|
| 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.
___________________
"All revolutions are the sheerest fantasies until they happen; then they become historical inevitabilities."
|