A24's HEREDITARY

[The Futurist]

12 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

So the takeaway from that is that they've been force-fed so much formulaic product they don't even know how to react to anything remotely different. I'd hope they have enough instincts left to, y'know, think about what the fuck they just watched and what they can take away from it, good or bad. 

 

Film, like all arts, should be about expression, not pandering. And you can criticize the result all you want if you don't like it, but all your endless grandstanding about how a movie is bad because The People Are Displeased is nothing but reverse snobbery that puts the lowest common denominator on a pedestal, and it devalues anything sensible you may ever have to say. 

 

And come on. Connective tissue? This isn't in any way some experimental movie. The story is not hard to piece together. The movie even spells out its own damn theme in one of the classroom scenes so you don't have to actively look for it. Don't even get me started on The Last Jedi good fucking lord.

Well that s what makes movies such a unique art form to me and that is the million dollar question in the end :

 

you make a movie to satisfy your personnal needs as an "artiste( en français)" ?

you make a movie for audiences ?

 

Depending on the movie, you will have to strike a balance between the two, or not.

 

The Last Jedi has less conncetive tissue than Hereditary agreed, Johnson's movie makes so little sense people will be able to watch Episode 9 by skipping 8 : great story telling right there.

Brilliant even.

 

And come on, let s not pretend Hereditary doesn't have a fuck ton of ellipses that makes it de facto an unpleasant experience for most audiences, ellipses that allow some people to say audiences are too stupid to understand the movie  or critics to fap to said movie because all that is unsaid and open to interpretation is art, right ?

Between a thousand ellipses and explaining everything in your movie like you think your audiences are clueless  teletubies, filmmakers can find a middle  ground I am sure and Hereditary s filmmaker took the arty pose.

Good for him.

Edited June 14, 2018 by The Futurist

[StevenG]

3 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

The Last Jedi has less conncetive tissue than Hereditary agreed, Johnson's movie makes so little sense people will be able to watch Episode 9 by skipping 8 : great stoy telling right there.

You and your Jlaw-and-MCU loving arse is the last person who should be complaining about storytelling flaws.

[Water Bottle]

MODERATION

 

Knock off the TLJ talk or get thread banned. Seriously NOT every thread has to be about Star Wars or MCU. 

[Barnack]

8 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Well that s what makes movies such a unique art form to me and that is the million dollar question in the end :

 

you make a movie to satisfy your personnal needs as an artist ?

you make a movie for audiences ?

Is that much different than say music, stand up comic or any other art form with an actual audience ? The feedback from the audience being much longer from the production ?

 

I would imagine everyone make a movie for audience and from the audience point of view too, no one would spend 6 month in a dark editing room making a movie if they were the last man on earth, even Malick. Like every stand up is seeking an audience or musician. How big of an audience they want and aim for and is type can change too obviously.

 

Or maybe you mean you make a movie for pleasing an audience with proven to please audience formula.

Because making a movie to shock an audience is still for audience.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Barnack

[The Futurist]

4 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Is that much different than say music, stand up comic or any other art form with an actual audience ? The feedback from the audience being much longer from the production ?

 

I would imagine everyone make a movie for audience and from the audience point of view too, no one would spend 6 month in a dark editing room making a movie if they were the last man on earth, even Malick. Like every stand up is seeking an audience or musician. How big of an audience they want and aim for and is type can change too obviously.

Movies moreso than any other art form IMO.

 

You can play an instrument alone or sing and be fullfield, same with painting or drawing.

[Barnack]

1 minute ago, The Futurist said:

You can play an instrument alone or sing and be fullfield, same with painting or drawing.

Does stand up even exist without an audience too ? That one is purely audience feedback mechanism even more so that movies, I would imagine that many people spend very small resources making small movies no one will see, but not jokes.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Barnack

[The Futurist]

1 minute ago, Barnack said:

Does stand up exist without an audience too ?

Not, the moment you act or pretend you need an audience, if not, go straight to the psych ward.

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by The Futurist

[StevenG]

22 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Does stand up even exist without an audience too ? That one is purely audience feedback mechanism even more so that movies, I would imagine that many people spend very small resources making small movies no one will see, but not jokes.

Theatre is also nothing without an audience.

Theatre without an audience is not theatre; it's just people talking out loud and acting out scenes.

[Jake Gittes]

38 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

And come on, let s not pretend Hereditary doesn't have a fuck ton of ellipses that makes it de facto an unpleasant experience for most audiences, ellipses that allow some people to say audiences are too stupid to understand the movie  or critics to fap to said movie because all that is unsaid and open to interpretation is art, right ?

Between a thousand ellipses and explaining everything in your movie like you think your audiences are clueless  teletubies, filmmakers can find a middle  ground I am sure and Hereditary s filmmaker took the arty pose.

Good for him.

There's nothing about ellipses that inherently should make the movie an unpleasant experience for most audiences, unless they've been so conditioned to have everything spelled out to them that they can't deal with any deviation from that. (In which case that's on both them and the industry doing the conditioning.) Audiences gotta be able to meet a movie halfway. And in this case it's not even halfway, it's like 5% of the way. Because, again, the story is ultimately clear. Aster is doing far more explaining here than he is obscuring.

 

I also don't know why you concern yourself so much with what other people say about the movie or about yet other people using the movie as a crutch. You don't know any of them anyway. You have a movie (or any work) and you have your own personal experience with it. It should be as little impacted as possible by other people. To use an example of a movie that actually does have a ton of deliberate ellipses that make it incoherent, I seriously hate Haneke's Caché but I have enough basic trust in other people to believe that when they praise it that means they had a positive experience with it that I didn't. I can just hate it in my own corner for my own reasons. 

[norbar]

18 hours ago, baumer said:

 

Futurist isn't American.  And maybe he just didn't like the movie.  That's still allowed here, isn't it?

I'm not angry that he didn't like the movie. I am angry because he said certain movies shouldn't be seen in cinemas.

[norbar]

8 hours ago, StevenG said:

Theatre is also nothing without an audience.

Theatre without an audience is not theatre; it's just people talking out loud and acting out scenes.

I disagree. The theatre experience itself forces you to focus since there are no distractions and if you are lucky you get great projection and sound quality (I've heard some theaters show Hereditary too dark and some stuff is not visible like it should be). I often watch movies on movie markets and festivals where the audience is super quiet. Hell I am often the only person in the cinema when testing DCP copies. I still love those screenings.

 

 

btw. First 2 days of the week saw small drops.  Cinemascore means shit

Edited June 14, 2018 by norbar

[baumer]

5 hours ago, norbar said:

I'm not angry that he didn't like the movie. I am angry because he said certain movies shouldn't be seen in cinemas.

 

Oh, yes....my bad.  I agree with you.

[OdinSon2k14]

I found out that this is the same studio that did The Witch film a couple years go. That one I found bizarre too ☺️. Just like this one.  More strange than scary...they're in the category of Rob Zombie's Lords of Salem. You walk out the theater thinking, what did I just watch? Was my coffee spiked 😂?!

[Barnack]

2 minutes ago, OdinSon2k14 said:

I found out that this is the same studio that did The Witch film a couple years go. That one I found bizarre too ☺️. Just like this one.  More strange than scary...they're in the category of Rob Zombie's Lords of Salem. You walk out the theater thinking, what did I just watch? Was my coffee spiked 😂?!

I do not think it was from the same studio.

Witch was made by:

• Parts and Labor
• RT Features
• Rooks Nest Entertainment
• Maiden Voyage Pictures
• Mott Street Pictures
• Code Red Productions
• Scythia Films
• Pulse Films
• Special Projects

 

Hereditary was made by:

• PalmStar Media
• Finch Entertainment
• Windy Hill Pictures

 

A24 only happen to be the one that bought both the US market after the movies were made in on the selling block for everyone interested to bid on them . The Witch was bought after it played well at Sundance

https://variety.com/2015/film/news/sundance-radius-twc-a24-circling-the-witch-exclusive-1201414043/.

 

Hereditary was bought before sundance, but both were fully independant film, I think. But it is not surprising that they would both be bougth by the same distributor and that one would imagine that they made them both.

 

They are just now starting to make movies from what I understand:

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/03/a24-picks-up-first-ever-spec-script-for-horror-fil.html

 

 

[CoolioD1]

having now seen it, and not to give too much of a spoiler away, the divisive nature of the movie is much clearer to me now. the opening title states we're starting in april 2018. however in a later scene the date clearly says september 2017 on toni collette's computer. i can see why audiences and many on the forum are furious. there was almost a riot in my cinema when that came up.

[Krissykins]

I thought this was amazing. 

 

Genuinely scared me at points. Constant dread. Amazing performances.

 

Toni Collette deserves the Oscar for one scene alone. 

[nick64]

This is the third time A24 has burned the GA with their horror movies. It’s gonna have to backfire eventually right?

 

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve loved them all.

[Jake Gittes]

20 minutes ago, nick64 said:

This is the third time A24 has burned the GA with their horror movies. It’s gonna have to backfire eventually right?

 

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve loved them all.

Both this and The Witch will have ended up with near 3x multis and solid grosses. Only It Comes at Night was rejected really.

[norbar]

2 hours ago, Jake Gittes said:

Both this and The Witch will have ended up with near 3x multis and solid grosses. Only It Comes at Night was rejected really.

This. The public hasn't really been burned. Just a select group of people asked by Cinemascore. IMDB is high

Edited June 19, 2018 by norbar

[Avatree]

I'm glad there are film studios willing to sell films that are not made for the general audience. As long as the film manages to find its audience, what else matters? Not every film needs to have mass appeal. In the same way that other A24 films won't be appreciated by the general audience, just look at The Disaster Artist, most people won't have the foggiest what The Room is, but the people who do, really enjoyed the movie and they turned it into a success.