Wednesday, January 04, 2006


An introduction

Notes on what comprises a truly great movie

By .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) ::: re-view ::: ::: Read the whole thing



Here’s my somewhat terse list of what makes a truly great movie:

- One that doesn’t inspire such idiotic musings. Metaphilm, you suck.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07 Jan 06 at 12:32 AM

Jaxenom’s dismissal is fundamentally the same as dismissing huge chunks of Art History, the study of Literature, and Critical Theory as a whole. Don’t forget that Physics and all the other natural sciences is based on postulation and interpretation.

But I don’t move to call you a philistine, because there is an element of truth in what you say too. Is all the debate on these pages nothing but esoteric back-patting? Are we just talking nonsense? After all, it has been said that describing art merely substitutes the spectacle with the prosaic- hollow and worthless.

So, why not qualify your jibes in a more interesting way? Write a piece. Challenge Metaphilm regulars to duel.

Why not? Unless two sentences is all you’re worth. If you think that’s a waste of time, then why do you spend so much time here? (see Jaxenom’s other postings: “Now there is an interpretation” and “Let’s Hope That’s Not the ONLY Reason…”)

Very few comments are left these days. It’d stir things up a bit, perhaps.

Professor Georges Rocourt: enjoyed your observations. Look forward to reading more.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07 Jan 06 at 04:02 PM

Fundamentally? Not even close. Thats way off the scale and even sadder that some one is even capable of making such assumptions. I won’t write a piece, I’ll bring one if I am to challenge the Metaphilm regulars to a duel. Seriously, this site has been gradually deteriorating in content. The fact that you defend it with lame provocation only proves my point. 

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07 Jan 06 at 10:38 PM

Jaxenom: yes, fundamentally. My “assumption” is based on the fact that you privilege some interpretative pursuits over others, without offering any attempt at justification.

Your original comment implicated that ‘Metaphilm sucks’ because it is filled with “idiotic musings”. Why are such ‘musings’ idiotic? Are you being elitist? Or are you simply incapable of impartiality?

Why won’t you write a piece? Afraid your opinions won’t stand up to scrutiny? If “the site has been gradually deteriorating in content”, you could do something about it: raise the bar. But unless you qualify what you say, your outbursts amount to little more than vandalism.

Having to ask you to defend your position doesn’t prove your point, it proves mine.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08 Jan 06 at 08:23 AM

And now this is declining into a game of oneupmanship. But don’t let that stop you from jumping from one conclusion to the next.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08 Jan 06 at 07:35 PM

Good Piece. 

I expecially liked “script, script, script”

Are you familure with “The Outlaw Jose Wales?”

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12 Jan 06 at 04:08 PM

I’m afraid I agree with Jaxenom.  I originally found metaphilm looking for movie interpretations, not just reviews and cinematic analysis.  This piece undermines metaphilm’s tagline “see through cinema”, and suggests an alternate version: “watch movies.”  Isn’t that what we get from the main stream media all the time?

What happened to INTERPRETATION, no matter how loosely based on reality?  Things like the following: 25th hour as Spike Lee’s commentary on America’s reaction to 9-11; Leading men from superman to ET being incarnations of Jesus; Xmen movies as morality tails about the persecution of/by powerful minorities, where the variable X enables Christian fundamentalists, gay porn kings, and everyone in between to identify with the movie and feel empowered.  Now that’s interpretation!  An essay on the Jurassic Park gate, what movies this references, and how it functions to symbolize the transition between the outside world and the dinosaur’s realm—that’s just analysis.

When I get around to it, I’ll write a piece comparing 2001 (great movie predating NASA’s greatest achievements) and Contact (mediocre movie inspiring inappropriate religious views of science and predating the Bush administration’s evisceration of NASA’s budget with lofty, meaningless missions.)  Maybe we need a piece defining the difference between interpretation and analysis?  To go with the physics analogy, Rutherford stated, “all true science is physics, everything else is just stamp collecting.”  Don’t dismiss him as just an arrogant physicist, this statement emphasizes the difference between analysis for understanding vs. analysis for the sake of cataloguing.

Let’s not talk about film for the sake of film, but for the sake of REALITY.  Cinema is the high art of our time, and not just bread and circuses to keep us entertained.

Posted by Alex Z on 26 May 06 at 01:52 PM
Commenting is not available in this section entry.