Official Film Discussion and Last Movie You Watched

[tim290280]

To your ears an engine is noise. To my ears I hear pistons firing the exact right air to fuel ratio at the exact right time, I hear resonant tuning in the exhaust system. I hear a properly tuned turbo-charger or supercharger. The whirring of well placed and well designed gears is also a wonderful thing.

The engine embodies all the same dynamics you speak of. The principles of its operation are simple, but their coming together to produce a truly functional and beautiful system is an incredibly complex process. Designing an engine that functions well is nothing short of an act of artistry. It requires balancing the right quantities, levels and rhythms perfectly. The simple act of timing an engine correctly requires as much skill, patience and creativity as creating a writing a piece of music.

I love music, and an orchestra is something beautiful to listen too. The complexity of all those musicians working together to bring a piece of music to life is something most people appreciate. However to your point of engines producing noise, so do instruments, that is their primary function. It is not the noise itself that is important, but what you do with it. Music is just one form of expression and one form of art. Everyone's definition of what art is is different and equally valid. I would argue that to create some of the worlds greatest engines took the same amount of effort, skill, insight, creativity and artistry as it took for Bach or Beethoven to write some of their masterpieces.

It is quite possible for "technical achievements" to be considered art.

I see your point. However I disagree that an engine is designed to create sound, unlike an instrument. If engineers could make an engine efficient enough that it didn't create sound as a by-product they would. Musical instruments were designed specifically to make sounds, and are mostly based around making certain frequencies, and as such they were always meant to create noise/music/art.

The first person to make a violin did not do so in order to make a useful machine, they did it in order to make music. The instrument was designed to sculpt an array of sounds and thus entertain and create art (other instruments it could be argued either way). The first person to make an engine was not thinking how artistic they were being or what a wonderful noisy contraption it was. They were thinking "now how can I get this to create torque without blowing up?"

 

[Line]

Engines evoke so much.

 

[tim290280]

My point has already been dealt with on Top Gear. Here is the Top Gear theme song as done with cars. James May has a degree in music so he was rather pedantic about getting all the notes right.

 

[Ryeland]

I see your point. However I disagree that an engine is designed to create sound, unlike an instrument. If engineers could make an engine efficient enough that it didn't create sound as a by-product they would. Musical instruments were designed specifically to make sounds, and are mostly based around making certain frequencies, and as such they were always meant to create noise/music/art.

The first person to make a violin did not do so in order to make a useful machine, they did it in order to make music. The instrument was designed to sculpt an array of sounds and thus entertain and create art (other instruments it could be argued either way). The first person to make an engine was not thinking how artistic they were being or what a wonderful noisy contraption it was. They were thinking "now how can I get this to create torque without blowing up?"

I am sorry, you misinterpreted what I said which is mostly my fault. I didn't intend to imply that the primary function of an engine is to make noise.

Most engine designers do not think of themselves as artists, you are correct. But to me, an engine is a work of art. Getting an engine to run right, and reliably is an incredibly delicate and precarious balance of all the right elements interacting at just the right time, just like a symphony. You are right if noise could be done away with in an engine it would be, and with better performance. It still wouldn't change the fact that to my eyes (and ears, and nose) an engine is a work of art.

Line - I am not saying we should reduce to things to examining the technical specs to a movie to determine its greatness. What I have been trying to explain is that it is entirely possible for me to appreciate technical advancements as artistic wonders and still analyze them with same care as you. What I view as artistic can differ completely from what you do, but that doesn't make my opinion less valid. Would movies be complete without a moving story and deep characters? Hell no, but as I have said, Avatar should not win best picture.

The bottom line here is that just because I view things in a different light here doesn't mean I haven't subjected them to the same analysis you have, it just means I place different value on different things.

 

[Ryeland]

Watch this Lexus commercial and tell me what you hear.

 

[Line]

Line - I am not saying we should reduce to things to examining the technical specs to a movie to determine its greatness. What I have been trying to explain is that it is entirely possible for me to appreciate technical advancements as artistic wonders and still analyze them with same care as you. What I view as artistic can differ completely from what you do, but that doesn't make my opinion less valid. Would movies be complete without a moving story and deep characters? Hell no, but as I have said, Avatar should not win best picture.

The bottom line here is that just because I view things in a different light here doesn't mean I haven't subjected them to the same analysis you have, it just means I place different value on different things.

I'm in no way trying to slight your opinion, so I hope my posts haven't come off as such. Still, I'm not thrilled with comparing the purportedly evocative and life-defining works of art with artistically rich technical achievements (such as engineering feats). As someone who studied architecture for a little, I more than appreciate the latter category, for my would-be bachelors from a College of Arts and Architecture is more or less a more impressive sounding variation of a design degree. That said, I find it too easy to say that art, like beauty, is completely in the eye of the beholder. And as much as I appreciate the technical side of things in cinema, its not the camera that's art (to draw a loose comparison to something functional-yet-potentially-expressive like an engine), but the way the director/artist exploits these tools to voice his aesthetic and narrative concerns, as well as any implications about society, culture, time, and the like that he/she wants to express. Sure, art can be incredibly technical and something like a camera can have meta-art sensibilities, but it's ultimately a means to an end that in-and-of-itself says nothing about any facet of life without the application of human context. I realize perception is a wholly individual thing and that you and I will perceive the world and its subtleties in different ways, but I prefer my art to take on more deconstructionist qualities, as these works have roots in schools (philosophy, sociology, etc) that are interested in a bigger picture than form alone. To go back to my original example of the iPhone, I find that comparing it to film is pejorative. To be sure, film can be insignificant and vacuous, but such contemporary conveniences are more akin to vogue technological tendency and digital intertextuality than they are to art. Perhaps I'm being thick-headed, which, surely, is not my intent. It's just hard to accept that something myself - and billions of others - have spent inordinate amounts of time discussing can be pigeonholed along with commodity.

 

[Ryeland]

I'm in no way trying to slight your opinion, so I hope my posts haven't come off as such. Still, I'm not thrilled with comparing the purportedly evocative and life-defining works of art with artistically rich technical achievements (such as engineering feats). As someone who studied architecture for a little, I more than appreciate the latter category, for my would-be bachelors from a College of Arts and Architecture is more or less a more impressive sounding variation of a design degree. That said, I find it too easy to say that art, like beauty, is completely in the eye of the beholder. And as much as I appreciate the technical side of things in cinema, its not the camera that's art (to draw a loose comparison to something functional-yet-potentially-expressive like an engine), but the way the director/artist exploits these tools to voice his aesthetic and narrative concerns, as well as any implications about society, culture, time, and the like that he/she wants to express. Sure, art can be incredibly technical and something like a camera can have meta-art sensibilities, but it's ultimately a means to an end that in-and-of-itself says nothing about any facet of life without the application of human context. I realize perception is a wholly individual thing and that you and I will perceive the world and its subtleties in different ways, but I prefer my art to take on more deconstructionist qualities, as these works have roots in schools (philosophy, sociology, etc) that are interested in a bigger picture than form alone. To go back to my original example of the iPhone, I find that comparing it to film is pejorative. To be sure, film can be insignificant and vacuous, but such contemporary conveniences are more akin to vogue technological tendency and digital intertextuality than they are to art. Perhaps I'm being thick-headed, which, surely, is not my intent. It's just hard to accept that something myself - and billions of others - have spent inordinate amounts of time discussing can be pigeonholed along with commodity.

I know you are not trying to speak down on my views of art, over our conversations you have proven to not be that kind of person.

What I am saying is, designers of an engine or an iPhone also have humanistic schools of thought involved. I can tell you for a fact that engineers are working furiously to develop cleaner, cheaper, more reliable engines to make sure we have a planet to live on, and so everyone can have access to them. Sure, the companies that sell them may be looking at nothing but dollar signs, but the intentions of the designers are to help people.

I am not nearly as versed in the traditional art world as you. But to view technical works as nothing but commodities is also pejorative. There were 1000's and 1000's of hours spent by creative passionate people who believed that they can connect humans to each other using that iPhone, making it easy to use and easy on the eyes. That camera designer built a way for us to share our eyes with others.

I am not trying to pidgeonhole anything. The way you view art is perfectly valid, and I appreciate many of the same things you do in cinema.

I am not talented in the traditional fine arts, so where I express my creativity, my hopes, my dreams is in the technical field. Designing newer more efficient and more effective vehicles and mechanisms. Designing tools to help the world be a better place for all us to live in. To assume my devotion to technical feats is out of any less passion and philosophical motivation than an artist is flawed.

So like I said, I know you aren't trying to put anyone down. I am just trying to explain how I see things, so maybe you can see some of the beauty I do (having studied as an architect I know you already do)

 

[Line]

I know you are not trying to speak down on my views of art, over our conversations you have proven to not be that kind of person.

Good. Likewise, I respect your civility.

What I am saying is, designers of an engine or an iPhone also have humanistic schools of thought involved. I can tell you for a fact that engineers are working furiously to develop cleaner, cheaper, more reliable engines to make sure we have a planet to live on, and so everyone can have access to them. Sure, the companies that sell them may be looking at nothing but dollar signs, but the intentions of the designers are to help people.

I'm a bit weary of this comparison between engines and iPhones and how far we've gotten off the issue of Avatar, but this is fun, so I'll offer my two cents. While I appreciate the efforts of those designing such products, making them more integrative and economically/environmentally responsible, this treads a bit far into the side of science or: what can be explained solely through our physical nature. Art, as I see it, is more akin to expression in its purest sense and the difference here is the implicit-to-explicit application of humanist concern.

I am not nearly as versed in the traditional art world as you. But to view technical works as nothing but commodities is also pejorative.

Not saying that at all. I'm saying the iPhone is a commoditified mishmash of already existing technology (obviously, phone + iPod = It) that wasn't designed so much from the standpoint of human concern as it was to sell products. Now, in so being, the way we network as collective peoples has changed significantly, and the product does present a unique variation on the marriage of phone and internet sensibilities. What's better than the actual invention is the way "smart phones" now generate a ton of new information that we can use to produce a newly efficient world. Still, this is beyond the foresight of the iPhone inventor - by which I mean R&D team - and eclipses, if not buries, any evocative notions of social dynamic and intertwining that may have been included in the product's original scope.

There were 1000's and 1000's of hours spent by creative passionate people who believed that they can connect humans to each other using that iPhone, making it easy to use and easy on the eyes. That camera designer built a way for us to share our eyes with others.

I don't consider this art. I consider this being responsible and using available technology to make life easier (and therefore exponentially progressive), because it's their job to do so and digital fad and competitive markets don't wait for anybody. They could be passionate and love their work without being an artist. From my perspective, many tasks have artistic components, but that doesn't inherently make them art.

I am not talented in the traditional fine arts, so where I express my creativity, my hopes, my dreams is in the technical field. Designing newer more efficient and more effective vehicles and mechanisms. Designing tools to help the world be a better place for all us to live in. To assume my devotion to technical feats is out of any less passion and philosophical motivation than an artist is flawed.

So like I said, I know you aren't trying to put anyone down. I am just trying to explain how I see things, so maybe you can see some of the beauty I do (having studied as an architect I know you already do)

I do appreciate both your passion for introspection and for your field, but the view to me is that we're dealing with conjecture. The ambiguity at which we're defining art here is a bit dangerous, if only because we're now assigning too much weight - or social significance - to a label intended to express more specific mediums. Naturally, art and beauty, as well as artful and beautiful sensibilities, exist all around us, yet blanketly labeling everything as "art," I feel, trivializes my more traditional emphasis. If all this rambling comes to us agreeing to disagree, I'm fine with that. I love the fact that art is incorporated into so many aspects of our lives, as it's strangely validating but I just don't think we need to sling the word around so freely, that's all.

 

[Ryeland]

Fair enough. I understand not wanting to dilute the meaning of the word art. We have been sidetracked. I was simply using these issues to explain that my appreciation of Avatar is more than skin deep. Being technically minded, I am prone to see more beauty in technical achievements than people who don't think like I do.

It is possible to be wowed by the visuals in avatar without it just being a shallow appreciation. That is what I am saying.

Now that we are done our rambling argument. Has anyone seen the Hurt Locker? I have heard its pretty good.

 

[Line]

Now that we are done our rambling argument. Has anyone seen the Hurt Locker? I have heard its pretty good.

Yeah, I got to review it. One of the better releases from last year. Today I rewatched A Serious Man, which may very well be the best film from the last of the aughts.

 

[Ryeland]

Yeah, I got to review it. One of the better releases from last year. Today I rewatched A Serious Man, which may very well be the best film from the last of the aughts.

Which publication do you review for Line? I would love read one of your published reviews.

I will definitely both of those movies as soon as possible then.

 

[tim290280]

Bottle Shock
Charming little film about the wine tasting event that launched Californian wine on the world's stage. Alan Rickman and Bill Pulman hold this film together.

IP Man
Donnie Yen portraying Bruce Lee's Master in his earlier years during Chinese occupation by the Japanese. Formulaic, but you get the impression that this tale forms the basis of many Chinese heros. Donnie Yen shows why he is regarded as a master.

Hide and Seek
Yawn. The only worthy performance is from Dakota Fanning.

Half Nelson
I've been wanting to see this movie since the raves about Ryan Gosling's performance. Was well worth it and powerful. Painfully honest/real portrayals of life and friendship. There is one moment when Dan is dropping Drey off and drives past some drug dealers, the stop to contemplate his addiction before reversing which speaks of an honesty about drug use you don't see a lot of.

 

[Zigurd]

Yeah, I got to review it. One of the better releases from last year. Today I rewatched A Serious Man, which may very well be the best film from the last of the aughts.

Your review was a gentle massage for my brain. I really like the way you express yourself and your thoughts.

 

[tim290280]

The Internationalist
Pretty decent espionage thriller that was let down by the ending. Nothing wrong with the ending per se, just that it had a hollow feel due to the misleading of the audience. The epilogue felt right, but that could have been done differently rather than with newspaper clippings.

 

[tim290280]

Equilibrium

I enjoyed this more the second time around. I guess the first time around I was picking holes in the plot, this time I just sat back and enjoyed the action and overt themes.

 

[dilatedmuscle]

Just saw the hurtlocker.

It was really good but i cant help but feeling like it was missing somethign, cant put my finger on it. One problem i had with it was that it was supposed to be super realistic but it seems a little too action packed to be as realistic as its been praised to be, I dont want to mention the specific areas because of spoilers.

Im only nit-picking though. I loved the characters, even the short term characters were great and extremely varied in personality. Great film 9/10

Art, can be anything. What art is for a person, could be something completely atrocious for another.

Its a matter of perspective, context and taste.

I see atomic blast waves as art. I also see flowers as natures art. Etc...

TL;DR: Art is subjective, suck my cock I am a shark.

Art is whack!

 

[Skeptic]

Hurtlocker - 9/10 - I thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

[El Freako]

Alice in Wonderland
A visually enjoyable movie but a bit shallow IMO. I was hoping for something more, possibly a deeper meaning underneath it all but in the end I was left a little disappointed. 5/10

 

[tim290280]

^^ That's pretty much what David and Margaret said on At The Movies last night. Margaret had been looking forward to seeing it, but was disappointed with the departures from the source material.

 

[Skeptic]

Currently watching The Power Of One. After reading the book, the movie is fucking horrible.