Jump to content

SLAM!

Free Account+
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,886

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Posts posted by SLAM!

    The House That Jack Built | Lars Von Trier's next film | Prompts over 100 walkouts at Cannes | "Lars has gone too far this time"

    in Box Office Discussion

    Posted

    25 minutes ago, Haha what a joke said:

    You sure about that? I mean you just told us that you watched Django Unchained in school. That movie is only a few years old.. And you also just told us that you think that Hayden Christensen in Star wars, made art, now thats a joke if anything is

     

    Now, the fault as to why the prequels aren't viewed as art mainly lies on George Lucas. Hayden Christensen was doing his best with the character; fans dislike it because it was, for the most part, a more subdued and dramatic approach to Star Wars than many people were expecting. That's not to suggest the films are good. I mean, I haven't seen the first two prequel films all the way through, but to me, at least that scene that I was commenting on -- not the prequels in their entirety -- treated its subject matter with a better sense of empathy than the description of the overly grotesque depictions of murder in Von Trier's film.

     

    35 minutes ago, Haha what a joke said:

    I mean that sounds pretty much like someone that still watches Tele Tubbies (or is that before your time?).

     

    You can go to the thread where everyone was posting their top 100 lists, and see for yourself that I've watched some pretty visceral films, including (but not limited to) The Matrix, Do The Right Thing, Jean Luc-Godard's Breathless, Festen / The Celebration, Ghost in the Shell, The Dark Knight (which I've seen several times), Children of Men, Raging Bull, Logan, Whiplash, Die Hard, American Sniper, and, of course, Passion of the Christ. Of course, these are balanced with a lot of films that would generally be considered acceptable for all audiences, such as Spirited Away, Wall-E, and Mary Poppins, which I genuinely believe should be considered classics along those more violent movies. Oh, and I don't know why I forgot to put Snowpiercer on my list.

     

    So I mean no offense, but I would consider doing proper research before attempting to label me as a child.

     

    49 minutes ago, Haha what a joke said:

    Also the rest of your dialogue does reek of teenage angst and the joy of hearing yourself speak.

     

    Why shouldn't I do everything I do with joy? Why shouldn't I be happy that I have the freedom to express my opinion? And why should my age and inexperience hold me back from having something to say?

     

    53 minutes ago, Haha what a joke said:

    Regarding this movie.. Come now.. Some things are better left unseen. LVTs movies included.

     

    I do agree with this.

    The House That Jack Built | Lars Von Trier's next film | Prompts over 100 walkouts at Cannes | "Lars has gone too far this time"

    in Box Office Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Slambros

    25 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

    I don't think I speak just for myself when I say that we other film enthusiasts aren't little children who need to be protected from the dastardly Lars von Triers of the world and their cinematic provocations. You aren't the only one who've spent years developing a personal morality. We can watch something like this and deal with it in our own way. We'll be OK. I promise.

     

    Okay. That makes sense. I mean, while I'm no child and could probably watch this in a film class if I had to, I'll stick to my own opinion and try and refrain from watching them, and I won't personally consider it to be art. But I won't infringe on your right to call it art. Please accept my apology.

    The House That Jack Built | Lars Von Trier's next film | Prompts over 100 walkouts at Cannes | "Lars has gone too far this time"

    in Box Office Discussion

    Posted

    25 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:

    I don't get how you can label yourself as a fan of movies yet say that works you personally find too violent aren't art. How can you be open to new ideas that challenge what you believe?

     

    Personally, I love learning new ideas that I've never known before. I've learned a whole lot of things in college thus far. I just think that some ideas that don't make any sense to me. The idea that a filmmaker can be overly visceral in order to satisfy their own artistic desires? I'm not sure if that idea makes sense to me. But new ideas abou racism from Get Out and Django Unchained? New ideas about politics from Isle of Dogs and Citizen Kane? Those new ideas are awesome! Films like that are one of many reasons as to why I'm a film enthusiast!

     

    33 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:

    How would they be robbed by watching a movie as the director intended?

     

    Robbed in the sense that such a film might seem to be satisfying, but in the end, doesn't really satisfy them in the end. Then again, that could be any film.

     

    31 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

    I legitimately believe that the Christian movies that claim that there is a "War on Christmas" perpetuate an anti-Semitic narrative (us Jews won't let you say Merry Christmas!!). This particular narrative has thus been reinforced in conservative news networks, and I've seen casual anti-Semitic, (and anti-liberal) sentiment every single Christmas season of my life with the made-up "War on Christmas" thing. These films have had significantly more negative impact on my life than any Lars Von Trier film ever will, because it is hateful to have to hear that bullshit. But that doesn't mean they aren't art. That doesn't mean the people who watch them are bad people. And that doesn't mean the directors are criminal. That's not a fair thing to say. They're art. Art I disagree with, art I think is potentially harmful, but art. Just putting it in terms of movies you have defended in the past. 

     

    While I do regularly defend faith-based films, I don't think I'd ever want to defend the films you describe. I absolutely think it's wrong for a film to be anti-Semetic. But as much as I think it might be a misunderstanding, I'm sure that those films are less art and more sermon. I've never really heard of these films that talk about a 'war on Christmas'; these films aren't speaking against one's right to celebrate Hanakkuh, right? That'd be a horrible thing for those filmmakers to do. And... how in the world would there be a war on Christmas?! Like... huh?!

     

    Well, I'll say this: maybe bad films really are art by definition. But I'll stand by my beliefs and refuse to consider them as art. But other people can if they want.

     

    What I'm saying is, I agree with pretty much everything you say. Thank you for that.

    The House That Jack Built | Lars Von Trier's next film | Prompts over 100 walkouts at Cannes | "Lars has gone too far this time"

    in Box Office Discussion

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

    Yes, although I don't think that would automatically make the scene itself or the movie surrounding it worthless and devoid of interest. It's important to remember that in the end this is all make-believe. We aren't talking about actual snuff films here.

     

    Well, it might not be worthless or devoid of interest to the people that might like a film such as this. That doesn't mean a film is art. Cynics of the MCU films have the right not to consider those films as art in the same way.

     

    10 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

    The public is composed of individuals and every individual determines for themselves where a line gets crossed. The "public" as a "whole" can't "rightfully" do anything because that would inherently mean disregarding the positions of - even forcibly silencing - a major part of said public. On the contrary, here it's you and only you who have decided where the line should be and now you want "the public" to cater to your position. Nope. Not gonna happen.

     

    My naive autistic teenage mind thought that society as a whole could come to an agreement that this kind of glorification of murder was wrong and unwarranted... I hope it still is for the majority of people. I hope that the people who would make a film like this aren't a major part of the public, as you say.

     

    I am absolutely against forcible silencing, but I'm for common courtesy. I'm for coming together and choosing to rise above things that are overly harmful. Hopefully I'm not sounding pretentious when I say that I don't want to watch people being murdered on the screen.

     

    And... I don't exactly know where the line should be. I just know that it should be somewhere. And I admit that I wouldn't wnat to be deciding it alone. But there should definitely be one in my opinion. It's a moral thing. It's a common courtesy thing. That's all it is. I'm not trying to force anyone to make palatable films here. I'm just speaking out against disgusting depictions, voicing out my desire for a stronger sense of integrity.

     

    20 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

    You haven't seen that scene. You don't know how much meaning there may or may not be in it.

     

    That's assuming the film is releases in theaters or VoD or any sort of format in the domestic market so that we even have chance to examine it at all. But in any case, you're right. I haven't seen the scene. But aren't I allowed to say that a certain way of depicting it, possibly the most likely it was depicted based on the amount of people that walked out of that theater, would be wrong?

     

    24 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

    The fuck?

     

    That thing about him murdering hid audience was a suggestion linking the verse in the Bible stating that hatred is equal to murder to the assumption that subjecting an audience to sucb depiction could possibly be a form of hatred. I don't know enough about the filmmaker to know for sure though.

     

    26 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

    This is just condescension. 

     

    Don't assume you know better than those people, especially in this case when they've actually seen and processed the film and you're only relying on second-hand reports and your own outrage. Don't rush to take the moral high ground. And don't talk about what "we" should or shouldn't do in this case because you aren't speaking for me.

     

    I only say these things because I care about other people, out of a genuine belief that it is, at the very least, possible for a film like this to be harmful. I am just trying to suggest that, maybe, just maybe, filmmakers should be more courteous of their audiences. This is the place of morality that I've developed over the course of many years -- I agree that one cannot take a moral high ground instanteneously, I agree that it takes humility and dedication to reach a moral standpoint -- and I really do think that, if people are willing to, they can and should view this film as something that isn't right. I just think that this film belongs in an outlier section alongside stuff like Cannibal Holocaust and The Human Centipede, stuff that would reasonably be called unnecesary. Maybe I was a little condescending, and I apologize for that. But I really do think that there are better, more dignified films out there for people to watch, and I am relieved that it is a good 99.9% of films that are truly treat their audiences with respect.

     

    If you're interested in a film like this, that's okay. But if it really does depict gruesome actions, then I am absolutely willing to use second-hand reports and outrage to speak against a film like this, and I will encourage others to do the same. It's just that I care about other film enthusiasts and I think it would be a shame if they really did end up robbed by the films they chose to consume.

     

    Thank you for pointing out the flaws in my argument, and I promise to uphold myself to think before speaking and be more clear about what I'm really saying in the future.

    The House That Jack Built | Lars Von Trier's next film | Prompts over 100 walkouts at Cannes | "Lars has gone too far this time"

    in Box Office Discussion

    Posted

    10 minutes ago, Macleod said:

    This thread is quickly depleting my Likes for the day.

     

    If those in this thread have this much to say before they've even seen the film, then I can't wait until people actually see it.

     

    I admire LVT for his cajones.  That doesn't mean I support his messages.  But it does mean that art, to me, should have no limits.  If he makes the equivalent of a snuff film and the majority dismisses it as such en masse and calls him a pariah, so be it.  I'll just be all that more interested to see it.  Tarantino, for example, somehow gets away with this stuff because he frames all his excessive violence in an attractive style, editing, and humor that engages the audience. 

     

    The only Tarantino film I've ever seen was Django Unchained, and I saw it as a part of my first film class in college. It does have quite a few things to say about racism, but I found myself repulsed by its violence. I do think it is a lot better than the mere descriptions of this film, because at least the violence isn't senseless. But I was still extremely repulsed by its content, and if I ever see a Tarantino film ever again, it'll be Pulp Fiction (by virtue of its status as all-time great, 'essential viewing') and nothing else.

    The House That Jack Built | Lars Von Trier's next film | Prompts over 100 walkouts at Cannes | "Lars has gone too far this time"

    in Box Office Discussion

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:

     

     

    This scene does a much better job at arousing a sense of empathy in the viewer. It uses the tell approach rather than the show approach, just like the fisherman in Jaws when he told the story of his survival of the sinking of the U.S.S. Indianapolis just moments after World War 2. And it causes the viewer to feel sad about what is happening.

     

    The House That Jack Built, on the other hand, is taking a route that does not allow for empathy -- only death, only disgust. 

    The House That Jack Built | Lars Von Trier's next film | Prompts over 100 walkouts at Cannes | "Lars has gone too far this time"

    in Box Office Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Slambros

    8 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

    You're projecting your own views onto someone else's views.  By definition, art is supposed to be a piece of work that strives to have some sort of emotional impact, and if the artist thinks that fictitious depiction of mutilation of women/children is going to help produce the impact that they want for their work, then yes, they should be allowed to do that and still have their film be considered as art.

     

    This isn't just my own view of it. Something they teach in writing school is that good art starts with empathy. Unfortunately, it seems from the reactions that Lars Von Trier is not only depicting these actions, but subsequently reveling in them. He seems to be glorifying and glamorizing the sin of murder. I have a hard time believing over one hundred people would have walked out if the scenes were even the least bit empathetic. The casting aside of empathy is not art. It is the failure to be art.

    The House That Jack Built | Lars Von Trier's next film | Prompts over 100 walkouts at Cannes | "Lars has gone too far this time"

    in Box Office Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Slambros

    1 hour ago, Jake Gittes said:

    Mutilation of women and children is a crime.

     

    A fictional work - of cinema, literature, painting, etc. - depicting mutilation of women and children is art because all those are mediums of art by definition. It can be great art or terrible art, depending on a whole bunch of factors, but that it's art is kind of a given. 

     

    Do you think that a depiction of a crime can go so far as to go from being art to being obscene? Just this year, we have tons of other films in the Cannes lineup striving to give important messages. And then we have this film, and what it depicts. I don't think this deserves to stand beside films like Everybody Knows, BlacKKKlansmen, Shoplifters, Ash is Purest White, Under The Silver Lake, etc... to suggest that this film is art, just like those films are art, is pretty sickening.

     

    There needs to be limits in art. There needs to be points where a filmmaker crosses a line and the public as a whole can rightfully say that it is obscenity, rather than art. Art and obscenity are two different things, and I am arguing that, when you film a scene in which -- spoiler alert, for those who care -- the lives of two small children are taken away by the headshots -- yes, headshots -- from a serial killer and his gun, that isn't art. That is obscenity, because there is no meaning in showing such scene other than shock value and the very obvious and trite "murder is wrong". There is absolutely 0% chance that Lars Von Trier was completely unaffected by a malicious intent that crept into his mind and told him that he would enjoy giving people negative reactions. He might as well be murdering his own audience, as he has no respect for any of them -- no respect for the ones who are rightfully repulsed by what's on screen, and no respect for the ones who are tricking themselves into thinking they enjoy such content and are thus being demoralized, their very souls suffering devastating corrosion.

     

    Yes, this is a film, something that is commonly called art. It's not a work of fiction as you say, because it is (unfortunately) based on a true story (correct me if I'm wrong). But art is supposed to have meaning, and just as the murders themselves were senseless, the act of filming such murders is equally senseless, and equally reprehensible at that.

     

    If the depiction of the mutilation of women and children is defined as art, then it's time we take a stand and call for a change in the definition of art.

    The Final Countdown: BOT's Top 100 Movies of All-Time - The List is Complete, The Empire is Dead, I Now Go to the Grey Havens

    in Archived Lists and Countdowns

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, captainwondyful said:

     

    3f913171fe8d72116f939bb1971072f6.gif

     

    I was not remotely fucking around when it came to TWS.  I saw that in 2016 it was #94, and was like, NOPE.

     

    I also laugh at how I've seen that clip about thirty times and I STILL watched the whole thing.

     

    I love the way Captain America: The Winter Soldier uses action to expose character.

     

    We start with the Lemurian Star sequence.  It takes place at night.  Steve's wearing his dark stealth suit.  Steve Rogers is not a bad ass for jumping out of that plane without a parachute.  He's suicidal.  He has zero regards for his safety and well being.  He tosses his enemies around without concern.  We feel him in his dark place, trying to find his new role in the world.

     

    In the Washington DC Street Fight -- the Best Action Sequence Marvel's Ever Put On Screen -- the entire sequence takes place in street clothes.  Our heroes have found out that the enemies is from within and have shed their past alliances.  They're trying to survive, trying to find who they are in this new world.  This sequence is also so smart.  I love that Natasha Romanoff stops when she sees the shadows.  I love that Sam Wilson LITERALLY brings a knife to a gun fight and wins.  I love the intense fight choreography of Steve Rogers and Winter Soldier's fight -- and then he rips off that mask, for that reveal, and we're right back to Steve, and his emotions.

     

    Finally, in the Hellicarrier sequence, Steve emerges in his old Captain America suit.  He's found a new purpose in the world.  This sequence is the most 'superhero' of the movie.  Yet, we still keep it personal, because now it's about saving Bucky.  I love that it ends with two of the most skilled fighters in the world having a wrestling match.

     

    I judge every modern action movie and superhero film based off this movie.  It's god damn flawless.

     

    tumblr_n9ogn6PIAK1qeidy7o8_250.gif

     

    I need to stop forgetting about good films. If it was fresher in my mind, it might've been on my list, too. Definitely next time, though.

    • Like 2

    The House That Jack Built | Lars Von Trier's next film | Prompts over 100 walkouts at Cannes | "Lars has gone too far this time"

    in Box Office Discussion

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

     

    They probably should've known what they were getting into when they saw the extreme violence warning and the fact that it was a Lars Von Trier film.

     

    Art is supposed to provoke a reaction, and if this was his intent, then so be it.  One thing's for sure: People aren't gonna stop talking about this.

     

    I understand that art -- that is a key word here -- is supposed to provoke a reaction.

     

    My argument is that the "mutilation of women of children" is not something that any sane person would call art.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.

  I accept