ThinkBlog

hahahaha Nice. Very intellectual deep movies! W00t. A1 you say? haha Indeed. ::clink:: Cheers.

Agreed, Shandi; words and language are both important and significant, and I mean as you did to highlight that we’re talking about two interrelated attributes of two different concepts each, which proves your point.

I have to admit, though, Jess, I’m fairly split between A1 and A2 for most films. Film noir is the reason that A2 gets so much weight in my book: b&w film with minimalist equipment and a sophisticated post-WW2 Angst meant that the actors had to be fantastic. You have some enormous flops, sure, but there are so many films from that era and in that style that make 95% of the movies made today look like kid stuff.*

[* Exceptions to this are usually foreign, independent, or both, though I give nods to actors who find their niche for at least one movie. Take for example Arnold Schwarzenegger (otherwise a pretty mediocre actor, physicality aside) in Terminator and T2. His embodiment as an archetype of a killing machine made in man’s image completely works for both him and for the film’s central theme.]

The problem is that b&w films, if not film noir specifically, are so often parodied and poked at because, at least partially, America as a moviegoing public wants the new and the flashy. The “Technicolor” films of the late 50s are no help to my point or cause because they were either written to take advantage of this new-and-exciting color screen, or because (as in the case of the Bing Crosby movies and so forth) they were used as vehicles for talents other than acting itself.

But I’d invite you to give some old school films another chance. The cameras may be shaky at times, and there are no special effects, bright colors, or other blinkies–even the sound is often terribly scratchy–but all this meant that the actors, writers, and directors who were aware of the technical limitations of the medium all worked to make the dialogue crisp, intelligent, witty, and exciting.

Suggestion #1: Double Indemnity, a serious film by the director of all the silly Marilyn Monroe movies.

ON THE OTHER HAND, there are some film noir movies whose facial/body acting is as penetrating as Arnold’s acting is subtle. I find myself nevertheless recommending some of them because of the incredibly rich dialogue (many times including puns in foreign languages, e.g., The Third Man) which has now been substituted out for sweeping CGI effects or frankly stupid slapstick humor. Or, in cases where something seems a bit “off,” because the actors all seem to embody some archetype or stereotype in such a way that it jars us from the natural.

But let’s not leave out B1 & B2. The first thing that comes to mind for B1 is a few absurdist animes I’ve seen but couldn’t name for you, and Disney’s Fantasia. I appreciate this type of film as clever art, but would probably not sit down at one for a repeat viewing unless with friends (indeed, I’ve only ever seen Fantasia once, years ago).

B2 seems to me the hardest to pull off as a full-scale production; (possible) exceptions might include Autechre’s music videos which make heavy use of abstractions, thin dark lines and stark contrasts–but which last usually only 4-8 minutes and whose soundtracks are, of course, Autechre (incredible as experimental music goes, but more “academically interesting” than “penetrating”).

On the other hand, I found myself pleasantly horrified by David Lynch’s Eraserhead. The soundtrack is minimalist-industrial and includes very little music; there is an absolute minimum of spoken dialogue, and it’s shot in black and white. It’s incredible–but not something I’d sit down to watch again without a friend.

In any case, that’s why I ask. Because words are so key and because I think the contemporary use of color and special effects gives too many writers a sense of license to skimp on the intelligence of the script, while nevertheless a well-done film is, of course, gorgeous; and because having affirmed the priority of language, I nevertheless find myself drawn to types B1 & B2.

heh, you wanted a conversation piece. Looks like you got it! Nic (yes, that post was from a Pfost) is, btw, very much into acting and film and directing of both, so I’ve been glad to have his input in the recent conversations on my blog, even if he doesn’t totally agree with you. Thanks for your comments, too, and for starting this; it’s been a great discussion so far. I’m opening an account with Blockbuster (blegh) so I can get my hands on some of those gems you suggested to me. Will be in touch….

Dear thinkers, are those are only choices or are we missing out on something here? How about Confucian appropriateness? We want color, soundtrack and dialogue to occur when they best express the content. So, does content dictate context or is it the other way around? And is there really a difference between character and plot?

hahahaha Nice. Very intellectual deep movies! W00t. A1 you say? haha Indeed. ::clink:: Cheers.

Agreed, Shandi; words and language are both important and significant, and I mean as you did to highlight that we’re talking about two interrelated attributes of two different concepts each, which proves your point.

I have to admit, though, Jess, I’m fairly split between A1 and A2 for most films. Film noir is the reason that A2 gets so much weight in my book: b&w film with minimalist equipment and a sophisticated post-WW2 Angst meant that the actors had to be fantastic. You have some enormous flops, sure, but there are so many films from that era and in that style that make 95% of the movies made today look like kid stuff.*

[* Exceptions to this are usually foreign, independent, or both, though I give nods to actors who find their niche for at least one movie. Take for example Arnold Schwarzenegger (otherwise a pretty mediocre actor, physicality aside) in Terminator and T2. His embodiment as an archetype of a killing machine made in man’s image completely works for both him and for the film’s central theme.]

The problem is that b&w films, if not film noir specifically, are so often parodied and poked at because, at least partially, America as a moviegoing public wants the new and the flashy. The “Technicolor” films of the late 50s are no help to my point or cause because they were either written to take advantage of this new-and-exciting color screen, or because (as in the case of the Bing Crosby movies and so forth) they were used as vehicles for talents other than acting itself.

But I’d invite you to give some old school films another chance. The cameras may be shaky at times, and there are no special effects, bright colors, or other blinkies–even the sound is often terribly scratchy–but all this meant that the actors, writers, and directors who were aware of the technical limitations of the medium all worked to make the dialogue crisp, intelligent, witty, and exciting.

Suggestion #1: Double Indemnity, a serious film by the director of all the silly Marilyn Monroe movies.

ON THE OTHER HAND, there are some film noir movies whose facial/body acting is as penetrating as Arnold’s acting is subtle. I find myself nevertheless recommending some of them because of the incredibly rich dialogue (many times including puns in foreign languages, e.g., The Third Man) which has now been substituted out for sweeping CGI effects or frankly stupid slapstick humor. Or, in cases where something seems a bit “off,” because the actors all seem to embody some archetype or stereotype in such a way that it jars us from the natural.

But let’s not leave out B1 & B2. The first thing that comes to mind for B1 is a few absurdist animes I’ve seen but couldn’t name for you, and Disney’s Fantasia. I appreciate this type of film as clever art, but would probably not sit down at one for a repeat viewing unless with friends (indeed, I’ve only ever seen Fantasia once, years ago).

B2 seems to me the hardest to pull off as a full-scale production; (possible) exceptions might include Autechre’s music videos which make heavy use of abstractions, thin dark lines and stark contrasts–but which last usually only 4-8 minutes and whose soundtracks are, of course, Autechre (incredible as experimental music goes, but more “academically interesting” than “penetrating”).

On the other hand, I found myself pleasantly horrified by David Lynch’s Eraserhead. The soundtrack is minimalist-industrial and includes very little music; there is an absolute minimum of spoken dialogue, and it’s shot in black and white. It’s incredible–but not something I’d sit down to watch again without a friend.

In any case, that’s why I ask. Because words are so key and because I think the contemporary use of color and special effects gives too many writers a sense of license to skimp on the intelligence of the script, while nevertheless a well-done film is, of course, gorgeous; and because having affirmed the priority of language, I nevertheless find myself drawn to types B1 & B2.

heh, you wanted a conversation piece. Looks like you got it! Nic (yes, that post was from a Pfost) is, btw, very much into acting and film and directing of both, so I’ve been glad to have his input in the recent conversations on my blog, even if he doesn’t totally agree with you. Thanks for your comments, too, and for starting this; it’s been a great discussion so far. I’m opening an account with Blockbuster (blegh) so I can get my hands on some of those gems you suggested to me. Will be in touch….

Dear thinkers, are those are only choices or are we missing out on something here? How about Confucian appropriateness? We want color, soundtrack and dialogue to occur when they best express the content. So, does content dictate context or is it the other way around? And is there really a difference between character and plot?