Classic films you just "don't get".

Backslapping time. Well done us. We are fantastic.
User avatar
Cédric
Posts: 15040
Joined: 20 Jul 2003, 18:21
Location: Cuba de la Frontera
Contact:

Postby Cédric » 01 Dec 2004, 10:11

neverknows wrote:
Cédric wrote:
neverknows wrote:
Cup of char wrote:
neverknows wrote: litterature has not the means to SHOW anything


Right. We seem to have different definitions for the word 'showing".

If it means, and only means,"projecting pictures on a screen in a dark room with people eating pop corn sitting by your side", literature certainly doesn't "show" anything, and I would thank God if he existed.


I never ate pop corn while watching a film in a theatre...


I would have guessed that, but surely you realise you are a member of a proud minority here.


Well, I won't say that I'm "proud" of that but, seeing the reaction of Diamonddog (who says that I'm snobbish), I understand that I'm in the minority. Which, like Nanni Moretti woud say, is all right for me.
Captain Spaulding wrote:I sent my list already! It´s shit.

I´m so excited.

User avatar
NotBillyTheKid
Posts: 1811
Joined: 02 Nov 2004, 08:56

Postby NotBillyTheKid » 01 Dec 2004, 10:14

Cédric wrote:
neverknows wrote:
Cédric wrote:
neverknows wrote:
Cup of char wrote:
neverknows wrote: litterature has not the means to SHOW anything


Right. We seem to have different definitions for the word 'showing".

If it means, and only means,"projecting pictures on a screen in a dark room with people eating pop corn sitting by your side", literature certainly doesn't "show" anything, and I would thank God if he existed.


I never ate pop corn while watching a film in a theatre...


I would have guessed that, but surely you realise you are a member of a proud minority here.


Well, I won't say that I'm "proud" of that but, seeing the reaction of Diamonddog (who says that I'm snobbish), I understand that I'm in the minority. Which, like Nanni Moretti woud say, is all right for me.

I totally understand cedric : Imagine PopCorn's crumbs on the "Fritz Lang" chair at the Lumiere's Cinematheque. Heresy. :wink:

Cup of Char

Postby Cup of Char » 01 Dec 2004, 10:59

NotBillyTheKid wrote:
Cup of char wrote:
NotBillyTheKid wrote:Oh god, don't push me to talk about that here.

Why not ? Besides, I don't really understand your answer.
Stop doing your Tarkos. :wink:

& I don't believe in God, BTW.

Sorry, JL, that is not funny. The funerals are friday, in Paris. (cf Nextdoorland thread) :(

That is funny indeed. It's a kind of homage we made last night at Cyrille's with Cab' & Thotho & Sophie & Marianne & Krikri : as soon as one says something you can't understand, you say : "stop doing your Tarkos", like we did when he was still alive... But as you weren't there last night, you couldn't get the joke. Sorry about that, Julien. :?
& anyway, RIP, Tarkos.

Cup of Char

Postby Cup of Char » 01 Dec 2004, 11:01

NotBillyTheKid wrote:
Cédric wrote:
neverknows wrote:
Cédric wrote:
neverknows wrote:
Cup of char wrote:
neverknows wrote: litterature has not the means to SHOW anything


Right. We seem to have different definitions for the word 'showing".

If it means, and only means,"projecting pictures on a screen in a dark room with people eating pop corn sitting by your side", literature certainly doesn't "show" anything, and I would thank God if he existed.


I never ate pop corn while watching a film in a theatre...


I would have guessed that, but surely you realise you are a member of a proud minority here.


Well, I won't say that I'm "proud" of that but, seeing the reaction of Diamonddog (who says that I'm snobbish), I understand that I'm in the minority. Which, like Nanni Moretti woud say, is all right for me.

I totally understand cedric : Imagine PopCorn's crumbs on the "Fritz Lang" chair at the Lumiere's Cinematheque. Heresy. :wink:

Wow ! Brilliant idea ! I'll have to try this.

Cup of Char

Postby Cup of Char » 01 Dec 2004, 11:03

neverknows wrote:
Cup of char wrote: litterature has not the means to SHOW anything


Right. We seem to have different definitions for the word 'showing".

If it means, and only means,"projecting pictures on a screen in a dark room with people eating pop corn sitting by your side", literature certainly doesn't "show" anything, and I would thank God for that if he existed.

You know, Fred, it is you who are so accurate about the meaning of words. & when I just try to tell you that you lack of accuracy on a particular point, you don't answer properly. Strange.

& besides, to show isn't reserved to a screen...

Cup of Char

Postby Cup of Char » 01 Dec 2004, 16:21

neverknows wrote:
Cup of char wrote:
neverknows wrote:
Cup of char wrote: litterature has not the means to SHOW anything


Right. We seem to have different definitions for the word 'showing".

If it means, and only means,"projecting pictures on a screen in a dark room with people eating pop corn sitting by your side", literature certainly doesn't "show" anything, and I would thank God for that if he existed.

You know, Fred, it is you who are so accurate about the meaning of words. & when I just try to tell you that you lack of accuracy on a particular point, you don't answer properly. Strange.

& besides, to show isn't reserved to a screen...


Why are you calling a disagreement an inaccuracy? You said literature doesn't have the means to show anything, and my answer meant: I think it's true only if you accept the word 'showing' in the narrow sense of 'physically showing images'. As you said, and it was my point, there's much more to the word than that. Is this properly answered, or is a proper answer one that goes your way? 8-)

Tstststs... Don't enter this kind of argument, please. I am able to discuss the meaning of any word, it's even a large part of my job, actually, at least in french ; I was just pointing out the fact that when I was discussing the meaning of "to show", you answered with a pop corn post which was not a proper reply, in my opinion. Disagreement has never been a problem to me.
& I know that "to show" can have a figurative sense, but if we compare cinema & literature, I think we have to narrow the words' field of meanings, in order not to confuse everything.

User avatar
geoffcowgill
exceptionally nondescript
Posts: 3380
Joined: 23 Oct 2003, 23:43

Postby geoffcowgill » 01 Dec 2004, 17:21

Matt Wilson wrote:
I think subsequent generations of scholars are going to study my priceless pearls much like they do Shakespeare or Faulkner...


"A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"?


:wink: Just teasin'.

User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 29638
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Postby Matt Wilson » 01 Dec 2004, 17:40

geoffcowgill wrote:
Matt Wilson wrote:
I think subsequent generations of scholars are going to study my priceless pearls much like they do Shakespeare or Faulkner...


"A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"?


:wink: Just teasin'.


When I was in college I didn't like Faulkner but when I read Sound and Fury a few years ago I thought it was a masterpiece, so there ya go...
Coan wrote:'Vertigo' is one of the best things U2 have ever done, one of a handful of occasions where they get it just right. That bit near the end where the song lifts off? You don't get that with The Allman Brothers.

Cup of Char

Postby Cup of Char » 01 Dec 2004, 17:44

neverknows wrote:
Cup of char wrote:]in order not to confuse everything.

Confusion has never been a problem to me. :mrgreen:

:lol: 8-)

User avatar
king feeb
He's the consultant of swing
Posts: 26243
Joined: 19 Jul 2003, 00:42
Location: Soon Over Babaluma
Contact:

Postby king feeb » 01 Dec 2004, 17:45

Matt Wilson wrote:When I was in college I didn't like Faulkner but when I read Sound and Fury a few years ago I thought it was a masterpiece, so there ya go...


A similar thing happened to me with Herman Melville, especially Billy Budd. Weird how a few years of 'life seasoning' can change one's perceptions.
You'd pay big bucks to know what you really think.

User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 29638
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Postby Matt Wilson » 01 Dec 2004, 17:48

we three king feebs wrote:
Matt Wilson wrote:When I was in college I didn't like Faulkner but when I read Sound and Fury a few years ago I thought it was a masterpiece, so there ya go...


A similar thing happened to me with Herman Melville, especially Billy Budd. Weird how a few years of 'life seasoning' can change one's perceptions.


I was an English major with an emphasis on American lit, and still haven't read all of Moby Dick yet.

I'm so ashamed...
Coan wrote:'Vertigo' is one of the best things U2 have ever done, one of a handful of occasions where they get it just right. That bit near the end where the song lifts off? You don't get that with The Allman Brothers.

Drama Queenie

Postby Drama Queenie » 01 Dec 2004, 17:49

neverknows wrote: That's where we disagree. The fact that cinema shows images, and literature doesn't, is a bit trivial, isn't it ? (We could also compare painting and music by saying the former doesn't produce sound, which is true, but where do we go from there?) It can't be the only argument to conclude that cinema has to deal with reality more than literature.


I always see images when I read literature. That's my imagination.

Have I missed the point?

Drama Queenie

Postby Drama Queenie » 01 Dec 2004, 17:55

neverknoëls wrote:
Drama Queen wrote:Have I missed the point?


It depends. Do you eat pop corn while reading?


I'm not sure that I have the dexterity to manage that. How about I read a book about popcorn and use my imagination?

Have I still missed the point?

Drama Queenie

Postby Drama Queenie » 01 Dec 2004, 18:28

neverknoëls wrote:
Drama Queen wrote:
neverknoëls wrote:
Drama Queen wrote:Have I missed the point?


It depends. Do you eat pop corn while reading?


I'm not sure that I have the dexterity to manage that. How about I read a book about popcorn and use my imagination?


I can't recommend any book about pop corn. But I know a great one about a cup of tea and a madeleine?


Are you sure you haven't imagined that?

User avatar
brotherlouie
AKA Number 16 Bus Shelter
Posts: 23132
Joined: 03 Oct 2004, 18:24
Location: In a library, probly.
Contact:

Postby brotherlouie » 01 Dec 2004, 22:36

Matt Wilson wrote:
we three king feebs wrote:
Matt Wilson wrote:When I was in college I didn't like Faulkner but when I read Sound and Fury a few years ago I thought it was a masterpiece, so there ya go...


A similar thing happened to me with Herman Melville, especially Billy Budd. Weird how a few years of 'life seasoning' can change one's perceptions.


I was an English major with an emphasis on American lit, and still haven't read all of Moby Dick yet.

I'm so ashamed...


And so you should be. It is the great American novel. If you don't count the Great Gatsby. And don't give me no Don DeLillo shit....

User avatar
Toby
Arsehole all Erect
Posts: 23391
Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
Contact:

Postby Toby » 01 Dec 2004, 22:39

Can someone please explain what the great American novel should be about?

It's not as if we've had a great British novel is it?

Guest

Postby Guest » 01 Dec 2004, 22:49

Blurp wrote:Can someone please explain what the great American novel should be about?

Red meat and boobies. And lots of both.

User avatar
Flash Gordon's Ape
Hail, hail!
Posts: 1325
Joined: 01 Dec 2003, 18:58
Location: Just look up
Contact:

Postby Flash Gordon's Ape » 02 Dec 2004, 01:36

These are films that have been mentioned here that i truly love.if that helps you


Les Enfants du Paradis
Taxi Driver
Chaplin (all the ones i've seen and i have the 2 box sets)
Citizen Kane
The Rocky Horror Picture Show
It's a Wonderful Life
Nosferatu
The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.

User avatar
The Write Profile
2017 BCB Cup Champ
Posts: 14694
Joined: 15 Sep 2003, 10:55
Location: Today, Tomorrow, Timaru
Contact:

Postby The Write Profile » 03 Apr 2005, 00:31

Shredder wrote:Taxi Driver. Think the ending's totally wrong.

The way that after he's gone on his rather minor rampage and killed Harvey Keitel, Bickle just returns to a kind of normal life; he seems to be satisfied by having killed just one pimp. The rest of the film has built up a lot more than that and it seems something of a cop-out ending to me.


Sorry for wasting all that space


Basically, I don;t think the film is suggesting that he's back to normal, particularly in the way the last few frames are shot (Bernard Hermann's theme is played backwards in a 'sting' for one), more than that he's hailed as a tabloid hero in the same way John Wayne's Ethan Hunt seems to be the 'hero' in "The Searchers" (and "The Searchers" is the closest to Taxi Driver).

Scorsese took this idea and run with it wholesale in the "King of Comedy": in its own way, Rupert Pupkin's crushingly mediocre stand-up routine getting celebrated (after capturing and detaining the Jerry Lewis character) is just as vile as Taxi Driver's ending. In fact, King of Comedy sticks to its thesis far more closely too, it's the better, more successful film. But 'Taxi Driver' has a greater impact. The Searchers is probably more elqoeunt in dealing with a characters' barely suppressed racism, too. Somehow Taxi Driver just goes the gut spectacularly.

I don;t think he ends up all 'fine' either: he's twitching uncontrollably in the cab when he picks up Betsy (and why the hell is it that Betsy is framed in angelic glow), in fact the final shot is very off-kilter. The lighting is very fazed, the newspaper clippings read suspiciously close to Travis' monologues. Schrader was never the most subtle of screenwriters, but I think his lack of subtlety is paramount to the picture. But I understand where you're coming from, too.

Yeah, and I know that the "Russian Roulette" scenes should be kept there in The Deer Hunter, but gosh it makes it hard to like. I still think the sections back home are the most powerful and subtly done. If I view it as fiction (which it undeniably is), then its soothes me a bit. And I guess they're meant to be difficult.
It's before my time but I've been told, he never came back from Karangahape Road.

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 53018
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Postby Snarfyguy » 03 Apr 2005, 00:42

The Right Scarfie Profile wrote:Yeah, and I know that the "Russian Roulette" scenes should be kept there in The Deer Hunter, but gosh it makes it hard to like. I still think the sections back home are the most powerful and subtly done. If I view it as fiction (which it undeniably is), then its soothes me a bit. And I guess they're meant to be difficult.


You can keep the rest of the film and leave me with the Russian Roulette scene.
Jimbo wrote:Look, all I know is pretty much what I get from Robert Parry over at Consortium News.