# never watch todays movies



## sharik

movies have no soul these days.
a waste of time to watch them, at best, and a moral suicide, at worst.


----------



## KenOC

Most movies of any era have no soul. They're made to earn money. Are you saying things have changed?


----------



## Guest

sharik said:


> movies have no soul these days.
> a waste of time to watch them, at best, and a moral suicide, at worst.


That's it? That's your starter for ten? You wouldn't care to elaborate by offering an example and showing how watching soulless movies is 'moral suicide' (or what that term means) or providing some evidence of the absence of soulful movies?

Or are you here to just provoke, as you have in other threads?


----------



## Ramako

MacLeod said:


> That's it? That's your starter for ten? You wouldn't care to elaborate by offering an example and showing how watching soulless movies is 'moral suicide' (or what that term means) or providing some evidence of the absence of soulful movies?
> 
> Or are you here to just provoke, as you have in other threads?


Ah, perhaps you are showing that old movies are in fact morally edifying by the association of this post with your avatar?


----------



## sharik

KenOC said:


> Most movies of any era have no soul. They're made to earn money.


you must be referring to American movies like Hollywood but let's take Fellini for example -


----------



## Guest

Ramako said:


> Ah, perhaps you are showing that old movies are in fact morally edifying by the association of this post with your avatar?


Well, certainly there are 'old' movies that are morally edifying (and btw, when does a movie become 'old'?) but studio output then contained rubbish as studio output does now - though I'd not like to put a proportion on it.

_To Kill A Mocking Bird_ is certainly morally edifying (if a little 'obvious' at times). Modern movies may be a little more subtle in their moralising.


----------



## sharik

MacLeod said:


> _To Kill A Mocking Bird_ is certainly morally edifying


no its not because it pushes Multiculturalist agenda and is politically correct to boot.


----------



## Guest

sharik said:


> no its not because it pushes Multiculturalist agenda/lobby and is politically correct to boot.


You may not like the morals propounded in the movie, but that does not mean its _not _a moral movie. But perhaps you'd like to explain what _you _mean by a moral movie?


----------



## sharik

MacLeod said:


> perhaps you'd like to explain what _you _mean by a moral movie?


well you seem to ignore my replies to other posts but yours... a youtube vid i posted earlier is a perfect example of ethics, where the plot is: a successful movie director comes to terms with his conciense by committing suicide because realises he is not what he had seemed to others and himself in the first place, and his success was a product of advertising, not his talent which actually only amounts to staging a circus show.


----------



## Ramako

sharik said:


> well you seem to ignore my replies to other posts but yours... a youtube vid i posted earlier is a perfect example of ethics, where the plot is: a successful movie director comes to terms with his conciense by committing suicide because realises he is not what he had seemed to others and himself in the first place, and his success was a product of advertising, not his talent which actually only amounts to staging a circus show.


I think I prefer _It's a Wonderful Life_.


----------



## Guest

sharik said:


> well you seem to ignore my replies to other posts but yours... a youtube vid i posted earlier is a perfect example of ethics, where the plot is: a successful movie director comes to terms with his conciense by committing suicide because realises he is not what he had seemed to others and himself in the first place, and his success was a product of advertising, not his talent which actually only amounts to staging a circus show.


Yes, well that's because anyone can post a Youtube clip without comment - you didn't say whether the Fellini was an example of a good movie or a bad movie, moral-wise. Now you've elaborated a little, that's helpful. So, is that what you want...posters to offer examples of modern films (or, by contrast, 'old' films), preferably with youtube accompaniment, that show either the lack or the presence of soul? I'd be wary of such an exchange, given your hasty dispatch of Ramako's first suggestion.

I suppose by proceeding in this way we might accumulate a few examples that line up on either side, but not enough to support your argument.


----------



## sharik

Ramako said:


> _It's a Wonderful Life_.


- not as sharp and profound as '8 1/2' but will do anyway if we add to it _Citizen Cane_.


----------



## sharik

MacLeod said:


> is that what you want...posters to offer examples of modern films (or, by contrast, 'old' films), preferably with youtube accompaniment, that show either the lack or the presence of soul?


not necessarily youtube examples but the name of a movie in correct spelling and the year specified.



MacLeod said:


> by proceeding in this way we might accumulate a few examples that line up on either side, but not enough to support your argument.


you start first then we'll see how it goes.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Movies are the last place I would look to for moral edification. Most of them are made with the only purpose of entertaining, no more, no less. As for morals, they usually cater to the currently prevalent moral standard. For example, the last movie I saw, "Ten Commandments" was made in 1956, at a time when the American society was far more religious than today, and it shows in the way the biblical subject matter is treated with certain reverence in the movie. Now the society's values are different, and therefore the morals in the movies are different too. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad, in my opinion, but that's the way it is.

And I don't think watching something like "The Lord of the Rings" is moral suicide. That one definitely has good morals.


----------



## sharik

SiegendesLicht said:


> Movies are the last place I would look to for moral edification. Most of them are made with the only purpose of entertaining


this is sad...



SiegendesLicht said:


> "Ten Commandments" was made in 1956, at a time when the American society was far more religious than today, and it shows in the way the biblical subject matter is treated with certain reverence in the movie. Now the society's values are different, and therefore the morals in the movies are different too


this is sad, isnt it?


----------



## Guest

sharik said:


> you start first then we'll see how it goes.


Well, this is difficult, since you've not really established what you mean in your initial post. If you mean that there are few or no movies with explicit moral teaching, you might be right. (I'd not be going to the cinema to watch such movies anyway).

Of the movies I've seen in the past year or so, I'd suggest _Silver Linings Playbook_ and _Life of Pi_ as both entertaining and 'moral', in that the behaviour of the characters is scrutinised and the audience can draw conclusions about those behaviours. Even _The Avengers_ offers a simple moral tale (the 'good' guys win, even though each good guy is flawed.)

BTW, if you think _To Kill A Mockingbird_ is about 'multiculturalism', I'd say you need to watch the movie, understand the context in which the book was written (1960) and the film was made (1962), and you might take a more nuanced view. IMO, it's rather more plainly about racism.


----------



## sharik

MacLeod said:


> you've not really established what you mean in your initial post


i think i wrote it in plain English...



MacLeod said:


> If you mean that there are few or no movies with explicit moral teaching, you might be right


i meant to say there's no *soul* in movies today, teaching or not, because there might be a lot of 'teaching' as well as propaganda and product placement and so on.



MacLeod said:


> a simple moral tale


enough of 'simple' tales, just sick of them... need some complexity.



MacLeod said:


> if you think _To Kill A Mockingbird_ is about 'multiculturalism', I'd say you need to watch the movie


i had read the book.



MacLeod said:


> it's rather more plainly about racism


the book seems loaded from the start: an innocent black man 'unjustly accused' (sic) by white KKK thugs - a typical Multiculturalist spin doctoring.


----------



## Ramako

Well the Lord of the Rings movies do dilute the moral aspects of the books, but actually there is quite a lot of fairly complex commentary on morality etc. to be got out of there. And it was put there originally by Tolkien, rather than just being coincidental.

Also the story has nothing to do with WW2 at all. Whatsoever.


----------



## sharik

Ramako said:


> the Lord of the Rings movies


i seen some of these, it left me feeling cheated. Tolkien or the movie is to blame, i don't know.


----------



## Prodromides

I rarely watch movies made in the 21st century, but for a different reason.

Rapid editing irritates me, especially when this viewer loves L'ECLISSE (1962) by Michelangelo Antonioni and Andrei Tarkovsky's 1979 STALKER and Jacques Rivette's LA BELLE NOISEUSSE (1991).

There's still impressive cinema near the turn of the century, such as the 1999 LE TEMPS RETROUVé by Raul Ruiz or any film by Theo Angelopoulos, but most of my favorites were made more than 30 years ago.

Fassbinder died in 1982, Ingmar Bergman went into semi-retirement after FANNY AND ALEXANDER, and Truffaut passed in 1984.
I consider this period during the early 1980s to be the dearth of the film director as the _auteur_. 1984 also witnessed an increase in juvenile pop culture (i.e. GREMLINS) as well as increased reliance on synthesizers in film scores.
I think the commercial and popular success of 1978's SUPERMAN significantly altered many aspects of film-making from that time onwards into the present.

As to when is a motion picture "old"? Films and music created prior to 1975 are very much off the radar of most current audiences.
Generations born between 1990 and 2000 might be willing to view 1979's ALIEN or STAR TREK, but I doubt very much they have interest in cinema before the Spielberg/Williams collaboration on JAWS.

Some others might consider 1968 (the first year of the MPAA rating system) to be the start of "modern" cinema, and Leonard Maltin relies upon the year 1965 to divide his books between 'classic' and contemporary movies.

At this point in time, anything before The Beatles/pre-1964 is likely to be deemed "Golden Age" by almost everybody.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Ramako said:


> Also the story has nothing to do with WW2 at all. Whatsoever.


I know that.


----------



## Guest

sharik said:


> i think i wrote it in plain English...
> 
> I think you didn't, but I guess we'll have to just disagree on that point.
> 
> i meant to say there's no *soul* in movies today, teaching or not, because there might be a lot of 'teaching' as well as propaganda and product placement and so on.
> 
> Well, sorry, but I don't know what you mean.
> 
> enough of 'simple' tales, just sick of them... need some complexity.
> 
> Funny. Your OP strikes me as wanting to deal in simplicity.
> 
> i had read the book.
> 
> I suggested you watch the film - which is what the thread is about.
> 
> the book seems loaded from the start: an innocent black man 'unjustly accused' (sic) by white KKK thugs - a typical Multiculturalist spin doctoring.


Your labelling as 'multiculturalist' is itself loaded spin. For some reason, 'multiculturalism' is one of the words in public discourse that has become tainted, presumed as a negative (like 'bureaucracy' or, increasingly, 'liberal') and used as an automatic dismissive. The USA could hardly not embrace the notion of multiculturalism; with a population comprising so many nationalities and ethnicities, it has to promote ways of peaceful co-existence. This, of course, has nothing to do with the problems of racism where the history of enforced importing of slaves created patent inequalities and racial tensions.


----------



## Guest

Prodromides said:


> I rarely watch movies made in the 21st century, but for a different reason.
> 
> Rapid editing irritates me, especially when this viewer loves L'ECLISSE (1962) by Michelangelo Antonioni and Andrei Tarkovsky's 1979 STALKER and Jacques Rivette's LA BELLE NOISEUSSE (1991).
> 
> There's still impressive cinema near the turn of the century, such as the 1999 LE TEMPS RETROUVé by Raul Ruiz or any film by Theo Angelopoulos, but most of my favorites were made more than 30 years ago.
> 
> Fassbinder died in 1982, Ingmar Bergman went into semi-retirement after FANNY AND ALEXANDER, and Truffaut passed in 1984.
> I consider this period during the early 1980s to be the dearth of the film director as the _auteur_. 1984 also witnessed an increase in juvenile pop culture (i.e. GREMLINS) as well as increased reliance on synthesizers in film scores.
> I think the commercial and popular success of 1978's SUPERMAN significantly altered many aspects of film-making from that time onwards into the present.
> 
> As to when is a motion picture "old"? Films and music created prior to 1975 are very much off the radar of most current audiences.
> Generations born between 1990 and 2000 might be willing to view 1979's ALIEN or STAR TREK, but I doubt very much they have interest in cinema before the Spielberg/Williams collaboration on JAWS.
> 
> Some others might consider 1968 (the first year of the MPAA rating system) to be the start of "modern" cinema, and Leonard Maltin relies upon the year 1965 to divide his books between 'classic' and contemporary movies.
> 
> At this point in time, anything before The Beatles/pre-1964 is likely to be deemed "Golden Age" by almost everybody.


Whilst appreciating movies from all eras (though not all languages) what the mid to late seventies brought to cinema was a new dynamism and optimism for younger audiences who had been subjected to poor output. Apparently, you were expected to enjoy Disney or Irwin Allen until you were 18, and then you could 'enjoy' Peckinpah or Winner. There seemed to be little in between.

I'll agree that one of the excesses of modern cinema is the rapid editing and headbanging soundtrack, though when I first sat my son down to watch _Blade Runner_, I was struck by how slow-moving it was, and how dated Vangelis sounded. Conversely, I went to see _Oblivion _last week and noticed that it was rather more sedate than is usual for modern sci-fi.

As far as I can see, every generation of cinema produces its gems and its turkeys, and it's all too easy to dismiss a whole generation on a single (generalising) premise.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

MacLeod said:


> The USA could hardly not embrace the notion of multiculturalism; with a population comprising so many nationalities and ethnicities, it has to promote ways of peaceful co-existence.


But even the USA has a dominant culture (for example the English language, the secular republic, the prevalence of Christianity and atheism as opposed to all other religious convictions) that immigrants from other cultures should be encouraged to assimilate into. And that is even more true about European states with their far older national identities, languages and cultures, which I believe, need to be preserved. So, I don't think multiculturalism is a good thing.


----------



## Prodromides

MacLeod said:


> As far as I can see, every generation of cinema produces its gems and its turkeys, and it's all too easy to dismiss a whole generation on a single (generalising) premise.


Yes, I agree that there's gems from any given time period. 
Plus, there's also some young viewers who have interest in alternatives other than what's a new release.

My 'generalization' is a reflection of my tastes after having about 600+ films in my collection and observing trends.
Almost all of my favorite films were made between 1956 and 1974. There's some post-'74 films I like as well as pre-'56 titles.
But the prevailing _zeitgeist_s within my favorite period resonate most with my own sensibilities.

There's some recent items that I'd like to see someday (such as Dominik Mull's LE MOINE), but I ask myself what films made after Y2K will surface (if ever) onto the Criterion Collection of the future?


----------



## Nereffid

sharik said:


> well you seem to ignore my replies to other posts but yours... a youtube vid i posted earlier is a perfect example of ethics, where the plot is: a successful movie director comes to terms with his conciense by committing suicide because realises he is not what he had seemed to others and himself in the first place, and his success was a product of advertising, not his talent which actually only amounts to staging a circus show.


A perfect example of ethics?
Do you mean a perfect example of ethical behaviour, or a perfect example of an ethical problem?

Dealing with a problem by committing suicide doesn't sound like ethics in action, to me.


----------



## sharik

MacLeod said:


> Your labelling as 'multiculturalist' is itself loaded spin


yes it is, kind of 'hair of the dog' approach, and why not?



MacLeod said:


> The USA could hardly not embrace the notion of multiculturalism; with a population comprising so many nationalities and ethnicities, it has to promote ways of peaceful co-existence


its not achieved by emracing Multiculturalism or any other -ism, for all it takes is set who are the master nation that everything would be ok.


----------



## Ramako

SiegendesLicht said:


> I know that.


I thought you would, however not everyone does


----------



## Prodromides

Nereffid said:


> A perfect example of ethics?
> Do you mean a perfect example of ethical behaviour, or a perfect example of an ethical problem?
> 
> Dealing with a problem by committing suicide doesn't sound like ethics in action, to me.


Perhaps this portion of a review may assist (by Grace Vuoto from the _reflections_ website)

"In 8 ½, Fellini takes us on a transformative, profound journey from the first to last scene. The main character, Guido, a famous director, struggles to make a meaningful film. He is overcome by his own inner turmoil-part of which is driven by his guilty conscience for his marital infidelity. Another source of his torment is his quest for artistic truth. He is at once enchanted by the hedonism, promiscuity and fanciful nature of the movie-making set of actresses, writers and directors of his time. This is the circle in which he is fully immersed. However, it also a group which he does not respect; he views his peers with mistrust and derision. He even often seeks to escape altogether from this milieu and its false values.

Simultaneously, he is enchanted by existential philosophy and contemplates a post-modern critique of his Catholic upbringing. In his paralyzing confusion, he considers that there is no meaning to life and that he has nothing left to say; that faith is a mere illusion; that the world itself is in hopeless disarray. He falls deeper and deeper into depression, until a moment at a press conference in which, in a dreamlike trance, he crawls beneath a table, points a gun to his chest and commits suicide. He and his quest to make another movie are now dead.

Yet, he reemerges from his death-trance to ultimately recognize that it is not the world that is confused, but that it is he who is lost; it is his own lifestyle that has plunged him into darkness. At last, he declares: "La vita è una festa;" he sees clearly the glory of his own existence, the eternal loveliness of his wife and their sacred union-and the charm of all those in his life who in some way contributed to this revelation and who are deserving of his love. In a childlike recreation of heaven, all the individuals from his life hold hands, form a circle and take part in a triumphant circus. The scene is absurd, comical and alluring. His heart is now large enough to embrace all these people, flaws and all, who have been part of his journey to divine truth.

8 ½ is also a stirring portrait of Italy itself. Fellini is an astute critic of the institutions of his childhood, including the Catholic Church that is mired in both hypocrisy and revelation. The savage *****, Serrafina, is condemned by the community as "the Devil." But the young Guido can see that she is no less human than the priests who flog him for going to see her. This is Italy in its palpable contradictions. When Guido sinks into despair as an adult, he nonetheless turns to the leaders of the Church for ultimate wisdom and guidance.

The movie also delves into the leading strands of twentieth-century thought-and their clash with traditional values. Fellini is really saying that if we fully and sincerely accept any of the alternatives to Christianity presented by the artists and thinkers of the twentieth century-such as hedonism, liberalism, communism, atheism and existentialism-we must ultimately commit suicide. These roads lead to an increasing isolation and darkness of the mind to the point of self-extinction. It is only Christianity-as transmitted by the imperfect instrument of the earthly church-that kindles the life-giving love embedded in the human heart which is the source of all that is beautiful and worth living for.

How many more movies in our day, even if they cannot approach the poetry of Fellini's work, could nonetheless benefit from a little dose of that sensibility -"la vita è una festa."

http://www.ebireflections.com/1/12/02_culture.xhtml


----------



## kv466

You're not going to find someone with less belief in the capacity for creating good 'classical' music these days but you'll never hear me say it is over. What's more preposterous about this notion is that at least music has had a few hundred years for us to compare where as some here are only giving it a few decades and then throwing in the towel. To me, anyone who holds these artifacts so high that they can no longer see the magic of or enjoy modern movies is simply someone stuck in their own mud and not by any means a true lover of cinema.


----------



## sharik

Nereffid said:


> A perfect example of ethics?


no such exists, even Jesus Christ wouldn't qualify.



Nereffid said:


> Do you mean a perfect example of ethical behaviour, or a perfect example of an ethical problem?


the latter.



Nereffid said:


> Dealing with a problem by committing suicide doesn't sound like ethics in action, to me.


it wasn't the suicide that made Guido comply with ethics but his embracement of a fact that he's no talent to film anything but circus shows and that he never really loved anyone, only desired some boobs etc.


----------



## Guest

SiegendesLicht said:


> But even the USA has a dominant culture (for example the English language, the secular republic, the prevalence of Christianity and atheism as opposed to all other religious convictions) that immigrants from other cultures should be encouraged to assimilate into. And that is even more true about European states with their far older national identities, languages and cultures, which I believe, need to be preserved. So, I don't think multiculturalism is a good thing.


Let's not get distracted: this thread isn't about multiculturalism, but it is about the extent to which watching modern movies is 'committing moral suicide' or the extent to which modern movies exhibit 'ethics' - though, as Nereffid correctly asks, is this about modelling desirable ethical behaviour or exploring ethical dilemmas. Either way, whether To Kill ...is about racism or multiculturalism, it is a movie which offers an exploration of a moral problem.



Prodromides said:


> Almost all of my favorite films were made between 1956 and 1974. There's some post-'74 films I like as well as pre-'56 titles. But the prevailing _zeitgeist_s within my favorite period resonate most with my own sensibilities.


Many of my preferred movies come from the 40s, where moral dilemmas are quite strongly to the fore - _Maltese Falcon_ and _Casablanca_, for example.



sharik said:


> its not achieved by emracing Multiculturalism or any other -ism, for all it takes is set who are the master nation that everything would be ok.


See my response to SiegendesLicht. You cannot demand movies with ethics on the precondition that the ethics are only those you agree with. And, as far as '-isms' are concerned, you've just used another negative totem: all '-isms' are a Bad Thing, and not to be tolerated in a Civil Society.


----------



## sharik

Prodromides said:


> http://www.ebireflections.com/1/12/02_culture.xhtml


in fact Guido commits suicide right as the movie begins, and the rest of it portrays his Purgatory term he serves as part of expiation, during which he once again has to live through the last months prior to his suicide, in order to lead him to realisation of what was wrong with his life... he commits another suicide to now proceed as a mere clown in some kind of the 'next world'.


----------



## sharik

kv466 said:


> anyone who holds these artifacts so high that they can no longer see the magic of or enjoy modern movies is simply someone stuck in their own mud and not by any means a true lover of cinema.


no i'm not, i'm actually much more concerned with what's going on with this world.


----------



## Nereffid

Prodromides said:


> Perhaps this portion of a review may assist (by Grace Vuoto from the _reflections_ website)
> 
> "In 8 ½, Fellini takes us on a transformative, profound journey from the first to last scene. The main character, Guido, a famous director, struggles to make a meaningful film. He is overcome by his own inner turmoil-part of which is driven by his guilty conscience for his marital infidelity. Another source of his torment is his quest for artistic truth. He is at once enchanted by the hedonism, promiscuity and fanciful nature of the movie-making set of actresses, writers and directors of his time. This is the circle in which he is fully immersed. However, it also a group which he does not respect; he views his peers with mistrust and derision. He even often seeks to escape altogether from this milieu and its false values.
> 
> Simultaneously, he is enchanted by existential philosophy and contemplates a post-modern critique of his Catholic upbringing. In his paralyzing confusion, he considers that there is no meaning to life and that he has nothing left to say; that faith is a mere illusion; that the world itself is in hopeless disarray. He falls deeper and deeper into depression, until a moment at a press conference in which, in a dreamlike trance, he crawls beneath a table, points a gun to his chest and commits suicide. He and his quest to make another movie are now dead.
> 
> Yet, he reemerges from his death-trance to ultimately recognize that it is not the world that is confused, but that it is he who is lost; it is his own lifestyle that has plunged him into darkness. At last, he declares: "La vita è una festa;" he sees clearly the glory of his own existence, the eternal loveliness of his wife and their sacred union-and the charm of all those in his life who in some way contributed to this revelation and who are deserving of his love. In a childlike recreation of heaven, all the individuals from his life hold hands, form a circle and take part in a triumphant circus. The scene is absurd, comical and alluring. His heart is now large enough to embrace all these people, flaws and all, who have been part of his journey to divine truth.
> 
> 8 ½ is also a stirring portrait of Italy itself. Fellini is an astute critic of the institutions of his childhood, including the Catholic Church that is mired in both hypocrisy and revelation. The savage *****, Serrafina, is condemned by the community as "the Devil." But the young Guido can see that she is no less human than the priests who flog him for going to see her. This is Italy in its palpable contradictions. When Guido sinks into despair as an adult, he nonetheless turns to the leaders of the Church for ultimate wisdom and guidance.
> 
> The movie also delves into the leading strands of twentieth-century thought-and their clash with traditional values. Fellini is really saying that if we fully and sincerely accept any of the alternatives to Christianity presented by the artists and thinkers of the twentieth century-such as hedonism, liberalism, communism, atheism and existentialism-we must ultimately commit suicide. These roads lead to an increasing isolation and darkness of the mind to the point of self-extinction. It is only Christianity-as transmitted by the imperfect instrument of the earthly church-that kindles the life-giving love embedded in the human heart which is the source of all that is beautiful and worth living for.
> 
> How many more movies in our day, even if they cannot approach the poetry of Fellini's work, could nonetheless benefit from a little dose of that sensibility -"la vita è una festa."
> 
> http://www.ebireflections.com/1/12/02_culture.xhtml


My beef wasn't so much with 8 1/2 (I saw it many years ago, and really enjoyed it) as with sharik's dubious claims for it. I'd argue that the problems posed in the film are rather more in the general area of "philosophical" rather than specifically "ethical".



> Fellini is really saying that if we fully and sincerely accept any of the alternatives to Christianity presented by the artists and thinkers of the twentieth century-such as hedonism, liberalism, communism, atheism and existentialism-we must ultimately commit suicide. These roads lead to an increasing isolation and darkness of the mind to the point of self-extinction.


...whereas this is less like "philosophy" and more like "horse****".


----------



## sharik

Nereffid said:


> the problems posed in the film are rather more in the general area of "philosophical" rather than specifically "ethical"


those who don't trust in God of course see only philosophy in 8 1/2 but the reason why Guido commits suicide (the 2nd one in the movie) is because he rejects any philosophy in favour of the Eternal Truth.


----------



## Nereffid

So, what do you think of Terrence Malick's "Tree of Life"? Waste of time or moral suicide?


----------



## sharik

Nereffid said:


> what do you think of Terrence Malick's "Tree of Life"?


i've never seen that movie, tell me what its about?


----------



## Nereffid

I'll admit it was a trick question. I was wondering whether someone who's prepared to make the sweeping generalisation "movies have no soul these days" had seen a reasonably high-profile recent film that deals with ideas such as humanity's relationship with God.


----------



## sharik

Nereffid said:


> a reasonably high-profile recent film that deals with ideas such as humanity's relationship with God


they really take on such a subject?.. as for how man relates to God, we have already had The Old Testament and then Schonberg's opera _Moses Und Aron_ haven't we?


----------



## Nereffid

sharik said:


> they really take on such a subject?.. as for how man relates to God, we have already had The Old Testament and then Schonberg's opera _Moses Und Aron_ haven't we?


My bad. I didn't realise the subject had been exhausted.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> I'll admit it was a trick question. I was wondering whether someone who's prepared to make the sweeping generalisation "movies have no soul these days" had seen a reasonably high-profile recent film that deals with ideas such as humanity's relationship with God.


A good question. Mind you, since sharik didn't specify what he meant by movies having 'no soul', I take it to mean that it has no 'inner life' (an admittedly humanist interpretation). _Tree of Life_ (which I have not seen) might well fit the bill for a 'moral movie' if that is what sharik seeks. But widely differing films like The King's Speech, Never Let Me Go and The Blind Side seem to me to offer what sharik is looking for.

That's 6 films I've named to sharik's 1 (even it was 8.5.)

How'm I doing ? (as if I couldn't guess)


----------



## Flamme

True, there is a lot of BAD movies in the ''golden movie past'' but the GOOD ones are so good that new flicks can never reach them...


----------



## Guest

Flamme said:


> True, there is a lot of BAD movies in the ''golden movie past'' but the GOOD ones are so good that new flicks can never reach them...


I guess we'd all better give up and top ourselves now...


----------



## Mahlerian

Nereffid said:


> My bad. I didn't realise the subject had been exhausted.


You know, a few books, an opera, and we've got it. Not so complex after all!


----------



## Xaltotun

I also prefer older films... I do believe that it's possible for modern films to have meaningful content, but I object to the form, the techniques used. Well, to be frank, I prefer the older content as well, or perhaps, the older method of approaching and presenting the content. There's maybe two post-60's films that I really like, and I'm not much into the 60's either... it's 50's and earlier for me. But this is not specific to films, really; it's the fact that I prefer the zeitgeist, the general thinking, of the 50's and earlier times. So, it's very difficult for ANY branch of modern art to satisfy me, unless it aims for complete timelessness and succeeds.


----------



## sharik

Nereffid said:


> My bad. I didn't realise the subject had been exhausted.


yep, no need to flog a dead horse.


----------



## sharik

MacLeod said:


> films like The King's Speech, Never Let Me Go and The Blind Side seem to me to offer what sharik is looking for


and what these films tell about?


----------



## sharik

Mahlerian said:


> You know, a few books, an opera, and we've got it. Not so complex after all!


one book is more than enough if it's The Holy Bible, also you can do with one opera if it's Der Ring.


----------



## sharik

the best films are Italian ones and of course Bunuel's -


----------



## Kopachris

Must... not... take.. the bait...

You're getting awfully close to a religious discussion, sharik.


----------



## sharik

Kopachris said:


> You're getting awfully close to a religious discussion


but its okay, lets talk religion here... why not?


----------



## Kazaman

sharik said:


> but its okay, lets talk religion here... why not?


Because it's tedious.


----------



## sharik

Kazaman said:


> Because it's tedious.


but we can drop the subject once it got 'tedious' cant we?


----------



## TudorMihai

The problem with today's movies is that the commercial aspect is the most important factor. The most striking evidence is a film that spawns endless sequels. Gone are the days when filmmakers really regarded film as an art and not as a business. The only contemporary filmmaker that does that, in my opinion, is Terrence Malick. But we do not have a Tarkovsky, a Fellini, a Bergman, a Bresson anymore.


----------



## Kopachris

sharik said:


> Kazaman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sharik said:
> 
> 
> 
> but its okay, lets talk religion here... why not?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's tedious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but we can drop the subject once it got 'tedious' cant we?
Click to expand...

We've been through religious discussions over and over and over, and they all ended the same way: locked due to mudslinging and flame-baiting.


----------



## sharik

Kopachris said:


> We've been through religious discussions over and over and over, and they all ended the same way: locked due to mudslinging and flame-baiting


but i don't see anyone who might want to talk religion here, so maybe no need to panic?


----------



## sharik

TudorMihai said:


> Terrence Malick


well, judging from his trailers, a bland stuff.


----------



## Nereffid

TudorMihai said:


> The problem with today's movies is that the commercial aspect is the most important factor. The most striking evidence is a film that spawns endless sequels. Gone are the days when filmmakers really regarded film as an art and not as a business. The only contemporary filmmaker that does that, in my opinion, is Terrence Malick. But we do not have a Tarkovsky, a Fellini, a Bergman, a Bresson anymore.


I would say that the "problem" is that today, the List Of Commercially Successful Films and the List Of Films That Have Been Deemed To Be Art may be less similar to each other than they used to be. I'm not a film buff (and as the years go by I seem to be watching fewer and fewer films) but it's my understanding that there are still plenty of films being made that can be Deemed To Be Art. One just has to put a bit more effort into finding them.

As for sequels: meh. Tarzan? The Thin Man?


----------



## Guest

TudorMihai said:


> The problem with today's movies is that the commercial aspect is the most important factor. The most striking evidence is a film that spawns endless sequels. Gone are the days when filmmakers really regarded film as an art and not as a business. The only contemporary filmmaker that does that, in my opinion, is Terrence Malick. But we do not have a Tarkovsky, a Fellini, a Bergman, a Bresson anymore.


Between 1937 and 1939, Peter Lorre, acclaimed actor for his role in _M_, played Mr Moto in 8 movies. In how many did Basil Rathbone play Sherlock Holmes?

Series and sequels (the trash and the worthy) have been an ever-present in studio output.


----------



## Guest

TudorMihai said:


> But we do not have a Tarkovsky, a Fellini, a Bergman, a Bresson anymore.


And that's a shame. But we do have a Spielberg, a Leigh, two Coens, a Scott... who make films that audiences want to go and see (even if you don't want to be part of that audience)



sharik said:


> and what these films tell about?


If you haven't seen them, I'm not about to write a synopsis. It rather undermines your OP claim if you dismiss wholesale, films that you've not watched and about which you can form no decent judgement.


----------



## TudorMihai

MacLeod said:


> Between 1937 and 1939, Peter Lorre, acclaimed actor for his role in _M_, played Mr Moto in 8 movies. In how many did Basil Rathbone play Sherlock Holmes?
> 
> Series and sequels (the trash and the worthy) have been an ever-present in studio output.


I agree but I refer here to the sequels that weren't necessary, such as Pirates of the Caribbean 4, Terminator 3 and Salvation, Indiana Jones 4 and the many Disney/Pixar films. These were made only to squeeze even more money.


----------



## oogabooha

sharik said:


> movies have no soul these days.
> a waste of time to watch them, at best, and a moral suicide, at worst.


----------



## sharik

Nereffid said:


> there are still plenty of films being made that can be Deemed To Be Art


i did not mean 'art' i meant *soul* for i couldn't care less about 'art'.


----------



## Kopachris

sharik said:


> i did not mean 'art' i meant *soul* for i couldn't care less about 'art'.


Define *soul*.


----------



## sharik

MacLeod said:


> we do have a Spielberg, a Leigh, two Coens, a Scott


come on... they don't even compare with Bergman or Tarkovsky.



MacLeod said:


> If you haven't seen them, I'm not about to write a synopsis


as you might guess i do have some idea of what the films you mentioned is like.


----------



## sharik

Kopachris said:


> Define *soul*.


no i will not.


----------



## Nereffid

sharik said:


> no i will not.


In that spirit, let me propose a counterargument to your initial statement of "movies have no soul these days":

Movies have no _je ne sais quoi_ these days.

Have at it.


----------



## Kopachris

sharik said:


> Kopachris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define *soul*.
> 
> 
> 
> no i will not.
Click to expand...

Then how can you reasonably claim that a movie doesn't have soul?


----------



## oogabooha

sharik said:


> and what these films tell about?


they are literally naming films that have had _considerable_ mainstream success and have had been full of quality, and you haven't seen them? how do you think you can make a sweeping generalization just because you're so enamored by films of the past?

...but don't get me wrong, my favorite director is Kubrick and I haven't seen something that has compelled me as much as his direction yet...but how do directors like David Lynch and Paul Thomas Anderson have no soul?


----------



## Guest

sharik said:


> come on... they don't even compare with Bergman or Tarkovsky.
> 
> In your opinion. But they don't have to 'compare' to anyone, providing that their movies offer the content and quality that I seek. Given that you refused to define 'soul', I'll simply counter your generalisation with my own, though with some definitions to help: the best post-1975 movies (like their pre-1975 predecessors) have soul, intelligence, emotional drive, intellectual as well as visual content. They entertain, they educate, some do both (since, IMO, there is nothing wrong with entertainment).
> 
> as you might guess i do have some idea of what the films you mentioned is like.


I might guess nothing of the kind. Having 'some idea' is not the same as having seen. I'm not going to pretend I know anything about (let alone judge) for example, _The Seventh Seal_, even though I have an idea of what it is about, and I have an idea of what Bergman is about.


----------



## sharik

Kopachris said:


> Then how can you reasonably claim that a movie doesn't have soul?


because *others do know* what is soul.

soul is whats left of man after death.


----------



## Kazaman

sharik said:


> because *others do know* what is soul.
> 
> soul is whats left of man after death.


Then how do we tell if a film has a soul? Boil it and see what's left?


----------



## sharik

oogabooha said:


> Kubrick


well actually Kubrick and Lynch are ok directors, _Barry Lyndon_ and _Mulholland Drive_ are among my favorites, so i'd recommend them to everyone here as films that deal with soul matters.


----------



## sharik

Kazaman said:


> Then how do we tell if a film has a soul? Boil it and see what's left?


exactly, never take any film at face value.


----------



## sharik

MacLeod said:


> Having 'some idea' is not the same as having seen


yes it's the same, thus are the movies of today, and you don't have to see _The King's Speech_ to know its a pile of crap.


----------



## oogabooha

sharik said:


> you don't have to see...to know its a pile of crap.


:lol: seriously, man, do you not see this gaping hole in your logic


----------



## sharik

oogabooha said:


> seriously, man, do you not see this gaping hole in your logic


that hole is the result of you misquoting my post.


----------



## oogabooha

sharik said:


> yes *it's the same*, thus are the movies of today, and *you don't have to see The King's Speech to know its a pile of crap.*


is this better?


----------



## sharik

oogabooha said:


> is this better?


yep, lots better.


----------



## PetrB

sharik said:


> movies have no soul these days.
> a waste of time to watch them, at best, and a moral suicide, at worst.


Never watch movies, period: They are 'entertainment,' just like theater.

Like the literature for the theater, film subjects have the same range, from the lightest of mannered drawing room comedies -- with all the weight of a soap bubble -- through detective suspense, historical fiction, Greek Tragedy... etc. -- the panoply of what 'entertains' or engages us. Some may be 'edifying,' some may move us deeply about the human condition, but to expect 'moral' from each and all of them is wildly naive.


----------



## sharik

PetrB said:


> to expect 'moral' from each and all of them is wildly naive.


not at all, because ethics should in fact have been a passport for everything in human society.


----------



## emiellucifuge

PetrB said:


> Never watch movies, period: They are 'entertainment,' just like theater.


I couldn't agree less.


----------



## PetrB

sharik said:


> no its not because it pushes Multiculturalist agenda and is politically correct to boot.


 Your ingrained Russian 'programming,' including racism -- is showing


----------



## PetrB

emiellucifuge said:


> I couldn't agree less.


I meant to be sardonic and sound as 'absolutest' as the OP seems to be


----------



## Guest

TudorMihai said:


> I agree but I refer here to the sequels that weren't necessary,


And the series I cited included _necessary _sequels?



sharik said:


> yes it's the same, thus are the movies of today, and you don't have to see _The King's Speech_ to know its a pile of crap.


I guess I should have known where you were coming from, and where you were headed, but I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.



PetrB said:


> Never watch movies, period: They are 'entertainment,' just like theater.
> 
> Like the literature for the theater, film subjects have the same range, from the lightest of mannered drawing room comedies -- with all the weight of a soap bubble -- through detective suspense, historical fiction, Greek Tragedy... etc. -- the panoply of what 'entertains' or engages us. Some may be 'edifying,' some may move us deeply about the human condition, but to expect 'moral' from each and all of them is wildly naive.


So, just checking - you never watch movies because they are entertainment, even though they may be edifying and may move you deeply...?



sharik said:


> not at all, because ethics should in fact have been a passport for everything in human society.


A shame you're not around to elaborate on this more interesting point.


----------



## Kopachris

PetrB said:


> I meant to be sardonic and sound as 'absolutest' as the OP seems to be


After all, music--and all other art--is also entertainment.


----------



## Flamme

Why is this young chap banned i wonder:angel:


----------



## Guest

Flamme said:


> Why is this young chap banned i wonder:angel:


Is 'he' a 'young' 'chap'?


----------

