Creepy New Trailer for Shyamalan’s The Happening
The release date is just around the corner and M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening is picking up steam.
Starring Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschanel and John Leguizamo, the only thing we know about the film is that a “natural disaster” is spreading through the US, causing people to kill themselves. The other thing we know is to expect some sort of twist as is common in Shyamalan’s other films. The first few clips from the film looked great but none were quite as chilling as this new trailer. I give Shyamalan and his editors credit because the trailer does a fairly good job of building suspense and yes, I’m sold: I want to know what’s causing people to jump from buildings and stab themselves with utensils. At this point, I’m just worried to find out what it is. Guesses: giant rock monster, biowarfare, aliens. I realize none of them are natural disasters - I’m thinking they’re pulling our leg with that one.
Not too much longer to find out. The Happening opens on June 13th.
Comment by Colleeny — May 2, 2008
Comment by Marina Antunes — May 2, 2008
Comment by Kurt — May 2, 2008
Comment by Andy — May 2, 2008
Please, say it aint so.
Comment by Marina Antunes — May 2, 2008
Comment by swarez — May 2, 2008
Comment by Quiet Earth — May 2, 2008
Comment by Kurt — May 2, 2008
speaking of, I saw Iron Man (yeah I know hypocrite) and thats it, I’m done. I would have fell asleep were it not for the bimbo beside me who had apparently never seen a moving picture before in her life and had arms a flailing at every obvious contrivance of the action genre. I got such great insights as “ooh I wish I had an office like that” and “is that his heart?”. Hands down, the winner for most oblivious filmgoer, and I have had my share of contenders but that one took the cake.
but I digress: Iron Man is a piece of shit and I expect everyone to try and salvage something about it because of the wisecracks of Robert Downey Jr., but god almighty was that a boring long bloated paint-by-number enterprise, despite a somewhat promising opening fifteen minutes. I will not play the relative game and say well relative to others of the genre it is good or great… shit is still shit.
Fuck Iron Man, Fuck the Hulk, and maybe Fuck Batman.
Comment by rot — May 2, 2008
Comment by kurt — May 2, 2008
But I did enjoy Batman and I think Ledger’s performance alone might save that one, but we’ll have to wait and see.
Comment by Andrew James — May 2, 2008
In the end it is the repetition of formula that kills my will to live… and I see it recurring in the Dark Knight too (even with Nolan at the helm). How do you squeeze enjoyment out of checking boxes, like the film is already storyboarded in your head and it just a matter of it pixelating onscreen. How do you keep going back… perhaps you have not picked up on these similarities, or you have not seen enough films of that particular genre… I just do not get it. I am wired differently. I retain memory of how cinema has gone before, and rather than feeling comforted or relieved to see the same tropes passed on with only the faintest of variations, I feel bored, bored by repetition, the repetition that is so thinly veiled particularly in the comic book genre. A genre, dare I say it, that best suits adolescents, people early in their development and not yet jaded by the repetition.
its the same fucking film.
Comment by rot — May 2, 2008
Iron Man is far from the most original movie out there. In fact I’ve seen hundreds that have exactly the same structure as this one.
But what matters most is that it is entertaining. I enjoyed the performances, the witty banter or Downey JR but I knew exactly where the film was going but that didn’t take away from the enjoyment I had watching it.
It’s popcorn entertainment nothing more nothing less.
Comment by swarez — May 3, 2008
(Long boring movie about nothing of interest) + (plot twist in the last five minutes in an attempt to apologize for making you sit through the last two hours) = The worst cinematic experience of your life.
That’s mathematics. You can’t argue that.
Comment by Andy — May 3, 2008
Judge away then.
Still, in all of your arguments against Iron Man, you really haven’t said much of anything at all, rot - except maybe repeating over and over that it is just sooooo formulaic and more or less implying that only stupid, non-cinemaphiles or children could like such a movie, all because you “retain memory of how cinema has gone before.” Give me a break. It’s not your bag, fine, but drop your crusade of somehow trying to convince people that it is somehow a sin to enjoy Iron Man. It is a hell of a movie and, while this may not mean much to everyone, 147 out of 156 major critics agree.
Comment by Jonathan — May 3, 2008
Comment by Henrik — May 3, 2008
Comment by Henrik — May 3, 2008
This is how you make Iron Man:
1) add attractive love interest that exists purely to be symbolic of the hero’s want of normalcy
2) add montage of hero building costume and/or coming to terms with his/her powers
3) show hero fumbling with the newfound costume/powers in the trial period, wrought with comedy
4) add unambiguous villain who desires to either learn the identity of the superhero or who wants to employ the heroes powers for his/her own devices. Often the villain is a one-time close ally of the hero, but who for some plot device now wishes to do evil.
5) add hero saving civilians scene, the introduction of the hero to the world and the media coverage that ensues. Include obligatory joke about secret identity.
6) Add retaliation scene of villain, and the call to arms of someone to protect the world from this heinous person.
7) CGI anything and everything and make it so the camera appears to be on a roller coaster, swooping wherever the action is (Iron Man can swoop away from jets, the Hulk from helicopters, just make it look busy and frenetic)
9) add showdown between hero and villain, with cloud bubble smack talk, inevitably centered around an important set-piece that has the potential to explode as the characters battle around it. at least two or three fire bombs required. Hero must always be beaten down to the point of hopelessness… this is where we are supposed to feign suspense, the music crescendoing, the villain giving one long final smack talk, before an opportunity is found to reverse the situation and the hero gets the upper-hand and the villain succumbs.
10) add follow-up scene with allusions to sequel. end with the hero making a choice between normalcy and continued heroism, and the love interest cardboard cutout abiding to the hero’s wishes.
Its not a sin to enjoy this sort of thing, I’m just personally frustrated with this lack of imagination passing as quality entertainment.
Comment by rot — May 3, 2008
I’m just tired that familiar sells. The movie business knows this and gives us the same tired uninspired stories and they become huge hits, so they keep churning them out. It is a vicious cycle that leaves little room for green-lighting and showing films that are unique and in large part unclassifiable. Imagine living until your eighty or ninety and you are still watching that same story be retold, a story that is self-contained, that does not judge you, inspire you, provoke you to think or act differently, but at most compels you to buy more stuff. I have twenty-four screens a block away from me and there is two films from last December showing there that I could maybe qualify as participatory events, that strive to challenge you, that have something novel to say (although one of them is There Will Be Blood, and that is a whole other rant). I am talking about an ongoing epidemic of self-induced paralysis, emotionally, creatively, intellectually. Film is being marketed to us as an escape from reality in a sort of Brave New World soma sense, not to enhance us, just to pass a couple of hours.
This is a site that was started to give a focus towards the smaller films but you can see even here how it all tends to regress back to the easiest distraction. Its impossible to ignore the Iron Mans and Batmans, they pervade everything… they are the kind of shows that Geoffrey Rush’s character in Shakespeare in Love always wanted to hawk, “just give us a funny bit with a dog”, while that crazy Shakespeare saw about to write something altogether different.
I am told that I am exaggerating and that every year there are great films being made, and that is true (although my second favorite film of last year has yet to come out anywhere outside of the film festival) but in a climate of disposable cinema it becomes hard to be prepared for the kind of participatory experiences these great films can afford. Each Iron Man has a numbing effect on me, even the mere marketing, the pervasiveness of the retold story, this sort of stuff lingers well after the film, and with the exception of a film festival experience, I find it hard to remember how to watch films. To throw a metaphor: its like shadowboxing for months on end and then getting into the ring and forgetting how it really works. One does not walk in cold to something like The Fountain, or maybe you do, but I cant, I need to be situated. I never watch one of my top 100 films unless I am in my right mind (to quote Ginsberg), I cannot imagine watching it without being present. We tend to forget how important the receptor is to the film experience, but it is important, even the greatest film can fall under the heavy lids of a weakened state. I cannot watch Hiroshima Mon Amour unless I am depressed, I cannot watch a Bergman film unless I am feeling existential. But it becomes ever so hard to feel any of these things if the pervasive art around you is superficial, because the superficiality seeps in, and much like watching regular television you get into a catatonic state of passive observation. This becomes the default position…
My frustration was Iron Man is that I feel resigned again to this default position, I feel devoid of inspiration… and the future does not look any more promising. Films teach us a way to see but these films teach us a way to tune out.
Comment by rot — May 3, 2008
Summer is hear, and by the sounds of it, it’s time for the patrons of RowThree to get surly. Have a look over at the New York Times and Ms. Darghis’ rant on the summer of little boys. I can’t say I disagree. There does not seem like very much counterprogramming this year, although I stress that both Redbelt and My Blueberry nights are highlights in the coming weeks. And I’m going to try to get out to see the new Errol Morris at some point.
Sadly, I do feel it sort of obligatory to catch IronMan, and will likely do so for Indy IV, Hellboy II.
I hear what you are saying about the formula though rot. It gets old after you’ve seen enough of these. It is interesting how the Western and Noir genres managed to keep reinventing themselves in new contortions though…I’m certain not against genre. Simply the $150M+ movie that makes any studio quite risk averse. It is a small miracle that RDJ managed to land the lead in IronMan instead of Tom Cruise.
Curious on what the thoughts around here are on the standard Will Smith July4th film, Hancock….Another Superhero parody, except this one has as big of a budget or bigger than the films it is poking….
Comment by Kurt — May 3, 2008
The inspiration for Iron Man comes from almost five decades of source material. Of course, while some of you were in the third grade reading ‘Gone With the Wind’ and ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’, other children were busy reading these comic books. So when I can go enjoy a cinematic experience like ‘Iron Man’ that includes great acting from a fantastic cast and that remains faithful to the source material, yes, I’m going to be pleased with that.
Of course, if you don’t agree with that standpoint, then I say to you that all movies based on literature are dumbed down and people who enjoy those are looking for an easy escape from their own creation of characters and settings that arise while reading. Those uncreative bastards. What kind of intellectual deviant would enjoy ‘Fight Club’ as a movie. That would never work. Or ‘The Godfather.’ Jeez. That book should never dumbed down by the hand of cinema. Puzo would roll over in his grave. Hopefully they never turn THAT into a movie. Too many stupid people would go see it and like it.
Puh-lease.
Comment by Andy — May 3, 2008
besides I do not remember making a case that all good things comes from books, cinema is its own art form, some of the best films are made from original screenplays. Adaptations inevitably are their own entities, and I rarely get disappointed anymore by them because I have come to recognize this. Source material cannot justify the quality of the film, thats absurd. ahem, Bonfire of the Vanities.
Comment by rot — May 3, 2008
“This is a site that was started to give a focus towards the smaller films but you can see even here how it all tends to regress back to the easiest distraction. Its impossible to ignore the Iron Mans and Batmans, they pervade everything…”
You don’t have to like anything you don’t want to like, but with this specific statement, you’ve painted yourself as a humongous snob, and I don’t know if I’m going to be able to think of you differently after this.
Comment by Goon — May 4, 2008
I know many people who act like they would be sullying themselves by watching a Fellini film, who write all Criterions off as the same, who wont watch anything made before 1970. I even had a roommate once who wouldnt watch Clerks because it was in black and white, and didnt have anyone he recognized.
What you’ve said to me with your own statement comes from the opposite end, that you have this idea of what this site was supposed to be, and by talking about something like Iron Man, we are sullying it and wasting your time with our popular ‘drivel’.
i find it personally insulting that regular people with diverse tastes are ‘regressing’ by talking about a new blockbuster film that some of us find entertaining and ‘distracting’ you from something you find better. It’s just as ignorant as my roommate who wouldnt watch Waking Life because philosophy is ‘faggy’, and in a way, more insulting because someone intelligent should know better. I can stand it when people are either arty or “blue collar” if that we’re going to call it, about their tastes, that’s just fine - watch every Criterion and ignore every blockbuster, and be happy. I can’t stand it when people put out statements like the one you did that I quoted.
It drove me nuts on the Movie Blog seeing people complain when John talked about a smaller film instead of Indy 4 or the Dark Knight, and it drives me nuts seeing someone on RowThree complain about people talking about Iron Man.
Comment by Goon — May 4, 2008
“Films teach us a way to see but these films teach us a way to tune out.”
Felt like a schoolteacher scolding someone. Felt like my grade 4 science teacher who made fun of me in front of the class because I had a wrestling magazine
- If you’re going to pull that sort of thing I dont feel one bit ashamed to point back and say “lighten up”
Comment by Goon — May 4, 2008
As for the site, I don’t mind the blockbuster coverage, I mean it’s still a blog right? A blog is supposed to be an outlet for people’s interest, not something that caters one way or another.
I’d rather be hated in the company of peers, than loved in the company of inferiors.
Comment by Henrik — May 4, 2008
So do you then not agree that Iron Man is purely disposable fun? or does it teach us a way to see, to engage with the world, to think differently? thats my point with the ‘tune out’ line, I don’t see how it is inaccurate, whether or not it offends you.
Comment by rot — May 4, 2008
Of course, your point is well taken when you break down some of the site’s recent statistics. For example, the posting of the trailer for Brick Lane, an independent drama that has toured the festival circuit, has generated zero comments to date, while the trailer for the new Incredible Hulk film, to this point, has 43 comments. Now, sure, most of these comments have taken the discussion far beyond the topic of the original trailer, but you see what I’m driving at. In short, it’s quite often the ‘hot’ films that people like to discuss, whether taking a pro or con stance.
But I’m not sure that’s entirely a bad thing. In fact, this thread and the Hulk one contain some very interesting thoughts, no matter which side of the fence you’re standing on. It might even open the door for those of us who wander both sides of the fence to chime in from time to time.
Lest I sound wishy-washy, let me expand my position: I am an avid fan of film. The giants of the medium, artists like Bergman, Fellini, Renoir, Truffaut, Tarkovsky, Ozu, Hitchcock, Kubrick and Welles, have changed my life. I was deeply moved the first time I saw Werner Herzog’s Aguirre, and had to immediately re-watch Godard’s Weekend once the film had finished. These men, and others like them, have taken film as art in many different directions, and I am utterly fascinated by their accompishments.
I also am a big fan of Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, John Carpenter, Quentin Tarantino, Jack Hill and Mario Bava. I’ve tried to catch every single Pam Grier film ever made, and though I failed to chime in on Anderw’s original post, I had loads of fun with ID4, not to mention Cloverfield. I loved the Dawn of the Dead remake from a few years ago, and enjoyed recent entries like The Hills Have Eyes, Hostel, Saw and Grindhouse. I consider Spider Man 2 to be the finest Super-hero film ever made, with Batman Begins not far behind. And, yes, I enjoyed Iron Man. These are examples of film as entertainment, and while they may not constitute mind-expanding experiences, they certainly warrant our attention.
Let’s not forget (and I’m sure I’m not the first one to make such an observation) that the plays of William Shakespeare, the symphonies of Beethoven, and yes, even the films of Charlie Chaplin, were at one time seen as little more than popular entertainment. Had Shakespeare’s plays not generated any revenue in their day, would he have been given the opportunity to write as many as he did? How many great writers, contemporaries of Shakespeare, died anonymously, their names lost forever because their plays opened and closed almost immediately?
Think back to what opened your eyes to the magic of movies. For many of us, this life-altering event occured early in life. My particular conversion happened just after the opening sequence of Raiders of the Lost Ark. For thousands upon thousands, it was Star Wars, E.T., and Walt Disney that moved them. Had it not been for Spielberg’s love of those action serials he saw as a kid, the magic of Bergman and Ozu may have remained a mystery to me forever.
What does all this say about my cinematic tastes? Damned if I know. I just keep coming back to that old joke, which I first heard in Monty Python’s Live at the Hollywood Bowl: I may not know much about art, but I know what I like!
Comment by Dave — May 4, 2008
…an explicit statement would be ‘where cinema is NOT $100 million productions’… ‘more than’ states precisely that, “more than”, and RowThree has lived up to that in every way for me. it covers the varied unfocused tastes of the writers. The podcast has covered everything from Doomsday to La Jetee.
“So do you then not agree that Iron Man is purely disposable fun? or does it teach us a way to see, to engage with the world, to think differently?”
No, I do not agree, and its not as simple as that. You think that ‘fun’ is not only ‘disposable’, but that ‘fun’ and ‘teaching a way to see’ are mutually exclusive, and that’s the big problem. I’m a silly person who likes science class AND wrestling magazines (thats all you get Henrik), and at a core level my life has been shaped just as much by Jim Henson as it has been by Bill Hicks or Richard Linklater. “Disposable”. If someone wants to tell me only the latter of those three can teach us anything about the world, I could only imagine that the person saying that was a sad empty shell of an incomplete human being. Sorry.
I gladly make the case for supposed “low” art. Be they sex jokes, drug humor, childrens programming, and yes, comic book films, nothing is below me, anything can be made worthwhile by the right performer, that there is something you can grab from anything if you choose to, and have the right perspective. I got more joy, fun, and was more intellectually provoked by “Showgirls” than “Diving Bell and the Butterfly” and say it proud. I have all the Radiohead albums, and all the Spice Girls albums. My personal appreciation for pop music, trashy cinema, etc is anything but ‘disposable’, ‘fun’ to use your terms, does not live in a vaccuum. Fun is fun for a vast number of very different and unique reasons.
The ‘tune out’ line reads to me like some bullshit I always read when my grandparents sent me Christian teen magazines. They had their own media critic, and scary as it sounds he said a lot of the same things you did, that we had to turn out secular music and movies and tune in only to music and film that lift up God. that the secular is worthless and disposable, that theres nothing to be learned from it - and that christian music was entirely full of what made life good.
the difference of course that you want people to think differently, and they want people to think correctly. the fundamental message is similar enough though to frighten and offend me: “X is the only path to enlightenment” - if you truly believe in the value of engaging the world and thinking differently, you won’t so easily shut yourself off from anything. even Iron Man.
even neo-conservatism.
(okay, please don’t be a neo-conservative)
Comment by Goon — May 4, 2008
As for artists only surviving because they were succesful in their day, I beg to differ. The genius of geniuses, W.A. Mozart, was hardly a major success and died piss-poor and without recognition. So did Vincent Van Gogh. Geniuses live on no matter how they were perceived/rewarded monetarily in their time.
Comment by Henrik — May 4, 2008
“The problem with something like Iron Man is that it takes the genre and ends there.” - again, the crime is acting as if Iron Man is new. What about the argument that for many, Iron Man merely fulfills and perfects what they want out of the genre? You know, theres arenas full of AC/DC and Slayer fans who are grateful that the formula essentially stays the same. Call it conservative filmmaking all you want, that doesn’t fundamentally negative its quality.
Comment by Goon — May 4, 2008
Beer is bad for me, I drink it.
Chips are bad for me, I’ll eat ‘em.
If it tastes good, sounds good, looks good, let me at it. Even if I found Iron Man utterly ‘disposable’ (and many people may agree that it is), it doesn’t forgive writing off discussion of it, how it could be improved, what your favorite parts were, etc. You’ve done nothing to explain against the sin of bathing in the film for a short while afterwards.
Comment by Goon — May 4, 2008
Comment by Dave Becker — May 4, 2008
Keep talking of about whatever film you want guys!
I am looking forward to see if Marina does coverage of ‘Raiders: the adaptation’. the smallest of small Blockbusters.
Comment by colleen — May 4, 2008
the subtlety of what I’m saying does not seem to be getting through here: I never said the tagline implies ONLY smaller films merely that it suggests unlike the other sites this one is going to look MORE at the smaller ones (relative to other sites)… thats exactly what I said, but for some reason that does not seem to be conveyed.
Regarding “low” art films, or disposable films, or whatever one wants to call it, pure entertainment films… again, confusion: I never said such films should not exist, that people should not enjoy simple pleasures, I said the proliferation (the word I kept using was oversaturation) of these kinds of films has made it difficult for ME to take any film seriously, and has changed the way I watch films, and I think PERHAPS, changed the way our society watches films. This is a culture of acceleration and films are made disposable, and when there are true high art films it becomes difficult to be in the mindset to appreciate them because of so much indulgence of the simple pleasures. What we do affects us, if you eat Big Macs day in day out you will have a physical reaction in accordance to it… likewise if you watch pure entertainment on a regular basis, day in and day out, you will grow accustomed to a kind of viewing that is passive.
Stating this observation is not an indictment of anybody, everyone can make up their own minds as to what they think is right for them. I’m not trying to be your teacher, Goon, that suggestion to me implies a sense of inferiority, because otherwise you should be able to take my observation straight on unflinching. you immediately bring it to YOU, your situation, and I am talking about an observation of viewing in general. “Films teach US a way to see but these films teach US a way to tune out.” That is my thesis, you are welcome to challenge it, but quit making this some attack on you, because thats absurd, I don’t even know you.
The sin as you put it Goon, is not bathing in it for a short while afterwards, its the gorging endlessly on this sort of thing, its, like Dave said, a concerted focus even on this site towards the blockbuster films (by comment stats alone) and virtually ignoring completely anything else. Its not really a sin, like I said I do not care what any individual does in their spare time, watch whatever you want, I’m talking about the larger trends, how this mentality manifests so pervasively.
and I would never say that a blockbuster could not be in someway high art, that these sorts of things are mutually exclusive… again where did that come from… a blockbuster that deviated from a genre framework enough to be something original, to not be a retold story but something new, where the mind need not be on auto-pilot but fully engaged, then that has the potential of art. I have been complaining about the superhero genre because of how conservative it is, repeatedly so, that it stick to a rehashed script… that to me can never be high art, because it has no novelty, its a cheap thrill, something to talk about for the fanboys, maybe visually interesting. thats it. If it was the first time you had ever encountered this story, these conventions (and usually that is why as adolescents we are so drawn to these stories, because then they are new) then I guess they could be thought of as something more, but we are talking about grown men and women here, or at least that is who I am talking about.
Comment by Rot — May 4, 2008
1) I do not prescribe a hierarchy of films or film-styles that everyone must adhere to; I am making a point about my preferences with films
2) Without need of a value-judgment I can say that the superhero genre is generally more conservative and less risk-taking in its formulas than most genres, and can argue you that case by case.
3) I believe the over-saturation of formulaic films has an effect on the way in which people approach the act of viewing a film, in that it encourages a disengagement of the viewer, to tune out and let the retold story replay itself. The result is a habitually passive experience.
4) Blockbusters are not necessarily formulaic films, and there is no mutually exclusive division made between them and films which engage the viewer in a meaningful way.
5) Iron Man is a very formulaic film that is at most pure entertainment for someone conscious of the formula.
6) Supply and demand, if formulaic films are all that is required, there will be no shortage.
Comment by Rot — May 4, 2008
The end is coming Rot. It has happened before, and it will happen again.
Comment by Matt Gamble — May 4, 2008
Comment by rot — May 4, 2008
Comment by rot — May 4, 2008
It is new. It just came out. I think rot thinks (and I would agree with this) that a stagnant industry is a dumb industry. How much longer will we have to see the same films every year? Iron Man is holding us back, rather than taking us forward.
“What about the argument that for many, Iron Man merely fulfills and perfects what they want out of the genre?”
It is not the job of the artist to give the people what they want. If they knew what they needed they would be artists themselves. The job of the artist is to give the people what they need. I’m quoting Alan Moore on this, but he is right. I guess Jon Favreau and Marvel could defend themselves by claiming that they are in no way artists, but I would have a problem with that as well. Only artists should be allowed to make art, and I do want film to be art. The people who made Iron Man could give a shit, as long as they earn money.
Comment by Henrik — May 4, 2008
“Goon, that suggestion to me implies a sense of inferiority, because otherwise you should be able to take my observation straight on unflinching.”
Dragging paternal psychoanalysis into this? Whatever man, I simply went with the easiest analogy I could find for someone scolding others.
“…its the gorging endlessly on this sort of thing, its, like Dave said, a concerted focus even on this site towards the blockbuster films (by comment stats alone) and virtually ignoring completely anything else.”
If you think that accurately reflects RowThree, all I can say is I vehemently disagree. It’s again, all a matter of season. Fall/Winter will inherently see more art house/critically acclaimed films being discussed, will have reviews from TIFF and Toronto After Dark, etc - and summer will probably have a review of the Love Guru on here if someone sees it, and no poster on this site should have to apologize or rationalize what they do and do not see. It goes back to my critique of the last show. I have no problem with Kurt not caring about seeing Walk Hard, but I have a bit of a problem with extended rationalization of it. Kurt has my respect, unless we’re nagging/prodding him he doesn’t have to explain to me or anyone what he does or does not want to cover.
“We love Star Wars because we were young and exposed to it and it had a formative effect on us, and relatively the same can be said of all films… but I have been continually making my case from the perspective of grown adults who are familiar with the formulas that are used.”
Unfortunately, you make adulthood sound really unattractive. When you’ve got a pad out taking notes at “Baby Mama” to examine formulas and writing techniques (as Matty Ballgame did) I think you’ve got a problem.
Comment by Goon — May 4, 2008
Comment by rot — May 4, 2008
Says who? Don’t tell me you want to go here. Please. I mean, even in the case of supposed art films, there are handshakes and money exchanged and sacrifices and changes made everywhere to commercialize and make the film into a product. I mean, Diving Bell changed many aspects of the true story surrounding the girlfriend to create more tension for the viewer. Was a studio behind that? What drives a decision like that? Art? Money? Come on, Henrik, please.
I’m a professional illustrator. Ultimately I create pieces that must fit an article. Sometimes my first intended sketch isn’t accepted, sometimes I have to edit my final piece to the art director’s request. But I still look at what I created and call it art. To some degree it literally IS my job to give people what they want, or at the very least what they need. Will you tell me I’m not an artist?
Comment by Goon — May 4, 2008
Alex Ross’ paintings in particular to me have more care and artistic flair put into them than most modern art, and that same modern art may actually be more deeply personal or original. That doesnt give it more inherent beauty. I see Ross’ painting of the Green Lantern and see more than that, you might only see some copyrighted character in tights. I think my fulfilment argument is strong because the fanboys out there who find so much art in their craft are very satisfied. My roommmate is one such comic hound and he could probably write you an essay about how the “Iron Man” film, commercial as it is, as much as many who worked on it couldn’t care less about it, is art. And in a way, I take him just as seriously as anyone talking about a Malick film.
Comment by Goon — May 4, 2008
Its possible to observe and comment on things without it having to be a personal slight. Attack the comment not the commenter.
and no worries of me padding some notes on Baby Mama, I’m seen that film before.
Comment by rot — May 4, 2008
Comment by rot — May 4, 2008
Also, in answer to your other question, some comic books can be art as I understand it.
Comment by rot — May 4, 2008
I’m going to have to disagree with this. Sure the film was made with the intention of making money, but every film is. Iron Man simply had a huge budget, funded by very conservative (financially) corporations, and thus relied upon a proven template to ensure the highest chance of getting a return on their investment. It doesn’t aim particularly high, but it squarely hits its mark, which does have value.
But the difference between a big budget film like Iron Man and say Transformers, is that Iron Man clearly respected its source material. And while it had to be restrained artistically to fit a business model, it also made sure to maximize the areas that would be most important to its already existing fanbase. The acting is surprisingly good for a comic book film, and I’d argue that the actors almost uiformly create more with less. The direction is simple, clean, and bright. This is a film meant to invoke wide eyed optimism and fun, and in many instances, this is an accurate representation of Tony Stark throughout much of his comic book life. Favreau is an admitted D&D nerd and I think his love for one sector of pop culture uber-fandom is reflected in Iron Man. He may not love Iron Man (I really don’t know if he was a fan or the comic or not) but he clearly understands that the source material is important to a large segment of the viewing population, and thus should be treated with respect. Unlike say Michael Bay, who would rather garner cheap laughs by having Bumblebee piss on John Turturro. Iron Man may not be a genre shattering film that defies convention and opens awarness to the artistic possibilities of film, but it is a respectful and well made adaptation of its source. Thousands of other films should be so lucky.
Comment by Matt Gamble — May 4, 2008
Comment by Henrik — May 4, 2008
I do not see any external distinction with Transformers for people who do not give a fuck about source material but encounter the film as a separate beast. When you remove the fanbase factor, these are still two formulaic films that almost aspire to put you asleep with their repetition. The fanbase distinction regarding source material loyalty is an internal schism of fanboys and can come to add value that is inconsequential for anyone else. I do not get how seeing source material represented onscreen, stuff you already know, is some kind of engaging activity… again isnt it just checking boxes? I would like adaptations that try and make something new, I mean if I am looking for something to keep me awake. But a fanboy I guess finds something engaging about the act of seeing things they already know represented, and then perhaps, going through an internal dialogue about how this compares with the source material, and maybe this dialogue is what keeps them awake during the formulaic repetition of the storytelling. I’m being serious, maybe that is it.
Comment by rot — May 4, 2008
This is most definitely not the case. Lars Von Trier would never make a film if what he was interested in was money.
An artist creates art because he has to in order to cope with the world. This should go for directors as well.
Comment by Henrik — May 4, 2008
However he actually did use that phrase only to decribe that himself and a few others, I think Bergman was one of them, as actively writing their own work or having people write for them rather than only pouncing at one comes along. but if you think I’m simply an ‘artistic opportunist’, all I can do is artisticly wave my middle finger in your general direction.
Comment by Goon — May 4, 2008
“…aspire to put you to asleep”
You’re now out-Henriking Henrik with your brazen hyperbole. way to go! I know someone’s really lost me when they can make me want to defend Transformers and Michael Bay. Sweet Jesus.
“An artist creates art because he has to in order to cope with the world.”
Broad statements about the nature of art and artists literally make me want to puke. Might as well whip out a copy of the Secret and make retarded generalizations about your soul while you’re at it.
Comment by Goon — May 4, 2008
Comment by Henrik — May 4, 2008
If we adopt your standard of pure artistic integrity very few people at all are artists. Again, the only people free to make pure artistic decisions are those who live at home with mom, or have become successful enough that they dont have to worry about money.
At the same time, I’d argue that some people who dont have to worry about money forget what its like to struggle to be heard, and thus make increasingly shittier (*COUGH* PAUL MCCARTNEY *COUGH*.) or more blatantly self indulgent work.
Comment by Goon — May 4, 2008
Dont overthink it. I get pissier when you tell me you don’t like the same cartoons I like.
Comment by Goon — May 4, 2008
I wholeheartedly believe so. Any artist that reveals himself to be genius will be supported in his ways, but if you want to be an artist and nobody else wants you to, you shouldn’t presume to be one. I don’t call people who do the job artists. A painter is not inherently an artist because he is a painter, nor is a director an artist because he directs. The problem is that people who prove themselves to not be artists are allowed to express themselves in artistic realms because they can be sold.
Comment by Henrik — May 4, 2008
Only when it comes to art and music do we allow someone to be so ignorant.
Comment by Goon — May 4, 2008
Comment by Henrik — May 4, 2008
Comment by Henrik — May 4, 2008
In a previous article on a B-film, it shifted into a 15000+ word debate on the water device in Signs and M. Night Shayamalan. In an article about M Night’s new film, there is some interesting chewing on the art/commerce divide and genre filmmaking standing still or moving forward…
Just pointing that out, for no reason except that the way these things take on their own life is quite excellent.
Keep up the insight, passion and aggressive plotting of point-of-view folks!
Comment by Kurt — May 4, 2008
I should have said something like ‘fine art and music’ and threw it film as well. music as art should go without saying.
“Plumbers and realtors aren’t artists. Comparing art to craftsmanship now are we?”
As someone who spent 5 years in art school using phrases every other day such as “honing your craft”, “applying your craft”, “crafting a piece”, yes. I think I can argue from experience that “arts” and “crafts” are to some degree, interchangeable. “Crafts” more specifically at my school referred to everything from glassblowers to knitters, and if you ask them if what they do is an art, they will say yes.
Plumbers and realtors may be more likely to call what they do a ‘trade’, however yes, one google of ‘plumbing craft’ shows yes, there are people who would prefer that term. I’m sure somewhere out there exists a book called “The Art of Plumbing”.
All of this goes to expose how silly it is for you to whittle these things down into your own shallow definitions.
So let me basically restate without any separation between arts/crafts/trades whatsoever
“Only when it comes to art do we allow someone to be so ignorant.”
An illustrator, painter, sculptor, glassblower, knitter, plumber, realtor, anything, has a better grasp on their own intentions in their work you than you do. All you have is your own tastes and your subjective appraisal of their work.
If I ask a plumber if what he does is art, and then ask you if what the plumber does is art - I have a lot more reason to trust what the plumber says. In fact, the plumber may find it easier to convince me what he does is art, than someone who has work hanging in the Tate. And again, that’s a matter of taste/subjective appraisal/approval.
…and now I feel like this is the “My Kid Could Paint That” thread.
Comment by Goon — May 4, 2008
I think it’s your definition of art that’s all screwed up. But I know people that define art as anything that somebody has claimed to be art, effectively rendering the term arbitrary and useless. So I guess if you have to call Iron Man artistic to rationalize your enjoyment of the bright colors, the snappy attitude and the familiar narrative then so be it. For me, the thing that makes art special is the fact it is personal and unique. Ultimately, it’s about humans, their thoughts, their goals, their ambitions, their defeats etc. Unclogging a toilet or drawing an elf for a magazine because that’s whats needed has none of that, is not art and is not interesting.
Comment by Henrik — May 4, 2008
His job isn’t to be interested in making money. But the producers job is. And make no mistake, every film Lars Von Trier has made has had producers and executive producers and accountants and all sorts of other money men who’s job it is to make sure the film makes money.
And even so Von Trier executive produced Kingdom Hospital, which was all about making some money on the side for himself.
Comment by Matt Gamble — May 4, 2008
These people certainly find what they do artistic, selling stylized fixtures. How are these designed fixtures more or less art than a Bryan Adams song?
“But I know people that define art as anything that somebody has claimed to be art, effectively rendering the term arbitrary and useless.”
The alternative is allowing for objective decisionmaking on what constitutes art. My amorphous definition has flaws, but any absolute definition is fundamentally flawed, as there’s no accounting for taste.
“the thing that makes art special is the fact it is personal and unique. Unclogging a toilet or drawing an elf for a magazine because that’s whats needed has none of that, is not art and is not interesting.”
you have absolutely proved my point 100%, thank you. personal subjective tastes override any objective definition, proving once again why your strict definitions are so shallow beyond addressing your own personal tastes.
by the way, one good word parsing deserves another:
“drawing an elf for a magazine because that’s whats needed has none of that, is not art…”
vs. Henrik a few hours past:
“The job of the artist is to give the people what they need. ”
So anyways, you’re gonna tell me with a straight face, that if I draw an elf for a magazine, no matter how much care and love and craft I put into it, how much of myself I put into it, its not art because its “opportunistic”. Right, nice argument there chief.
You put the judgment of what is art more on the viewer, I place it more on the creator and their intentions. They both have their role, however I believe the creator is in a better place to judge their own artistic intentions and ambitions. The end.
Sorry, bub, your broad brush is short a few bristles. Some weird shit goes down on the corner of Yonge and Dundas in Toronto. Tomorrow I may find a guy painted in silver head to toe doing performance art plumbing next to an illustration of an elf while his partner sells real estate on a unicycle. We’ll show you! We’ll show you all!
Comment by Goon — May 4, 2008
I mean, we tend to categorize a lot of things in very simple terms. If I divide life experience into comedy and tragedy, am I devaluing either of them as concepts? If i merge the punk and metal sections of a record store together into pop/rock and keep country seperate, am I devaluing them? The biggest blunder in setting objective labels to any art is you have to end up making bizarre measurements. “is this 60% comedy, 40% tragedy?” “I’m sorry, this is three ois short of a punk record. stack it in metal” “this documentary is ineligible because 20% is __________”
if you want to set subjective ideas of what art is, go ahead but anything beyond that is well, almost evil. All I can do is counter your subjective idea of art with my subjective opinion that your subjective idea sucks donkey balls
Comment by Goon — May 4, 2008
While we’re on this rag, evil is also subjective
Comment by Goon — May 4, 2008
As for this little entry in your long line of supposed smoking guns:
- “drawing an elf for a magazine because that’s whats needed has none of that, is not art…”
vs. Henrik a few hours past:
“The job of the artist is to give the people what they need. ” -
Obviously the elf being drawn is not needed by the audience, it’s needed by the publisher because it is WANTED by the audience. I hate to confuse you so, I’ll try and be less complicated.
“So anyways, you’re gonna tell me with a straight face, that if I draw an elf for a magazine, no matter how much care and love and craft I put into it, how much of myself I put into it, its not art because its “opportunistic”.”
I am going to tell you that with a straight face.
Comment by Henrik — May 4, 2008
not that I am going to get into it in this state, but Henrik is right when he says Goon’s definition “devaluates the term, to the point where it has no meaning. If everything is art, then nothing is art, and the term has become useless.” A term in a language game has to at least have a function, or you might as well just grunt incoherently and not even pose the word ‘art’ into your lexicon… and yet Goon you still use the word ‘art’. But I also differ somewhat in how Henrik articulates ‘art’, or as I can grasp of it in this state.
will give my definition tomorrow, but carry on.
Comment by rot — May 4, 2008
Comment by Jonathan — May 4, 2008
Comment by Andy — May 5, 2008
Will this further fuel the flames of rage for Henrik and Rot?
Will Goon still kick ass for the Lord?
Will Kurt once again prove what a shitty nerd he is by claiming Iron Man is ripping off Verhoeven when in fact the villains armor is based off of a recombination of War Machine (circa 1979) and BattleTech (circa 1984)?
Does anyone care about M Night Shyamalamadingdong?
Will Andrew still like AC/DC even after Kurt admonishes him on the podcast?
Only time will tell.
Comment by Matt Gamble — May 5, 2008
Comment by rot — May 5, 2008
Comment by Matt Gamble — May 5, 2008
Comment by rot — May 5, 2008
Comment by Colleen — May 5, 2008
Comment by Marina Antunes — May 5, 2008
Comment by Colleen — May 5, 2008
If your subjective definition of art isn’t even going to include that, than I’m done with this conversation. Besides, I don’t even believe you
Comment by Goon — May 5, 2008
But first, THIS IS NOT WRITTEN IN STONE, I AM NOT SUGGESTING THIS TO BE UNIVERSALLY APPLIED BECAUSE THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL USES OF LANGUAGE, THERE ARE MERELY THE HABITUAL USES WITHIN CERTAIN CROWDS THROUGH WHICH WE MAY OBSERVE FAMILIAR MEANINGS. MAN DOES NOT UNCOVER DEFINITIONS, HE INVENTS THEM. What is important is that a definition is useful.
I have studied some aesthetic theory and I notice a recurring idea in this academic setting where ‘art’ is foremost a very difficult to attain level of excellence. Giorgio Vasari, when articulating what he considered the unparallel greatness of Michelangelo, said he went beyond the bounds of manual skill suggesting there was/is a threshold to valuing something purely on its technical achievements. He used words like ingegno and grazia, but the general idea, and what I think is carried through in an academic reading of ‘art’, is that there is a quality to the “art” work that transcends the sum of its parts in such a way that one cannot point to any ostensive evidence as to why it is so great, it is the experiential event of the patron which alone authenticates this upper echelon of greatness. Hence the very snobby and academic phrase ‘the work has a certain Je ne sais quoi”, meaning the value ceases to be something of a manual nature that can be accounted for. For lack of a better word, we are in the realm of the spiritual (a word which has its own unsavory connotations).
Naturally Goon scoffs at any notion of some spiritual classification to a work, and Colleen sticks to the idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I can see why these sorts of conclusions would be drawn, there is a stigma that something which cannot be demonstrably articulated as the reason for a value must be either wishy-washy new age shit, or reduce everything to personal taste in a sort of fatalist inevitability, giving up before anything has been started. Yet we tend to think there is such a thing as mutual love, and whether or not such a thing exists its part of our lexicon, as is art. It may be worthwhile to propose an alternate definition; one that accounts for this familiar usage of the word art and for the endless attempts by people to express what makes ‘art’ special.
Rather then focus on the product to say what art is I think a more useful approach is to focus on a kind of inner activity of the art patron when having an art-experience. Coleen is right, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but it is not limited to there, or does not need to be. One can set as a threshold for the meaning of ‘art’ or the art-experience as one of momentary destabilization, or spiritual re-evaluation of some aspect of being when posed with the transcendent artwork. There is the implication that “destabilization” leads to something altogether new in the individual’s self-identity, and I don’t think that is quite right. By destabilizing I do not mean necessarily something progressive, that with each experience one negates the past. It is just as likely the destabilization would lead to a reaffirming of one’s previously held convictions. The art-experience is an indicator to the subtle yet significant distinction between living and merely existing; living incites evaluation into one’s identity. Each person measures this experience according to their own self-awareness, and they feel genuinely a part of the work.
The best analogy I can think of to show the distinction I interpret between something like the formulaic nature of Iron Man with something that provokes a destabilization of the individual, is circuits. As I said earlier, repetition lulls one asleep and the continual repetition of formulaic films has a way of disengaging the viewer from the experience and into a passively observing state; this would be like a closed circuit sat before you operating without your input. When repetition and familiarity are removed enough to interject some intrigue on the part of the viewer opportunities for the academic notion of ‘art’ are afforded; this would be like an open circuit with the viewer embedded in the film experience, and coming out of it changed in some palpable way. There is no universal recipe for opening the circuit, each of us cultivates our own aesthetic sensibilities… BUT I believe it is useful to say that some similar destabilization need occur for something to be considered ‘art’.
So to summarize, the academic notion of “art” has the following characteristics:
1) a rare level of excellence that transcends the purely technical achievements of a work
2) wholly authenticated by the individual’s reaction, not by any property of the work itself
3) requires a palpable momentary or long-lasting destabilization in the individual’s sense of being that induces a direct communion between him/her and the work.
Hardly complete, that is a barebones definition of what I consider the familiar meaning of art if it is to have any sliding scale significance. One can always lower the bar of what constitutes ‘art’ but in doing so one draws attention away from our personal involvement in artworks, and towards the inert things themselves, closed circuits to be admired from afar, rather than open circuits that we feel directly a part of. I think fanboys generally do not give a shit about this kind of participatory idea of art, they want the self-contained ‘art’ you can put behind glass and admire, what I would call the commodity value of a work.
Comment by rot — May 5, 2008
It has to engage at an emotional level
It has to be open to multiple interpretations of meaning (have some depth) - as rot states, “wholly authenticated by the individual’s reaction”
Both of these properties are vague as hell, and for all intents and purposes Ironman and Troll 2 have this effect on people, but then there is good art and bad art. I generally prefer the good stuff, but am not disinclined to take in some of the true trash out there too. I tend to rile against mediocrity, and that ladies and germs is Ironman.
Comment by Kurt — May 5, 2008
I would hazard to guess that Kurt, Henrik, Marina, and I have some reverence for this rarer (I call higher) experience, and that someone like Goon sees it as either a delusion of grandeur or not nearly that important to bother with, and being entertained will suffice. To each their own, but at the very least we can admit when talking about ‘art’ we are talking about something different altogether. Goon’s Iron Man is an ‘art’ of an altogether different meaning.
Comment by rot — May 5, 2008
But as Goon says: “If it tastes good, sounds good, looks good, let me at it.”
With an attitude like this, I think we should just count ourselves lucky that he isn’t religious! I’m joking.
Comment by Henrik — May 5, 2008
Comment by rot — May 5, 2008
Then the Monument Valley “Capital S” Spectacle on top of everything makes the film a strange beast indeed.
Comment by Kurt — May 6, 2008
And with your attitude you can end up shutting yourself off from any film’s message you don’t personally believe in. Taking your ‘religious’ crack at face value - if I were to not have my ‘let me at it’ attitude, I probably wouldn’t have sat through say, the severely religiously overtoned “Millions”, let alone buy it. Yes, I do apply my ‘let me at it’ stance to religion, it is up to me to decide what is true and false, what is scary fun (reading the book of Mormon intro and laughing, watching Scientology training videos) and what is scary fundamentalist.
Comment by Goon — May 6, 2008
Comment by rot — May 6, 2008
Comment by Kurt — May 16, 2008
You’re convincing yourself that not only are certain people’s emotions and experiences are lower quality than yours. But also that you are capable of divining which people’s experiences are worth while and which are superficial.
And if you’re going to keep going in this direction could you bother to so a better job articulating yourself?
“life seems to dance within it”?!? ugh. Try harder.
Comment by Rusty James — May 16, 2008
Comment by Kurt — May 17, 2008
And I thought writing things in Capital letters would actually make people understand the context of my opinions with regards to the terminology I was using to find a useful definition for art. here is exactly what was written in my ‘fascistic’ analysis:
“THIS IS NOT WRITTEN IN STONE, I AM NOT SUGGESTING THIS TO BE UNIVERSALLY APPLIED BECAUSE THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL USES OF LANGUAGE, THERE ARE MERELY THE HABITUAL USES WITHIN CERTAIN CROWDS THROUGH WHICH WE MAY OBSERVE FAMILIAR MEANINGS. MAN DOES NOT UNCOVER DEFINITIONS, HE INVENTS THEM. What is important is that a definition is useful.”
I make distinctions between ‘nerds’ ‘fanboys’ and ’snobs’ because there are useful distinctions that arise when trying to talk about something as ‘art’, and the point was that if ‘art’ is to have a useful function then it would best be defined at least loosely on the ’snob’ barebones ideas because there is a consideration of how a film personally changes the viewer, the threshold has a useful function to describe human experience. Any threshold lower than this can and does exist but it is preoccupied with the product, how it relates to other products, and becomes a rumination on the value of commodities.
Fascism was never about relativity or usefulness, it was about absolutes, it was saying my way or the highway, it is fanaticism. There is nothing fanatical about my opinions on a useful definition for art, I am working within the realm of rational debate, awaiting a rebuttal that finds a more useful definition of the term ‘art’ and that can convince me that another way of looking at the situation is worthwhile.
I would add that the three mentalities I have described need not be fixed to individuals, though there are certainly tendencies for that… its to describe particular frames of reference that someone engages within when evoking the notion of art. I am not saying that someone who is characteristically a fanboy in their behavior cannot have a snobbish experience or articulate his/her experience in that way, I am talking generally of habitual uses, the same way in certain crowds we behave according to some unspoken social understandings, we play the language-game that each situation requires, so can we, any of us play the game of fanboy worship, nerdish categorizing, snobbish introspection, but I would say there are certainly tendencies (habits) to stick to one or the other most of the time.
also I think ‘life dances within it’ is a good description for what I am talking about… its like there is a ‘cinema’ filter where genre archetypes act out their plays, and everything works on a very stylized level, but every once and a while the ‘life’ shines through for me, somewhere beneath it, almost accidentally, ‘dancing’ because it tends to come out of body and facial gestures that flash and are gone. But I am sorry I guess I should keep my description to some socially acceptable lexicon… and I am the fascistic one.
my thoughts on ‘art’ are taken from these threads have been put together into a more coherent post, so if you want to challenge my view feel free to cite it:
http://www.thepaganagenda.com/2008/05/09/demarcating-a-useful-definition-for-art/
Comment by rot — May 17, 2008
Comment by Marina Antunes — May 30, 2008