The fountain, that movie with Wolverine

[funeralfetish]

You all need to get off your butts, and see The Fountain right now, like right now, put down the cheese doodles Sir, AND MOVE IT!! This was one of the greatest movies I have ever seen, and if you want my I crap oscars film critic review, I will gladly tell you. Despite what said "I crap oscars" film critics say, it is easy to understand, but very

Comments

[archas]

Hear hear! It was not at all the "plotless weirdness" I had heard. But then, with Aronofsky, you just have to expect reviews verging on slander. I still remember going to see Pi in the theater, having heard nothing but "it's a really weird movie about math." Which, I suppose, is true, inasmuch as, say, The Godfather could be described as "a not-so-weird movie about Italians."

[funeralfetish]

Well his last film, Requiem was extremely easy to understand and follow, and the ideas not as abstract, but he enjoys doing strange things, like when they were shooting up or smoking, and when Ellen Burstyn's television became a show she was on. However this was strange, because it was so damn symbolic, like a moving painting, and I guess most people, don't expect to see an art house movie to be entertained, and this certainly, had a message more so then entertainment value, and instead of giving him a good review, they tore it down, forgetting that film is really a communication of an idea. I hope I make sense, I just had my first cup of coffee, hehe.

[archas]

orgetting that film is really a communication of an idea

Ah! I'm always very interested in film-makers' ideas on exactly this subject. Because, yes, film seems to be one of the most directly-communicative artforms. But then, the question gets asked: inasmuch as it is an artform at all, can film be communication? Some say, "Of course: all art is communication." But then you get your aestheticists; "Art for art's sake," etc.

I'm especially interested in your ideas here, as you're a fan of a genre that I don't always think of as strictly communicative: namely, horror. Are horror movies communication of ideas? Or emotional thrill rides? Or an exploration of cultural psyche? Do you have a "theory of horror film"?

[funeralfetish]

"Film is really a communication of an idea", and "Art is a material form of an idea", this is what I have been taught in my film history classes, there is no 'Art for art's sake". I don't always agree with this statement, I believe a lot of films are made, just for entertainmet, and have no need for one to walk away with something. It was different though, we watched a lot of films which were, very political, and or showed a universal human reaction, movies like 400 blows, and, the Bicycle thief, and Metropolis, are required to view, because their were very communicative, extremely so. We also saw some surrealist films like Salvador Dali shorts, and repulsion, which were experimental, and abstract, and I certainly believed, they were "Art for art's sake", with no solid intention, however they had an intelligence that you don't see in many films today, because they weren't marketed for the stupid masses. Does Horror have an communication value? I do think yes, because the purpose of horror is to disturb you, films like the Exorcist,

[archas]

Ahhh, from Un Chien Andalou to Exorcist in three lines...excellent! We'll have to sit down and chat about this sometime; I'm interested in the idea of horror as an end in itself, and/or horror as the "correct" medium for the communication of some idea...

[funeralfetish]

psst, I don't really understand what was plotless about it, the plot was so simple, because it was so spiritual and such a universal fear, and the ending was so simple, if you paid attention.

[archas]

if you paid attention

...Need I say more? Heh.

No, seriously, I did like the fact that the people I saw it with and I had a (brief) conversation about what exactly had happened in the movie. Granted, this can be the sign of a bad movie, but in this case, I found it to be the sign of a cool, conceptual movie.