Comments on: Culture Warrior: The Cinematic Endurance Test http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/culture-warrior-the-cinematic-endurance-test.php A Website About Movies Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:06:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Mike http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/culture-warrior-the-cinematic-endurance-test.php/comment-page-1#comment-140390 Mike Sat, 16 May 2009 08:50:20 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=39131#comment-140390 Excellent piece. Excellent piece.

]]> By: Mike http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/culture-warrior-the-cinematic-endurance-test.php/comment-page-1#comment-223219 Mike Sat, 16 May 2009 08:50:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=39131#comment-223219 Excellent piece. Excellent piece.

]]> By: LandonPalmer http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/culture-warrior-the-cinematic-endurance-test.php/comment-page-1#comment-137210 LandonPalmer Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:10:40 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=39131#comment-137210 I think it depends greatly on the subject matter and how it is presented. Millions flocked to Saving Private Ryan, for example, and endured the film's gruesome first half hour not as a form of entertainment, but as a form of catharsis. People saw the film specifically to NOT have a good time, as they believed that, if soldiers gave their lives at Normandy, the least they could do is honor their legacy by enduring a graphic depiction of this sacrifice (of course, the squeaky clean movie star persona of the paternalistic Tom Hanks has something to do with this as well). In this respect, it is almost heretical to treat a film like SPR as a source of entertainment, or to admit "enjoying" watching the violence therein, rather than a rite of endurance. This supposes that the filmic content has some sort of a real correlation to the historical events, that this is an objective and realistic (rather than simply a "realist") look at the war instead of a depiction and manufacture of a narrative executed through meticulously constructed decisions at every turn. This is where realism, to me, becomes problematic, when a direct relationship to reality is assumed merely through formal means of representation. In truth, I've always found the heavily stylized realism of SPR, from its shaky camera to the desaturation of the palate, to be one of the most interesting parts of the film, and the violence an inextricable (and, yes, even entertaining) part of its overall spectacle. I think it depends greatly on the subject matter and how it is presented. Millions flocked to Saving Private Ryan, for example, and endured the film's gruesome first half hour not as a form of entertainment, but as a form of catharsis. People saw the film specifically to NOT have a good time, as they believed that, if soldiers gave their lives at Normandy, the least they could do is honor their legacy by enduring a graphic depiction of this sacrifice (of course, the squeaky clean movie star persona of the paternalistic Tom Hanks has something to do with this as well). In this respect, it is almost heretical to treat a film like SPR as a source of entertainment, or to admit "enjoying" watching the violence therein, rather than a rite of endurance. This supposes that the filmic content has some sort of a real correlation to the historical events, that this is an objective and realistic (rather than simply a "realist") look at the war instead of a depiction and manufacture of a narrative executed through meticulously constructed decisions at every turn. This is where realism, to me, becomes problematic, when a direct relationship to reality is assumed merely through formal means of representation. In truth, I've always found the heavily stylized realism of SPR, from its shaky camera to the desaturation of the palate, to be one of the most interesting parts of the film, and the violence an inextricable (and, yes, even entertaining) part of its overall spectacle.

]]> By: LandonPalmer http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/culture-warrior-the-cinematic-endurance-test.php/comment-page-1#comment-223218 LandonPalmer Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:10:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=39131#comment-223218 I think it depends greatly on the subject matter and how it is presented. Millions flocked to Saving Private Ryan, for example, and endured the film's gruesome first half hour not as a form of entertainment, but as a form of catharsis. People saw the film specifically to NOT have a good time, as they believed that, if soldiers gave their lives at Normandy, the least they could do is honor their legacy by enduring a graphic depiction of this sacrifice (of course, the squeaky clean movie star persona of the paternalistic Tom Hanks has something to do with this as well). In this respect, it is almost heretical to treat a film like SPR as a source of entertainment, or to admit "enjoying" watching the violence therein, rather than a rite of endurance. This supposes that the filmic content has some sort of a real correlation to the historical events, that this is an objective and realistic (rather than simply a "realist") look at the war instead of a depiction and manufacture of a narrative executed through meticulously constructed decisions at every turn. This is where realism, to me, becomes problematic, when a direct relationship to reality is assumed merely through formal means of representation. In truth, I've always found the heavily stylized realism of SPR, from its shaky camera to the desaturation of the palate, to be one of the most interesting parts of the film, and the violence an inextricable (and, yes, even entertaining) part of its overall spectacle. I think it depends greatly on the subject matter and how it is presented. Millions flocked to Saving Private Ryan, for example, and endured the film's gruesome first half hour not as a form of entertainment, but as a form of catharsis. People saw the film specifically to NOT have a good time, as they believed that, if soldiers gave their lives at Normandy, the least they could do is honor their legacy by enduring a graphic depiction of this sacrifice (of course, the squeaky clean movie star persona of the paternalistic Tom Hanks has something to do with this as well). In this respect, it is almost heretical to treat a film like SPR as a source of entertainment, or to admit "enjoying" watching the violence therein, rather than a rite of endurance. This supposes that the filmic content has some sort of a real correlation to the historical events, that this is an objective and realistic (rather than simply a "realist") look at the war instead of a depiction and manufacture of a narrative executed through meticulously constructed decisions at every turn. This is where realism, to me, becomes problematic, when a direct relationship to reality is assumed merely through formal means of representation. In truth, I've always found the heavily stylized realism of SPR, from its shaky camera to the desaturation of the palate, to be one of the most interesting parts of the film, and the violence an inextricable (and, yes, even entertaining) part of its overall spectacle.

]]> By: Cole_Abaius http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/culture-warrior-the-cinematic-endurance-test.php/comment-page-1#comment-137000 Cole_Abaius Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:52:14 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=39131#comment-137000 I think an even more interesting question is to see how certain endurance tests are made commercially viable or even reach higher levels of viewership. Obviously, indie-status and distro come into play, but for the most part, I'd argue that most movie-goers would rather watch National Treasure a third time than try to watch Irreversible for the first. I don't think there's much argument against that - but my real question is how certain movies (like a few that you mentioned above) make it past that hurdle and get viewed by millions and millions of people. Can it really just be directorial name recognition for people to click off TBS and head to the movie theater for three hours worth of hard-to-watch story? I think an even more interesting question is to see how certain endurance tests are made commercially viable or even reach higher levels of viewership. Obviously, indie-status and distro come into play, but for the most part, I'd argue that most movie-goers would rather watch National Treasure a third time than try to watch Irreversible for the first.

I don't think there's much argument against that – but my real question is how certain movies (like a few that you mentioned above) make it past that hurdle and get viewed by millions and millions of people. Can it really just be directorial name recognition for people to click off TBS and head to the movie theater for three hours worth of hard-to-watch story?

]]> By: Cole_Abaius http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/culture-warrior-the-cinematic-endurance-test.php/comment-page-1#comment-223217 Cole_Abaius Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:52:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=39131#comment-223217 I think an even more interesting question is to see how certain endurance tests are made commercially viable or even reach higher levels of viewership. Obviously, indie-status and distro come into play, but for the most part, I'd argue that most movie-goers would rather watch National Treasure a third time than try to watch Irreversible for the first. I don't think there's much argument against that - but my real question is how certain movies (like a few that you mentioned above) make it past that hurdle and get viewed by millions and millions of people. Can it really just be directorial name recognition for people to click off TBS and head to the movie theater for three hours worth of hard-to-watch story? I think an even more interesting question is to see how certain endurance tests are made commercially viable or even reach higher levels of viewership. Obviously, indie-status and distro come into play, but for the most part, I'd argue that most movie-goers would rather watch National Treasure a third time than try to watch Irreversible for the first.

I don't think there's much argument against that – but my real question is how certain movies (like a few that you mentioned above) make it past that hurdle and get viewed by millions and millions of people. Can it really just be directorial name recognition for people to click off TBS and head to the movie theater for three hours worth of hard-to-watch story?

]]>