Watched "Foxcatcher" this morning and thought it was really good. Steve Carrell and Mark Ruffalo were especially good in it. Tatum is good but had almost no dialogue in the second half of the film. Also, by watching the competition portions of the film, you would think Mark Schultz wasn't that great if they weren't mentioning his accolades. The film didnt place enough emphasis on just how dominant he was. Despite some lazy mistakes/or simply not giving a fuck in the timeline of events(especially the UFC stuff) and making fighting in the UFC seem like this shameful fall from grace, it was a solid movie. Always thought a good drama could be made of the DuPont/Schultz saga and i think this delivered.
I liked it much more than I thought I'd would - seeing as important films of that era are often referred to as "growing pain films", important to the development of the industry but not enjoyable to watch. I kinda liked spending time with Billy and Captain America on their journey across the states. And it presented its message smartly. Freespirited hippies are more in-tune and unhypocritical with the concept of freedom than the bellicose, close-minded conservatives are whom guard the "Status Quo".
Yet at the same time - their own lifestyle isn't perfect, they fail in their quest to hunt down the American Dream (which is self-fullfilment... or whatever). They engage in drugs and adventure yet still do not achieve the state-of-mind they are searching for. The hippi movement likewise, is criticised. The closest thing they encounter to the American Dream along their way -- is ironically the nuclear-family they dine with at the beginning. They live of the land - yet have the proficency and know-how that the dimwitted hippies lacks, while not being so intolerant and belicose as the rednecks are.
It helped that it avoided some of the "ugliness" that later drug movies indulge in. Take Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas as an example. Sure it might be fun to be that high, but being the sober one witnessing it is a fucking drag. That Easy Rider took a more mellow, "philosophical" approach to its drug culture certainly helped the characters likability and to communicate the message it tried to get across. (save that one scene of course, which really wasn't that bad anyways considering how unglamorous it was).
Um...
[YT]TzwGwsdaeQo&start=51&end=56[/YT]
Now I finally understand what Jack Burton went through.
You didn't even like the begining in Iraq?
One of the things I really liked with the Exorcist - upon repeated viewings - was how the demonic possession mirrored the dysfunctional sexuality of psychologically troubled adolescents. Teens with a lot of psychological trauma often grow up becoming hyper-sexualized, and you can see that in the way Regan is depicted. It starts budding at the beginning of the movie when she's uncorrupted - and then goes overboard whence she's possessed. Other features she's depicted as having (like urinating herself) are also signs of psychologically dysfunctional youths.
It's nice to notice stuff like that during repeated viewings.
The Exorcist is about the cold, uncaring method of science. Look at what it puts her through, compared to the human touch of religion.
Monsters in general are about the primal desires of humans, that must be tamed through religion and reason. Science is impotent there. The Howling is another good example of this. Very Jungian. The animal is the dark side too. Frankenstein is really the perfect example. The blind monster of science. The Dr laughs at the poet's reservations about creating man. Science still laughs at the humanities.
The scientist thought man could simply be reduced to his parts. Very Newtonian. And the Dr laughed at the poet. He builds in the name of progress. He dismissively says ethical considerations are for poets. Hitler said the same thing. The monster kills the poet. The poet was the only one who can relate to the monster of blind science. Like the monster said to Doctor, "You are my creator, but I am your master."
I'll quote Jung:
Goethe's Faust aptly says: "im Anfang war die Tat [in the Beginning was the Deed]." "Deeds" were never invented, they were done; thoughts on the other hand, are a relatively late discovery of man. First he was moved to deeds by unconscious factors; it was only a long time afterward that he began to reflect upon the causes that had moved him; and it took him a very long time indeed to arrive at the preposterous idea that he must have moved himself - his mind being unable to identify any other motivating force other than his own.
These inner motives spring from a deep source that is not made by consciousness and is not under its control. In the mythology of earlier times, these forces were called mana, or spirits, demons, and gods. They are as active today as the ever were. If they conform to our wishes, we call them happy hunches or impulses and pat ourselves on the back for being smart fellows. If they go against us, then we say that it is just bad luck, or that certain people are against us, or that the cause of our misfortunes must be pathological. The one thing we refuse to admit is that we are dependent upon "powers" that are beyond our control.
It is true, however, that in recent times civilized man has acquired a certain amount of will power, which he can apply where he pleases. He has learned to do his work efficiently without having recourse to chanting and drumming to hypnotize him into the state of doing. He can even dispense with a daily prayer for divine aid. He can carry out what he proposed to do, and he can apparently translate his ideas into action without a hitch, whereas the primitive seems to be hampered at each step by fears, superstitions, and other unseen obstacles to action. The motto "Where there's a will, there's a way" is the superstition of modern man.
Yet in order to sustain his creed, contemporary man pays the price in a remarkable lack of introspection. He is blind to the fact that, with al his rationality and efficiency, he is possessed by "powers" that are beyond his control. His gods and demons have not disappeared at all; they have merely got new names. They keep him on the run with restlessness, vague apprehensions, psychological complications, an insatiable need for pills, alcohol, tobacco, food - and, above all,
a large array of neuroses.
This ties into the larger point in general. Artists don't know shit about art. Guys like Jung, Socrates and Aristotle, understood art. Because they understand human psychology. Like Goethe said about Newton, he told us everything about light/color, except what it is to see. The subjective, authentic experience that is lost in the abstraction. Same thing with human biology. You won't get an authentic human experience from studying Biology.
"I decided that it was not wisdom that enabled poets to write their poetry, but a kind of instinct or inspiration, such as you find in seers and prophets who deliver all their sublime messages without knowing in the least what they mean."
“God takes away the minds of poets, and uses them as his ministers, as he also uses diviners and holy prophets, in order that we who hear them may know them to be speaking not of themselves who utter these priceless words in a state of unconsciousness, but that God himself is the speaker, and that through them he is conversing with us. "
-Socrates
“Art is a kind of innate drive that seizes a human being and makes him its instrument. The artist is not a person endowed with free will who seeks his own ends, but one who allows art to realize its purpose through him. As a human being he may have moods and a will and personal aims, but as an artist he is "man" in a higher sense— he is "collective man"— one who carries and shapes the unconscious, psychic forms of mankind.”
-Jung
I've been alive forever
And I wrote the very first song
I put the words and the melodies together
I am music
And I write the songs
I write the songs that make the whole world sing
I write the songs of love and special things
I write the songs that make the young girls cry
I write the songs, I write the songs
My home lies deep within you
And I've got my own place in your soul
Now when I look out through your eyes
I'm young again, even tho' I'm very old
I write the songs that make the whole world sing
I write the songs of love and special things
I write the songs that make the young girls cry
I write the songs, I write the songs
Oh, my music makes you dance and gives you spirit to take a chance
And I wrote some rock 'n roll so you can move
Music fills your heart, well that's a real fine place to start
It's from me, it's for you
It's from you, it's for me
It's a worldwide symphony
I write the songs that make the whole world sing
I write the songs of love and special things
I write the songs that make the young girls cry
I write the songs, I write the songs
I write the songs that make the whole world sing
I write the songs of love and special things
I write the songs that make the young girls cry
I write the songs, I write the songs
Watched Nostalghia a few days ago, loved it. Just watched The Sacrifice and although I probably liked it least out of all The Tarkovsky I have seen, by the end, I still liked it.
The ending wasn't excactly The Burning of Atlanta but... I liked it. This was another one where the pretensiousness was rather jarring to me... and the whole burgiose, upper-class ambiance was rather off-putting. It hasn't the vitality and sense of grand-mystery of say... Stalker.
This morning I watched Tim's Vermeer, which is one of the best documentaries that I've seen. Then this afternoon I (finally) watched Casablanca for the first time.
This ties into the larger point in general. Artists don't know shit about art. Guys like Jung, Socrates and Aristotle, understood art. Because they understand human psychology. Like Goethe said about Newton, he told us everything about light/color, except what it is to see. The subjective, authentic experience that is lost in the abstraction. Same thing with human biology. You won't get an authentic human experience from studying Biology.
"I decided that it was not wisdom that enabled poets to write their poetry, but a kind of instinct or inspiration, such as you find in seers and prophets who deliver all their sublime messages without knowing in the least what they mean."
This morning I watched Tim's Vermeer, which is one of the best documentaries that I've seen. Then this afternoon I (finally) watched Casablanca for the first time.
To be honest, no. I fell into it. Did this MSc in Sport Med and that led to a job with a research group. It's a growing trend to do a PhD somewhere along your specialist training. Since that opportunity came up early, I'm taking it. Not sure I'll get the free ride later.
I like being a doctor, but if it was up to me, I'd be doing something in music. Just happened to be good academically. And born Indian. So a career in creativity was a difficult option.
Yeah it's not for the faint of heart. I'm not looking forward to it. I hate molecular research. The terminology bit is not an issue but it's a whole other world of detail. I'm not a lab guy. I'm a floor/ward guy at heart.
Notice that he said a "good day". Not a "great day" or an "excellent day" or an "superb day". He is clearly trying to defame Casablanca through subliminal implications by those word choices. Propaganda techniques one-o-one.
Really? What did you find so good about it? I thought the spy/action set-pieces ranged from good to awesome and that Rebecca Fergusson was great but otherwise it felt kinda flat. The plot felt needlessly jumbled like many modern spy-movies and the characters I found mostly unegnaging. The villians in particular were very unintresting.
Also... the movie was just filled with so many inconsistences and unrealistic events that it took me out of the movie.
Ex:
Why did Rebecca take off her wetsuit before jumping in after Cruise - when time was of the essence and it would have helped her?
Or
How did they have a glass-cage ready for that instances? They couldn't seriously have planned that far ahead.
One little thing that made me smile though.
When Simon Pegg tells Cruise "you can hold your breath for 3 minutes. Piece of cake!" and Cruise just looks all grave and apprehensive at the thought:icon_chee
Or when he fell off the car-hood after having been dead
Really? What did you find so good about it? I thought the spy/action set-pieces ranged from good to awesome and that Rebecca Fergusson was great but otherwise it felt kinda flat. The plot felt needlessly jumbled like many modern spy-movies and the characters I found mostly unegnaging. The villians in particular were very unintresting.
Rogue Nation is an analog movie in a digital age. It says this out loud by having Hunt listen to his "mission" on vinyl. Everything about its action is hands-on, without ever worrying about scale.
Action set pieces in recent times try to outdo the last, hence the CGI mass-events that we've ended up with. Every set piece in Rogue Nation is revealed to us like a story. McQuarrie made sure that the scale of each set piece met the internal needs of the film.
And that's what we came for: action. Whether we like it or not is built on stakes. Stakes depend on character needs and wants. The convolution of plot is not important, as it is the nature of the spy narrative. The emotional logic of the characters, however, is.
Hunt might have finally met his match in Lane, who seems to be a step ahead at every turn. Ilsa Faust keeps us guessing, and personifies the only convolution that matters - whose side is she really on? Her character is brilliant because she alters the upper hand by her unsteady alliances. She creates the stakes. So the action works in this movie just because of her. And that is fucking amazing - for a female character to not just be cool, but to be the reason we keep watching.
There's tons more I loved. About how the film laughs at the omnipotence of Ethan Hunt by making Baldwin recite that hideous speech to the Prime Minister, "Ethan Hunt is the manifestation of destiny." I died right there. See, Hunt isn't. He's never looked more vulnerable than in this film, thrown like a ping pong ball into a plane, falling off his bike chasing a woman, saved twice by that same woman, even falling in love with that woman, maybe?
I also loved the relationship between Hunt and Benji. The series has shifted from being about a team that fights evil for personal gain, to friends that fight evil just because they should.
It's a great film. And I still might not like it as much as Ghost Protocol. Need to watch that again.
This stuff never bothers me anymore. Dude crawled on the outside of the Burj-al-Arab and slid from one floor to the next in the last film. It's the emotional consistencies I worry about. I didn't find any.
When Simon Pegg tells Cruise "you can hold your breath for 3 minutes. Piece of cake!" and Cruise just looks all grave and apprehensive at the thought:icon_chee
Or when he fell off the car-hood after having been dead
This stuff never bothers me anymore. Dude crawled on the outside of the Burj-al-Arab and slid from one floor to the next in the last film. It's the emotional consistencies I worry about. I didn't find any.
See, I'm still situational on those things. It never bothered me how absolutely ridicolous the Death Star is for example, becuse the very concept and execution is so thrilling that those things cease to matter. Basically, if the film does it well enough, then it won't bother me. But it in this movie, I didn't feel like Rouge Nation managed to work that magic.
I also loved the relationship between Hunt and Benji. The series has shifted from being about a team that fights evil for personal gain, to friends that fight evil just because they should.
I thought their relationship was enjoyable too... but the shift-in-focus from a team to friendship leaves things hanging. Both Jenner and Rhames feel completely superfluous. So the "team-scenes" with them feel like lowpoints.
And that's what we came for: action. Whether we like it or not is built on stakes. Stakes depend on character needs and wants. The convolution of plot is not important, as it is the nature of the spy narrative. The emotional logic of the characters, however, is.
Agree to disagree I suppose. Spy narratives can be handled with a pedagogic touch, even while being complex. Everything didn't seem so fuzzy in say... Kingsmen or certain Bond flicks for example.
Rogue Nation is an analog movie in a digital age. It says this out loud by having Hunt listen to his "mission" on vinyl. Everything about its action is hands-on, without ever worrying about scale.
Action set pieces in recent times try to outdo the last, hence the CGI mass-events that we've ended up with. Every set piece in Rogue Nation is revealed to us like a story. McQuarrie made sure that the scale of each set piece met the internal needs of the film.
Hunt might have finally met his match in Lane, who seems to be a step ahead at every turn. Ilsa Faust keeps us guessing, and personifies the only convolution that matters - whose side is she really on? Her character is brilliant because she alters the upper hand by her unsteady alliances. She creates the stakes. So the action works in this movie just because of her. And that is fucking amazing - for a female character to not just be cool, but to be the reason we keep watching.
There's tons more I loved. About how the film laughs at the omnipotence of Ethan Hunt by making Baldwin recite that hideous speech to the Prime Minister, "Ethan Hunt is the manifestation of destiny." I died right there. See, Hunt isn't. He's never looked more vulnerable than in this film, thrown like a ping pong ball into a plane, falling off his bike chasing a woman, saved twice by that same woman, even falling in love with that woman, maybe?
It's a great film. And I still might not like it as much as Ghost Protocol. Need to watch that again.
Artists don't know shit about art? You've got a real charming philosophy professor, don't ya?
I agree with the quotes, which is a terribly long-winded way to say that art is the physical evidence of emotion, experience, and inspiration being purged. I don't really get how you can say that believing the artist is clueless to what he's engaged in.
It isn't physical though. It is an abstract, timeless sphere where the laws of nature do not apply. It has its own reality, and is immune to the "twilight world of change and decay". The same way mathematics does. Can entropy touch mathematical equations? Do they degrade? They are perfect and timeless ideas, that will always be true. The physical does not apply.
The same way a person can speak, and know nothing about linguistics. Breathe and know nothing about gas exchange. Or be a human, and know nothing about history, science, etc.
Just watched El Topo. I mean this in this best way possible, but what on earth did I just watch? I feel like this film was baffling, hilarious and profound all in one. I am not sure what to make of it to be honest. I think I liked it. :icon_lol:
I actually didn't realize it but I downloaded a film I wanted watch the other day, The Holy Mountain and it's by the same director. Didn't know that before watching this one though.
Just watched El Topo. I mean this in this best way possible, but what on earth did I just watch? I feel like this film was baffling, hilarious and profound all in one. I am not sure what to make of it to be honest. I think I liked it. :icon_lol:
I actually didn't realize it but I downloaded a film I wanted watch the other day, The Holy Mountain and it's by the same director. Didn't know that before watching this one though.
Holy Mountain is all that and more, my friend. Enjoy.
Then, If you've seen/read Dune, watch Jodorowsky's Dune, and realize we were so close to living in an entierly diffrent world than the one we currently inhabit.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
