The Onion A.V. Club picks its top 50 films of the decade

[Octoberist]

Well it represents what people feel, so it's a bit more relevant at the time when it was released. Also, the point of the author was trying to make was that it was one of the few movies that critics, geeks, and Average Joes liked on a certain level and not a whole lot of movies can do that.

 

[SuperFerret]

Well then, hooray for modern negativity.

I just knew I'd get the "Art" excuse.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

It's not an excuse, it's true. Movies aren't made in a vacuum, they reflect the context of the times in which they are made. Is it that hard to understand?

Would you rather movies artificially misrepresent the socio-political context in which they are made?

 

[Octoberist]

besides that, it was also a movie that was well received to the point where it harkens back to the old Spielberg days of mainstream films (Jaws, Raiders).

 

[SuperFerret]

It's not an excuse, it's true. Movies aren't made in a vacuum, they reflect the context of the times in which they are made. Is it that hard to understand?

Would you rather movies artificially misrepresent the socio-political context in which they are made?

The negativity and cynicism in TDK is just one of the many things that turns me off from that movie. Plus, I don't feel that a Batman film should be made with a art-house attitude.

And honestly, I don't watch movies for their socio-political context. I want to be entertained and not have to worry about the real world and how much it sucks.

 

[Octoberist]

to each his own, little badger

 

[DocHoliday]

I'm trying to figure out which was the best year for movies. Thinking 2007 maybe.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

The negativity and cynicism in TDK is just one of the many things that turns me off from that movie. Plus, I don't feel that a Batman film should be made with a art-house attitude.

And honestly, I don't watch movies for their socio-political context. I want to be entertained and not have to worry about the real world and how much it sucks.

The ending is fairly hopeful, but whatever.

Why shouldn't it?

And anyway, TDK isn't made with an "art-house attitude", but film is an art form, which is why I'm using the word art. When I refer to a film in the context art I'm not saying that it's like a Bergman movie, or a Fellini movie, or a Bahrani movie or a Reichardt movie. I'm saying that it is a movie that expresses ideas held by an individual through use of the creative process. Art.

I don't watch most movies for their socio-political context either. That doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

[SuperFerret]

Film can be an art-form, but I think anyone would be hard pressed to find artistic qualities in most mainstream movies. Movie-making is more entertainment driven.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Also, by refusing to engage in films that are probing, thought provoking, and socially and politically relevant you're missing out on the exhilarating and stimulating experience that comes with viewing and discussing such films.

 

[SuperFerret]

Nah, I got enough of that in English class. Analyzing stories like that annoys me as a writer.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Film can be an art-form, but I think anyone would be hard pressed to find artistic qualities in most mainstream movies. Movie-making is more entertainment driven.

That just means mainstream movies make piffle using an art form. And who's to say that being an art form precludes being a form of entertainment?

 

[Figs]

Nah, I got enough of that in English class. Analyzing stories like that annoys me as a writer.

Wouldn't that be good to do as a writer though?

 

[SuperFerret]

That just means mainstream movies make piffle using an art form. And who's to say that being an art form precludes being a form of entertainment?

Being art doesn't prevent something from being entertaining, but that does seem to be the effect gained from many art films.

Wouldn't that be good to do as a writer though?

I'd take that sort of dissecting of any of my stories to be an insult. I'm trying to write a damn good story, not provide you with something to pull apart piece by piece.

 

[Watson]

I'd take that sort of dissecting of any of my stories to be an insult. I'm trying to write a damn good story, not provide you with something to pull apart piece by piece.

Any form of art can be dissected and discussed though. You can easily talk about race and gender roles in, say, Transformers 2. Just because its "entertainment" it doesn't mean it can't examined.

 

[SuperFerret]

I guess I'm the only one who sees it as offensive to the creator.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Being art doesn't prevent something from being entertaining, but that does seem to be the effect gained from many art films.

"Art films" are "entertaining" because their artistry is engaging. "Art film" is pretty deceptive term anyhow. It can be used oh so easily as a straw man. There are many films that people would call "art films" that are just as silly, crude, hilarious, heart pounding, or whatever other adjective you want to use as supposed "entertainment" films. People just refuse to see them that way, because they're conditioned to view films in a very narrow manner.

I'd take that sort of dissecting of any of my stories to be an insult. I'm trying to write a damn good story, not provide you with something to pull apart piece by piece.

If you're insulted by someone engaging critically in your work, then that means you don't engage critically in your work either.

Do you not see how that's a bad thing?

 

[Watson]

I guess I'm the only one who sees it as offensive to the creator.

Offensive? I think as a creator, if you are putting art into the world you need to be ready for the examination and criticism that it WILL get. Because all art will go through that process. This board exists for that very reason.

But it can be a good thing too. Examination can help improve your work. The best artists/writers/etc are the ones who grow and change things up. Scorsese hasn't just made gangster films for the last 30 odd years.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

I guess I'm the only one who sees it as offensive to the creator.

A lot of the great directors love film critics, because they appreciate critical analysis of their work. Every second of the film contains tons of conscious choices made by the director: why to cut a shot a particular way, why the shot is framed the way it is, why the scenery is the way that it is, etc. Directors (and writers, and musicians, etc.) don't just point a camera at some actors reciting a script and *poof*! there's a movie. Movies are made with painstaking attention to detail, and thousands of conscious decisions.

 

[SuperFerret]

If you're insulted by someone engaging critically in your work, then that means you don't engage critically in your work either.

Do you not see how that's a bad thing?

Define "engaging critically". Sure, I'll put some thought into adding things like symbolism and stuff into the story, but that's just one ingredient. It's like when you're cooking, you'll add salt, but you don't want people just tasting the salt.

Offensive? I think as a creator, if you are putting art into the world you need to be ready for the examination and criticism that it WILL get. Because all art will go through that process. This board exists for that very reason.

That's why I stopped attempting to try and get anything published.

And a lot of the examination and analysis is just in the eye of the beholder. Take your Transformers 2 example, sure, you theoretically could talk about gender and race issues brought up there, but those issues would only be there because you were looking for them there. I sincerely doubt that anyone making it intended it to be thought-provoking in that manner.

THAT'S what's insulting. Who are you (figuratively "you", not Dr. Watson "you") to tell me what I was thinking when I was writing my story?

 

[Sarge 2.0]

If the assertion can be backed up by evidence presented in the material, it's valid. What you were thinking while you were writing the story means nothing once you open the work to the public. No matter what you were intending to do specifically, if someones analysis, interpretation, or reading of your work can be supported by textual evidence then it's valid. Transformers 2 is a great example, actually. Was Michael Bay consciously thinking to himself "Hmmm, I'm going to depict 99.9% of the women in this movie as impossibly attractive ****ty girls because all women are good for is eye candy"? No, I don't think he was doing that consciously, but since 99.9% of the women in Transformers 2 are impossibly (almost robotically) attractive ****s, the inference is valid.

It's incorrect to assume that bringing up issues of race and gender in regards to Transformers 2 is due to people "looking" for the issues. They're brought up because the issues are glaringly presented in the work. Art doesn't "belong" to the artist (in the sense that the artists intentions are not the only valid interpretation of the work) once it becomes public.

 

[SuperFerret]

That's insulting to me as a writer.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

It shouldn't be, unless you wish for your work to only be interpreted in the way that you intended it to be interpreted. If that's the case then you obviously don't take your work seriously enough to allow room for critical interpretation, which insulting to me (and everyone else) as the reader.

 

[SuperFerret]

Interpret it however you want, but coming up with something new that wasn't intended is just a wrong assumption, no matter how you twist the material to fit it. It's like those delusional people who find sex in everything.

 

[Octoberist]

Fight Fight Fight!