all right here lets just do this. i'm not going to address 2001 because smarter better and in general good people have done this before, but rather the real issue which is namely the difference in how we're approaching film.

whenever we take in anything, from basic sustenance to horror of horror, ART, we always have to make a choice in how we accept it. I think almost everyone, save a few individuals with autism or autistic like diseases, enjoys stuff. by enjoyment I don't necessarily always mean a positive feeling; we enjoy dread in horror movies, or as any keffiyeh wearing douche can tell you, you can ironically enjoy something that is otherwise awful.

the problem is a dismissive attitude in something you've never experienced before. the foie gras example is relevant because foie itself is a food not distanced at all from the society in which it was created. it's expensive, it's meat, it's very unhealthy for you, and the process of gavache is one of the most unethical practices I can think of in relation to food. and yet foie is GOOD by almost every epicurean's esteem.

so what does foie have to do with a film like 2001, or any movie that refuses to entertain you in a normal way? the answer is they can both be dismissed for reasons that, in many people's opinion, are unfair. 2001 bored you. foie aggravates people. many a person looks at a Rothko and thinks "I can do that".

and yet!

2001 is one of the most critically well regarded works of film. foie is one of the most sought after foods in the world. people have frozen with tears streaming down their face in front of Rothko PRINTS.

when you become overly dismissive, when you chant something about "artistic bullshit" and then get huffy when people say "you just don't get it", you aren't having a reaction that I think anyone wants. for yourself, you're limiting your sphere to basically and somewhat sadly a grouchy little shit who watches TV and eats fish and chips and who when accidentally confronted with beauty will wonder what time the next rerun of Friends will be on. you're taking issue with the Meet the Spartans comparison but why not? it's entertaining to someone after all. what grounds do you have to dismiss Meet the Spartans, when you're claiming the exact same grounds to dismiss 2001 or art films in general?

the answer is you have plenty of grounds. 2001 can be a difficult film. it is deliberately slow paced. and a real discussion about it would be engrossing (in most contexts; I'm actually pretty weary of talking about this one movie myself).

but the least valid of those grounds is "I watch films to be entertained", not because you cannot do that, but because you aren't approaching the film from the same movie we are. there's a cheesy little movie called American Beauty where a boy mentions he filmed a paper bag in the wind for fifteen minutes because it seemed like it was dancing. whatever you think of that statement, I think it's important to realize that even he, a fictional character, has figured out something important; the second you dismiss a paper bag in the wind as pretense alone, when you state X is for art, Y is for explosions, you've dropped off a ground of commonality where it becomes harder to discuss why the paper bag is beautiful, or how once outside your apartment you saw the wind do a weird thing where all the leaves were forming a perfect cyclone every five seconds.

as to why it's good to appreciate things from a new viewpoint, to realize that maybe your viewpoint is in fact limited, or why you should never say something is strictly for an art crowd, that's all beginner life philosophy and to elaborate would either preach to the choir or hit a brick wall.

you can dislike 2001. I certainly did the first time I saw it, although I think Rowain's post about it sticking with you despite disliking it is probably the best description of the film I've seen on this forum from an amateur perspective. but dismissing it puts you on a different argumentative platform and when your dismissive argument is "I don't watch films for art" don't be surprised when the reaction is "I don't think you get it".

they aren't saying that with an upraised nose and eyebrow. they're saying it with regret.

THAT CREMASTER CYCLE KIND OF SUCKS THO.

the key to this post btw is I'm really tired of talking about 2001 at all. Eyes Wide Shut is far more controversial, was his last movie, and features that mongoloid Tom Cruise so we could really get into whether or not it's actually a good film. there's also the Shining and the fact that a recent school of thought's been arguing it's actually about Native American slaughter which is far more interesting to talk about than UGH WHAT WAS THAT SPACE BABY because I've seriously had that talk with people since 8th grade when I first saw the movie and admittedly hit the fastforward button a few times because middle schoolers have the attention span of a fucking flea.

that's all on me though and probably Roman who stans pretty hard for Kubrick but would probably talk about Clockwork Orange at this point. also I'm kind of serious about the Cremaster Cycle kind of sucking but I think it's because I have exactly zero idea what any of it was about. good thing its got some hilarious visuals.

edit: I bring up Cremaster because I think Climbtree saw it and had the same reaction which was "wtf is going on am I a big babby or is this just really too much".

I wasn't too thrilled the first time I saw 2001 either...I prefer the condensed version, which is to say Xenosaga's opening cutscene. Not only does the Monolith advance evolution and thought process, it transforms everyone into sd versions of themselves.

But seriously, when I saw the movie I thought it was kind of dull on the surface. Looking back, I would judge that the aim might have been to sort of deconstruct the fantasy sci-fi genre...there were certainly no barbarians on Mars fighting space aliens with scimitars and not one Slan in sight. It felt sort of like "Okay, you're a long way from home...guess what, you have a great view of...space. By the way, keep running laps or you'll have the bone density of jello should you ever manage to set foot on terra firma again." I might term it the Silas Marner of sci-fi...a lot of seemingly superfluous detail around a relatively simple story.

And at the other end of the spectrum...I know someone who, when asked what was so great about the movie, responded with: It proves there is a God.

Aside from using it as a reference to make off the cuff remarks when someone not known for their intellectual prowess comes up with a good/profound idea ("Hmm, someone must have dug up a Monolith in their backyard"), the only other thing I really got out of 2001 was a brief feeling of satisfaction for placing the allusion when Frank Black used "Open the pod bay doors, Hal." as his computer password in Millennium.


EDIT -The last movie I watched was The Wrestler. Pretty much Mickey Rourke playing himself for an hour and a half. I like his work though, so I enjoyed the movie.

also I'm kind of serious about the Cremaster Cycle kind of sucking but I think it's because I have exactly zero idea what any of it was about. good thing its got some hilarious visuals.

edit: I bring up Cremaster because I think Climbtree saw it and had the same reaction which was "wtf is going on am I a big babby or is this just really too much".

for real, for those who haven't seen it here's the

keep in mind that it has no words. it's kinda like donny darko with the underlying time travel philosophy, but not as far a stretch because this stuff would be more salient in the context of the rest of the exhibit or whatever.

thanks for reading my post and confirming that almost any reply to grindie and eric should just be no its because you're really fucking stupid and don't know how to watch anything jesus christ it's not like I didn't go into full detail about the fact that just because something isn't sucking your dick with how obvious it is doesn't mean its bad or boring, just that you are.

aaaa I hate you nerds lets play XBOX.

*cough* Gonna go back on-topic >_>
Just saw Zeitgeist Addendum and while it's a documentary I was too lazy to make it into a topic of its own. You lot have probably already seen this so it would be old cheese for you. For you who haven't, basically it's about a vision of a world without money and leaders, kind of an anarchy, but driven by technology. While I yawned at some naive stuff in it, I found it pretty interesting as it spawns questions about where we're actually heading with our society and strenghtens my beliefs that we're probably fucked even though some pop ideas like these every now and then. Go philosophy go! lol.

shit. i can't believe i missed that whole 2001 discussion.. i don't think you can convince a person to like it if they don't, but whether you do or not kind of gives insight to what kind of a person you are.

next movie to watch: eyes wide shut.

you keep mentioning Rothko

this Rothko? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rothko

I don't understand, its fucking squares

gw is going to literally kill me with its anti-art attitude as of late.

the modern lit topic lulled me into a sense of people having a sense of this shit but whatever for expecting too much of a gaming forum.

anyways i have watched maybe 25 minutes of meet the robinsons, how do kids movies get this banal.

hey, is a Rothko painting like one of those mickey mouse detective books where you gotta look through the colored lens to see anything interesting?

go chew some xanax and think it over while operating heavy machinery.

You've got all the answers haven't you Mongoloid. Thanks for educating gw about this

The first time I saw Life is Beautiful was about two years ago while I was stuck in bed with an insane flu. I remember the thing way back with Benigni at the Oscars walking down the seats, but I didn't really have any idea what the movie was about. I was thinking...ah, a foreign romantic comedy...eh, but it sure beats the football game on the other channel and the cooking shows, so lets see where it goes. Then came the second half.

The movie really got to me. The scene where Guido is arguing with his son about going and "taking his shower." Anyone who had a Holocaust unit in history class has to cringe at that part.

Then, at the end when the tank rolls up and Joshua sees it... Don't feel bad Cho, I think that scene could probably squeeze a couple of tears out of a granite slab.

I just watched the film Punch-Drunk Love. Seen it before, but my god is it wonderful. That camera that just never stops, those lights, those colours, that score, all of it revolving around that brilliant performance by Adam Sandler. It's funny and it's sweet and it's kinda dark and it conveys that sense of panic and dread amazingly, but it's just lovely and magical and right now I'm thinking it's probably edging to be my favourite of Paul Thomas Anderson's movies (even more than that milkshake one...and even more than that porno one.)

Before that I watched Bottle Rocket. Wes Anderson's first film (yeah I had a bizarre Anderson double bill this evening), this one I hadn't seen before. I don't know what people think of old Wes round here. Y'know, I like his movies. Yes they're indulgent and pretentious and Tenenbaums, Life Aquatic and Darjeeling Ltd were basically the same film, but I dunno, they're colourful and funny and moving and he does dysfunctional families pretty well. Anyway, Bottle Rocket was steeped in many Anderson directorial characteristics, minus the reeeally superficial stuff like that font he uses for his credits and slow motion on the sad bits. I really enjoyed it. I've always enjoyed Owen Wilson in Anderson's movies, and he was pretty hilarious here.

Before that I watched Man on Wire. I thought this was pretty fantastic, too. I'm sure you all know it's the story of a French fellow, Phillippe Petit, who tight-rope-walked between the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in 1974. It was really well made and managed to sustain a real edge-of-your-seat momentum, unlike any documentary I've seen, really. Check it out if you haven't seen it.

Before that I actually watched 2001: A Space Odyssey, and I've had a lot of fun reading peoples opinion of this one above. I adore this film. I've seen it a million times before, and I'll probably see it a further million times. Movies have so much to offer audiences, even in the most basic film there is the space for so much to happen, and...bah I can't be bothered. It's a SPECTACULAR film.

the last movie I watched was called lakposhtha ham parvaz mikonam (turtles can fly) directed by bahman ghobadi a kurdish/iranian director. the film was about children in a refugee village in iraqi kurdistan in the weeks preceeding the US invasion of iraq. the central character of the film is a boy named satellite who is sweet at putting up satellite dishes and working with electrical instruments. he travels around from village to village setting up dishes so people can get tv to see the news about whether or not the US will invade. anyways so in his home village (refugee camp) his ability to do these things has given him great power and he basically has control over all the other children who he forces to work in the fields clearing them of mines. so the conflict in the story is that these three children come into the camp, a kid with no arms, his redheaded sister and a little baby. it is implied that the baby is the girls and that she was raped by turkish troops during the raid that forced them into being refugees. anyway the kid with no arms can see the future and there is all this jockeying over him and his abilities and satellite wants to have sex with the redheaded girl real bad and then he steps on a mine trying to save the baby and then the US invades

all set to the music of hossein alizadeh

I didnt really like it that much. iranian movies can get really heavy handed with the implications of what they are trying to say because they use children in situations that wouldnt be appropriate if they had adult actors and would thus be censored by the government. granted, it is possible that there wasnt much of a point or a message to this movie and it was just a snapshot type thing, where the director was just trying to present gritty ugly life that is a reality for the kurdish people who knows. it was a well made movie and the acting was good and everything was good about it I guess it was just a huge fucking downer

I also recently watched Ghengis Blues, its a film about a blind blues musician named Paul Pena who in his depression in later life after his wife left him and his career fell apart learned the art of Tuvan throat singing after hearing some on a long wave radio broadcast from Russia. He taught himself some Tuvan and when there was a concert of Tuvan musicians in Oakland he went and met the musicians and introduced himself by announcing his presence using the kyrgyraa technique of throat singing and they invited him to come to Tuva to participate in a throat singing contest. the film is a documentary about his trip and participation in the contest and it is one of the best movies I've ever seen

i just saw man on the moon. i had seen most of the skits before, i didn't know about his tony clifton character though.

i didn't like the take. they built him as this avant garde character comedian that was always in character, but the change in the movie seemed to reflect when a comedian drops a bad joke and i think instead of this angle they really should have focussed on the isolating implications of being in character all the time, which they never once showed. i don't know maybe he didn't have any trouble with it but the movie seemed to imply he would.