Support NeoGAF

[HiResDes]

Godard's characters are rather shallowly-limned, that's my problem; if they were what you were saying, I'd probably dig him. This would be the greatest slightly pretentious plot description of Stand By Me ever, also.

Touche

 

[jett]

vgmerchandise.com
The official website for Vincent Gallo merchandise

LOL at this turdbucket. jeez.

 

[swoon]

Jo: the difference is that I think that Fellini's art is objectively defensible according to metrics such as depth and complexity, deep and compelling characterization, quality of acting, use of a soundtrack to achieve a specific effect rather than just cutting it randomly in and out to point out the artifice of it (as if Godard didn't do enough of that), cinematography that is not only pretty but deeply communicative of the story and ideas happening on the screen, etc.

I've read many, many defenses of why Godard's filmmaking is good or deep, and I haven't found a single one that I thought was intellectually compelling or accurate. So, based on that, I say that he's overrated, in the same way that I think Spielberg is overrated. Now, Godard was certainly important and influential, as was the whole New Wave, but those aren't the same thing at all. And in what world is Godard more technically skilled than Lang? What movie has he ever made that shows more technical facility than Metropolis or M?

I think Welles' take on Godard is the most fair: he has a good eye and there ARE moments where his attempts to undermine and/or satirize the conventions and artifice of art do work, such as the fact that the gun in Contempt never gets used (undermining of Chekhov's gun). But, at the same time, his level of thinking and the level of depth with which to really engage in his movies is simply not up to snuff with the great filmmakers of history.

Also like no one will ever make movie better than M or Metropolios or make two films in their career that come close to it. What an absurd requirement.

His characters are as defined as they need to be such economies don't exist any more sadly.

 

[Jburton]

Yeah Eastwood seems to get a real kick out of trying to silence outspoken minorities who don't know their place.

Spike Lee is a dick!

Talentless one at that!

 

[Hasan]

Kieslowski insult to AMERICA

When asked who his favorite directors in Hollywood were.

He said: Chaplin and Hitchcock.

 

[HiResDes]

I don't agree with Spike Lee at all, but I also find Eastwood's response even more annoying.

 

[Staccat0]

Interesting! I don't agree with any of them...

I've read many, many defenses of why Godard's filmmaking is good or deep, and I haven't found a single one that I thought was intellectually compelling or accurate. So, based on that, I say that he's overrated, in the same way that I think Spielberg is overrated. Now, Godard was certainly important and influential, as was the whole New Wave, but those aren't the same thing at all. And in what world is Godard more technically skilled than Lang? What movie has he ever made that shows more technical facility than Metropolis or M?

This is a REALLT HGH FUCKING BAR to set for anyone.
I can count movies that are more technically impressive than Lang's (if we account for their era) on one hand.
M is a terrific film class.
If you remade that shit today shot for shot, but with current tech people would STILL be like, "Woah. That movie looks good."

I'll admit. I like Godard. I don't feel the need to defend the guy. His movies are interesting, inventive but fun to watch. Whether he is more or less technically proficient than someone else seems like needless beard stroking.

I mean, this shit still feels fresh to me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qpGI8w2RHA
Why make excuses for it?
Its art. I like art. I know what I like.

 

[Jo Shishido's Cheeks]

Jo: the difference is that I think that Fellini's art is objectively defensible according to metrics such as depth and complexity, deep and compelling characterization, quality of acting, use of a soundtrack to achieve a specific effect rather than just cutting it randomly in and out to point out the artifice of it (as if Godard didn't do enough of that), cinematography that is not only pretty but deeply communicative of the story and ideas happening on the screen, etc.

I've read many, many defenses of why Godard's filmmaking is good or deep, and I haven't found a single one that I thought was intellectually compelling or accurate. So, based on that, I say that he's overrated, in the same way that I think Spielberg is overrated. Now, Godard was certainly important and influential, as was the whole New Wave, but those aren't the same thing at all. And in what world is Godard more technically skilled than Lang? What movie has he ever made that shows more technical facility than Metropolis or M?

I think Welles' take on Godard is the most fair: he has a good eye and there ARE moments where his attempts to undermine and/or satirize the conventions and artifice of art do work, such as the fact that the gun in Contempt never gets used (undermining of Chekhov's gun). But, at the same time, his level of thinking and the level of depth with which to really engage in his movies is simply not up to snuff with the great filmmakers of history.

Whilst I most respectfully disagree, I will yield for the moment as I realise we both danced around this Godard issue previously in the 'Post Your Top 10' thread and I don't believe there was any sort of resolution then (though you did say you'd give Vivre Sa Vie a try), nor do I believe we'll be able to reach one now.
I think the basis of my previous argument was that with Godard it's unfair to judge the content of his individual films alone as with him, the form itself becomes the content, so holding the films up to the typical metrics (dialogue, characterisation, etc) goes someway toward missing the point.
The 'flaws' within his work, in editing, sound, acting or whatever all go toward his agenda for revealing and playing with the artificiality of the medium and reshaping its possibilities, which was where his depth and talent lie.
In this sense, I'd actually argue his level of depth surpasses many of the great filmmakers as they never had the foresight and intelligence to work in anything other than the boundries cinema had been placed within in their respective eras.

As for Lang, well I was being somewhat terse and should've explained better whilst writing such a statement but Godard is responsible for more breakthroughs, innovations and techniques than Lang, all of which are a testament to his filmmaking skill, so whilst Lang made better films, I don't believe him to be the more skillful filmmaker, though I do realise it is of course pointless to compare the two.

 

[Exclamation-One]

24. Vincent Gallo on Sofia (and Francis Ford) Coppola:
“Sofia Coppola likes any guy who has what she wants. If she wants to be a photographer she’ll fuck a photographer. If she wants to be a filmmaker, she’ll fuck a filmmaker. She’s a parasite just like her fat, pig father was.”

Vincent rejected by Sophia confirmed.

 

[a Master Ninja]

Educate yourself on some of the moments that were missing:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/20/usa.film

Well shit, I guess Clint did fuck up if there wasn't one of the 900 black soldiers in the movie, even in the background.

 

[besada]

Yeesh, what's Vincent Gallo so upset about?

The critical reception of The Brown Bunny.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Whilst I most respectfully disagree, I will yield for the moment as I realise we both danced around this Godard issue previously in the 'Post Your Top 10' thread and I don't believe there was any sort of resolution then (though you did say you'd give Vivre Sa Vie a try), nor do I believe we'll be able to reach one now.
I think the basis of my previous argument was that with Godard it's unfair to judge the content of his individual films alone as with him, the form itself becomes the content, so holding the films up to the typical metrics (dialogue, characterisation, etc) goes someway toward missing the point.

The thing is, though, I don't really think that he takes out those usual points and replaces them with anything substantive. You could tell that he had such a disdain and disinterest in most conventions, but his breaking of boundaries rarely served any sort of discernible artistic or narrative purpose and were really there... just to be there, you know? Consider the jump cuts in the car scene in Breathless; do they really add to the narrative at all or communicate anything in particular about the narrative, or do they merely exist just to buck the trend of linear editing? Then consider jump cuts in a movie like Woody Allen's Stardust Memories, where they indicate the fractured mental/psychological state of his ex-girlfriend, or A Man Escaped, where a jump-cut elides an hour of time in a single moment.

The 'flaws' within his work, in editing, sound, acting or whatever all go toward his agenda for revealing and playing with the artificiality of the medium and reshaping its possibilities, which was where his depth and talent lie.

The thing is, though, that bucking trends just for the sake of bucking trends is ultimately just another form of dart-tossing; it constitutes something more akin to a teenager rebelling against his parents "just because," rather than because they have a substantive disagreement with the establishment. Having crappy editing or music or what have you and justifying it by saying, "That was the point! I'm trying to show the artificiality of the medium!" seems to me a rather hollow justification for a superficial artistic choice. Again, I freely grant that Godard's work opened up possibilities for later filmmakers and artists and that many whom I appreciate, such as early Scorsese or Tarantino (sort of) simply could not have done what they did without Godard opening up filmic possibilities with the rest of the New Wave. But I simply don't concede that Godard did it at all well or to any real depth, which is why I say that I agree with Welles that his thinking was at a rather paltry level.

In this sense, I'd actually argue his level of depth surpasses many of the great filmmakers as they never had the foresight and intelligence to work in anything other than the boundries cinema had been placed within in their respective eras.

I'd agree with this if I thought Godard was working outside of usual bounds and doing it well. I simply don't think that he did, and uniquity is not concurrent with greatness. It's a recapitulation, but I say again that importance and quality need not be concurrent. Godard is one such case, in my opinion.

As for Lang, well I was being somewhat terse and should've explained better whilst writing such a statement but Godard is responsible for more breakthroughs, innovations and techniques than Lang, all of which are a testament to his filmmaking skill, so whilst Lang made better films, I don't believe him to be the more skillful filmmaker, though I do realise it is of course pointless to compare the two.

What is "skillful filmmaker?" Is it innovation, or using the techniques available to you to their greatest power and effect in the act of communication (art being a communicative act, after all)? I'd argue the latter, which is why I'd say Lang is a far more skillful filmmaker even if he was more technically conventional (though artistically, I'd say he took as many or more risks.

 

[harSon]

Yeah, like I said, using that as proof to call the film racist is ridiculous. The people quoted in the article even talk about events being "opportunities" to showcase black soldiers. Just because there's an opportunity to show something doesn't mean there's an obligation to, and I don't really see how there's an issue with it unless you've already decided that Eastwood is a racist and are actively looking for proof.

Again, if you're going to say that the film intentionally omitted showing black soldiers you'd have to show evidence that black men fought in scenes that are actually depicted in the film, not ones that could have been.

You could argue that Eastwood deliberately didn't include any such scenes because it so abhorred him to credit black soldiers, but anyone who's going to obsess over the depiction of race in the film to the extent that they can't conceive of any other reason an event might not be depicted in the film obviously doesn't care looking at the reason behind directing decisions honestly.

The article does say that 90% of the people carrying ammunition were black and that roughly 900 blacks took place in the battle of Iwo Jima. Considering that role, you'd think that they'd appear more often than they actually did (once).

 

[Dan]

Tim Burton has admitted to reading comics. He says a few things that can be taken more than one way.

So... Tim Burton has learning disabilities? That explains some things.

Seriously, I will never understand people who can't read basic comics. It's left-to-right, up-to-down, just like everything else you read. Over the last three decades there have been some crazy (and good) experiments with paneling that is definitely more complex, but Tim Burton couldn't figure out the comics that were being released during his childhood? Yeah...

 

[J-Rod]

To be the top 30 harshest insults in a profession that is considered to be filled with egomaniacs, I expected the insults to have a lot more bite. Some sound like the frenchman from Monty Python.

 

[charsace]

I don't understand how anyone can say that about Kubrick. Paths of Glory and Dr Strangelove should be enough evidence that his films have emotion.

 

[SpartanForce]

From one black male to another, seriously fuck you Tyler Perry


...Also Clint Eastwood is one mediocre filmmaker

er... wtf?

 

[UFRA]

Uwe Boll sucks, I wish he got some hate in that list.

 

[HiResDes]

er... wtf?

Yeah

 

[charsace]

Can anyone tell me why Vincent Gallo is famous except that he got his dick sucked in "The Brown Bunny" by that stupid woman that calls herself an actress?

Gallo is a talented guy that prefers to be a mega troll. Probably because he thinks its more fun.

 

[SpartanForce]

Yeah

High Plains Drifter?

 

[DoctorButt]

I kind of wish smith had the balls to keep the original ending of clerks in the theatrical release

 

[YoungHav]

I am mad some ziggan had himself billed as "Sleep N Eat" in movie credits. Gotdamn.

 

[rar]

Lost in Translation says hello.

lost in translation IS shit

 

[shintoki]

While some are true... Its a haters convention.

 

[dr3upmushroom]

So the 900 black soldiers who were fighting perhaps weren't deemed important/entertaining/feasible enough to include? Don't they therefore have a point in feeling slighted? I mean fuck, a black soldier provided part of the pole that the flag was raised on! But white filmmakers should have no special obligation to include moments like these when making a 'historically accurate' film? What!?

I don't for a second think Eastwood is racist. Not a chance in hell. I just think he fucked up with his film and that everybody in this thread who were earlier on some "lol Spike" hype should shut up because he, in voicing the concerns and opinions of soldiers who were actually there, was and is correct.

Your stance is lame if you don't think Eastwood is a racist. If you don't think he did this intentionally, then what's your issue? You're going too far out of your way to be offended by the film. Like I said (and you distorted), some events aren't going to be shown in the film. Obviously a two hour movie isn't going to show every single thing that happened in the battles. Some events have to be cut. If events that featured black soldiers fighting are cut (and if, like the both of us, you don't believe the filmmaker is racist), it's more likely that the events themselves were deemed inappropriate for the film, not the people involved in them.

And yeah, filmmakers should have no obligation to include anything in their films. A black man provided part of the pole for the flag, OK, so what? The film is telling the story of the men who raised the flag, not the flag itself.

If it helps you realize how ridiculous your comments are, imagine if the guy who provided "part of the pole" was white. Would you still be upset that the film wasn't historically accurate since it didn't include this person? Probably not, because in telling a story about the men who rose the flag, the guy who gave them the pole really isn't that interesting or important. The only reason you bring him up is because your actively searching out events involving black men instead of events that actually pertain to the story being told, keeping in mind that there's a limited time frame.

 

[VistraNorrez]

Gallo made Buffalo '66 and Spike Lee made Do the Right Thing. Both incredible masterful films. Calling either talentless is shallow and petty. Their egos have no weight on their talent.

 

[SolKane]

I'm no gelatinous film nerd but I saw Citizen Kane for the first time when I was in college. It was an excellent film, despite the AFI hype. Strikingly modern too, for a film of that age (which says a lot about our concept of cinema). Not my favorite Welles-starring film (honor goes to The Third Man) but a great film without a doubt.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Good to see Verheoven and Carpenter avoid any shrapnel.

 

[Puddles]

Gallo is one of those men whose intelligence surpasses most, so that you speak to him and he talks above your head, possibly not even relevant to the conversation and so you assume that he's a genius. His backers and producers watch his shitty fucking movies and think to themselves: "he's so intelligent, I'm assuming there's something I missed...okay, now we're filming the part where he cums in Cloe's mouth..."

So is he better or worse than Tommy Wisseau?

I've never seen a Gallo film.

 

[Jo Shishido's Cheeks]

Your stance is lame if you don't think Eastwood is a racist. If you don't think he did this intentionally, then what's your issue? You're going too far out of your way to be offended by the film. Like I said (and you distorted), some events aren't going to be shown in the film. Obviously a two hour movie isn't going to show every single thing that happened in the battles. Some events have to be cut. If events that featured black soldiers fighting are cut (and if, like the both of us, you don't believe the filmmaker is racist), it's more likely that the events themselves were deemed inappropriate for the film, not the people involved in them.

And yeah, filmmakers should have no obligation to include anything in their films. A black man provided part of the pole for the flag, OK, so what? The film is telling the story of the men who raised the flag, not the flag itself.

If it helps you realize how ridiculous your comments are, imagine if the guy who provided "part of the pole" was white. Would you still be upset that the film wasn't historically accurate since it didn't include this person? Probably not, because in telling a story about the men who rose the flag, the guy who gave them the pole really isn't that interesting or important. The only reason you bring him up is because your actively searching out events involving black men instead of events that actually pertain to the story being told, keeping in mind that there's a limited time frame.

Again I have to disagree with you.
You see, I think that actually filmmakers do have an obligation to include as much truth and to be wholly accurate when making a film based on a factual occurrence or figure.
If the people who actually took part in the war said the film isn't accurate, then why should it be acceptable to side with a Hollywood director who wasn't a part of it over them, regardless of colour?
Simply because he's an artist, he suddenly has carte blanche to re-imagine history as he sees fit to fit within the constrains of a two hour film?
Eastwood was warned before shooting even began that the working script he had in hand wasn't accurate but he stubbornly bulldozed ahead in white-washing black history for the umpteenth time in Hollywood history. He is notoriously stubborn so it was probably a case of "they're not gonna tell me how to make my film!" rather than being done with any racial undertones so I guess it's not the film alone that is so offensive but the fact that such practices are not only accepted but vehemently defended over the words of, again, those who were actually there when the battle took place!
I'm not sure how my not believing that Eastwood is racist weakens my point that both these practices are wrong and that in their exchange, Spike Lee was correct.

I understand exactly your point of the focus of the story (Re: if the pole guy was white) but it's one example of many and it's hard to justify shooting an inaccurate and worse an insensitive portrayal of a pivotal moment in history, with sufficient prior warning that you are about to do so, under the guise of 'the truth may have been uninteresting/not entertaining/not fit the running time we're gunning for.'

More offensive than the finished film itself are the people who are so accepting of and ready to defend it whilst simultaneously belittling the words of people who risked their lives during the actual incident as if they somehow know better.
Regardless of the event or film, if those who were involved in reality say it's not accurate, then the filmmaker has failed at portraying a true film. If this is done for the sake of entertainment then that's worse. Being accurate and entertaining aren't mutually exclusive

 

[Wendel Clark]

i'm not a fuckin retard like michael bay either

 

[Instro]

Would be interesting if there were more quotes from successful directors about other successful directors.

 

[Expendable.]

Would be interesting if there were more quotes from successful directors about other successful directors.

Positive ones? We get those all the time.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Jo Shishido: I agree that a director should probably try to stay to something approaching historical accuracy IF they lack a good, artistic reason for changing whatever fact. For example, I think that turning Mozart into an annoying, foppish character in Amadeus was artistically defensible but poor choice in terms of changing history, while I thought that making the one character in Rescue Dawn an antagonist to Christian Bale's character, while inaccurate according to the man's relatives, worked for that movie. So, it's a matter of the needs of the film. The question is, does it make a difference to the art of Eastwood's film to not have included black soldiers that were present? Honestly, I really don't think that it does; it strikes me as bringing race into a subject where it's not really necessary, especially when (as far as Flags of Our Fathers is concerned) there is so much artistic meat to be going after.

 

[Genesis Knight]

Isn't 900 a tiny percentage of the overall US force at Iwo Jima?

(fake ed Yeah, Wikipedia says there were 70K+ US troops. So If 98% of the soldiers were white, I think Clint can be excused?

 

[Timber]

dw griffith once told quentin tarantino that his butt smelled like butt!

 

[TheKaeptain]

Isn't 900 a tiny percentage of the overall US force at Iwo Jima?

(fake ed Yeah, Wikipedia says there were 70K+ US troops. So If 98% of the soldiers were white, I think Clint can be excused?

No, it has to be because Clint is a racist. Why does the black guy die in The Unforgiven and not the white protagonist?

Spoiler

I'm just kidding BTW.

 

[JB1981]

Uwe Boll's comment about Michael Bay wins lol

 

[HiResDes]

Gran Torino

 

[TheKaeptain]

Gran Torino

That's the movie where he locks the kid in a basement with the intent to rape him right? Too bad he was shot before that. Would have made for a really good film.

Anyways, more Godard bashing please. Swoon is probably waiting to post gifs of Anna Karina. Which are the best parts of his movies.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Uwe Boll's comment about Michael Bay wins lol

Let the record note that Boll has made exactly one more good film than Bay.

 

[TheKaeptain]

Rampage?

 

[swoon]

Anyways, more Godard bashing please. Swoon is probably waiting to post gifs of Anna Karina. Which are the best parts of his movies.

this sums up pretty much every thing i'll have to say about godard.

from breathless to 68 he had the best streak of films in film history. though i think if you look at my top 50 i only have two of his films on there, wilder and hitchcock and ophuls have the same.

in time i suspect you'll love godard.

 

[andymcc]

this sums up pretty much every thing i'll have to say about godard.

from breathless to 68 he had the best streak of films in film history.

i'd co-sign this. really just looking for an excuse to repost Karina.

 

[swoon]

that's uh not ak...but someone that godard may or may not being having an affair with..wearing an ak whig ...

 

[TheKaeptain]

I've tried Swoon, I have tried. Alphaville was the last straw. I'll revisit Breathless and Pierrot Le Fou if I feel the need to watch any Godard.

 

[Jo Shishido's Cheeks]

The question is, does it make a difference to the art of Eastwood's film to not have included black soldiers that were present? Honestly, I really don't think that it does; it strikes me as bringing race into a subject where it's not really necessary, especially when (as far as Flags of Our Fathers is concerned) there is so much artistic meat to be going after.

Strictly in an artistic context, I'd imagine the difference is negligible. As said it's the continuation and acceptance of the practice that annoys me, more so than this film specifically. I'm perhaps being overly harsh on it simply due to it being a recent high profile example of something we really should be past by now.

in time i suspect you'll love godard.

He's like alcohol. Tastes disgusting for many the first few go-rounds but can be indispensable once you've acquired the taste.

 

[Hyuga]

15. Jacques Rivette on James Cameron (and Steven Spielberg):
“Cameron isn’t evil, he’s not an asshole like Spielberg. He wants to be the new De Mille. Unfortunately, he can’t direct his way out of a paper bag. “

....really? I mean.... really??

 

[HiResDes]

I've tried Swoon, I have tried. Alphaville was the last straw. I'll revisit Breathless and Pierrot Le Fou if I feel the need to watch any Godard.

Alphaville is the most boring Godard I've seen