Double standards toward remakes.

[danyulx]

All three have made films which are critically acclaimed by people who watch a "wide range of films" for a living, not just the likes of us who watch films on a recreational basis.

I think the very fact they watch films "for a living" and not "on a recreational basis" is why an awful lot of film-critics' judgements are skewiff , why they praise the unpraiseworthy, why they go along sheepishly with the opinion of everyone else, and why they shouldn't be listened to - for the same reason your average street "chugger" on £11/hour + commission shouldn't be listened to.. Though of course there are the exceptions.

I'd have no qualms saying I've probably seen more films, a wider range of films (not just the latest dreck in the box office top 10) and know more about filmmaking than your average professional film-critic with an MA in some shit or other working for a mainstream publication: so I don't buy whatever's implied you're saying there at all.

[Fight Club] On technical merit alone it's better than, say, Santa Claus Conquers The Martians.

Technical merit means almost bugger all though, especially these days: technical merit is a piece of piss if you have enough money to waste, to throw at hired departments. A film of artistic, spiritual or intellectual merit is another kettle of fish, which maybe account for 3% of films made. The dogme films - though a pisstake - at their best have absolutely no technical merit at all (the whole "point" perhaps) and can be brilliant, e.g. 'Festen' and 'Julien Donkey-Boy'. Same goes for the majority of Rainer Werner Fassbinder's, Ingmar Bergman's, Robert Bresson's and Chantal Akerman's films - to name four of many. No technical merit worth writing home about at all, but their films at their best wipe the floor with anything Fincher, Nolan and co. could shit out with bells on to applause.

I'd even go so far as to say it's very rare for a film with overwhelming, awe-striking technical merit to actually be any good, at heart.. Though of course there are a few of note:  '2001: A Space Odyssey', 'Enter the Void', 'Koyaanisqatsi', 'Citizen Kane', and some good horror films too, like 'Hellraiser', come to mind. The brilliance of the technical merit goes hand-in-hand with the brilliance of the radiating inner-source of the thing, or whatever you want to call it, that's what I will

Hmm...a deliberately provocative opinion going slightly overboard, perhaps?  I used to get like that sometimes until I mellowed and realised that there is no universal truth to the quality of art, and personal taste is a major factor.

I completely agree. I just can't be fucked writing "in my humble opinion" after every sentence.

That said, I wouldn't call Fincher's and Nolan's work "art" anyway, but mere "entertainment", and I do mean mere.

[Famous Mortimer]

and some good horror films too, like 'Hellraiser', come to mind

And I found that film dull as three-day old piss.

I think the very fact they watch films "for a living" and not "on a recreational basis" is why an awful lot of film-critics' judgements are skewiff , why they praise the unpraiseworthy, why they go along sheepishly with the opinion of everyone else, and why they shouldn't be listened to - for the same reason your average street "chugger" on £11/hour + commission shouldn't be listened to.. Though of course there are the exceptions.

Strange argument, this. Does this extend to all professional critics in all genres of "art" or just ones you disagree with? And I'd lay good money on these sheepish critics not being ones anyone on here would be talking about or paying attention to in the first place - comparing them to chuggers is pretty bad form. I don't like Fincher or Nolan because I'm paid to do so, what's your reasoning in my case?

[El Unicornio, mang]

'Enter the Void',

Personally I thought that this was, spectacular visuals aside, quite self-indulgent and dull. I wouldn't go so far as to say you only like it because you haven't seen anything better though, just that we have different tastes. And as great as it is, 'Citizen Kane' wouldn't even go in my top 100.

[danyulx]

Strange argument, this. Does this extend to all professional critics in all genres of "art" or just ones you disagree with?

Roughly 90% of all "professional mainstream art critics", ever, I'd say. Good on the likes of Truffaut and co. for getting up off their arse but that's about it.  I'm not saying they should be gagged or anything.. but it's far from a noble profession, but almost no professions are.

Personally I thought that this [Enter the void] was, spectacular visuals aside, quite self-indulgent and dull.

I'm well aware I'm almost completely alone in my unadulterated love  for 'Enter the Void'. But it is genuinely one of the very few films I've ever seen that was a full-blown proper "visceral experience" for me - along with '2001: A Space Odyssey', 'INLAND EMPIRE' and three or four of Andrei Tarkovsky's films. And I was shocked after my experience so many people found it "boring", etc. Definitely a flawed film though, a bit shoddily acted in parts, etc... I can only guess at quite a lot of people who took the film this way (boring, dull, etc) must've watched it on their laptop screens at 2pm or something. You need to be fully immersed by the fucker.

I don't have a problem with self-indulgence in films. It should be thoroughly encouraged in fact.. I'll just dig up a standard dictionary definition to make sure I actually agree with what I'm saying here, and yes I do: "Excessive indulgence of one's own appetites and desires." Fuck pandering to anyone else's. Every filmmaker whose worth their salt is clearly as self-indulgent as it gets. My favourite filmmaker in the world is probably Peter Greenaway, whose never-ending, demented "excessive indulgence of [his] own appetites and desires" in all his films is completely alien to me - I can't make head or tail of any of his films, and I'm glad I can't - but I absolutely love them.

[danyulx]

Speaking of which.. Peter Greenaway on Martin Scorsese:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwSnePNTQ5M

Controversial.

[Replies From View]

realised that there is no universal truth to the quality of art, and personal taste is a major factor.

Well, that's subjective.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Speaking of which.. Peter Greenaway on Martin Scorsese:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwSnePNTQ5M

Controversial.

The word that springs to mind while watching that video is "bitter".

[El Unicornio, mang]

I don't have a problem with self-indulgence in films. It should be thoroughly encouraged in fact.. I'll just dig up a standard dictionary definition to make sure I actually agree with what I'm saying here, and yes I do: "Excessive indulgence of one's own appetites and desires." Fuck pandering to anyone else's. Every filmmaker whose worth their salt is clearly as self-indulgent as it gets. My favourite filmmaker in the world is probably Peter Greenaway, whose never-ending, demented "excessive indulgence of [his] own appetites and desires" in all his films is completely alien to me - I can't make head or tail of any of his films, and I'm glad I can't - but I absolutely love them.

I don't really have a problem with self-indulgence if it has some depth to it. But I thought Enter the Void should have ended about 45 mins before it did. It seemed like he said "Let's see how much weird and outrageous stuff I can cram into the end, like a vagina's eye view of a penis going in and out" and it just dragged on. If the film had been 1hr30-1hr45 I think it would have been very good. There's a lot of extraneous stuff that could have been left out. I'm glad we have people like him out there because I like most of his ideas and his approach, just would prefer him to reign it in a bit.

[Cohaagen]

Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of 'Psycho' was a very interesting idea too, that or a practical joke. I read a great review of it once, which went exactly like this (written years before the remake craze really took off):

That critique* seems particularly sophist to me - it's nothing if not a masterpiece of after-the-fact rationalising. For a start, how would Van Sant's cribbing of Alan Clarke's masterpiece, Elephant, right down to the technique and title, fit into the writer's reasoning now? I am an unashamed booster for Clarke I'll admit, but I never liked the way that American critics largely glossed over the "inspiration" for GVS's film. As for Drugstore Cowboy, I reckon 9/10ths of the film's worth derives from the superb source material rather than what the director did with it.

EDIT:

*Not your comments, danyulx, the stuff that you quoted and which doesn't seem to show up here. Hope you didn't get the wrong impression.

[danyulx]

I'm no massive fan of Gus Van Sant myself - he has his moments - and I definitely think that review of 'Psycho' was "wishful thinking" on behalf of the reviewer, but interesting wishful thinking nevertheless. If Van Sant was even slightly, slyly taking the right royal piss out of the Hollywood system by making that remake (even if making money was his foremost goal): good on him.

But I think it's a bit harsh to accuse Van Sant of effectively slyly ripping off Alan Clarke's (brilliant) short film 'Elephant' with his own film.. Van Sant's only truly great film so far, in my book. I genuinely believe Van Sant giving his film the same title was nothing less than him wearing his major cinematic influence for the film on his sleeve; giving a respectful doff of the cap to a film he probably loves, which 99% of the the human race wouldn't have heard of anyway (and now might), or 99% of Americans at least. If I remember rightly, Clarke's short film was even included as a well-advertised extra on the DVD release of Van Sant's film.. If that isn't an wide-open acknowledgement I don't know what is. [nb]EDIT: Actually no, it wasn't included as a "well-advertised extra" - or even a non-advertised easter egg - on the DVD. Fuck knows why I remembered this but I did.[/nb]

If Van Sant had given his film a different title I honestly don't think I would've even consciously linked the two films together (and I'd seen Clarke's film before Van Sant's). Though they both deal with very similar subject matter (blind, stupid, near-motiveless violence) (but so do many films) and both feature extensive use of the steadicam (but so do many films): I think structurally - plot, etc. - they're both very different films. Van Sant could've very easily copied the unique, bare-bones structure of Clarke's film to the letter if he wanted, simply transposed to the Columbine debacle.. Though I'm not sure he could've pulled it off for 90 minutes or whatever.

I found Van Sant's interview segments on the recent 'Story of Film' series very interesting. He talked about about 'Elephant' quite a bit. And seemed an all-round decent fella to boot.

[The Roofdog]

Where is that Psycho review from danyulx?

[danyulx]

A 'private torrent site' I am a member of, which I won't name incase it breaks some sort of forum rule. It was the uploader's personal review.

[Famous Mortimer]

I just watched the older "Elephant" the other day, and aside from being extremely powerful bit of filmmaking, there's not enough similarity that if either film had had a different title, I'd have made the connection. Which someone already said, but I'm...er...oh, I had a few seconds to kill and wanted to post.

Watch "Elephant", it's dead good.