Barney ShmarnyadoniscapoteSeptember 27 2003, 04:38:04 UTC
Ho man have YOU ever hit upon something...I sat through all 5 of them, even saw part 3 TWICE with a Cremaster-freak friend who then told me that i simply "wasn't getting it." Realizing that i had just lost 6 1\2 hours of my life watching some guy stop up an elevator by pouring in wet cement...i just about had a cornary. And THEN he shows me his asshole.
dude, i haven't seen the cremaster movies, that's one of those things i'm perpetually meaning to do--kinda excited, thinking perhaps i'll love them, kinda scared cuz it's a huge time investment for something i've always suspected may in fact be really boring and not love-able. however, i share your opinion of taxi driver. I, like, respect it, i have a kind of appreciation for it and recognize the ways in which it's a very well done film. but i don;t like it that much or think it's that great.
I mean- Richard Serra as the devil! How can you hate that?mufflermanSeptember 29 2003, 18:32:44 UTC
Did you see the Guggenheim exhibit? I think you're forgetting that The Cremaster Cycle is not a piece of narrative cinema. It's an art project and at that, it's not even a complete art project. The full Cremaster Cycle includes the sculpture, photography and literature generated by the production of the films. The films serve as an arbitrary (or not arbitrary, depending on how you look at it) framework to generate a series of ideas, myths and images that fold and unfold like a series of nesting boxes from The Cycle itself.
I do think if you take the content of The Cycle too seriously, you're missing the mark. I mean the whole thing is a giddy recreation of male-dominated mythos. It's a completely enclosed world in itself. I'm not invalidating your opinion. I just think that trying to view The Cremaster Cycle as a film is missing the point.
The point, by the way- is that I want to impregnate bjork.
Re: I mean- Richard Serra as the devil! How can you hate that?totalvirilitySeptember 29 2003, 20:40:11 UTC
See, I would agree with that argument, except it's completely full of shit.
Here's the problem: I'm not forgetting anything about the Cremaster's intentions, just as the Cremaster Cycle isn't doing anything with its own existence. It can defend its 'giddy recreations' as much as it likes, and ask not to be taken so seriously, except that it's a dull, lifeless, pointless exercise in futility, albeit a long and (apparently) complex one.
Male-dominated mythos? Nesting boxes? I'm not buying. The films- or the 'self-enclosed work of art', if you like- are nothing. They don't do anything besides provide some interesting photographic arrangements, mostly because they seem to come from a mindset devoid of anything non-visual. It's not merely for lack of narrative (hey, don't you know my thing for non-narrative art films?), nor for taking it too seriously (hey, don't you know how fucking stoned I was?).
Re: I mean- Richard Serra as the devil! How can you hate that?mufflermanOctober 1 2003, 17:30:10 UTC
Well, sweetie- while I's love's you a-plenty, I think you're having an issue with opinion versus reality. YOU don't like/get/enjoy Barney. Fine. I still think you're looking it as a film and not as a piece of sculpture. I think, yeah- as a film, narrative or not, it's boring. As a piece of art, I think it's pretty fascinating and shows a ton more inventiveness than most artists working today...as one would expect you to know after your recent documentary experience. Did you see the Gugg show? Do you even know who Richard Serra is? I'm very mad at film people today. I was watching the director's commentary for Donnie Darko and David Kelly didn't know what a 'deus ex machina' was. I really can't believe that you don't see the whole 'maleness' of The Cycle. I mean, the guys created a five hour long epic to his scrotum descending! Isn't that hillarious? He has the whole world (film types like you, especially) examining an epic ballad of shrinkage and expansion. The Chrysler building, the Order, the race cars, goats, axe-
( ... )
Re: I mean- Richard Serra as the devil! How can you hate that?mufflermanOctober 1 2003, 17:38:24 UTC
Also- you failed to respond to my argument that the Cycle is not simply the films themselves, but the physical art, photos and text generated by the films.
I don't think he's the be all and end all, but to claim that it's "nothing" and "pointless" is just stupidly blind. You should expand your idea of what an art piece could be. You're thinking way too small, Charles.
P.S.- Do you know anyone interested in D.P.ing a video shoot?
Although it's not so much 'no like Taxi Driver' as much as 'no love Taxi Driver'. I have difficulties with what I see are major inconsistancies in tone in that movie that really don't work for me; I dunno- I love some other Scorsece (Raging Bull, After Hours), but not all (Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, The King of Comedy), and Taxi Driver has what I feel like are some of the weaknesses he sometimes resorts to- really strange, inexplicable scenes that completely destroy the tone of what the other material works towards (i.e., the Cybill Shepard and Albert Brooks scenes)... But I guess it's not just that. It's just that overall, I don't quite see what the big deal is.
Comments 10
Those stupid movies are good for snickers. And i don't mean no candy. Good night.
Reply
BTW, they broke up. He's gay now.
Reply
Reply
I do think if you take the content of The Cycle too seriously, you're missing the mark. I mean the whole thing is a giddy recreation of male-dominated mythos. It's a completely enclosed world in itself. I'm not invalidating your opinion. I just think that trying to view The Cremaster Cycle as a film is missing the point.
The point, by the way- is that I want to impregnate bjork.
- Horace
Reply
Here's the problem: I'm not forgetting anything about the Cremaster's intentions, just as the Cremaster Cycle isn't doing anything with its own existence. It can defend its 'giddy recreations' as much as it likes, and ask not to be taken so seriously, except that it's a dull, lifeless, pointless exercise in futility, albeit a long and (apparently) complex one.
Male-dominated mythos? Nesting boxes? I'm not buying. The films- or the 'self-enclosed work of art', if you like- are nothing. They don't do anything besides provide some interesting photographic arrangements, mostly because they seem to come from a mindset devoid of anything non-visual. It's not merely for lack of narrative (hey, don't you know my thing for non-narrative art films?), nor for taking it too seriously (hey, don't you know how fucking stoned I was?).
They're just boring. End of story.
Reply
Reply
I don't think he's the be all and end all, but to claim that it's "nothing" and "pointless" is just stupidly blind. You should expand your idea of what an art piece could be. You're thinking way too small, Charles.
P.S.- Do you know anyone interested in D.P.ing a video shoot?
- Horace
Reply
you must have really really refined taste in film.
either that, or you got no taste.
Reply
Although it's not so much 'no like Taxi Driver' as much as 'no love Taxi Driver'. I have difficulties with what I see are major inconsistancies in tone in that movie that really don't work for me; I dunno- I love some other Scorsece (Raging Bull, After Hours), but not all (Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, The King of Comedy), and Taxi Driver has what I feel like are some of the weaknesses he sometimes resorts to- really strange, inexplicable scenes that completely destroy the tone of what the other material works towards (i.e., the Cybill Shepard and Albert Brooks scenes)...
But I guess it's not just that. It's just that overall, I don't quite see what the big deal is.
Reply
Leave a comment