Anyway, last movie I’ve seen in cinema is Bone tomahawk.
There were other attempts at western-horror crossover, but this is the most successful I’ve seen. Movie is 100% western and 100% horror, S. Craig Zahler obviously understands what he is doing. In the first half movie excellently establishes emotional connection with the characters and gives us something worth dying for, and then the searchers go to meet cannibal holocaust.Contrarily to kind report from Mr last.caress, there is not only one gore scene, I say there are plenty of them. But I can understand why he forgot about the other, THAT one is…most definitely not for weak stomachs.
Richard Jenkins deserves an Oscar for his performance and do you recognize the guy bellow?
I see absolutely no sense to divide into lower and higher art, or like in Germany in entertainment and serious art.
As art is anyway a totally subjective thing, I’m only interested in what fascinates me or what not. Or even simpler, what entertains me and what not.
If it fascinates me it is art.
Seems stanton goes a step further than Dead Channel, who at least admits that the idea that posits high and low culture as a false dichotomony isn’t entirely true.
Interesting is the following statement:
I guess that only another way of dividing art into serious art and entertainment. What you say is: some forms of art do not fascinate me, others do, and only those that fascinate me, are art, the others only would-be art, or no art at all. Art lovers who wholeheartedly make the distinction, will probably say the same thing, only use different terms.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t say that I know how to make the distinction, I only say that we should make one. And what’s more important: if we no longer make the distinction, if we start saying it’s all arbitrary, that there’s not a pin to choose between them, the result will me the uniformity that was mentioned above. DeadChannel gives a good example of the effect of this postmodern idea of a false dichotomy when he says:
I couldn’t agree more. They focus on young adult schlock because they think it’s no longer important to distinguish between schlock and Shakespeare. That’s the idea behind it.
In fact the last paragraph (about fundings, etc) of the post has my full approval.
And by the way: I’m not worried about a little Wu Tang. I only referred to them as a pas pro toto and because others had already referred to them. Actually I hardly know them (I checked a few things because they were mentioned here)
I just got out of The Revenant. Damn that shit is brutal. The cinematography is gorgeous, also loved the soundtrack. A violent, intense, beautiful and gripping adventure. Loved it quite a bit.
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:1178, topic:2027, full:true”]
Two quotes:
Seems stanton goes a step further than Dead Channel, who at least admits that the idea that posits high and low culture as a false dichotomony isn’t entirely true. [/quote]
I see no real need to divide between art (as something per se more valuable) and entertainment (as something low for the masses). For me art is a word to set more complicated works made apart from works made by an industry mainly fore commercial reasons, while the artists work to express themselves.
Actually art is only entertainment for a more sophisticated and therefore smaller audience. And the minimum approach art should have is that it is entertaining.
[quote]
I guess that only another way of dividing art into serious art and entertainment. [/quote]
No, it means there is no real need for that. There is only a divide between works which entertain me, and works which don’t entertain me.
[quote]
What you say is: some forms of art do not fascinate me, others do, and only those that fascinate me, are art, the others only would-be art, or no art at all. [/quote]
Yes but only for me. If that what bores me fascinates someone else it is art for those others. Or with other words entertainment which not only entertains but also fascinates.
[quote]
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t say that I know how to make the distinction, I only say that we should make one. [/quote]
But who makes the distinction?
[quote]
And what’s more important: if we no longer make the distinction, if we start saying it’s all arbitrary, that there’s not a pin to choose between them, the result will me the uniformity that was mentioned above. [/quote]
No, the result will not be uniformity, but we do not have others to define for us what is good and what not. We have to decide that for ourselves. Which we do anyway.
Of course there still is a distinction, only who defines what is art and what not?
Whatever, what is art or not is not a given thing, it is made by people, who have opinions and not a truth, which means that what is art and what not is absolutely subjective, and not a truth. In the end I have to decide for myself what is art for me and what not.
If the Mona Lisa bores me I see no reason for me to call it art, only while others say so. But I accept that others, and in that case a majority, view it that way.
For me Quantum of Solace is a complex and fascinating masterpiece, so it is doubtless art for me, but I easily accept that that is a minority opinion.
But then if we all call both entertainment (or non-entertainment) instead of art, it is basically the same. A distinction is ok, but not to set some things above others as an objective truth. Like jazz is art and therefore always something better than e.g. pop.
This is a great discussion but I have to take issue with this: I would argue art isn’t subjective, it’s not an adjective to be used to praise something. Art is a medium, i.e. all paintings are art, all films are art, and so on. This means there is a lot of bad art, but it also establishes a base line for everybody, because if we followed Stanton, then not only would there be no bad art (which is absurd, as there patently is, even if there’s no universal acceptance of which artworks are bad) but nobody would know what are is, as it would all be subjective. It would also, damagingly, reawaken banal formalist arguments about whether cinema or comics are art, which post-modernism thankfully left behind (one of its virtues at least).
It would do that absolutely not if everything is subjective.
If you follow me you can of course say there is bad art. But you have to decide for yourself what is bad art and what not.
Everything which is made can be art, but nothing must be art, even if it is made with the highest art intentions which are possible.
There is still a constantly changing consensus what is art and what not, but it is a consensus build of many subjective opinions and not by some unknown godlike people who are the truth keepers. It’s still an opinion and not a truth and I like everybody else have the right to disagree.
But I understand that the “fact” (actually another opinion) that there is no truth (actually there is no truth there at all for everything) is an uncomfortable notion for most people. So people are mostly looking for some definite answers, and also about art, but at the same moment don’t like to have the feeling that others tell them what is good and what not.
Are you sure that you’re not the German Foucault ;)?
I can understand your post-modern viewpoint and if there’s no truth about art, then there are actual critical and cultural consensus about artworks. You’d have to be very contrarian to argue the Mona Lisa isn’t art, or a Beethoven symphony and even you did, you would have to acknowledge that most people accept its art status. It’s the boundaries which are hazy and continue to grow hazier. I think it helps to follow a theory of congruence: if we accept exhibit A as an artwork (Michelangelo’s David, Proust’s Remembrance of Things Past, whatever), then the exhibits B, C, D, etc, which share their formal properties (sculpture, novel) are also art, even if they’re not good art (they can in fact be utterly terrible). The problem with this line of thought of course, is that it finds it hard to accept new art forms; hence, why it took so long for cinema to taken seriously. Still, at least it helps explain why we recognise when something is art even if we can’t explain why.
Isn’t this very limiting thought? Why does art have to be entertaining? I thought you were arguing against strictures about what art is or isn’t?
Adventure, quest, romantic dreams, romantic illusions, beautiful shots of beautiful landscapes, beauty of nature, harshness of nature, harshness of human nature, imperishable spirit of human nature, frontier of civilization where life has no value but death has its price tag, black-clad sharp-dressed sharp-shooting bounty hunter, German writer who talks how we will soon start mythologizing and romanticizing native people and their cultures, love, death and redemption in the Old West. Death of the Old West and birth of a new life.
When the movie is called Slow West you know what to expect, but don’t worry. Although this is slow-paced western, like old Budd Boetticher’s movies, it says everything it needs to say in 80 minutes, and although there are similarities in pace and realistic style of Andrew Dominik’s The Assassination of Jesse James, this movie is not without quirkiness. Ben Mendelsohn has become one of my favorite modern character actors. This is a first-rate modern western, let’s see if couple of higher-profiled upcoming ones can meet its mark.
Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (Abrams/15)
“Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens” (2015), directed by J.J. Abrams, is the latest, much anticipated entry in a series that spans 38 years and counting. Every decade since the seventies has had its “Star Wars” and this, the first in a decade, is the start of a new trilogy. George Lucas, the original creator and director of perhaps the most iconic (and financially successful) franchise of all time, sold the rights to the series to Disney in 2012 and it is intriguing to see what “Star Wars” without Lucas is like.
On the whole, it must be said, very good. Abrams, director of the recent “Star Trek” (2009) reboot, working with Lawrence Kasdan (a noted director in his own right) and Michael Arndt, creates a host of memorable new characters: Finn and Rey are standouts, as well as fighter pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) and alien Maz Kanata (Lupita Nyong’o). They’re brought to life by a fine cast, with newcomers Ridley and Boyega comparing well to the returning cast, which includes a suitably gruff and laconic Harrison Ford as Han Solo and Carrie Fishers as Leia Organa. In many respects, these performances are the best part of the film. However, not all is so bright.
Adam Driver, as the film’s main villain, the masked, petulant Kylo Ren, lacks a distinctive presence and, in a first for the series, the nefarious evil force fighting the Resistance, seem a little colourless. Perhaps this is due in part to Abrams devotion to recreating the original films to such an extent that “The Force Awakens” in much of its plotting operates as a recreation of “A New Hope” (1977), not so much a sequel as a remake by stealth. Consequently, it lacks the wonder, awe and mystery that defined the first film and is more of an affectionate homage, with action scenes directly echoing previous ones. Even two shocking plot twists which it would be churlish to reveal, are not so very distant from previous films.
It’s exciting, it’s funny and ends on a cliffhanger which will leave you waiting for the next instalment; however, it will also leave you hoping for a more original, creative film next time we visit a galaxy, a long time ago and far, far away…
