Recent Viewing Part IV

I mean it's not awful...but 3rd out of 109?

It's not bad, probably my favourite of the Disney Star Wars films... but that isn't saying much. Unlike Rogue One, it had much more likeable characters with humour, and unlike the new trilogy films, it didn't have Rey or Rose. The equal rights droid was a bit weird, but that felt more like a piss-take than the actual feminist bent of Mar-Rey Sue. It was funny in places without being The Farce Awakens. And it certainly didn't go the route of "subverting expectations" like The Last Jedi attempted. It played it safe, which I'm glad it did.

But they continue to feel like fan films; I doubt they'll ever reach the same level of popularity and zeitgeist as the originals.

You will never be able to repeat the 1977-1983 phenomenon, not within the franchise nor with any other film. There is too much competition these days that fractures the audience. Also in the age of CGI you perceive any kind of eye candy as a given. That's, why I said, it' suffices to be an entertaining space fantasy film. Just like Guardians of the Galaxy. You shouldn't expect too much from Star Wars.

Volker

I think Volker may be right, especially in the age of streaming on-demand. Perhaps the closest thing we have is the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But I'll be surprised if it makes the same impact as Star Wars in the long run. But who knows.

Oh, and I don't expect much from Star Wars, they're still riding the wake of the success of a film made over 40 years ago, but I still thought The Last Jedi was still a pile of steamy horseshit.

We can in terms of success because it's the biggest player in town and has large cultural significance. Kids (and adults) love superheroes.





Well, yes.

I didn't mean to be cynical at all. I still am a big Star Wars fan.

V.

What?!?

I thought we were discussing the quality of the movies, not which franchise has harvested the most money?

Mandy

Loved the atmosphere, music and visuals. Reminded me a lot of Blade Runner 2049, in that each shot and scene is a living painting. Plot is fairly simplistic, which is fine, but there's a feeling at the end - at least for me - of looking for a point. Maybe that's a mistake in this type of movie. Nicolas Cage kills it. The scene of him howling in the bathroom is incredible. The action scenes are insanely violent but have a brooding feel instead of one of excitement. As an audiovisual visceral EXPERIENCE, there's not much to beat it. As a movie... well why bother? it's not a movie. It's a metal album mixed with an 80s pulp novel mixed with a regular day in the life of Nicolas Cage. Wow.

Neither. Cultural impact. But it was to do with Volker's point that there will probably never be another Star Wars-like phenomenom. Marvel is the closest thing to that.

But it's hard to objectively analyse given that the MCU is still relatively new.

True, rules are there to be broken, but you really have to know what you're doing if you decide to do that. It's fine if your film is unconventional, great even, but it still needs to work in some conventional sense for it to connect to the audience. We need something to grasp onto, be it an idea, a character, or a theme, for the film to actually work as a film. If you don't have that, you end up with a pretentious film made by hipster students. (You're the exception that proves the rule; I'm sure you could probably watch a series of colours flash on the screen and call it a masterpiece.)

Completely agree. I think a film should tell its story visually as much as possible, otherwise it's a waste of film. I can't stand copious amounts of exposition (it has its place, but it's a fine line between effective and too much).

But a movie - that is, something that has a story and not some art installation of various images - needs a narrative to ground its visuals. We need a reason for them. If Star Trek: The Motion Picture had a better narrative and wasn't so fucking boring, the imagery would live on in far more people's memories. Conversely, a book needs imagery to ground its narrative, even though it does it through words.

We're at risk at talking past each other again. But here goes...

I'm really talking about basic level stuff here. Those films still have a narrative, however loose or insignificant they may be. As you say, the story may not be the selling point of a film (clearly this is the case with most Hollywood blockbusters), but a movie at its most basic has a narrative, no matter how unconventional or disjointed it may be. Unless we're describing an audiovisual art piece, which don't feature in cinemas or Netflix, you always have a story. There's always something you could describe in words to someone who hasn't seen it. Without it, all you would be describing is a series of images. Avatar is indeed a visual spectacle. But without the story, all we have is a CGI screen test.

Name one movie where you couldn't possibly describe its premise and narrative using words, and then you have a movie that has no story.

Well, no one's saying film can't subvert from established tradition, clearly they do. Like I said, rules are there to be broken. But there's a reason tradition is tradition, where the films you've exampled, films I would describe as art pieces rather than "movies" (or artistic nonsense if I'm honest), are appreciated by relatively few. Or generally speaking, their approach to film making has fewer fans. Even The Mirror has a plot judging by its wiki page. But this is probably a semantic disagreement, movie vs film. I doubt a series of images, whether connected by a theme or not, would make much money in a cinema.

In other words, these are exceptions. The overwhelming majority of movies have a narrative, and a decent narrative elevates decent visuals and vice versa. Just because a movie has a narrative, that doesn't mean it's predictable either. It's like saying books don't need to use common syntax. Well, no, but it's generally better for it.

Like I said, unless you really know what you're doing, traditional film making is popular for a reason. Storytelling is deeply ingrained. The better the story, the more impact the visuals are likely to have.

I recently saw RUSH directed by Ron Howard. The film was interesting (about racecar drivers Lauda and Hunt in the 70s) but I was especially surprised that Hans Zimmer did the score. I didn't notice it too much in the film since there were so many other sound effects - I'd be really interested to hear the score as a standalone and see what I missed. Has anyone else heard it?

yeah of course, I should have said, "traditional movie", not just movie.

personally, I'm a fan of experimental literature, but haven't really delved into experimental films. A movie like Mandy still has roots in plot-character-sequence-of-events, but is clearly meant to be enjoyed on a different level.

as to the other conversation, whether a movie has to have a narrative to be a movie, all I can really think of as a guiding rule is that a piece of art should justify it's own existence. that's really broad, obviously. usually, movies use narratives and characters, but it can have value through other means, such as pure visual beauty/ugliness. sometimes a movie might feature a traditional narrative but the thing that justifies it's existence is something completely different like it's music.

Btw, have you seen it yet?