Controversial Cinema-Related Opinions

[Ruined]

From what I gather, there's a thread for shitty music where people discuss what is shitty via the general consensus, whereas the "controversial music opinions" thread is where people can discuss not seeing the appeal in music that otherwise receives mass acclaim. This thread would be an analogue of the latter.

Exactly: This not just for stating cinematic issues people dislike, but, also maybe things that they do like (but may not be that obvious). These are, after all, discussion forums. I take it if an admin. thought this redundant, they'd remove it. I often find it odd when people jump into a discussion forum to merely complain about its existence. If it's not your thing, simply move on and ignore. I've found some rather interesting discussions generated in the controversial music thread and was surprised that a similar cinema thread did not exist (I searched). I did not "shit on" all of PTA's work, I just don't get why he's being lauded for his more recent work which I find lacking. Hell, I'm sure there's someone out there that might think a movie like "Independence Day" was cool or that Michael Bay's work is great and might want to discuss it here. If not, move on and ignore this thread. Simple.

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

I've found some rather interesting discussions generated in the controversial music thread

I haven't. But, okay: I'll play ball. (Did someone say you "shit on" all of PTA's work? I'm not sure how you so decisively swung back around onto that, with the quotes.)

It seems that PTA has become so full of himself that he doesn't really need to be bothered with plot.

What does that mean, 'so full of himself'? How is being full of himself connected to the style of plotting he used? Why should we consider a less conventionally-plotted movie as indicating that a filmmaker is 'full of himself'?

Because while I won't see The Master until Saturday, I have seen Anderson's other work in question, and they were all definitively adorned with plot. He may have bent the rules of the three-act Hollywood formula, and it works to the films' credit. You are aware, are you, that there are other ways to tell a story, right? That the 'action leads to action leads to action' (action not as action sequence, but as characters doing and experiencing overt plot-related checkpoints) sort of thing, with protagonist is met/meets conflict/overcomes conflict being generally optional, right? Because if you're not, cinema's going to offer you omelettes and you're going to be stuck there eating Cap'n Crunch.

What about the plot didn't work for you?

Instead, he merely provides (at best) a loose narrative and (more often) random scenery on which actors can chew (see, for example, Daniel Day-Lewis).

Do you have any examples of this looseness? Scenes that just seem thrown in so Daniel Day-Lewis can dominate the environment?

Now it just seems like masturbatory bullshit, providing contrived "powerful" scenes in which actors can emote and garner Oscar/Golden Globe buzz and passing it off as "art."

I'VE ABANDONED MY CHILD! I'VE ABANDONED MY CHILD! I'VE ABANDONED MY— wait, what are you even saying here? Are you suggesting that he wrote his recent films specifically up to and around these oft-praised sequences because he was fishing for statues? Day-Lewis co-wrote a lot of his dialogue; did they pass the script back and forth, writing notes in the margins "THIS IS GOING TO BE MY BIG SCENE" "YOU'RE GOING TO KNOCK 'EM ALL DEAD, D." "CHA-CHING!" (etc.) There's stuff like Daniel's baptism, the derrick explosion, Daniel's explanation of milkshakes and picking up a spare on Eli, but while these are very DRAMATIC! they're also clearly fixated on forward-motion of the plot and it feels a bit off-base to damn them as some kind of elitist pandering. Of course Anderson could have written the film so it simply flowed differently, but then we're getting into the great black hole of these debates, where what we're really talking about is the director's gall—the outrageous nerve!—to have his own ideas about how to tell his story.

The perceived power of a scene is your own, and for me (and for others I've talked to—fans—re: TWBB), a lot of the more important, affecting moments are ones that draw less attention to themselves, are more character-driven. This isn't because the major dramatic moments aren't as good, but because they create kind of focused points in the story, sort-of bottlenecks, like, that the more low-key scenes later riff on and develop into the forward movement of the picture.

So we tend to get into some trouble when speculating for whom someone was writing their film, or why.




Anyway, because participation was important, here's something controversial: Johnny Depp is not a great actor! (anymore)

It's true! I know it—I've seen his movies!

Somewhere, I'm not sure where exactly—some may put it around the time of the first Pirates, but I think it probably stretches back to Fear & Loathing—somewhere Depp decided that he'd given up on reaching for the deeper, more interesting roles he played in the past, and focused instead on caricatures, becoming a kind of critically-lauded version of Jim Carrey, doing the rubber-faced thing and playing dress-up. Johnny Depp plays weirdos! Aren't these people weirdos? Johnny Depp really feels with, like, you know, the outcasts. The outsiders. And so he's going to fit himself into every molding hole Tim Burton tries to shove him in.

And doing the ridiculous stuff would be fine, normally. An actor's entitled to that, and when they get stuck on a streak we can often chalk it up to type-casting and the general closing of doors that sometimes happens when an actor makes a big wave in some big, eccentric role. But Depp's done more serious stuff over the past decade, too, and while he's not bad, he has lost that old sensitivity that stitched him into the heads and hearts of characters and made him real and vulnerable and present in his great movies, and even in 'okay' stuff like Benny & Joon.


Also: CITIZEN KANE IS BORING-ASS BULLSHIT
(I don't really believe that, but someone's going to say it eventually.)

[Lutz]

And topically Tony Scott's The Hunger is ten times more entertaining than Ridley Scott's Blade Runner.

[owinn]

CITIZEN KANE IS BORING-ASS BULLSHIT[/SIZE]
(I don't really believe that, but someone's going to say it eventually.)

it's funny because we now need to reprogram ourselves to believe another film is the best movie ever, Hitchcock's Vertigo. Imagine that! Citizen Kane isn't the best movie ever made anymore! Opinions rule!