Quote: NareedVery well, then. Use up all the board's memory if you want: what's the plot?
There's not much of a discernable plot in Seinfeld either, which is well known as the best comedy pretty much of all time (though I would put All in the Family and MASH up there). And since the movie Memento goes backwards, you might have a problem qualifying that movie with anything. And Inception is a plot within a plot within a plot with no order whatsoever, so confusing it is (but still a very good movie, nonetheless).
Anyway, the plot of Pulp Fiction is three story lines (and forgive me as I haven't seen the movie in years): the lives of John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson, partners in enforcing Marcellus Wallace's gang. It starts off with them in a car, doing an enforcement. Travolta takes Uma Thurmann on a date, and she ODs on Travolta's heroin and gets saved. Uma tells John Travolta never to speak of this to anyone. Why is this so great? It's Travolta's great comeback and to see him dancing when his last dancing performance was in the early 80s is phenomenal. There's chemistry between Uma and John. And the acting is tremendous on all counts.
Travolta and Jackson then have to take an informant to Marcellus but he gets shot in the head. There's a hilarious cleanup that happens later on (Tarentino's house). Another great scene filled with hilarity as they follow instructions to clean up for their mistake.
That same night, Bruce Willis is asked to throw a fight by Marcellus and refuses and ends up killing his opposition. He makes a run for it, but realized he forgets his grandfather's watch which is his most important possession. He heads back to the house to get it and kills Travolta (when the toaster pops). Bruce is then racing back when he runs into Marcellus by happenstance and they run into a place where both of them get tied up. Marcellus gets raped by two men in a truly bizarre scene. Willis breaks out of his shackles and saves Marcellus and is forgiven, being told to leave town. He does. This would be the last scene if the movie was chronological. Why is this so great? Because Bruce Willis decided to save his sworn enemy from something unimaginable and therefore risk his own life, as Wallace was going to kill him. The entire "gold watch" plot line is fantastic. "It's a Chopper, baby. Who's chopper is it? Zed's. Who's Zed? Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead. "
Instead of this being the end, we get taken back in time to the beginning of the movie which is actually the middle of the movie, with the diner robbery. Samuel Jackson talks down the robber, and the robbers are allowed to leave, and Samuel Jackson retires from the gang. Another great scene once again as Samuel Jackson redeems himself from killing and turns the bible verse he's been quoting to himself.
So yes, the plot is complex, the stories human. It's not "boy marries girl, boy loses girl, boy gets back girl." It's not good vs evil, or man vs machine or any of the those typical conflicts that a blockbuster makes. It's just three very crazy stories interwoven together that somehow manages (for me) to work.
What the critics will say is that Tarentino pulled off an $8 million movie marketed by an independent studio, managed to relaunch John Travolta's career and bring Samuel L. Jackson to stardom. It won an Oscar for Original Screenplay and was nominated for six others, including best picture.
Just because the plot is complex doesn't make it a bad movie. And just because I think it's brilliant doesn't make it so.
Lord of the Rings was a movie that anyone who had read the books had to go see. Peter Jackson did these movies very well, in my opinion.
Thats because you didn't see it in 1941. In 1941 it was brilliant.
You could have a college class on what the plot or theme of PF is. It means different
things to different people, thats why its brilliant. The fact that some people vehemently
hate it just enhances its brilliance.
Again, I once hated Picasso because I had no understanding of his work. Once I learned
what he was all about, I have nothing but admiration for his genius. At one time I thought
he was an idiot. It was an eye opener when I discovered the idiot was me.
Quote: rxwineCan something be brilliant yet not enjoyable? (I went back a couple posts to see why Nareed didn't like Pulp Fiction)
Certainly. Niven and Pournelle do a brilliant job describing an apocalyptic invasion of Earth in Footfall. but widespread destruction and war are not enjoyable.
Quote:Was the acting first rate?
Casting, directing, etc., all those things that go into a movie?
the acting was competent, but far from first rate. The rest was more of the same.
Quote:Citizen Kane, for instance, was "praised for its innovative cinematography, music and narrative structure. The film was nominated for Academy Awards in nine categories..."
Yet, I can truthfully say, I found it okay while watching it. But what do I know.
Welles did stuff in Kane that has not been done since. The cinematography was so important to the film, that the cinematographer appears in the credits along with the director (credits are a big deal in Hollywood, and the director's name always appears by itself). The movie is rife with special effects, too (lame by today's standards, though). And the acting is first rate.
The story, though, is not that engaging and the use of the tragic, flawed figure of a man is distasteful. But it has lots of good, witty dialogue.
The movie most like Kane is "Tron." Also a unique, innovative way of showing a story, but with a common adventure story. The acting's not as good. But both are visually one of a kind. Tron is also the most paradoxical movie: it's full of vibrant colors, but to do so it was shot mostly in black and white (the colors are a visual effect); it takes place largely in a very dark place, made up almost entirely of light.
Quote: boymimboThere's not much of a discernable plot in Seinfeld either, which is well known as the best comedy pretty much of all time (though I would put All in the Family and MASH up there).
1) Glad you admit by implication there's no discernible plot in Tarantino's ode to scatology
2) Seinfeld was funny because it portrayed terrible people in a sympathetic manner, who did really bad things we all sometimes which to do but refrain from.
3) You should stop citing authority and simply say what you think.
Quote:It's Travolta's great comeback and to see him dancing when his last dancing performance was in the early 80s is phenomenal. There's chemistry between Uma and John. And the acting is tremendous on all counts.
I grant you all that, except that the acting's tremendous. Travolta is charismatic and has the looks of a movie star, but he's not a good actor. Essentially all he does is play John Travolta playing a character. He's like Jack Nicholson that way. They can both emote effectively and convincingly, but there's more to acting than that.
Quote:What the critics will say is that Tarentino pulled off an $8 million movie marketed by an independent studio, managed to relaunch John Travolta's career and bring Samuel L. Jackson to stardom.
Actually it was "The Matrix" that launched Jackson to stardom (another bad movie, poor man). He's doing very well in CSI, though Grissom remains unreplaced.
Quote:And just because I think it's brilliant doesn't make it so.
Agreed.
Quote: EvenBobAgain, I once hated Picasso because I had no understanding of his work. Once I learned
what he was all about, I have nothing but admiration for his genius. At one time I thought
he was an idiot. It was an eye opener when I discovered the idiot was me.
If you're going to use an artist to draw comparison you should pick a good one. I recommend Jan Vermeer.
Quote: NareedIf you're going to use an artist to draw comparison you should pick a good one. I recommend Jan Vermeer.
So Picasso is not a good artist? He was just fooling everybody, but not you, right?
Quote: EvenBobSo Picasso is not a good artist?
No. Look at one of his major works, Guernica, and tell me it portrays anything.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_(painting).
Well, the Wizard's link gives the background and tells what it is supposed to portray.Quote: NareedNo. Look at one of his major works, Guernica, and tell me it portrays anything.
I have no art training at all and claim no eye for such things. I had never even heard of Guernica. But looking at the image, my immediate opinion of what it portrays is "angst."
Quote: Wizard
I've seen those faces and reactions before. It's what the sports and race books look like when there's a big unexpected loss. The dismay, anguish, shock...
Quote: NareedQuote: DocWell, the Wizard's link gives the background and tells what it is supposed to portray.
My point exactly.
If we look at a real artist, we don't need to be told what he portrayed, we merely need to see it
I kinda have to disagree with that one. You don't have to like everything you see; but that doesn't mean that because you don't like it, it isn't art, and because you don't see it, it isn't there.
Quote: rxwineI've seen those faces and reactions before. It's what the sports and race books look like when there's a big unexpected loss. The dismay, anguish, shock...
In my case, that is what I probably looked like when they called a safety in the Super Bowl two years ago.
Quote: MoscaI kinda have to disagree with that one. You don't have to like everything you see; but that doesn't mean that because you don't like it, it isn't art, and because you don't see it, it isn't there.
It isn't art because it isn't art, not because I don't like it. I can call a casino a church all I want, but that doesn't make it so.
Art is a selective reconstruction of reality based on the artist's value judgments. What Picasso did doesn't even come close, neither does much of the so-called "art" produced last century.
Well, I've already noted that I have no training in art, but I would be hesitant to decree that something is not art because it doesn't meet a definition that I create. Nareed, I think you may be a bit too tight to require that all art be based on reality. That rules out at least surrealism and most psychedelic images. You may not care for it, but it appears elitist to decree that it is not art. Some of the most artistic people I have known don't seem to have much of a grasp on what I consider reality. They seem to have that "artist" mentality that is often bizarre to us nerds.Quote: NareedArt is a selective reconstruction of reality based on the artist's value judgments. What Picasso did doesn't even come close, neither does much of the so-called "art" produced last century.
Quote: DocNareed, I think you may be a bit too tight to require that all art be based on reality. That rules out at least surrealism and most psychedelic images.
Surrealism is based on reality. It just distorts it. Escher and Dali were artists. Hell, Escher by himself is a course on perspective and optical illusions, even in Lego
BTW the definition of art goes back all the way to Aristotle.
Sorry, I'm not up on my Aristotle. Your art definition, though, sounds a bit more as if you are into Objectivism. Been reading Ayn Rand lately?Quote: NareedBTW the definition of art goes back all the way to Aristotle.
Quote: DocSorry, I'm not up on my Aristotle. Your art definition, though, sounds a bit more as if you are into Objectivism. Been reading Ayn Rand lately?
Very perceptive. That also goes back to Aristotle.
Poppycock. Most things in life have to be explained to be understood, including art. The old saying "I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like" was probably coined by a high school dropout who thinks Archie Comics should win a Pulitzer..
Then why do most museums have informational signs by each piece explaining what it is about?
Quote: DocThe paintings of Hieronymus Bosch aren't always completely self-explanatory; e.g. "The Garden of Earthly Delights". I wonder if any of them will stand the test of time and be accepted as "art".
Take Da Vinci's Last Supper as an example. Naturally you won't know all about the event depicted there just by looking at the painting. But you will learn something about it through the painting alone. And if you know what the last supper is, you'll recognize it when you see the painting. If you know what the bombing of Guernica was, do you recognize it by seeing Picasso's gibberish?
As I've already stated, I didn't see "gibberish"; I saw "angst". But maybe, since I don't have any training in art, I might need it explained to me.Quote: NareedIf you know what the bombing of Guernica was, do you recognize it by seeing Picasso's gibberish?
Similarly, even though I think I can recognize a fairly high percentage of the individual items depicted in The Garden of Earthly Delights that I mentioned, without the title I'm not sure I could even guess what the overall theme is supposed to be. And I have never had enough of a guided tour to start to believe I really understand it. But that doesn't lead me to decree that it can't be art.
And no, I'm not a student of history either, so I did not know about Guernica. Perhaps ignorance such as mine is justification for commissioning Picasso to express the emotions in art. And for someone to explain to the unenlightened such as me that it is about Guernica.
Quote: DocAs I've already stated, I didn't see "gibberish"; I saw "angst". But maybe, since I don't have any training in art, I might need it explained to me.
Do you need training in poetry to understand a sonnet? Do you need training in film-making to understand "Casablanca"? Do you need training in music to understand Beethoven's "Ode' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wod-MudLNPA]"Ode to Joy"? Do you need training in literature to understand "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"?
You can understand a poem even if you know nothing of metric, a movie even if you've no idea what a dissolve is, a musical composition even if you don't know what a note is, and a novel even if you don't know what a climax is.
So why should you need training in art to understand a painting or a sculpture? You can understand "The Last Supper" just fine without training. You can understand "David" by Michael Angelo without training, too.
Ask yourself why non-art requires specialized training and knowledge to be comprehensible.
The closest thing to art that I practice myself is Still Photography. I recognize it as capturing an existing design rather than creating something original. Most of my work is scenic images, and with few exceptions I try to present the scene just as I saw the reality and just as anyone else who was there could have seen it. Many people have complimented my stuff, and my goal (other than just self-entertainment) is to present the image so that viewers wish they could have been there to see it themselves. This form of "art" is strictly based on reality, but I certainly wouldn't try to place such a constraint on a creative artist.
In Grant Park in Atlanta, they have a Cyclorama painting depicting the Battle of Atlanta. There is a similar painting in Gettysburg depicting the battle there. These images are wonderful and attempt to show in some detail the facts and reality of substantial battle events. But they both require a narrator for a viewer to understand them. And I am not sure that they necessarily capture the emotions of the battles to the extent that Picasso may have captured the emotions of the event he addressed. Capturing emotions on canvas or film may employ different techniques than are used for "Bowl of Fruit on a Table".
Quote: NareedDo you think "angst" is a rational response to civilians being bombed?
Quote:angst |a ng (k)st; ä ng (k)st|
noun
a feeling of deep anxiety or dread, typically an unfocused one about the human condition or the state of the world in general
Well, "angst" was my first interpretation of the painting when I didn't know the cause of the emotion. After thinking about it just a little, I don't know that it is really all that far out of line. I don't know that I feel that "civilians being bombed" is a scenario that fits all that well with the concept of "rational", so perhaps anxiety about the state of the world in general is a reasonable response to such an event.
I'm really trying to figure out what your attack is about. You asked for a plot, I gave you one. We agree to disagree. 'nuff said.
Quote: boymimboNareed, Samuel L. Jackson was NOT in the Matrix. What are you talking about? The Matrix was released in 1999, Pulp Fiction in 1994.
Right. Sorry, I get him mixed up with Laurence Fishburne. My mistake.
Quote:I'm really trying to figure out what your attack is about. You asked for a plot, I gave you one. We agree to disagree. 'nuff said.
If there was an attack it was on the movie, perhaps on Tarantino.
Quote: NareedDo you need training in poetry to understand a sonnet? Do you need training in film-making to understand "Casablanca"? Do you need training in music to understand Beethoven's "Ode' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wod-MudLNPA]"Ode to Joy"? Do you need training in literature to understand "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"?
Well, yeah, actually. Because in each of those works (assuming that by sonnet you mean Shakespeare) there is so much more than what is on the surface. You might not need study to enjoy any of them, but it would help if you wanted to understand them fully.
But if you don't want to understand them, if you want to enjoy the initial impression and care no further, of if you believe that there is no benefit or enjoyment to be had from understanding any of them, then, that's cool, too. There's nothing wrong with living a life of initial impressions. And I mean that without sarcasm, even if it sounds like I'm taking a side. It's your mind/heart, and it is no less deep than anyone else's; it just responds its own way. There is a limited amount of time for enjoyment, and you enjoy other things more; then you should do that instead.
Quote: DocWell, "angst" was my first interpretation of the painting when I didn't know the cause of the emotion. After thinking about it just a little, I don't know that it is really all that far out of line.
Yes, it is. If high explosives and shrapnel all falling on you, the state of the world is not going to be uppermost on your mind.
Quote:I don't know that I feel that "civilians being bombed" is a scenario that fits all that well with the concept of "rational", so perhaps anxiety about the state of the world in general is a reasonable response to such an event.
Do you think holding someone at gunpoint is rational? Neither do I. But I have been on the wrong side of the gun. I felt fear, concern for my life, outrage and other things. I didn't lament the state of the world, because that would be an irrational response to a clear and present threat.
What did you feel on 9/11?
Quote: MoscaWell, yeah, actually. Because in each of those works (assuming that by sonnet you mean Shakespeare) there is so much more than what is on the surface. You might not need study to enjoy any of them, but it would help if you wanted to understand them fully.
Do you ever enjoy something you don't understand at all?
That aside, you may not understand a sonnet fully without training on poetry, but you do understand it. You may not understand a triple bypass operation fully without medical training, but you can understand it well enough with a simple explanation.
Quote:But if you don't want to understand them, if you want to enjoy the initial impression and care no further,
It's not a matter of initial impressions. It's a matter of content.
For example, the words "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings/Look on my work, ye mighty, and despair!" are perfectly understandable. The words "Baboon hat up pipe Lisa galoosh misto pah!" are gibberish, but I can come up with an "explanation" for them that would be "understandable" after years of training in TV and video games multitasking. Which of course it's crap.
Well, I was watching it unfold on TV, so I don't know whether that counts. I think, though, that I recall my feeling as being something like, "What the hell is this world coming to?" Does that not seem an appropriate reaction? Is it not something similar to the quoted definition of angst?Quote: NareedWhat did you feel on 9/11?
I think I am enjoying this discussion, but I feel some guilt for derailing the thread. That's why I thanked boymimbo and thought we might head back toward "The Ultimate Chick Flick" line of thought.
Quote: DocWell, I was watching it unfold on TV, so I don't know whether that counts. I think, though, that I recall my feeling as being something like, "What the hell is this world coming to?" Does that not seem an appropriate reaction? Is it not something similar to the quoted definition of angst?
I advice you to think really hard before asking that question. Some people are brutally honest.
Quote: NareedDo you need training in poetry to understand a sonnet? Do you need training in film-making to understand "Casablanca"? Do you need training in music to understand Beethoven's "Ode' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wod-MudLNPA]"Ode to Joy"? Do you need training in literature to understand "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"? q]
It certainly enhances your understanding, and in many cases awakens it. That was the original intention of higher education, you know. It was once a path to enlightenment, now its just a path to a better job."It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
Quote: boymimboIn 10 years, Avatar will be much less cooler because 3D technology will have taken hold and Avatar will just be known as the parent of these movies.
I wonder about 3D. It's not the first time it's been tried, you know. First time was sometimes in the 50s! It revived around the mid-80s, then died again. What's new this time is you can take a regular movie and convert it to 3D.
It may take hold. It may remain an occasional fad.
Quote: NareedQuote: MoscaWell, yeah, actually. Because in each of those works (assuming that by sonnet you mean Shakespeare) there is so much more than what is on the surface. You might not need study to enjoy any of them, but it would help if you wanted to understand them fully.
Do you ever enjoy something you don't understand at all?
Yes, absolutely. Haven't you ever come out of something and said, "I have no idea what that was, but WOW!"? How about, "Jabberwocky"?
You are actually actually arguing with yourself here, I think. On one hand, you are saying that in order to enjoy something you have to understand it; on the other you are saying that understanding something is unimportant. I know what you are actually trying to say, but you have not done a good job of making it clear.
Quote: NareedIt's not a matter of initial impressions. It's a matter of content.
For example, the words "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings/Look on my work, ye mighty, and despair!" are perfectly understandable. The words "Baboon hat up pipe Lisa galoosh misto pah!" are gibberish, but I can come up with an "explanation" for them that would be "understandable" after years of training in TV and video games multitasking. Which of course it's crap.
Funny, I was actually going to use Ozymandias as an example of a work that is deeper than its initial impression, but I decided to not take that tack in this discussion because it would not address your point; the fact that there might be deeper meaning has nothing to do with your stance. As best I can figure, your stance is that art must be obvious and beautiful to be good. Again, I give you this: