|
Contra Calculus posted:am I the only one that doesn't "get" Tarantino? I always get the feeling that he's not really trying to say anything, it's just a bunch of poo poo that happens and you either like his style or you don't. I've always loved him but can never really pinpoint why. This is probably not a helpful response.
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 07:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
NicktheBishop posted:I always get the feeling that he's not really trying to say anything, it's just a bunch of poo poo that happens and you either like his style or you don't. I've always loved him but can never really pinpoint why. This is probably not a helpful response. I guess it's true that his movies never have any particular message, but they are nearly always reflection on genres. They are films about films, and the aside from entertaining, I think their true goal is to get the audience thinking about films. As my film genres professor put it, "Tarantino is like a film genres professor who actually makes movies."
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 07:14
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:As my film genres professor put it, "Tarantino is like a film genres professor who actually makes movies." In some aspects I think he's a glimpse into movies of tomorrow. Films are slowly becoming less mysterious as it's now very feasible to get out there and make stuff by yourself. Tarentino's advantage is his huge knowledge of films and importantly understanding mostly WHY they work. He knows movie goers are far more knowledgeable than before and enhances a film's view-ability by sliding in subtle references where the nature of the film becomes attractive. He's a terrific writer but in some way hurts himself by having so many tight scenes that everything ends up standing separate from each other, it works fantastically in Pulp Fiction as the film's serialised style supports it, but for Inglorious Basterds it falls flat as the scenes are like inflating a balloon to bursting point it...then having to do it all over again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 07:45
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:As my film genres professor put it, "Tarantino is like a film genres professor who actually makes movies." This is a very accurate statement. Tarantino knows more about film than probably any direct currently working. I'm blanking on the movie, but there was some film that Tarantino complemented the director on by saying, "What a great satire!" and the director was thrilled that, finally, someone in the industry understood that the film was intended as satire and not what it seemed on the surface. I just can't remember the film. Does anyone remember this? EDIT: \/ That sounds like it, thanks. Butthole Prince fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Apr 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 14:28
|
|
|
I believe that was Forrest Gump and he called it a black comedy instead of satire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 14:35
|
|
|
Contra Calculus posted:By the way, is it just me or am I the only one that doesn't "get" Tarantino? Overrated is the wrong word to use here. I did not understand the point of Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction or Inglorious Basterds. Or was there nothing to get about those movies? http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/tt/tt090819quentin_tarantino One thing about Elvis Mitchell is that, like SMG, he reads into things. Most directors are caught off guard by his questions, because many times the parallels and subtext in movies are just coincidence. However, Tarantino is on the same wavelength as Elvis, and so they get along quite well. NicktheBishop posted:I always get the feeling that he's not really trying to say anything, it's just a bunch of poo poo that happens and you either like his style or you don't. I've always loved him but can never really pinpoint why. This is probably not a helpful response.  Love him or hate him, he's got a vision.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 14:49
|
|
|
Butthole Prince posted:This is a very accurate statement. Tarantino knows more about film than probably any direct currently working. Scorsese and Spielberg would like a word with you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 19:38
|
|
|
The Cameo posted:Scorsese and Spielberg would like a word with you. I was trying to indicate history of film and all of that, and I stand by it. He's got an insane level of knowledge about movies but that probably comes from working at the video store and just having an obsessive compulsive level of knowledge about the industry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 20:10
|
|
|
Butthole Prince posted:I was trying to indicate history of film and all of that ....which is why he brought up Scorsese and Spielberg.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 20:13
|
|
|
I often find myself defending Tarantino when people say "He just copies other artists." Fist, he openly acknowledges the filmmakers he borrows from, and second can you really say that Kill Bill is exactly like *insert movie here*? Sure, you can note the similarities to Lady Snowblood or Death Rides a horse, but can you really say that there are any movies out there that achieve the same style as Kill Bill? How about Inglourious Basterds? No, because the key to his style is that it's reflexive. Like a Warhol painting, a Tarantino film takes this and that from pop culture and puts a new spin on it to get you thinking about it in a different way. For example, Kill Bill isn't really a movie about revenge. There are a ton of movies about revenge, and Kill Bill reflects on them because rather than being just about revenge, it's about how revenge is portrayed in movies. If Kill Bill makes you ponder the philosophy of revenge, you'll still be thinking of it in relation to Charles Bronson or Mad Max. It's not The Count of Monte Cristo or any other meditation on revenge, it's a reflection on those works and how they affect the viewer. That's my  for the day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 00:08
|
|
|
These responses and this discussion was actually very helpful for me. I just got back from watching Pulp Fiction again (first time I watched it I was kind of young and still in High School.) Now that you guys pretty much spelled it out for me and I had expanded my library of films, I was able to understand more of what he was trying to convey. Also thanks for the interview Mr. fenix down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 03:35
|
|
|
Continuing the huge Triangle spoilers you definitely should not read:Kentucky Shark posted:Just finished watching it on Netflix. I can't say much about it without a big block of spoiled text, so here goes: My questions are: - How many Jesses are on the Aeolus. I think it's three- The one that killed the masked Jess; the one that ends up watching things from the lower deck; and the one that ends up watching things from the upper deck. (This is not counting the one that's coming off the capsized boat, replacing the masked on just killed). If this is the case- - Is my reading that Jess's psychosis seems to go in waves correct? There definitely seem to be different personalities happening, ranging from "wildly confused" to "bloody-faced killer". Presumably, since we see 2/3 Jesses in action, the stone cold killer is the same on that fell off the boat the first time we see the axe fight. However... - It would appear that the only Jess that makes it off the boat (by getting pushed over after the axe fight on the deck and then washing up on shore) is the one we see; I believe this means that the other Jesses succeed in killing the masked Jess on the deck (vs letting them fall off and wash ashore); Which means that the Sisyphan Curse is even more dementedly applied than you'd think at first glance, because most of the time, Jess is stuck on the boat with all its horrors. I might be mistaken about this, but we know that at least one masked Jess gets hacked up before being thrown overboard (I think we see this happening the second to last time we see the axe fight, from the perspective of the Jess on the higher deck) - The best scene in the movie is when she tosses the dead bird off of the parking lot. I knew what I was going to see but somehow it wasn't any less gripping. - There seems to be some confusion over the fact that fresh-off-the-Aeolus Jess killed bad-mom Jess. As I see it, this is where the loop finally becomes closed. The very first time this happened, it was bad-mom going on the sailing trip, but once she killed herself, she became locked into the curse. In theory, the fresh-off-aeolus Jess could have just run away and lived her life, or possibly waited for bad-mom Jess to leave before picking up her life where she left off. That's one aspect of this movie I particularly like, that she damned herself first by asking for "just one day", and second by sealing herself inside the loop at her own hand. Of course, she's not really free to leave, as her son is her world, and she can't escape the gravity of her world; she can't escape her Sisyphan loop, but... - On the other hand, she might be able to break out after all, but that would have been a different movie. tl;dr Don't read any of this, go see Triangle
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 05:33
|
|
|
Okay I was watching Gamer last night and I had two questions. How did Butler's wife end up as an Avatar in Society, and why was Society legal? They made it clear that Slayers was using death row inmates, so no one could give a gently caress about them blowing up while being controlled by teenagers. But Society enslaved people to gently caress and dance around like an idiot while being controlled by weirdos. It seemed really strange. Maybe I missed that the society avatars did this as a job or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 05:38
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Okay I was watching Gamer last night and I had two questions. Yeah you did, it was mentioned at least once that anybody who was an Avatar was getting paid to do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 05:39
|
|
|
So, I just watched 2001 for the first time. What the loving chriiist? It's one of the best, most beautiful movies I will ever see, but goddamn if it didn't leave me completely confused. I'm already planning on picking up the Clarke novel to help flesh things out in my mind, but are there any other sources to read or look at to get some solid insight on the movie?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 08:21
|
|
|
The Machine posted:So, I just watched 2001 for the first time. Try some  and then some  and then a little bit of  .Seriously, I saw this a few months ago for the first time, and I gave up trying to make sense of anything about 30 minutes in and just went along for the ride. I understand the movie is literally full of religious, sociological and artistic references, but sometimes you have to call a spade a spade and just enjoy the ride. Wikipedia is always a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_%28film%29 I tried to get someone to explain the novel and its sequels to me once, but once they got into the part about dragons I just couldn't follow it any more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 08:30
|
|
|
The Machine posted:So, I just watched 2001 for the first time. it's already been posted earlier in this thread but I'd recommend watching this flash video: http://www.kubrick2001.com/ It's sums most things up in a very accessible way. I've twice watched 2001 with groups of different friends leading to mass confusion both times. I showed both groups this website after watching the film which lead to some pretty fun discussions and debates.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 11:35
|
|
|
The Machine posted:So, I just watched 2001 for the first time. Firstly, if you read the book you will basically just go "Oh, so THAT's what that's about" over and over again. However, in brief, there are two major storylines in the movie. One is the monoliths. The monoliths are alien computers whose purpose is to encourage to evolution of intelligent life. Look at the apes in the Dawn of Man segment: they are pretty hard up because this other ape clan is stronger. But after the monolith appears, one of the apes learns how to use a bone as a weapon. This is the turning point in human evolution and marks the beginning of humanity as an intelligent species. The second monolith, which is discovered buried on the Moon, is a trigger. It lies buried for millions of years, until it is dug up and exposed to sunlight for the first time. When this happens, the second monolith knows that humans have left their planetary cradle and emits a piercing radio signal, transmitting this fact ("They made it") to a third monolith which is eventually discovered orbiting Jupiter. When Dave Bowman reaches Jupiter he is dragged into the third monolith and - subject to interpretation, of course - first travels through a massive psychedelic transit network and then undergoes a similar leap in evolution. The second story is that of HAL. The true purpose of the Discovery mission to Jupiter is kept secret from Frank Poole and Dave Bowman, but known to the three astronauts kept in hibernation. However, it is also known to HAL, and HAL has been instructed - by bureaucrats who do not understand him, and NOT by his originaly programmer - to lie to Frank and Dave. HAL is not capable of lying, so this causes him to go mad and try to kill all five astronauts. Dave is the only survivor and manages to disconnect HAL in turn - then Dave learns the true purpose of the mission and the rest is the mushroom trip.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 12:27
|
|
|
I read the book a long time ago, but why was the mission a secret? If Dave didn't know about the monoliths, what did he think the mission was?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 13:34
|
|
|
I really think 2001 is a pretty straightforward film, and people try to make it into something more complicated because it has a reputation. Up until the crazy light sequence what about it is anything less than direct? Even if you don't put together the significance of the monoliths the narative is pretty easy to follow. Except for the last part yeah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 13:57
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:I really think 2001 is a pretty straightforward film, and people try to make it into something more complicated because it has a reputation. I think it's just that the ending really overshadows the whole rest of the movie in some respects and is abstract enough to muddle up the narrative of the entire film
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 22:43
|
|
|
What's the music that opens and closes each episode of Scenes From A Marriage?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 00:56
|
|
|
Dr_Amazing posted:I read the book a long time ago, but why was the mission a secret? If Dave didn't know about the monoliths, what did he think the mission was? They just thought they were going out there to go out there. The monoliths were kept secret from absolutely anybody not on the need to know. The book does a pretty good job of explaining the weird stuff from the end of the movie. Just be sure to be wary of the book sequels as each one is slightly different than the last. muscles like this! fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Apr 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 01:20
|
|
|
Factor Mystic posted:Continuing the huge Triangle spoilers you definitely should not read: I'm already out of my depth because I watched this movie like two days ago and I can barely follow along with your questions  I guess I'd have to rewatch it and carefully note things in order to answer, but it really isn't that important to the overall theme of the film I think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 01:26
|
|
|
Thanks for the help guys, you increased my appreciation for 2001 doubly so. Time to go watch more Kubrick. FishBulb posted:I really think 2001 is a pretty straightforward film, and people try to make it into something more complicated because it has a reputation. You don't really study films do you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 05:15
|
|
|
The Machine posted:You don't really study films do you? It's been a looong time since I've seen 2001, but as someone else who posted here (apologies, but I forget who) said: 2001 was a movie to show things to an audience that hadn't been filmed -- at least not as gloriously -- before. They lopped off large sections of the book and turned it into a slow train through time and space, and while there are key symbols (the Monolith provoking knowledge) and themes, it's meant to be enjoyed as a trip. There isn't much deeper meaning and the plot (compared to what was in the book) is in nonsensical tatters. EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION: The impression of the film is more important than piecing together the narrative. For comparison, one day in film class the professor didn't show up and he had a back-up lesson plan, in which a grad student would highlight some groundbreaking films. He only spent like five minutes (of three hours) on 2001. Seriously, for such a long (and loving fantastic) movie, there isn't much to discuss. Keanu Grieves fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Apr 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 00:15
|
|
|
But my God was it full of stars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 00:31
|
|
|
bad movie knight posted:He has a point. I finally got around to watching it earlier this week, and I feel that 2001 is two hours of visuals and half an hour of plot. But the visuals are extraordinary, and the plot mainly serves to connect them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 01:29
|
|
|
CoolZidane posted:I finally got around to watching it earlier this week, and I feel that 2001 is two hours of visuals and half an hour of plot. But the visuals are extraordinary, and the plot mainly serves to connect them. Except for that sequence towards the end that's just ten minutes of kaleidoscopes, nature footage run through a color filter, and the odd distorted close-up of his face. They could have halved that and nothing would have been lost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 01:39
|
|
|
bad movie knight posted:He has a point. Wait, what? The dude turns into a loving starbaby in the end. There's a whole sequence where he's in that white room and that monolith shows up. A computer goes nuts and kills humans. Seems like there's a whole lot to discuss in that movie, like what the monoliths are, what the hell the white room scene means, what the hell the giant baby means, why the monoliths showed up when they did, why HAL went nuts... I get it, it's a rather simple tale, but it's chock full of subtext and messages I can only begin to understand. It's hardly as simplistic as y'all are making it out to be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 02:32
|
|
|
The monolith represents the penis. The penis is evil. The gun is good. *barfs guns everywhere*
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 02:52
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:I get it, it's a rather simple tale, but it's chock full of subtext and messages I can only begin to understand. It's hardly as simplistic as y'all are making it out to be. Every time I said it was simple I prefaced it by talking about the narrative. I am not talking about the subtext and the meanings and all that, there is plenty to talk about, when someone said they were 'confused' about a movie, I assumed they were talking about being confused as to what happened, not as to what it means because I don't really think of subtext as 'confusing' so much as 'interpretable.' You can't be confused as to what something means because its subjective right? But the narative of the movie is pretty simple yes. Nuke Goes KABOOM posted:The monolith represents the penis. The penis is evil. The gun is good. Zardoz is a good movie 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 02:58
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:Zardoz is a good movie Zardoz is one of the few movies I would totally support getting re-made, because it has some genuine good ideas and could make some great sci-fi. As it is it's a masterpiece of unintentional hilarity, though, what with Sean Connery getting erections and shooting people while prancing about in a red speedo inside a giant floating stone head that barfs guns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 03:17
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Zardoz is one of the few movies I would totally support getting re-made, because it has some genuine good ideas and could make some great sci-fi. As it is it's a masterpiece of unintentional hilarity, though, what with Sean Connery getting erections and shooting people while prancing about in a red speedo inside a giant floating stone head that barfs guns. [Hand waving and ululation] `I will not go to Second Level with you!' [Hand waving and ululation] `I will not go to Second Level with you!' [weeps]
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 03:47
|
|
|
Sunshine question: Was Cillian Murphy's character always meant to die? His "package" mentions that he didn't need to know any final goodbyes from home, he knew what they wanted to say, and then when they are inside the payload at the end, there is a whole control system complete with emergency overrides and such.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 07:16
|
|
|
^burtle posted:Sunshine question: If I remember correctly the computer on the ship was busted(Didn't Evans' character tell him to do it while he was freezing to death?) so the package had to be triggered manually, which is from inside the delivery device. So, no, if all went according to plan he would have been safely with the rest of the crew getting the gently caress out of dodge. It would be a pretty odd device if it required one dude to sit in it and die while it worked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 08:52
|
|
|
Makes sense. The emergency part would have been for exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 18:52
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:Wait, what? The dude turns into a loving starbaby in the end. There's a whole sequence where he's in that white room and that monolith shows up. A computer goes nuts and kills humans. 1. The Monolith: An alien artifact that spurs technological progress and growth of a species. 2. HAL: Man's mastery of technology evolving to technology's mastery of man, and the crushing effect of absolute rationality on a species that, due to its higher consciousness, often behaves irrationality. 3. The white room/giant baby: I don't know what the gently caress, but something about the circular nature of time and space and the rebirth of a species.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 19:14
|
|
|
Kentucky Shark posted:I'm already out of my depth because I watched this movie like two days ago and I can barely follow along with your questions Oh I know, but it's so fun to discuss and analyze. The basics are all clearly spelled out, and that's one reason it's so clever: You can enjoy it and walk away, or you can dig in and figure out each little bit, so it appeals to multiple levels of spergyness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
7The book is pretty clear on most of the weird stuff in the movie. Dave travels though a series of star gates and passes though a galactic grand central station. The Monolith evolves him as it is programed to do, and creates the star child, who proceeds to dedicative all the nukes in orbit. Or isn't that 2010? The other books are pretty neat, as they go into more detail about the Monoliths and why they are used.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 02:05
|
|