godthedog

do you have a link for this?

because the advent of digital film is part of film history, and this one is an important example of it. great movie for generating discussion about what can be done with DV, "constructive" vs. "realistic" filmmaking and where this movie falls on the spectrum, ways it guides your attention without editing, the kind of pleasure it generates in a viewer v. a conventionally shot film. my prof showed it in my film history class, and it worked fine. question at hand... welles and hitchcock were both known for doing subversive, weird things with the camera, sound, narrative, etc., and slipping them nicely into an easily watchable package. the shot of norman carrying his mother upstairs in 'psycho' is weird as shit, yet he makes it nice and seamless. pick any deep focus shot in 'kane' and you could say the same thing about it. also, think about the ways they construct space, and how faithful they are to the space in a scene. think about the famous one-shot scene of kane's mother giving him away, v. the shower scene in 'psycho'. what kind of "sense" does the space make in each of them? they both have bernard hermann composing the score, making him a good fulcrum for comparison. how and where does welles choose to put his music in, for what moments, for what purpose? what is welles trying to make the music DO in relation to the rest of the film? what does hitch do with music, and for what purpose? what's the FUNCTION of the piercing strings in the famous theme music, and how does it compare to what welles does? they were both bonafide auteurs who were able to get exactly what they wanted, working in a standardized system that allows for almost no individual voice. talk about the different ways they accomplished that. they're both centered around very charismatic male characters who you're sort of supposed to like and sort of not supposed to like. also very unique for american movies, you could talk about the differing ways that welles and hitch make you sympathize with them in some moments & make you hate them in others. basically, watch both movies at least twice and take notes. look up what andre bazin says about welles and 'kane', then find out what he says about hitchcock. bazin is your god, and everything he writes is gospel. yes. any number of lumiere brothers films used it.

i don't understand. what's your question, exactly? are you asking us to compare 'kane' to 'psycho'?

'a tale of two cities' is terrible. dickens did the worst kind of melodramatic, soap-opera pandering. and the french make great movies.

'pete and pete' was the shit. holds up really well too. i think sifl and olly were more the tv equivalent of alternative music.

the beastie boys turned into the laziest motherfuckers on the face of the earth with choruses and song titles. "fuck you," "right right now now," "ch-check it out," "triple trouble"...i think that was my biggest beef with the new album. sucky titles, crappy choruses.

rob at least has the 'campy imagery' thing going that matches the tunes pretty well. stuff like "crucifixion nails stain the bed of the holy" and "come on come on, the motherfucker's on fire/cut through the bone, cut through the wire" are kinda fun. trent reznor writes way worse stuff, and it's meant to actually be taken seriously. no attempt to be poetic or creative with any language or ideas at all, no imagery...not even BAD imagery, NO imagery...he's the biggest skeleton in my Adolescent Closet of Shame. "god is dead and no one cares/if there is a hell i'll see you there"..."i want to fuck everyone in the world, i want to do something that matters"...there is only one word to describe that, and the word is No. EDIT: i just remembered that there are some NIN songs with imagery ("reptile," "the downward spiral," etc). most of it bad imagery.

jake is the keith richards of the wrestling world. warlord roddy piper scott steiner scott hall lex luger

that sentence still made no sense at all.

it's almost impossible not to "get" that movie. i think you could accurately infer that inc's problem with it is the same as many other smart people's problem with it, which is that instead of having any real meaning, it just strings together a bunch of shock tactics with a preachy after-school "message" to give it some illusion of depth and make people think that they're watching it for their own good.

there are also lots of very good books you could read.

you are such an english major.

It's Macdonald first of all. Not hard to remember the 'a'. shut up. shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up. shut up.

bradshaw would be better.

you. are. a. retard.

i want to start a band called wank. it will cover mars volta songs.

it's bizarre. you see the baby and the track comes on and you're all "hey, cool it's the stones," then you hear the line, and then the song's gone and you're all "wait, what the hell just happened?" except for sid vicious's "my way" over the credits, i honestly can't remember any of the other uses of music in the drugs-and-downfall part.

Explain. the movie's very up front about race relations, basically claiming that the West chose to ignore the genocide because rwanda was a poor black nation. i don't think i've ever seen a movie that made me feel so guilty for being white.

i saw it over the weekend. full review forthcoming.

eh. the use of the stones' "monkey man" is just stupid and pointless. even though it's got a great, hard-edge riff, scorsese uses it ONLY for the "all my friends are junkies" line, and then it fades away. it doesn't go anywhere, nor does it add anything to the scene.

i think just "I'm on Drugs Right Now" would be better. And the subtitle of every single article would have to say "I'm on drugs right now."

rented kiarostami's 'ten' today. it was pretty good, and there were some damn fine moments. one of those movies that isn't necessarily compelling all the way through, but very solid. i'm starting to warm up to kiarostami's style in general, and i think he makes it work quite well, but i fucking HATE how he guards himself from criticism by claiming that whenever his movies are considered boring, it's because they're going "deeper" than those "lesser" movies that actually try to keep your attention. after watching his master class, '10 on ten', he seems like a bit of an elitist prick. his way is a valid way to make movies, but i can't stand how he thinks it's somehow more valid than other ways.

a good friend of mine called me today and said my life would benefit from repeated use of mind-altering drugs, because i was "too in touch with reality." i was very hurt that someone who knows how fucked up i am would recommend that i do mind-altering drugs. i don't think she has my best interests in mind.

this thread is so 'gummo'. i love it.

while we're bitching about things, i hate how the shows always choose the "big touchy-feely monologue" whenever the acting nominees' clips are shown, as if that's the hardest thing an actor could possibly do. i'm excited about cheadle, cause that means they can show the KICK ASS wordless scene when he's getting ready for his day and can't get his tie on right. the vehemence with which ebert talks about 'million dollar baby' being the best movie of the year, and trying to convince everyone else of it is starting to piss me off. "critics, 'sideways' is no 'million dollar baby'." shut the fuck up. i can respect the fact that he thought 'baby' was better, but he's talking about it like it's this sore miscarriage of justice and 'sideways' is some vastly inferior movie, when it's clearly not.