Originally posted by EgosXII
It is. There's anti-intellectualism and there's faux-intellectualism. You can warp anything into 'meaningfulness', but that doesn't mean it's there. If you know about film etc, then you must know about post-modernism... Point being: The viewers interpretation is at least as valid as the creators: If the creator entirely failed to convey 'their message' (i'm hesitant to accept that the majority of hollywood blockbusters have any 'hidden' messages), then they have failed, and you can't keep saying there's crap there that other people can't see.
That is faux-intellectualisation of a bull film.
This is wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.
First, if I can make a meaningful interpretation of a movie and back it up - that is, there can't be anything present in the film that contradicts my interpretation - then it is perfectly valid. It can differ from what the author intended, but that doesn't matter. The thing is, you're suggesting that a movie like Sucker Punch has zero subtext and is just plain (bad) entertainment without any meaning at all, which is just ridiculous. Like, even if Snyder really was loldumb and put the dragon, steampunk nazis and robots in the movie just because he thought it looked cool, there would still be subtext (and possible meaning). You can't accuse me of faux-intellectualism without offering any other interpretation of the movie (or without pointing out why mine is wrong), so I'm not sure what are we arguing about here.
Then you say that the author, for him to succeed, has to convey some message to the audience, yet this doesn't make any sense with regards to the interactive nature of postmodernity that you described earlier. The viewer, in your opinion, isn't responsible for interpreting the movie, it has to be fed to him by the author, and if he fails it's entirely his fault. Many people who go see Sucker Punch go see it with the intention of "turning their brains off" (and they are even proudly saying that which is precisely that anti-intellectualism I was talking about) which basically means they aren't trying to interpret the movie at all, and are just reading it as plain text. Some folks still think that Starship Troopers is a straightforward, blatantly fascist action film, many people don't get the point of Funny Games yet it literally has the director going "Haha, you!" in the viewer's face. That doesn't mean Haneke or Verhoeven failed to convey "the message" (whatever it is), it means people can't read film.
EgosXII
quote:
Originally posted by GoSpeedGo!
This is wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.
First, if I can make a meaningful interpretation of a movie and back it up - that is, there can't be anything present in the film that contradicts my interpretation - then it is perfectly valid. It can differ from what the author intended, but that doesn't matter. The thing is, you're suggesting that a movie like Sucker Punch has zero subtext and is just plain (bad) entertainment without any meaning at all, which is just ridiculous. Like, even if Snyder really was loldumb and put the dragon, steampunk nazis and robots in the movie just because he thought it looked cool, there would still be subtext (and possible meaning). You can't accuse me of faux-intellectualism without offering any other interpretation of the movie (or without pointing out why mine is wrong), so I'm not sure what are we arguing about here.
Then you say that the author, for him to succeed, has to convey some message to the audience, yet this doesn't make any sense with regards to the interactive nature of postmodernity that you described earlier. The viewer, in your opinion, isn't responsible for interpreting the movie, it has to be fed to him by the author, and if he fails it's entirely his fault. Many people who go see Sucker Punch go see it with the intention of "turning their brains off" (and they are even proudly saying that which is precisely that anti-intellectualism I was talking about) which basically means they aren't trying to interpret the movie at all, and are just reading it as plain text. Some folks still think that Starship Troopers is a straightforward, blatantly fascist action film, many people don't get the point of Funny Games yet it literally has the director going "Haha, you!" in the viewer's face. That doesn't mean Haneke or Verhoeven failed to convey "the message" (whatever it is), it means people can't read film.
you seem to have misread what i wrote, and then made my point for me...
saying things that are there which aren't, especially claiming 'intellectual' ideals are there which aren't is what I would call faux-intellectual. You suggesting EVERY film is trying to make grand statements about the human condition when any pleb can tell you that many films have little to no intellectual content makes you a faux intellectual.
I am telling you that many films are made because they 'look cool', and have no deeper meaning. They sell tickets.
You're saying there was many interpretations of films is exactly my point. I said that. You can't tell people how to read a film. You can say offer suggestions, but suggesting that people didn't "Get" sucker punch implies that there is an explicit message which the director (etc) ACCURATELY portrayed. If there is not, and the director (etc) failed to get their intended message across its ridiculous to blame the viewer for the fallacies of the director (etc)... you yourself said that he compromised what he wanted to do; seems pretty silly to be saying there's one reading of it when the creators didn't even make it how they wanted it to be. You're taking 'what was intended' as 'the result'... these are completely different things, and apparently in the case of sucker punch, what was intended is completely seperated from the result... trying to warp a shoddily constructed film into a meaningful piece of cinema is faux-intellectualism imo...
GoSpeedGo!
quote:
Originally posted by EgosXII
saying things that are there which aren't, especially claiming 'intellectual' ideals are there which aren't is what I would call faux-intellectual.
Tell my why they aren't there (assuming we're still talking about Sucker Punch). Otherwise, I don't see how you can make such a claim.
quote:
You suggesting EVERY film is trying to make grand statements about the human condition.
No, I'm not. Please, show where I've said or even suggested such a thing. Existence of subtext alone doesn't make a movie great. All films have subtext, but that subtext may not make much sense within the particular film or the subtext may advertise some harmful ideology (like misogyny). Therefore, you can say that Sucker Punch is sexist and substantiate your claim based on what's in the film, but you can't say the movie has no meaning/subtext at all.
quote:
I am telling you that many films are made because they 'look cool', and have no deeper meaning. They sell tickets.
I don't think you can make such a broad generalization and be correct. And even if you were right it doesn't matter, because art, and especially collaborative art like film, can be both formally and ideologically progressive without their authors being aware of it.
quote:
...but suggesting that people didn't "Get" sucker punch implies that there is an explicit message which the director (etc) ACCURATELY portrayed.
quote:
You're taking 'what was intended' as 'the result'...
Yes, from the viewing of the film, I can safely say that the film was created with a certain intent, and that this intent is for the most part accurately portrayed in the movie (it can be easily inferred just from watching it). I've already said why and made concrete arguments as to why this film can be seen as a satire/critique of sexism of geeks, especially seeing as Snyder has been making satires pretty much since his remake of Dawn of the Dead. I can provide you with a more detailed analysis, but since I assume you haven't seen Sucker Punch, it wouldn't be of much value.
quote:
and apparently in the case of sucker punch, what was intended is completely seperated from the result...
Again, substantiate this statement. If you don't, this discussion is meaningless.
Halcyon+On+On
Transformers is an arthouse film that elaborates on the dangers of technological encroachment within our society. The presence of the decepticons is analogous to the presence of devices and vehicles which serve to separate man from his earnest nature by way of self-preservation, and their status of control over individual spheres of safety given the avarice of the developed world. Even their name, decept-icon, entails a certain reverence for their ability to shift within society as tools of man, and lord over him when it suits their destructive directives.
The ubiquity of commercial presence in the film is in fact meant to be an ironic take on the delivery of advertising in our modern age, as it flaunts it directly and without reservation or coherence, as if to say we are drowning within the deluge of profitable information by way of entertainment as the new standard for competence. The director of the film, Michael Bay, is a subversive fellow staunchly opposed to corporate funding for his works of art, and mocks the fellow Michael Bays of the industry by ensuring an ironic explosion every 30 seconds. It's as though he is saying that, in our world, everything is combustible - a witty comment on the malleability and dichotomy of social and physical structures.
Meagan Fox stars in the film as an everywoman disguised as a supermodel celebrity, representing the inevitability of female empowerment in intuitive roles. Her stolid grace is a juxtaposition on the expected role of women in vital roles of emergence (government, leadership) wrought with the summary expectation of obviously sexist individuals who might idolize her own devices for procreative ritual - which I believe is where the film comes full-circle. If we are to interpret the existence of encroaching mechanical beings as our competetitors for ideological codependence, then certainly there is a place for the machinations of biological imperative within the true understanding of our evolutionary future.
Thank you, Transformers. Thank you.
Meat187
:stongue: :stongue:
netroM
:stongue: played.
GoSpeedGo!
I guess you guys are right. *sigh*
Zack Snyder looks like a fistpumping bro who seems to be drooling over superheroes and masturbating to his extensive use of slow-mo, so his movies can't ever be anything than dumb overblown parades of his own fetishes.
He has a mind of an infant so he called his last movie Sucker Punch, because he thought it's a really really cool title that doesn't have any relevance to the rest of the film, it just sounds so good.
In all film's hyperrealistic action/dance sequences Baby Doll (her name is also accidentally chosen and she looks like a dirty schoolgirl from youporn because Snyder thinks it's hot) wears ridiculously high heels because Snyder thinks all women should wear heels constantly, even when cooking - but then, he thinks cooking and staying in the kitchen is all they should do. Those blatant camera close-ups on the heels in the film underlining their inappropriateness aren't supposed to be winks at the audience, Snyder just has a foot fetish.
The action sequences in Sucker Punch completely lack tension which is because Snyder can't even direct. They are a literal replacement of Baby Doll's dancing, that is meant to distract men (well, those blatant caricatures of sexist men) watching her in the brothel, but I guess that is just a coincidence, too.
Also, only arthouse directors insert meaning into their films. All Hollywood movies are purely calculated fests only meant to exploit its dumb audience that doesn't know any better.
I could go on, but it really isn't necessary.
rulzz
best "out there" movie i watched in a long long time
emiliapeper
Just saw Kings speech It was awesome.
DJ RANN
quote:
Originally posted by GoSpeedGo!
This is wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.
First, if I can make a meaningful interpretation of a movie and back it up - that is, there can't be anything present in the film that contradicts my interpretation - then it is perfectly valid. It can differ from what the author intended, but that doesn't matter. The thing is, you're suggesting that a movie like Sucker Punch has zero subtext and is just plain (bad) entertainment without any meaning at all, which is just ridiculous. Like, even if Snyder really was loldumb and put the dragon, steampunk nazis and robots in the movie just because he thought it looked cool, there would still be subtext (and possible meaning). You can't accuse me of faux-intellectualism without offering any other interpretation of the movie (or without pointing out why mine is wrong), so I'm not sure what are we arguing about here.
Then you say that the author, for him to succeed, has to convey some message to the audience, yet this doesn't make any sense with regards to the interactive nature of postmodernity that you described earlier. The viewer, in your opinion, isn't responsible for interpreting the movie, it has to be fed to him by the author, and if he fails it's entirely his fault. Many people who go see Sucker Punch go see it with the intention of "turning their brains off" (and they are even proudly saying that which is precisely that anti-intellectualism I was talking about) which basically means they aren't trying to interpret the movie at all, and are just reading it as plain text. Some folks still think that Starship Troopers is a straightforward, blatantly fascist action film, many people don't get the point of Funny Games yet it literally has the director going "Haha, you!" in the viewer's face. That doesn't mean Haneke or Verhoeven failed to convey "the message" (whatever it is), it means people can't read film.
Dude, not that I want to get in to this tussle, but you're reading way too much in to the subject matter, and even if the director thought he was conveying certain statements, the final product does not.
Again, playing devils advocacte, even if I were to agree, and say that Snyder is making a commentary on female inequalities and our post modern perceptions, making a badly acted CGI fest, with a poorly conceived story line "aimed to make you see the real statement" is a terrible way to go about it.
Maybe it was the fault of the studio, or the producers who edited the out of it, but regardless, it's a poor concept in the first place, and you know these things (that others have creative control or the final word in terms of the finished product) going in.
Have to agree with Hal on this one, even if Snyders intentions were otherwise, simply because the execution is so poor and the finished product does not support the context or narrative. It just seems so dumb when these directors think they're going to make a intellectual statement with multi-million dollar hollywood production.
LAdazeNYnights
looks so in funny
also excited for this:
it's based, however loosely, on a raymond carver short story - "why don't you dance?" coincidentally, i picked up the collection of shorts that features the story the day before i saw that trailer. :p
Taipan
quote:
Originally posted by EgosXII
you seem to have misread what i wrote, and then made my point for me...
:haha: :haha: If I knew how to make a sig, this would be it...
