Vader182 wrote: The "what is original nowadays" argument doesn't work, since it's a blanket response you can doll out for just about anything that seems too familiar. In this case, it takes one of the staple themes of art, next to capitalist and feminist critiques, and bases an entire movie around it. Not just in any way, though. You emphasized McQueen used the tool of temporal reality emphasize the raw quality of these character's lives, but that raw quality doesn't offer anything new. "Raw" doesn't enhance the argument in any way, all it does is present it in a way some viewers will find visceral. So what? Not to bring up Spielberg again, but it's often been said he's a visceral filmmaker, but the arguments those sequences are meant to embody come across vacant or murky at best.

There's a clear distinction between the academic, the argument, and the visceral. Shame's a succesfully visceral film, but as a study on sex addiction as a troubling reflection of modern society, it fails. There's not a 'study' there at all, and this is where its simplicity undermines its goals: it presents the 'stripped down' basic version of these ideas and just sort of leaves it there. In summary, it has nothing new to say employs filmmaking tools typically correlated with the importance and revelatory nature of its subject, so it doesn't ring true. It has nothing important or revelatory to say, and I got tired of the "watch this five minute long take about the same uber-simplistic concept because it's just that damn awesome and important for you to see." Lastly, pinning your movie around a hot topic is usually looked down on in art, and with reason. It's seem as opportunist of the worst kind, since it manufactures shock and awe around your film. It certainly worked.

I don't want to be too on the nose about this, but all of this is basically a long-winded way of me saying he tricks you into thinking it was deeper than it was because it rang emotionally truthful to you. It hit a personal chord, which forces audiences to retroactively put the 'substance' on a pedestal. It's an actual psychological phenomena, and it happens all the time. But, you're not even trying to argue it's a deep film. You're like "it's simple and one dimensional, that's cool!" so I don't really know how to respond. What I said above is probably the best it's gong to get, since I've never really seen somebody argue for one-note-ness being the best way to represent something.


-Vader

Vader182 wrote:

BroskiSabor wrote:
Haven't seen Munich, unfortunately, so I'm a little lost there. I guess I'm still not buying the simplicity of the film's message. Yes, it's been done before, but what is truly original nowadays anyway? Clearly there's a difference between Shame the loads of other films you claim carry the same message because it's been so well-received. The entire point of the film was to strip the characters and the conflicts down to their roots and present them in a very raw, uncensored fashion, which explains the long takes.

And of course he's going to use this hot issue in the media. It's something that has hardly been explored in film up to this point and is still not exactly a popular topic that we see popping up a lot every year.

The "what is original nowadays" argument doesn't work, since it's a blanket response you can doll out for just about anything that seems too familiar. In this case, it takes one of the staple themes of art, next to capitalist and feminist critiques, and bases an entire movie around it. Not just in any way, though. You emphasized McQueen used the tool of temporal reality emphasize the raw quality of these character's lives, but that raw quality doesn't offer anything new. "Raw" doesn't enhance the argument in any way, all it does is present it in a way some viewers will find visceral. So what? Not to bring up Spielberg again, but it's often been said he's a visceral filmmaker, but the arguments those sequences are meant to embody come across vacant or murky at best.

There's a clear distinction between the academic, the argument, and the visceral. Shame's a succesfully visceral film, but as a study on sex addiction as a troubling reflection of modern society, it fails. There's not a 'study' there at all, and this is where its simplicity undermines its goals: it presents the 'stripped down' basic version of these ideas and just sort of leaves it there. In summary, it has nothing new to say, employs filmmaking tools typically correlated with the importance and revelatory nature of its subject, so it doesn't ring true. It has nothing important or revelatory to say, and I got tired of the "watch this five minute long take about the same uber-simplistic concept because it's just that damn awesome and important for you to see." Lastly, pinning your movie around a hot topic is usually looked down on in art, and with reason. It's seem as opportunist of the worst kind, since it manufactures shock and awe around your film. It certainly worked.

I don't want to be too on the nose about this, but all of this is basically a long-winded way of me saying he tricks you into thinking it was deeper than it was because it rang emotionally truthful to you. It hit a personal chord, which forces audiences to retroactively put the 'substance' on a pedestal. It's an actual psychological phenomena, and it happens all the time. But, you're not even trying to argue it's a deep film. You're like "it's simple and one dimensional, that's cool!" so I don't really know how to respond. What I said above is probably the best it's gong to get, since I've never really seen somebody argue for one-note-ness being the best way to represent something.


-Vader

Vader182 wrote:I don't think I was trashing the film, but praising what the film does well (visceral) and criticizing what it doesn't. The thing that bothers me so much about Shame is a throughline with me. When I feel as though the film considers itself 'high art', which the elaborate directorial style in Shame indicates as such, it really rubs me the wrong way when the film's subtext is extremely simplistic and redundant. Same thing with some Coen movies and Malick. If you're going to be so pretentious, make damn sure what you have to say is godly. For example, Paul Thomas Anderson writes and directs his films as though they're running for the masterpiece medal, employing massively elaborate filmmaking tools to bring his vision to fruition. His films are colorful, full of character, and each scene involves layers within layers. And yet, they can be simplistic on a dramatic level to provide a highly visceral experience, and this may be the most evident in There Will Be Blood.

That's my take on movies, anyway.


-Vader