Xtratime Community banner

1 - 20 of 60 Posts

·
Ronny
Joined
·
1,698 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
It seems like an easy question that has an easy answer. One would say that it is all depend on the film.

I'm an Anti-Globaligator (trying to at least), and i pretty much despise to technology. Computers, Internet, Televisions. Moreover, developing my intelligence is a top priority to me.

I was extreamly afraid that watching television will decrease my level of focus to the level that i will not be able to read books (i once thought that watching television was one of the reasons my focusing skills became so poor). I still think that Computers and Internet do it much worse. Maybe i'll find out that i think that i was also wrong in that.

I'm trying to upgrade myself from the level of just a Musician, to the level of an Artist. That doesn't necessarily means that i'm starting to write poetry, direct/compose films, paint paintings and so on. It means that i'm trying to learn all i can about the artistic consensus of each genre.

Just a month back i was over an extreamly good friend of mine, who i just became really good friends with for the past 2 months (now she's left for 6 months in Australia and New Zealand i'm afraid). She is an extreamly unique person. She knows practically everything i want to know. She knows much about Painting, Music, Literature, Poetry - and Movies. She gave me, at the end of that amazing visit, a list of 4/5 pages of movies that i need to see. Only those who became so famous, like "Casablanca" for example, or "Singing In the Rain", things that i really don't know, and count as a hole in my education.

I had always disappreciated Movies as an artistic forms. Don't know why. Maybe it because i never knew what they are really. I have always remembered that there were films that touched me as deeply as even music couldn't, i means i could cry. Such a film is "Dancing in the Dark" of Lars Von-Trier, or "Angels in the New-York Skies" (or something like that, with Meg Ryan and Nicholas Cage). Movies had also got me triggered for the occupation i do today. Films such as "The Sound of Music" and "Sister Act 1/2", who as an educator, i'll show this movies to my students.

And still, with all of this, i had always disappreciated Movies, and moreover, was afraid that they will disable from me the ability of what i nowdays appericate as the highest level of culture, which is literature. In my room, i have refused to enter a TV and a Computer. Let me say that i not always resist the temptation (such as now), but it surely makes the task much easier. I will not enter any of those to my home.

And yet, now - I have just finished watching "Schindlers List", just at the midst of a phase where i was feeling that i'm losing my sense of seriousness, and together with that, my concentration ability. And now, after finishing looking at this movie, i feel like a new man, just as focus and just as clean. This practically contradicts that theory i was talking about right now.

That got me thinking. Is a Movie (which is practically watching on a sofa, looking at a screen, watching TV) can get me to the same level of concentration as a book can? Is it possible that if i'll constanly look at powerful, deep and meaningful films, i will be as intelligent as a person who read books all of his life?

My answer, after today, is Yes. It is very important for me, since it is a way for me to regain concentration rather than swimming in my own sea of helplessness, moaning about the fact i had lost my ability to concentrate again.

Just like that there's music who sells, and music who's done for the sake of the art - so does Movies (especially!). I now find it hard to believe, but i guess it can be found in poetry and craftsmanship as well. Obviously on books. I'm in my way to find the art which is made up for the sake of the man itself, and for the sake of the art itself. I believe that each creation of that sort that i'll know, will gain me the same level of concentration and power i seek so much to consider myself as an intellectual.

But what i think is nothing but a Prologue to what that you think. That is why i had raised this subject here.

Is Movies an Increasing, or a Decreasing force of intelligence?

Shy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,889 Posts
Actually, yes, depends on the movie. Depends on what you consider as intelligent and unintelligent.

The book and the film give you two different kinds of perception that are being “consumed” by you in respectively different ways.

What is the philosophy of the movie nowadays?
Yes, ‘Dancing in the dark’ was great in a way of untypical form of expression and of feeling it leaves in the viewer after watching it, yet on the other hand it could be contemplated as a product of the sick mind of the director.
The films are almost, almost all the same regarding plot – namely, trying to provoke the moral in your self and make you see what is “important” and what not. They are trying to teach you. To show you what would happen to you if you act just like the actors acts in the film. They nurture you. And this is bad, I think. The films rarely rise questions which answers you should find out by yourself. The movies mainly state “facts”. And their goal is to make you adopt this facts in you. The films are hyperreal.

One should never forget, that there are many aspect of the life-existenz-questions who cannot be (or at least have never been) transformed into film-code of expression. Hence, one could oversee important things (or at least I consider them to be important). What? “The Matrix” as a great place for fusion of religions and ethical and philosophical codes, thus increasing the level of inner satisfaction covered by feeling of exalting intellect rate? Excuse me…

However, the simple fact is that a film cannot reproduce the meaning of the book, but it could be vice versa as well. It’s only that in my opinion the ‘clever’ books are dominating as an amount over the ‘clever’ films.

On the topic TV I don’t even take a look as I find it disgusting. Apart from some comedy serials and fashion tv (for the both I kid you not) everything else is a fascist-propaganda for ‘verdummung’ (“making stupid”, yet I find the german term good) of the 99% of the population on the earth.

If you ask me if the movies can increase your intelligence I’d answer 95% of them actually already have done quite the opposite and are gonna do it for a long time to come.
To me the book is a much much better way of, I don’t even want to use ‘increasing the intelligence’ as I find it relative and kinda misplaced, so, of finding aesthetic pleasure in the product. That’s what counts to me, and if I have read properly between the lines, in a way to you, I believe.

A book or a film?

Theatre.

P.S. Don’t fall into the trap of becoming an intellectual – these are one of the most hypocrite and ignorant people on the earth. Instead of this – better be a man of intellect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,403 Posts
You can't filter art and yourself like that, but in the end you got around to the right idea. YES, but it depends on the movie. Film plays a huge part of my life and many people here know that, so inclined to tell you to move on in that direction. The basic difference is that a film doesn't say things, it shows them. To make a film is to improve on life, to arrange it to suit oneself.. and since you have so much power with the media - surely the representational aspects of cinema are the most powerful of all media.

Kubrick once said, "The very meaninglessness of life forces man to create his own meaning. If it can be written or thought, it can be filmed". All art is useless, don't force your self into anything.

Instead of this – better be a man of intellect.
:howler:.. nice one..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,889 Posts
Regarding to what bob said and that in his ideas I've seen expressed on the movies mainly based on uncommmercial (or at least in a meaning of non-box-busters and so forth) projects, so, I missed to say that extremly many people don't have access to quality films. This is also decisive factor for further unfolding of the topic on more global level.
However, at the end, actually who needs something that is a global one, thus not unique.
 

·
Xtratime's Head of Humour 2007
Joined
·
63,337 Posts
why not just have a little nibble of everything that comes your way,word of mouth,crap,good,book,film,art,music.

it's good to watch crap sometimes believe me,and if you stick to intellectual areas ,there is a whole section of society that you can't relate to. :(

that's my view on it and i have loads of friends :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,889 Posts
.. or maybe wait till you get captured.

One more thing - here in the mediothek at the uni are many old films and many films who have never been showed on a big screen. I think to watch at least some of them, but the only thing I expect is only a better movie and nothing else aka enlightment.

And if we abstract from the messages for the commercial world we live in and the madness and sickness of the person due to his lifestyle respectively in Fight club and American Psycho (actually the both could refer to the descriptions), I think, one has the possibility to watch class acts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,403 Posts
Obviously. Just because a film is made under the commercial umbrella doesn't mean it's crap, doesn't mean it isn't valid as art. Regardless, like Liz said, it's good to see everything and anything that comes your way.. but once you develope a disinct taste, yo'll realize that the best comes your way. You can't force yourself to like or dislike something.
 

·
┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌&#874
Joined
·
14,769 Posts
Movies are getting pretty boring. Decreaing my taste...too many sequels:yuck:
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
29,687 Posts
On the topic TV I don’t even take a look as I find it disgusting. Apart from some comedy serials and fashion tv (for the both I kid you not) everything else is a fascist-propaganda for ‘verdummung’ (“making stupid”, yet I find the german term good) of the 99% of the population on the earth.
The differences about Cinema and Book - and here, about Moderm forms of art and classic forms - are not the more or less inteligence, depth or capacity to represent society intelectual development - the difference is about the kind of media they belong. Books and moreover, the other classic stuff , are one kind of media, usually particular , private. Cinema and moderm music, photography, comics are Mass Media style of art. This means they are going to be a coletive form of art. You are meant to share, not like when you read a book, to look inside.

Both are meaningful, both touches humans in different way, Cinema can be as full of techniques, inteligence, as anything.

However do not mix up - Books, there is plenty of trash out there- because a lot of people write, very few people are good. So it happens with movies.
 

·
Ronny
Joined
·
1,698 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I see that the main issue discussed here is whether you can force yourself or not to like certain things. I have to say that i disagree, and i will explain my point of view now. But i have to say that so far, i had only found 1 person who agrees with me, and i have spoke to many people. But i still do not believe i am wrong. I do believe that there will come a day where people will witness that i am right.

First of all, xtc, i thank you for your correction, to be a man of intellect and not an intellectual. That is quite true, even though i admit i will have to sink into some thought about the meaning of it.

As for my theory. It all started when i was 15 years old. I had got accepted to a music school in order to study there and completing my 12 year studies (10th-12th grade). I had a teacher, named Tzur Ben-Ze'ev, one of the best Bass players in Israel. He still teaches in my school. For me, the meeting with him was like a big bam. I was a kid wanting a be a musician. Unskilled, untrained, not liberal. A kid. Then, in one of the classes, Tzur threw the bomb: "When you listen to music, imagine yourself that you are aliens who had just landed from outter space. You don't know anything, you haven't heard of anything, you're not prejudice. You hear everything as you hear it for the first time. Now, Decide". Needless to say that i changed my whole life.

I began listening to all genres of music and know them all to a distinct level of depth, and due time, all of the walls of the seperation i had between the genres, fell, and i entered a state of listening to MUSIC.

I am always curious to knowledge. I will never stop. That i why i had decided to upgrade myself into the level of an artist. In the meantime, i had practically "invented" a new philosophy, that no-ones' agree on, but i stick to it like a magnet.

I claim that there's something that called as "Artistic Consensus". It means that things that things that have survived the element of time, has to be acknowledged. Meaning - I cannot say that i dislike James Brown. I can say that i do not understand him. I do not force myself to like him, i force myself to know him, and understand why he survived that element of time, so i can enjoy his legacy too! So, maybe yes, i do force myself. But i gained so much from that. I assume that i've heard maybe over 50 CD's i disliked, and now they are one of my favorite CD's on the collection. It an enormous gain!

But back to the subject. After the creation of this philosophy, i had decided to upgrade myself to the level of an artist, and not to stick just being a musician. I consider it as ignorant and narrow-mindend.

The Artistic Consensus sticks! L. N. Tolstoj, Michael Angelo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Goethe, Vincent Van Gogh, Fiodor Dostojevsky, Steven Spilberg, Charlie Chaplin, The Three Stuges, Monty Python, Alfred Hitchcock. It lingers! And there's so much more where that came from! I put myself to goal to be as educated on these subjects as i am in Music, and become an ARTIST. I can't imagine myself being something more valuable than that, if i chose art as my goal in life.

That's my philosphy, as an answer to the fact you cannot force yourself into anything. I believe that's narrow-minded, but maybe i'm just a hopeless radical.

And again, as i claimed before, i have to disagree with you. I do think now that Movies does have the same influence as a book may have on a person. If are allowed to be carried away with the film, but you have to straighten your thoughts up afterwards, and know whether you accpet the films' moral or you don't.

As for Bobs' comment: "Seek and you Shall find". Of course that that's true, but that's precisely the root of the problem. As xtc said, most of the public has no immidiate access to quality films, and they have so much to think about ( :rolleyes: ) that they do not invest in their quality. They become the puppets of the money industry, who took over a long time ago on the music, books, theater, movies, and art industry to make it short. That's what they eat. That's why they know. That is why the level of the world intelligence decreased so sharply.

I mean, what is the philosophy of the Media? That even the poorest and most dumbest person on earth will be able to watch their channel, and be satisfacted. It seems like a very humanistic and good cause, but on whos' expense?? On the expense of the rest of the population who are much more smarter than that idol.

I'm for attracting the audience up to the intelligence rather than relegating it down to the ignorance. And it could work! It's just that money became the goal and not the aid. Nowdays you work do have Money. 100 years ago (maybe less!) you had worked to have money SO YOU COULD FEED YOUR CHILDREN for instance! Nowdays it sums down to having money, period - and no-one cares who they step on in the way to that.

It can cause an unrecoverable cultural disaster. As i had already stated, i want to be the one who'll revolutionize Israel as a cultural place. It is awful.

I maybe had slided off from the subject a bit, but it all connects!

Shy
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
29,687 Posts
First of all, xtc, i thank you for your correction, to be a man of intellect and not an intellectual. That is quite true, even though i admit i will have to sink into some thought about the meaning of it.
However i must point out that a intellectual is indeed a person with intellect. That is the very definition of the word. If he means to you not to be a elitist it is other thing.

Of course that that's true, but that's precisely the root of the problem. As xtc said, most of the public has no immidiate access to quality films, and they have so much to think about ( ) that they do not invest in their quality. They become the puppets of the money industry, who took over a long time ago on the music, books, theater, movies, and art industry to make it short. That's what they eat. That's why they know. That is why the level of the world intelligence decreased so sharply.
This is a mistake. The mass media industry is not a illuminatti or orwellian industry. The production of the cultural industry does not ignore the wishes of the public, quite otherwise, the production is made taking in account the public. You people seems to think that the simple prodcution of some "high" level culture the public will consume it. Nothing more false. The relation between the industry and the public is a two-way road. Even more under a democratic society, for example, like USA.

I mean, what is the philosophy of the Media? That even the poorest and most dumbest person on earth will be able to watch their channel, and be satisfacted. It seems like a very humanistic and good cause, but on whos' expense?? On the expense of the rest of the population who are much more smarter than that idol.
That is not true - Philosophy of media is to satisfy his public. There is segmented production, there is underground production, there is every bit of production to satisfy every social group - and there is vehicles for this and with more technology more adapted the production is. Does not mix up mainstream philosophy - who have to attend the wish of the average and large public with all the media.

I'm for attracting the audience up to the intelligence rather than relegating it down to the ignorance.
The media , the cultural production is reflex of the "intelligence" of the producer and the society. Just bringing up a serie of movies done by the ghosts of Sartre and Francis Bacon would not make the public to watch and level up with their minds. Only people with capacity to go up there will watch and the rest, which does not have education to be in the intelectual level of those top, will just be alienate of the production and will eventually find a way to satisty their needs with another productions (which may be labelled as not inteligent) leaving aside the "high" production.

It can cause an unrecoverable cultural disaster. As i had already stated, i want to be the one who'll revolutionize Israel as a cultural place. It is awful.
But frankly, when the humans societies have a top quality of intelectual production as a mass product ? It have been always a elite (elite in the good sense, separation due quality , not due snobish behaviador), Check out, Classic Greek, renaissance, enlightenment all of them happened and there was no disaster.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,403 Posts
I agree largely with JCamilo.. but about the movie industry, it's quite simple, really. There is no line between what is intellectual and what is not, those are all stupid abstractions. In Hollywood, the stakes have become too high for studios to allow artistic risk: They can’t afford to leave anyone out of the potential audience pool. They rewrite scripts, reshoot unhappy endings, and in general “focus-group” their pictures to death to make sure that no segment of the audience will be turned off. It's obvious that as the same formulas get repeated, audiences do start getting turned off and search for alternatives.

The invasion of imported popular culture is at times catastrophic, but one person can't be the saviour of "culture". What IS "culture" anyway? There is indeed media to satisfy almost every social group. For a random person to demand what he percieves as "intellectual" without any love for it is absurd. Mass-media caters to the populace at-large, and as the stakes get higher, the popular films get worse..the ones independent of prejudices get better.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
29,687 Posts
Lets not forget that hollywood (just one part of movie industry, not all of it, and usually the part that represents the average public) have always be open and keep paying attention to the "idependent, alternative, undergroud, different" ways to make movie, in fact that is one of the reasons of their sucess and logenvity. In the 20 and 30s they are open the european influence (we had people like Murnau moving to america, Fritz Lang), later they are open to italian and french realism, now they are open to oriental industry. THey are no fools - they understand well the need of adaptation and development. They just put that inside their own form of production - people like Spielberg come from the tv production, Copolla and Lucas have influence from europe, and there goes. Having it comercial does not reduce the artistic quality (lets remember, one of the greatest ever movie maker, Chaplin , was scritcly comercial and i am sure no one got dumber watching his movies)
 

·
XCC Winner 2001
Joined
·
4,440 Posts
SHY :eek: :eek: :eek: :dazed: :happy:


I don't have time to read this thread now (what a lame mod I am huh, sorry Bobbie ;)), just opened it since I thought perhaps this thread is a blast from the past...but it ain't! :D
 

·
1st Tier Poster
Joined
·
48,609 Posts
!bob said:
To make a film is to improve on life, to arrange it to suit oneself.. and since you have so much power with the media - surely the representational aspects of cinema are the most powerful of all media.

Unfortunately most of the directors fail to use the vast possibilities what cinematograpy has to offer.It's most likely due to the fact that for a filmmaker it is harder to control the quality of his/her product than for a writer.For writing a book you need paper and pencil(or a typewriter or computer).Making a motion picture usually requires quite a much financial resources and the cooperation of a big group of people (and the necessary technique and the locations to shoot etc.).So in most cases making a movie is more like leading a business project than making art.Making a financially successful product and appeasing investors tends to be override the importance of aestethical value.So even when the director has the talent, he might not be able to use it as making a film is not a one-man-project in most cases.Writers enjoy more freedom than film directors and there is less boundaries in literature in general as the only limit is the imagination and skill of the writer.I quess this is the reason why cinematography is in such a pathetic situation compared to literature and other forms of art.Most motion pictures (even those what are generally considered good) are simplistic and boring and offer little or none aesthetic pleasure.There are many books what I've truly enjoyed and what I consider almost perfect (each one in different way as there are many unique ways of perfection in art).There are also some films I could say the same about.But there's not much of these unfortunately.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,889 Posts
!bob said:
Obviously. Just because a film is made under the commercial umbrella doesn't mean it's crap, doesn't mean it isn't valid as art.
Since when art cannot be rotten?

!bob said:
Regardless, like Liz said, it's good to see everything and anything that comes your way.. but once you develope a disinct taste, yo'll realize that the best comes your way.
:thumbsup:

!bob said:
You can't force yourself to like or dislike something.
Ain't sure if you are reffering this one to me as well, but I agree with it, as I dont think that one not only can, but even shouldnt force, himself into likint this or that. Yo either have it (do I need to explain?) or you don't.


JCamilo,

I really cannot understand why your ffirst comment takes as a base exactly that part of my post, since I cant find any common connection between the both, care to explain?
However, the fact that photography and tv are under the umbrella of mass media doesnt mean that they do not differ in expressing and influence capacity.

JCamilo said:
However i must point out that a intellectual is indeed a person with intellect. That is the very definition of the word. If he means to you not to be a elitist it is other thing.
What definition?
In the vocabulary? :) In the very same vocabulary that has been written by the very same 'intelectualls'?
And No, it doesn't have anything with elitism. Rather with elites (not celebreties of course) and the material of what elites are made.
Here is the place where I find it reasonable to say that we base our opinion on this matter when we originate from two different cultures (you as a Brasilian and I as a Bulgarian) which is an obstacle.
Yet, I find my (and fo sho not only) way of interpretating this valid in its biggest part.

JCamilo said:
The production of the cultural industry does not ignore the wishes of the public, quite otherwise, the production is made taking in account the public.
We better think wheter the media presuppose the public or the public presupposes the media. Are the news at 20:00 o'clock (or whatever the usual time at your place is) formed by the demandds of the viewers or by the professional, ethical and aesthetical code of the producers (people with dubious level of any kind or sign of intelligence or best wills, cuz we are talking about money)? The same goes for films and all kind of prrogramms.

JCamilo said:
That is not true - Philosophy of media is to satisfy his public. There is segmented production, there is underground production, there is every bit of production to satisfy every social group - and there is vehicles for this and with more technology more adapted the production is. Does not mix up mainstream philosophy - who have to attend the wish of the average and large public with all the media.
Yet in your first sentence you implicitly agree with Shy.

Everyone has access to mainstream, commercia, oveflowed with low-quality products media. Not everyone has access to underground media. The first contact one makes to this art of mass media is to the mainstream one, thus he is proner to get used to this segment. Hence, mainstream, shitty media gets the biggest guota. Therefore, Shy seems to be right to me.

JCamilo said:
But frankly, when the humans societies have a top quality of intelectual production as a mass product ?
Great question! Finally!!
I agree with this in case we refer it to TV.
In case we refer it to photography I can say that I havent seen a bad picture in my life, which yet doesnt mean that there arent any.


!bob said:
There is no line between what is intellectual and what is not, those are all stupid abstractions.
Hello, bob! :)

I must say that I have great difficulties with this.
While on the one hand I do agree with you, I would not ever think of the possibility to qualify 'Rambo' as sth 'intelectuall'.


To JKris and Andy Christ

>> :thumbsup:


One more time - movies or books?

Theatre.

p.S. Shy,

Shy said:
If are allowed to be carried away with the film, but you have to straighten your thoughts up afterwards, and know whether you accpet the films' moral or you don't.
'Moral' - sounds interesting.

"Morality is herd instinct in the individual." Nietzsche.

And indeed, I havent heard of clever sheep.

"Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose." Nietzsche.

Well, seems that all I want to say is that the new modernity, freeding the mind of norms thus making it happy, demands no moral stories to teach you how to think. You can already think by yourself. So make something out of it!!

Since this is the most important for me I tend to say that books and theater and photography (no matter it is related to mass media, this doesnt mean anything) give me what I want in higher degree than TV or most of the films I have watched.

Books are good, Movies, photos, theater as well, but only if you can find the exact one you really need. Even if sometimes it is a hardcore porn. :)

I hope that I could rest my caase.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55,810 Posts
in my opinion, if you go out of a theater with many questions in your mind and the wish to share your impressions with friends about it, that is good enough for me.
 
1 - 20 of 60 Posts
Top