject many assumptions and methodologies made by other schools of film study, particularly hermeneutic (interpretive) approaches, among which he counts Lacanian psychoanalysis and certain variations of post-structuralism. In Post-Theory: Reconstructing Film Studies, Bordwell and co-editor No�l Carroll argue against these types of approaches, which they claim act as "Grand Theories" that use films to confirm pre-determined theoretical frameworks, rather than attempting to do middle-level research that can actually illuminate how films work. Bordwell and Carroll coined the term "SLAB theory" to refer to theories that use the ideas of Saussure, Lacan, Althusser, and/or Barthes.

I think I'll get hold of that book, actually. Seems they express a lot of the frustrations I've felt with academic film criticism ever since I was taught those "Grand Theories" at university. Thanks for the heads up.

Those theories are crap, Jack.

quote:

Originally posted by GoSpeedGo! Regarding meta-textuality, I'm not sure if you're referring to the last example I made about Battleship, but I have to consider its genre context to clearly explain why it's interesting. In other words, it's similar to what Russian formalists called estrangement or defamiliarization: a certain tactic a text employs to "make the content of the story seem unfamiliar." Battleship portrays a conflict that is based on misunderstanding and the problem of "reading the opponent" becomes a major part of the film. You could say that some important aspects of the original board game are used here to a defamiliarizing effect - to make us watch an "alien invasion film" in a slightly different way. Also, Battleship repeatedly goes out of its way to point out similarities between both sides of the battle to further problematize a "good & evil" distinction that is usually typical for blockbuster movies. Aliens don't destroy all humans, just those wielding a potentially dangerous weapons (showing signs of some kind of "humanity"), and one of the marines is a black crippled veteran with robotic legs - essentially a half-alien. These are some interesting things (observed on a textual level) in an otherwise average film, though hardly such a disaster some make it out to be. Anyway, the main reason why I mentioned it was to illustrate that films like these are never "just action/eye-candy", not to praise it as an unacknowledged masterpiece. I'm quite sure you just made use of this opportunity to describe how Dredd is such a great film (which is fine), but I'm fully aware of what you're saying. Formal virtuosity/originality is why I love films like Speed Racer - they may not offer much when it comes to symbolic or subtextual value, but they're such an entertaining and stimulating watch because of their use of cinematic language including narration as a process.

Jesus H fucking christ. you need to get out more. Either that or you are one of the most subtle trolls I have ever seen in the c0r.

Doing in-depth critical analysis of utterly thoughtless and incredibly badly executed movies such as Battleshit is an amazing waste of TA server space.

I have been in meetings with studio producers, scriptwriters and screenplay adapters - I promise you, not one tenth of the thought you constantly infer is to their "masterpieces" exists. If you heard the language they use to develop films you would have a complete intellectual implosion, and that all you posturing about the depth of these sublime narrations on our condition are simply your own tragically misguided musings to make sense of the debris in front of you, masquerading as a film. It would be fine if you were discussing thoughtful slices of world cinema, or dissecting Fellini, but you're not. You're trying to (pseudo)intellectualize dross as bad as battleship.

Sadly, shit, is just sometimes, shit. It's not a refection on our cyclic system of life and it's parallels to our our fleeting existence while suggesting a narrative of how seriously we take our temporary vessels. It's just a shit that smells of last nights pizza.

Reminds me of this:

whatever ,

clearly a reference to Bismark and German Nationalism foreshadowing the Nazi coup which is a reference to modern day USA and its attempt at world hegemony which is a reference to Chomsky's novel he wrote in like 2004. Battleship is so deep, they should of called it Das Poop.

Let's hope Meat187 doesn't see this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I think I'll get hold of that book, actually. Seems they express a lot of the frustrations I've felt with academic film criticism ever since I was taught those "Grand Theories" at university. Thanks for the heads up.

Haven't read this one in particular and it's not his major work, but most likely it's very good. And yes, they reject psychoanalysis and other top-down theories and rely on a bottom-up approach instead. Neoformalism isn't supposed to be a dogma, constant reevaluation of the theories is an integral part of it.

Film Art: An Introduction should be on a mandatory reading list in every school (uni or high school) that has a film class.

quote:

Originally posted by GoSpeedGo! Film Art: An Introduction should be on a mandatory reading list in every school (uni or high school) that has a film class.

But then we would have a world full of over-the-top pretentious blowhards like you who try to dissect meaning from festering piles of shit like Battleship.

I guarantee nobody likes going to the movies with you.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Let's hope Meat187 doesn't see this thread.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.