The Official Movie Thread

[rms]

Look, I don't like what you say about movies or your approach to understanding them.

we both agreed the movie was stupid! you just said you liked it for whatever reason outside of "amazing"

 

[Einherjar86]

I was talking about Fury Road.

But, just a really quick note about Manchester--there's actually a really well-placed and expertly-adapted (in my opinion) reference to Freud's Interpretation of Dreams. I caught the reference during the movie, and it fucking gave me chills. Lonergan discusses it in this interview:

http://filmmakermagazine.com/100297-high-tide/

 

[rms]

I was talking about Fury Road.

I know. we both said the characters don't make sense yet you enjoyed the film in spite of it. that's where the convo ended, it ruined the movie for me, didn't for you

 

[Einherjar86]

The characters don't make sense because it's a pulp fantasy. That doesn't make the movie "stupid." It means the movie is appealing to a tradition in which character development isn't central, if it's important at all. It's the opposite of a film like Manchester.

Elevating character as a crucial component of "good" storytelling is hierarchical and restrictive. There are plenty of good movies with little to no character development.

 

[rms]

http://filmmakermagazine.com/100297-high-tide/

it's strange to see how detailed he was in his process and how little that translated personally. the seasons for instance, didn't seem to have that drawn out effect that he wanted. Wonder if editing process/studio manipulate that somehow.

also, how did you feel about the reactions from Lucas' nephew? I found that character strange in that world. Mother drunk and drugged out, gone. Father dies, barely a reaction outside of him being slightly upset the ground is frozen.

That doesn't make the movie "stupid." It means the movie is appealing to a tradition in which character development isn't central, if it's important at all.

Mad Max was a character driven universe. This movie strayed from that tradition to slightly explore the character of Furiosa and ignore Max and his timeline.

Elevating character as a crucial component of "good" storytelling is hierarchical and restrictive. There are plenty of good movies with little to no character development.

Never said a film had to have character development to be good or not stupid. But if it's not redeeming in any other way, it makes it stupid to not have it. Die Hard (first) works as a film not because of character development, rather story and action. Fury Road has neither. There's nothing else to explore here, you're the one dragging it on.

it ruined the movie for me, didn't for you

this line is true for both of our perspectives then and now.

 

[Einherjar86]

To say that Fury Road has no story or action is categorically false.

Also, I don't think it explored Furiosa all that much, honestly. It just installed her as an equal to Max (possibly--he still bested her and all the other women in the brawl after their escape).

 

[CiG]

I think there's a critical problem if you cannot explain to someone why you enjoy a film, album or book/novel/etc. Enjoy, here, is being limited to subjective measures, not critical or technical aptitude.

if you're having a conversation in 'real' life and someone asks you why you liked "X," do you just go "man, I can never convince you so let's drop it" -- it's not about convincing, it's about hearing other perspectives. When we talked Blade Runner, you cited the book more than the film because you didn't remember the film or something like that.

In fact, no one on here has ever been able to say why they actually like the film in the several times it's come up. I find that fascinating when it's talked about as one of those films that didn't get the respect it deserved when it came out or a "Manilla Road" of films, perhaps.

Just my 2 cents but you seem to be mischaracterising Ein here. He said he can't convince someone who already knows why they dislike a film to like it, especially if what they disliked about it is part of what he liked about it. That's an entirely reasonable qualifier for conservation of time and effort.

You also claim that he is unable to explain why he enjoyed a film, that's wrong. He said he couldn't or didn't like to try and explain why a film is good. Explaining the goodness of a film to someone inherently requires you to provide some objective reasoning for its goodness. He can (and has already) explained why he personally likes a film.

You changed what you wanted from him rather unfairly and dishonestly.

hierarchical

Not necessarily a bad thing, at all. Especially if we're talking about storytelling from a Jungian perspective.

 

[Einherjar86]

Not necessarily a bad thing, at all. Especially if we're talking about storytelling from a Jungian perspective.

How do you mean exactly? I'm not sure I follow.

 

[rms]

To say that Fury Road has no story or action is categorically false.

true, i meant to add in an adjective like "amazing" and then say Fury Road does not have anywhere near that level of storytelling

Also, I don't think it explored Furiosa all that much, honestly. It just installed her as an equal to Max (possibly--he still bested her and all the other women in the brawl after their escape).

great, we agree. yet again.

He said he can't convince someone who already knows why they dislike a film to like it, especially if what they disliked about it is part of what he liked about it. That's an entirely reasonable qualifier for conservation of time and effort.

never asked to be convinced. I said it in that reply, I enjoy reading/listening to other perspectives. He was more interested in being a dick than expressing his views. Notice how I didn't counter when you said you didn't think it was over the top feminism? Because that's where that conversation dies. Nothing else to say.

You also claim that he is unable to explain why he enjoyed a film, that's wrong.

I can't tell you why a movie is good, because you either like it or you don't.

??

Explaining the goodness of a film to someone inherently requires you to provide some objective reasoning for its goodness.

uh, no it doesn't? Good is a subjective word. The hell are you talking about

 

[Einherjar86]

Asking someone to explain why a movie is good doesn't imply subjective or personal impressions. It implies an objective quality or sphere of aesthetic superiority that one can appeal to. That was how you approached the entire conversation.

When you ask why any art object is "good," you're asking what qualities it possesses that make it "good." That's not the same thing as asking "why do you like this particular object?"

 

[CiG]

I said some objective reasoning, not totally objective.

If you truly believed that good was totally subjective, you wouldn't be so disappointed with his answers.

 

[rms]

Asking someone to explain why a movie is good doesn't imply subjective or personal impressions. It implies an objective quality or sphere of aesthetic superiority that one can appeal to. That was how you approached the entire conversation.

you're both redefining "objective" without putting forth the new definition

When you ask why any art object is "good," you're asking what qualities it possesses that make it "good." That's not the same thing as asking "why do you like this particular object?"

I don't agree that they are different

 

[CiG]

How do you mean exactly? I'm not sure I follow.

Classic storytelling, which is universal, is hierarchical.

Take the common relationship with archetypical themes for example in storytelling. (In Jungian psychology, an inherited pattern of thought or symbolic imagery derived from past collective experience and present in the individual unconscious.)

 

[Einherjar86]

you're both redefining "objective" without putting forth the new definition

I don't agree that they are different

The OED defines "good" as:

"As a general adjective of commendation, implying that the thing described is of high or satisfactory quality, suitable for some purpose, or worthy of approval.
1. Having in a large or adequate degree the qualities or properties desirable in something of the specified kind; of high or acceptable quality, standard, or level."

"Good" attributes qualities to a thing, it doesn't denote an opinion someone has of something.

Classic storytelling, which is universal, is hierarchical.

Take the common relationship with archetypical themes for example in storytelling. (In Jungian psychology, an inherited pattern of thought or symbolic imagery derived from past collective experience and present in the individual unconscious.)

Ah, okay. Yes, hierarchy isn't inherently a bad thing, correct; and classical storytelling is often hierarchical, yet still good.

I guess I just meant that films, or art objects, can buck the hierarchical scheme and still be fucking great. Fury Road isn't a movie that cares all that much about traditional storytelling, but it still manages to pack a compelling narrative reversal into a spectacle of blood and gasoline (to quote Virgin Steele).

 

[CiG]

I think Fury Road tends to buck the hierarchical scheme because it's an overwhelmingly feminine worldview presented, within a masculine world setting. There isn't really a tradition for this angle in world storytelling.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think the feminine angle is part of it, but part of it is also the rejection of any impulse to ascribe a backstory to any of the characters. All we get is brief flashes of Max's backstory, which is why I think the film still pays more attention to him than to Furiosa. We have no idea how she ascended in the ranks, what her relation to the other women are, or how she came to empathize with them (beyond being a woman).

Modern storytelling owes a great deal to the realist novel, but a movie like Fury Road chews up the realist novel and shits out sheer pulp. It's wonderful.

 

[CiG]

I think the opposite, putting her upfront but with not much context or explanation makes the viewer desire to know more about her and care less about Max, since we all know him already. (In many ways she represents nature, the unknown, the hidden potential etc.)

But I suppose that's entirely interpretive.

 

[Einherjar86]

Ah, well that's true. I guess I haven't been thinking about this film's connection to the previous installments, since I'm not quite sure how it's supposed to relate.

Max and Furiosa get pretty equal screen time though, no?

 

[rms]

"Good" attributes qualities to a thing, it doesn't denote an opinion someone has of something.

"As a general adjective of commendation, implying that the thing described is of high or satisfactory quality, suitable for some purpose, or worthy of approval.

being worthy of approval, suitable or of high or satisfactory quality are all standards backed by subjective claims?

We have no idea how she ascended in the ranks, what her relation to the other women are, or how she came to empathize with them (beyond being a woman).

how this doesn't ruin the character for you is so interesting

But I suppose that's entirely interpretive.

that's just a logical conclusion for anyone who's seen a Mad Max film tbh

 

[CiG]

@Einherjar86 Yeah I'd say about equal, though I think Furiosa got more quality screen time even if the general duration was equal.

I think it's interesting that Fury Road didn't cause you to think about the connection to the previous films. It's funny, as Fury Road definitely doesn't really seem like a sequel, more like a reboot/alternate timeline or something, except that the first Mad Max is the underlying canon for it.

how this doesn't ruin the character for you is so interesting

Considering a sequel was likely intended to happen, not really. Getting you to love a character before you know them is a great storytelling tactic.

After all, most people outside of Australia saw Road Warrior before Mad Max but still loved it and him as a character.