| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 02/09/2007 : 00:34:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy C
Well, thanks for the kind words!  I did feel like i understood the film a little better when I wasn't so worried about getting familar with the characters. Also, it was interesting, knowing a fair bit about the plot means that you could see what the makers are really trying to say.. or at least if they're trying to say anything at all!
Point taken about the excessive plot description (less plot, more interpretation, check!) I think I turned my normal 'no spoiler' policy on its head this evening altogether! 
Overall it was an enjoyable exercise, and a totally different way to watch a movie, although it may have helped that I enjoyed the film as well.. Think i might try it again with the next one on the list, 'Flags of Our Fathers', and see how that one turns out.
Thanks again sensei! 
Oooh, do I sniff a preconvert?  
|
 |
|
|
Paddy C 
"Does not compute! Lame!"
|
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 16:04:38
|
quote:
Oooh, do I sniff a preconvert?
Possibly maybe.. it does seem like a good approach to reviewing...
I think for recreational watching, I'd still favour the 'going in cold' method.. like for 'Hellboy 2' when it comes out, or maybe 'Hot Fuzz' or something like that.. |
|
|
|
RockGolf
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 22:21:29
|
| The trick for me is the opposite. To try to see a movie know absolutely nothing about the plot. Trailers these days give away 90% of plots and even cautious reviews give away too much information. The last two times I was successfully able to go to a film knowing squat about the story were The Accidental Tourist and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Tourist I intentionally avoided all info on, which was much easier in those days. And Raiders, what a treat! I won tickets to a preview in the days before EW (the TV show or magazine) made big deals about films that hadn't opened. All I heard was that it starred one of the guys from Star Wars and was based on old movie serials. My expectations were not very high. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 22:30:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by R o � k G o 7 f
The trick for me is the opposite. To try to see a movie know absolutely nothing about the plot. Trailers these days give away 90% of plots and even cautious reviews give away too much information. The last two times I was successfully able to go to a film knowing squat about the story were The Accidental Tourist and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Tourist I intentionally avoided all info on, which was much easier in those days. And Raiders, what a treat! I won tickets to a preview in the days before EW (the TV show or magazine) made big deals about films that hadn't opened. All I heard was that it starred one of the guys from Star Wars and was based on old movie serials. My expectations were not very high.
So, I guess you're NOT taking up the challenge!
|
|
|
|
Shiv 
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 00:54:06
|
Do Special Features count? I am an avid SF watcher on DVDs. I realise that these are obviously going to talk up a film rather than provide objective criticism, but I have to say that I find some films improve knowing the tricks and knowing how hard the actors had to work.
Sometimes I watch beforehand - particurlarly with older films on re-release. Funnily enough doing this doesn't take me out of a good film - because of course the acting, script, design and everything else is strong enough to take you away from reality. With a not very good film I often gain some additional appreciation and if I've watched the SF after the film, I'll watch the film again. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 01:22:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Do Special Features count? I am an avid SF watcher on DVDs. I realise that these are obviously going to talk up a film rather than provide objective criticism, but I have to say that I find some films improve knowing the tricks and knowing how hard the actors had to work.
Sometimes I watch beforehand - particurlarly with older films on re-release. Funnily enough doing this doesn't take me out of a good film - because of course the acting, script, design and everything else is strong enough to take you away from reality. With a not very good film I often gain some additional appreciation and if I've watched the SF after the film, I'll watch the film again.
Well, I guess I was really concentrating on plot. I respect the desire of others to keep from knowing about plot before they see a film, much in the way that sports fans don't seem to want to know the final score. I respect it, but I don't necessarily agree with it. That's because I think plot is the least interesting thing about a film's narrative. After all, in story-telling terms there are only about half-a-dozen or so plots. To me what's interesting is How rather than What. How is the story told?
I know the plot of Hamlet, but I've seen dozens of stage and screen versions because what's interesting is how did these people tell the same story and manage to make it their own. There are some comic's routines that I can enjoy no matter how many times I hear them, even though I know the punch lines.
Please note I'm not in any way suggesting one way to view is intrinsically better than another. It's just that I think people might find they get different things from watching a film if they already know the plot.
If you're 'brave' enough, the real test would be to apply this challenge to a thriller or a who-dunnit. I understand there are people for whom that would kill their enjoyment, but I'm merely suggesting that knowing who-dunnit -- if it's really a good film -- may not spoil it, and it just may free you to appreciate the film on a different level.
But, hey, you'll never know unless you try!
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 09:03:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by R o � k G o 7 f
The trick for me is the opposite. To try to see a movie know absolutely nothing about the plot. Trailers these days give away 90% of plots and even cautious reviews give away too much information.
Yep, I agree. I see so many trailers that I rarely get this chance. However, I saw Right at Your Door, London to Brighton and Red Road with no clue about what they were about, even genre, and that meant that I enjoyed all three greatly. Knowing the plot of the first one, especially, would have completely ruined it. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 09:09:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
After all, in story-telling terms there are only about half-a-dozen or so plots.
This is the kind of thing that people like to say, but I don't think it's true. Dismissing the subtleties of plots is equivalent to dismissing the subtleties of cinematography or characterisation. Also, if there were so few plots available, it would make no difference whether you knew the plot in advance, as it would take so little of your viewing attention to identify which of the six were being used. Further, knowing the plot in advance spoils so many other things, such as the type of characters there are likely to be and the locations that will be used.
I've got a reverse challenge for you, B.B. - the 'Objective Viewer's Challenge'. Go and see a film about which you know nothing, ideally not even the genre. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 11:06:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
After all, in story-telling terms there are only about half-a-dozen or so plots.
This is the kind of thing that people like to say, but I don't think it's true. Dismissing the subtleties of plots is equivalent to dismissing the subtleties of cinematography or characterisation. Also, if there were so few plots available, it would make no difference whether you knew the plot in advance, as it would take so little of your viewing attention to identify which of the six were being used. Further, knowing the plot in advance spoils so many other things, such as the type of characters there are likely to be and the locations that will be used.
I've got a reverse challenge for you, B.B. - the 'Objective Viewer's Challenge'. Go and see a film about which you know nothing, ideally not even the genre.
You know, Sal, it's such a shame you make so many assumptions about people. Just consider this:
1. No one is born knowing the plot templates; they're learned. My assessment faculties were honed studying literary criticsm at university, and refined in various professional endeavors including assessing scripts for Columbia, the BBC, my own production company as well as all those I appeared in and the handful I've been commissioned to write. And that's not to mention my years as a professional film critic for an international magazine as well as freelance journals and various BBC and other UK broadcasters.
Just because you don't accept the model doesn't make it false.
2. My dad was in the biz and I prob'ly saw my first film aged 3 or 4.
3. I'm very old.
4. Over my lifetime I must have seen an average of 300 films a year, and that's probably an under-estimate, given the years I spent as a professional film critic covering both daily releases and festivals.
5. Why do you assume anything about my viewing habits.
I'm not sure what your actual point is. This thread clearly declares a specific interest. If you're not interested, why bother posting here? Take the challenge, don't take the challenge.
But please don't make assumptions. I don't believe I'd do that about you. And if you feel I have, I apologize unreservedly.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 11:18:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
After all, in story-telling terms there are only about half-a-dozen or so plots.
This is the kind of thing that people like to say, but I don't think it's true. Dismissing the subtleties of plots is equivalent to dismissing the subtleties of cinematography or characterisation.
Or dismissing the subtlety to meanings in a review? 
Actually, I don't think BB's argument is in any way dismissing subtleties. On the contrary it implies the skill of plot-writing lies within the use of subtleties rather than in inventing something startlingly new. |
Edited by - Whippersnapper. on 02/13/2007 11:25:06 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 11:35:45
|
| If she means that she prefers to know the basic plot in advance but not the details, that is true, but I have got the impression that she is making a stronger point about plot than that. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 12:47:27
|
Specifically about the "there are only half a dozen plots" Baffy is saying something which is very widely accepted amongst writers and writing teachers. If you want to disprove it then you better find out what these half a dozen plots are and then find one which isn't one of them or a hybrid of two or more of them and let us know. An argument will then ensue as to whether this plot you've found is not really one of the others or a hybrid.
Generally, I think Baffy is saying that she does not feel that "spoilers" do anything to diminish her enjoyment, or not, of a film. Without wishing to be intellectual about this, I personally don't feel that "spoilers" spoil much for me.
Normally if a film doesn't stand up if you know the plot twists then its not my cup of tea. There may be a few exceptions (e.g. The Crying Game)but they are very exceptional. Knowing Harry Lime is still alive does not mean I cannot enjoy rewatching The Third Man, for example.
Other people here clearly think differently, namely that plot surprises are an important, maybe vital, part of their cinematic enjoyment and I think Baffy is trying to persuade them that there are other ways of looking at films which they may enjoy. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 13:03:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Specifically about the "there are only half a dozen plots" Baffy is saying something which is very widely accepted amongst writers and writing teachers. If you want to disprove it then you better find out what these half a dozen plots are and then find one which isn't one of them or a hybrid of two or more of them and let us know. An argument will then ensue as to whether this plot you've found is not really one of the others or a hybrid.
Generally, I think Baffy is saying that she does not feel that "spoilers" do anything to diminish her enjoyment, or not, of a film. Without wishing to be intellectual about this, I personally don't feel that "spoilers" spoil much for me.
Normally if a film doesn't stand up if you know the plot twists then its not my cup of tea. There may be a few exceptions (e.g. The Crying Game)but they are very exceptional. Knowing Harry Lime is still alive does not mean I cannot enjoy rewatching The Third Man, for example.
Other people here clearly think differently, namely that plot surprises are an important, maybe vital, part of their cinematic enjoyment and I think Baffy is trying to persuade them that there are other ways of looking at films which they may enjoy.
(1) Could you please stop talking for her and let her answer?
(2) I don't buy into this six-plot idea at all, as I have already mentioned: just restating it does not help your argument in the least. It seems a pointless over-simplification to me. The plot isn't just whatever rudimentary core of the plot you find convenient for 'proving' the six-plot point: it is the whole detailed sequence of events.
(3) No, B.B. has not restricted what she has said to spoilers at all: she has been talking about plots generally.
(4) I don't give a fuck that you do not mind spoilers, but to then give one as an example is outrageous. I am not forcing you to be ignorant of spoilers: you should not force me to know them.
(5) I am perfectly aware that B.B. is presenting her point of view to those who may not agree: you do not need to provide a running commentary. Similarly, I am just presenting mine back. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/13/2007 13:10:05 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 14:02:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I saw Right at Your Door, London to Brighton and Red Road with no clue about what they were about, even genre, and that meant that I enjoyed all three greatly.
Although I saw The Host knowing that it featured a girl being kidnapped and taken across the river away from her doting family, I had no idea about a very significant aspect of the film. This made the revelation of that aspect brilliantly startling to watch. It's nonsensical to imagine that I would have gained from knowing that; rather, the majority of viewers lost out. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/13/2007 14:04:33 |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 14:08:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Well, I guess I was really concentrating on plot.
Warning - mild but potential spoiler for Hard Candy in this post
Special Features vary, but my point was many of them discuss plot and reveal twists. I probably didn't make that explicit in my post. I was just wondering whether that counted for your 'experiment'.
I watched the Hard Candy SF before watching the film. The SF are very explicit about the plot. But knowing the plot only made me appreciate more all the other aspects of the film I mentioned before (acting, design etc) and I was enthralled nevertheless. This film is one where knowing the plot can potentially take away the enjoyment of the ride you are taken on in the film. Because the teenage character seems vulnerable at many points you could not predict how it will turn out nor can you guess how cleverly she has plotted everything out. There is only one major clue, where the girl is seen on the roof of the house. If you don't know how the film ends you can only say 'uh?'. But when you know the ending you know why she is there. It's a simple thing that is very clever. The journey leading you there is absolutely gripping anyway. In a badly made film the only thing stopping you from turning off or walking out is because you don't know how it ends and you just have to see it through.
In that simpler way of knowing a plot that you seem to be talking about - I was told the twist in the Sixth Sense before I saw the film. Just the twist, nothing else. I was a bit annoyed (considering the hype made it all a big game and even the movie shows didn't hint at it). I didn't see the film until a couple of years after it was out. But when I watched the film I was looking intently for all the clues and found it fascinating. So rather than having to watch it a second time to see those clues, I was enjoying it as it went along and going 'wow, that's clever'. So I have actually experienced the simple form of knowing a key plot twist without the indepth information provided by SF. I have also watched films where I know 'who-dunnit'. I then proceed to watch how the story takes you to that character's door. But really, can you dissociate any of this from the actors' performances? Aren't they 'acting out' the plot? Aren't the design and direction servicing the plot?
I would regard all these experiences as gaining an appreciation of 'How the story is told'. So maybe I misunderstand what you mean by 'plot'?
I'm a short story writer and appreciate the difference between that medium and film. I also have a literary background and I am fascinated by adaptations. Good adaptations don't make you think about what is not in the film because the two things should stand alone as different art forms. The two versions of Conrad's The Secret Agent (Hitchcock's Sabotage 1936 and the 1996 version) both take from the book but are very different from each other in how they develop the plot. Neither replace the experience of reading the novel.
I wrote a short story about an experience in Europe which I tell people about all the time. The story only retold one part of the whole ordeal, but all my friends knew how it was going to end. The biggest compliment to me was that they loved the short story because of the way I told it in the written form. With writing you can only rely on words. In a film the writing is visualised.
Having said all that like R o � k G o 7 f (I have to copy and past that bugger ) I also love seeing movies I know nothing about. In this day and age of mass entertainment media and paparazzi frenzy that is a hard thing to achieve. Amazingly I managed it with Transamerica (not sure what part of the outback I was in when the frenzy was on). Marvellous film experience.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Who'll Take the Critic's Challenge?
