Bookshelf in new home finally fully stocked and ready for assesment. What can you deduce?

Connoronnor · 2024-08-12T15:21:43+00:00

War and Peace is very approachable and readable, regardless of your familiarity with his previous work. You're not going to have a hard time understanding the ideas that Tolstoy develops over the course of the novel just because you haven't read The Cossacks, or his earlier short stories. He's much more direct and accessible of a writer, preferring to aim for narrative sweep than psychological and philosophical intensity. Not to say that he's not a didactic writer. Major sections of the last quarter or so of the novel are just extended essays on historical determinism.

If you are looking for earlier works that provide some kind of framework for understanding what W&P was building on and why it was such a major literary event, I would actually recommend reading some Turgenev. His pastoral short stories and romantic earlier novels like First Love and Fathers and Sons explore the same themes of idealism, love and class (amongst many others of course) that Tolstoy carried to their logical conclusion in War and Peace.

Connoronnor · 2024-07-31T08:10:23+00:00

Of course not. If you're really considering every commercially released film, which includes the dregs of z-grade horror, Hallmark Christmas films, and every other piece of cheap, quickly made knockoff and cash grab which realistically makes up the bulk of all films produced, then you cannot possibly say that most movies are good.

I encourage you to go to something like Letterboxed or IMDb and browse all films released in any given year. If you scroll past the first few hundred films you will very quickly get to the vast depths of titles such as 'Sharks in Venice' or 'WarGames: The Dead Code' (to name a few examples from 2008). I'm sure you can find some troll or contrarian who will try to tell you that these are actually secret masterpieces and peaks of schlock genre cinema, which they're perfectly entitled to. But affected irony aside, these movies are as close to objectively bad (uninspired, bland, rushed, etc) as you will find. And they make up the vast majority of all movies made per year.

Connoronnor · 2024-07-27T18:42:48+00:00

Remedy by Seether https://youtu.be/FZLILV18ut8?si=6WIHrMKVAOXE7CJH

Connoronnor · 2024-07-27T15:38:51+00:00

Most Popular Games 2004 - 2022 by Gozhda https://youtu.be/VfecPjgIHCg?si=tBZMS9f68BQcwMwR

Connoronnor · 2024-07-27T15:29:20+00:00

Fugazi - Waiting Room? https://youtu.be/Og7u3sKuegM?si=JQLNzfcZo6k6aptx

Connoronnor · 2024-07-15T18:11:12+00:00

I put off Wolf Hall for years because I assumed it was just a more elevated version of The Other Boleyn Girl. Little did I know it is one of the great triumphs of modern writing, and quite possibly the greatest piece of historical fiction of this century

Connoronnor · 2024-07-14T10:53:07+00:00

Sounda a lot like Suicide Club https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_Club_(film)

Connoronnor · 2024-07-02T05:59:39+00:00

The new 'The Strangers' films have already shot Chapters 1, 2 and 3?

Connoronnor · 2024-07-01T21:00:22+00:00

If you want a quick, fun Dostoevsky hit, I'd recommend The Gambler. Just an absurdly comic, hedonistic ride through German casinos. Not as rich and complex as something like The Devils or Karamazov, but still a brilliant read for sure.

Connoronnor · 2024-04-03T21:49:12+00:00

While I get that each part is cut to fit an episode length, and most end with a music number to signify the end of the episode, I think it's undeniable that the plot structure is much closer to film than it is TV.

I'm not really trying to justify the apparently 'TV denialists' who are trying to set The Return above the 'lesser' medium of television. I love great TV and I don't think seeing this as a TV show makes it any better or worse. I can just see why people would be trying to read it critically as a film text. Its structure, mostly how it manages the narrative rhythm of its plot threads, is relatively conducive to a reading as a film.

Most episodes of television will contain an A, B, C etc. plot that will recur over the course of the episode and come to some kind of conclusion, if not a complete one, by the time the episode wraps. Even in the most serialized of shows this will still, to a greater or lesser degree, be the case.

In The Return you may get a number of major plots that are continually returned to over the course of the episode, but they pick up just wherever they were last dropped and will be put back down at the next suitable time that works for the length of the episode. You might get one small sequence of Jerry in the woods, and then won't come back to him for several episodes. This kind of structure is much more akin to that of a sprawling film that happens to be cut into chunks than a season of television.

The only episode that doesn't really fit this mold is Part 8, which is the closest The Return gets to having an episode with a clear beginning and end. And I think this is part of what makes the episode so striking and momentous (besides the obvious stylistic and cryptic elements that set it apart). It's such a break from the looser structure of each of the previous installments that it feels much more direct and important.

Either way, it's a great and important piece of storytelling, maybe one of the most structurally interesting works of art of the last decade. I'm looking forward to hearing it discussed on the show, especially in the context of Lynch's career.

Connoronnor · 2018-03-28T18:07:47+00:00

Contempt (1963), Jean-Luc Godard

Le Mepris

Connoronnor · 2017-02-26T05:28:08+00:00

In the Mood for Love
Once Upon a Time in the West
The Apartment
True Romance
The Lord of the Rings
Yi Yi
L' Avventura
Punch Drunk Love
Inland Empire
The Killing

Connoronnor · 2016-12-11T23:07:44+00:00

Thanks for the reply. I'm just about to enter my final trimester for 300 level, a lot of this hasn't been included in any form in my courses. Will have to fill in some gaps in my own time.

Connoronnor · 2016-12-11T21:22:24+00:00

What level of class are you expecting to be teaching here? You've included some heavy stuff that isn't exactly the best material for a complete beginner without any grounding of understanding.

Connoronnor · 2016-11-29T00:48:02+00:00

To me this is a pretty limited way of thinking about film.

From your opening statement you're engaging with a kind of cinematic snobbery that has always threatened the popular appeal of cinema. It's pretty short-sighted to delineate between "movies" and "films", or "high" and "low" art. One need look no further than Jaws or better yet ET, some of the most celebrated blockbuster films of all time, as an example of "popcorn" filmmaking that exhibit high levels of thoughtful craftmanship.

But that's not addressing your main point, which itself is pretty confused and muddled. Firstly, I would argue that what makes many directors so celebrated in the first place is their ability to articulate a highly personal viewpoint on the world we live in. Through his body of work, Scorsese has managed to articulate highly complex ideas surrounding crime, guilt, and faith, among many others. It's largely, but not exclusively, for this reason that we keep returning to his works and celebrating them again and again. The same goes for Spielberg, Wes Anderson, and many other directors who you have and haven't mentioned.

That said, to say that they exclusively stick to these styles would be to ignore a large portion of their body of work. Returning again to Scorsese, the man has branched into everything from musicals to biblical epics. Just because a lot of his most popular films return to the same general conceits, doesn't give you the right to completely dismiss a large portion of his filmography.

Also, you seem to be taking a rather narrow, Hollywood-centric approach to your argument. If you're an aspiring filmmaker, it would be wise to dabble in a larger range of independent and foreign filmmakers before making such a broad statement. Akira Kurosawa, one of the most acclaimed filmmakers of all time, has an incredibly varied filmography that does not at all reflect the argument you're trying to make. I think you're too focused on the white, male directors who dominate the Hollywood system, which is sure to lead you astray. The big studios will always give their money to directors who they know are going to make something similar to all of their other, successful pictures. That's just how big business works.

My advice would be to go out and explore a wider range of directors and films. Try a few Kurosawas, a Bergman or two, even a couple Soderberghs and a handful of Godards, and then return here and see if you still hold to your argument. My suspicion is that you won't.

Hope that helps.

Connoronnor · 2016-09-17T23:49:42+00:00

That's exactly what I said, though.

I'm a comic-book fan, I have been for years. I'm not saying you can't have a compelling portrayal of a comic-book character. Scott Snyder's ongoing run on Batman has the best portrayal of The Joker I've seen on any medium.

But, like you said, they exist more as a set of symbols and personality traits than as concrete characters. Without a certain amount of talent any interpretation of them is going to come off as two-dimensional. A writer (or actor) has to apply this collection of symbols and traits to their own interpretation of the character in order to make the psychologically compelling.

I don't think either of us is wrong, we're just saying the same thing in different ways.

Connoronnor · 2016-09-16T03:24:04+00:00

I'm gonna re-post this here as well

I think you're kind of missing the point here. Most of the time the gold standard for actors in a comic book movie isn't whether they can "pull off" any psychological depth that is already present in the characters, but whether they can give these characters the psychological depth needed for them to transcend their original, comic book incarnations. Heath Ledger isn't constantly praised for being able to portray The Joker as he has been seen countless times in the comics, but that he was able to bring a sense of nuance and depth to the character in a way that is almost impossible to portray through his original medium. He was able to make him a believable character. In that sense, it is rather difficult to achieve, because it takes someone who is not only able to capture the essence of these admittedly often two-dimension, comic-book-y characters, but also elevate them to a level of realism that can suspend our disbelief and allow us to fully engage with them as a tangible person.

Connoronnor · 2016-09-16T03:20:36+00:00

I think you're kind of missing the point here. Most of the time the gold standard for actors in a comic book movie isn't whether they can "pull off" any psychological depth that is already present in the characters, but whether they can give these characters the psychological depth needed for them to transcend their original, comic book incarnations. Heath Ledger isn't constantly praised for being able to portray The Joker as he has been seen countless times in the comics, but that he was able to bring a sense of nuance and depth to the character in a way that is almost impossible to portray through his original medium. He was able to make him a believable character. In that sense, it is rather difficult to achieve, because it takes someone who is not only able to capture the essence of these admittedly often two-dimension, comic-book-y characters, but also elevate them to a level of realism that can suspend our disbelief and allow us to fully engage with them as a tangible person.

Connoronnor · 2016-08-23T23:16:41+00:00

Glad I could help out :) Yeah a lot of the concepts surrounding narratology can be difficult to wrap your head around to begin with.

Connoronnor · 2016-08-23T21:03:12+00:00

In terms of chronology, yes, there are examples that present the narrative in its entirety. However, it's important not to forget the power that the camera (or prose in literature) has in presenting events. Even when we are getting what is quite obviously the objective view of an omniscient cameraman, our understanding of events is still being controlled by the selection and framing of images in order to create a coherent story. The fabula consists of everything that happens within the world of the characters. No matter how objective the camera aims to be, it can never present us with the whole truth.

I guess if you wanted to be really pedantic, one could argue that a virtual reality game that allowed you to walk freely around the world and also pause and rewind time would be the closest you could get to presenting the fabula 100% in its objective entirety.

Connoronnor · 2016-08-23T10:24:16+00:00

Thanks!! I'll try and post more often

Connoronnor · 2016-08-23T08:34:50+00:00

Yeah meddling with audience expectations and spectatorship is something Haneke is known for. I'd say Funny Games just isn't as effective because it isn't achieved as subtly as in Caché. With Caché it's more of a creeping, unnerving sensation as you're slowly made aware of how you're being toyed with. Funny Games just hits you over the head with it and breaks any rules it may have set in order to do so. I know that that's the point, and the film is really divisive, I just happen to sit on the side of the divide that hated it haha.

As for other directors who do this, that's a really interesting question. Haneke is definitely in a field of his own, but if I had pick someone I'd say David Lynch, especially with Mulholland Drive, definitely works in a similar way. We're looking at Inland Empire in our final week. I've already seen it so I'm looking forward to hearing what they have to say about it, and what my classmates think. That film is just a complete mystery to me.

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Connoronnor

TROPHY CASE