Solaris - yay or nay? (1 Viewer)

[Wilbert]

Surely you can see that they were trying to make a film that was a little different from what we normally get in the multiplex.
Yes, Fox made it, but they also make The Simpsons and I am sure you have enjoyed that once or twice.
I don't think that it is 'spin' at all. Soderbergh and Clooney's Section 8 company have made Insomnia, Solaris and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and none of them (except maybe Insomnia) made any money in America. They still seem undeterred and genuine about their desire to make movies that may not normally be made by big studios. Would you rather have the type of films that they make or would you rather be inundated with XXX and James Bond and his invisible car every year?
I think that it is possible to not like a film but to recognise it as a quality piece of work. What you think?

 

[kstop]

Originally posted by Wilbert
Surely you can see that they were trying to make a film that was a little different from what we normally get in the multiplex.

Difference for difference' sake is pointless, especially if you lack the skills to carry it off.

Yes, Fox made it, but they also make The Simpsons and I am sure you have enjoyed that once or twice.

I'm not saying that all Hollywood is bad, just this particular movie.

I don't think that it is 'spin' at all. Soderbergh and Clooney's Section 8 company have made Insomnia, Solaris and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and none of them (except maybe Insomnia) made any money in America.

Possibly coz they're not very good? Though I can't comment on the last one you mention, as I haven't seen it yet.

They still seem undeterred and genuine about their desire to make movies that may not normally be made by big studios.

Doesn't change the fact that (at least in the case of Solaris) ego has outstripped talent. And would you consider, say, Out Of Sight or Ocean's Eleven to be
abnormal Hollywood movies?

Would you rather have the type of films that they make or would you rather be inundated with XXX and James Bond and his invisible car every year?

This is a specious argument. I'd prefer neither, but to have good fillms to go see. I don't care whether they're indie bollix or Hollywood bollix, so long as they're good.

I think that it is possible to not like a film but to recognise it as a quality piece of work. What you think?

Undoubtedly, but Solaris is still shit. Well-polished shit perhaps, but shit nonetheless.

 

[the pope]

Originally posted by Anne OMalley
And I'll be in the habit of strolling around pubs - White Russian in one hand, cigarillo in the other - making startling pronouncements such as "Black and white film? That sort of gimmicky shite really puts me off."

(I'm not leaving this one go.)

yes. i noticed.
your annoyance at my earlier statement doesn't detract from the fact that if the only thing you can recommend about a film is the none-to-original gimmick then the film doesn't seem too appealing.
whereas moving and colour pictures were a progression, a '90-minute film all shot in a single take' seems, just a teency bit, like a fucking gimmick.
comprendé? lovely.

 

[cuntface]

im glad i envoked such heart and passion all over a film
keep it going lads

 

[Anne OMalley]

Let's look at the bigger historical pattern.

Hollywood had its golden era - the 1930s and 40s. The decline of US cinema - even bearing in mind the work of a number of well-documented maverick directors working between the late 60s and the mid 70s - is by now almost complete.

Italian also cinema had its heyday, as did French cinema, as did British, Swedish, Russian, Czech and Japanese cinema. There are exceptions in each case, but cinema as an art form in those countries is, on the whole, in decline.

So let's face it: cinema is dying.

You might call that pessimistic. But it's only a way of getting the present situation in perspective. To accept that our only options are located on a scale between James Bond flicks and US indies is more than pessimistic: it's abject. It's the same as saying there's nothing worth seeing coming out.

But most of all, it's not true. I've seen recent stuff from Mexico, France, Iran, and Canada that could broadly be described as "fresh". But still, I imagine my response even to the mesmerising Mexican film "Japon" is nothing compared to how "Citizen Kane", "Au Hazard Balthazar" or "A Woman Under The Influence" must have been perceived in their days...

Originally posted by Wilbert
Surely you can see that they were trying to make a film that was a little different from what we normally get in the multiplex.
Yes, Fox made it, but they also make The Simpsons and I am sure you have enjoyed that once or twice.
I don't think that it is 'spin' at all. Soderbergh and Clooney's Section 8 company have made Insomnia, Solaris and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and none of them (except maybe Insomnia) made any money in America. They still seem undeterred and genuine about their desire to make movies that may not normally be made by big studios. Would you rather have the type of films that they make or would you rather be inundated with XXX and James Bond and his invisible car every year?
I think that it is possible to not like a film but to recognise it as a quality piece of work. What you think?

 

[Anne OMalley]

I didn't say I recommended it.

Originally posted by the pope
yes. i noticed.
your annoyance at my earlier statement doesn't detract from the fact that if the only thing you can recommend about a film is the none-to-original gimmick then the film doesn't seem too appealing.
whereas moving and colour pictures were a progression, a '90-minute film all shot in a single take' seems, just a teency bit, like a fucking gimmick.
comprendé? lovely.

 

[Anne OMalley]

Do you remember him in "The Thin Red Line"?

You'd be hard pressed to - he was only in it for an eighth of a second.

Originally posted by kirstie
easy

he's an old hunk

 

[Juno]

Originally posted by the pope
yes. i noticed.
your annoyance at my earlier statement doesn't detract from the fact that if the only thing you can recommend about a film is the none-to-original gimmick then the film doesn't seem too appealing.
whereas moving and colour pictures were a progression, a '90-minute film all shot in a single take' seems, just a teency bit, like a fucking gimmick.
comprendé? lovely.

You want to talk about gimmicks? What was most of Jean Luc Godard's output but complete gimmickry (is that a word? Should be) Jump cuts and an incomprehensible story (see Pierrot le Fou for example) do not make a good film and yet half the people I know would lynch me if they saw this post. I'm all for innovation if it adds something to the film as opposed to 'being' it and occurring in the first place only to appeal to those pretentious enough to consider it 'art'.
What's the difference between a 90 minute single take film and a play?

I haven't seen 'Solaris' and unfortunately slept through most of Tarkovsky's films in college so luckily for everyone I can't rant about that.

 

[the pope]

Originally posted by Anne OMalley
I didn't say I recommended it.

fine.
it was your only description though.

 

[rumpus]

I think the section 8 films are intelligent while being slick.
I find them well concieved and well made, while being glossy.

To say that the company's motives are anti-hollywood isnt spin, kstop. It's true. True in the sense that they contradict the production methods and processes commonly employed by (yes, big) studios.

I'm not saying they make great movies to be recommended to everyone... just pretty darn respectable studio moves.








why do I even care

 

[egg_]

Originally posted by Anne OMalley
There's certainly a lot more than a love story in the book, though, and no it's not just "context". It's heavy on the metaphysics, for starters.

Didn't make myself clear, obviously
The effect-of-GC's-wife's-apparent-resurrection (aka the 'love story') is what THIS film is about.
The book and older film might have more, but the new film is an exploration of a single idea. Interesting idea, interesting exploration, I thought (the VERY last scene stuck in my throat a little bit ("we're all forgiven") but I can forgive that)

 

[Anne OMalley]

Fairy nuff.

Who has seen "City of God"? I'm going tonight. At least one of my chums found it excellent...

Originally posted by egg_
Didn't make myself clear, obviously
The effect-of-GC's-wife's-apparent-resurrection (aka the 'love story') is what THIS film is about.
The book and older film might have more, but the new film is an exploration of a single idea. Interesting idea, interesting exploration, I thought (the VERY last scene stuck in my throat a little bit ("we're all forgiven") but I can forgive that)

 

[Wilbert]

Originally posted by Anne OMalley


So let's face it: cinema is dying.

You might call that pessimistic. But it's only a way of getting the present situation in perspective. To accept that our only options are located on a scale between James Bond flicks and US indies is more than pessimistic: it's abject. It's the same as saying there's nothing worth seeing coming out.

I only used that James Bond example as a reference to what you usually get in a multiplex, and I think that your statement that "cinema is dying" is way more pessimistic than that.
It sounds like you are really saying "the kind of cinema I like is dying". Apologies if I am making an assumption.

Cinema is alive and well and there are plenty of good movies out there in my humble opinion. You might have long gaps between the really good ones but thats the same with music and books etc. isn't it?

A friend of mine is a film-maker and he always says that "there are people who like movies and there are people who like the movies they like".

Also, to kstop, I think the motives of Section 8 are pretty honorable. I mean, who would re-make Solaris as a 2 hour movie where nothing much happens beyond conversations, set in space that is not strictly speaking, a science-fiction film, and expect it to be a huge blockbuster?

If I was a big Hollywood mogul, I would not have "greenlit" this one!

 

[Anne OMalley]

Is he saying there are people who like all movies?

Originally posted by Wilbert


A friend of mine is a film-maker and he always says that "there are people who like movies and there are people who like the movies they like".

 

[egg_]

Originally posted by Anne OMalley
Who has seen "City of God"?

Meeee!
I loved it
Thinking about it afterwards I came up with a few quibbles, but I have deemed them to be forgivable

 

[Anne OMalley]

You didn't see "Japon" by any chance?

Originally posted by egg_
Meeee!
I loved it
Thinking about it afterwards I came up with a few quibbles, but I have deemed them to be forgivable

 

[Wilbert]

Originally posted by Anne OMalley
Is he saying there are people who like all movies?

No, not at all. Just that there are some people who think that only the movies that they like are good. And if you disagree with them, then you are wrong.

I thought Solaris was really great and I thoroughly enjoyed it but kstop is telling me that it is "well-polished shit". Now, maybe he meant to say "in my humble opinion Solaris is well-polished shit" but it sounds like he is saying that its shittiness is undeniable.

 

[Anne OMalley]

Arguo, Ergo Sum

If someone says a film is shit, you can take it for granted that they're expressing their opinion. What else could they be expressing?

Conversely, if someone says your opinion is wrong, why not just understand that to mean "I disagree with you"? Do they have the power to mean anything else...?

So what if Silo is saying that the shitness of Solaris is undeniable. Isn't the fact that you disagree enough to disprove that?

People have opinions and are argumentative - get into it!

Originally posted by Wilbert
No, not at all. Just that there are some people who think that only the movies that they like are good. And if you disagree with them, then you are wrong.

I thought Solaris was really great and I thoroughly enjoyed it but kstop is telling me that it is "well-polished shit". Now, maybe he meant to say "in my humble opinion Solaris is well-polished shit" but it sounds like he is saying that its shittiness is undeniable.

 

[krystal]

Originally posted by Anne OMalley
Fairy nuff.

Who has seen "City of God"? I'm going tonight. At least one of my chums found it excellent...

rappa
like le haine
set in brazil
in colour
in the 70's
with lots of coke of the non-cola variety

 

[Yurn!]

Originally posted by kirstie
le haine

Now thats a fucking great film.