SCFZ Blasphemies

[flip]

i don’t like ozu.

monteiro comes to mind as another generally popular one. i think he was more popular at our previous home though.

it's funny that you mention monteiro, because i almost included him and de oliveira, but i started to think my list was too geographically concentrated.

i have liked some ozu, but others seem to be getting a lot more from his films than i am.

[greennui]

i used to feel there was a kind of dominant aesthetic at scfz, a lot of people were interested in directors like eric rohmer, hong sang-soo, mikio naruse, john ford, abel ferrara, johnnie to, jacques tourneur, and even when people had diverging tastes otherwise, that was the part of the venn diagram where a lot of us overlapped. that's still partly true, but with james• and m_penalosa only stopping by occasionally, and with a lot of new members, i feel the scfz identity is more diffuse, i'd have a harder time now listing directors who somewhat represent the site, directors who get discussed most often or top our polls, maybe jacques rivette, chantal akerman, raul ruiz? michael curtiz maybe? i'm curious who others might list now!

It probably hasn't changed that much though it's kinda hard to get a good idea from recent polls. The year polls are too specific to really get a good sense of directors and the director polls aren't really covering the top picks anymore. In those old country/genre polls you def get a sense of pervading taste but there hasn't really been that many general polls since the move.

[brian d]

i don’t like ozu.

monteiro comes to mind as another generally popular one. i think he was more popular at our previous home though.

it's funny that you mention monteiro, because i almost included him and de oliveira, but i started to think my list was too geographically concentrated.

i have liked some ozu, but others seem to be getting a lot more from his films than i am.

heh, i also included several indian directors (ghatak, kaul, ray) as ones we like but then took them out and that was right before silga’s post about not liking indian films. hey silga, maybe try watching a ghatak film?

[Mario Gaborovic]

I don't enjoy

- The flamboyant, colorful merry world of Lipsky & Jakubisko
- HK sword/action set in the past centuries (I'm ok with 80s kung fu police/mafia, though)
- plotless films from South America
- Bollywood musicals (with few exceptions like Lagaan)
- Japanese anime
- Silents with banal synopsis
- Theo Angelopoulos

[MrCarmady]

I don't enjoy

- Bollywood musicals (with few exceptions like Lagaan)

I'd always steered clear of Bollywood as I'm generally not into musicals at all but saw Lagaan a few months ago and fucking loved it. Sad to hear it's an exception that proves the rule.

I'm personally not into horror apart from gialli, find neo-realism pretty boring, can't stand biopics or superhero films, though presumably on this forum that won't be a shocking opinion to hold at all. I also can't stand Bergman, thoxans summed him up superbly earlier in the thread.

[Roscoe]

I don't enjoy
- Silents with banal synopsis

Say more?

[Mario Gaborovic]

I don't enjoy
- Silents with banal synopsis

Say more?

City Lights, Gardiens de phare, A Cottage on Dartmoor etc; Guy Maddin certainly, Blancanieves also.

These are canon but I just can't relate to.

[rischka]

OMG I JUST FOUND THIS TOPIC HOW DO PEOPLE NOT LIKE OZU

[brian d]

i liked the only son...

it's ozu's later style, and also the conservative familial politics that push me away.

[rischka]

ok if you liked one that's good enough for me, you can stay

[josiahmorgan11]

I think there are a few of us who sympathize with Vulgar Auteuristic ideas [though I disagree with the term itself] in a sense that is overall well at odds with the rest of the community!

[josiahmorgan11]

i also do not like ozu ;;__ but Flip about two years ago made some really astute comments on the flaws in my ozu thinking and i've been trying to bring myself to give him another shot since then but uhhh haven't got around to it

[nrh]

i liked the only son...

it's ozu's later style, and also the conservative familial politics that push me away.

http://www.rouge.com.au/4/ozu_women.html

[greennui]

The only Ozu I didn't like was Tokyo Twilight which had a final message that really rubbed me the wrong way.

[St. Gloede]

- thinking film noir is gateway cinema for moody teens

Astute observation.

[St. Gloede]

This should anger some people:

With a few exceptions, the classic Bollywood cannon appears to not only be weak, but inept, displaying complete and utter incompetence when it comes to the cinematic language.

I'll note that these films are often so painful I have not explored thoroughly, but key pieces like Sholay are so poorly made they feel to be close to the cinematic tradition later captured by The Room, while Pyaasa, Mother India, Paper Flowers, etc. feel like poor TV productions. When you compare what Bollywood was doing compared to "Tollywood" it is a very, very confusing picture of Indian cinema.

[Lencho of the Apes]

the cinematic language.

I think it's a mistake to say there should be or is (only) one cinematic language that all productions have to adhere to.

Some of the things that seem nonstandard in classic-era Indian cinema suggest a different way of understanding narrative, character motivation, even causality itself, that's inimical in essence to Western stylistic and conceptual norms.

[...]

That's a controversial take in very few places, here being one of them for at least some of us, in its broader reading.

The problem, or one of them, is that talking about "cinematic language" in that way makes it sound akin to how some view mathematics, a "natural" language, rather than a set of agreed upon socially adopted conventions like spoken languages are. The expectations you bring in to watching movies will go a long way towards determining what you will be able to take out of them. Expecting "Bollywood" to be just like movies from somewhere else is to ignore on what they are for what you expect to some important degree. Bollywood movies clearly have found strong appeal to viewers who accept their conventions, so there is something that works there on a basic level not unlike other mass market film centers, and for those who are more "arty" there may be fewer works that are well regarded, again like with all other mass market film production, but with still strong appeal for those deemed best.

Trying to convince those who dislike Bollywood, or other disliked film styles or industries of the things that drive their appeal is difficult if one is set against the style or methods of those film centers. Just on the face of it though, there should be some doubt raised by the suggestion that one of the largest film production centers in the world that has a long history of appreciation from huge audiences isn't "really" capable of making good movies, because they don't fit an outsiders view of what that should mean.

Edit: Or what Lencho said in a much more concise way. Heh.

[St. Gloede]

the cinematic language.

I think it's a mistake to say there should be or is (only) one cinematic language that all productions have to adhere to.

Some of the things that seem nonstandard in classic-era Indian cinema suggest a different way of understanding narrative, character motivation, even causality itself, that's inimical in essence to Western stylistic and conceptual norms.

Never implied any such thing.

[wba]

the cinematic language.

I think it's a mistake to say there should be or is (only) one cinematic language that all productions have to adhere to.

Some of the things that seem nonstandard in classic-era Indian cinema suggest a different way of understanding narrative, character motivation, even causality itself, that's inimical in essence to Western stylistic and conceptual norms.

I'd like to add that there's also styles and concepts in much of Western films that's inimical in essence to canonized and or conventionalized Western stylistic and conceptual norms.

[St. Gloede]

That's a controversial take in very few places, here being one of them for at least some of us, in its broader reading.

The problem, or one of them, is that talking about "cinematic language" in that way makes it sound akin to how some view mathematics, a "natural" language, rather than a set of agreed upon socially adopted conventions like spoken languages are. The expectations you bring in to watching movies will go a long way towards determining what you will be able to take out of them. Expecting "Bollywood" to be just like movies from somewhere else is to ignore on what they are for what you expect to some important degree. Bollywood movies clearly have found strong appeal to viewers who accept their conventions, so there is something that works there on a basic level not unlike other mass market film centers, and for those who are more "arty" there may be fewer works that are well regarded, again like with all other mass market film production, but with still strong appeal for those deemed best.

Trying to convince those who dislike Bollywood, or other disliked film styles or industries of the things that drive their appeal is difficult if one is set against the style or methods of those film centers. Just on the face of it though, there should be some doubt raised by the suggestion that one of the largest film production centers in the world that has a long history of appreciation from huge audiences isn't "really" capable of making good movies, because they don't fit an outsiders view of what that should mean.

Edit: Or what Lencho said in a much more concise way. Heh.

Again, never implied any such thing, my point is that they appear to either be inept or subpar. If we look at Sholay, for instance, they can't even succeed in basic blocking, there is nothing in this cinematic language that appeals to me. In the other films, I mentioned it is rather the absence of anything of note or value cinematically, true/pure mediocrity. They are not interpreting anything differently, they are just doing basic, low-skill cinema.

Like I said a controversial opinion.

[St. Gloede]

the cinematic language.

I think it's a mistake to say there should be or is (only) one cinematic language that all productions have to adhere to.

Some of the things that seem nonstandard in classic-era Indian cinema suggest a different way of understanding narrative, character motivation, even causality itself, that's inimical in essence to Western stylistic and conceptual norms.

I'd like to add that there's also styles and concepts in much of Western films that's inimical in essence to canonized and or conventionalized Western stylistic and conceptual norms.

My view had nothing to do with western norms though.

[Evelyn Library P.I.]

I guess it's a question of whether the goal of classic Bollywood films is to take the narrative or stylistic forms that they do, or whether the goal is to achieve a different form than the one they in fact achieve. If the goal is to take the form that they do in fact take, then it's hard to call that incompetence, just the realization of distinctive or somewhat distinctive narrative and stylistic norms. Not saying you couldn't still criticize those distinctive norms on aesthetic grounds, just meaning to point out that in that case the problem wouldn't be filmmaking incompetency, it would be the competent realization of norms for cinematic expression that you dislike.

[...]

You may not have said it directly, but there isn't much way around it when you talk about cinematic language as if rules that need to be adhered to. Your claims of mediocrity are coming from some set of beliefs over standards you deem important. If you want to hold to those beliefs as your own values, that's fine, but that wasn't how it read.

[St. Gloede]

I really don't understand how this can be an interpretation, but as 3 of you read "cinematic language" this way this clearly rests with me and I should be clearer.

Cinematic language has no rules, and cinematic experiences can be created with a broad set of tools, this is up to the artists in question.

The specific films I referenced to appear to be either incompetent (Sholay) which is a standard action film that is just done so ... poorly ... in every way, or mediocre in terms of cinematic language, i.e. they don't do anything of note - the "great" classics listed above. Of course, this is a matter of taste, i.e. the subject of this thread:

But to clarify: By cinematic language, I am referring to the utilization of ANY cinematic language - and the qualifier is my personal taste - though in these cases I do struggle not to make it a normative statement, especially for Sholay. I just don't comprehend the degree of respect this film receives.

[St. Gloede]

I guess it's a question of whether the goal of classic Bollywood films is to take the narrative or stylistic forms that they do, or whether the goal is to achieve a different form than the one they in fact achieve. If the goal is to take the form that they do in fact take, then it's hard to call that incompetence, just the realization of distinctive or somewhat distinctive narrative and stylistic norms. Not saying you couldn't still criticize those distinctive norms on aesthetic grounds, just meaning to point out that in that case the problem wouldn't be filmmaking incompetency, it would be the competent realization of norms for cinematic expression that you dislike.

I believe Sholay is the only one I referred to as incompetent, but I take the note re: semantics.

[...]

I don't think disliking Sholay is really much of a problem for anyone here, I mean I'm sure some people like it well enough, I thought it was fine, but not great or anything myself, it was more in the suggestion that Bollywood as a whole might be seen as incompetent, where movies like Pyaasa or Paper Flowers are more or less in the same company as Sholay in quality and taken together as a measure of Bollywood productions overall.

Not liking any given movie is obviously done on the regular here. I don't know if there's more than maybe a handful of films we'd all more or less agree on, so that part isn't going to bother anyone. It was just the sense of writing off all of Bollywood as if none of the movies were worthwhile or made well that prompted the responses, so probably some misunderstanding then.

[St. Gloede]

I tried to paint a distinction between them, but true, I was a bit sensationalist in my blasphemy (it was a blasphemy after all). So to tone down my language: Paper Flowers and Pyaasa are not incompetent by any stretch, they are melodrama epics with a cinematic language I only find passable. They are perfectly "adequate" films in terms of my taste and standards, though in comparison to their equivalents (in terms of acclaim) in West Bengal, they do feel inept.

[brian d]

i liked the only son...

it's ozu's later style, and also the conservative familial politics that push me away.

http://www.rouge.com.au/4/ozu_women.html

i'm not sure what to do with her argument. i get the little gestures and seem to remember some of them watching those films. i don't get the sense that ozu doesn't like women or wants to see them suffer, and there's something to be said for the fact that he keeps going back to that same topic, dutiful daughters taking care of parents instead of looking to move on in life. it's also a problem that other than some of the later films with mariko okada he doesn't really give much attention to the idea that they might want something beyond getting married. if all they have to look forward to other than taking care of their parents is ending up in a marriage with some guy who hits them or pushes them down the stairs or always comes home drunk then it's not really getting to much of a range of liberating possibilities anyway. i'd prefer a yoshida film that gets more into those other possibilities and gives more range to a woman's experience and feelings than that she took off a scarf pretty brusquely.

it's been a while since i've gone back to any of his films so there's likely a nuance that I've forgotten.

[flip]

i think anyone using the phrase "cinematic language" is misusing the word "language".