What makes you think your experience is credible in the least?
Why do you need to implicity bash people who like something you do not?
I’ve never understood the “there’s no plot” criticism of Lynch. For that matter, I’ve never felt like Lynch was trying to hit me over the head with film school. Different strokes, I guess.
Is it ironic to have people lambasting so-called “pretentious” films by actually being pretentious?
Oh, now you’ve done it! I’m putting you on The List! :: glares ::
I kid.
Though I did love love love this movie. However, I’m a fairly easy sell: any movie that includes not only Steve Buscemi, but Sam Elliot as well wins a big thumbs up from me. Toss in the Cohen brothers and you’re just icing my cake, man!
Actually, doesn’t change anything in my earlier post, except the first sentence, which should now read: Movies aren’t dissected to reveal the subtext, rather subtexts are constructed based on heuristics from life experience and analyses and applied onto the movie.
No; I was speaking of two separate things: dissecting the film and constructing the subtexts.
Just about anything by Stanley Kubrick after Dr. Strangelove.
And most especially Eyes Wide Shut! I can’t believe I failed to mention that in my original post. I must still be blocking this movie out.
What’s the difference?
This thread, already teetering on the edge of such :rolleyes: inducing troglodytic anti-intellectual drivel, has now taken a precipitous dive into uncharted territories of :rolleyes: -ism. :rolleyes:
I was speaking of dissection in terms of plot, motivations, etc. Many people seem to be complaining about not being able to follow the film(s). After that, you can begin constructing the subtexts.
But those elements are what comprise the subtext. If you figure out the plot and motivations (atleast you think you have), the subtext is a relatively trivial follow-up.
:rolleyes:
I don’t doubt that some children have no authority figures, curse, smoke, destroy property, use drugs, search out virgins to seduce, carelessly spread AIDS, beat up strangers on the street with all of their friends while crowds of people watch, and so on and so forth. Very few find the time to fit all of that into one day.
Come on, you don’t REALLY believe that the director wasn’t exaggerating just a little?
Regardless, it still had nothing interesting to say, artistically. “Today’s kids are all scum. Aren’t you shocked. Isn’t it shocking and edgy of me to reveal this to you in this graphic and shocking film?”
Your mama eats snowshoes!
I disagree. Keeping up with who killed who and why doesn’t tell you much about the director’s message.
That’s just the plot in a constrained sense (an event roster), you mentioned ‘motivations’ as well within the scope of dissection. Also, plot is “The pattern of events”. Imposing a pattern on events pretty much requires the foundation of a subtext.
[QUOTE=Dooku]
I’ll probably get flensed for this, but I despised The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover.
You’ll get no flensing from me, sir, just a hearty AMEN. This is my most hated, least favorite “good” movie. I loathed it on an epic level. Pretentious doesn’t begin to describe it.
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
I think they were supposed to be amused with themselves, but I can certainly see how someone wouldn’t like the movie. After hearing about it, I was sure it would be great but after the first hour it got kind of annoying. There were several moments throughout the film during which I cringed at the crappy writing and many more scenes involving painfully inadequate acting (especially from Macaulay Culkin). But I didn’t think it was pretentious–there was no hidden meaning; it was just poorly done. Nor do I regret seeing it (it just isn’t deserving of any praise).
Good christ, this thread is the most hilariously awful thing I’ve seen in quite some time. You are a funny guy, lissener. Don’t ever change.
What does it mean, then?
The linked entry indicates that usage of ‘comprise’ as “A, B, C comprise Z” is a usage problem, although one which is less objected to, nowadays. Fine, I’ll reverse the original statement to “Subtext is comprised of plots, motivations…etc” where ‘comprise’ is understood as 3: compose, from the Wordnet section. Sheesh.