criterionforum.org

DAMIEN CHAZELLE GIVES US NOTHING.

What a disgrace. To claim you grew up loving cinema is a lie to us all. What do you say with your most famous picture? That art requires sacrifice?

But what do you tell us about yourself - YOU'VE NO HUMILITY.
You don't understand why cinema exists.
You don't show us even a single frame telling us WHY art matters.
You detract from the medium in every sense of the word.

Damien Chazelle deserves no review. You are just a banker masquerading as an artist - and cinephiles eat it up.

domino harvey wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:45 pm

You detract from the medium in every sense of the word.

Godard on BREATHLESS

It was more Alice in Wonderland than a Mark Dixon detective story - I was anguished - I was completely out of control. I didn't understand it

Why is it, Godard, like all geniuses, that your most famous picture is your most misunderstood, and least important. Godard said in 1980 that 'Every Man for Himself' was his second first movie - and for good reason. As the original film lover, Godard referenced all films into BREATHLESS - yet the pleasure Godard had once received from american genre cinema had been tainted, thanks to wrongful praise. He shows this by talking to us directly in his following films - whether it be from his dialogue (autobiographical) or his disinterest in his previous films. Breathless was itself a mistake. Godard, ahead of his time had managed to destroy conventional cinema - yet everyone still can't wrap their head around him as if BREATHLESS would give them the answer.

The so called 'professionals' that praise this level of Godard only expose their own weaknesses and indifference to film.

You know how 4chan's /v/ says Western female game characters are always so ugly?

I say that the girls in Overwatch couldn't be that sexy if the game wasn't so GAY!

Lara Croft is another example, defs gay in Tomb Raider 2013 where she looking for her female "friend", and in the second one, that scene with lady in grey coat. Elizabeth from Bioshock Infinite is defs gay, Disney eyes. Cortana from Halo is DEFS GAY, ESPECIALLY IN 4. She has no sexual drive for man, she's just an AI, notice in Halo on females it's just military lady and Cortana. Any strong female is going to be a "gay" female, Wonder Woman is gay too. A different breed of feminism opposed to the kinds that insists on making their women to look "normal". The certain Tumblr shade, it's a movement to mix idealism with regular looking people prepping for ethnic mixing. There's this show on Netflix I saw called Sex Education, and I saw the most normal looking people I've ever seen in a TV show that's not a reality TV show. They're trying to reach balance where shades of normal can be ideal. Sometimes it's egregious, sometimes it works on large front.

But even celebrities over years have seen the downgrade, Emma Stone couldn't exist in 1920s maybe, Emma's much more normal. The 1920s was height of idealism with figures and individuals in movies, Classic Hollywood is caricature sexy, cartoon sexy, impossible sexy to a degree. That's why I think people don't really care about Classic Hollywood stars too much anymore, they turn them off because some people feel threatened by that much sexy. There's a SPECIFIC line that separates modern standards with classic, you see. What's considered "normal sexy" is NOT entirely same as GAY sexy. And even gay sexy has VARIOUS shades that flips around from camp and tight modern from Emma, to DRAG QUEENS. We're not on drag levels of course because we're BI. The mainstream sexy right now favors the Kardashian look I'm really not all for, the kind that gets MAJOR traction on Twatter reposts. WE have different APPEALS from THERE, OUR sexy is the BUBBLE sexy, so Nicki is more our type.

Another thing too to note is for pictures, depending on what you want, the caricature fits more for what you're trying express. So Garbo represents ambiguous Euro vamp and disappointed beleaguered depression faded euro aristocracy, but Selena Gomez represents the increased ethnic diversity of the 2010s. For certain types that don't exude a personality fitting a type or mode requisite for the expression, then they get relegated to minor status, they end up TV and wafer as generic sexy. Same in Classic Hollywood, very hot girls that don't exhibit persona for what required they go to comedy roles. But BECAUSE Hollywood stars are known for their ideal TYPES, they get typeCASTED and cannot be mobile with anything they choose. So Garbo left after the Euro vamp appeal disappeared for good. Garbo even was reported of being in decline in 30s already. It's a BIG mystery for movie buffs but it's plenty apparent when you hear what producers say and what box office say. Her type wasn't a 30s type so it moved around in 30s a lot, 30s wanted vulgar ladies and modern mobile by late 30s.

I really don't like the Mad Queen thing they ended up doing with old Hollywood stars. It's hagsploitation. Very insulting because it makes it seem like they were never noteworthy and their hag roles end up over-shining what they created to begin with. The exploration of "washed-up" actresses has been done before with Blanche Sweet in Showgirl in Hollywood, but not in the decadent decay gothic style like Sunset Boulevard because the time between wasn't that big of gap, early 30s versus 50s. Gloria Swanson is the most fabulous queen of the silents, Joan Crawford was premier flapper. People like Mommie Dearest because it mocked Joan Crawford, but she already did that better herself. So really they don't know or care about Crawford. She's just a skin for generally mocking Classic Hollywood (but they already did that better themselves). Little low budget nothing productions and Oscarbait are considered more noteworthy than the enormity of what Stroheim made, he's more famous as the butler now, glad Griffith never did anything like that, just left and disappeared entirely, doesn't exist essentially. That's why I put Keaton's 30s garbage on a higher pedestal than any of his silents, those should get the attention for what he is, a clown, not an underdog do-gooder. Sloppy slapstick in 30s Keaton tripping on his pants.

50s Hollywood is wholly a weird junction to me, there's lot of conflict essentially because of the natural conflict historically speaking. The age gap becoming a paramount thing. Why teenage films became the big thing, the postwar youth, I told my dad yesterday that the conflict today of internet youth with boomer parents is essentially same conflict as the 50s. Postmodernism versus today that is ghost modernism. What trips me up especially though is why there seems to be such disconnect between the modern eras even though modernity is essentially a single era. It's only been 100 years versus how there isn't a disconnect with pre-modern eras in terms of what people historically gravitate to. Pre-modern history is all included when people are interested in that. there is no stigma of Shakespeare versus the Greeks. But for Modernity, there is a stigma of "I DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT A FUCKING SILENT FILM" versus looking at something from 70s. There just to me always appears to be a MASSSSSIVE stigma against anything involving the transition period of 1890s to 1930s, people prefer WWII or the hippie movement. We know the stigma of the 50s as being pixie land with decadent unruly underbelly. that been ingrained in pop culture. 1910s and 20s were very vague even though we know of it being equally unruly time, but the unruliness then was more OPEN per se. But as long as you can easily gloss everything up with swanky fashion and oldie pop tunes that have a certain stylistic kitsch to them as opposed to the "zippidy-doo-dah" of the 30s, you've got them by the balls.

Griffith was a schizo.

Eisenstein was an autist.

Godard on BREATHLESS

It was more Alice in Wonderland than a Mark Dixon detective story - I was anguished - I was completely out of control. I didn't understand it

BITTER MOON is notorious for being one of the worst movies ever made.

It’s reputation and cult enjoyment is similar to THE ROOM.

I only rate movies that I've seen within a day or two for accuracy purposes. My reviews are mostly just for personal reference (it's amazing how forgettable most films are). After the initial ten minutes, every film I rate starts off with a score of 100. Fuck-up points are then subtracted.

The first ten minutes are the most important part of the film, that's where I judge most critically. If a film doesn't make me want to continue after ten minutes, it goes to 0, and then it has to find it's way back to redemption, point by point, while simultaneously still having points subtracted. So essentially it always comes down to the first ten minutes. A film will not change greatly after the tenth minute. And even if it does, it can go to hell for wasting ten minutes of my life, unless wasting my time was absolutely necessary to make a good point.