3577 réponses à ce sujet

[Delphine]

Emotional? This is logical. One gets tired of seeing stupid people making stupid remarks about things they don't understand eventually. And I don't need a background check on you to understand your taste in movies. You can't talk like you do and then ask for constructive conversations. And actually, I care about every little detail in the storyline of any movie more than you'll ever will. And no,  My name isn't common, But I don't live there, Even if i put it as my location on some of my other accounts because I will eventually travel there. The point is, Again, That you don't get, Is that I'm not trying to change your mind, Not even slightly, I'm simply objecting to the way you "label" movies. Specially masterpieces such as "Birdman".

 

Logical? Really, logical? Keep trying to convince yourself that your answer on my misuse of the word photography, coming from a very arrogant and offended place, ergo emotional place, was justified, looking at my very first post about Birdman. Just try to convince yourself this was logical, it's very cute to see, yet completely false.

My very first post was quite polite and nowhere in it was I being pompous or grating. Yet, your only answer was "LOL YOU MISUSED A WORD YOUR ENTIRE OPINION IS SHIT!". What the fuck are you, twelve?

 

My second post was merely an answer to your complete arrogance, and it's quite fun to see how you didn't like being answered to the way you answer other people, I guess.

 

You object to the way I label movies, yet bring no arguments or substance to the table. You might as well be pissing in a violin, that would be as interesting to me. But hey, if that's how you like "winning" debates, by avoiding them altogether and insult people in the process, I guess you deserve this magnificent beast of a gif.

 

Spoiler

[Delphine]

Yes, It's logical. It was for defending art. My first post's purpose was to make fun of you the same way you so ignorantly make fun of movies. I'm not brigning arguments because it's not the bloody purpose. I'm not supposed to tell how or what to think about this movie or that movie, It's bloody subjective. I'm only "As i said" objecting your "Cynical" views on movies. You think this is a pissing contest of some sort, It isn't. As i said, Just defending the subjectivity of art. You want a Birdman explanation, I will give it to you briefly, The movie accurately portrays the mind of a filmmaker. How they're different from others, Their struggles with society and relationships, ... etc. And it concludes with an open ending to let you personally decide what has he learned from his experience with the play. To let you decide the moral of the story.

 

The use of the word "defending art" implies you felt "attacked", therefore your reaction was an emotional response. But hey, whatever makes you sleep at night.

 

That been said Art doesn't need to be defended. It needs to be shared, discussed and provoke reactions, but when someone decides that art needs defending, they really are just defending their very own and personal definition of art, not Art itself. But that's another debate.

 

I'm quite interested in that filmmaker explanation, and what makes you think it is that way, and why it makes it brilliant. Even if "portrays the mind of a filmmaker" is more about "portrays the mind of Iñárritu", that doesn't make the movie suddenly better. Birdman is a very beautifully shot fancy movie, that has many qualities, but the substance is lacking, and the result is a big fancy mess everybody wanna give a deeper interpretation to so they can feel clever and artsy about it. Maybe that's the irony of it all, since the movie itself is precisely making fun of arrogant elitist characters just like that, one even trying to trade his own life for a shot at finally being considered a "real" artist among his peers.

Thankfully, the actors were amazing in it, and saved the whole movie, as well the director of photography (but coming from the guy who worked on Children of Men (ah, talk about clever & relevant use of long takes), I wasn't expecting any less from him). These are truly what makes the movie not completely fall onto his own mess, and still remain slightly enjoyable.

On a technical point of view, it's a great movie (even if the use of long takes isn't quite justified on a narrative point)

On a philosophical one, it's not.

Either way, here's a review that says it better than I do: http://dorkshelf.com...norance-review/

(It's quite interesting how they label this movie as being a comedy, that people in theaters were laughing, and yet, at NO MOMENT whatsoever did I feel anything other than cringe and awkwardness and more cringe. This movie was nowhere near fun to me, I just saw pitiful unidimensional characters behaving the terrible ways they were expected to, and it wasn't fun. Again, it was like watching a horrible catastrophe unravel under my eyes, and at no point whatsoever feeling surprised by any new developments because I had seen them coming from miles)

 

My only knee-jerk reaction being: seeing people praise this movie so highly, while it definitely doesn't deserve such praise to begin with. It always irks me, and I always want to shoot at such beehives when I see one, but that's just who I am. I hate monolithic blocks of opinions, because things can and should always be criticized.

[Delphine]

Actually, This is not my explanation. That was my first impression after watching the movie, Yes, But That's also what the writers tried to say in an interview that I have watched. That there's no definitive answer and that's what makes the film truly brilliant. And no, This year's Oscar nominated movies have been a masterpiece after another. Birdman portrays the mind of a filmmaker, Imitation Game portrays the mind of someone who's different in general and genius in specific, Whiplash portrays the inside of the musical minds, And so on. The film is brilliant to me for many reasons, My only point was that there's no objectivity, As Iñárritu said in his Oscar acceptance speech, Art can not be labeled. That's one of the things he tried to say in this movie, That people generally deal with art and movies in specific in a very cynical and faulty way.

 

Ok, I got it, and it wasn't much of a surprise, Iñárritu talks about himself. It was only a stretch anyway, the cinema loves to talk about itself. But I mean, does that make the movie inherently and suddenly better? Unless you like Iñárritu, I don't think so. Apparently, I did not like his arrogance and smugness, so in theory, him talking about himself would probably achieve nothing else but me wanting to punch the face of his movie, which it did.

I was almost jokingly thinking at the end of the movie, that I had just watched a video of someone sucking his own dong for two hours. Little did I know, I wasn't that far off.

 

I don't mind people trying to talk about how people deal with art and movies in a specific way, but it would have been more interesting, had he not tried to be such an elephant in a porcelain shop, and used such stereotyped characters to convey that message. It wants to be clever in theories, but it insults its viewers on many levels while in action. Maybe such arrogance and smugness pleased people, but it just left me with the feeling I just saw someone make a not subtle movie insulting its viewers (among other things) while praising itself in the process.

Condescending movies aren't my thing, I suppose.

 

But I guess this movie managed to do what it had to do, it made me react to it, which is way more than what most movies do these days.

[Sigma Tauri]

Me included as an aspiring director

 

I knew an "aspiring" director once. He was an old co-worker. Arrogant as ****, thought everyone's lives were worse than his own because he traveled to South Africa by himself at the tender age of 18. Except he suffered job instability because he quit to repeatedly chase after girls across continents and oceans only to keep coming back to his mom's basement. He forsook higher education for such dreams. Said that 3 years ago. Now, he's still in his mom's basement. Tisk, tisk.

 

EDIT: Not really about you. More of a warning.

[Delphine]

Actually, It's not stereotypical at all. Some people, Me included as an aspiring director, Don't really feel any connection with the audience. And has very deep connections with my work. I don't personally think that how the movie spoke and portrayed filmmaking is bad. As a matter of fact it is brilliant because eventually the more you get deeper into your own mind, The more disconnected from society you will become. And actually, The movie didn't really make much money, It has worked well with the people like the Academy who'd totally get and understand its point because they all have been there in one point of their lives.

 

Well, I think that's because you happen to have the same point of view than Iñárritu, doesn't necessarily mean it's the right one, nonetheless. It's one version of the truth, not truth itself, and it's definitely a version I don't want to have anything to do with. For full disclosure, when I saw this movie, I went with several friends: 2 writers (one video-game narrative designer, the other journalist), two game designers, and I am myself a visual artist, and we all felt the smugness and arrogance in this movie and it made us CRINGE.

And I think we all have a pretty deep connection with our work as well, but I guess in a different way Iñárritu or you do.

 

This is not something that resonated in us at all, and they're all deeply passionate people possessing a broad culture as well. I don't know, I'm kinda sad for you, if that's how you see things and experience them, actually.

[Sigma Tauri]

The thing is, People like you don't really know what it takes to succeed. You just jump to your own cynical conclusions that projected by society and not by your own minds. And the other thing is, That guy has nothing in common with me except the big ego. Recommend you go watch Nightcrawler.

 

LMAO, heard that **** from that guy also. Definitely, I can see the self-inflated ego and delusion of believing to be some free-thinking individualist who will contribute something great to humanity. Talk about defensive mechanism of the little ego. I can respect passion for the art. But, the way my old coworker talked down on everyone, he doesn't know his own actions made him a total loser. So, a suggestion to you because I can be eudaimonistic and a douchebag simultaneously, grow up and prove it!

[Sigma Tauri]

Yes, Yes, Superficial thinking. Just because two people happen to say the same thing doesn't mean that they actually mean the same thing or that the motives are the same. You keep speaking as if it's something that might disturb me for some reason, But it really isn't. All you do is actually label people according to what society tells you to do. It's cynical, And It's a kind of behavior that I don't like. So, Just take your stereotypical cynicism away please because it's really meaningless. And as i said,  Watch Nightcrawler, And Birdman as well.

 

LMAO, I don't label you based on what society tells me to do. I describe the similarities of my own observation from a precedent with another person. Do I truly know you? Nope. But, your comment on being an "aspiring" actor reminds me of another person. At first, it's just a passing thought. Now, the similarities are getting the stronger, and the accusation of "superficial thinking" really remind me of his and your own egos. I see your own superficiality, without you asking your own self-reflective questions as what makes you think you're being antagonized. I'm actually not. You letting yourself be antagonized...really.

[Sigma Tauri]

That observation is based on label implemented to you by society. You're just one of these normal people who will never do something in their lives. I don't mind criticism. At all. But also, I'm not really in the mood to explain to you why do i want to be a director, Or how I'm going to achieve that. You're not really the kind of person I'd like to talk to anyway. So, I was just trying to tell you that, Politely.

 

You don't really know society. I don't know if you know people, especially if you look down on them. That's what the other guy felt. He believed that normal people will never do something great in their lives, unlike his freedom to be psychotic with scared European girls. He also believed that he was above a certain kind of talk anyway. Still lives at home with his mom to take him back when he failed his most recent romantic pursuit.

 

I know you'll reply back. You're easily antagonized.

[Delphine]

That observation is based on labels implemented to you by society. You're just one of these normal people who will never do something in their lives.

 

Uuuuuuugh the levels of entitlement, dude, just, dude. Are you for real? Do you even know the guy you're gratuitously bashing right now? What gives you the right to say such thing, as if you knew him for years? What is "normal people" either way? How do you define the worth of someone's life? And how do you define, then, "doing something in their lives"? Seriously... Wow. Aren't these definitions you make, labels pushed by society onto you as well? Because you think you suddenly escaped society and are not a product of it at all?

There's such an entitlement and righteousness to you, I can't wait until you become the embodying personification of Riggan Thomson, because if you mean what you say, you're probably well on your way. Or maybe more like Mike Shiner, which might even be worse.

 

I mean, I'll be the last person to say that society doesn't condition us, or makes us see things through labels and stereotypes. And I whole-heartily fight against it, trying to point out that conditioning, and unlearn it, in order to broaden horizons. But doing so does not mean you suddenly become a superior human being that can get to look at humanity from above. Ugh.

 

Try to learn empathy, instead of thinking you're a special snowflake, and you'll see how much you're actually NOT a special snowflake. Like the rest of us.

 

It's heavy social commentary. If you like the genre.

 

Depends on who does it.

[Sigma Tauri]

Actually, I'm smarter than most people and I know my own worth and I don't need anyone to tell me that.

 

Of course not. You probably never truly tested how smart you are. Or how deficient you are in situations.

 

You never ask. You only talk.

[Sigma Tauri]

Actually I have. I never speak of something unless I'm 100% sure that it is right.

 

But, you're not right.

 

Trust me, I know people, I just don't like them.

 

I don't trust you. You don't know them. You don't know their lives, and how hard it is.