Just finished Hausu, thought it was pretty good. Made me think about a thing. What do you think should be the relationship between a film and reality?
Hausu is a deeply unrealistic movie, and I'm not talking about how it couldn't take place in reality: it willingly forgoes those mimetic techniques commonly employed in narrative cinema, which are so widespread I almost think it's become almost subconscious. It looks unreal and it feels unreal - but does this detract in any way from its quality of being a good movie?
A map is never *quite* the territory, and even the most perfect image of a thing isn't the thing itself; as much as a movie tries to style himself as a perfect representation of reality, it has a few inherent qualities (montage, fps...) that separate it from that which it's representing - but those same qualities make it a thing unto itself, something with a distinct ontological status than that of reality.
A movie is that which it becomes through the actualization of the possibilities implicit in those qualities - to put it simply, a movie is made up of those things that formally make it a movie, and on those things alone you can judge its "movieness", or beauty, or whatever you want to call it. Realism is an afterthought, or a trait we look for because of the importance of mimesis in western culture. It doesn't add or detract anything.
Dog Star man is a great movie because of its montage, as Mothlight is great because of Brakhage's intervention on every single frame; Benning's movies are incredible because, among other things, they go back to cinema's reason of existance: capturing movement; The Strange Color of Your Body's Tears is about colors and how to push your medium (which nowadays is both kinoglaz, the camera, and digital post-production) to its limits.
I know I may have put it better, but it's a somewhat improvised reflection. What do you guys think?
This post will be lost in the sea of Ghostbusters threads, try again in a week.
It depends on the movie, you fucking retard.
Not everything's a documentary.
Do you think you're fucking deep?
>>71851596
That's a pretty obscure 70s japanese horror film.
>>71851596
where did you find this movie?
it's extremely obscure, I am surprised anyone here has seen it
>>71851596
lmao take this to r/truefilm, they love crap like this
post best girl
>>71852006
>>71851984
I really hope you're being sarcastic.
>>71851983
>Not everything's a documentary.
But that's not really what I'm talking about. I was thinking about how the large part of movies, even independent and arthouse movies, rely mostly on filming techniques aimed at simulating reality as we know it on film, and how that's limiting what a movie can actually be, as a movie. I don't think I'm deep, I just thought something and wanted to share it - if that's trying to be 2deep4you, I can understand why this board is the shithole it usually is.
>>71851984
>>71852006
You're memeing, right?
>>71852130
I really hope you are
>we don't need to be unaware that we are watching a movie to enjoy a movie
Thanks for stating the obvious there professor.
>>71851596
can anyone recommend me more obscurecore?
>>71852154
>>large part of movies, even independent and arthouse movies, rely mostly on filming techniques aimed at simulating reality as we know it on film
Wait, wait, wait. Are you fucking telling me that film has a grammar? And that watching films for a century and getting used to standard techniques has made us understand and FOLLOW those standard techniques?
Oh, wow, we as humans understand the meaning of juxtaposition and editing, but neither of those things actually occur in real life!!! WOOOOW!
It's like, if you show a person looking off screen, and then show a thing, it's like, SOMEHOW, we know that it's that thing they're looking at, bro!
>>71852318
Look, I wanted to make an argument; for that to work, I need to state how things are - I know it's an obvious thing, but if you start cutting out of what you want to say all that is obvious to you, you end up writing something no one else can follow.
Yes, movies have a grammar and standard techniques; as I said, I was just wondering about the value we put on following this grammar and these techniques, sometimes to the expense of what a movie could become, its non expressed possibilities. Hausu, for instance, was critiqued for its "lousy special effects", which I think were rather the point of the whole thing: why did that critic lambast them? Why did he thought so highly of story (as a side note, it's well known how much human need to know that a narrative is unfolding, even in their life; conspiracy theories and metaphysical narratives start from this need - why should we pass it on to cinema?) and special effects which he implied to be shitty because they weren't realistic enough? Isn't that holding movies as a medium back? Again, I don't mean to be yo so deep I just want to talk about it.
>>71852557
>Look, I wanted to make an argument
What is you're argument? All you've posted is some Film 101 bullshit.
>Value we put on following this grammar and these techniques, sometimes to the expense of what a movie could become
No, not limiting. Each standard technique was at once something new and weird, but we accepted it because it made sense.
If people keep trying something new and it works, it'll be fine.
>why did that critic lambast them?
Because it had shitty special effects. It's one critique.
Night of the Living Dead has shitty special effects, especially that static shot of the TV that's clearly a still image with motion film matted over it, and yet every 'film historian' has a raging boner over it regardless.
>Why did he thought so highly of story and special effects which he implied to be shitty because they weren't realistic enough?
Because they were shitty and not realistic enough? Are you fucking retarded?
>Isn't that holding movies as a medium back?
No. We didn't used to edit. We didn't used to montage. We didn't used to sound or color or a whole host of things.
>Again, I don't mean to be yo so deep I just want to talk about it.
Then try not being a pretentious dipshit.
>>71852728
Look, I think we're coming to this from two different angles.
>Because it had shitty special effects
But the point is, they were purposefully made like that. Saying hausu has shitty special effects is like saying the Cabinet of Doctor Caligari has shitty lettering on the dub cards.
>Because they were shitty and not realistic enough?
But there shouldn't be a reason for them to be realistic if they weren't meant to be realistic! That's the whole fucking point. Why should there be a story, special effects, even an object on screen? Is Blue a movie? What about Los Angeles Plays Itself? Verifica Incerta? Ten Skies? All of these movies were hailed as shitfests (or rather, they are seen as such on here), because they don't follow those cinematic conventions, but they are some of the most beautiful films in cinema history, and they try to push the definition of what a film can be - much the same way, if you go on /lit/, you'll find people shitting on the Naked Lunch because the story is hard to follow. That's what I wanted to convey.
>try not being a pretentious dipshit
Oh, come on. How the fuck should I talk, then.
>>71853168
And yes, I'm listing a ton of shit, but English is not my first language and I don't have the time or space to detail what each movie does to serve as a particular example. Spare yourself that critique.
>>71853168
>Saying hausu has shitty special effects is like saying the Cabinet of Doctor Caligari has shitty lettering on the dub cards.
That would be a valid criticism of many criticisms. At times, the font does make it hard to read what it's trying to say.
However, like I said, it works, so it's fine.
>But there shouldn't be a reason for them to be realistic if they weren't meant to be realistic!
Depends if it works or not. If you're going to try something new, it needs to work.
Take this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzolCu-QLw0 That doesn't look realistic, but it works, so ultimately, it's fine.
>Why should there be a story
No one says there has to be a story. If anything 'story' was a weird thing that broke the rules of cinema, but we liked it, so it took over to be the norm.
>even an object on screen? Is Blue a movie?
I was going to mention Blue. Yes, it is a movie. Is it a good movie? No, because it doesn't work, I don't think, unless you do your homework and understand the context.
There's a range of films; from 'art' films to 'pleb' films in the same way there's a range between a classical painting and a spray painted dick on a wall.
>What about Los Angeles Plays Itself?
It's a documentary film.
>because they don't follow those cinematic conventions
No, it's because they don't follow those cinematic conventions as they don't work. (Though I liked Los Angeles.)
>you go on /lit/, you'll find people shitting on the Naked Lunch because the story is hard to follow.
And yet it's still hailed on every 'Great Books Ever U Guse' lists because IT FUCKING WORKED.
Do you not see why James Joyce can write gibberish and I can't to the same effect?
>Oh, come on. How the fuck should I talk, then.
Try not stating the obvious, and if you're going to act as if you know so much about film, fucking realize that it's an evolving medium like anything else.
>>71853441
Tell you what, I recognize I may not have thought this thing out as much as maybe I should have before posting and yes, maybe behaving a tad self righteously. You have some good points I'll think about - mostly in this post.
Clarify me these, if you like:
>If anything 'story' was a weird thing that broke the rules of cinema
I guess you're referring to the first experiments in cinema, I guess? Because stories didn't take much to settle in, I seem to remember.
>it's because they don't follow those cinematic conventions as they don't work
What's they in this? I'm a bit confused.
>Do you not see why James Joyce can write gibberish and I can't to the same effect?
A bit disingenuous, though: I've never been advocating against that, only that a strong majority of readers would dismiss those convention breaking techniques without even bothering to look at them, and since it's them who make the industry's wheels turn, their rules are THE rules - much as it is in cinema.
>>71853441
>it works
>it needs to work
>it doesn't work
>IT FUCKING WORKED
What does this mean?
Op, you are incredibly stupid and pretentious as fuck. I guarantee you are a teenager.
>>71852557
nigga, watch la chien andalou if you want to see the conventions of someone looking in a direction and the next shot being that thing broken
it breaks all conventions of the shots in a film being connected narratively
it's a cool movie, and there are others like it, but what's the point
film without story can be enjoyable, beautiful, and very artistic
but there isn't much of a point to it most of the time other than "hurr i'm breaking free of the chains of cinema, all plebs expect this but i gave them that"
>>71853806
same guy here
also as for realism, i love when films except that they are films and don't really attempt to replicate reality, but instead create their own
i also study theatre so i'm very into brechtian though, where the plays often go so theatrical that they are anti-immersive and remind the audience that they are watching a play
Everybody shut the fuck up and post more of Kung Fu's ass.
>>71853722
>I guess you're referring to the first experiments in cinema, I guess? Because stories didn't take much to settle in, I seem to remember.
Yes. Obviously, this wasn't a difficult or brave innovation, it was much more a product of having better technology, but it still stands.
>What's they in this? I'm a bit confused.
Of those couple you mentioned, I only saw Los Angeles, which was just a documentary as far as I'm concerned, so I'm not sure.
But, I stand by my point. Heaven and Hell will be excused when it comes to movies, so long as it works anyway. You'll always have the 'UGH! Black and white movies SUCK!' people, or something like that, but tons of black and white movies, or films with 'terrible' special effects that are hailed as cinema touchstones.
I mean, for fuck's sake, Birth of a Nation painted white people fucking brown and it's still considered one of the most important films out there, and it looks like utter shit half the time.
>A bit disingenuous, though: I've never been advocating against that
But I am, because I am not going to produce something that rivals Joyce. I can break the rules like him, but I can't make it work like him.
If someone thinks they can, they're free to try, but no one is going to like it if it's shit.
>and since it's them who make the industry's wheels turn, their rules are THE rules - much as it is in cinema.
Well, yeah, again, no shit. Movies have always been a business and people who want to make and keep money don't take risks like that.
For as long as there's been movies, there's been 'arthouse' and independent movies for that reason.
Does it suck? Yeah, but it's never going to be fixed. If you're not the type of filmmaker to throw convention to the wind and think outside the box already, throwing money at you isn't going to make it click.
Unless you wanna have a national fund for films (We do have the NEA), and make it a required class in school, most people are going to watch 'normal' movies.
>>71853962
> i love when films except that they are films and don't really attempt to replicate reality, but instead create their own
That's kind of the point I was trying to make all along, that a movie should create its own reality - which is what most of the works I've cited are trying, to various degress of success, to do.
>hurr i'm breaking free of the chains of cinema, all plebs expect this but i gave them that
Well I wouldn't care much about a movie made for that reason, but rarely things like that get any kind of acclaim. I thiknk it's kind of unfair to say they do so "most of the time".
>>71854031
>Does it suck? Yeah, but it's never going to be fixed. [...] most people are going to watch 'normal' movies.
I think I was being a bit Quixotic about the whole thing. Honestly, I don't disagree with anything you've said - I think I haven't managed to express myself as well as I wanted to, but probably that's due to me not really understanding why I wanted to say what I want to say.
I mean, you probably don't give a shit about this but thank you anyway.
hausu stopped being obscure in 2010.
>>71853735
Alright an example. For a while in cinema, it was like filmed plays. We didn't edit much and camera placement was pretty static.
If I showed you, in 2016, an exterior of a building, and then cut to a living room that looked reasonable, you'd assume that we're now inside that building we looked at.
It works and we understand. However, that had to happen for a first time.
Someone had to think outside the box and take the risk. If it didn't work, we wouldn't have adapted as part of our film language.
Same goes for things like inserts and close ups.
>>71853806
No, I disagree with this. Obviously some films are gonna make you 'work for it' a little more than others, but that doesn't mean something can't be there.
>>71853962
Yeah, but not all films do this in a particularly 'artful' or 'meaningful' way. Ferris Bueller looks at the camera and the Spice Girls tell me to leave the movie during the credits, but it's not supposed to be high art or anything.
>>71854053
How do you define making their own reality? How you define trying to replicate 'real life'?
>>71854255
>I think I haven't managed to express myself as well as I wanted to, but probably that's due to me not really understanding why I wanted to say what I want to say.
I mean, I get it, it's just really fucking obvious. I mean, anyone that 'likes movies' beyond the average person knows this shit.
I meant very literally Film 101.
>I mean, you probably don't give a shit about this but thank you anyway.
No, I do. This is what I want /tv/ to be, most of us are just already here. It's like you're telling /mu/ jazz is neat because it improvises.
god fucking dammit
this thread had potential
but its literally just tldr
fkn stoopid
>>71854491
But the thing is, and I'm not trying to "win" this conversation because there'd be no fucking point, honestly, that it's not as obvious - really, I can't fucking express myself tonight. I think I started the whole thing by improvising and then started defending a point that wasn't really my own (which sounds stupid, I know, since I started the whole thing, but I really think I pigeonholed myself because I couldn't really tell the purpose of my OP on further reflection). If I ever manage to write something coherent about this, I'll try and post about it again - not that I'm ruling out the possibility of being rebuked again, it'll probably happen.
>>71854730
>But the thing is, and I'm not trying to "win" this conversation because there'd be no fucking point, honestly,
I'm not saying you are. I'm saying if you made a thread wanting to talk about how wet water is, you'd get the same amount of replies.
All this shit is so fucking obvious, that half of people wouldn't even realize they know it already, ya know?
Yes, rules are restricting. Yes, reality is restricting.
But, none of these 'rules' are fucking laws, and half of the 'rules' that are unquestionably standard/borderline requirements were once 'thinking outside the box' moments. People look at the rules, decided to break them, and the flims they made were embraced despite the fact they broke the rules because they made sense on a human level and 'worked'.
Where somebody a century ago was worried about whether the audience was gonna think there was a giant hand creature on screen, we see an insert. Where somebody a century ago thought that it may look too gruesome to have two 'decapitated' heads on screen, we take for granted as a close up.
Rules are only as restrictive as people willing to follow them are, so it's fine.
>>71853806
>"hurr i'm breaking free of the chains of cinema, all plebs expect this but i gave them that"
What a puerile notion. Art can be nonconformist and still make statements outside of ones made on medium specificity.
>>71854730
I assume what you've been trying to say is, "Is a movie bad because it disrupts our conventional understanding of realism or filmic grammar?" The answer is a resolute "no"; as another poster said, sometimes these disruptions are done artfully and provocatively and persuasively, and other times they're not. Often, wholly innovative and unseen experiments eventually gain acclaim and recognition, even if it's a while after the film's release. Breaking the rules almost always has a ripple effect, however delayed it might be.
>>71851596
I loved this movie.
Just bought the blu-ray from B&N's Criterion sale yesterday.
>>71852040
>post best girl
>>71851596
Obscure-kino.
