Mods are asleep. Post serious discussion about television and movies.
As we all know, Tarkovsky felt that, since cinema is a relatively new medium, it needed the help of the older art forms to help it fully mature, hence the references to classic art and literature in many of his movies. My question is that now, some decades later, do you still think cinema needs this help or has moved past this stage by this point?
Other urls found in this thread:
imdb.com
imdb.com
imdb.com
twitter.com
Yes, it still needs this help but has failed to get support from it since art no longer exists. This is why they keep revamping movies and repeating the same shit over and over.
Referencing older stuff isn't going to build a tradition needed to elevate cinema to an art form. In fact it's just going to make even more rehashed kitch. What films need is a few centuries content created in several different cultural contexts to build traditions out of.
None of us can ever hope to experience true kino.
Tarkovsky referenced both classic and contemporary art in his kino. Not because he was inspired by them, but because he considered them to be relevant to the kinematic contemplation about the raison d'etre itself. He even prefered the contemporary more to the classic most of the time because they're more digestible and relatable for us modern people, they pertain more to the modern issues of spirituality.
Tarkovsky never stole any imagery from other directors. I think it's okay to refer to a discussion in other mediums, but the image and vision have to stay original. Copying and referencing are two different things, copying makes you an unoriginal hack like inarritu, while what Tarkovsky did in his references is discussing the matters in those references, why it's relevant to the matters of his own films.
I was wondering about the movie Oscar, you know, the one with Sylvester Stallone. Do you remember how Angelo (Stallone's character) breaks the fourth wall multiple times, by looking out to the audience? It is weird, because he is the only one who does that, the others never. What does this mean?
Is he aware that he is being watched? Does he know about himself that he is living in a fictional world? If he does, why does he take it so seriously? If he doesn't, does this mean that when Angelo looks into the camera, that is Stallone who looks, and not him? If it is Sly, how come it doesn't break the whole illusion? Why is that that the other characters doesn't notice that he is looking into a direction, where there's supposed to be nothing, like he is waiting for something?
I know it's a meme movie but honestly American Psycho is the best movie I've ever seen
You haven't seen many or that one scratches all your distinct tastes
I concur with
For the benefit of the discussion, you should describe what made the movie your favorite.
Anime thread?
Anime thread
Who is your favorite anime character and why do you want to see her BLACKED?
My favorite anime character is Ellen Baker because she serves as a reminder that no matter where some cumskin sow runs and hides she will eventually be BLACKED and what remains of her pathetic race shall twiddle in numbers while serving her genetic superiors
I see through your lies, shitposter
...
Woha, I didn't know Stephen Colbert posted here. How is that white genocide coming along, Stephen?
Ignore him, he's just butthurt that he has to raise his wife's black son.
What caused film to take such a sharp decline in quality during the late 80's?
Films have been getting worse, but if you look at the types of movies made it wasn't until the late 80's and early 90's where actual kino started to be phased out of the mainstream in favor for Hollywood tripe.
i liek tarantino becuase he kills bigots in his movies XD
The success of the Star Wars franchise. I mean this unironically. The industry realized they could make massive amounts of money by making sequels. Star Wars also began the Hollywood philosophy of “more expensive = more revenue”.
Also, drugs.
I wonder how the “dead nigger storage” scene would play out in current year? Or the multiple scenes in Reservoir Dogs where they casually say “nigger”.
Next step was Batman, and then Titanic
Your naivete is showing.
Tell us, what's the real reason then?
PTA and the Coen Brothers are garbage
You're missing the point. "More expensive = more revenue" began much before Star Wars. Pic was related.
I wasn't going to touch on sequels, but now you've gone ahead and reminded me that The Thin Man (1934) had five sequels pumped out in 12 years. Not uncommon practice.
not just star wars (although it is one of the most obvious examples). other popcorn films like Jaws were hugely successful and made producers/directors realize that there is lots of money to be made with dumb entertainment
What is some cumskin kino?
I'm awake
>a fucking mod messing up a sage
Man this place really has gone to shit.
Protip: capitalizing any letters in the word 'sage' will void it and bump the thread instead. I can't believe I have to tell a mod this.
Damn how embarassing
lmao nerd, take a chill pill
Can you name any other movies from that same year that even had half the budget that Cleopatra did?
5 highest grossing films of 1963-
Don't just compare the top 5, you have to compare the top 20 or so. The average movie made more money back then.
...
It was the first time any of those stories were on the big screen.
Meanwhile the top 5 movies this year are literally remakes of remakes of remakes. Spider-Man is on it’s 3rd reboot franchise in a 10 year span.
Just to play the devil's advocate
imdb.com
You see, that argument of 'original ideas' is not really strong. We are speaking about Hollywood. Of course, in the sense of big movies, you are right, but the 1963 versions and the ones I've quoted differ only in budget.
Cinema like all forms of art, became misunderstood by artists, it was killed off in it's infancy, which is the unfortunate case for many art forms but I can still see it have a chance of salvation, but not in the modern day.
I just tried to make a thread and I got told there are "too many threads". I've never head that happen before, but from what I gather, we can have threads about BLACKED and Asian porn, but making a thread actually about a movie isn't allowed?
Still can't believe Hews Hack went straight Louis CK on that shit. Really disappointing in Hews Hack.
That probably means someone was spamming the catalog, so they temporarily limited the amount of threads that could be made per hour.
Probably Eurasian Tiger or Holla Forums. I hope it goes away soon so we can discuss films again.
How did/do they misunderstand? I'm not sure what you mean user.
I really dislike these non shitposting threads. Please leave Holla Forums you are not welcome here.
And the fact they're made between 20 and 50 years apart, or the fact they're not rehashes of older movies, but new interpretations of old stories and events. Cleopatra from 1945 and the one from 1963 are not original and remake, they are two completely separate movies, the one in 1963 wasn't trying to be Caesar and Cleopatra 2.0.
beauty and the beast was different that the cartoon it had 30 extra minutes and a rearranged score by the original composer.