>letting audiance to find their own interpretation and meaning
doesn't that allow filmmakers to put any random shit into their movie and pretend that it has some sort of importance to it
that's what "art" is you fucking autist
>>69167637
>why the won't the movie hold my hand
Good art evokes a certain feeling or portrays a certain message. What you take from that message or experience is up to your own interpretation.
>>69167637
It's only random to you.
>>69167637
this is how I feel about most open ended movies
like, there was no deep stuff to ponder, they just couldnt come up with a decent ending so evoked the 2deep4u crutch
>>69169104
>portrays a certain message
so that means it has a message a viewer should figure out right
>>69169184
Ideally yes. That, or the film evokes an emotional response/experience, or approaches a subject or idea in a creative and inventive way. Of course this isn't always the case, and plenty of films just serve as entertainment.
>>69169039
Not true at all
All films evoke thought because your brain has to actively decode various systems of communication in order to discern a narrative. This is why human vegetables will not react if you show a film to them, as they aren't capable of thought. And consequently, constructing a film as a filmmaker requires thought, therefore the chance of a film being/having random shit is nearly zero. Films are planned, assets are designed, footage is reviewed, the scenes for the final cut are intentionally selected, these things do not simply occur without anyone's knowledge.
>>69169592
Have you seen a Mekas film?
>>69167637
You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film—and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level—but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point.
-Kubrick
Also, apparently OP can't into /lit/.
>>69169650
Anything made by humans is susceptible to human modes of thinking. Avant-garde filmmakers can't erase that from themselves.
>>69169655
it's like he doesn't even care what viewer got from his movie, the only important to him is that people make a fuss about it
>>69169592
>Films are planned, assets are designed, footage is reviewed, the scenes for the final cut are intentionally selected
how can you know
>>69169835
Clearly what he cares about is that the viewer gets something from his movie. What that something is depends entirely on the individual.
>>69169862
Films don't inexplicably come into existence. People make them.
>>69167637
In a word, yes.
![kill_list_march_2012[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/XHabWc7.jpg "kill_list_march_2012[1].jpg")
Kill List did this. After a relatively cryptic and hard to follow movie, the climax involves a completely non-sensical knife fight between the protagonist and a hooded hunchback, and when he kills the hunchback it turns out it was his wife with his son strapped to her back, who he's killed.
Now see, this doesn't make any sense because the last we saw of the wife she was blasting her way through cult members, which were the same cult that abducted the protagonist and forced him into said knife fight.
Oh, and keep in mind this whole cultist thing is only established in the last twenty minutes. Everything before that is basically a gritty movie about hitmen with troubled pasts.
What the fuck.
>>69170039
yeah sadly, but all before the end was excellent imo the acting was so good
>>69169917
It makes me wonder how directors exactly come up with the idea to film scenes that are open to the audience's interpretation, at least in terms of really weird and artsy movies.
Like do they just think "Yeah, we'll intersperse the scene of her lying in bed at the end with images of water overflowing in a bathtub. That'll inspire some mothefucking discourse."
>>69170085
It was also shot really well, and the acting/casting was great too. There were elements to the movie that I really liked, but at the end I felt it was just a tad bit too experimental-ish in some areas for me.
>make shit
>hide behind the "hurrr u just don't get it, its art!" Copout
This is why I have no respect for """""artists"""""
>>69170146
it wasn't that experimental it was in the vein of all those garbage horror films that are popular in recent history
>>69169104
What if I feel ripped off
ITT: Retards who think art exists.
plebs shited on Prometheus for this
>>69170921
Tough shit
>>69171223
prometheus is just retarded
