Re: What movies are you watching?
Posted: Tue February 11, 2020 11:41 pm
Bunch of chit in that thread
If that's how they are experiencing it, why do you give a shit? Different people have different mental processes when taking in art. Some people see pictures when reading, some people don't. Synesthesia is a real thing for some. So it stands to reason that some people might experience a film setting as something that actually exerts an influence on the narrative. The science on these ideas is still very much in progress, so it seems basically incorrect to say its impossible. For you? Sure. For others? Maybe not.LoathedVermin72 wrote:Describing a setting as a character is one of my hugest pet peeves in movie discussion. It’s such a completely nonsense thing to say. Makes zero sense. I don’t think it means what you are trying to say (because it means nothing and is impossible).BurtReynolds wrote:You are mentally ill.LoathedVermin72 wrote:UUGGFFHHHHJJFJFJXJXKFJFJJCJFJFJDJDJCJCJJCBurtReynolds wrote:I really liked the setting and lighting of Parasite as well. The house was a character in the movie, and it really helped tell the story as well.
current theory is a massive excel chart with cross references and html linking.bart wrote:Jorge how in the hell did you remember that from 10 years ago?
nate shut the fuck upOrpheus wrote:If that's how they are experiencing it, why do you give a shit? Different people have different mental processes when taking in art. Some people see pictures when reading, some people don't. Synesthesia is a real thing for some. So it stands to reason that some people might experience a film setting as something that actually exerts an influence on the narrative. The science on these ideas is still very much in progress, so it seems basically incorrect to say its impossible. For you? Sure. For others? Maybe not.LoathedVermin72 wrote:Describing a setting as a character is one of my hugest pet peeves in movie discussion. It’s such a completely nonsense thing to say. Makes zero sense. I don’t think it means what you are trying to say (because it means nothing and is impossible).BurtReynolds wrote:You are mentally ill.LoathedVermin72 wrote:UUGGFFHHHHJJFJFJXJXKFJFJJCJFJFJDJDJCJCJJCBurtReynolds wrote:I really liked the setting and lighting of Parasite as well. The house was a character in the movie, and it really helped tell the story as well.
Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
I’m sorry this topic gets me riled up (also my hostility is somewhat in jest)tragabigzanda wrote:Lv is being a total dickhead but also he is right
I don’t think I can recover from that verbal lashing. I must leave RM in shame.E.H. Ruddock wrote:Kouse just got destroyed.
Saying a setting is a character isn’t a matter of personal experience, it’s just an objectively incorrect assertion. As someone who is passionate about film analysis and criticism, I think defining and understanding language is important.Orpheus wrote:I don't really care either way, I just have my own pet peeve about people saying others' experience of art is impossible. How the fuck do you know? If they felt it was foreboding/unique/impressive enough to become a sort of character, why not just let them think that? It's literally their own personal experience inside their own head. Why police it?
How do you rectify this with what I posted above? Years of analysis have asserted that the house in question is most definitely represented as a character in the story, one that fissures and "dies" in the end. This can't be represented in film? I'd argue that it has, many, many times.LoathedVermin72 wrote:Saying a setting is a character isn’t a matter of personal experience, it’s just an objectively incorrect assertion. As someone who is passionate about film analysis and criticism, I think defining and understanding language is important.Orpheus wrote:I don't really care either way, I just have my own pet peeve about people saying others' experience of art is impossible. How the fuck do you know? If they felt it was foreboding/unique/impressive enough to become a sort of character, why not just let them think that? It's literally their own personal experience inside their own head. Why police it?