Do people..

Discuss anything you want.
User avatar
Dayz
Posts: 933
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:24 am
Location: OUTRAGEOUS!!

Re: Do people..

Post by Dayz » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:18 am

MadMan wrote:Hah, nah. I'm not Trip.

where is trip when you need him?
User avatar
MadMan
Posts: 10821
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:56 pm
Location: RT FOREVER
Contact:

Re: Do people..

Post by MadMan » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:19 am

Debate is overrated, anyways.
This Is My Blog. There Are Many Like It But This One Is Mine
Shitty Film Thread
Follow Me On Twitter If You Aren't Doing So Already
The MadMan Reserved 31 Seats
"I think its time we discuss your, uh....philosophy of drug use as it relates to artistic endeavor." -Naked Lunch (1991)
User avatar
Björn
Posts: 5574
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:59 pm
Contact:

Post by Björn » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:23 am

>, < and = should be disabled on this forum.
Recently Ogled
The Road C+
Beetlejuice D
The Ghost Writer B
Zodiac A-
Easy A B
User avatar
B-Side
Posts: 50661
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:14 am

Re:

Post by B-Side » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:26 am

Birdie Num Nums wrote:>, < and = should be disabled on this forum.
I only do it because I know LEAVES hates it. Every time he randomly trashes Godard, I'm gonna do something similar. :D
no longer on hiatus from movies(!)

next projection | twitter | frames within frames
| letterboxd
User avatar
MadMan
Posts: 10821
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:56 pm
Location: RT FOREVER
Contact:

Re: Do people..

Post by MadMan » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:26 am

Dayz wrote:

where is trip when you need him?
Beats me. Turn on the Trip signal.
This Is My Blog. There Are Many Like It But This One Is Mine
Shitty Film Thread
Follow Me On Twitter If You Aren't Doing So Already
The MadMan Reserved 31 Seats
"I think its time we discuss your, uh....philosophy of drug use as it relates to artistic endeavor." -Naked Lunch (1991)
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Re:

Post by LEAVES » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:27 am

Brightside wrote:
I only do it because I know LEAVES hates it. Every time he randomly trashes Godard, I'm gonna do something similar. :D
I don't hate it. It's nothing. It's a waste of time, space, and energy. Like Godard.
User avatar
Izzy Black
Posts: 2982
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:10 am

Re: Do people..

Post by Izzy Black » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:27 am

LEAVES wrote:It took a lot of bravado even to call out that one. I think I'll be able to find a controversial one.

How about: In my limited experience, Godard has the emotional maturity of an 8 year old boy in 1920s Upper Manhattan and the intellectual maturity of an 11 year old girl in 1830s Shanghai. And, yes, I can substantiate these viewpoints with evidence both from Godard's films and their respective historical social settings.
So what. Doesn't make Bergman better. I find the mind of an 8 year old sometimes more intruiging than the mind of a dejected, emotionally tortured old man with religious hangups.
Recent films:

See my latest blog entry: Run the Jewels’ “Close Your Eyes” and Police Brutality

По́мните Катю...
User avatar
B-Side
Posts: 50661
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:14 am

Re: Re:

Post by B-Side » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:28 am

LEAVES wrote:I don't hate it. It's nothing. It's a waste of time, space, and energy. Like Godard.
Haha. Touche.
no longer on hiatus from movies(!)

next projection | twitter | frames within frames
| letterboxd
User avatar
Dayz
Posts: 933
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:24 am
Location: OUTRAGEOUS!!

Re: Do people..

Post by Dayz » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:29 am

MadMan wrote:Beats me. Turn on the Trip signal.
Is this forum ok with a big giant penis symbol? because I know I'm not.
User avatar
MadMan
Posts: 10821
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:56 pm
Location: RT FOREVER
Contact:

Re: Do people..

Post by MadMan » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:33 am

Dayz wrote:
Is this forum ok with a big giant penis symbol? because I know I'm not.
With the amount of gay talk mentioned here and there in IYPC, I imagine many would endorse it. I'm joining you in not being a supporter.
This Is My Blog. There Are Many Like It But This One Is Mine
Shitty Film Thread
Follow Me On Twitter If You Aren't Doing So Already
The MadMan Reserved 31 Seats
"I think its time we discuss your, uh....philosophy of drug use as it relates to artistic endeavor." -Naked Lunch (1991)
User avatar
Dayz
Posts: 933
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:24 am
Location: OUTRAGEOUS!!

Re: Do people..

Post by Dayz » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:36 am

MadMan wrote:With the amount of gay talk mentioned here and there in IYPC, I imagine many would endorse it. I'm joining you in not being a supporter.
I won't post it.
User avatar
Björn
Posts: 5574
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:59 pm
Contact:

Post by Björn » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:37 am

Brightside wrote:
I only do it because I know LEAVES hates it. Every time he randomly trashes Godard, I'm gonna do something similar. :D
Yeah, like I said. Disable them! :twisted:
Recently Ogled
The Road C+
Beetlejuice D
The Ghost Writer B
Zodiac A-
Easy A B
User avatar
MadMan
Posts: 10821
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:56 pm
Location: RT FOREVER
Contact:

Re: Do people..

Post by MadMan » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:45 am

Coke slalom wrote:I'm still trying to figure out the difference between M & M Enterprises and Hamsterdam. Also, since this is such a small community, why is there still social threads?
They are really rival tribes that will end up fighting each in a gigantic forum war :P
This Is My Blog. There Are Many Like It But This One Is Mine
Shitty Film Thread
Follow Me On Twitter If You Aren't Doing So Already
The MadMan Reserved 31 Seats
"I think its time we discuss your, uh....philosophy of drug use as it relates to artistic endeavor." -Naked Lunch (1991)
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Do people..

Post by LEAVES » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:45 am

Israfel the Black wrote:
So what. Doesn't make Bergman better. I find the mind of an 8 year old sometimes more intruiging than the mind of a dejected, emotionally tortured old man with religious hangups.
He does have religious hangups, at times. Such is the world he lived in, though. I bet you would find the mind of an 8 year old minister's son to be far less interesting than the 40+ year old one. In fact, the older that kid gets, the more interesting he becomes, to a point, if that kid is Bergman. The development of an unfamiliar mind is far more interesting than the blank mind of a familiar one, to me. And, at any rate, we're not discussing whether one is better than another, because that is something we can only discuss with ourselves. There's no need for you to take up a devil's advocate position in order to spark a thread of interesting discussion. I know you and Bergman get along like two peas in a pod, there's no need to pretend otherwise.
Coke slalom wrote:I'm still trying to figure out the difference between M & M Enterprises and Hamsterdam. Also, since this is such a small community, why is there still social threads?
All threads are social threads, multiple threads exist to accommodate multiple threads of discussion. It makes sense. It's even in the names.
User avatar
Izzy Black
Posts: 2982
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:10 am

Re: Do people..

Post by Izzy Black » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:01 am

LEAVES wrote:He does have religious hangups, at times. Such is the world he lived in, though. I bet you would find the mind of an 8 year old minister's son to be far less interesting than the 40+ year old one. In fact, the older that kid gets, the more interesting he becomes, to a point, if that kid is Bergman. The development of an unfamiliar mind is far more interesting than the blank mind of a familiar one, to me. And, at any rate, we're not discussing whether one is better than another, because that is something we can only discuss with ourselves.
I find the mind of a creative child, can be, sometimes more interesting. It's an issue of perspectivism. It can be refreshing to view the contents of a child-like mind, entrenched in myth-making innocence and free-thinking curiosity, divorced from the overbearing, overanalyzed, overemphasized trappings of theistic and emotional crisis in existential modernity. More to the point, there's more genuine opportunity to free one's self from the bonds of classical narrative mechanics, especially insofar as they've been excessively exhausted.

LEAVES wrote:There's no need for you to take up a devil's advocate position in order to spark a thread of interesting discussion. I know you and Bergman get along like two peas in a pod, there's no need to pretend otherwise.
Hard to say if that's the case at this point. I've changed my opinion on a lot of things recently. But maybe you're right. Don't know.
Recent films:

See my latest blog entry: Run the Jewels’ “Close Your Eyes” and Police Brutality

По́мните Катю...
User avatar
B-Side
Posts: 50661
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:14 am

Re: Do people..

Post by B-Side » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:11 am

I find the mind of a child infinitely fascinating, and find myself nodding in agreement with what Izzy is saying.
no longer on hiatus from movies(!)

next projection | twitter | frames within frames
| letterboxd
User avatar
B-Side
Posts: 50661
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:14 am

Re: Do people..

Post by B-Side » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:16 am

Coke slalom wrote:Of course, calling Bergman a 40 year old and Godard an eight year old is misleading and strange.
LEAVES is a strange guy.
no longer on hiatus from movies(!)

next projection | twitter | frames within frames
| letterboxd
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Do people..

Post by LEAVES » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:16 am

Israfel the Black wrote:I find the mind of a creative child, can be, sometimes more interesting. It's an issue of perspectivism. It can be refreshing to view the contents of a child-like mind, entrenched in myth-making innocence and free-thinking curiosity, divorced from the overbearing, overanalyzed, overemphasized trappings of theistic and emotional crisis in existential modernity. More to the point, there's more genuine opportunity to free one's self from the bonds of classical narrative mechanics, especially insofar as they've been excessively exhausted.
Godard frees himself from the bonds of classical narrative mechanics in the way an uncreative 8 year old child would. I don't think it's so simple in Bergman's case. He certainly at times sterilizes things, reduces them to their parts. He's very much a minimalist in that sense, although not to the degree of many of the modern minimalist filmmakers - and there are many. I like Bergman's style of minimalism because he tends to reduce one element at a time, as if he is experimenting with that aspect, and he tends to incorporate that aspect as a motif in the film. I love the way that the lack of sound in The Silence is emblematic of so many things, and is certainly not limited to theological constraints. Bergman's silence in the film is akin to Kafka's bureaucracy - it is indicative of and enforces the gaps between people, and this force divisive force drives them even further along their paths. For Kafka his characters often make appeals, to reason, to empathy, to anything, all voided by the bureaucratic structure which strangles them all. In Bergman there is no need to make an appeal in the words of reason or empathy because the attempt to escape from the suffocating force is found merely through breaking the silence. The content of the words is at times almost irrelevant. The film ends with some foreign words that are given meaning, but is the meaning of the words more important or is it more important that words can now be used to break this suffocating silence? I think the latter. The idea of silence as an element of the narrative becomes even more clearly explicated in Persona, although I prefer the intermittent nature of The Silence to the one-sided nature of Persona. You could argue that reason and emotion are traded in one for speech and silence in the other. In this way it is another mitigation of a single element in order to evaluate what rises out of that 'obstruction'. Is this not what Lars is after in his film? I don't know. I haven't seen it. It's all just an evolution of hopscotch, really, but I think the leaping is far more advanced in the films than in the game.
Coke slalom wrote:Prophetic writers--like Blake--are often likened to a child-like perspective.
So you approve of metaphor in this case
Coke slalom wrote:Of course, calling Bergman a 40 year old and Godard an eight year old is misleading and strange.
but not in this case? Odd.
User avatar
Bingo Pajamas
Posts: 1046
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:00 pm

Re: Do people..

Post by Bingo Pajamas » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:43 am

I love you, Israfel.

*claws in a wound*

I love you so much.

*knuckle; bite*
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Do people..

Post by LEAVES » Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:12 am

Coke slalom wrote: It's applicable in my case and not yours.
So I'm really referring to the 8 year old Godard making films? I wasn't aware that he had made any. I'm certainly not attempting to refer to Godard as an 8 year old, but to refer to him in a metaphor that is a previous reference to a joke.

I think people who refer to Blake's writing style as 'child-like' either cheapen or entirely misunderstand its form and I think people who refer to others as being children for their immaturity are, well, joking. I was one of those!
User avatar
Von Samuel
Posts: 12132
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:38 am
Location: pronounced; Som-well

Re: Do people..

Post by Von Samuel » Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:15 am

These debates are inane, and boring.
User avatar
MadMan
Posts: 10821
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:56 pm
Location: RT FOREVER
Contact:

Re: Do people..

Post by MadMan » Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:24 am

Von Samuel wrote:These debates are inane, and boring.
Your face is boring and inane. Oh snap!
Coke slalom wrote: That would be pretty cool if it weren't the same people posting in both threads. I say, pick a thread, and begin a smear campaign against the other while developing propaganda for your own. That should make things more interesting.
Hah. That would shake things up. In the end, though I pledge allegiance to only one thread: teh Pie :shifty:
This Is My Blog. There Are Many Like It But This One Is Mine
Shitty Film Thread
Follow Me On Twitter If You Aren't Doing So Already
The MadMan Reserved 31 Seats
"I think its time we discuss your, uh....philosophy of drug use as it relates to artistic endeavor." -Naked Lunch (1991)
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Do people..

Post by LEAVES » Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:29 am

Brightside wrote:I find the mind of a child infinitely fascinating, and find myself nodding in agreement with what Izzy is saying.
Every child, or the general idea? If the general idea, of course, everyone does, because the general idea is easy to idealize. Given a particular child, his mind may be the most banal thing we've ever encountered, but when we talk of the 'child's mind' we don't talk of Larry, the child who eats mud's mind or even the average child, we talk of the ideal child whose mind is free of deeply ingrained prejudices and open to all ideas and constantly creating new things in his imagination. Contrasting that with a particular man who happens to have a particular relationship to a particular religion, it's easy to see how this comparison could be unfavorable. However, taking that same relationship which I imagine Israfel finds unsympathetic and transposing it on that same ideal child changes things. For one, it instills a great deal of deeply ingrained prejudices which are as unsympathetic as those of the old man. Then, I equated the old man with that young boy in order to compare a particular instance of one of those children with his older self, and the evidence seems to show that as this child aged, his mind became more interesting. His early films, at least in my experience, are far less interesting and far more plagued by these deeply ingrained prejudices than the older mind. As such, the older man becomes much more of one of those 'child-like' people that Coke slalom referred to than he was at a younger age - perhaps even when he was actually a child. Thus, we have a collision of the particular with the general which comes out favoring the older particular to the younger, a younger who is one member of a general who previously seemed to be so interesting but who may merely be a construct of those older people, who we have shown to be, at least in one particular case, perhaps more interesting than the younger one. Thus, metaphorically assigning a particular man a particular child of a younger age in contrast to a particular man at the peak of his powers at a particular point in his older age creates a clash of pragmatism with idealism which refers back to that previous investigation of the particular case which showed that the interest increased with age, and thus the youthful metaphor is sufficiently established as a satisfactory, if not necessarily universal, insult.

Hooray!
User avatar
B-Side
Posts: 50661
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:14 am

Re: Do people..

Post by B-Side » Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:38 am

LEAVES wrote:Every child, or the general idea? If the general idea, of course, everyone does, because the general idea is easy to idealize. Given a particular child, his mind may be the most banal thing we've ever encountered, but when we talk of the 'child's mind' we don't talk of Larry, the child who eats mud's mind or even the average child, we talk of the ideal child whose mind is free of deeply ingrained prejudices and open to all ideas and constantly creating new things in his imagination. Contrasting that with a particular man who happens to have a particular relationship to a particular religion, it's easy to see how this comparison could be unfavorable. However, taking that same relationship which I imagine Israfel finds unsympathetic and transposing it on that same ideal child changes things. For one, it instills a great deal of deeply ingrained prejudices which are as unsympathetic as those of the old man. Then, I equated the old man with that young boy in order to compare a particular instance of one of those children with his older self, and the evidence seems to show that as this child aged, his mind became more interesting. His early films, at least in my experience, are far less interesting and far more plagued by these deeply ingrained prejudices than the older mind. As such, the older man becomes much more of one of those 'child-like' people that Coke slalom referred to than he was at a younger age - perhaps even when he was actually a child. Thus, we have a collision of the particular with the general which comes out favoring the older particular to the younger, a younger who is one member of a general who previously seemed to be so interesting but who may merely be a construct of those older people, who we have shown to be, at least in one particular case, perhaps more interesting than the younger one. Thus, metaphorically assigning a particular man a particular child of a younger age in contrast to a particular man at the peak of his powers at a particular point in his older age creates a clash of pragmatism with idealism which refers back to that previous investigation of the particular case which showed that the interest increased with age, and thus the youthful metaphor is sufficiently established as a satisfactory, if not necessarily universal, insult.

Hooray!
I'm not sure if you wanted me to respond to this, but I'm letting you know I read it. :)
no longer on hiatus from movies(!)

next projection | twitter | frames within frames
| letterboxd
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Do people..

Post by LEAVES » Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:43 am

Brightside wrote:
I'm not sure if you wanted me to respond to this, but I'm letting you know I read it. :)
What I'm saying is this - your point is irrelevant.
User avatar
B-Side
Posts: 50661
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:14 am

Re: Do people..

Post by B-Side » Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:44 am

LEAVES wrote:What I'm saying is this - your point is irrelevant.
Right...
no longer on hiatus from movies(!)

next projection | twitter | frames within frames
| letterboxd
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Do people..

Post by LEAVES » Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:47 am

Brightside wrote:
Right...
Did you read the post?
User avatar
B-Side
Posts: 50661
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:14 am

Re: Do people..

Post by B-Side » Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:49 am

LEAVES wrote:Did you read the post?
Yes. I responded to it to let you know I had. I know you bemoan the fact that so much gets lost in the traffic on these forums, so I figured I'd at least let you know your efforts weren't in vain.
no longer on hiatus from movies(!)

next projection | twitter | frames within frames
| letterboxd
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Do people..

Post by LEAVES » Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:54 am

Brightside wrote:
Yes. I responded to it to let you know I had. I know you bemoan the fact that so much gets lost in the traffic on these forums, so I figured I'd at least let you know your efforts weren't in vain.
Why did you post what you posted, then? Did you not see that I was bemoaning Israfel's extremely broad contrast to a very particular case? How do you feel about his point now, now that I have said that it is misleading and an unfair comparison? Is there a reason for your first post, aside from applauding Israfel's effort, and if so, do you still feel that it should be applauded? Do you have anything to contribute?
User avatar
MadMan
Posts: 10821
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:56 pm
Location: RT FOREVER
Contact:

Re: Do people..

Post by MadMan » Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:54 am

*Yawns* Be more entertaining, people.
This Is My Blog. There Are Many Like It But This One Is Mine
Shitty Film Thread
Follow Me On Twitter If You Aren't Doing So Already
The MadMan Reserved 31 Seats
"I think its time we discuss your, uh....philosophy of drug use as it relates to artistic endeavor." -Naked Lunch (1991)
User avatar
B-Side
Posts: 50661
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:14 am

Re: Do people..

Post by B-Side » Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:56 am

LEAVES wrote:Why did you post what you posted, then? Did you not see that I was bemoaning Israfel's extremely broad contrast to a very particular case? How do you feel about his point now, now that I have said that it is misleading and an unfair comparison? Is there a reason for your first post, aside from applauding Israfel's effort, and if so, do you still feel that it should be applauded? Do you have anything to contribute?
I'll probably re-read both of your posts and give an opinion when I'm feeling a bit less retarded than usual. I'm a shitty debater, so I'm not sure why you'd want me to participate.
no longer on hiatus from movies(!)

next projection | twitter | frames within frames
| letterboxd
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Do people..

Post by LEAVES » Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:04 am

Brightside wrote:
I'll probably re-read both of your posts and give an opinion when I'm feeling a bit less retarded than usual. I'm a shitty debater, so I'm not sure why you'd want me to participate.
Well, you already threw a hat in the ring. I don't want Israfel thinking a point has been scored when it hasn't.

You wouldn't want to sully Israfel's first chance at crushing someone in the debate so sought after to be decided on a false note, would you?
User avatar
B-Side
Posts: 50661
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:14 am

Re: Do people..

Post by B-Side » Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:06 am

LEAVES wrote:Well, you already threw a hat in the ring. I don't want Israfel thinking a point has been scored when it hasn't.

You wouldn't want to sully Israfel's first chance at crushing someone in the debate so sought after to be decided on a false note, would you?
Sounds like you and Izzy have a score to settle. :P

I'll chime in at a later date if I feel it necessary. Right now, I'm pretty out of it.
no longer on hiatus from movies(!)

next projection | twitter | frames within frames
| letterboxd
User avatar
Izzy Black
Posts: 2982
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:10 am

Re: Do people..

Post by Izzy Black » Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:51 am

LEAVES wrote:Godard frees himself from the bonds of classical narrative mechanics in the way an uncreative 8 year old child would. I don't think it's so simple in Bergman's case. He certainly at times sterilizes things, reduces them to their parts. He's very much a minimalist in that sense, although not to the degree of many of the modern minimalist filmmakers - and there are many. I like Bergman's style of minimalism because he tends to reduce one element at a time, as if he is experimenting with that aspect, and he tends to incorporate that aspect as a motif in the film. I love the way that the lack of sound in The Silence is emblematic of so many things, and is certainly not limited to theological constraints. Bergman's silence in the film is akin to Kafka's bureaucracy - it is indicative of and enforces the gaps between people, and this force divisive force drives them even further along their paths. For Kafka his characters often make appeals, to reason, to empathy, to anything, all voided by the bureaucratic structure which strangles them all. In Bergman there is no need to make an appeal in the words of reason or empathy because the attempt to escape from the suffocating force is found merely through breaking the silence. The content of the words is at times almost irrelevant. The film ends with some foreign words that are given meaning, but is the meaning of the words more important or is it more important that words can now be used to break this suffocating silence? I think the latter. The idea of silence as an element of the narrative becomes even more clearly explicated in Persona, although I prefer the intermittent nature of The Silence to the one-sided nature of Persona. You could argue that reason and emotion are traded in one for speech and silence in the other. In this way it is another mitigation of a single element in order to evaluate what rises out of that 'obstruction'. Is this not what Lars is after in his film? I don't know. I haven't seen it. It's all just an evolution of hopscotch, really, but I think the leaping is far more advanced in the films than in the game.So you approve of metaphor in this casebut not in this case? Odd.
I don't really consider Bergman much of a minimalist, but in general, what I said applies to most of his movies. It's been a while since I've seen The Silence, but he usually goes for underscoring the talky, psychoanalytic, emotionalist, socio-religious damages that haunt his characters. The anxiety is furthered by modern absurdities and so forth. Anyways, I don't really see what you've said that's supposed to be controversial to my point. You conceded the point about Godard which is most of what I needed. Bergman might be about a little more than I let on, and in this or that case does something here or there that's interesting in this or that way, but his general shtick is not my cup 'o tea. I prefer the fragmented kaleidoscopic tableaux, Marxist gibberish, and young, confused but fascinating inquiries about language, meaning, and love that has as much implications for its protagonists as it does the medium of film as a whole. Bergman's cinema is almost claustrophobic in its trapped interiors of Bergman's inner-life. It's solipsistic in a kind of obnoxious way.
Recent films:

See my latest blog entry: Run the Jewels’ “Close Your Eyes” and Police Brutality

По́мните Катю...
User avatar
Izzy Black
Posts: 2982
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:10 am

Re: Do people..

Post by Izzy Black » Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:54 am

Brightside wrote:
Sounds like you and Izzy have a score to settle. :P
I've got him right where I want him!

Not really. I was hoping the bloodbath would be amongst others rather than myself. This here hack is too old for such taxing shenanigans.
Recent films:

See my latest blog entry: Run the Jewels’ “Close Your Eyes” and Police Brutality

По́мните Катю...
User avatar
Izzy Black
Posts: 2982
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:10 am

Re: Do people..

Post by Izzy Black » Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:58 am

LEAVES wrote:Why did you post what you posted, then? Did you not see that I was bemoaning Israfel's extremely broad contrast to a very particular case? How do you feel about his point now, now that I have said that it is misleading and an unfair comparison? Is there a reason for your first post, aside from applauding Israfel's effort, and if so, do you still feel that it should be applauded? Do you have anything to contribute?
Maybe you're reading into Brighty's response more than needed. Perhaps he was just expressing an initial intuitive agreement (Godard to Bergman) without desiring to commit to much else? Seems harmless enough. Of course, both of us could be wrong in our interpretation of Bergman, but that means both of us look stupid and you have nothing to worry about.
Recent films:

See my latest blog entry: Run the Jewels’ “Close Your Eyes” and Police Brutality

По́мните Катю...
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Do people..

Post by LEAVES » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:05 am

Israfel the Black wrote:
I don't really consider Bergman much of a minimalist, but in general, what I said applies to most of his movies. It's been a while since I've seen The Silence, but he usually goes for underscoring the talky, psychoanalytic, emotionalist, socio-religious damages that haunt his characters. The anxiety is furthered by modern absurdities and so forth. Anyways, I don't really see what you've said that's supposed to be controversial to my point. You conceded the point about Godard which is most of what I needed. Bergman might be about a little more than I let on, and in this or that case does something here or there that's interesting in this or that way, but his general shtick is not my cup 'o tea. I prefer the fragmented kaleidoscopic tableaux, Marxist gibberish, and young, confused but fascinating inquiries about language, meaning, and love that has as much implications for its protagonists as it does the medium of film as a whole. Bergman's cinema is almost claustrophobic in its trapped interiors of Bergman's inner-life. It's solipsistic in a kind of obnoxious way.
Well, I countered your notion of the generalization of the child with the banal reality of an actual, particular child, that child being a banal Godard. On the point of Godard being better because of his being freed from the 'bonds of classical narrative mechanics', it's quite obvious that Bergman does just as much of this in his films, so on this point they are both as active, and whether one prefers the other is merely a point of preference. In Band of Outsiders you can see this same stripping of sound to expose, well, nothing in Godard's case, and his jump cuts jarringly interrupt continuity for... well for no reason at all, but we can certainly see the similarities, and we can see that one is doodling while the other is composing.

As for the other part of your point, I think it's odd that you boil down this general idea of the child's mind into 'entrenched in myth-making innocence and free-thinking curiosity', especially in regards to a known regurgitator of others' styles with techniques borne out of necessity and expedience rather than any free-thinking or curiosity (jump cuts cut feature length, not 'slice through the overbearing, overanalyzed...' etc.). As for the other points, I concede that his attempts at grand strokes are rather juvenile and rarely extend beyond his playpen, using his barbie doll and his toy gun to little effect, but if all you're looking for is gibberish then I guess you've found your man. However, your disdain for 'overbearing, overanalyzed, overemphasized trappings of theistic and emotional crisis in existential modernity' kind of strikes directly against Antonioni, so I'm not sure that any of these thoughts can be applied outside of this particular context anyway. I think it boils down to - you don't like Bergman, insofar as you can recall, rather dimly.
User avatar
Izzy Black
Posts: 2982
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:10 am

Re: Do people..

Post by Izzy Black » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:23 am

LEAVES wrote: Well, I countered your notion of the generalization of the child with the banal reality of an actual, particular child, that child being a banal Godard. If the point was that Godard is better because of his being freed from the 'bonds of classical narrative mechanics', it's quite obvious that Bergman does just as much of this in his films, so on this point they are both as active, and whether one prefers the other is merely a point of preference.
That's not really what I said, though. What I said was there more genuine opportunity for exploration. You conceded elsewhere that Bergman, at least in one case, experimented with narrative rather artificially in Persona. I wouldn't dislodge Godard from this same criticism, but what I want to say is that his general aesthetic tends toward narrative experiment. You pointed out an example where Bergman did some interesting things, and I could give you a few others. But it hardly seems to me controversial to say that his aesthetic is largely conventional. This is why he preferred theater to film - he admires the structure of classical narrative and you can see it all throughout his films, save a few exceptions here and there. He was innovative, cinematically, don't get me wrong, but innovation and an aesthetic unhinged from narrative traditions, one that is even oppositional to them, are not exactly the same. And, yes, on the whole, my point is preferential, but I didn't think that I made that a secret to begin with.
LEAVES wrote:As for the other part of your point, I think it's odd that you boil down this general idea of the child's mind into 'entrenched in myth-making innocence and free-thinking curiosity',
Well, that is a lot what a child's mind is like. I suppose.
LEAVES wrote:especially in regards to a known regurgitator of others' styles with techniques borne out of necessity and expedience rather than any free-thinking or curiosity (jump cuts cut feature length, not 'slice through the overbearing, overanalyzed...' etc.).
But I never said Godard was exclusively child-like. That seems to be more your criticism than mine. I will say, what child-like elements I see in him, I admire. He obviously was not uneducated, but it's debatable if he was mature in the handling of that education. Either way, whether or not there is some more coherent intellectual meaning to his experiments, or if it's ultimately child's play, I find it successful. I leaned on the latter interpretation because you forwarded it, but I suppose we could discuss it another light as well.
LEAVES wrote:As for the other points, I concede that his attempts at grand strokes are rather juvenile and rarely extend beyond his playpen, using his barbie doll and his toy gun to little effect, but if all you're looking for is gibberish then I guess you've found your man. However, your disdain for 'overbearing, overanalyzed, overemphasized trappings of theistic and emotional crisis in existential modernity' kind of strikes directly against Antonioni, so I'm not sure that any of these thoughts can be applied outside of this particular context anyway. I think it boils down to - you don't like Bergman, insofar as you can recall, rather dimly.
It boils down to that, yes, in a lot of ways, but I never really said otherwise. As for Antonioni, yeah, it's definitely there with him. But my argument wasn't against modernism as an entire movement, though. Hopefully I'm not that big of a philistine. I don't like Bergman's brand of it - he internalizes it in a way that's restrictive, I find. Antonioni, in other ways, shares as much with Godard as he does with Bergman.
Recent films:

See my latest blog entry: Run the Jewels’ “Close Your Eyes” and Police Brutality

По́мните Катю...
User avatar
JediMoonShyne
Posts: 22424
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:26 am
Location: Cittàgazze
Contact:

Re: Do people..

Post by JediMoonShyne » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:41 am

He's trying to provoke discord in the ranks, don't listen!
“Bisogna essere molto forti per amare la solitudine.” - P.P. Pasolini

WCoF I II IIIL'EtàL'Eau한국88ShadowsBerlin thırd ISOLATIONVistaVision
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Do people..

Post by LEAVES » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:42 am

Well, I mean, I don't think there's much to say, really, I kind of really just wanted to talk about what I like about Bergman and you gave a list of other people in order to antagonize some sort of debate that never really materialized so I was attempting to take your bait and run with it but if all you're going to give me is preference and concession to points you would have another day destroyed with vim and vigor I guess there's not going to be the greatly anticipated debate of the century. I think Bergman has his strengths and his weaknesses, and Antonioni as well, and they both dabble in narrative forms and they both stray from conventional narrative forms, in different ways at different times, and so I don't think there's a huge rift between the two of them from the standpoint of an innovator, although certainly from the standpoint of the result of their work, which lends itself to a wildly dissimilar reaction to the two of them. I like them both a lot, Antonioni more so, but such simple expressions of preference do not make much of an interesting debate. In conclusion, I don't think this is the grounds for a massive debate, but to answer your question posed from the outset... I don't think people debate on this forum. It's partly chummy and partly overgrown with mere preferential statements.
User avatar
Izzy Black
Posts: 2982
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:10 am

Re: Do people..

Post by Izzy Black » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:53 am

Fair enough, of course, Leaves. I was a bit ambiguous about my intentions and disingenuous to boot (not planning on spearheading the debating I am demanding to see more of). In any case, most debates are preferential. It's just a matter of what your reasons are for supporting them and if they are valid/sound. Most debates end on that note, so I think we're saving ourselves the trouble. What I find interesting about debates is teasing out the differences and interpretations of films, and a debate will spark disagreement about these interpretations, and what is ultimately, often, born out, are fresh insights on the director, film, or topic at hand. I haven't been a particularly fruitful conversation partner tonight, I will admit, but I would like to be more so in the future, and I appreciate your reflections on The Silence. They are new to me, so I shall have to see the film again. All the talk about bloodbaths and such, is just poking fun and posturing; debate brings out the kind of film discussion that is what really brings me onto these forums in the first place (or did). When people are unwilling to debate, very often, not much of substance gets said about film, except those stamina-titans like Beau who turn out food for thought in meaty, appetizing essays and reviews. But a dialogue is still the most powerful tool for interesting film analysis.
Recent films:

See my latest blog entry: Run the Jewels’ “Close Your Eyes” and Police Brutality

По́мните Катю...
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Do people..

Post by LEAVES » Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:21 am

Yes, well, it seems to me that most people talk enough to make others respond enough to keep them entertained rather than focus on giving to others what will most interest them and giving care and thought to their words. It's sad, it sucks the life out of the place, and it makes everything rather turgid, but nothing Beau or anyone else does seems to make a difference. I'd hate to put the burden squarely on your shoulders, but I think that's where it is anyway - not that it will affect anyone else. This stems back well over a year to my first post in that 'Purple Paradise' thread where I called people's typical posting manner the 'feral instinct' of marking one's territory. Can anyone change anything, or is it merely Don Quixote for the rest of our days? I don't know.

There's a thread with various writings of varying degrees of interest in this thread on RT which was largely neglected, aside from occasional marks of territory, that maybe you'll find interesting and can stir up some conversation with. I don't know. I gave all I had... well, all I had written.

I think a dialogue rather than a debate is the preferred method of discourse. Debate implies opposing viewpoints, and I prefer something a little less contentious. It can be done! But nobody to do it with. Windmills, maybe.
User avatar
B-Side
Posts: 50661
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:14 am

Re: Do people..

Post by B-Side » Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:25 am

LEAVES wrote:I think a dialogue rather than a debate is the preferred method of discourse. Debate implies opposing viewpoints, and I prefer something a little less contentious. It can be done! But nobody to do it with. Windmills, maybe.
Really? Kinda runs contrary to the way you "discuss" matters with me. :P
no longer on hiatus from movies(!)

next projection | twitter | frames within frames
| letterboxd
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Do people..

Post by LEAVES » Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:31 am

Brightside wrote:
Really? Kinda runs contrary to the way you "discuss" matters with me. :P
Only when you refuse to discuss things. I then am contrary to your refusal to address things.
User avatar
B-Side
Posts: 50661
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:14 am

Re: Do people..

Post by B-Side » Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:34 am

LEAVES wrote:Only when you refuse to discuss things. I then am contrary to your refusal to address things.
Nah. You're quick to jump into condescension mode. Don't lie to the people, LEAVES.
no longer on hiatus from movies(!)

next projection | twitter | frames within frames
| letterboxd
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Do people..

Post by LEAVES » Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:38 am

Brightside wrote:
Nah. You're quick to jump into condescension mode. Don't lie to the people, LEAVES.
I probably am, but it's not like it matters. I've been fighting these windmills for a long time, and everyone else just keeps marking territory. For instance, your one line approval of Israfel's stance. That was it. I typed up a 20 sentence response disagreeing with his stance and your subsequent passive approval, and what? You indicated that you were present. Sorry, I am a man of little faith, and greatly experienced in matters here. I know the drill.
User avatar
B-Side
Posts: 50661
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:14 am

Re: Do people..

Post by B-Side » Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:39 am

LEAVES wrote:I probably am, but it's not like it matters. I've been fighting these windmills for a long time, and everyone else just keeps marking territory. For instance, your one line approval of Israfel's stance. That was it. I typed up a 20 sentence response disagreeing with his stance and your subsequent passive approval, and what? You indicated that you were present. Sorry, I am a man of little faith, and greatly experienced in matters here. I know the drill.
So because I didn't wanna type out a huge response you'd only dismiss as silly and irrelevant, you have taken it upon yourself to be as patronizing as possible to me?
no longer on hiatus from movies(!)

next projection | twitter | frames within frames
| letterboxd
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Do people..

Post by LEAVES » Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:44 am

Brightside wrote:
So because I didn't wanna type out a huge response you'd only dismiss as silly and irrelevant, you have taken it upon yourself to be as patronizing as possible to me?
Whatever makes you feel better about yourself, it's all the same in the end. I heard Kaufman, on trying to get people to read his screenplays, say something along the lines of, "Write something they can't ignore." I like his attitude, whether realistic or not. It ended up working, at any rate. It's better than, "Don't write anything because they may ignore it."
User avatar
B-Side
Posts: 50661
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:14 am

Re: Do people..

Post by B-Side » Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:48 am

LEAVES wrote:Whatever makes you feel better about yourself, it's all the same in the end. I heard Kaufman, on trying to get people to read his screenplays, say something along the lines of, "Write something they can't ignore." I like his attitude, whether realistic or not. It ended up working, at any rate. It's better than, "Don't write anything because they may ignore it."
I'd be more than happy to discuss something with you if I felt like I was being taken seriously at all. You'll notice I have no problem discussing things with Israfel. Our New Rose Hotel back and forth didn't go very far, but it was illuminating for me.
no longer on hiatus from movies(!)

next projection | twitter | frames within frames
| letterboxd
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15681
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: Do people..

Post by LEAVES » Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:58 am

Well then don't. Trust me, I'm not relying on you to save the forum.
Post Reply