![The-Dance-of-Reality-Poster-1000W[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/zBHMu6C.jpg "The-Dance-of-Reality-Poster-1000W[1].jpg")
So im going to see this movie later today. I've heard that Jodorowsky is a cult director but havent seen any of his movies yet. Holy Mountain is apparently a cult classic so what about this one?
>>67671111
It's surrealism. If you're the kind of person who often finds themselves calling films "pretentious" or get annoyed when things in a film "don't make sense" or are "random for no reason," you'll hate it.
>>67671450
Un Chien Andalou is the only surrealist film that's worth a watch imo.
All the rest fills emptiness with pretentiousness.
>>67671529
>pretentiousness
There's that word again. Care to explain?
Un Chien Andalou has no purpose, no themes. It is by definition empty, it exists only to exist.
>>67671600
Un Chien Andalou is a masterpiece, it lays the method in pefect mastery for surrealist cinema. It is virtually impossible to surpass it without redefining the genre.
The Dance of Reality just explores the genre, adding themes, making a sort of mixture between simplistic surrealism and "theme driven" or "story driven" cinema.
What I find pretentious (to take the example of The Dance of Reality, but, really, that applies to everything in the surrealist genre appart from Un Chien Andalou) is the ambition to force things that have nothing to do together to coexist, for the sake of "exploring" a genre. In my opinion it is, in truth, the personnal amibition to be part of a movement without bringing anything new on the table (and, there was nothing to be brought up after Un Chien Andalou). I don't see artistic contribution, I see the petty attempt of a director to redefine or contribute to something they fail to elevate themselves to.
When a kid makes a drawing, I don't find that pretentious. When a kid makes a drawing and said "I redefined the art of drawing", he's either a genius, in very few cases, or a pretentious little brat, in most cases.
>>67671829
>>67671600
Long story short, I think it's more honest to do your own thing in art, rather than take what you think you've understood from others and add yourself to their legacy.
The same could be said about nouvelle vague, or any experimental genre. Those who discover it are geniuses, those who artificially add themselves to the legacy are worthless hacks. The most infuriating thing is that they manage to fool the majority, which justifies their whole maneuver.
You can expect to hang yourself you fucking loser.
>>67671829
>>67671957
Are you saying that anyone who tries to contribute or further explore an idea after it has been first discovered is a "hack?"
I couldn't disagree more, but this is subjective so I can't really say that you're "wrong"
>>67671995
In some sort of sens, yes.
Let me explain: I despise "conceptual" art. I think it's a pretentious way to make up for lack of technique.
When a genre is created, it is created upon a technique. Un Chien Andalou is made with real savoir-faire.
All those who come after are farther away from this savoir-faire and technique and closer to a conceptual approach. They have made up, in their mind, a concept which they call surrealism, and try to represent it. When a genre or a technique is discovered, it is not based on concept, it is based on technique.
I love "artisans" and I despise those who call themselves "artists".
I know I'm not alone thinking this but we are, indeed, a minority. However, I am absolutely convinced of the truth and honesty of our view.
The moment
>>67672080
*When a genre or a technique is discovered, it is not based on concept, it is based on experience.
>>67672080
>I love "artisans" and I despise those who call themselves "artists".
Same here. In a way, I understand "art" as artisanship that has reached such excellence that it becomes a work of art.
I will never call myself an artist, even if anyone else were to call me that. It's like a distinction, you can't distinguish yourself. Only others can do that for you.
>>67673720
>Only others can do that for you.
The only problem with this is that "artists" now form a micro-society in the west and basically you will be called an artist on the condition that you call other artists and so on.
I had a number of friends in the "beaux arts" school in France and you would not imagine the level of circle jerking. They're not even in our league, they're not even in reddit's league, they're way beyong everything you can imagine. Basically caricature of themselves.
So, even when others call you artist.. it really depends on who is that other person. If Dali calls you an artist, you've earned the title. If some talentless rich kid in an art school (or some talentless parisian director) calls you an artist, all you've earned are petty illusions and a stolen title.
>>67672080
'shocking cinema' in your a-level film class really stuck with you huh.
>>67673809
True dat.
>circlejerking
bitch I studied film which is supposed to be a "popular" art form and it was just as much "artist"-circlejerking.
>>67673809
>They're not even in our league
jesus christ dude
>>67673887
never took a film class. Don't need to.
