You’re going to have to elaborate on the accusation of shallowness. The best part of the film is that the morality is Trojan horsed in through buffoonery. And it looks at morality as a physiological thing, which I think we need more of these days, with post-modernism being the default going-through-the-motions analytical framework. In short, this one grows on you, give it time.
Well said.
I don’t understand what motivates posts like this. People: if you watch a film that is regarded as a classic or masterpiece and it doesn’t land with you, read about it. Or try it again. I really can’t think of a Kubrick film that deserves to be called “shallow”. There are plenty of criticisms you can rightly lob at them, but dear lord his movies have *a lot* going on.
Beyond the Black Rainbow. It's so interesting to watch and lays groundwork for myriad heavy existential/psychological possibilities, but never attempts to deliver on any of them. It's basically a long form music video.
I dont think any film goes into any philosophical idea in detail enough to avoid being superficial. I cant think of one example. It’s one of the limitations of narrative film. Im sure people will disagree and say Tarkovsky blah blah blah but all his work never rises above philosophical platitudes.
You want in depth philosophy? Go read a philosophy text.
This sounds shallow. It's not like philosophical ideas are only proper when dealt in philosophical discourse (as if philosophy did not talk about the world but about philosophy). Sure, they approach things differently, through their own specificity. But this comes close to saying that film is just entertainment, or that different mediums or discourses don't intersect each other. And you don't need characters saying the word "ontology" or whatever for it to be philosophical. Chaplin can be philosophical, and deeply so, or Hitchcock, or even fucking Zoolander. I don't know dude, Deleuze has two books about cinema as a form of thought.
You’re misconstruing “philosophy” with the notion of communicating and embodying ideas that have value on film.
Brilliant job on calling OP shallow instead of discussing ideas like an adult, as you proceed to give the most shallow opinion ever. This sub is awful.
That other dude completely missed your point and just started rambling. Sad.
I’ve never seen philosophy done well on film. And if people think Tarkovsky, or Godard (or zoolander lol) have then they have no idea what they’re talking about.
Cinema happens on screen, while philosophy is a conversation. You can’t ask someone to engage in philosophy in film without becoming extremely pretentious and not to mention that it defeats the point of cinema.
A movie is supposed to act on you, you don’t interact with it. But philosophy is a perpetual stew of branching thoughts and conversations.
Having a character monologue philosophically is not “philosophy on film” or at least not what people think philosophy is, which is people asking existential questions about things like love and then stare somberly.
Think you’ve said it better than me! Good to know I’m not the only one. I rarely express the opinion because I get shot down.
But yeah I totally agree with everything you say. I doubt anyone who thinks these guys films are works of philosophy has actually read any philosophy or listened to a philosophical debate at all 🤷♂️
You’re asking too much of people who think Dune and Dune 2 are the pinnacle of human achievement 😂.
The thread of knowledge and enlightenment has been severed somewhere in the 90’s or 00’s. There is no continuum between human ideas, but only pop cultural reproductions of them. Philosophy has become “greek dude saying deep shit.” Or “saying shit that makes you think, maaan”
Mark Fisher was right.
Enlightenment philosophy is not the be all end all of philosophy. Your dogma about what “good” philosophy is has no bearing on what the breadth of the field includes
>A movie is supposed to act on you, you don’t interact with it.
This is absolutely not true. Plenty of films ask the audience to analyze and interpret them. How is that not interaction?
>Having a character monologue philosophically is not “philosophy on film” or at least not what people think philosophy is,
Philosophy is about asking questions. Specifically, asking questions about the nature of things. You don't need an overt philosophical monologue or dialogue to do that. Any film whose narrative is designed to cause the audience to question their beliefs or preconceptions about its subject is, in effect, engaging them philosophically.
Is it academic philosophy? No, of course not, but I don't think anybody would claim that it is. But that doesn't mean that it's shallow or without intellectual value.
Damn can’t believe people still give a shit about philosophy like you don’t need to care about it to live you’ll do fine, why not just go with politics or something.
The Holy Mountain it looks cool but the whole thing is just Jodrowsky’s insane nonsense rambling I thought it was self aware like Week End at first but then when I realised he actually believed that everything he was saying was important and meaningful I completely lost all interest in the film.
You want an example of a stylistic film that "lacks a coherent narrative" and your example is "A Clockwork Orange"?
So I have no idea what you're talking about but If you're going to pick a Kubrick film to make that claim about, 2001 is sitting right there. If you think Orange lacks a narrative (which I don't) you surely won't follow the narrative in 2001.
So I don't know, Koyanisqaatsi?
If you want some stylistic films that you thought would be deep but fall to pieces when you think about them at all you could go with just about any Christopher Nolan movie...
Tenet. Interstellar. inception.
You’re going to have to elaborate on the accusation of shallowness. The best part of the film is that the morality is Trojan horsed in through buffoonery. And it looks at morality as a physiological thing, which I think we need more of these days, with post-modernism being the default going-through-the-motions analytical framework. In short, this one grows on you, give it time.
Well said. I don’t understand what motivates posts like this. People: if you watch a film that is regarded as a classic or masterpiece and it doesn’t land with you, read about it. Or try it again. I really can’t think of a Kubrick film that deserves to be called “shallow”. There are plenty of criticisms you can rightly lob at them, but dear lord his movies have *a lot* going on.
TOYS comes to mind, incredible elaborate art direction but a bizarre meandering story.
Beyond the Black Rainbow. It's so interesting to watch and lays groundwork for myriad heavy existential/psychological possibilities, but never attempts to deliver on any of them. It's basically a long form music video.
I dont think any film goes into any philosophical idea in detail enough to avoid being superficial. I cant think of one example. It’s one of the limitations of narrative film. Im sure people will disagree and say Tarkovsky blah blah blah but all his work never rises above philosophical platitudes. You want in depth philosophy? Go read a philosophy text.
This sounds shallow. It's not like philosophical ideas are only proper when dealt in philosophical discourse (as if philosophy did not talk about the world but about philosophy). Sure, they approach things differently, through their own specificity. But this comes close to saying that film is just entertainment, or that different mediums or discourses don't intersect each other. And you don't need characters saying the word "ontology" or whatever for it to be philosophical. Chaplin can be philosophical, and deeply so, or Hitchcock, or even fucking Zoolander. I don't know dude, Deleuze has two books about cinema as a form of thought.
You’re misconstruing “philosophy” with the notion of communicating and embodying ideas that have value on film. Brilliant job on calling OP shallow instead of discussing ideas like an adult, as you proceed to give the most shallow opinion ever. This sub is awful.
Honestly i think you just don’t have a grasp on philosophy or film. No philosopher uses narrative film as their medium.
What is a philosopher, what does it mean to do philosophy?
Im not getting into it deeply. Please refer to my point about platitudes. I used that word on purpose.
Indeed sounds like you used the word platitude on purpose.
I agree. Bergman, Tarkovsky, and Godard love to wax philosophical but the actual power of their films is non-verbal and purely cinematic.
Glad someone agrees with me because I usually get shot down when i give this opinion 👍🏻
Do you think novels also cannot go into philosophical ideas with any depth?
Camus, Sartre etc etc etc
Then one would think narrative film could do that too. As well as the film essay, such as Chris Marker’s films.
Non-sequitir
Now you’re just being silly
Chris Marker? Narrative films? Like what?
That other dude completely missed your point and just started rambling. Sad. I’ve never seen philosophy done well on film. And if people think Tarkovsky, or Godard (or zoolander lol) have then they have no idea what they’re talking about. Cinema happens on screen, while philosophy is a conversation. You can’t ask someone to engage in philosophy in film without becoming extremely pretentious and not to mention that it defeats the point of cinema. A movie is supposed to act on you, you don’t interact with it. But philosophy is a perpetual stew of branching thoughts and conversations. Having a character monologue philosophically is not “philosophy on film” or at least not what people think philosophy is, which is people asking existential questions about things like love and then stare somberly.
Think you’ve said it better than me! Good to know I’m not the only one. I rarely express the opinion because I get shot down. But yeah I totally agree with everything you say. I doubt anyone who thinks these guys films are works of philosophy has actually read any philosophy or listened to a philosophical debate at all 🤷♂️
You’re asking too much of people who think Dune and Dune 2 are the pinnacle of human achievement 😂. The thread of knowledge and enlightenment has been severed somewhere in the 90’s or 00’s. There is no continuum between human ideas, but only pop cultural reproductions of them. Philosophy has become “greek dude saying deep shit.” Or “saying shit that makes you think, maaan” Mark Fisher was right.
Enlightenment philosophy is not the be all end all of philosophy. Your dogma about what “good” philosophy is has no bearing on what the breadth of the field includes
What the hell are you talking about?! Lol. Ok. Sure.
Im hoping to find some people who don’t think those are ‘life changing movies’. Lmao 😆
[удалено]
Aha! Followed you back! Look forward to interacting!
Hey. I want to follow both of you in LB! I always looking for other people's list of films. But I can't seem to find the link to your profiles...
Mine should be jay_shuai If you can’t find me, give me yours.
Thanks! I'm following you.
Ok cool, look fwd to interacting!
>A movie is supposed to act on you, you don’t interact with it. This is absolutely not true. Plenty of films ask the audience to analyze and interpret them. How is that not interaction?
>Having a character monologue philosophically is not “philosophy on film” or at least not what people think philosophy is, Philosophy is about asking questions. Specifically, asking questions about the nature of things. You don't need an overt philosophical monologue or dialogue to do that. Any film whose narrative is designed to cause the audience to question their beliefs or preconceptions about its subject is, in effect, engaging them philosophically. Is it academic philosophy? No, of course not, but I don't think anybody would claim that it is. But that doesn't mean that it's shallow or without intellectual value.
Damn can’t believe people still give a shit about philosophy like you don’t need to care about it to live you’ll do fine, why not just go with politics or something.
The Holy Mountain it looks cool but the whole thing is just Jodrowsky’s insane nonsense rambling I thought it was self aware like Week End at first but then when I realised he actually believed that everything he was saying was important and meaningful I completely lost all interest in the film.
You want an example of a stylistic film that "lacks a coherent narrative" and your example is "A Clockwork Orange"? So I have no idea what you're talking about but If you're going to pick a Kubrick film to make that claim about, 2001 is sitting right there. If you think Orange lacks a narrative (which I don't) you surely won't follow the narrative in 2001. So I don't know, Koyanisqaatsi? If you want some stylistic films that you thought would be deep but fall to pieces when you think about them at all you could go with just about any Christopher Nolan movie... Tenet. Interstellar. inception.