The Death of Cinema pt. 94

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (493 of them)

(Funnily enough, I spoke to Lynch about all this stuff when he was in town earlier this year, and though he very much still thought of cinema as the big screen in the dark room, he thought that more and more this was likely to be in the form of home/private projection or large screen entertainment systems...)

Stevie T, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:27 (7 years ago) Permalink

Lynch would never make a film for outdoor big screen heh

blueski, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:29 (7 years ago) Permalink

'knocked up' (a far more mature, if less formally interesting, film than anything lunatic maoist godard has done)

If mature equals boring, sure.

Eric H., Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:29 (7 years ago) Permalink

what is the evidence for this exactly

ILX

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:31 (7 years ago) Permalink

Yeah the key is that you'll know 15 of the 50 ppl so if the other 35 are twats you'll still have as good a time as just going to the cinema w/friends, BUT if they're not you know you've got at least 1 thing in common and you've got a readmade conduit for meeting and chatting - it's a good idea and someone not wasting their time on ILX might make a bit of fake dotcom money out of it. (xpost)

Groke, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:31 (7 years ago) Permalink

ILX is not cinephilia, tho, or do the stats at ILF mean nothing?

Eric H., Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:31 (7 years ago) Permalink

ILX has 'ruined' Comedy for me because ILX can be as funny as/funnier than anything else out there. As long as I don't start reading THIS IS MY VLOG on a cinema-sized screen, film will prevail.

blueski, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:32 (7 years ago) Permalink

oh, I wasn't saying the Apatow monks of ILX were cinephiles. They might've been in a different cultural moment.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

where's Southy with the 'it HAS to be grainy, you cannot watch it on cellphone' rockismo

blueski, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:34 (7 years ago) Permalink

Ooooooohhhhhh, bitch! (xp)

Tom D., Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:34 (7 years ago) Permalink

where's Southy with the 'it HAS to be grainy, you cannot watch it on cellphone' rockismo

-- blueski, Thursday, September 13, 2007 3:34 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

haha indeed.

fwiw i will chip in with: CRT televisions >>>> pwn the shit out of >>>> digital bullshit.

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

well cinema may be dead, but so is the novel, poetry, the fine arts, classical music.....or maybe it's just dispersing itself into smaller and smaller audiences, all part of the inevitable march of modernity surely?

what sight and sound and the like seem to be yearning for is a whitman-esque "return to the common people" aesthetic that will find some way of bridging the increasing distance we all feel between each other and our values and experiences. a super film that will unite us all!

whitman aside, this is not a new desire, and it's always been utopian.

ryan, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

and like all utopian desires it projects itself into the past as much as the future.

ryan, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:39 (7 years ago) Permalink

i don't get morbs on this score. the "original cinephiles", the parisians in the 50s, were crazy for uncomplicated, populist filmmaking.

xpost

no sight and sound don't think the golden age can return. it's not a new lament, but it's not that old either. your line of thinking tends to say nothing ever changes, but of course it does.

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:40 (7 years ago) Permalink

What was "uncomplicated, populist filmmaking" in the heyday of French cinephilia was also filled with solid formalism that is basically not even in the equation w.r.t Apatow.

Eric H., Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:43 (7 years ago) Permalink

yeees, i.e. Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?is a superior example of uncomplicated, p*pulist (GODDAMN YOU) filmmaking, and that Napoleon Dynamite is a horrid one.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:44 (7 years ago) Permalink

there were bad movies lots of ppl liked in the old days too dude

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:45 (7 years ago) Permalink

not that knocked up is even bad

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:45 (7 years ago) Permalink

i hate 'napoleon dynamite' and it isn't populist. but both of you are mental to think late '50s hollywood was particularly golden, it's sheer cineaste myth-making.

xpost

i like 'knocked up' a lot.

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:46 (7 years ago) Permalink

me too it's great

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:47 (7 years ago) Permalink

i like 'knocked up' a lot.

We noticed

Tom D., Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:47 (7 years ago) Permalink

(I used ND as I haven't seen any Apatow films, but substantial critics who've liked his stuff have generally said "well, this isn't cinema")

Was there popular trash in the '50s? Of course. Was there a higher % of watchable studio films? Fuck yes.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:50 (7 years ago) Permalink

substantial critics who've liked his stuff have generally said "well, this isn't cinema"

name names

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:50 (7 years ago) Permalink

(I used ND as I haven't seen any Apatow films, but substantial critics who've liked his stuff have generally said "well, this isn't cinema")

sigh

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:50 (7 years ago) Permalink

you might want to try actually watching movies sometime morbius.

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:51 (7 years ago) Permalink

but both of you are mental to think late '50s hollywood was particularly golden

Who is arguing that? Nobody's claiming every last studio film between 1953-1958 was blindly accepted as an artistic breakthrough.

Eric H., Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:51 (7 years ago) Permalink

As this thread proves, the real problem with cinema is that cinephilia refuses to fucking die.

Eric H., Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:52 (7 years ago) Permalink

this is an interesting discussion and i'm sorry to say i don't have much to add to it, except that whenever e.g. godard pops his head out of his hole to proclaim the d"eath of cinema" every two years or so my kneejerk reaction is usually "stfu"

impudent harlot, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:53 (7 years ago) Permalink

what do you call cinephilia when it doesn't actually involve watching the movies you're talking about

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:53 (7 years ago) Permalink

'napoleon dynamite' isn't populist

Yeah, that's why I see VOTE FOR PEDRO tees on the street

I will watch Knocked Up when it hits DVD shortly. Given the track record of people who love it, I'll send the universal $11 cost of a NYC film ticket to my creditors instead, thanks.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:53 (7 years ago) Permalink

great attitude.

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:54 (7 years ago) Permalink

As this thread proves, the real problem with cinema is that cinephilia refuses to fucking die.

YES

impudent harlot, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:54 (7 years ago) Permalink

what do you call cinephilia when it doesn't actually involve watching the movies you're talking about

Every cinephile I know does this. We're not all working critics, after all.

Eric H., Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:55 (7 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, attitude? It's hardcore personal economics.

also stfu w/ "populist" forever and ever and ever

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:56 (7 years ago) Permalink

at this point i don't think a Hollywood youth-orientated comedy can ever appeal to me again. too late for Zoolander 2.

blueski, Thursday, 13 September 2007 15:03 (7 years ago) Permalink

tonight hollywood weeps

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 15:03 (7 years ago) Permalink

they'll get over me, in time.

blueski, Thursday, 13 September 2007 15:04 (7 years ago) Permalink

s1ocki, I have been writing a little about film for just over 8 months (for the first time since college) without benefit of a single free screening or DVD screener, so tell me who's supposed to subsidize my seeing all the 'important' films like KU.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 13 September 2007 15:07 (7 years ago) Permalink

Culturally discerning [sic?] 25-year-olds who would've seen and discussed every Godard film in the mid '60s now reserve their passion for Knocked Up

Are you ever going to let this go, Morbs? Like "cinephiles" didn't love Mazursky or Blier.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 13 September 2007 15:10 (7 years ago) Permalink

whatever dude, if you can't afford to see it, maybe hold back on criticizing it

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 15:11 (7 years ago) Permalink

i could care less if you ever see an apatow film but if you're going to talk shit about them i might take your opinions a little more seriously if you had a clue what you were talking about

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 15:11 (7 years ago) Permalink

As for the topic at hand: most critics find sentimentality irresistable (every Gore Vidal essay bemoaning the Death of the Novel to thread)

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 13 September 2007 15:12 (7 years ago) Permalink

So ... the death of cinephilia = the price of tickets

Eric H., Thursday, 13 September 2007 15:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

That's not the only reason, but is a contributing factor to my being well over the cinephilia as gluttony thing.

Eric H., Thursday, 13 September 2007 15:14 (7 years ago) Permalink

it's not difficult to identify things about a film you either know you dislike or strongly suspect you will dislike esp. now you can read fairly detailed synopsis on wikipedia ;)

blueski, Thursday, 13 September 2007 15:14 (7 years ago) Permalink

it's dead where it used to be alive and vice versa.(thank you asian cinema for keeping the light)
but generally speaking,there are less good movies per year compared to the past,imo.

Zeno, Thursday, 13 September 2007 15:16 (7 years ago) Permalink

All this talk about the Golden Age of Foreign Films is merely a bunch of critics fetishizing the act of going to a Bleeker Street theatre or whatever and having long arguments afterwards about Bergman's use of dwarfs in The Silence. These communities still exist and the discussion continues.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 13 September 2007 15:17 (7 years ago) Permalink

the thing is,Bergman was shown in smaller,less central places than nyc, and now,"art directors" like him are shown ONLY on cities like nyc.
there are less audience for that "art" movies.

Zeno, Thursday, 13 September 2007 15:20 (7 years ago) Permalink

Maybe we should stop thinking that the medium had a golden age, then. Mourn the lack of enthusiasm, or maybe its transition into something else. (Something very annoying.)

Eric H., Thursday, 13 September 2007 15:20 (7 years ago) Permalink

i think we should just keep talking ourselves in circles forever.

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 15:21 (7 years ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.