Hey Zach, nice to see you enjoy Silent Hill 2! Probably my favourite game ever, though not without it's short-comings. I'm playing Silent Hill 3 right now and I'm wondering if the symbolism isn't injected far more consistently into the game than in 2. Mind you, 3's story is pretty silly, but I think that the symbolism is just outstanding as it relates to the female psyche. A lot of good psychology going on in parts of that game. I hope to write up some kind of analysis of it, but we'll see if I get that far. I don't see anyone else discussing it on the same level I see for SH2. And personally I think 3 is better.
Forget the idea of "ART", that whole philosophical debate is meaningless. And why are you comparing games to film so adamnently? It's a different medium with different potentials. Examples are too many to list. I'm talking about all the major games released this decade. I enjoy playing them, they make me think, they're entertaining. Are they as profound as films? No.
I think the main problem with games today, and actually someone else was touching on it in an above comment, is that they lack cohesion. I haven't played many games (if any) where all aspects come together to give a really complete experience. I mean, you have games like Final Fantasy with it's excellent characters, plot, music, and environments; and then you have this gameplay which is completely removed from everything else. And I think a lot of games have similar problems. However, I certainly don't think that the gameplay is what is holding games back from being brilliant. But it would be nice to see a kind of de-emphazise or reimagining of it. Personally, I would love to play a game where you spend a lot of time walking through environments not necessarily "doing" anything. And there are games that sort of do that.
But more importantly, I am really pleased with the games that are coming out. They definitely meet my qualifications of "art" and I get a lot out of them. Sometimes as much as films or music. Neither of those art forms are as successful at creating a world for you to exist and play around in.
There are many popular video games with strong artistic components. The question about video games isn't whether they are art, but whether they are good art. And I think some games are. I just can't understand why you feel that way with all the games that have come out over the past 20 years. This has been a spectacular decade for video games.
By the way, regarding A Woman Under the Influence: the performances were definitely extreme. Personally I like performances like that, assuming they are done well. I was incredibly surprised that I wasn't getting tired of the woman's performance as the film went on. I found her continually shocking and hilarious, but I completely understand if other people don't. I just felt like that movie worked on such a deep level almost for the entire experience. I can't really think of another film that is so simple yet cuts so deep in many different ways. I think her performance is one of the best I've ever seen. Maybe the last 1/3 of the film was where it lost a little steam, but that was more a shift in the story's tone I think then an actual mistake on the director's part. Amazing script, some of the best performances ever, surprisingly good film making...this film is like an American art picture and it handily beats the European ones at their own game.
I lived in St. John's for 2 years. Beautiful city actually..all of NFLD is beautiful pretty much.
But ya, Cassavetes is the truth. Excited to check out more from him. And furthermore, I'll delete my commentary if I want to. Don't try to stop me like the doctors. I do it for the children. YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND! ITS YOU WHO IS SICK!!!!!
re: Blade Runner, I think it had some of the best sound design I've ever heard in a film. The visuals were also quite stunning, with great set design. The weakest part I think was the story, which I found a little silly, although still interesting enough to watch it all the way through and maybe even watch it a second time. But yeah, I sort of agree with you in that I find it somewhat overrated.
Perhaps the difference is in the means, but the ends are basically the same. They are two different mediums so they certainly work differently. I'm just puzzled at the fact that I will watch a movie again and again, or listen to a record over and over, but when it comes to books...I think the most I've ever read a book is 3 times (Lolita). And that was over the course of 2 years. Poetry is entirely different of course. Anyways, I really think the reason is because of how condensed (or dense) the ideas are in the more 'passionate' mediums. It's not as easy to pick out the ideas because they are all colliding with each other. In books it is often different. There are many ideas, yes, but they unfold in a more linear manner. Though I admit, once you start applying that logic to a really brilliant writer (like Kafka in my case) you might not feel as confident about it. But I really don't think books can affect you as intensely. Consider what can be published in a book. Pretty much anything. The craziest, filthiest, disturbing things I have been made aware of was from books. And you will never see or hear anything like that anywhere else. I guess that's what I mean by detached. It's a less visceral medium, so you can really be extreme therein. And I think that also applies to ideas.
I think part of film's strength is its ability to communicate very powerful ideas in a short amount of time. There are certain images and sequences in films that last for only a minute or two (or even a matter of seconds) that are perhaps the main idea behind an entire chapter or section of a book. and I think this is why we watch movies over and over again because it often takes a few viewings to really digest everything that is contained in those moments. and when you string those together over the course of a feature film, you have something pretty amazing. but nonetheless, I still think a book is superior at alluding to ideas, only because in a book these ideas are presented in a more clear and rationale manner. a movie really gets under your skin, whereas literature tends to be more detached. and i think that detachment is better for making sense of the world. film has the remarkable tendency to be very ambiguous, which is closer to the truth. take it with a grain of salt of course, it's no dogmatic rule but I feel like it sticks as a generalization.
A Scaruffist is someone whose favourite albums are predominantly Scaruffi picks and other than that I guess it varies. Some people think he is a master historian and philosopher. I don't personally, I just think he has an exceptional taste in music. also, I don't read his website but I have enjoyed just about everything he has recommended. I think he is one of those music critics who is an absolute must for anybody. Even people who don't particularly love his picks still think he is interesting. If you were to make a list of rock critics I don't see who else could top that list. Maybe Lester Bangs (?) because his writing is perhaps more literary or something (I don't know much at all about Lester Bangs). But even going through Scaruffi 8's I'm finding all kinds of amazing works. Not to mention his Classical (and Jazz) section!
As for Brakhage, I do not get that guy at all. I saw a few of his films and they pretty much did nothing to me. They looked neat.
Personally I think music is especially good at communicating emotions, feelings, moods etc. probably better than any other artform. and I would contrast music with literature, which is good at dealing with ideas. A good book often contains a surprisingly complete and profound look at life, however I wouldn't describe it as a particularly "moving" experience, at least when compared to a really good piece of music. Film, on the other hand, is somewhere between music and literature. It can deliver strong emotional impact and deal with incredibly interesting concepts. That scene in Dancer in the Dark is a good example. It's absolutely heart-breaking and shocking yes, but it's also kind of funny considering she brought it all on herself through her foolishness and naive fears. I think both emotions and ideas are important and I find that a work of art needs to be interesting before I'll let it play with my emotions (I'm the same way with women). Also, I somehow doubt that AfterHours and I get the same thing out of the music we listen to, nor do all Scaruffists feel the same way about art. There's my unwarranted two cents.
Hey Zach, nice to see you enjoy Silent Hill 2! Probably my favourite game ever, though not without it's short-comings. I'm playing Silent Hill 3 right now and I'm wondering if the symbolism isn't injected far more consistently into the game than in 2. Mind you, 3's story is pretty silly, but I think that the symbolism is just outstanding as it relates to the female psyche. A lot of good psychology going on in parts of that game. I hope to write up some kind of analysis of it, but we'll see if I get that far. I don't see anyone else discussing it on the same level I see for SH2. And personally I think 3 is better.
Forget the idea of "ART", that whole philosophical debate is meaningless. And why are you comparing games to film so adamnently? It's a different medium with different potentials. Examples are too many to list. I'm talking about all the major games released this decade. I enjoy playing them, they make me think, they're entertaining. Are they as profound as films? No.
I think the main problem with games today, and actually someone else was touching on it in an above comment, is that they lack cohesion. I haven't played many games (if any) where all aspects come together to give a really complete experience. I mean, you have games like Final Fantasy with it's excellent characters, plot, music, and environments; and then you have this gameplay which is completely removed from everything else. And I think a lot of games have similar problems. However, I certainly don't think that the gameplay is what is holding games back from being brilliant. But it would be nice to see a kind of de-emphazise or reimagining of it. Personally, I would love to play a game where you spend a lot of time walking through environments not necessarily "doing" anything. And there are games that sort of do that.
But more importantly, I am really pleased with the games that are coming out. They definitely meet my qualifications of "art" and I get a lot out of them. Sometimes as much as films or music. Neither of those art forms are as successful at creating a world for you to exist and play around in.
There are many popular video games with strong artistic components. The question about video games isn't whether they are art, but whether they are good art. And I think some games are. I just can't understand why you feel that way with all the games that have come out over the past 20 years. This has been a spectacular decade for video games.
Have you heard Duck Stab by the Residents? I'm baffled that Scaruffi gives it a 6. It's awesome.
New York vegetables are pricks.
By the way, regarding A Woman Under the Influence: the performances were definitely extreme. Personally I like performances like that, assuming they are done well. I was incredibly surprised that I wasn't getting tired of the woman's performance as the film went on. I found her continually shocking and hilarious, but I completely understand if other people don't. I just felt like that movie worked on such a deep level almost for the entire experience. I can't really think of another film that is so simple yet cuts so deep in many different ways. I think her performance is one of the best I've ever seen. Maybe the last 1/3 of the film was where it lost a little steam, but that was more a shift in the story's tone I think then an actual mistake on the director's part. Amazing script, some of the best performances ever, surprisingly good film making...this film is like an American art picture and it handily beats the European ones at their own game.
hehe, you drunk fuck.
I live in Guelph, Ont.
I lived in St. John's for 2 years. Beautiful city actually..all of NFLD is beautiful pretty much.
But ya, Cassavetes is the truth. Excited to check out more from him. And furthermore, I'll delete my commentary if I want to. Don't try to stop me like the doctors. I do it for the children. YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND! ITS YOU WHO IS SICK!!!!!
re: Blade Runner, I think it had some of the best sound design I've ever heard in a film. The visuals were also quite stunning, with great set design. The weakest part I think was the story, which I found a little silly, although still interesting enough to watch it all the way through and maybe even watch it a second time. But yeah, I sort of agree with you in that I find it somewhat overrated.
I'm all about the food and the coffee. Obviously you need sleep, but eating comes first...you crazy ascetic dreamy head-in-the-clouds bastards..
Perhaps the difference is in the means, but the ends are basically the same. They are two different mediums so they certainly work differently. I'm just puzzled at the fact that I will watch a movie again and again, or listen to a record over and over, but when it comes to books...I think the most I've ever read a book is 3 times (Lolita). And that was over the course of 2 years. Poetry is entirely different of course. Anyways, I really think the reason is because of how condensed (or dense) the ideas are in the more 'passionate' mediums. It's not as easy to pick out the ideas because they are all colliding with each other. In books it is often different. There are many ideas, yes, but they unfold in a more linear manner. Though I admit, once you start applying that logic to a really brilliant writer (like Kafka in my case) you might not feel as confident about it. But I really don't think books can affect you as intensely. Consider what can be published in a book. Pretty much anything. The craziest, filthiest, disturbing things I have been made aware of was from books. And you will never see or hear anything like that anywhere else. I guess that's what I mean by detached. It's a less visceral medium, so you can really be extreme therein. And I think that also applies to ideas.
I think part of film's strength is its ability to communicate very powerful ideas in a short amount of time. There are certain images and sequences in films that last for only a minute or two (or even a matter of seconds) that are perhaps the main idea behind an entire chapter or section of a book. and I think this is why we watch movies over and over again because it often takes a few viewings to really digest everything that is contained in those moments. and when you string those together over the course of a feature film, you have something pretty amazing. but nonetheless, I still think a book is superior at alluding to ideas, only because in a book these ideas are presented in a more clear and rationale manner. a movie really gets under your skin, whereas literature tends to be more detached. and i think that detachment is better for making sense of the world. film has the remarkable tendency to be very ambiguous, which is closer to the truth. take it with a grain of salt of course, it's no dogmatic rule but I feel like it sticks as a generalization.
nice, you like Bresson? I got to check out the rest of his films. Balthazar was...(amazing).
A Scaruffist is someone whose favourite albums are predominantly Scaruffi picks and other than that I guess it varies. Some people think he is a master historian and philosopher. I don't personally, I just think he has an exceptional taste in music. also, I don't read his website but I have enjoyed just about everything he has recommended. I think he is one of those music critics who is an absolute must for anybody. Even people who don't particularly love his picks still think he is interesting. If you were to make a list of rock critics I don't see who else could top that list. Maybe Lester Bangs (?) because his writing is perhaps more literary or something (I don't know much at all about Lester Bangs). But even going through Scaruffi 8's I'm finding all kinds of amazing works. Not to mention his Classical (and Jazz) section!
As for Brakhage, I do not get that guy at all. I saw a few of his films and they pretty much did nothing to me. They looked neat.
So has Antigone never left then?
-
Personally I think music is especially good at communicating emotions, feelings, moods etc. probably better than any other artform. and I would contrast music with literature, which is good at dealing with ideas. A good book often contains a surprisingly complete and profound look at life, however I wouldn't describe it as a particularly "moving" experience, at least when compared to a really good piece of music. Film, on the other hand, is somewhere between music and literature. It can deliver strong emotional impact and deal with incredibly interesting concepts. That scene in Dancer in the Dark is a good example. It's absolutely heart-breaking and shocking yes, but it's also kind of funny considering she brought it all on herself through her foolishness and naive fears. I think both emotions and ideas are important and I find that a work of art needs to be interesting before I'll let it play with my emotions (I'm the same way with women). Also, I somehow doubt that AfterHours and I get the same thing out of the music we listen to, nor do all Scaruffists feel the same way about art. There's my unwarranted two cents.