memento
that shit is somewhat well known?
my dad compared it to an indian movie we watched once lol
The 83rd Academy Awards
- Thread starter αsiя
- Start date
|
REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS |
|
- Status
memento
that shit is somewhat well known?
my dad compared it to an indian movie we watched once lol
So anyone else think James Franco was actually high? Or was it just the stress (he ditched his own after party because he had classes the next day)?
Either way, it wasn't very smart of him to pan Gervais for bombing at the Golden Globes when he definitely did worse.
Memento, The Prestige, and Insomnia.
And Insomnia was the only one I wasn't really that enthusiastic about (enjoyed Robin Williams anyway).
The only film he's directed that I haven't seen is Following.
Either way, it wasn't very smart of him to pan Gervais for bombing at the Golden Globes when he definitely did worse.
Memento, The Prestige, and Insomnia.
And Insomnia was the only one I wasn't really that enthusiastic about (enjoyed Robin Williams anyway).
The only film he's directed that I haven't seen is Following.
it was a rhetorical question but alright
Except a rhetorical question doesn't really work when the point you're trying to make is wrong.
But apparently it was a rhetorical command anyway.
But apparently it was a rhetorical command anyway.
just saw King's Speech.
woahhh. that movie was fucking amazing.
now I just need to see True Grit, Black Swan, and 127 Hours.
those three and the other three I've seen (inception, social network, and king's speech) are the only ones that interest me that got nominated for best picture
imo
woahhh. that movie was fucking amazing.
now I just need to see True Grit, Black Swan, and 127 Hours.
those three and the other three I've seen (inception, social network, and king's speech) are the only ones that interest me that got nominated for best picture
imo
Nothing he does as a director is that impressive. The dark knight was great because it was incredibly well-written. Nolan's very much a "by-the-book" director.
shut the fuck up smartass you're a little bitch look at me one more time and i'll fucking curb stomp you
Here we go again, but Nolan's films are basically mechanic and devoid of emotion and I wouldn't be surprised if he were an actual golem himself. Inception was fu
cking horrid in that it spent the entirety of its near three hour run explaining itself, filling practically every frame with dense and strictly informative dialogue that it really, truly is mind-boggling if you still have your thumb up your ass trying to follow the narration. This also makes clear that he wants he really doesn't want his audience to use their imaginations and draw their own conclusions which effectively dominos any possibility of a mystique. Nolan could've really brought something if he'd watched a film with a Charlie Kaufman screenplay beforehand.
True Grit didn't get enough love, King's Speech isn't best picture material imo, Hailee Steinfeld wasn't going to win an oscar in that the Academy doesn't like to spoonfeed newcomers no matter their ability or performance (see Carey Mulligan). Also I think both True Grit films are good enough that one would be doing both films some injustice by comparing their quality with one another. Jeff Bridges can't be John Wayne's Duke, and thank god he isn't.
Winter's Bone is really good and go see it everyone. Jennifer Lawrence.
True Grit didn't get enough love, King's Speech isn't best picture material imo, Hailee Steinfeld wasn't going to win an oscar in that the Academy doesn't like to spoonfeed newcomers no matter their ability or performance (see Carey Mulligan). Also I think both True Grit films are good enough that one would be doing both films some injustice by comparing their quality with one another. Jeff Bridges can't be John Wayne's Duke, and thank god he isn't.
Winter's Bone is really good and go see it everyone. Jennifer Lawrence.
Though I don't even really understand the point you're making here. Ambiguous conclusions don't necessarily correlate to the quality of a movie.
If you're talking about all of the exposition which doesn't leave much wiggle room for imagination then... I still don't understand your point. The exposition is there to define laws in a realm which would otherwise be regarded as plot holes. You're not meant to interpret them. We take gravity for granted so that it's not as if a movie taking place in the real world would need to explain why everything is grounded.
I absolutely agree that the exposition weighs the movie down, but audience interpretation has nothing to do with why it's a fault.
Last edited:
inceptions ending isnt ambiguous at all but this isnt an inception thread so nvm
did jackass 3 win anything
What I mean is that the movie has no faith in its own audience; that they would be able to connect the dots without an unending tutorial and holding your hand. You realize how much of the dialogue would've been free of this neurosis he seems to have to MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE YOU GET WHATS GOING ON? It's literally like the people on the screen KNOW they're playing to an audience. If you want to see a very good film that does the exact opposite, look up 35 Shots of Rum.
Okay, so he made his plot "impenetrable." So what?
The film's biggest crime is that it assumes we dream in linear time which, I'm sure you yourself can vouch, we don't. If he, say, took a subconscious angle (like Kaufman screenplays) on the mind there might have been something to talk about, instead of:
....which is a cheat of an ending. What's there to think about after this? Does it matter if the top fell or not? No.
Okay, so he made his plot "impenetrable." So what?
The film's biggest crime is that it assumes we dream in linear time which, I'm sure you yourself can vouch, we don't. If he, say, took a subconscious angle (like Kaufman screenplays) on the mind there might have been something to talk about, instead of:
....which is a cheat of an ending. What's there to think about after this? Does it matter if the top fell or not? No.
I still don't get what you're saying here.
How is explaining, for example, whose dream we're in and who's filling it with their subconscious an example of holding the audience's hand?
If these were not explained, then the plot would be impenetrable, because then we'd have no idea where they are or why they're there. There is no purpose in allowing the audience to freely interpret these things.
We dream in linear increments which the film more than justifies with the idea of time slowing down between each level.
Whenever I wake up from a dream, I always feel as though it was longer than it actually was.
The depiction of symbolic dreams has in itself become trite. Nolan was trying to depict the realism that is often present in lucid dreaming, which in itself served a purpose: to ask whether what is happening is even real, to blur the line between being awake and asleep.
If the dreams were more surreal, it would lose this effect. The idea is that they go into the dream aware that they're dreaming, so making more of a contrast between reality and dreams would, ironically, make the distinction less ambiguous.
Also, subconscious aspects were used. It's, uh, how they managed to incept Fischer. And it's why Mal even exists.
Whether Cobb truly believed what he was saying or whether he actually believed what Mal was saying (his subconscious) is contingent on whether the top fell or not.
The development of your primary antagonist hinges upon how you interpret that ending.
How is relentlessly explaining (and don't forget the re-explaining) what they're doing and what they're going to do and what's going on nearly every second (when there's not an explosion or some violence) the entire 148 minute run of a movie holding someone's hand? I really don't know.
Some of the dialogue is wildy irrelevant, too, an example: there's a line line where Cobb points out to Michael Caine ”You know extradition between France and the US is a legal nightmare.” Now being a university professor teaching in Paris, wouldn't you think he knew that? Oh well I'm pretty sure someone watching would have liked to have known I guess.
See that's what I mean. It's not challenging your audience, rather babying them. A lot of what makes movies like 35 Shots of Rum so good and enjoyable is that it calmly and liberally permits the audience to observe the lives of the people in it, and let them figure out the relationship each has with one another. 2001: A Space Odyssey also comes to mind.
I'm talking about the linear progression of your dreams, not a dream's tendency to be a hyperbolic time chamber.
Since when?
The Matrix, oddly enough, did that over ten years ago. More effectively, even.
Which makes it a cheat. Due to the way it resolves, any interpretation you choose is both true and untrue. So who cares?
Edit: In the movie's defense, the most enjoyable part is when Arthur tricks Ariadne into kissing him. For a brief moment the movie felt alive. lmao it was probably improv
I was always under the impression that the dreams were so linear becuase they were artificially produced that way, but still being dreams they would link to the sub-conscious
Ok, let me put it this way.
Would it have been a better movie without all of the exposition? No. Because it wouldn't make sense. The exposition is needed because the dreams operate within a specific set of rules which the audience would be otherwise unaware of. It's not something that, were it to go unexplained, the audience could just freely interpret, because it would be too convoluted. Interpretation here wouldn't make a difference in the quality of the movie.
For example, if we were not told at a given moment whose dream we were in, would it have made a difference if one person argued they were in Arthur's dream while another argued they were in Eame's dream? No, there's no point in debating that. But at the same time, the audience needs to know what's going on, otherwise it's more of a confusing mess than it already is.
There's a difference between holding the audience's hand and establishing the framework from which something operates.
So, what, do your dreams normally go backwards? Or are you referring to the fact that they jump around, because that was exactly my point. They jump between the levels and for a person unaware of the dream, they don't actually know how they got there.
I think you can think of far more examples of symbolic dreams over realistic dreams in film. Eg Wizard of Oz, Jacob's Ladder, Requiem for a Dream, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, etc. etc. etc.
This is a pretty silly way to brush things off. Going back to one of your examples- 2001: A Space Odyssey (which is a fantastic film, absolutely): the visions and transformations at the end of the film. What was the symbolic relevance? There's obviously many different interpretations you can have, and any can be as true or untrue as the next, so why should it matter?
- Status