Just read a review that said it's pretty much the exact same story as in The Raid: Redemption. True?
Lagrangian
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
God you're such a ing .... Critic.
Lagrangian
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.
:stongue:
Speaking of dumbing down
GoSpeedGo!
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.
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.
itsamemario
quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pie
Hahahaha omg has Alfi seriously been right fighting about a ing WORD for 2 pages??? :stongue:
They're fighting in Syria. This is just playful banter to pass the time until I die.
Silky Johnson
Yeah ok. :stongue:
WittyHandle
I really hope they release an unrated version for blu ray.
itsamemario
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.
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. :p
Enjoyed the paper on Nolan btw. Site bookmarked so thanks.
SYSTEM-J
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.
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 Noël 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.
Lagrangian
Those theories are crap, Jack.
DJ RANN
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 ing 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 Battle 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, , is just sometimes, . 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 that smells of last nights pizza.
