NationStates Jolt Archive

This is inspired by the "Better Joker" thread.

Who deserves more credit for a brilliant role? The actor, or the writer? It is undeniable, some roles are written for brilliance. There are some characters that are just written so well that almost anyone could play it well. But the actual actor, the person who brings the character from the page, has a huge impact...the little tics, expression, accent...all those little things and all the intangibles that create what we identify as a character, vary hugely by actor.

It is hard to deny that a line like "Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks in to mine" or "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" are inspired writing. Yet the actors gave them a different life, one that is impossible to duplicate.

So who gets more of the credit?

This is inspired by the "Better Joker" thread.

Who deserves more credit for a brilliant role? The actor, or the writer? It is undeniable, some roles are written for brilliance. There are some characters that are just written so well that almost anyone could play it well. But the actual actor, the person who brings the character from the page, has a huge impact...the little tics, expression, accent...all those little things and all the intangibles that create what we identify as a character, vary hugely by actor.

It is hard to deny that a line like "Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks in to mine" or "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" are inspired writing. Yet the actors gave them a different life, one that is impossible to duplicate.

So who gets more of the credit?

I'd have to take it on a case-by-case basis, but the credit should really be shared out amongst all involved.

I've seen people that I consider to be good actors look awful in some roles, just as I've heard some great dialogue rendered mundane by the person delivering it. It's not just writers and actors, either, since casting and direction play their part, too.

I think the best parts are the ones where the writer and the actor work well together to really bring a character to life. Without a good actor, and good writing, the character never really pops the way he or she was meant to. The opposite is true as well.

That being said, I think the writer really gets the character off the ground and helps the actor get a feel for him or her. The writer gives the actor the guide and without that the actor might be left in the dark as to who exactly he or she is trying to play. So, without the writers initial input, the actor is sort of at a loss. Without the actors input, there is still a written character to refer to. Therefore, I think the writer should be credited more.

film is a collaboration with so many chances to fuck it up that it amazes me that there are so many excellent films made.

its not just the actor and the writer, you have to have a good director, a good sound man, a good composer for the right music (however that works) a good cinematographer. the freaking EDITOR makes or breaks the movie. im sure there are others that i didnt realize are so important.

I think both are equally needed.

I disagree that some roles are so well written that anyone could play them. Bad actors have been destroying Shakespeare's most brilliant characters for so long that The Bad Shakespearean Actor is a comedy trope.

And some roles have been written so badly that not even the most brilliant actor could save them. I have seen excellent actors performing scripts so badly written it's actually painful to watch, because I can't stand to see someone whose work I normally enjoy have to mouth such garbage.

When it comes to whether the movie/play is good or not, in and of itself, I think it's down to the writer. But when it comes to whether the movie/play is presented well or not, then the actor takes over (together with the director). This is how it's possible to have good performances of Shakespeare or bad performances of Shakespeare (or any other screen- or playwriter you prefer).

There are exceptions to this. One I remember off-hand is a brutally lousy 1970s TV miniseries called "The Betsy," which sucked enormously. Lawrence Olivier was in it. He played a lecherous old rich man, and he had only one significant scene in the whole thing, in which he uber-creepily seduced a very much younger maid, and he did that scene so well, that it became the only thing in the whole trash-fest anyone talked about. But I have a feeling he changed the scene a bit when it was shot, so that might not be a case of a good actor "saving" bad writing (if he didn't actually use the badly written words). So that's an example of a good actor shining despite a bad script, but that kind of thing happens rarely, imo.

film is a collaboration with so many chances to fuck it up that it amazes me that there are so many excellent films made.

its not just the actor and the writer, you have to have a good director, a good sound man, a good composer for the right music (however that works) a good cinematographer. the freaking EDITOR makes or breaks the movie. im sure there are others that i didnt realize are so important.
Don't forget the grips and the gaffers. If not for them, movies would just be clip reels of people tripping over wires and banging their heads on things suspended from the ceiling.

And the craftservice people. They serve lunch. Without them, nothing gets done.

:D

Don't forget the grips and the gaffers. If not for them, movies would just be clip reels of people tripping over wires and banging their heads on things suspended from the ceiling.

And the craftservice people. They serve lunch. Without them, nothing gets done.

:D

set design and costume design...how can you have a good movie if everything doesnt look right?

i had been thinking of crediting the boom man because of m night shamalan's tendency to leave in scenes where the boom is in the shot. it really ruins the moment.

As an actor, I can tell you that there is no role that just anyone can play effectively. Characterization is a skill one can spend a lifetime learning and never perfect. Well written lines can be destroyed by the wrong actor, but even the greatest actor can only do so much with a poorly written script. Writers and actors need each other to be successful.

set design and costume design...how can you have a good movie if everything doesnt look right?

i had been thinking of crediting the boom man because of m night shamalan's tendency to leave in scenes where the boom is in the shot. it really ruins the moment.
Indeed, there are so many involved... who can the art of drama do without? My favorite movie about theater, Shakespeare In Love, said it best:

Philip Henslowe: Mr. Fennyman, allow me to explain about the theatre business. The natural condition is one of insurmountable obstacles on the road to imminent disaster.
Hugh Fennyman: So what do we do?
Philip Henslowe: Nothing. Strangely enough, it all turns out well.
Hugh Fennyman: How?
Philip Henslowe: I don't know. It's a mystery.

By the way, as an example of a brilliant script spoken by excellent actors, imdb.com's memorable quotes page for Shakespeare In Love almost looks like they posted the whole script.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0138097/quotes

set design and costume design...how can you have a good movie if everything doesnt look right?

i had been thinking of crediting the boom man because of m night shamalan's tendency to leave in scenes where the boom is in the shot. it really ruins the moment.

That is one of the goofs that drives me insane. I can't stand it when that barrier gets broken, as it pulls you out of the "reality" of the movie and rubs it in your face that it is, in fact, fiction.




As for actors and writers, there is the case of high school performances ;)

This is inspired by the "Better Joker" thread.

Who deserves more credit for a brilliant role? The actor, or the writer? It is undeniable, some roles are written for brilliance. There are some characters that are just written so well that almost anyone could play it well. But the actual actor, the person who brings the character from the page, has a huge impact...the little tics, expression, accent...all those little things and all the intangibles that create what we identify as a character, vary hugely by actor.

It is hard to deny that a line like "Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks in to mine" or "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" are inspired writing. Yet the actors gave them a different life, one that is impossible to duplicate.

So who gets more of the credit?
the director.

during filming, the actor has, at times, changed lines around, ad-libbed, or even added lines.

a Good actor can take a bad script and make it work. however, there is only so much an actor can do.

A Good writer can write the lines, but it's still up to the actor to deliver them.

Take Evolution. David Duchoveny's line "no, we can't trust the Government" brought out laughter from the test screen audience. the writer couldn't figure out why because he's never seen or heard of the X-Files and he considered that a very serious line that was supposed to be a forshadowing event.

so ultimately, it's the director who has to decide whether or not to stick to the script or allow the actors the freedom to put in their 2 cents.

Serenity's Josh Weldon did that and the movie was good.
"Ok, we need a Mal line here, what would Mal say in this situation..."
"So River would do what how?... let's try it and see if it works."

It is hard to deny that a line like "Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks in to mine" or "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" are inspired writing.

Once again what others find hard, I find not so much so. :p

Once again what others find hard, I find not so much so. :p

you charmer, you.

Maybe not inspired writing, but pretty perfect within their given contexts.

I may be biased because I had the author of the first quote's son as my professor...

its obviously the viewers (me) for if I didn't get off my arse these films would never be made :)

you charmer, you.

It's a character trait that serves me very well, and would you, too.

Maybe not inspired writing, but pretty perfect within their given contexts.

I may be biased because I had the author of the first quote's son as my professor...

A taint if ever I saw one. >.>

It's a character trait that serves me very well, and would you, too.

I have my moments.

A taint if ever I saw one. >.>
As does he, it would seem.

The director. HA!

I think we could learn from history in regard to actors - in medieval times they were denied a Christian burial and thus damned for all eternity, and whilst still alive regarded as being on a level with beggars and thieves.

I have my moments.

You mean to say most of your time. :)

As does he, it would seem.

Pardon.

You mean to say most of your time. :)

haha....so it would seem.

haha....so it would seem.

Ah, but I am powerless against you willingly, so it's all good.

Ah, but I am powerless against you willingly, so it's all good.
haha...I blame you for the ego.

The director. HA!
As JuNii said, and I agree, the director does play a huge part. And, of course, a film is something so complex and involved that it is impossible to give credit to only one person.

I think we tend to credit actors more, as they are the ones that we know by name. I don't think I really acknoledge the writer on a deep level unless there is a particularly striking line or scene where it is clear that the writing is somewhat masterful.

haha...I blame you for the ego.

Such fluffing always works, and I do that only to those who shouldn't be needing it.

the director.

during filming, the actor has, at times, changed lines around, ad-libbed, or even added lines.

a Good actor can take a bad script and make it work. however, there is only so much an actor can do.

A Good writer can write the lines, but it's still up to the actor to deliver them.

Take Evolution. David Duchoveny's line "no, we can't trust the Government" brought out laughter from the test screen audience. the writer couldn't figure out why because he's never seen or heard of the X-Files and he considered that a very serious line that was supposed to be a forshadowing event.

so ultimately, it's the director who has to decide whether or not to stick to the script or allow the actors the freedom to put in their 2 cents.

Serenity's Josh Weldon did that and the movie was good.
"Ok, we need a Mal line here, what would Mal say in this situation..."
"So River would do what how?... let's try it and see if it works."

But surely there are too many similarities between versions of characters like Elizabeth Bennet for directors to be so crucial?

But surely there are too many similarities between versions of characters like Elizabeth Bennet for directors to be so crucial?

go watch the various James Bond movies. each actor brought their own unique vision of the character. yet the character of "James Bond" was created by the writer, Ian Flemming, given voice by the writers and molded by the director of each movie.

yet during filming, the script tends to be re-written, actors add in their unique viewpoints of the character, and it's the director who has to make it all fit and mesh together.

There was a Cheers episode (http://www.tv.com/cheers/heeeeeeres...-cliffy!/episode/14317/summary.html?tag=ep_list;ep_title;23) on this.

I guess that's a lot like saying there was a Simpson's episode about that. Sorry.

go watch the various James Bond movies. each actor brought their own unique vision of the character. yet the character of "James Bond" was created by the writer, Ian Flemming, given voice by the writers and molded by the director of each movie.

yet during filming, the script tends to be re-written, actors add in their unique viewpoints of the character, and it's the director who has to make it all fit and mesh together.

I would say Bond is another piece of evidence in the case against directors having large amounts of influence. No director has ever presented us with a clumsy, fat pacifist who desperately wants to lose his virginity but can't summon up the nerve to talk to a girl.

The actor, or the writer?
What about the cinematographer, the costume department, etc.?

Everyone deserves a nod.

I would say Bond is another piece of evidence in the case against directors having large amounts of influence. No director has ever presented us with a clumsy, fat pacifist who desperately wants to lose his virginity but can't summon up the nerve to talk to a girl.
To be fair, that comes from the script and is decided mostly by the casting director.
What about the cinematographer, the costume department, etc.?

Everyone deserves a nod.

They all do, yes. But I was more wondering who we give more credit to. We award the actor for a specific role, and I've rarely heard them thank the writer.

Without a writer, there isn't anything. While we do tend to give credit to the actor for 'creating' the character, the writer 'created' that character a long time ago. The writer made all of the big decisions about that character a long time ago, the actor filled in the blanks and decided how to interpret what the writer has given them to work with.

This is not to diminish what the actor does, they bring a role to life and can find things within them that maybe the writer wasn't even aware of. It's the nature of collaboration. But terms are used that cause confusion. If the actor had to 'create' the character, the writer did not do their job. The actor interprets, the director translates, the writer creates. The cinematographers shoots, the gaffer lights, the sound mixer records, and the PAs are their bitch.

They all do, yes. But I was more wondering who we give more credit to. We award the actor for a specific role, and I've rarely heard them thank the writer.
Well, that's actor-director dominated Hollywood for you.

That's (partly) why the film industry is so fucked up at the moment; apart from it being an artistic medium designed to rake in profit, not create art.

Without a writer, there isn't anything. While we do tend to give credit to the actor for 'creating' the character, the writer 'created' that character a long time ago. The writer made all of the big decisions about that character a long time ago, the actor filled in the blanks and decided how to interpret what the writer has given them to work with.

This is not to diminish what the actor does, they bring a role to life and can find things within them that maybe the writer wasn't even aware of. It's the nature of collaboration. But terms are used that cause confusion. If the actor had to 'create' the character, the writer did not do their job. The actor interprets, the director translates, the writer creates. The cinematographers shoots, the gaffer lights, the sound mixer records, and the PAs are their bitch.

:) at the bold

The rest sounds about accurate to my thinking. The actor cannot create an aspect of the character without being able to defend it from the text, and thereby bulk up what they are given.

Well, that's actor-director dominated Hollywood for you.

That's (partly) why the film industry is so fucked up at the moment; apart from it being an artistic medium designed to rake in profit, not create art.

Michael Eisner has a quote in Disneywar about how their job is not to create art, but money. He says that they will, at some point, cross, but it isn't their job to seek out only art. I'll see if I can find it.

Well, that's actor-director dominated Hollywood for you.

That's (partly) why the film industry is so fucked up at the moment; apart from it being an artistic medium designed to rake in profit, not create art.
You could argue that really just rules out everything but graffiti. It takes a ton of money to make a film, so that film has to make a ton of money to make it worth it. Someone might be willing to foot the bill for a paint just for the painting to exist, but the money required to do that for a film is a whole lot more.

You could argue that really just rules out everything but graffiti.
I suppose, though it seems to me the music and literature industries can pump out more good material than the film industry can.

I suppose, though it seems to me the music and literature industries can pump out more good material than the film industry can.

They can pump out more material in general, a distinct advantage. But imagine if you had to judge the quality of output on The Pussycat Dolls and Harlequin romances. Very often this is the case when judging the output of films. The 'art house' here has 6 screens and there is never a week when one of them is blank. Just because it doesn't make it to your multiplex doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

To be fair, that comes from the script

Which has a writer.

Michael Eisner has a quote in Disneywar about how their job is not to create art, but money. He says that they will, at some point, cross, but it isn't their job to seek out only art. I'll see if I can find it.

Hollywood makes movies because they want to make money. If people would pay to watch an hour and a half of lawn mowing then that's exactly what would hit theaters.

Film can be art but it happens to be very expensive art. It's hard to find someone willing to give you $15million to make a commercial film when the goal is to deliver a profit and so finding $15million when the goal is something else entirely is almost impossible.

Just because it doesn't make it to your multiplex doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Definitely, but I, and most other people I'd imagine, can get access to high-quality artistic music, be it underground or not, much easier than high-quality artistic film.

Definitely, but I, and most other people I'd imagine, can get access to high-quality artistic music, be it underground or not, much easier than high-quality artistic film.

You're comparing your stereo and bookshelf to a movie theater? That's disingenuous. You have just as much internet access to quality film as you do to music or literature, from Amazon to Netflix to self promotional websites. You can bring those to home players just as easily as you do quality works of music or literature. I'm no more likely to find the more quality works at a Sam Goody or Waldens than I am at a Century Theater. (which is not to say that the quality works don't appear at any of those, but their frequency is comprible.) Moreover, it would be more accurate to compare something as limited to movie screens, like live music venues. There, your access would be far more similar.

Definitely, but I, and most other people I'd imagine, can get access to high-quality artistic music, be it underground or not, much easier than high-quality artistic film.

How hard is it to go down to the Glasgow Film Theatre? Or as ctoan says, log on to lovefilm and choose from thousands of great films?

You're comparing your stereo and bookshelf to a movie theater?
No, to my DVD collection and online access.

I'm not saying that there aren't plenty good films, new and old, out there, just that I come across good new music and literature much more than across good new film.

A part of the medium, perhaps.

How hard is it to go down to the Glasgow Film Theatre?
Not hard, and the GFT (or the more local Grosevnor, film and a pint - £5) is fantastic. (Last thing I saw was a re-run of Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai, with a Q&A session with the RZA afterwords.) It's just, of a year, I'll read more good new books and listen to more new music than see good new films. On a marketing level, people try to sell me genuinely good films or genuinely good music, both from the UK, yet I'm still offered (mostly) crappy British/US films at the local cinema.

No, to my DVD collection and online access.

I'm not saying that there aren't plenty good films, new and old, out there, just that I come across good new music and literature much more than across good new film.

A part of the medium, perhaps.


Not hard, and the GFT (or the more local Grosevnor, film and a pint - £5) is fantastic. (Last thing I saw was a re-run of Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai, with a Q&A session with the RZA afterwords.) It's just, of a year, I'll read more good new books and listen to more new music than see good new films. On a marketing level, people try to sell me genuinely good films or genuinely good music, both from the UK, yet I'm still offered (mostly) crappy British/US films at the local cinema.
Or part of your own laziness, perhaps. (Sorry, but)

If you want NEW good films, then you will have to do some hunting.

If you want GOOD films, whether they're new or old, you will have to do a little less hunting.

The fact is, there are thousands of very, very good movies in the world. Some of them were even made by Hollywood! :eek: But only some of them come with a convenient "Good, and Good For You" label, and even fewer come with a commercial theater exhibiting them in public. But they exist. There is hardly a movie ever made that is not still available for viewing.

Really, frankly, there is very little excuse for not being awash in good cinema. You just have to go looking for it -- by watching movies. Sometimes you have to kiss a frog, but I assure you, there are a lot of celluloid princes out there.

...and even fewer come with a commercial theater exhibiting them in public.
Exactly my point: why is this the case?

I can find damn good new music/literature with much less effort, and it's not as if the music or book businesses are any less money-grabbing. Perhaps it's a quirk of the UK, but I can turn on the telly or radio and see or hear about the Booker prize, etc., or read up in my local music guides/hear from mates about up-and-coming bands, DJs, etc., very easily hear about good new books or music. But finding good new film? That's tough.

Not impossible, not by a long shot, but a lot tougher than literature/music.

No, to my DVD collection and online access.

I'm not saying that there aren't plenty good films, new and old, out there, just that I come across good new music and literature much more than across good new film.

A part of the medium, perhaps.


Not hard, and the GFT (or the more local Grosevnor, film and a pint - £5) is fantastic. (Last thing I saw was a re-run of Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai, with a Q&A session with the RZA afterwords.) It's just, of a year, I'll read more good new books and listen to more new music than see good new films. On a marketing level, people try to sell me genuinely good films or genuinely good music, both from the UK, yet I'm still offered (mostly) crappy British/US films at the local cinema.
If your DVD collection is lacking, you have only yourself to blame. And again, there is the issue of volume-simply more books and music come out in a single year than film could ever hope for, so there's going to be more of everything. But your access isn't any different.

Exactly my point: why is this the case?
Other posters already gave you the answer to that.

I can find damn good new music/literature with much less effort, and it's not as if the music or book businesses are any less money-grabbing. Perhaps it's a quirk of the UK, but I can turn on the telly or radio and see or hear about the Booker prize, etc., or read up in my local music guides/hear from mates about up-and-coming bands, DJs, etc., very easily hear about good new books or music. But finding good new film? That's tough.
And other posters already pointed out that the exact same venues that can provide you with good music -- such as the internet -- can also provide you with good movies, just as easily.

Not impossible, not by a long shot, but a lot tougher than literature/music.
My experience is different. I have no problem finding excellent movies, but I have a much harder time finding excellent music and books in recent years. This has nothing to do with the relative availability of movies versus music and books, but rather has to do with the lack of quality in music and books versus movies. Anyway, that's been my experience.

seems to me that since literature and music are both produced by big companies with profit motives its just as hard to wade through the crappy books and CDs that are heavily promoted in order to find the few gems that are worth the trouble. they are both heavily weighted towards proven sellers, "sequels", celebrities, and gimmicks just like the movie business is.

Exactly my point: why is this the case?

I can find damn good new music/literature with much less effort, and it's not as if the music or book businesses are any less money-grabbing. Perhaps it's a quirk of the UK, but I can turn on the telly or radio and see or hear about the Booker prize, etc., or read up in my local music guides/hear from mates about up-and-coming bands, DJs, etc., very easily hear about good new books or music. But finding good new film? That's tough.

Not impossible, not by a long shot, but a lot tougher than literature/music.

Books and rock music don't require a million dollars to make.

There's not much that can be done re: new films except to keep up to date with a critic or maybe a forum dedicated to that kind of thing.

And I know you were talking about new films but there's bagillions of less recent films that are very easy to find out about given the multitude of greatest movie countdowns.

AFI top 100 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI%27s_100_Years..._100_Movies) and the BFI top 100 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFI_Top_100_British_films) are worthwhile and even the demographically dubious imdb top films poll is actually decent pool of movies. The Sight & Sound poll (http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/) is glorious, loads of films and you can even see the votes cast by individual critics and directors.

And other posters already pointed out that the exact same venues that can provide you with good music -- such as the internet -- can also provide you with good movies, just as easily.
Good mainstream movies made this year?

2007 was an exceptional year, with The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood. But that's an anomaly for me; most years there's maybe (IMO) two decent movies in mainstream cinema.

Perhaps you misunderstand, I'm not talking about indie movies, I'm talking about Hollywood (or UK mainstream) films. The mainstream music and book industry pumps out plenty good new material each year, but I never feel that the film industry is the same.

Perhaps it's my particular tastes, perhaps it's the different people the music/literature execs are making their money off compared with film execs, perhaps it's something else...

Anyway, that's been my experience.
Maybe it's down to the difference in UK and US culture.

seems to me that since literature and music are both produced by big companies with profit motives its just as hard to wade through the crappy books and CDs that are heavily promoted in order to find the few gems that are worth the trouble. they are both heavily weighted towards proven sellers, "sequels", celebrities, and gimmicks just like the movie business is.
I agree. Though I often find it frustrating that I don't always have a big marquee over my local theater touting the latest in small budget indie, art and foreign films so I can know they're in release without having to search the net for them, I find it a LOT more frustrating to sift through the endless piles of lousy books and piss-poor music that come out every year, as opposed the much smaller piles of new movies.

Good mainstream movies made this year?


WALL-E and The Dark Knight. People seemed to like Ironman too.

And who could forget The Love Guru?

Good mainstream movies made this year?
Mongol. Blew me away. It's foreign, but very high budget and wide, mainstream release in the US. If not in the UK, then you guys must be yokels. ;) It's got brilliant acting, btw (nod to topic).

Next up, I am looking forward to Hamlet 2, due out soon.

2007 was an exceptional year, with The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood. But that's an anomaly for me; most years there's maybe (IMO) two decent movies in mainstream cinema.
Try thinking in longer terms than one year at a time. Have you ever seen Sunset Boulevard?

Perhaps you misunderstand, I'm not talking about indie movies, I'm talking about Hollywood (or UK mainstream) films. The mainstream music and book industry pumps out plenty good new material each year, but I never feel that the film industry is the same.
I'm sorry. This is just my personal opinion, and it is about personal taste, which is 100% subjective, so please don't take this personally, but -- if you think mainstream music and book industries pump out plenty of good material each year, then you must like some pretty shitty music and books.

Perhaps it's my particular tastes, perhaps it's the different people the music/literature execs are making their money off compared with film execs, perhaps it's something else...
I doubt it.

Maybe it's down to the difference in UK and US culture.
I doubt this too.

Mongol. Blew me away. It's foreign, but very high budget and wide, mainstream release in the US. If not in the UK, then you guys must be yokels. ;) It's got brilliant acting, btw (nod to topic).
Watched it recently.

Fairly poor 'historical' drama.

Next up, I am looking forward to Hamlet 2, due out soon.
Hmmm. As much as I'd love Steve Coogan to do some great film work, after seeing some previews of Hamlet 2, I won't hold my breath. It seems like slightly-above-average comedy fare.

Try thinking in longer terms than one year at a time.
Quite hard when I'm trying to gauge what decent films came out in one year.

Context, dahlink.

Have you ever seen Sunset Boulevard?
I dunno, have you seen Casablanca? :rolleyes:

I'm sorry. This is just my personal opinion, and it is about personal taste, which is 100% subjective, so please don't take this personally, but -- if you think mainstream music and book industries pump out plenty of good material each year, then you must like some pretty shitty music and books.
Compared to the mainstream US/UK movie industry, I think it's fair to say they do.

Nobody's claiming here that any of the industries mentioned are shining beacons of artistic virtue, but my artistic palate is intrigued a lot more by new music and books (admittedly, mostly non-fiction) than by new films.

Nobody's claiming here that any of the industries mentioned are shining beacons of artistic virtue, but my artistic palate is intrigued a lot more by new music and books (admittedly, mostly non-fiction) than by new films.

Documentary filmmaking is in the middle of a renaissance, more or less. There has been more mainstream access to some of the best documentaries ever made in the last few years.

Ultimately, this is a matter of taste. I would submit that a great deal of what you think is quality music, I'm going to think suck donkey balls.This is an issue of receiver rather then sender. I would find it much harder to find quality music than I do quality films, and have almost no hope whatsoever of hearing it broadcast over the radio.

Also, if you're trying to compare this year to last, remember that most of the really good movies of last year came out late in the year. The first three months of the year are almost a dumping ground, spring is teen movies and romantic comedies, the summer is blockbusters, and the fall and last months of the year are the movies angling for awards season.

WALL-E and The Dark Knight. People seemed to like Ironman too.
I'm interested to see both, but they're not going to be very deep films.

And who could forget The Love Guru?
You are joking, aren't you?

I said decent films, not tired midget jokes.


Documentary filmmaking is in the middle of a renaissance, more or less. There has been more mainstream access to some of the best documentaries ever made in the last few years.
That's certainly the case, but I think it's fair to say most of these are still coming out on the small screen. There's a few that do come out in movie theatres (Touching the Void comes to mind... and did When the Levees Broke have a cinematic release in the UK?), but there still a long way from being on general release.

Ultimately, this is a matter of taste. I would submit that a great deal of what you think is quality music, I'm going to think suck donkey balls.This is an issue of receiver rather then sender. I would find it much harder to find quality music than I do quality films, and have almost no hope whatsoever of hearing it broadcast over the radio.
Radio 3, Radio 2 and 6Music (though only late at night, I find), my friend, though you're right; it depends on one's tastes.

Watched it recently.

Fairly poor 'historical' drama.


Hmmm. As much as I'd love Steve Coogan to do some great film work, after seeing some previews of Hamlet 2, I won't hold my breath. It seems like slightly-above-average comedy fare.
I'm done with you. You obviously have no taste, so your notions of "good" or "bad" are complete nonsense.

Mongol was brilliant drama, pure and simple. Its characters were well developed and beautifully expressed by the subtle and personal performances of the actors. It was deeply emotional, without need for constant noise or frenetic action to blow the story beyond human proportions. It didn't try to be a history lesson. It was visually beautiful. It transported me to another reality for its duration. What more can you ask for from a mainstream movie?

And if you have not already seen Steve Coogan do great film work, then I presume you have not seen his Tristram Shandy? Nor the scene he did with Alfred Molina in Jim Jarmusch's Coffee and Cigarettes? If not, then you don't know what you're talking about with Steve Coogan, either. Granted, Tristram Shandy was his own project (and it is absolutely brilliant), while Hamlet 2 isn't, but then Coffee and Cigarettes wasn't his project, either, and he shone in that one, too.


Quite hard when I'm trying to gauge what decent films came out in one year.

Context, dahlink.
Go watch some movies and then pretend you understand the context, honeybuns.

I dunno, have you seen Casablanca? :rolleyes:
Actual answer: No, you haven't. Ergo, you're not the lover of quality cinema you claim to be.

Compared to the mainstream US/UK movie industry, I think it's fair to say they do.

Nobody's claiming here that any of the industries mentioned are shining beacons of artistic virtue, but my artistic palate is intrigued a lot more by new music and books (admittedly, mostly non-fiction) than by new films.
You clearly have no "artistic palate" or else you'd realize how nonsensical it is to judge the art of things like books when you admit you prefer non-fiction, which is not art.

Look, let's just acknowledge that, when it comes to movies you are just hoping for somewhat snappier versions of 300 or Hellboy 2 to come to your local cineplex and have done, shall we?

I'm done with you. You obviously have no taste, so your notions of "good" or "bad" are complete nonsense.
Thank you Ms. Objective, I'm all ready for your ignore list.

Mongol was brilliant drama, pure and simple. Its characters were well developed and beautifully expressed by the subtle and personal performances of the actors.
Spoiled by a needless romance plot that detracted from the undeniable beauty of the cinematography.

And if you have not already seen Steve Coogan do great film work, then I presume you have not seen his Tristram Shandy? Nor the scene he did with Alfred Molina in Jim Jarmusch's Coffee and Cigarettes?
Tristam Shandy was a corker, I'd give you that, but I felt his turn in Coffee and Cigarettes was overshadowed by both Molina and the majority of the other sketches. It was nice to see a 'British' segment in the film, but Coogan was playing a character I've seen innumerable times before; albeit a funny one. His glorious turn in The Man Who Thinks He Is It was a much better rendition of 'poncy Coogan'.

I'm just disappointed in the films he's chosen since then.

Actual answer: No, you haven't.
Actual answer: stop being so condescending, get off your high horse, and wake up to the fact you ain't the only person to like top-notch cinema.

Come back when you want to discuss film, not play a game of 'who wants to prove their cinema penis is bigger'.

Or, you know, you could just name-drop Fellini and have a wank right there and then.

You clearly have no "artistic palate" or else you'd realize how nonsensical it is to judge the art of things like books when you admit you prefer non-fiction, which is not art.
I've admitted nothing of the sort. I merely noted that there's been less new fiction to catch my eye, compared with non-fiction in recent years.

But hey, let's not stop inflating that ego!

Also, I'd debate the notion that a well-crafted non fiction novel isn't art; take something like the recent Crow Country by Mark Cocker.

Look, let's just acknowledge that, when it comes to movies you are just hoping for somewhat snappier versions of 300 or Hellboy 2 to come to your local cineplex and have done, shall we?
And to top it all off, a classic "You must like crap cinema because I don't agree with you!"

:fluffle:

You know, let's just list our DVD collections, and the person with most Criterion Collection DVD's wins the coveted 'Cinema Ponce of 2008' award.

I'm interested to see both, but they're not going to be very deep films.
Actually, you'd be wrong. Both of these movies manage to do a fair balance of entertaining and insightful. The Dark Knight actually explores the complexity that goes into someone dressing up in a suit and deciding to fight crime and rather than being a set piece for the villain like the Burton film series (even though much is rightfully made of the Joker's performance), it is very much a dialog about conviction, society, and principle as well as a thoughtful character study. Not bad for a movie that also has explosions and car chases.

And as far as Wall-E, the nearly dialogless film (though with a heavy handed message that is undermined by the fact that it ultimately comes from Disney, one of the largest consumer drivers on the planet) does a great job of managing character. Don't let pre-conceived snobbery blind you to good filmmaking-despite the fact that both films are essentially popcorn fair, they both were pretty good movies.


That's certainly the case, but I think it's fair to say most of these are still coming out on the small screen. There's a few that do come out in movie theatres (Touching the Void comes to mind... and did When the Levees Broke have a cinematic release in the UK?), but there still a long way from being on general release.
More and more they make it to the big screen. Even now and then to the multiplex, and this trend goes all the way back to (you can feel the Moore haters clench up...savor it...savor it...) Hoop Dreams (ha! suckers...), so it's been going on for a while. There are a lot of documentaries that make general release. If you miss them or don't pay attention, that's not the movies fault. Recently there were too many for me to make (I'm still bummed I missed the theatrical release of King of Kong:A Fistful of Quarters.)


Radio 3, Radio 2 and 6Music (though only late at night, I find), my friend, though you're right; it depends on one's tastes.
I'm not British, so these mean nothing to me, though I would still almost guarantee that I would find most of what is played irritating.

This is just my personal opinion, and it is about personal taste, which is 100% subjective

If you acknowledge this, then what need is there to post something like this?:

I'm done with you. You obviously have no taste, so your notions of "good" or "bad" are complete nonsense.

Since if it's 100% subjective, notions of 'taste or no taste' and 'good or bad' become meaningless.

Not bad for a movie that also has explosions and car chases.
Mmmm.

I was going to give it a watch soon; it'd be nice for a comic-book movie to have some depth to it.

EDIT: Though they nearly achieved it with Ang Lee's Incredible Hulk.

I'm not British, so these mean nothing to me, though I would still almost guarantee that I would find most of what is played irritating.
Radio 2 plays a load of shite sometimes, but it's also home to a great deal of folk, blues, classic R&B and reggae; Radio 3 plays jazz, world music, classical music and drama; while 6Music goes from the poppier side of indie to rock, metal and punk (occasionally).

Good stations that you can listen to online, though I'm not sure if you can do so if you're outside the UK.

Thank you Ms. Objective, I'm all ready for your ignore list.
I might ignore you for being annoying, but not just for having bad taste.

Spoiled by a needless romance plot that detracted from the undeniable beauty of the cinematography.
Nonsense. (A) There was hardly any romance in that movie. (B) The relationship with the wife was the driving force of the plot, so the personal relationship was hardly "needless." Obviously, you didn't like the movie not because it was bad, but because you wanted it to be a different movie.

Tristam Shandy was a corker, I'd give you that, but I felt his turn in Coffee and Cigarettes was overshadowed by both Molina and the majority of the other sketches.
I disagree. I thought he and Molina were perfectly balanced, and that their vignette dominated the movie and was better than all the others except the last one (the two janitors in the theater basement).

Also, I consider Tristram Shandy to be much more than a "corker" (by which I assume you mean funny). It was very funny (the dream sequence had me nearly pissing), but it was also artistically deep and challenging. But then I have also read the book (many times), so I possibly got something out of the movie you did not, if you haven't read it. I remember being shocked at the idea that anyone would try to make a movie of Tristram Shandy; it seemed simply impossible. It was the reason I rushed out to see it. But Coogan not only did it, he did it in a way that is absolutely true to the original 18th century novel -- including all the 21st century parts of the movie, and the movie-within-the-movie, all of which are perfectly "Sterne" (author of the book) and perfectly "Shandy" and truly tell the "story" of that novel, such as the "story" was. It was an amazing filmmaking achievement, actually, if you know what original material he was working with. Coogan is a genius, imo.

Again, referring back to the OP topic, based on Shandy, I would go see Coogan in anything, just to see what, if anything, he can do with the material he is given. My personal view is that if Coogan can't give a script pep and oomph, then the script sucks.

It was nice to see a 'British' segment in the film, but Coogan was playing a character I've seen innumerable times before; albeit a funny one. His glorious turn in The Man Who Thinks He Is It was a much better rendition of 'poncy Coogan'.
I've seen the characters of Hamlet and Lear innumerable times, too. Why is it a problem that he was playing a "type"? Molina was playing a type, too.

I'm just disappointed in the films he's chosen since then.


Actual answer: stop being so condescending, get off your high horse, and wake up to the fact you ain't the only person to like top-notch cinema.
If the room contained just you and me, then I would be. :tongue:

Come back when you want to discuss film, not play a game of 'who wants to prove their cinema penis is bigger'.

Or, you know, you could just name-drop Fellini and have a wank right there and then.
I don't have a penis. And the point of my attitude-copping is that you presented yourself as judging the quality of films in general, yet you clearly do not have enough experience of films to judge quality on such a broad scale.

If you wanted to say merely that you don't like a lot of new mainstream films, that would be fine, but to say that the US and UK markets don't produce good films is to impose your personal taste as the measure of general quality. Unless you are an actual expert on film, then it would be nonsense for you to take such an attitude. Since you clearly are not such an expert, then I'd say you are the one who should give the high horse a rest.

I've admitted nothing of the sort. I merely noted that there's been less new fiction to catch my eye, compared with non-fiction in recent years.
So you agree with me and ctoan, then, that, in the context of discussing artistic quality, very few good books are produced annually?

But hey, let's not stop inflating that ego!

Also, I'd debate the notion that a well-crafted non fiction novel isn't art; take something like the recent Crow Country by Mark Cocker.
There is no such thing as a "non-fiction novel." Novels are fiction, by definition. Are you telling us now that you don't understand books, either?

And to top it all off, a classic "You must like crap cinema because I don't agree with you!"

:fluffle:

You know, let's just list our DVD collections, and the person with most Criterion Collection DVD's wins the coveted 'Cinema Ponce of 2008' award.
And to top it all off, a classic "If you like movies I haven't heard of, you must be a 'Cinema Ponce'!"

You're pretty good at calling the kettle black, Mr. Pot.

If you acknowledge this, then what need is there to post something like this?:



Since if it's 100% subjective, notions of 'taste or no taste' and 'good or bad' become meaningless.
Because the claim that the US and UK do not produce good mainstream movies is an assertion of fact. If a person is going to make such an assertion about a subjective quality like "good," then they need to be able to demonstrate that they have sufficient understanding of the topic (movies) to allow me to accept their statement as a definitive judgment and not just an over-broad expression of their personal preferences.

My position is that Chumbly is merely expressing his personal preferences for mainstream "Hollywood" releases to general theaters. He is not talking about cinema in general, nor about all films released in a year (nor even about a whole year), nor about all venues from which films can be accessed. He is establishing a very narrow context in which to express a personal opinion, but he is dressing it up as a broad assertion about the state of current cinema in general.

And I claim that, as such, his assertion is false.

EDIT: I also think he has lousy taste in movies, but that's a separate issue.

I'd have to take it on a case-by-case basis, but the credit should really be shared out amongst all involved.

I've seen people that I consider to be good actors look awful in some roles, just as I've heard some great dialogue rendered mundane by the person delivering it. It's not just writers and actors, either, since casting and direction play their part, too.

But they all seem to get thoroughly confused. Hallie Berry "won" a Razzie for worst actress for her role in Catwoman. But her acting wasn't bad. The role was.

Obviously, you didn't like the movie not because it was bad, but because you wanted it to be a different movie.
Oh, obviously...

No, I thought the wife plot was poorly done, with little or no historical accuracy. Sure, it's a film not a documentary, but it didn't sit right with me.

I disagree. I thought he and Molina were perfectly balanced, and that their vignette dominated the movie and was better than all the others except the last one (the two janitors in the theater basement).
That's my favourite too; though the first sketch with Steve Wright and Roberto Benigni, and the RZA/GZA/Bill Murray one are great.

Also, I consider Tristram Shandy to be much more than a "corker" (by which I assume you mean funny).
No, I mean 'great film'.

But then I have also read the book (many times)
That's some heavy reading.

I've seen the characters of Hamlet and Lear innumerable times, too. Why is it a problem that he was playing a "type"?
It wasn't a problem that he was playing his 'character' of Steve Coogan, just that he's done it better in previous stuff (again, see The Man Who Thinks He Is It).

If you wanted to say merely that you don't like a lot of new mainstream films, that would be fine, but to say that the US and UK markets don't produce good films is to impose your personal taste as the measure of general quality.
Then read my words, for once.

I think, proportionally, the UK/US mainstream music and literature industries produce more good material than the UK/US film industry.

So you agree with me and ctoan, then, that, in the context of discussing artistic quality, very few good books are produced annually?
I don't think a huge amount of good music, film, nor literature is produced annually, but that more good music and literature (be it fiction or non-fiction) is produced.

"If you like movies I haven't heard of, you must be a 'Cinema Ponce'!"
Oh I see, because by responding to a condescending comment with a mock-condescending answer, I must have never heard of Sunset Boulevard? It all becomes clear.

I mean, you never answered positively that you'd seen Casablanca; should I presume you haven't? Of course not.

Stop being such a silly child.

Because the claim that the US and UK do not produce good mainstream movies is an assertion of fact.
...if I was making such a claim.

Hell, it's always easier to defeat a strawman, eh?

My position is that Chumbly is merely expressing his personal preferences for mainstream "Hollywood" releases to general theaters.
Once again, a complete (deliberate?) misunderstanding of my position.

Try and keep up, dear.

But they all seem to get thoroughly confused. Hallie Berry "won" a Razzie for worst actress for her role in Catwoman. But her acting wasn't bad. The role was.
I actually thought Hallie Berry was treated very unfairly in re Catwoman, because I got the sense that she wasn't being judged on her own merits but on whether people preferred other actresses' portrayals of the same character (different actresses, different writers, etc.).

I actually thought Hallie Berry was treated very unfairly in re Catwoman, because I got the sense that she wasn't being judged on her own merits but on whether people preferred other actresses' portrayals of the same character (different actresses, different writers, etc.).
...plus the fact she was acting in a god-awful piece of shite.

Radio 2 plays a load of shite sometimes, but it's also home to a great deal of folk, blues, classic R&B and reggae; Radio 3 plays jazz, world music, classical music and drama; while 6Music goes from the poppier side of indie to rock, metal and punk (occasionally).

Good stations that you can listen to online, though I'm not sure if you can do so if you're outside the UK.
Not to pick nits, but didn't you just jump all over someone for citing an older movie? Folk, blues, classic R&B, jazz, classical music, even often reggae-most of these (classic R&B by definition) rely on old cannon. There is new folk, blues, jazz, and even classical (music nerds, unclench...yes yes, 'classical is a specific period blah blah'...we get it, now accept that it's also a generic term that both laymen and uptight music nerds recognize so I don't have to use a clumsy term like 'compositional' or insulting like 'legitimate' and move on...) but these making the airwaves or accessibility is going to be just about as rare as a documentary on the big screen. How much airplay did Bryar's "Jesus' Blood's Never Failed Me" get, or the Kronos Quartet's performance of "J. Edgar Hoover." How often is Hamiet Blueitt or Greg Osby played vs. Miles Davis, or Dave Bruebeck etc. How much of the modern blues is just base rock with bands talking about how it's great to have the blues? Or modern folk being just pretty boy singer songwriters? Again, these are not characterizations of the whole, but exceptions are going to be just as likely as a good movie or a documentary getting a big screen showing. And your listing of quality broadcast breaks your own rule of contemporary for the most part, and one specifically.

Not to pick nits, but didn't you just jump all over someone for citing an older movie?
I jumped all over Muravyets because she (a) has a terrible habit of talking down to posters, (b) missed the point of what I was saying and (c) presumed I hadn't seen Sunset Boulevard and liked shit movies because I disagreed with her on a number of points.

The signs of a poor debater.

I have no problems with either classic movies or older art in general.

Oh, obviously...

No, I thought the wife plot was poorly done, with little or no historical accuracy. Sure, it's a film not a documentary, but it didn't sit right with me.
Like I said, you wanted it to be a different movie.

That's my favourite too; though the first sketch with Steve Wright and Roberto Benigni, and the RZA/GZA/Bill Murray one are great.


No, I mean 'great film'.


That's some heavy reading.
Not really. If you don't rush it, it's good for the subway commute. Actually, it's perfect for that, because it goes down best in small doses parceled over a long period of time. Then it's quite light reading. It's my favorite novel of all time.

It wasn't a problem that he was playing his 'character' of Steve Coogan, just that he's done it better in previous stuff (again, see The Man Who Thinks He Is It).


Then read my words, for once.

I think, proportionally, the UK/US mainstream music and literature industries produce more good material than the UK/US film industry.

I don't think a huge amount of good music, film, nor literature is produced annually, but that more good music and literature (be it fiction or non-fiction) is produced.
And I think you are wrong about that, as I have stated a couple of times.

Oh I see, because by responding to a condescending comment with a mock-condescending answer, I must have never heard of Sunset Boulevard? It all becomes clear.

I mean, you never answered positively that you'd seen Casablanca; should I presume you haven't? Of course not.

Stop being such a silly child.
Oh, I see where I went wrong. Rather than assuming you didn't tell us what you know about movies that makes you expert enough to judge the industry over two countries because you didn't actually have such knowledge, I should have understood you were just refusing to answer. Of course, neither one actually gives credence to your claims about the movie industry...

And yes, I have seen Casablanca, many times. It is amusing.

...if I was making such a claim.

Hell, it's always easier to defeat a strawman, eh?


Once again, a complete (deliberate?) misunderstanding of my position.

Try and keep up, dear.
This is what I was responding to:


That's (partly) why the film industry is so fucked up at the moment; apart from it being an artistic medium designed to rake in profit, not create art.

I suppose, though it seems to me the music and literature industries can pump out more good material than the film industry can.

Good mainstream movies made this year?

<snip>

Perhaps you misunderstand, I'm not talking about indie movies, I'm talking about Hollywood (or UK mainstream) films. The mainstream music and book industry pumps out plenty good new material each year, but I never feel that the film industry is the same.

Perhaps it's my particular tastes, perhaps it's the different people the music/literature execs are making their money off compared with film execs, perhaps it's something else...


Maybe it's down to the difference in UK and US culture.
More than once you have stated, as indicated above, that your perception that there is more good music and literature than film is due to a fault in the film industry, that it does not produce art or produces less art than other industries, not that it just produces art you don't like.

I stand by my argument that you are using your personal preferences for movies and who makes them and how they are exhibited as substitutes for facts about what the movie industry actually does viz what other entertainment industries do.

...plus the fact she was acting in a god-awful piece of shite.
She's been in lots of pieces of shit and gotten better reviews.

I'm interested to see both, but they're not going to be very deep films.

Well, you specified mainstream. You're not going to get Wild Stawberries when you're spending more than $200million. The Dark Knight is pretty much all you can ask for in those circumstances.


You are joking, aren't you?

I said decent films, not tired midget jokes.


Pure film snobbery. The Love Guru is a masterpiece of comedic filmmaking - subtle, touching and hugely original.

I jumped all over Muravyets because she (a) has a terrible habit of talking down to posters, (b) missed the point of what I was saying and (c) presumed I hadn't seen Sunset Boulevard and liked shit movies because I disagreed with her on a number of points.

The signs of a poor debater.

I have no problems with either classic movies or older art in general.
A) So you're attacking the poster and not the argument? And that's a sign of a good debater?

B) I dispute that I missed your point. I have posted the exact comments I was responding to. If I have misunderstood them, now is your chance to clarify.

C) And you've missed points yourself, it seems: (1) I have made clear that my dismissals of the movies you say are good is a matter of pure personal taste; and (2) I have also made clear, more than once, that what I am really disputing is the notion that the movie industry is less able/likely to produce and give access to good movies than the publishing industry makes/distributes good books or the music industry makes/distributes good music. I agree with ctoan's argument that the industries are generally equal in their distribution or lack thereof of quality product, and that if you perceive a difference, then you are mistaking your own reactions to them for their actual actions. EDIT: A better way to say that = you are substituting what they do with how you react to what they do.

Like I said, you wanted it to be a different movie.
And which movie, pray tell O Movie God, did I want it to be, rather than simply not liking the movie?

Rather than assuming you didn't tell us what you know about movies that makes you expert enough to judge the industry over two countries because you didn't actually have such knowledge, I should have understood you were just refusing to answer.
Forgive me for not answering a question put, I thought, especially in context with your other comments in a rather condescending way.

And yes, I have seen Casablanca, many times. It is amusing.
That it is.

Amusing and, from the vantage-point of the 21st century, rather quaint.

More than once you have stated, as indicated above, that your perception that there is more good music and literature than film is due to a fault in the film industry, that it does not produce art or produces less art than other industries, not that it just produces art you don't like.
It produces less quality material at a mainstream level, yes I think that's true.

Sure, the music and literature biz pump out schlock, factory-produced indie bands or vacuous crime novels a-plenty, but I've been always under the impression (at least here in the UK) that I've had better access to high-quality literature (including prose, plays and poetry) and music than I have had to high-quality films.

A reason for this perception might be British culture. The British film industry still hasn't returned to its glory days, at least not on a mainstream level, while Britons, IIRC, buy more books proportionally than any other European citizenry, and the music scene in the UK, especially around Glasgow, is doing remarkably well.

Again, don't be mistaken; I can still access high-quality film, new or old, through the net or the few indie movie theatres near to me, but my level of interest to walk into the nearest Cineworld isn't that of when I walk into my nearest Borders or whatever legal/illegal music provider I use.

I jumped all over Muravyets because she (a) has a terrible habit of talking down to posters, (b) missed the point of what I was saying and (c) presumed I hadn't seen Sunset Boulevard and liked shit movies because I disagreed with her on a number of points.

The signs of a poor debater.

I have no problems with either classic movies or older art in general.


Quite hard when I'm trying to gauge what decent films came out in one year.

Context, dahlink.


I dunno, have you seen Casablanca? :rolleyes:

How much classic R&B came out last year? Just sayin'...

So you agree with me and ctoan, then, that, in the context of discussing artistic quality, very few good books are produced annually?

Easy, that's not what I'm saying. I certainly don't do enough reading to make that judgment myself and my filter (which to say my literature professor friend who reads like a machine) through diligence and a well developed ability to assess and snort out quality like a pig looking for truffles, manages to find a fair amount of books he considers good and I have no choice but to take his word for it since I read much slower than he does.

What I was saying is that literature comes out in a much larger volume so just by averages it's going to come out with what he's perceiving as 'more quality.' And I'd argue that it's just as buried under Grisham et al as a quality movie is buried under Adam Sandler movies. (caveat, I liked Happy Gilmore, Billy Madison, and The Wedding Singer...I don't know what happened...)

And which movie, pray tell O Movie God, did I want it to be, rather than simply not liking the movie?

Not to jump in the middle of this pissing contest, but judging from you comments, I'd say "a documentary with dialog." Which is the wrong way to judge a historical drama. But that's another thread. Don't want to hijack the hijack...

Well, you specified mainstream. You're not going to get Wild Stawberries when you're spending more than $200million. The Dark Knight is pretty much all you can ask for in those circumstances.
Though last year seemed to be an exception to that, with (excuse the acronyms, I'm lazy) TAoJJbtCRF, No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood.

The Love Guru is a masterpiece of comedic filmmaking - subtle, touching and hugely original.
Hurting midgets and lampooning Hinduism is subtle and touching now?


So you're attacking the poster and not the argument? And that's a sign of a good debater?
Calling someone out for talking down to posters isn't a fallacy.

I dispute that I missed your point. I have posted the exact comments I was responding to. If I have misunderstood them, now is your chance to clarify.
You said that I claimed "the US and UK do not produce good mainstream movies [as] an assertion of fact".

I clearly claimed nothing of the sort.

EDIT: And Hydesland's post below nicely outlines my other grumbles.

A better way to say that = you are substituting what they do with how you react to what they do.
Maybe I am, but I've thought about this before and I suffer crappy music or books as badly as I do crappy films, yet of a year I seem to get more out of the mainstream music and book market than I do of the film market.

As I've said before, perhaps this is the nature of UK culture (which I think still doesn't invest as much pride in cinema as the US does; I think it's fair to say that in the UK literature and music is seen, incorrectly, as 'higher' art when compared to film), but it may well be down to my deficiencies in finding out good film.


Not to jump in the middle of this pissing contest, but judging from you comments, I'd say "a documentary with dialog." Which is the wrong way to judge a historical drama.
No, I really fucking hate docu-dramas.

I just thought the film could have been better.

Don't want to hijack the hijack...
:p

Because the claim that the US and UK do not produce good mainstream movies is an assertion of fact. If a person is going to make such an assertion about a subjective quality like "good," then they need to be able to demonstrate that they have sufficient understanding of the topic (movies) to allow me to accept their statement as a definitive judgment and not just an over-broad expression of their personal preferences.


Yet you seem to be basing this purely on whether Chumbly shares the same taste in film as you.


He is establishing a very narrow context in which to express a personal opinion, but he is dressing it up as a broad assertion about the state of current cinema in general.


He explicitly mentioned mainstream cinema, none of his posts gave the impression to me that he was generalising about all outlets of film.


And I claim that, as such, his assertion is false.


You claim his assertion about mainstream cinema is false, because it seemed to you that he was asserting about cinema in general. That's incoherent, since you've established the fact that he's only talking about mainstream cinema, claiming that his statement seemed to be "a broad assertion about the state of current cinema in general" does not affect the validity of his actual claim.

Though last year seemed to be an exception to that, with (excuse the acronyms, I'm lazy) TAoJJbtCRF, No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood.

Those were mid budgets... but I'm not entirely sure what your parameters are.

Hurting midgets and lampooning Hinduism is subtle and touching now?


To you he might have just been "hurting midgets" but to the informed viewer he was engaging in a devestating satire of the policies of former Austrian Chancellor Viktor Klima. That puck to the face was clearly a statement about privatisation alienating the working class and pushing some of them to the right wing. Myers is a visionary.

To you he might have just been "hurting midgets" but to the informed viewer he was engaging in a devestating satire of the policies of former Austrian Chancellor Viktor Klima. That puck to the face was clearly a statement about privatisation alienating the working class and pushing some of them to the right wing. Myers is a visionary.

word!

or wordy word since suddenly it has to be 6 characters.

And which movie, pray tell O Movie God, did I want it to be, rather than simply not liking the movie?
Perhaps this, based on your criticism that it was not historically accurate enough:
Not to jump in the middle of this pissing contest, but judging from you comments, I'd say "a documentary with dialog." Which is the wrong way to judge a historical drama. But that's another thread. Don't want to hijack the hijack...

Forgive me for not answering a question put, I thought, especially in context with your other comments in a rather condescending way.
If that was how you read it then... I guess that was how you read it.

That it is.

Amusing and, from the vantage-point of the 21st century, rather quaint.
Is there a point to that comment in the context of this conversation?

Also, fyi, it was considered "quaint" in the 20th century, too (which wasn't that long ago, btw). In fact, it was considered quaint, trite and shallow at the time it was made by the people who made it. They were bowled over when it won an Oscar. I think it was only made to fulfill studio contracts.

Just thought I'd mention that in case you thought there was somehow a massively different cultural taste level just a few decades ago, and that once upon a time people thought Casablanca was deep. There wasn't, and they didn't.

It produces less quality material at a mainstream level, yes I think that's true.
Well, I disagree. I think the music and book industries pump out equal levels of crap as the movie industry.

Sure, the music and literature biz pump out schlock, factory-produced indie bands or vacuous crime novels a-plenty, but I've been always under the impression (at least here in the UK) that I've had better access to high-quality literature (including prose, plays and poetry) and music than I have had to high-quality films.
And this is the crux of my argument with you. Your impression does not constitute a widely shared experience. You have spent quite a bit of time defending your stated opinion as if it were a common example of what is available to the public. Others have pointed out that, because of the way entertainment distribution works, your impression may be an illusion caused by entertainment art being divvied up among different distribution media, and that, in fact, quality works of cinematic art may be just as accessible as quality literature and music. You have rejected this, but you have had to move your goalposts to do it. First you claimed you were basing this perceived paucity of good movies on internet and DVD availability. Then you switched that to theater exhibitions. Then you narrowed it further to mainstream theaters and mainstream studios. And finally, you narrowed it down to mainstream movies released to theaters in 2008, which is only half over. And a couple of times, including this post (below), you've invoked the UK culture versus other cultures disclaimer as well. At what point are you going to just accept that your personal experience is apparently not actually shared by anyone else and, therefore, doesn't stand as an example of the state of cinema?

A reason for this perception might be British culture. The British film industry still hasn't returned to its glory days, at least not on a mainstream level, while Britons, IIRC, buy more books proportionally than any other European citizenry, and the music scene in the UK, especially around Glasgow, is doing remarkably well.

Again, don't be mistaken; I can still access high-quality film, new or old, through the net or the few indie movie theatres near to me, but my level of interest to walk into the nearest Cineworld isn't that of when I walk into my nearest Borders or whatever legal/illegal music provider I use.
And now, perhaps, the ultimate disclaimer, which seems to imply that the issue you've been arguing about doesn't actually exist, after all.

How much classic R&B came out last year? Just sayin'...

Easy, that's not what I'm saying. I certainly don't do enough reading to make that judgment myself and my filter (which to say my literature professor friend who reads like a machine) through diligence and a well developed ability to assess and snort out quality like a pig looking for truffles, manages to find a fair amount of books he considers good and I have no choice but to take his word for it since I read much slower than he does.

What I was saying is that literature comes out in a much larger volume so just by averages it's going to come out with what he's perceiving as 'more quality.' And I'd argue that it's just as buried under Grisham et al as a quality movie is buried under Adam Sandler movies. (caveat, I liked Happy Gilmore, Billy Madison, and The Wedding Singer...I don't know what happened...)
I'm sorry. I shouldn't have spoken for you.

Yet you seem to be basing this purely on whether Chumbly shares the same taste in film as you.



He explicitly mentioned mainstream cinema, none of his posts gave the impression to me that he was generalising about all outlets of film.



You claim his assertion about mainstream cinema is false, because it seemed to you that he was asserting about cinema in general. That's incoherent, since you've established the fact that he's only talking about mainstream cinema, claiming that his statement seemed to be "a broad assertion about the state of current cinema in general" does not affect the validity of his actual claim.
Please read my last post addressed to him. It outlines specifically what my argument with him is.

Calling someone out for talking down to posters isn't a fallacy.
No, but making my personal bad manners the sole reason for arguing with me is not a very good debating technique.

You said that I claimed "the US and UK do not produce good mainstream movies [as] an assertion of fact".

I clearly claimed nothing of the sort.
You've been saying it over and over again for how many pages now? You mean to tell us you didn't really think it all this time?

EDIT: And Hydesland's post below nicely outlines my other grumbles.
Yeah, whatever.

Maybe I am, but I've thought about this before and I suffer crappy music or books as badly as I do crappy films, yet of a year I seem to get more out of the mainstream music and book market than I do of the film market.
Well, that's nice for you.

As I've said before, perhaps this is the nature of UK culture (which I think still doesn't invest as much pride in cinema as the US does; I think it's fair to say that in the UK literature and music is seen, incorrectly, as 'higher' art when compared to film), but it may well be down to my deficiencies in finding out good film.
Uh-huh. Sure.

Fwiw, I think Casablanca is a terrific film.

To you he might have just been "hurting midgets" but to the informed viewer he was engaging in a devestating satire of the policies of former Austrian Chancellor Viktor Klima. That puck to the face was clearly a statement about privatisation alienating the working class and pushing some of them to the right wing. Myers is a visionary.
:tongue:


Is there a point to that comment in the context of this conversation?
Sometimes, adults have things called 'conversations'. These 'conversations' consist of two or more people exchanging views on any number of topics, including views on film. Often, here on this 'forum', some people like to have 'conversations'. You made a passing comment on Casablanca, and I decided to 'converse' with you.

Apologies if you were merely wishing to proudly state how knowledgeable you were about film.

Yeah, whatever.

Well, that's nice for you.

Uh-huh. Sure.
I have, multiple times, tried to have a 'conversation' with you. If you wish to act like a mature adult and continue this discussion of cinema, rather than dismissing any view you disagree with as uninformed or culturally lacking, then I'd be most happy to participate.

Until such time, you can have a wank on your own.

This is inspired by the "Better Joker" thread.

Who deserves more credit for a brilliant role? The actor, or the writer? It is undeniable, some roles are written for brilliance. There are some characters that are just written so well that almost anyone could play it well. But the actual actor, the person who brings the character from the page, has a huge impact...the little tics, expression, accent...all those little things and all the intangibles that create what we identify as a character, vary hugely by actor.

It is hard to deny that a line like "Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks in to mine" or "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" are inspired writing. Yet the actors gave them a different life, one that is impossible to duplicate.

So who gets more of the credit?

Both deserve equal credit. To create a great character, you have to write them first, but if you get a subpar actor, they won't be any good.

:tongue:



Sometimes, adults have things called 'conversations'. These 'conversations' consist of two or more people exchanging views on any number of topics, including views on film. Often, here on this 'forum', some people like to have 'conversations'. You made a passing comment on Casablanca, and I decided to 'converse' with you.

Apologies if you were merely wishing to proudly state how knowledgeable you were about film.


I have, multiple times, tried to have a 'conversation' with you. If you wish to act like a mature adult and continue this discussion of cinema, rather than dismissing any view you disagree with as uninformed or culturally lacking, then I'd be most happy to participate.

Until such time, you can have a wank on your own.
Really, you've been trying to converse with me? Gosh, maybe if you had spent less time hammering me over the head with the same points I disagreed with over and over, and maybe a little less time insulting and talking down to me while complaining about how I talked down to you, and a little more time saying something that didn't sound pissed off, maybe I would have recognized that you were conversing, not just arguing.

It doesn't matter. It's clear we have nowhere else to go with this, so I'm out. Have your way if you like.

I would say Bond is another piece of evidence in the case against directors having large amounts of influence. No director has ever presented us with a clumsy, fat pacifist who desperately wants to lose his virginity but can't summon up the nerve to talk to a girl.

err... (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061452/) :p